I think liking the idea of individuals fixing social problems of their own volition when more boring, collective systems are more efficient (as evidenced by Western European societies) is kind of the issue in itself. There's this narrative bias towards enjoying a monkey patch of a social ill (homemade mobile laundromat), when some boring solution might be more effective (e.g. housing first like in Utah). I'm not sure if it's our entertainment-driven culture or a more complex set of biases. But it's odd how often we'll veer around demonstrably workable solutions in favor of something more flashy. It's as if the pursuit of an ongoing spectacle is more important than achieving a good end.

  I like the idea of (b) a lot more.

It's a nice idea - but anyone who believes citizens should be making such donations is surely already making them - and yet our problems still exist. Doesn't that rather imply the average person isn't as charitable as would be needed?

> Doesn't that rather imply the average person isn't as charitable as would be needed?

Yep, I think it does :( So (a) might be a better pragmatic solution.