Donating for less fortunate kids..

[hereonceagain]

Say you live in a nicer city. And the city does an annual collection of toys, etc for "less fortunate kids". Every single thing that is donated stays with kids that reside in your city.

The city is Beverly Hills.

Would you be less likely to give based on location? ...and look for a higher need area?

[heygrey]

There are needs everywhere, even in affluent places. And I think the gap between the haves and have nots is significantly more pronounced in those areas.

But if you're uncomfortable donating there, don't. It really does not require that much thought.

[hereonceagain]

I don't live there. I was just curious on others' thoughts... if they would redirect elsewhere.

Me personally? I'd donate elsewhere. That would definitely not be my top priority for giving.

[livinitup]

I'd ask a follow-up question for criteria for qualifying for a donation. Are these kids in a hospital? A program? Live in a household under the poverty level? Or does "less fortunate" in Beverly Hills mean semi-wealthy, just not Aaron Spelling's daughter?

Lots of people like to keep their donation dollars local. If I lived in BHs and liked the criteria for receipients, I'd donate.

[Deleted]

I don't know the demographics of Beverly Hills. I mean, I know there's a lot of wealthy people there, but is there also a number of people living below the poverty level? If so, then yes, I'd donate.

This is a silly question.

[Deleted]

There are a ton of people in need in the world. Also, no matter who you're donating to, I can assure you that there's someone out there with greater need. So I think it is fine to donate to a cause that you like because it is local or there's something else that appeals to you about the charity rather than trying to find the 1 most unfortunate person in the entire world because that's the person who deserves it the super most.

[beefjerky]

Nov 26, 2012 15:12:50 GMT -5 papiercherri said:

This is a silly question.

This.

[vanillacourage]

www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty-Beverly-Hills-California.html

According to this, 10% of residents in Beverly Hills live below the poverty line ($23k for a family of 4). Almost 5% live at 50% of the poverty line. So yes, Virginia, there are poor people in Beverly Hills.

[arch01]

Nov 26, 2012 15:31:10 GMT -5 vanillacourage said:

www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty-Beverly-Hills-California.html

According to this, 10% of residents in Beverly Hills live below the poverty line ($23k for a family of 4). Almost 5% live at 50% of the poverty line. So yes, Virginia, there are poor people in Beverly Hills.

:Y:

and ditto papier. this is silly.

[Deleted]

I think there may be some value in choosing an area with more underserved folks, but both are valid.

I just don't donate where those being helped are self-selected. I'm enough of a cynic that I like helping when organizations have screened for need and that they are only getting aid from the one organization.

[Deleted]

Personally I would probably donate elsewhere.

[Deleted]

I prefer to donate to places where kids lack basic life necessities (vax, schools, basic food, clean water) so I generally do not donate to those types of drives.

[hereonceagain]

Nov 26, 2012 15:21:52 GMT -5 beefjerky said:

Nov 26, 2012 15:12:50 GMT -5 papiercherri said:

This is a silly question.

This.

I like to ask silly questions. It gets the board moving a little more. It's been pretty slow here lately.

[hereonceagain]

Nov 26, 2012 15:49:24 GMT -5 L said:

I prefer to donate to places where kids lack basic life necessities (vax, schools, basic food, clean water) so I generally do not donate to those types of drives.

Thank you. You just confirmed what I was thinking.