The Dos and Don’ts of Disaster Donations
Posted on March 11, 2011 at 11:22 am
Reposting this given the recent earthquakes and tsunami.
—–
The following is a series of dos and don’ts to help you make the best donation decisions after a disaster.
Do determine if the country is accepting international assistance
With all the photos and videos of destruction on the evening news, it may seem impossible that governments would not want outside assistance. However, just because there has been a disaster does not mean that the local government and local aid organizations are not capable of reaching and helping those in need. Before sending your donation find out what, if any, assistance the government is allowing. Check to see if the aid organization you’re considering donating to is offering that same type of assistance.
Do look at a variety of nonprofits before giving
There are hundreds of organizations that respond to most disasters, take the time to evaluate a few before giving. Also, just because they have name recognition does not mean they’re best able to respond to the disaster. Look for organizations that were operating in the country before the disaster, they will be able to respond quicker and know the local culture, politics, and needs better. Giving to local organizations is great, unfortunately they can be difficult to find and may not have a website or if they do it may not be in English.
Places to find lists of organizations involved in the recovery efforts include:
InterAction for many U.S. organizations
Reliefweb.int for organizations from many different countries
Dochas for Irish aid organizations
Do look for organizations with prior experience and expertise
There is a great deal of money after well publicized disasters. The ease of raising money makes it tempting to respond even if the organization does not have prior experience in that area. After the 2004 tsunami, many organizations with no prior experience built boats or houses. I attended one handover ceremony where the boats actually sank during the ceremony because they weren’t properly sealed. There is a steep learning curve when nonprofits move out of their normal area of work, this may lead to mistakes and wasted money. Make sure the organization has prior experience in their proposed projects.
Don’t donate to a project just because it’s “sexy”
Recovery projects that are inherently attractive to donors – such as orphanages or boats – are easier to fund but may not be what is most needed. After the 2004 tsunami orphanages were built in excess of what was really needed, I had an orphanage approach me looking for orphans to house. So much money was given to orphanages in Indonesia that some families resorted to abandoning their children at the orphanages because they could not feed and clothe them. It would have been far better if the donations had supported the family so they could care for their children themselves. Boats were also heavily funded leading to far more boats built than were actually lost and a real concern for over fishing.
Don’t earmark funds
The organization is on the ground and has a far better idea of what is needed the most than someone half the world away. Earmarking funds may force the organization to spend money where it’s not needed and keep it from funding the projects that are needed the most. After the tsunami in Thailand, an organization had money earmarked for two truckloads of rice. By the time they arrived in the area four months after the tsunami, shipments of rice were no longer needed. Because the money had been earmarked the organization had to contact donors to get permission to use the money in different ways. If you trust the organization allow them to make professional decisions on how to best use your donation, if you don’t trust them then find another organization to donate to.
Don’t evaluate an organization based on the amount spent on administration cost
The amount an organization spends on administration is no indication of its quality. The pressure to keep administration costs low may lead to organizations understaffing their projects or hiring unqualified staff that may not have the skills to do their job. They may equip their staff with the tools and resources needed to do their job well. Or they may focus on inherently cheaper programs even if they are not what is most needed. Additionally, project costs and administration costs are easy to manipulate.
Do ensure that the agency is legitimate before giving
After the 2004 tsunami there were several fake charities created. In Thailand a man took photos of houses under construction and then posted the pictures on his own website saying that it was his organization’s work. Donors should verify that the nonprofit is real before giving. Google the exactname – be careful that they haven’t used a name that is almost identical to a well known charity. If the organization has been in operation for a while there should be a history of them on the web including links to conferences their staff have attended, newspaper articles written about them, or meeting minutes.
Donate only through the organization’s website to ensure you aren’t giving money to someone sending out a sham email or creating a fake facebook page.
Don’t expect the funds to be spent immediately
The initial relief phase encompasses search and rescue, immediate medical care, food, water and shelter. After that the much longer recovery and reconstruction phase begins. Organizations that feel pressure from donors to complete their work quickly may try to speed their work by cutting corners, leaving aid recipients out of the decision making process, avoiding coordinating with other organizations, or ending projects before they’re able to survive on their own. In Thailand there were numerous instances of houses being built before the land title was cleared requiring litigation, some families faced loosing their houses a few years later. Allow the organizations adequate time to ensure they are providing help in the best way possible.
Do consider holding off some of your donations until later in the rebuilding process
Immediately after a disaster is prime fundraising time for nonprofits, appeals are issued before there’s any clear idea of what is needed or how much they can actually help. If an organization receives more money than it can use for the type of help it provides it has one of four options. It can divert the excess funds to other programs in other countries, it can provide assistance in excess of what is actually needed, it can move out of its area of expertise and do projects it’s not skilled at, or it can subcontract other agencies to work in other areas. Rebuilding after a disaster takes years, waiting a few weeks or months before donating everything you plan to give will allow you to make additional funding decisions once the situation on the ground is clearer.
Don’t take up a collection of goods to send over
After the tsunami tons of used clothing were donated, much of it inappropriate to the climate and culture. There were winter hats, coats and gloves donated to southern Thailand and mountains of donated clothing dumped beside the road in India. Donated goods can clog ports and prevent more critical relief items from getting through. Ports can only hold and process so many goods and often the port authorities have difficulty sorting through everything arriving to get it processed and out the doors. Please do not take up collections of medicine, clothing, baby formula, or food for shipment, or show up on your own to hand out money or goods. Although well intentioned, this can actually make the situation worse as it adds to the confusion, diverts resources, and may lead to aid dependency.
Don’t go over individually to volunteer
Many people want to volunteer in the recovery efforts, however unless you have a specific skill and speak the language, there is often very little the individual can contribute that local people could not do. Local people need the work as many of them lose their livelihoods in the disaster. Even if you have a specialized trade such as a doctor or an architect your credentials may not be recognized in that country. In addition you will likely not find an international charity able to take you on because of liability issues and the fact that you don’t have prior disaster experience and training. Small local organizations may be willing to use volunteers, but their needs are for website developers, grant writers, and other office jobs. Your chances of working in the villages are small unless you speak the language and understand the culture.
Do consider donating an equal amount of money to disaster preparedness programs
Programs that help communities prepare for and respond to disasters save more lives and are more cost effective than large rescue operations after the disaster. This becomes even more important with the increasing rate of natural disasters. After each disaster the first people to respond are neighbors, friends, family, and local disaster response teams. Consider donating to organizations in other countries – or even your own home town – that help communities prepare for and respond to future disasters.
Don’t support any adoptions or evacuations of orphans
After each disaster there are attempts to adopt or evacuate orphans. However, many of these “orphans” have parents or other living relatives desperate to care for them. Priority should be placed on efforts to reunite children with their relatives. Evacuating the orphans from the country or putting them up for adoption may forever separate them from their family.
Don’t assume there is a body overseeing and regulating the aid
Most people assume that some entity, probably the UN, oversees international aid to ensure that it’s well done and getting where it is most needed. In reality the UN has no direct control over nonprofits, which makes it difficult to coordinate the relief efforts and ensure all the aid provided is appropriate an well done. Two attempts to create a regulatory body, once under the UN and once under the League of Nations, that proceeded the UN, have failed. Without this, it is up to the government hit by the disaster to monitor and control the flood of assistance into their country. This can be impossible for many local governments. The best way to stop ineffectual or bad aid is to only donate to organizations that you are certain are competent and skilled at their work.
Do take the time to make informed decisions
Take the time to understand the situation and make educated donor decisions. There are many resources here to help you do that. Your decision as to which nonprofits receive your donations matters.
—–
Related posts
Articles and posts related to earthquake and tsunami in Japan – regularly updated with links to information related to the recovery efforts.
Why waiting to give to Japan is a good idea
The CNN Effect – Explains the three factors that affect whether donors choose to give.
The ugly game of relief for Japan - Humanosphere – “We really don’t need international NGOs as middlemen, counting beneficiaries and checking the books. Because this is Japan – they’re already up to international accounting standards.”
How Do We Help Japan? - UN Dispatch - Suggests waiting, along with a few other ideas.
How UK charities are helping quake-hit Japan - BBC - “There has been no request yet for humanitarian assistance from the international community.”
A Charitable Rush, With Little Direction - New York Times - Discusses how some charities are raising funds without a clear idea of how or whether they’ll be used.
Aid workers brace for long humanitarian crisis in Japan – AlertNet – “Matsumoto said aid offers were pouring in but so far the Red Cross is not in need of any assistance although this could change.”
Beware New Japan Disaster Relief Web Sites – Forbes
HOW YOU CAN HELP – Dochas Network
10 Lessons from Haiti – by the Disaster Emergency Committee
Sometimes, you need to do something
Children in Emergencies: Applying what we already know to the crisis in Haiti
Chile may not need or want foreign assistance
Why are there so many natural disasters lately?
A plane full of volunteers bound for Haiti
Posts linked to in this blog
Beware of sham organizations seeking donations
The importance of donating to local aid organizations after a disaster
If this were your child – Haiti orphans
Does funding orphanages create orphans?
Don’t choose a charity to donate to for Haiti based on administration costs
6 questions you should ask before sending donated goods overseas
Four reasons to NOT donate baby formula overseas
Guideline #2 for volunteering overseas
« What are our real motivations? • Articles Related to the Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan »
Great article. I generally agree with all of it, except for “Don’t go over individually to volunteer” which was very sad to see. I went to northern Pakistan in 2005 after the earthquake, will no specialized skills or experience, and felt totally useful, raised thousands of dollars from stateside relatives who were inspired by their personal connection to the tragedy, built bridges with the people there, and raised awareness of the situation with people in the US (through radio pieces, interviews, etc). The general notion that you can pop on over to another country and help dig ditches is rightfully pointed out as naive, but it’s silly to ignore the tremendous and variable impact that individual volunteering can have both on the local situation and on the world in general — even if you do end up as a “grant writer” for a “small local organization”, is that so bad?
My fear that the plane fare over would be better spent as a donation was totally, utterly unfounded.
And, for god’s sake, don’t give doctors the impression that they should think twice about going! Maybe it’s true for Japan, but for the places that most desperately need help, a doctor is solid gold, and I STRONGLY encourage them to buy a ticket for the next flight over, whether or not they are officially connected with an iNGO (ideally they would be, but it shouldn’t be a requirement). Before leaving, I was told “no” by several NGOs who (quite understandably) refused to take me on as a volunteer. Once I was there, their staff were very happy to have me help. If I was a doctor, I’d probably still be there, so desperate was the need. As one EMT there put it to me: “Here, if you’re an EMT, you’re a doctor.”
There are a lot of worst-case scenarios, and of course many differences between disasters, but as I see it: “just go”. If you end up being in the way, you can get out of the way, but you’ll never know unless you go. (And if you’re a doctor, you won’t be in the way. Truly. Whether or not they recognize your diploma.)
The idea that we are helpless unless specially trained is a harmful, disempowering misconception. We can, and should, use what privilege we may have to take bold action and help the world.
CC,
While I’m glad that you had a good experience, there are many more that were not as good. Volunteers going into disaster zones can unintentionally compete with the disaster survivors for the limited food, water, and shelter in the early days. Those that are not prepared to be in a disaster zone can need assistance or rescuing themselves taking away from the rescue efforts. Sometimes the disaster survivors themselves have to assist the volunteers and there are many instances where volunteers die or have to be evacuated from country.
Volunteers just showing up at a disaster also adds to the confusion in an already chaotic situation. This includes doctors and nurses. People were showing up without adequate knowledge, preparation or supplies for working in a disaster zone. Improper medical assistance by doctors not prepared for working in a disaster zone can lead to serious infections and further complications that then have to be handled by other medical personnel from other nonprofits or hospitals.
Major nonprofits will not accept inexperienced volunteers for many of these reasons. If you want to help after a disaster, invest the time and money to become trained in post-disaster situations. You can do this through RedR or the Red Cross. Start out helping in local disasters before heading into a chaotic situation in another country.
For more on this see my posts Don’t go to Haiti and A plane full of volunteers bound for Haiti.
Saundra – thanks for the response.
First, let me make the important distinction I failed to make previously between emergency rescue operations and disaster relief work; if I had gone to Pakistan the day after the quake, you’re right: I would indeed have been in the way. Pakistanis themselves were in the way as thousands of well-intentioned citizens totally clogged the very limited access into the mountains, thus preventing needed supplies from getting through at a crucial time: a classic crisis of good intentions. Instead, I am talking more about the disaster-relief and longer-term development phases. For the search-and-rescue type situations I would basically agree with the tenor of this article (though I’d still leave the window of possibility open a crack: I think I would have been helpful, just not on the front lines.)
And, again, I agree that it’s important to disabuse the public of the notion that an angel can swoop in and soothe the pain of the huddled masses simply by virtue of their noble intentions. If you have no special skills and no intention of raising awareness or connecting to something once you get there, or you’re expecting a hotel room and you’ve never traveled internationally, or if you’re not covering your needs yourself and you’re going to show up and start asking “Hey, how can I plug in? Anyone need a Tylenol?” then yeah, stay home and raise money.
What troubled me about the article, especially when it comes to doctors, is the blanket assertion that “you shouldn’t go”. There are lots of possible scenarios, good and bad, and when an individual is assessing whether or not they have something to offer a situation, they need tips on what the situation will look like, how they might prepare to go, and so forth, so they can make an informed decision for themselves. I really do agree with all your cautions, just not the conclusion. Instead of “Don’t Go to Haiti”, how about “Think Hard Before You Go to Haiti: Here’s Why”? I’ve seen articles on this site that do just that: kudos. “Don’t Go to Haiti” was written 10 days after the quake, so that’s a different context entirely, but obviously the scene changes with time; the tone should change accordingly (or at least it should always be made clear exactly what kind of disaster relief is at issue.)
I suffered the “I probably shouldn’t go” syndrome before I left. When I returned, many friends — competent, useful, friends — expressed the same feeling: “yeah, I heard about the situation in X, but I figured I’d just be in the way”. It makes me sad, because they were wrong, and they could have helped. In Pakistan there were dozens of ways to lend a hand without displacing locals or obstructing. And again, the nurses and EMTs were fully treated as doctors, because in that context, they were. A real doctor would have found endless good work to do. (Of course a real doctor, or EMT, or nurse, wouldn’t have had trouble hooking up with an official group, which would have likely imporoved their impact.) I plugged in because even though I didn’t have “experience” or a degree in international aid work, I found I had things to offer, as almost anyone would have.
I think the take-homes for me were:
- the “authorities” (government, big NGOs, military, etc) sometimes have no idea what they’re talking about, often because of their size, not in spite of it
- everything is not under control and planned, so don’t absorb the received narratives too deeply
- as long as you aren’t naive, you think ahead, you take care of your self-sufficiency, and you keep your eyes open, it’s not hard to be useful, it’s not hard to avoid displacing the opportunities that locals might have, it’s even easier to make sure you’re not in the way, and what good you do can extend far beyond the work “on the ground”.
(Again, not talking immediate aftermath here, but medium- and longer-term.)
I’d be very interested to see any formal evaluation of the impediment that do-gooders cause post-disaster. Has anyone written such a report? (I’m sincerely asking, since I’m no expert, and have little experience.) Articles based only on anecdotal reports (e.g. Don’t Go to Haiti, or this comment I’m leaving) don’t help me reconcile “don’t go” articles with my experience and the experience of many others. If there really is a problem with a flood of hapless volunteers clogging up relief operations, let’s see a somewhat rigourous analysis. You can always find a story about the ego-driven tourist, the clueless busload of church volunteers, the wayward hippy traveler that got sick in the mountains, the orphanage of ill repute, etc. It doesn’t persuade unless it’s put in a convincing, documented perspective that balances the other effects volunteering can have.
In Pakistan, at least, the bulk of the relief-effort problems were caused by the military and NGOs (though I was very impressed with their work in general). In my months there, I counted exactly 2 (two) volunteers besides me who had arrived without prior attachment. One seemed to have dithered about with some ill-conceived building project and was otherwise not so useful, but certainly didn’t obstruct anything (and helped the local economy out by buying food, lodging, transport, etc.) The other was a very useful volunteer who helped at the offices of an international NGO. Both of them raised awareness of the situation (which is of no small importance, given that most of the small sum pledged by the international community vanished when the media spotlight moved on.) New Orleans post-Katrina was full of volunteers, and all of them were as busy as they wanted to be. It’s all situational: that is apparently not how it went in Haiti. But even in that case I haven’t read anything super convincing about the crush of aimless volunteers eating up all the food and diverting all the energy to the point where all of them should have stayed home. Even articles like this: http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/haiti_operational_biosurv/2010/01/reports-of-gangrene-and-sepsis-and-the-stark-realities-of-response-in-haiti.html
…just serve to illustrate how great the need is (infrastructural and organizational, as well as medical, in that case). I didn’t come away from that article thinking that those doctors shouldn’t have gone, despite the frustration and sepsis and naivete. Quite the contrary! “Just get on the plane and go” seems entirely borne out by that article. And their experience was in the immediate aftermath… seems like it’d be even more true now.
Plus, it’s not like the sanctioned work of NGOs is without it’s own moral ambiguity:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/10/11/101011crat_atlarge_gourevitch
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/11/the-moral-hazards-of-humanitarian-aid-what-is-to-be-done.html
We live in a world where lack of inaction, disempowerment, and a pervasive sense that “there’s nothing I can do” cause a tremendous amount of unnecessary suffering. We should welcome these articles about the skills people should develop, what they should expect, and the ways in which their assumptions and naiveties get in the way, and we should simultaneously more energetically encourage their instinct to lend a hand. Ideally, in the long term, they will get involved with a group and their efforts will be sensible, directed, and efficient. In the short term, I say: be bold, and smart.
CC,
I hope you get your website up and working quickly, as I can see you’ve got a lot you want to write about.
There’s a lot of caveats you’ve provided in your post but if I’ve got this right then you’re proposing that volunteers:
- Don’t go until after the initial relief phase is over
- Go over individually, not as part of a service group
- Have skills that are needed and not available locally
- Do not do work that could be done locally
- Are willing and able to work in the back office of a nonprofit and won’t insist on working with orphans or villagers
- Are fully prepared to care for themselves and will not be a burden on the local people or the organization they are helping
- Are willing to commit to long term help and aren’t just popping in and out for spring break
- Are prepared to turn around and go home if no one needs their assistance
- Are not starting up an aid project from scratch which they don’t have the skills and knowledge to lead
Then if all these caveats are met, I think it can work. Here’s a post I wrote on that as well after Haiti. I see I should have linked to it earlier here as well. http://goodintents.org/volunteering-overseas/advice-for-volunteers-in-haiti
I will say that only having three volunteers in the area is far different from what happened in Thailand and Haiti. In Thailand so many people showed up to volunteer that a local nonprofit had create a spin off organization simply to manage volunteers. Many of the projects they ended up doing could have been done by local people instead. In Haiti practically every plane coming into the country had one or two groups of volunteers aboard. This number of volunteers does have an impact and leads to volunteer centered activities rather than what is needed the most.
I still would not recommend doctors or nurses just hop on a plane and go down. I will, however, look for research to verify that point one way or another.
I do caution people about being Whites in Shining Armor There are ways to feel connected and helpful in our own communities.
I did make a website during my trip there. Afterwards, a couple of unrelated people saw it and connected through to the same NGO to volunteer locally. They were, I’m told, useful.
I can agree with that list of caveats. I’d need to dicker over some specifics, e.g. how long the “relief phase” lasts. I also wouldn’t want someone to feel like before they went they had to prove in a court of law that they “have skills that are needed and not available locally” and would “not do work that could be done locally”, since those are nebulous things to determine even when you’re there, but I certainly agree with the spirit.
It’s just that the original article is a list of do’s and don’ts, and volunteering locally was given a near-total “don’t”. Putting it in the “do” column but with the list of caveats would have been nicer to see (along with a disclaimer about which phase(s) of the disaster the post applies to). I’m glad you wrote that other post about volunteering in Haiti. I appreciate the difficulty in writing these articles for a heterogeneous audience, and I’m sure it’s impossible to cover every base, every time, so thanks for your patience with hotheaded commentators.
Sounds like Thailand and Haiti were worlds apart from Pakistan, indeed. I wonder which is the more typical scenario across all disasters. My experience is obviously narrow and probably not representative, but in terms of volunteers aren’t most disasters largely ignored by the rest of the world?
I will check back to see if you turn up any related research. Thanks for looking.
And thanks for the site.
I wanted to start orphage home in india, can have your valuble suggestions from you . and also request you to funds towards running the orphage home
My advice would be to NOT start an orphanage. I strongly suggest you take some time to learn about the field before jumping in and possibly do some real harm. A great place to start is the United Nations Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children.
[...] Take the time to understand the situation and make educated donor decisions. There are many resources here to help you do that. Your decision about which nonprofits receive your donations matters. Saundra Schimmelpfennig is a veteran of more than 20 years in the local and international nonprofits, including four years spent working in Thailand following the 2004 tsunami. Republished from Good Intentions Are Not Enough. [...]
[...] is another resource which provides The Do’s and Don’ts of Disaster Donations: [...]
[...] In all of these kind of disasters, there are unfortunately those organizations that seek to make money off the it. Here’s some how-to-donate (and also how not to donate) advice from CBS and the website Good Intentions are Not Enough. [...]
[...] to distribute wisely. That’s especially true if the donations are too targeted. According to GoodIntentions.org, the well-meaning funds that went to build orphanages in Indonesia in the wake of the 2004 [...]
[...] and Good Intentions Are Not Enough have posted excellent pieces on why giving to aid organizations in Japan right now is not a good [...]
[...] ONG “Good Intentions Aren´t Enough” también ha publicado un listado muy práctico de “The Do´s and Don´ts of Disaster Donations.” Entre ellas [...]
[...] The Dos and Don’ts of Disaster Donations [...]
[...] Dos and Don’ts of Disaster Donations [...]
[...] not donate to Japan? How can we go about our good intentions? These are good questions to ask yourself before giving, not after. Do people know that the [...]
[...] on supplies.” For more information about “the Dos and Don’ts of Disaster Donations” see this article reposted on this blog from [...]
[...] of success and accountability they have in place. There are lots of great resources online (try here and here) to learn about smart aid in response to a [...]
[...] The DOs and DON’Ts of Disaster Donations [...]
[...] to general funds and accept that their money may not go to help the person they saw on TV. As another excellent blogger put it, “If you trust the organization, allow them to make professional decisions on how to best [...]