The ways are different, but the kindness is same

Just as every coin has two sides, there are rich and poor people in the world.Those people who lead a high-quality life often provide help to those who need it.Should they support directly in their local community or donate money to charitable organizations? The views vary from person to person. People supporting directly are of the view that their behavior can immediately make a significant difference to someone's life. Nevertheless, the different voices maintain that governments or charities can accumulate money to allocate the various resources to people according to their needs.

As far as I'm concerned, both of their views should be encouraged. On the one hand, the approach to provide help directly is more convenient and direct. By providing food for the hungry , shelters for the homeless, the kind person can do whatever small but actual things without extra procedures. Givers can touch the misery themselves and feel more inspired by their kind behavior, which will encourage them to help more people in need. Receivers can get what they need most in a shorter time and have a chance to express their gratitude to benefactors face to face, which will promote the harmony of community. On the other hand, there are few people who are able to donate a large amount of money to support people in poor areas in constructing schools, roads and hospitals. Therefore, rising money from different kind people then allocating these resources to a wider range of people in different needs is more feasible, so do governments and charities. There is no doubt that the impact of charity can be greatest in this way though the relationship between givers and receivers may not so close.

All in all, either approach is worthy of respect and encourage as long as people in distress can obtain assistance and overcome difficulties.