Summary
What do they do? Multilingual assistance can turn eligibility into actual enrollment. The model separately estimates approval, enrollment caused by assistance, improved food security, health utility and whether donations add assistance capacity. More
Why this approach interests us
- Additional assistance may improve food security beyond what existing services provide.
Our main reservations
- The pathway from assistance to incremental health contains judgmental causal, duration and financing assumptions. A zero health effect remains plausible.
What do you get for your dollar?
Our best guess is $248,447,205 per better life—10 incremental QALYs. This is an exploratory program model, not measured organization-wide effectiveness. Inspect the model →
- best guess
- $248,447,205 — USD per 10 incremental QALYs; very low confidence
- positive scenarios
- $503,221–$222,608,695,652 — Joint assumptions, not confidence bounds
- geography
- Alameda County; not San Francisco city — Kept separate from SF-city recommendations
- funding room
- Unverified — Not a current restricted donation offer
1. What do they do?
Multilingual assistance can turn eligibility into actual enrollment. The model separately estimates approval, enrollment caused by assistance, improved food security, health utility and whether donations add assistance capacity.
Define the extra service
One assisted application, including unsuccessful applications
Price the actual bottleneck
Reconcile existing public, private and partner resources before attributing delivery to a new gift.
Test incremental health
Measure outcomes against existing alternatives, including burdens and potential harms.
Scope of this review. Alameda County; not San Francisco city
2. Monitoring and information sharing
One assisted application, including unsuccessful applications
External studies and local program disclosures. A Pennsylvania randomized outreach trial increased SNAP enrollment among older Medicaid adults; its outreach-level effect cannot be multiplied by local application approval. USDA six-month food-security comparisons are nonrandomized. Approval .70, enrollment additionality .40 and a .05 causal food-security effect are judgments. The observational utility contrast is .023; .25 effective health years assumes linear onset over six months, not six months of immediate full health gain.
Our assessment. No local randomized QALY estimate. All local transfer and donor additionality coefficients are explicit judgments.
3. Qualitative assessment
Additional assistance may improve food security beyond what existing services provide.
Key reservations
- Food access, dignity and purchasing power have value not fully captured by this narrow health ledger.
- Do not add food-bank and downstream partner effects for the same household.
- The favorable case does not establish an available or cost-effective marginal gift.
Benefits not included in our estimate
- Unmodeled child development and mortality
- Public benefits converted directly into QALYs
- Whole-organization reach
- Unverified healthcare savings
4. What do you get for your dollar?
$248,447,205 per 10 QALYs
A Pennsylvania randomized outreach trial increased SNAP enrollment among older Medicaid adults; its outreach-level effect cannot be multiplied by local application approval. USDA six-month food-security comparisons are nonrandomized. Approval .70, enrollment additionality .40 and a .05 causal food-security effect are judgments. The observational utility contrast is .023; .25 effective health years assumes linear onset over six months, not six months of immediate full health gain. The .023 observational utility contrast compares USDA adult responses 0–2 (food secure, including marginal security) with 3+ (insecure). Favorable one-year health duration assumes persistence beyond the six-month course without further paid treatment; it is not demonstrated by that course.
A better life is our comparison unit of 10 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), potentially spread across people. These are uncertain estimates, not measured returns or verified donation offers.
How we calculate the estimate
INSPECTABLE HEALTH BRIDGE: Q = financing × (approval × enrollment additionality × security effect × adults × utility × transfer × effective years − harm); price = 10 × donor cost / Q when Q > 0
$248,447,205
Model inputs and assumptions
- utility
- 0.023 (range: 0.023 / 0.023 / 0.023). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- harmQalys
- 0 (range: 0 / 0 / 0). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- cost
- 500 (range: 150 / 500 / 800). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- approval
- 0.7 (range: 0.8 / 0.7 / 0.5). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- enrollmentAdditionality
- 0.4 (range: 0.75 / 0.4 / 0.1). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- securityEffect
- 0.05 (range: 0.12 / 0.05 / 0.01). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- adults
- 1 (range: 2 / 1 / 0.5). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- transfer
- 0.5 (range: 1 / 0.5 / 0.25). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- effectiveYears
- 0.25 (range: 1 / 0.25 / 0.25). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
- fundingAdditionality
- 0.5 (range: 0.9 / 0.5 / 0.1). Favorable / central / pessimistic. The full combination is a scenario, not a confidence interval. Source anchor or analyst judgment; see evidence below.
Constructed course costs—not a verified funding tranche
- Favorable: $503,221 per 10 QALYs. 0.002981 QALY per modeled unit. Maximum cost to reach $100K/10Q: $29.81
- Central: $248,447,205 per 10 QALYs. 0.00002012 QALY per modeled unit. Maximum cost to reach $100K/10Q: $0.20
- Pessimistic positive: $222,608,695,652 per 10 QALYs. 3.594e-8 QALY per modeled unit. Maximum cost to reach $100K/10Q: $0.00
Uncertainty. No extra delivery or no causal health improvement gives no finite positive impact price. Harm can outweigh benefit. Financing multiplies both added benefit and harm; unchanged delivery does not create new harm.
5. Funding and previous grants
The identified county contract ended June 2026; expiration does not establish a funding gap. Current continuation and a marginal donor tranche remain unverified. Do not attribute publicly reimbursed assistance twice.
Central $500 is a judgmental allowance oriented by a historical base-program budget/application ratio, not a quote. Expanded implementation allowance $700 adds public processing, partner and participant costs. Illustrative extra benefit payments of $168 per application are a separate fiscal transfer, not a QALY benefit or necessarily a net societal resource cost. The identified county contract ended June 2026; expiration does not establish a funding gap. Current continuation and a marginal donor tranche remain unverified. Do not attribute publicly reimbursed assistance twice.
This review does not establish a verified marginal funding offer or a complete history of grants.
We have not verified a suitable donation route for this reviewed activity. Confirm the legal recipient and intended allocation before donating.
6. Sources
- Local CalFresh assistance. Primary source. Primary program, funding or research evidence. Published: Undated; retrieved: 2026-09-07.
- County contract amendment. Primary source. Primary program, funding or research evidence. Published: 2026-03-24; retrieved: 2026-09-07.
- Randomized enrollment assistance. Primary source. Primary program, funding or research evidence. Published: 2019; retrieved: 2026-09-07.
- USDA food-security evaluation. Primary source. Primary program, funding or research evidence. Published: 2013; retrieved: 2026-09-07.
- Food security and utility study. Primary source. Primary program, funding or research evidence. Published: 2023; retrieved: 2026-09-07.
Annual expenses: years and sources
Average annual expenses (three consecutive fiscal years): Not available. Organization size is separate from the modeled cost-effectiveness of a donation.
Alameda County Community Food Bank
Three years of organization-level expenses have not yet been verified for this report. No other organization or fiscal sponsor budget has been substituted.