|
Why are we fundraising for the rich and not the poor?
26 Oct 2001
|
 PREVIOUS | NEXT 
A donor waits five hours to give blood in Washington.
Photo by WILLIAM PHILPOTT
AlertNet contributor Nick Cater writes about disasters, development, the environment, crisis and conflict. He has carried out assignments for commercial and non-profit clients, from Bob Geldof to the World Bank. Here he explains why he believes the huge amount of money raised for victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September is misguided.Fundraising for US terror attack victims is reported to have now reached around $1 billion, a level of compassion and generosity that is astonishing, indeed awe-inspiring - and ultimately misguided.This scale of giving is not about victims’ needs, which no one assessed before donations began. Instead, it meets donors’ emotional needs, fearful and angry about forces they cannot understand, grateful or guilty for survival and eager for absolution. Thus six-hour queues to give blood when no extra blood was needed, or volunteers eager to clear rubble left fuming when turned away by professionals.Helplessness and a wish to do something, anything, are hardly ignoble motives, and few bonanza-counting U.S. fundraisers will have asked why people gave. But as their international colleagues try to generate money for independent action to help millions of Afghans at risk of hunger, disease and displacement, charity actions deserve scrutiny.No new appeal funds were required for the U.S. tragedies, since existing charities or public institutions already covered every need. Yet dozens of new funds or charities have - as usual in disasters - leapt into life, while the shift in giving has left many other causes facing tough times as recession deepens and needs rise in America and around the world.There was never any doubt that U.S. resources alone could meet the needs, without international fundraising, yet kids the world over have washed cars or sold lemonade for a cause that requires their pennies far less than local charities, and even well-informed and high profile institutions which should know better -- the Japanese Red Cross for one -- have donated cash.Earmarking funds or specific new appeals mean that vast amounts will have to be spent within New York, or for those immediately affected by this disaster, even if tomorrow a worse event occurs or a greater need is discovered. Oklahoma City proved that funds should not be earmarked, but that lesson -- as so often in disasters -- has been unlearned, hampering future response and preventing the best levels of preparedness.Even in a rich city in a rich country, the families of some victims will need significant help, especially migrants, those on welfare rolls and orphans. But for almost all of the families who lost relatives, there will be a mix of U.S. federal funds, local government compensation, company provision, private insurance and pensions available to meet all or some of their needs, before charity funds ever have to be touched. Emergency staff, such as firefighters -- whose sacrifice brought a welcome recognition of the value of public service -- had safety nets. It is reported that bereaved families receive $25,000 from the mayor's office, $150,000 from the Justice Department, and a tax-free lifetime pension equal to the firefighter's salary. It doesn’t bring them back, but no money can do that.With many physical and financial needs already met, where will hundreds of millions of dollars go? As now common in Western disasters, emotional needs will find a flood of counsellors and psychiatrists, as well as support lines for those traumatised by endlessly watching the television that wallowed in horror. To significant administrative costs, some can add large bills for fundraising. Beyond that, defensive charity spokespeople offer few answers, as rows begin over how to coordinate the efforts of 200 charities.Fundraising is still continuing -- TV plugs, Internet ads, charity concerts and tin rattling -- as some agencies refuse to leave any barrel unscraped, even though few could justify spending more on U.S. needs while a far bigger disaster threatens in and around Afghanistan, where larger numbers are likely to die than were killed in the United States.In the past, it was possible to claim ignorance of greater need elsewhere, or say the most vulnerable could not be reached, or believe that a single charity could not balance a world of demands. For agencies such as the American Red Cross -- which has taken $450 million, the biggest slice of the fundraising pie, yet had to book full page newspaper adverts to appeal for the needy to come forward -- no such defences are possible.Is there a problem here about leadership and political will within usually cash-hungry non-profits? Could no one keep their head amid the lure of so much money, explain why it should not be earmarked, close appeals when sufficient had been raised, replace competition with cooperation when for once there was enough for every charity, and urge donors to give to equally worthy causes, such as the needs of those whose lives could yet be saved? And while supposedly neutral, impartial and independent agencies wave the stars and stripes over a cause close to home and talk of the support they will offer those in their great nation’s armed forces, it is left to governments to fund the Afghanistan appeal and direct aid agency operations to enhance their political and military aims.Nick Cater can be contacted at cateralert@hotmail.com(c) Nick Cater/Words & Pictures 2001
|
|
|
