On the other hand, the larger the bureaucracy, and the further removed from where the rubber meets the road, the more money it spends on managing itself.

Circumstances are unique in most cities, dealing with on location is usually more efficient than a one-size-fits-all approach that cannot consider local reality (or it would lose any and all efficiency).

> On the other hand, the larger the bureaucracy, and the further removed from where the rubber meets the road, the more money it spends on managing itself.

If you contrast the effectiveness of the food stamp program, or school lunches, or medicaid to literally any charity in the US, you will find that they blows them out of the water, in terms of impact per dollar.

You are vastly underestimating the impact of economies of scale. The overhead of food stamps, for instance is 0.7%. You won't find a single small charity that operates that efficiently.

That's because it's a very simple program, much like the stimulus check sent out this year. Works well for things that are the same everywhere ("everybody needs to eat"), but it won't when you need to look at local circumstances. Sending each community money to help the homeless is great, but will also be very inefficient because homelessness is not at all evenly distributed.

I understand the hope in UBI in that regard, it would make a lot simpler by giving people money and then praying that they'll use it wisely.

It's interesting that you contrast homelessness with the need to eat.

Everyone needs a roof over their heads, food, and occasional access to medical care. When they can't afford one of those things, it doesn't take long for them to end up on the street.

The highest-ROI way to deal with homelessness is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Without food stamps, section 8, unemployment benefits, and Medicaid, there would be an explosion of homelessness, regardless of local circumstances.

The homeless population wasn't born on the street. Most of it ended up there, because of a medical condition that was left untreated (Addiction is a medical condition), or because they couldn't afford making last month's rent.

You'd be far better off throwing resources behind healthcare, or SNAP, or section 8, or at-risk-youth-programs, compared to funding your local charity that has 4 employees and a director [1] that administers 9 temporary-shelter beds. [2]

[1] I wish I was kidding about this, but that's how a lot of small charities operate.

[2] That won't take you, if you have an addiction problem.

Nothing "has to" fill the gaps. People can and do suffer and diem

Push that too a bit too far, and you may get yourself a revolution.