Stanford Social Innovation Review

Sir Perla Ni,

It’s very useful advice to follow. Only the long term commitments will change the situation better.
As we can have the information to find out which organizations work well enough for us to donate, please tell us them or how to find them because it is quite difficult for me to know them, thank you.

»» Posted by: Tsuda Shoken@Goshojuku on January 20, 2010 06:14 PM

I believe trustworthy organizations that are already working in Haiti and have the logistical know-how to get needed medical supplies or food into the country need to be supported now.  I support Partners in Health, a Boston-based organization with over 20 years of experience providing medical care in Haiti.

»» Posted by: Helen P Netos on January 22, 2010 07:56 PM

Unfortunately, in the case of disasters, its too easy to say “out of sight, out of mind”.  In three years, the earthquake will be just as much in our daily thoughts as the tsunami.  I agree that this is unfortunate, that there is going to be a serious waste of money following this disaster, but I think that this is as good as it’s going to get.

»» Posted by: Lindsay on January 26, 2010 11:02 AM

I completely agree that we must not forget about Haiti in the long term and fund the recovery. I also agree that uncoordinated help is not effective. Actually it can more damaging. HOWEVER, several organizations (Red Cross, Doctors without Borders to mention only a few) are proving highly coordinated help in Haiti right now and we cannot underestimate their work and the need to fund this work. We just need to give our money and time wisely.

»» Posted by: Paulina Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:37 PM

I especially like the writers advice to “Set aside money now for what you would give Haiti this year and for at least the next 3 years. Give money when aid can logistically get there, when efforts get coordinated, when you can get reports on which nonprofits are doing what and which ones are actually on the ground making an impact.”

»» Posted by: Hilary, Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:38 PM

There is clearly some legitimacy to your point. Perhaps if there was a convenient, intuitive way for donors to ensure their money would be spread over a specified period of time (i.e. 1/3 each year over 3 years) this approach could be taken. On the other hand, isn’t one of the criteria most of us use when selecting a charitable organization is ... See Morewith the belief that THEY will manage the distribution of funds according to need/priority/timeliness? Working for a non-profit, one thing I firmly believe is “never leave anything on the table”. If you can raise the funds now, do so. Regrettably, there will always be another crisis/tragedy next year, and the year after that. Hoping that a prospective donor is disciplined enough to remember the need today 3 years from now and not get sidetracked in favour of a new, equally tragic occurrence, well, just doesn’t seem plausible.

»» Posted by: Kevin, Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:39 PM

Having worked in international development and particularly on post-tsunami and post-earthquake recovery, I couldn’t agree more. It’s crucial to educate donors to remember that crisis six months to a year later when the recovery needs will be as important to help that country get back on its feet through projects like small business rehabilitation, infrastructure improvements, psychosocial support, etc.

»» Posted by: Bulbul, Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:40 PM

it is very familiar to idea conveyed by the recent HBR article on Haiti relief.

»» Posted by: Aakanksha, Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:41 PM

Interesting approach. So what to do for now? How to channel the energy of millions of people that want to contribute now? In 6 months or more, probably people will be focused on something else and won’t feel have the same emotion of wanting to contribute somehow.

»» Posted by: Nicolas, Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:42 PM

People across world donates in disaster only because of humanity and first the thing for them matter is immediate relief to struggling people, not building countries and infrastructure. The only way of support is by national and international societies (Public/private).This is future tense that how they built infrastructure and countries. This is obvious that money makes business and business ignite case studies. But there is no case study for humanity and emotions that bind us.

»» Posted by: Prasanna, Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:43 PM

Y’all might enjoy this SSIR article, in which author Keith Epstein discusses why sudden emergencies attract more funds than do chronic conditions, and how nonprofits can change that.
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/crisis_mentality/

»» Posted by: SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:44 PM

The Continuing Failure of Foreign Aid:
http://bit.ly/USAID_FAIL

»» Posted by: David, Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 27, 2010 01:45 PM

I do believe some organizations with a long term commitment to relief, not to mention to Haiti, have the wisdom to not spend every dime they get right away.  Waiting a year or even quite a few years to make further donations to help Haiti might sound like great advice, but that is like the diet people plan to start next year… it usually doesn’t happen.

»» Posted by: michal strahilevitz on January 28, 2010 02:09 PM

Brilliant and gutsy! Eager as I am to promote the current efforts of a half-dozen of my clients who are working on aid to Haiti today, I know from long personal experience overseas that Perla’s advice is sound. Rebuilding Haiti will take a generation, and the groundwork in that effort probably won’t be laid until next year and the following. Yes, fundraising efforts for the likes of CARE, Americares, Catholic Relief Services, Habitat for Humanity, Save the Children, and the United Nations Foundation are all eminently worthy, but it’s only over the long haul that outsiders can hope to make a significant difference beyond the immediate efforts to save lives.

»» Posted by: Mal Warwick on January 28, 2010 02:11 PM

I’m sorry, but I find your subject line totally offensive.  Some of us have personal connections in Haiti and have lost people.  It’s so easy to sit in your ivory tower and make these proclamations.  I’m tired of SSRI’s attitude and I find this post offensive.

»» Posted by: Sophie Godley on January 28, 2010 02:29 PM

this argument is the most ridiculous, misguided and damaging idea imaginable…
...if you want to argue, and cite cases, that there needs to be better organization than there is currently or has been in other circumstances, then do so…
...if you want to argue, and cite cases, that rebuilding Haiti will take a decade of sustained effort and money and that we all need to make a commitment to sustain that effort, then do so…
...if you want to argue thaqt aid organizations, NGOs,a nd governemhnts should “bank” some of the resources for future needw, then do so…
...but for God’s sake don’t make the fundamentally flawed argyument that people should “not give now” as a result of these issues…giving money is not the cause of the problem - inept planning and mangement are - allow / encourage the world to reposnd as it “feels the need” NOW -
...you need a re-education in basic logic before you make such inane arguments

»» Posted by: Martin Michael on January 28, 2010 02:40 PM

I agree with Martin.  It’s a catchy title for an article, but it ignores how aid works, which is largely influenced by the media and political pressures of the moment.  Whether at the individual or governmental level, we know that the idea of giving later never materializes.  The message should be: Give now, give generously and give to organizations that have a long-term commitment.

»» Posted by: Becky on January 28, 2010 02:52 PM

Read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” and see if you still think sending in the military and private security in advance of investors and exploitive employers will result in better outcomes for the Haitian people. More neoliberalism isn’t going to resolve the fundamental inequities of the situation which has deep roots in racism and colonialism.

»» Posted by: Harry on January 28, 2010 03:09 PM

The choice is not between aid now or aid later. The choice is between a short-term commitment to assistance or a deeper, sustained one for the long term.

The price for not getting medical assistance, food, sanitation and shelter into Haiti now is lost lives.

Disasters by their very nature sow confusion and disorder.  There will always be inefficiency and, yes, corruption, when societal systems are disrupted or destroyed and impromptu replacements called upon.  This is hardly an argument for placing efficiency ahead of human life. 

Apart from the moral repugnance of this equation, it is also rooted in the mistaken assumption that all humanitarian assistance in the immediate aftermath of disaster is equally “ineffective.”  This, of course, is not true.  Partners in Health, to give one example, which operates an extensive public health system in Haiti, was able to mobilize thousands of trained community health workers, in addition to doctors and nurses, from less affected parts of the country and to immediately begin delivering lifesaving care.

The millions of dollars raised by humanitarian groups in the immediate aftermath of disaster reflect the public’s clear minded understanding that every minute counts when people are without clean water, food, shelter, and emergency health care -  the fundamental necessities of life—and that extraordinary resources are required quickly. 

These charitable dollars will dry up over time, as they should, because people expect their governments to tackle longer term reconstruction and development challenges where it is needed most through effective - and efficient - development policies and programs.  Do our elected leaders fail in this respect? Sometimes. But that’s no reason for citizens to turn their backs on the urgent call for help when it comes. 

If our respective governments can keep their eye on the ball and collectively make this long term commitment (forgoing the temptation to embrace each new flavour-of-the-month or to leave the job to someone else) then Haiti has a chance. 

Hopefully the fact that so many have heard and responded to Haiti’s urgent call for help around the globe will embolden governments to do what is truly needed - they have our permission.

»» Posted by: lmulholland on January 28, 2010 03:10 PM

I certainly agree that it is very important to maintain concern and support for disasters such as this one in Haiti, but I add my vote to giving and encouarging donations to those organization that are on the ground now and that will be for the long haul.  Immediate response is the good side of human nature - don’t pass it by.  There is no reason to postpone that donation - providing you know the specifics about the orgnaization receiving your support.  My donation went to Catholic Relief Services - as it did during the Indonesian tsunami - pricesely because they are there.  In the instance of Haiti, they had 300 staff-volunteers there before and during the earthquake; that organization and others, including Partners in Hope, will allocate their resources over the long haul.

»» Posted by: Eleanor McGee on January 28, 2010 03:20 PM

p.s. Not even Fox News would have stooped to such a base and tasteless headline.  As for the article, a debate is only worthwhile when vigour is accompanied by an equal measure of rigour. This article had none.

Time for a good long look in the editorial mirror, SSIR…

»» Posted by: lmulholland on January 28, 2010 03:26 PM

It is unfortunate that the embargo on Cuba keeps information away from us as well. Cuba has been training young Haitian medical personnel in Cuba and has built a hospital and staffed with Cuban doctors who work next to Haitian doctors in Haiti. (The hospital was fortunately unharmed by the earthquake). This has been going on for years and the Cubans were already committed to long term support before the disaster. You can learn more at http://www.medicc.org. Contributions are US tax deductible and assist in the short-term while contributing to the strengthening of Haitian capacity in the long-term.

»» Posted by: Steve Viederman on January 28, 2010 03:28 PM

I agree with those above who suggest this article is bad advice that misunderstands human nature, hearts, and the workings of organizations.  This article also assumes a common “fixed pie” philosophy of philanthropy—that donors only have a fixed amount to give and can’t adjust that amount.  That’s totally wrong—people rarely give their last dime—or their last $5 million, for that matter, and can increase or adjust as needed. 

Most long-term, highly effective aid organizations, such as Red Cross, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic Charities, etc., that are making a difference in Haiti and other natural disasters are using money and supplies that were donated long before the disaster happened.  This money came from people whose hearts were touched from previous disasters.  Donors who give to these types of organizations are motivated to reconsider Haitians as part of the human family when they hear those stories, and should feel free to follow those feelings and give generously.

Effective, well-run organizations who are prepared well in advance to respond to disasters are not setup just to help with one particular disaster, and they understand the need to save and prepare for the future.  Donors can feel totally comfortable stretching their giving this year if their hearts are touched.  Then as a result of the good feelings they have from helping others this year, increase their giving in the future.

The key is to give to those long-term, well run organizations that understand how best to respond to natural disasters and have effective local contacts inside the country.

»» Posted by: Varden Hadfield on January 28, 2010 03:48 PM

Thanks for this great discussion!  So one of the intentions of my post is to encourage donors to have a long-term commitment and not spend all of your money now.  One scenario that would depress me next year is if when aid groups solicit donations - many people will say “oh, I gave already.”  Or worse - people will say “I gave, but Haiti’s still a mess, it’s hopeless,” and walk away. 

Part of our job in the nonprofit sector is to educate donors, and encourage them to give in a way that is most productive to the sector and encourages donor confidence in the sector. 

@Michael @Kevin @Becky.  You make great points that “Waiting a year or even quite a few years to make further donations to help Haiti might sound like great advice, but that is like the diet people plan to start next year… it usually doesn’t happen.”  and that there is no ” convenient, intuitive way for donors to ensure their money would be spread over a specified period of time (i.e. 1/3 each year over 3 years)”.

So, there are some ways… Donors can put money away in their donor advised fund.  More simply, donors could talk about it with their families and commit to donating this year, and 2011, and 2012 and 2013.  Or donors could give recurring donations. 

This is a great opportunity for nonprofits to solicit recurring donations since Haiti is a great example of the need for long-term and sustained support. 

Second point is about waiting until we know which nonprofits are effective on the ground which @Tsuda @Helen responded.  I’m guessing here - so please correct me if I’m wrong - even if you donated now, your money isn’t going to be used probably for a couple of months - most of the larger aid groups that have been successful raising money seem to have a large enough cushion now, and the unfortunate transport bottlenecks means that not that much aid can be delivered still.  This is a marathon, not a sprint.  As donors, we know what to expect in terms of “boom and bust” donor behavior.  Especially SSIR readers - you know what nonprofits need.  We should pace ourselves to prevent us from “donor fatigue” and hold back until we have better information about which nonprofit are actually having impact in Haiti before we clean out our wallets. 

If you feel compelled to give now, do it, but I hope it won’t prevent you from giving thoughtfully and generously in 2011, and 2012 and onwards. 

Perla

»» Posted by: Perla Ni on January 28, 2010 05:07 PM

Give to Haiti NOW when people are in dire need, and you are moved to do so.  Give to Haiti in the future, when you are asked to, and you understand the strategic importance.  Give.  Ask others to give.  Volunteer. 
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/alice-korngold/leading-companies-good-0

»» Posted by: Alice Korngold on January 28, 2010 07:55 PM

If you want a better example than Bosnia, look no further than ACEH, Indonesia, where a coordinated international rebuilding effort involving the UN, World Bank, US Aid and many private organizations was able to fairly effectively invest about $7 billion in the five years since the Tsunami.  The conditions are of course not identical.  Indonesia had a functioning government.  But a similar effort is being mounted with the recent initial intergovernment meetings on the subject in Montreal.

»» Posted by: Richard Gregory on January 28, 2010 08:39 PM

Several Non Profit organization like “Fondation de France” are focusing on rebuilding. They collect money when people get strong emotion and they finance long term projects for rebuilding.
Haiti earthquake is a major disaster but there are a lot of other less “popular” disasters which also need fundings. I do not care about where my donation goes. Is it for Haiti ? Is it used now ? I know I do a little for people who need it. I feel confident with several Non Profit Org. However, I do not give on a frequent basis.
Here, I had a strong emotion. I felt I could do something. I felt I had to do something.
Non Profit Org need to deal with human being and the current values of this society. So, give now !

»» Posted by: Jean-Yves on January 28, 2010 10:40 PM

Many aid organizations have been involved in Haiti for decades, some since 1954.  And yet they have accomplished very little. 
Some have even done harm.  Once the immediate suffering has been alleviated, it would be useful for all donors and aid groups, NPO’s, NGO’s, governments, and intergovernmental organizations, to meet, discuss, evaluate and inventory what has been done in the past, what has worked, what hasn’t, what the unique contribution of each is, and plan out the future, with the full participation and involvement of the Haitian people.  This effort should be free of politics and preconceptions.  Simply providing more of the same is just going to lead to similar tragic results.  Science as well as the humanities should be involved.  For example, the earthquake fault that ruptured was well-known.  Future efforts should focus on resiliency, poverty alleviation, and self-sufficiency.  It may be that Haiti as a place simply won’t support the population it now has, and it may be that the concept of the nation-state, with firm, impermeable borders, doesn’t work there and in other places, like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.  Being open-minded means, for example, that entities like the US have to recognize the positive contribution of Cuba, and the possibly negative contribution of local culture and religion in Haiti, which may not be conducive to positive change as we envision it.

»» Posted by: Marc Brenman on January 29, 2010 01:42 AM

Not surprised to read your contrarian view; which is consistent with your publication. Your opinion provides a convenient “out” for people considering a financial gift in response to such utter devastation. And yes, a long-term commitment is necessary but your call to immediate inaction is neither compassionate nor “gutsy” as author Mal Warwick writes.

»» Posted by: Bob Uerz, CFRE on January 29, 2010 07:12 AM

In Bosnia, real coordination between development assistance players, that is, strategic, collaborative, effective efforts, emerged out of necessity. it emerged when the money started to dry up. While flush with cash, the incentive to cooperate, coordinate or collaborate just doesnt exist, in fact, in the immediate humanitarian crisis, those long term strategic efforts can actually take time and resources away from short term emergency response.

However, parallel to that evolving coordination timeline, the nature of the crisis changed, from an immediate acute problem to a long term chronic problem. Once we conceptually separate the crisis from the nation building,  i think we can expect and even tolerate a bit more waste in the overwhelming initial humantiarian efforts, than anyone would or should in longer term rebuilding efforts…

»» Posted by: eric martin on January 29, 2010 10:30 AM

How about instead asking the organizations involved to set aside money for rebuilding?  I’m concerned that some organizations will say, “We only respond to emergencies, we don’t rebuild things and make them better.”

»» Posted by: Katherine Wertheim, CFRE on January 29, 2010 12:21 PM

I disagree on several points:
First, if we did set aside money for later and did not communicate the intent right now, NGOs will likely plan and coordinate less effectively. Would you plan a major, sustained effort (or plan it as ambitiously) if you had no reason to expect the funding? No, because you don’t know the funding even exists.
My second ... See Moredisagreement is more about this post and SSIR: “Don’t Give Money to Haiti Now” is not the same as “give more later,” “guarantee sustained funding,” or even “consider recurring donations.” It implies almost the exact opposite. I’m not going to guess the motives for choosing this headline, but it fails as journalism or even good written communication. For a magazine, that’s a pretty basic responsibility.
Finally, there are organizations (particularly Partners in Health, to which I have donated in the past, but am not otherwise affiliated) that have demonstrated accomplishments in Haiti over decades. Do I need to sit on my hands and wait for their next report? Nonsense.

»» Posted by: Andy, Generated from Facebook.com by SSIR on January 29, 2010 01:58 PM

I would have to disagree with this advise. The media will eventually taper off on covering the situation in Haiti. I believe that people who want to act, want to donate on impulse, who have been moved by the images they see - SHOULD donate before they forget or never get around to it. The point here, though, is to support an organization with long-term plans (and short-term ones, if that is actually what the donor prefers). Some organizations who are thinking 5 years ahead (and beyond) include CARE, Architecture for Humanity, and Save the Children.

»» Posted by: hangawi on January 31, 2010 04:42 AM

It is highly unlikely that anyone logging onto this site will be so naive as to donate to an organization that will ‘squander’ the funds.  Any of the major organizations that have been listed time and time again have years of experience dealing with disasters of similar magnitudes.  Not that Haiti isn’t one of the hardest or that there won’t be mistakes made.  Choose one now; next month, look at their website to see what they’ve been doing and ask that organization, (or another): ‘How long do you anticipate you’ll need to spend Haiti donations effectively?’  Years, not months; many millions of dollars, not less.  Ask what their priorities are in the near, mid and long-term if these are not clearly outlined or defined.  I’ve worked/am working for three of my choices:  Save the Children, CARE and Episcopal Relief & Development.

What is naive is to think that potential donors will wait six months to find the most effective organization working in Haiti and donate anything but a tiny fraction of what they would have donated within the first several weeks.  If these donors exist, bless them.

»» Posted by: Richard Hoff on February 1, 2010 02:48 PM

It seems that the mainstream media needs to be educated.  Last week there was more than one newscast dealing with “How were your Haitian relief dollars used?”  In most cases only a portion of the relief aid dollars given to non-profits and NGOs had been expended in Haiti.  Part of the reason given related to the logistical problems, of course.  However, several non-profits did a decent job explaining that they deliberately set aside part of the donated funds to engage in long-term rebuilding efforts.  Yet I got the sense from the media approach to the story that the tenor/overtone of the newscasts that when the journalists “followed the money” to try to get at a story they were expecting to find a scandal or at least a “problem” that not all the funds had gotten to Haiti for immediate relief of suffering and provision of humanitarian aid.  While I don’t particularly like the headline to the SSIR article, at least the readers have engaged in a more reasoned discussion about what to expect, what is needed, as well as when and how to give in response to natural disasters.  How could we get this kind of a discussion covered more often in the media so that those who give early are encouraged, not disappointed, if part of their funds are set aside for long-term relief and rebuilding?

»» Posted by: Stephen C. Maack on February 19, 2010 11:47 AM

This seems well-intentioned but wrong-headed, for three reasons:

1.  You assume causality where we can at best—best, and I would question even this—find correlation.  You assume that a lack of long-term donor interest is because there is an overabundance of short-term donor interest.  We don’t know that.  You further assume that overabundant short-term donor interest shorts out long-term commitment.  We don’t know that, either.

2.  By withholding donations, you make it impossible for organizations like the ICRC, MSF or PIH (or any others) to plan, financially and logistically.  I would think an organization is better able to plan to use my $100 in February 2011 if it knows in February 2010 that it has my $100.  If I give it my $100 in January 2011 with the hopes it will use it February or March, I (and the thousands of others withholding like me) may have missed a window.
3.  The international community has come a long way from the problems that plagued the Balkans in the early 1990s.  Granted, there are still problems in delivering aid, but they aren’t the same problems that they were in 1993.  You need, at the very least, a more contemporary example.

»» Posted by: jina on February 24, 2010 11:50 AM