To give or not to give? That's the question preoccupying charity watchdogs, media commentators and ordinary, compassionate people as they learn more and more about the scale of destruction in Japan. Unlike most disasters, this one unfolded in stages, a development that mixed the messages right from the beginning.
First we heard that a high standard of construction mitigated the impact of the mammoth earthquake, infrastructure was largely intact and Japanese resources were more than sufficient to deal with the limited casualties.
Then, just as the scale of destruction became clearer, a tsunami multiplied its effects. Now a techno-environmental crisis has the entire country worrying about the spread and intensity of radiation. It's clear that tens of thousands of people have died and millions are displaced (many for the long term).
As Mark Blumberg wrote to The Globe and Mail on March 18, "the Japanese government is not capable (nor could any government be capable) of handling this disaster."
Watchdog hedges on giving to Japan
Blumberg commented in response to the paper's article by Paul Waldie featuring the views of GiveWell, a US nonprofit founded by hedge fund managers to evaluate charities. Its spokesman took particular exception to the practice of "putting it in the fine print that [the money] might not go there," a transparent disclosure that has become a best practice in our sector.
The Humanitarian Coalition issued a press release affirming that every dollar given to its appeal for Japan would go to that country. But a more telling point was buried near the end. "Public debate also provides the opportunity to discuss what happens when emergencies don't generate media interest, the situations that make up the core work of CARE Canada, Oxfam Canada, Oxfam-Québec and Save the Children Canada."
Unrestricted giving would be more helpful, of course. But most donors favour specifics. Paul Waldie himself writes a weekly profile of a philanthropist. In every instance, those donors have either supported a specific project within an established charity, or started their own charity to accomplish specific work in a restricted area.
Rewriting our stories
And that's the crucial point in all of this debate. Give people a choice between a gift that immediately provides clean water in a disaster, and a gift that will be held to provide clean water in the next disaster months or years from now, and they will choose the former option nearly all the time. We know that - it's why we focus so intently on stories of "the difference your gift will make right now."
It's time to ask whether fundraisers and our organizations are partially responsible for fuelling the spiral of restricted giving, with all its unintended effects. Can we turn our storytelling skills towards the importance of being prepared for the next emergency? Can we make a convincing case for the flexibility that unrestricted donations would create for a charity with proven expertise and sound financial management? Do our leaders have the courage to attempt such a strategy?
Let's hope that the movement towards more and more disclosure, impact measurement and transparency will serve us well here. It may be that as charities find vivid ways to demonstrate their fiscal prudence and transformative work, more donors will find them worthy of unrestricted gifts.
But it won't happen unless we start telling a different kind of story.
Send Letters to the Editor; follow Janet on Twitter.
