Doing the Most Good
In the wake of tragedy, such as an unforeseen natural disaster, witnessing scenes of devastated city blocks, crumbled infrastructure, and grieving families can quickly leave us feeling helpless. The natural first reaction is to want to do anything we can to ease the pain and suffering of those affected. Most of the time rebuilding and comforting in person is simply unfeasible, so we must do the next best thing—make a monetary donation.
But how can we be sure that the money we give will actually help those in need? Giving to a reputable organization, such as the Red Cross, would seem like the easiest way to put your money in the right hands. After my Twitter feed was inundated this weekend with the familiar “donate $10 to the Red Cross” tweets, however, I was reminded me of a blog post Felix Salmon wrote shortly after the earthquake in Haiti.
The post is entitled “Don’t Give Money to Haiti,” but don’t let that rile you up before reading. The headline was clearly designed to draw the most clicks and attention because the article, though unconventional, is far less controversial. Salmon spends some of the post discussing the merits of various charitable organizations, such as Yele Haiti and Doctors Without Borders, but his most significant point is related to earmarking donations.
Salmon quotes a message on the Web site for Doctors Without Borders which asks that donors either “give unrestricted funding, or [give] to our Emergency Relief Fund.” When you earmark your donation for a certain cause, the organization is obligated to use it only for that cause. When a large-scale disaster like a tsunami, hurricane, or earthquake occurs, donations come flooding into charitable organizations. This is, of course, fantastic. The Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders are constantly in need of additional funding. The problem is that these surges in donations are often marked for use only for one group of people or one disaster.
A major disaster certainly means that citizens of the area affected will need additional attention and assistance, but it should not overshadow other people whose needs are less publicized but no less desperate. Salmon reports that even now, five years after the Asian Tsunami, the Red Cross has spent only 83 percent of the money earmarked for the tsunami relief. As he points out, “that’s money which could be spent in Haiti, if it weren’t for the fact that it was earmarked.”
Though this enlightening post is now over a month old, it is no less important or relevant, especially after the events of this weekend. Don’t be distracted by the controversy-grubbing headline—do give money to help citizens of Chile and Haiti. Just don’t earmark your donations. Give to reputable organizations like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders and trust them to do what they think is best with the money. In this way you can be sure that your money will be used immediately to ease the greatest need, whether it’s in Haiti, Chile, or somewhere else entirely. —Shea Connelly
