An article in the Christian Science Monitor talks about Family-to-Family, a nonprofit group started by a kindly New York woman who was moved to help people less fortunate.
Reporter Katherine Arms writes that Pam Koner “started her charity, Family-to-Family, in 2002 when she saw a newspaper article about Pembroke, Ill., which noted that 51 percent of families with children there were living below the poverty line.
“She was shocked to read that the town had little in the way of infrastructure: no supermarket, no pharmacy, no bank. Many families lived in houses with dirt floors.
“She immediately sprang into action and found families [in] Hastings-on-Hudson, a small commuter village just 19 miles north of New York City, who wanted to help families in Pembroke. Soon food – canned vegetables, fruit, spaghetti sauce, tuna – was on its way.”
Here is Koner’s story and the story of how Family-to-Family efforts spread.
Now here is my question. Since there are many organizations doing nearly the same thing, why do so many people start their own organization?
Answer: Because it’s theirs. That’s what I think anyway. Rather than work for the Red Cross, the Salvation Army or any other established group, people like to do their own thing. It’s more motivating. Even though only the big organizations can handle the big disasters, everyone can do a little bit that is important to some person in need.
At the same time, I can’t help wondering about the rest of the Pembroke story. Do the people need to rely on donations forever? Has the state noticed Pembroke? Has it offered home renovation or weatherization? Training? Jobs? If you know anything about Pembroke, please tell me.
Photograph: Ann Hermes/ Christian Science Monitor Staff
Suzanne's Mom's Blog 
Apparently Pembroke wasn’t doing much better in 2010–this article is interesting for the history it gives and also for showing how some programs have failed to help much.
I’ve come to have serious doubts about the sending-objects method of dealing with poverty, on all sorts of levels. I totally understand wanting to gather up your own items, and how empowering it can be for to pick out canned goods, or toys, or pencils and paper, to send–but that’s the sender’s side of the equation, and while it’s great for the sender to feel good, how about the recipients, and the recipients’ communities? I feel like it would be much better to draw on nearby stores and things to buy that stuff. And, as you say, at some point you want to help people be able to afford to buy those things for themselves. Still, the urge to help is a good one, and getting food, clothing, school supplies, and so on into people’s hands by (almost) any means is better than having them go without.
Yes. The impulse is kind, but one wants to help someone learn to fish.
(Actually, that article I linked to was from 2011, not 2010)