Diligence before donating
Devastated by the photos and stories coming out of the Gulf Coast this week, my kneejerk response was to reach for my wallet. But it turns out that throwing money at a disaster isn’t quite as simple as it used to be.
As soon as I started looking for places to give, I ran into some unexpected obstacles. As with every overwhelming disaster, it seems like the scammers set up shop faster than anyone else. (Donate my PayPal balance? No thanks.)
Obvious scams aside, my own demands for charity have changed, too.
I want more bang for my buck — I want to know that the money I’m giving is actually getting to people in need.
Many of the traditional disaster relief institutions, like the Red Cross, have come under fire for wasteful practices. (Investigations by news outlets like National Public Radio and ProPublica showed how the Red Cross mismanaged its response to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.)
So I called Bob Ottenhoff, president of the Center for Disaster Philanthropy, about the best ways for regular people to respond to faraway disasters.
The Center for Disaster Philanthropy is a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on “increasing donor effectiveness throughout the life cycle of disasters.” Surely, I thought, Ottenhoff
could help me figure out the best way to spend my measly few bucks.
He started out by telling me I wasn’t the only one feeling overwhelmed.
“We’re on a course right now that’s not really sustainable from a philanthropic standpoint,” Ottenhoff said. “There are so many disasters, and they’re increasing in frequency, and they’re increasing in intensity.”
Houston, for example, has just experienced its third “500year” flood in the past three years.
While Harvey was absolutely the worst of those incidents, it’s clear that disaster is occurring on the Gulf Coast with more frequency. It’s not just the Gulf Coast, either — it’s everywhere.
“Whether it’s wildfires in the West or hurricanes in the East, we have to rethink how we do support,” he said.
In the long run, we’ll have to focus more of our money on planning for disasters and finding ways to prevent them. (Between 70 and 80 percent of philanthropic disaster dollars go toward immediate relief efforts — hardly anything goes toward disaster prevention.)
But in the short run, Ottenhoff said, the best way to offer assistance in the event of disaster is to give some money now and some money later.
“It sounds strange, but giving money is not something you have to rush on these occasions,” he said. “It’s probably more valuable if you give some today and some in a month or so. When all of the media attention has moved on, the donor dollars will dry up — but the need will still be there. It could be a year before people are able to move back into their homes.”
Instead of responding to “urgent appeals” you see on Facebook advertisements from organizations you don’t know, research the organizations that are doing effective work aligned with your values, Ottenhoff said. That means using Charity Navigator, reading the news and thinking about the causes that matter to you.
I have family members in Houston and Galveston, so it was an easy choice for me to give to those cities’ respective food banks. (My family members are all fine.)
There are exceptions, of course, but local food banks are usually some of the most effective charities out there. They’re efficient at administering donations, and obviously, food is always useful in a disaster.
Apart from that, I’m still deciding where else to give money. I’ve set a calendar reminder to give a donation next month — preferably to a place that’s working on making the Gulf Coast a safer place ahead of the next catastrophe.
Finally, there’s an occasion in my life where procrastination is the best response to disaster.