Giving Compass' Take:

• Kelsey Piper argues that so-called "Band-Aid" philanthropy, often disparaged in favor of upstream solutions, provides value. 

• Where does your philanthropic work fall on the upstream to downstream spectrum? 

• Read an argument for system-change philanthropy? 

If you’re working on directly solving a problem faced by poor people, you’ve almost certainly heard it at least once: Helping people is a “Band-Aid” solution.

Here’s the argument: Most problems like poverty, disease, hunger, and war won’t be permanently fixed by homeless shelters, private donations, or other small-scale projects. We need bigger changes to the system to really solve them.

That’s true as far as it goes. But it’s a short leap from concluding that shelters and bednets to prevent malaria are just “Band-Aids” to concluding that philanthropists should stop wasting their time on the “Band-Aid” solutions in front of them, and should instead focus their energy on big bets that might, if they pan out, solve the problem entirely.

In the spring edition of the Stanford Social Innovation Review, David Callahan, the founder of Inside Philanthropy, pushes back on that view, and points out some of the tragic consequences of its newfound popularity:

A dominant message within elite philanthropy right now is that smart funders should not waste their money on Band-Aid solutions that are applied downstream. Instead, they must search for opportunities upstream to make breakthroughs in attacking systemic problems. These days, to pursue significant influence as a major-league philanthropist—and win accolades—you are supposed to be on a ceaseless quest for innovative and scalable solutions to society’s toughest challenges.

I share Callahan’s hesitations about this. There are a bunch of problems with dismissing simple, known solutions as mere “Band-Aids” and elevating big bets as the more meaningful way to do philanthropy.

Read the full article about Band-Aid philanthropy by Kelsey Piper at Vox.