“Why WFP?” is one of the most common questions on the About page. This is the long answer.
The criteria
- 1. Direct impact per dollar. The organization should convert money to meals (or an equivalent food-security outcome) with minimal overhead.
- 2. Global reach. LADLE has subscribers in ~40 countries; a US-only food bank felt narrow.
- 3. Verifiability. The organization's numbers need to be independently audited and publicly disclosed.
- 4. Scale absorption. The organization should be large enough to absorb LADLE's donations without operational disruption; and small enough that our donation is not trivial.
- 5. No conflicts of interest — no political, religious, or corporate entanglements that would give a subscriber pause.
Why WFP scored highest
- Operates in 120+ countries reaching 150M+ people annually.
- Cost per school meal ($0.25) is one of the most-audited numbers in humanitarian assistance — used by MIT J-PAL, Copenhagen Consensus, and every major aid effectiveness evaluator.
- Independent financial audits publicly available (see /impact/methodology for links).
- A UN agency, not a national or religious charity — no political entanglement.
- Large enough that our current donation scale doesn't cause them any operational overhead; small enough (as a percent of their $9B budget) that we don't crowd out other donors.
Alternatives we considered
Why not split across multiple
The simplicity of “$8 = a meal” is powerful. Splitting across three charities makes the number squishier (is a $2.67 donation to Charity A + a $2.67 donation to Charity B still a meal?) and dilutes the message. We may add a secondary recipient in future if the primary relationship scales down for any reason.
If WFP stops being the right choice
The recipient can change — if WFP's effectiveness deteriorates, if the political landscape shifts, or if a materially better option emerges. Any change would be announced in the newsletter and here, with the rationale. The commitment is to the donation, not to the specific recipient.