As Hurricane Gustav approached this weekend, the president and both would-be presidents engaged in a bit of fund raising, mostly for the American Red Cross (ARC). Barack Obama directly asked all those in his fund raising network to send funds to the ARC; John McCain made mention of the ARC in his remarks and the RNC made a direct plea for delegates at the convention to make a donation; and President Bush asked for support for both the ARC and the Salvation Army.
Does it strike anyone else as odd that our political leaders now style themselves as philanthropic advisers when disaster hits?
(1) Instead of telling me where to make my charitable contributions, I would have hoped to hear more about what we can expect from the government’s response. FEMA still does not have a thoroughly vetted strategy for housing after an emergency (and why FEMA was ultimately given this responsibility rather than HUD still mystifies me). I’m also unclear as to how FEMA has increased their capacity to coordinate all the local nonprofits that might respond, a role to which they agreed after both the agency and the ARC said it was the other’s responsibility during Katrina - so neither did it.
OK, perhaps these are too technical for a general audience. But I also haven’t heard any present or future president articulate a vision for government’s role in disaster response. President Bush, in his remarks, noted that it’s the job of the federal government to assist the states. To what level? What will public funds - both state and federal - pay for?
Are citizens expecting one thing and the government set up to deliver another? My sense is that there is a mismatch between what the Stafford Act offers (that’s the law that gives structure to FEMA and disaster funds), and what disaster survivors - and perhaps even the unaffected general public - expect. To hear about the role of our government after disaster and how legal structures, public budgets, and leading agencies will successfully meet those obligations - that’s what I expect from political leaders.
(2) I expect a charitable adviser to have done some vetting. I’m making an assumption here, but my guess is that there was not a great deal of analysis or comparison of the ARC and other responding organizations done by the administration or either campaign.
Even if there was, it’s a poor use of the bully pulpit. The American Red Cross is one of the most recognizable brands in the sector (though technically it’s not a nonprofit, but a government-chartered institution). The Salvation Army regularly ranks among the top three of nonprofits receiving the most revenue annually. People don’t need a great deal of direction for them to come to mind.
Immediate response to a disaster is inherently local. Grassroots organizations have significant trouble accessing the funds they need, since they don’t have a national profile. Local foundations like the Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation* (which was formed after hurricane Katrina to support relief efforts), the Greater New Orleans Foundation, the Baton Rouge Area Foundation, and the Community Foundation of Acadiana (which covers southwest Louisiana) all created Gustav funds and know how to identify local groups doing excellent work. It would not have taken much to find and mention such organizations in addition to the ARC and other national organizations.
Maybe each made his plea on behalf of the ARC because its current financial position is precarious and they want to keep it healthy. The organization does play a role in the National Response Plan, after all. But any donor will tell you: that’s usually the wrong reason to ask for her money.
In a report for the Aspen Institute about the nonprofit response to Katrina, I recommended mandating that the American Red Cross give 5% of its disaster fund raising to local funders after an exceptional catastrophe. With the American Red Cross such a strong and recognizable brand, I didn’t think it wise to try to create a national fund (with all the risk and start-up costs) that would support grassroots organizations on the local level. But if would-be presidents are going to give their personal imprimatur, perhaps a private national fund that distributes funds on a competitive basis to the American Red Cross AND local groups - i.e., to whichever organizations are doing the best work - is the next great innovation.
Let’s keep in mind: Private, voluntary action is both necessary and welcome after emergencies hit, but it is not sufficient nor fully capable of doing all that’s needed.** Rather than try to score political points and look caring by asking people to donate time and money, I call on President Bush and Senators Obama and McCain to make clear what government will do. And then make it work.
* Disclaimer: I am a founder of the Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation and continue to provide strategic advice to the foundation.
**In all the media frenzy over Gustav, they missed a huge opportunity to highlight the incomplete nature of the recovery from Katrina. Local folks, faith-based groups, and nonprofits have done heroic things in the past three years - yet all of it amounts to a small percentage of what’s needed. This recent report by Oxfam does an excellent job of laying that out.
Tags: American Red Cross, Aspen Institute, Barack Obama, Baton Rouge Area Foundation, Community Foundation of Arcadiana, FEMA, Greater New Orleans Foundation, Hurricane Gustav, John McCain, Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation, Oxfam America, President George W. Bush, Salvation Army
[...] Humanitarian and International Development NGOs » Gustav: Fund Raising and Politics Tactical Philanthropy reader Tony Pipa, founder of the Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation, joins the chorus of people bothered by the Obama/Bush/McCain message for people to give to the Red Cross. (tags: philanthropy) This entry was written by admin and posted on September 4, 2008 at 10:47 am. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment. [...]
Tony: Good posting. But it raises bigger issues than simply the candidates’ understanding of disaster relief and the roles of local nonprofits versus the ARC and others. It raises a question, which you know I’ve written about in the Chronicle of Philanthropy and elsewhere, concerning how seriously the candidates think about the nonprofit sector, how much they know or in some cases care to know. The platforms of both candidates on nonprofits are pretty weak–McCain’s actually nonexistent, Obama’s focused on community service and social enterprise. Their “give to the ARC” messages are of a piece that suggests that this time around, the nonprofit sector isn’t getting much serious thought from the political camps. To some extent, we’ve brought it a bit on ourselves, with the past year’s emphasis on getting candidates to mouth “I (heart) nonprofits” while on the stump. We can do better, and if we do better, we might compel the candidates to do so as well.
Rick, I agree. As you’ve said in the Chronicle of Philanthropy (http://philanthropy.com/premium/articles/v20/i19/19003702.htm), both candidates have strong ties to the nonprofit sector. But as you point out, neither has laid out a comprehensive vision for exploring the relationship between government and the nonprofit sector and seeking ways to improve the sector’s accountability and develop ways to ensure we’re making best use of its strengths. For example, one of the strengths of the local sector in terms of disaster response is its local knowledge and the amount of trust placed in it by affected residents, but we almost wholly ignore that in the way plans are designed. I was involved in the recent publication by the Aspen Institute that called for the creation of a national commission to study this and develop recommendations. What do you think of that idea? http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.612023/k.22C4/The_Nonprofit_Sector_and_Philanthropy_Program.htm
I read your point in that Aspen NSPP publication when it first came out, and i think you’re raising valid issues–that the candidates’ default “give to the ARC” messages underscore. My concern is that our sector’s recent experience with national commissions has left me a little cold. Increasingly, we see the large nonprofits waving the small/local nonprofits’ flag, but only as cover to make sure that they continue to be protected and cushioned by both federal policy and nonprofit sector norms. A solid commission investigation that works quickly, avoids the disingenuous positioning of past/recent efforts, gets informed by grassroots experience, and generates tough standards rather than fluffy bromides, that would be great. But your excellent recommendation (item #7 in that 10-point “Mobilizing Change” report from Aspen) in some ways underscores the point–there was a good measure of nonprofit sector fluff in some of the other points, some of which sounding quite like the candidates’ nonprofit platitudes. The sector needs serious attention like the kind of work you’ve done in your analyses of what happened around Hurricane Katrina. Is the sector up for that kind of tough self-scrutiny? I don’t know.
Great points, Tony - thanks for putting this out there.
Rick, as a student of human security, I am interested in hearing your suggestions on what exactly you think the candidates should be doing or what would be your advice to polititians or the government with respect to how they think about humanitarianism
Perpetual questions–what is the role of government? What is the role of the non-profit sector? What is the role of for-profit and non-profit partnership?
You make a good point in saying that small grassroots organizations are often uniquely poised to address the needs of a community. Not only are they “on the ground,” but they are also typically staffed by people from the community itself. It’s unfortunate that organizations which could potentially have the greatest impact have the most difficult time leveraging funds.