In late August 2005, a tropical storm formed over the Bahamas with strong but not severe winds of 40 miles per hour. The storm gathered more energy, licking up warm water off the Florida coast, before hitting land and causing flooding in Dade County.
By then the storm had reached hurricane strength, meaning winds eclipsed 74 miles per hour. Still, a Category 1 hurricane was nothing new to Florida and the surrounding region, where tropical storms are frequent, and no major concern was noted. Meteorologists watched as the storm appeared to weaken, stalling in the Gulf of Mexico under a large high-pressure zone.
But then, suddenly, on August 29, six days after it had begun, Hurricane Katrina raged into a massive Category 5 storm—the most severe type there is—and tore straight for the Louisiana-Mississippi border. It slammed into Gulfport and Biloxi and then famously bore down on New Orleans.
One million people were displaced because of Katrina. The storm caused $125 billion worth of damage, the most ever recorded by a single storm—almost double the $65 billion in destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy, which pummeled the Northeast seven years later.
About $1 billion was raised for Katrina relief. The lion’s share went to the American Red Cross, which didn’t sit well with other relief agencies. They questioned where all the money went. In a September 25, 2005, editorial in the Los Angeles Times, Richard M. Walden, president and CEO of Operation USA, a 26-year-old international disaster relief agency, asked where all the privately collected money would go and “how much Red Cross is billing FEMA.”
The aid organization has had its operations questioned previously. After 9/11, it was learned that The American Red Cross’s Liberty Fund spent only 30% of the $547 million it raised directly on victims; the rest was used for services such as increasing blood supplies and dispersed to other parts of the country. The lack of donation clarity prompted congressional hearings and a New York State Attorney General’s Office investigation into the distribution of donor funds.
It’s from questions, concerns and queries such as these that the Center for Disaster Philanthropy (CDP) was born.
CDP’s mission is to transform disaster giving. The Washington, D.C.-based organization says it can provide timely and thoughtful strategies to increase donors’ impact during domestic and international disasters. By conducting due diligence, CDP says it allows donors to give with more confidence. It creates bespoke giving plans for individuals, corporations and foundations.
The organization is also trying to drive home the message that disaster philanthropy needs to extend beyond writing out a check immediately after the storm has hit.
The CDP says it is trying to lay the groundwork for the type of disaster philanthropy that supports victims over the long term. Too often, CDP officials say, disaster philanthropy is much like the disaster event itself—donations come in like the wind and then all is silent once the initial commotion is over.
“Our response to disaster planning in this country is very reactionary,” says Bob Ottenhoff, chief executive of the CDP. “What’s always impressive is how generous Americans are, but what we tend to do is to react to reports about a disaster, particularly if the disaster gets a lot of news coverage and was on television for several days. Americans have this amazing outpouring of generosity, but then we quickly forget about the disaster.”
Indeed, Ottenhoff says CDP data show that about 90% of all donations to disaster philanthropy are given within 90 days of the event. “Once media attention goes away, our donations peter off very, very quickly. In a sense, institutional donors aren’t that much different from high-net-worth individuals, or the person who’s texting $10. All of them tend to be very reactionary or ad hoc,” Ottenhoff says.
In a typical disaster, he says, there is an outpouring of support from philanthropists. As time goes on and the memories and media exposure of the initial event fades, so does the support. “Just kind of out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude develops,” says Ottenhoff.
“What we want to try to do at the Center for Disaster Philanthropy is to get people to be more intent with their disaster philanthropy and to focus on the full life cycle of disasters,” Ottenhoff says. “One of the lessons we learned from Katrina is mental health issues really don’t begin to surface until a year or two years after the disasters. People who no longer are working on adrenaline, but realize that their loved ones may be gone. Their house may be destroyed. Their community may have been washed away, etc. Getting people to be more intentional and think about the whole life cycle of disasters is a big part of our focus right now.”
The need for more strategic planning in times of disaster may only increase if current trends persist.
As natural disasters that once occurred every 100 years now begin to happen every three years, according to MIT and Princeton University researchers, not to mention the man-made tragedies that have proliferated, you can count on more relief funds and efforts being sought. In fact, tragedies have become so frequent that the federal government has declared September as National Preparedness Month and has enlisted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to create awareness and education tools and campaigns to keep the public safe in times of emergency.
Last year alone, we saw some of the worst natural disasters in history, from Typhoon Haiyan, which nearly destroyed parts of the Philippines, to 7.7 magnitude earthquakes in Pakistan, to epic floods in northern India, to record-breaking tornadoes in Oklahoma. (Every single one of these events is listed on relief.org’s Web site with a hyperlink and a call to action to donate.)
To date this year, unusual dual hurricanes hit Hawaii, deadly mudslides hit the Pacific Northwest, mega droughts and wildfires hit California and the Southwest, record floods hit the Midwest, cold spells hit Chicago, making the city more bitter than the South Pole, and severe blizzards hit the Northeast. Fifty-six major disasters had been declared this year around the world as of September.
Moreover, there are very few foundations or corporations that see disaster philanthropy as part of their mission. The Hilton Foundation is one of the few. Whereas the Foundation Center lists 373 foundations that made grants in 2013 of $10,000 or more, those with regular, ongoing programs are few and far between, with just a few scattered across the U.S., according to foundation executives.
The Hilton Foundation, based in Agoura Hills, Calif., devotes part of its mission to emergency relief efforts, with a focus on the provision of water, sanitation and hygiene services for disaster victims. The foundation addresses the often-neglected medium- and long-term recovery needs of communities impacted by a disaster, as well as supporting preparedness initiatives.
Since 1989, the Hilton Foundation has awarded $23 million to support relief, recovery and preparedness programs for international and domestic disasters. For example, it donated $500,000 through two organizations—Mercy Corps and Catholic Relief Services—to help stop the 2012 Sahel food crisis, which put about 15 million people, including over 1 million children, at risk of malnutrition. The foundation also responded with dollars and support to victims of tropical storms that devastated the Philippines, droughts plaguing the Horn of Africa, earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan and floods in Pakistan, among many other tragic events. Because disaster relief is part of its regular grant-making activities, it plans ahead for such funding.
It’s a thoughtful strategy that uses impact-investing tools to further assist relief efforts. “While we have consistently favored grant-making as a primary means of impact, the foundation has explored the benefits of other means for helping people and communities in crisis—including making loans for disaster assistance and for micro-enterprise development following disaster,” Steven Hilton said in a guide the foundation developed called Philanthropic Grantmaking for Disasters.
Because disaster philanthropy is a growing program area, foundations such as the Hilton Foundation are self-examining ways they can do better. Its guide is subtitled, “lessons learned.”
Hilton also supports the CDP and its mission. To be sure, other foundations are seeing the value in formulating sustainable processes. But they are still the minority.
Before the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, “there was very little in the way of philanthropy to improve response to disasters,” says Irwin Redlener, one of the foremost authorities on disaster relief and head of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “After 9/11, everything changed … in awareness, prevalence and severity of disasters … even though the public is not more prepared. But there is talk now, and that has taken effect in the philanthropic community.”
Redlener echoes Ottenhoff’s comments with regard to Americans being reactive rather than being proactive. This extends to philanthropic organizations, too, he says.
“The majority of philanthropy has been in the aftermath and usually is confined to the larger players such as Red Cross or Salvation Army. But little attention has been given as to how to respond better,” Redlener says.
This, he says, has been a difficult sell even though the resources are there to be had. Walmart, UPS and FedEx, for example, are experts when it comes to logistics. This knowledge could be conveyed and utilized to assist during disasters. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants have expertise in health care that could save lives in times of emergency. And larger philanthropic organizations could put more focus on getting dollars, services and supplies into the right hands at the right time. But little has been done in this regard. Moreover, strategic information and studies are needed to better equip organizations. Dollars have not flowed to Redlener’s group nor, in any real sums, to others in order to investigate problems and solutions. (Redlener is also president and co-founder, with the musician Paul Simon, of the Children’s Health Fund.)
An example of where research is needed is how to manage the physically impaired during an emergency. One in five Americans is disabled. Add to that children and the elderly and that equates to 50% of the U.S. population that is in need of extra assistance during a disaster. “Very little is known as to how to make these individuals safe. It’s information like that that can only be generated by well-organized studies,” Redlener says.
Ottenhoff agreed, saying, “I keep coming back to the spot that it’s the vulnerable populations, those who are already vulnerable before disaster hits, who are hurt the most when there’s a disaster. That’s one of the reasons why I think there is growing interest in the subject of resilience. Resilience is the ability to bounce back.”
According to research from numerous organizations, including the United Nations, Oxfam America and the Center for American Progress, every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction can result in as much as $15 in economic savings—depending on the disaster and circumstances—compared to cleanup and restoration costs.
As we hear about the portents of “ring of fire” earthquakes and volcanoes, epic floods and droughts, and even a theoretical superstorm scenario that could cause nearly $1 trillion in damage to the U.S. West Coast, the message is clear: What is needed to effect these actions is a better offense through disaster philanthropy in order to shore up our defenses.
