Here's Why Charity Is Better at Solving Problems Than Government
Big government has been ruinous for millions of people. Charities aren't perfect, but they are much more efficient and effective.

In this season of giving, I'll donate to the Doe Fund, a charity that helps drug abusers and ex-cons find purpose in life through work.
Doe's approach doesn't include many handouts. It's mostly about encouraging people to work.
"Work works!" they say.
It does.
Most Doe Fund workers don't go back to jail.
I'll also donate to Student Sponsor Partners (SSP), a nonprofit that gives scholarships to kids from low-income families so they can escape bad public schools. SSP sends them to Catholic schools.
I'm not Catholic, but I donate because government-run schools are often so bad that Catholic schools do better at half the cost. Thanks to SSP, thousands of kids escape poverty.
Yet some on the left say giving time and money to charity is a mistake. Their trust in government leads them to think that government programs are much better at lifting people out of poverty.
"Charity can distract from permanent solutions," claims an article in the Harvard Political Review. "Time, effort and funding that are funneled into charitable acts could be redirected to actual solutions spearheaded by the government, which has the resources to implement concrete change."
Yikes!
Yes, government has "resources," all of which are taken from taxpayers by force. "Concrete" is fitting because government's "solutions" are rigid and immovable.
But as far as promoting change that's actually useful, government has a terrible track record.
Before President Lyndon Johnson launched his "war on poverty," Americans were lifting themselves out of poverty. Every year, the poverty rate dropped.
When welfare checks began, progress continued for about seven years. But then progress stopped! Progress stopped even as America spent $27 trillion on its "war."
What happened?
Government handouts changed people's thinking. They taught millions of Americans: You are entitled to a check.
No longer was it individuals' responsibility to help families, neighbors, and ourselves; now it was clearly government's job.
The result is that people became dependent on handouts. Government rarely teaches people to be self-sufficient; handouts encourage you to be helpless.
Welfare created something never seen before in America: a near-permanent "underclass."
Welfare told parents: don't get married; you'll lose benefits. Don't work; your check will be reduced. Above all, make sure the father isn't home when a welfare worker comes. If he is, your check may be reduced or eliminated.
This changed incentives that motivated parents for generations. The result has been ruinous for millions of children.
Charities aren't perfect, but they are much more efficient and effective than clumsy government.
Charities have the freedom to be selective. They can help people who truly need aid, but also refuse charity to people who need "a kick in the butt." Government's one-size-fits-all rules prohibit that.
Charity is not guaranteed forever. People don't know how long they can expect to receive assistance. They have an incentive to become self-sufficient.
In addition, while charities actually give most of their money to the needy, government doesn't. America's constantly growing welfare workforce today is so bloated that 70 percent of welfare money now goes to the bureaucrats!
As usual, big government is the problem rather than a solution.
Americans are generous. Most of us donate to charities, many of which will provide more permanent help to the needy than government ever will.
Ideally, America would shrink government and lower taxes so more of us would have money to spend how we want. For most, that means giving to those in need.
To help people, we need more rich people.
If only there was a system that made people richer.
Oh, right! There is—capitalism!
Over the past 30 years, more than a billion people climbed out of extreme poverty, thanks to free markets.
As capitalism makes us richer, we each have more opportunity to help others in need.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No matter what social pathology you’re concerned about, the state subsidizing the reproduction of unmarried indigent women is making it worse.
+10000… A hard truth.. Granting legal armed-theft just might breed more criminals? Now who could’ve seen that coming? /s
Homeschoolers can do the same or better job at under ten percent of the cost. No arguments from parents about not wanting gay male groomer erotica in the classroom. No tranny bathroom debates. No carbon belching diesel school buses needed.
End nonconsensual funding of government schools.
because of-course … Using government – ‘guns’ isn’t an act of charity … It’s an act of armed-theft.
Criminals will never run anything better than those who have to *earn* their income because part of the very process of *earning* requires honorable checks and balances of those who purchase. The very justice in the transaction.
‘guns’ don’t make sh*t.
“Charity can distract from permanent solutions,” claims an article in the Harvard Political Review. “Time, effort and funding that are funneled into charitable acts could be redirected to actual solutions spearheaded by the government, which has the resources to implement concrete change.”
I can’t even. A complete 180 from the truth. And from one of our “highest” institutions. This is what we’re up against.
A complete 180 from the truth.
Because permanent solutions destroy bureaucracies and leave government employees and academics out of work.
“I’m not Catholic, but I donate because government-run schools are often so bad that Catholic schools do better at half the cost. Thanks to SSP, thousands of kids escape poverty.”
The magic power of nuns with wooden yard sticks.
You would be hard pressed to find enough nuns for a school today. Catholic Schools can be cheaper because they often can pay lower salaries than the public school. Teachers may choice the school as part of a vocation or because they have a better student mix. Catholic Schools often have parishes or dioceses to add support.
We need Transnuns.
Mister sisters?
I’m not Catholic, but I donate because government-run schools are often so bad that Catholic schools do better at half the cost. Thanks to SSP,thousands of kids escape poverty.
Or, John, you could donate Leap Frog, Cocomelon, Ava Twist, Scientist, and Discover science toys to children and educate them for much less without subsidizing either Educrats in Gummint Skoolz or subsidizing molester Priests and child-battering bitch Nuns.
Let a million flowers bloom…and bloom the Hell away from any place that doesn’t treat them right!
Look, the purpose of socialism is to nationalize virtue, at least the virtues deemed necessary by the Dear Leader. Otherwise people might not behave in accordance with the Grand Plan.
Jeff in how government is forced into action because people don’t volunteer enough to charity themselves.
chemjeff radical individualist 2 years ago
Flag Comment Mute User
That is the status quo. Government uses force, in the form of taxes and redistribution, to purchase housing for those who are homeless. I am saying that if we don’t want the status quo, but we also seek a situation in which those who are homeless have some access to housing, then it would require voluntary acts on behalf of others in order to help provide that housing.
https://reason.com/2021/10/03/how-the-cdc-became-americas-landlord/?comments=true#comment-9137501
“What happened?
“Government handouts changed people’s thinking. They taught millions of Americans: You are entitled to a check.”
Yes, but the bigger thing that happened was a decision to put the government in charge of kindness, and generally making people happy. Once we started down the nanny path, there have been no limits on the role that some people want government to fulfill. And every type of societal intervention can be justified, along with any costs.
Historically the ‘check’ from [OUR] gov-‘guns’ crowd belonged in prison to protect the Liberty and Justice for everyone.
What to do when the government forgets their job and starts working for/as criminals instead.
Like John Stossel, I support charities. I like charities because it allows me to support groups with specific goals. I also realize that charities alone will not cover the all the need and there is a role for government in assisting people. I note that in many cases government works through local charities, with government supplying funds while the charity is the boots on the ground. I don’t see government and charities as competing but rather complimenting each other’s work.
I note that in many cases government works through local charities, with government supplying funds while the charity is the boots on the ground.
Your note is only partially correct. Governmenr funds friendly activist charities that do as much politking, if not more, than any actual help for the groups they claim to represent.
Seattle, for example, spends almost 50k a homeless person on the homeless problem. Less than a quarter of that money gets to the people they claim to be helping
What you are supporting is federal funding of liberal activist groups.
Summary…. ‘Guns’ will cover all the need.
Did you think Government had some other special ‘tool’ in it’s toolbox or what? If you don’t need ‘guns’; you don’t need government.
P.S. “There is a role for government in assisting people” … It’s called a corrections facility.
AJ Nock is the guy who effectively undermined your notion that the state and charities reinforce each other.
An increase in government power occurs with a decrease in what Nock called ‘social power’ or what deToqueville more appropriately called ‘civil association’.
deToqueville described the America with basically no state power –
In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely…It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.
Association is a requirement for notions of res publica or the Aristotelian ‘citizen’. But that is precisely what drops away once there is a notion that the state will do something and ‘citizen’ merely means voting on who else will make that something happen. That skill/art of association drops away. We bowl alone or retreat indoors to our castle/family. Those charities simply become a distributive arm of the state.
Now that said – any discussion of ‘charity’ or ‘association’ is completely fucking useless on a site like this with commenters here.
Really? I believe many of us donate to charities of our choice. I do. Don’t you, also?
I do. But I don’t believe many commenters here do. People who demonize recipients (of either charity or govt welfare) are not the sort who contribute either time or money. They are not the sort who I have EVER seen or worked with volunteering to do anything in a charity. They are truly nonexistent in those venues.
This crowd is very very loud in demonizing anyone who might need charity or a safety net or anything. The philosophy here is not really ‘charity does things better’. It’s more akin to the Rothbard paleo philosophy re the homeless. Give cops the green light to knock heads and get those bums out of my sight/neighborhood permanently.
And it’s a big reason imo why this ‘libertarian’ philosophy sucks at selling the notion that ‘charity does things better’. This crowd knows as much about how charities work as my dog does about differential equations.
Did it ever occur to you that most of the scorn we commenters have about the welfare state (besides not being a constitutional function of the federal government) is that it rewards bad behavior? There are quite a few people receiving the handouts who can work (or work more), but would prefer to skate by with the handout. I don’t see anyone decrying voluntary charity toward those who need some temporary assistance. Government “charity” is the result of involuntary confiscation of wealth and earnings to be given to almost anyone, regardless of the individual circumstances. The fact that you conflate the two (government “charity” and private, voluntary charity) is rather telling.
So. Just your feelings about fellow commentors, no hard evidence. If it makes you feel better, I despise those who won’t work for themselves and skate by. I despise those who vote to make me pay for these people.
“I’ll also donate to Student Sponsor Partners (SSP), a nonprofit that gives scholarships to kids from low-income families so they can escape bad public schools. SSP sends them to Catholic schools.”
If there were a nonprofit that gave scholarships to kids from low-income families so they can escape bad public schools, without requiring the recipient school to have any religious affiliation, I would be glad to donate to that nonprofit.
“Excuses are just excuses”
Read “The Tragedy of American Compassion” by Marvin Olasky
(forward in the reprint)
William J. Bennett once called it “the most important book on welfare and social policy in a decade. Period.” It influenced the Clinton Administration’s welfare reform and deeply affected then-Governor George W. Bush’s policies in Texas. But with the war on terror, the ideas in The Tragedy of American Compassion have taken a backseat.
Because it is based on historical successes and ancient wisdom, however, Tragedy is as timeless as ever. Marvin Olasky’s groundbreaking book turns on its head both conventional history and rhetoric, showing that America’s volunteer poverty-fighters were often more effective than our recent professionalized corps. His research also reveals that the real problem of modern welfare is not its cost but its stinginess in offering the true necessities: challenging, personal, and spiritual aid rather than entitlement and bureaucracy. So this book is now being reissued with new frontmatter to prepare a new generation of Americans to offer help that actually helps and to effectively confront once again the establishment that still impoverishes the impoverished. Foreword by Amy Sherman.
A few weeks ago as my wife and I arrived at Saturday evening church sevice, behind us a man pulled up. “Hi Chris! How are you doing?” I asked him. “Good” he says and expands with “I’m working at a local industrial distributor now. I had a stroke and my over the road trucking job is off for at least a year.” “Good to hear!” I respond and we go into service.
Approximately 4 years ago, I was doing usher services on Saturday night. After service, Chris came in and said his car would not start. I had never met Chris before. He explained that he was living at the salvation army and needed a ride back. We were able to arrange this and I told Chris I would walk back to church in the morning and see if I could diagnose the problem with his car and fix it. The next morning I walked to church with my Voltmeter and some tools. I got help from the morning Nigerian usher. First thing I tried was tapping on the starter while trying to start. Sure enough that worked. I called Chris and told him I would order a new starter and take his car home to my house. As I drove the car home, I realized the front wheel bearings were very bad and would need replaced. Fortunately, I also owned this very same model of car and had brake pads and knowledge how to do these repairs. I ordered $280 worth of parts (China had all GM spare parts covered). Seeing all this going on and losing one of our two stalls in our garage, my wife asked why wasn’t Chris helping with this? So the next Saturday, I picked up Chris and we replaced the starter together. Chris had been a big time meth addict and all the bad thing that go with this. Working under the car he explained his desire to change his life to me. Sure, I agreed, sounds like a good plan. With the new starter and having done the front wheel bearings and brakes earlier in the week, Chris said Thank you and left. Nothing was said about money. I have seen Chris a few times since then and never mentioned money.
That night, several weeks ago after church service, Chris came up to me afterward service with a wad of cash that he pushed into my hand. I don’t know how much it was but I did see a $50 bill so I assume it was substantial to Chris. I pushed the money back at him and said the changes he made in his life was enough repayment. I am doing more than well enough myself and I glad he is doing well also.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a Happy New Year.
Wonderful story. Few of us get to actually see the results of our good deeds, you were lucky. Good to know that Chris made it back. Many don’t and we should celebrate those that do.
Unmuted. (For now). I may have overdone the mute button. Or maybe not. TBD.
Who would want welfare when a charity will give you a box of Kraft Dinner, a loaf of white bread and a baggie with a cup of white rice in it?
Every time that I am asked to give to a charity, I give an incessant speech about how charities are proof that government has not lived up to its promises.
I pay taxes to end poverty, cure disease, care for the elderly, create world peace, etc. Charities basically point out that government has failed to do these things.
I pay taxes to a government that lies to me and fails endlessly and at the same time charities enjoy tax free revenue and provide tax deductible absolution for my conscience. All the while neither would have a reason to exist if all the problems were actually solved.
As a result, I only donate my ineloquent lectures to both the charity and the politicians.
If your donation is only the useless speech- then there is no absolution for your conscience. You gave nothing but wasted charities time. Be honest what you are.
It is not the business of (honest) charities to “solve problems.” It is their business to help people. Effective charities help individuals. Ineffective or scam charities don’t help individuals as much or at all. All clear now?
I believe in the philosophy of teaching a man to fish and not just giving him fish.
I have donated thousands of hours of my time, but I don’t donate my money.
Too many charities are run by the same type of scam artists that run our government.
Although the statistical methodology here is less than perfect, there are some very interesting conclusions if anyone is interested:
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/transitions-out-poverty-united-states#:~:text=The%20exit%20rate%20from%20poverty%20is%2056%20percent,poverty%20decline%20with%20time%20spent%20out%20of%20poverty.
“Exit rate … 56% after one year … 13% after seven years …”
Good statistics. Interesting just how tenuous it is to live at the edge of poverty. It is a cliff that you can always fall over.
“Time, effort and funding that are funneled into charitable acts could be redirected to actual solutions spearheaded by the government, which has the resources to implement concrete change.”
Guessing the “I’m with the government and I’m here to help” joke hasn’t yet hit the Ivy League schools.