Brazen careerist
Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow
Email
Print
Man, I hate natural disasters.
It’s not just because they give me that feeling of powerless and impotence against the forces of nature. It’s not because of a sense of fatalism about the downfall of human society as mother Earth strikes back at us for our transgressions. And it has nothing to do with how I feel about the loss of human life.
No, the real reason that I hate natural disasters is because of all of the charities.
I’ve mentioned before that the best way to help out a charity is to volunteer, but when disaster strikes in another country (or even in our own), volunteering is a less plausible option, so making a donation seems like a plausible idea. The problem is, making a donation is not as easy as it seems.
When people donated medicine for tsunami relief in Asia a few years ago, most of the donations (from individuals and organizations alike) sat unused. And yet there was about 4 pounds of medicine for every affected person. Why? Because the labels were in languages that the locals couldn’t understand, and there wasn’t a solid infrastructure to handle the distribution of medicine.
Food and clothing donations can often sit in warehouses and never arrive at their intended destinations. Or in some cases, aid packages are seized by militant groups and are hoarded away from the people who need them.
But there are two offenders that stand above the rest: social networks and the Red Cross.
CNN recently ran an article about the outpouring of support for Haitian earthquake victims over the Internet. But the story doesn’t really ring true. I ran a quick check of Facebook groups with the words “Help Haiti” in them, and came up with over 570 results. Yet most of the groups are like this one, where someone pledges X number of dollars (or cents) will be donated for every person who joins the group, then leaves the group, so no donations occur. The self-congratulatory feeling of joining a group means that one doesn’t feel the need to actually donate (since someone else is doing it while people join), leading to less money going to the victims who desperately need it. And most of these groups will never mention how or when or to whom the donation is going.
But the Red Cross is far, far worse.
I’d rather gloss over the 570,000 Google results for the search “Red Cross corruption”, the controversial and poor execution of aid that the group provides (noted here and here on its own Wikipedia page), the Ripoff Report comments, and the ridiculous salaries paid to its top executives. The LA times and this blog explained a lot of that already.
And if you’re thinking of using the Charity Navigator figures to tell me I’m wrong, consider that the Red Cross is reimbursed by the government for most of its costs and that it relies on a volunteer workforce. Who it charges to help.
Years ago, my dad was a volunteer helping to fight forest fires in Arizona. Many local businesses donated food, water and supplies for the volunteers, but the Red Cross charged volunteers for stale, weak coffee in small styrofoam cups and hastily-made peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. So even though hardware stores and McDonald’s franchisees were donating to help the volunteers, the Red Cross made people who came to help for free pay for food. So where does the money go?
If you must give to the Red Cross, donate blood. That’s one area where they might follow through on their charitable promises. But if you want to donate funds to help people, do some research first. Or else you’ll be doing more harm than good.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles,
subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
- The Anti-Stalker’s Guide for Converting Online Contact into Real World Collaboration
- How To Find a Writing Partner Who Can Help You Achieve Your Goals and Make More Money
- A New Kind of Business Mover and Shaker
- Why You Might Be Better Off Without a Job After College
- Continuing Education: Extending Learning Beyond Your Campus Years
Comments
01.18.10
This is so so true.
I was equally frustrated by the results of the Tsunami effort, but what really spun me off were those stupid Facebook groups, where the admin just left. What a waste.
I wanted to give money, but I knew my own personal donations would only be a drop in the bucket, and I needed something that would spread.
I actually have quite a number of friends who are FROM Haiti, so I called them up and got reviews of some of the organizations. We finally settled on one that they recommended, an organization that's been working with Haitians and doing good work down their for the past 20 years.
I got an idea for a (environmentally conscious) water bottle. Each time someone donates, they get a bottle, and because the address is printed on the bottle, the message spreads to other people. And a full 100% of the proceeds go to the organization in Haiti.
If you're interested, it's at http://zerflin.com/aid
01.18.10
these guys believe in your "don't donate, volunteer" idea, so they went to haiti. now they need people to donate to keep it going. http://badgerjake.blogspot.com/
01.19.10
@Nathan: I saw those guys too. I admire their tenacity, and we really do need people like that, but I was disappointed to see how unprepared they were.
They went down without a serious infrastructure.
The tragedy their mission has turned into is summed up in the quote from their leader: "I'm used to seeing fresh wounds, not old wounds. I'm used to having enough equipment for my team. I'm pissed off at myself for only having, for instance, one pair of scissors. I'm pissed off at myself for not packing for a team."
They haven't even been able to successfully contact their host organization.
Volunteers need to remember that when they go to a disaster area, they also have to find a place to stay, food to eat, water to drink... in addition to all their other needs. This takes away from the resources available to the actual victims.
Help for disasters have always needed two sides. People to physically do the work, and those who fund them from home. The people on the ground need to be sacrificial, dedication, familiar with the area, or the disaster, or both. The people back home need to be generous, understanding, and open to quick plan changes from the ground team.
But without one or the other, they're both doomed.
01.19.10
Thanks for the comments, guys!
Benjamin - I really like your product. Anything where there is tangible proof of involvement stands a better chance of getting more donations through. And on your second point, I agree completely about the two-sided help. It's definitely one of the more crucial and overlooked aspects of charity work.
Nathan - I wasn't aware of this group, but from what you and Benjamin have mentioned, they look like some people to watch, both for their desire for involvement and the lessons about volunteering (good and bad) that they will teach us.
Got Something To Say?
Got Something To Say?
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.
Login to view your networks!
 |
|
|
|
 |
