Last week’s Hurricane Idalia, which struck Florida and other Southeast states, was just the latest climate disaster in a summer filled with them.
Wildfires in Hawaii, Canada, and elsewhere in the world have killed hundreds of people, uprooted families, and destroyed homes and businesses. As is now routine, the public has responded to these disasters by giving generously to crowdfunding campaigns.
Such support is no doubt well intentioned. But is it really the best or most ethical way to help strangers?
Crowdfunding tends to operate as a popularity contest. Rather than distributing donations according to who needs them the most or where they can do the most good, factors such as the recipient’s race, age, education, and perceived need affect where the dollars flow.
For example, among 175,000 crowdfunding campaigns created in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the top 1 percent received nearly a quarter of all money pledged. Within this group, campaigns from areas with higher education and income levels outperformed those from less privileged places.
Having a relatively wealthy and visible social network also helps, as it allows those seeking funds to draw on that network for potential support. As a result, people living at the margins of society and with less ability to get noticed online are at a disadvantage. These biases reflect and exacerbate existing social inequities.
GoFundMe’s hub for “verified” fundraisers for wildfire victims in Maui demonstrates this point. Many of these campaigns have helped victims of the fires begin rebuilding their lives, collectively bringing in more than $40 million in pledges, according to the latest GoFundMe data. This money will undoubtedly do much good for the recipients. But while some of these fundraisers have received tens of thousands of dollars in donations and reached or exceeded their fundraising goals, many have attracted hardly any support.
Deserving people often get drowned out in the competition for the public’s attention, fueling disparities in where the money goes. One study found that only 12 percent of campaigns meet their goals and 16 percent receive no donations. Just becoming verified as a legitimate fundraiser by GoFundMe can be a barrier, typically requiring email communication and access to banking records — significant obstacles for those displaced from their homes and communities.
During a time when people are facing extraordinary challenges, running a successful crowdfunding campaign means demonstrating to the public that one is worthy of help. To prove they are who they say they are and that their needs are real, GoFundMe encourages fundraisers to be as transparent as possible about their identity, their experience of loss, and how donations will be used. To personalize their efforts, campaigns are accompanied by photos of the recipients and their families. Privacy and grieving outside of the public eye are not options for people who want to take advantage of the benefits of crowdfunding.
People experiencing perhaps the most calamitous event of their lives, including the loss of loved ones, shouldn’t have to convince strangers that their needs are legitimate and their stories are real. While donors may understandably want this type of information before giving money to a stranger, how much a disaster victim raises shouldn’t depend on how adept they are at communicating their stories online — skills that are likely to benefit those who are relatively privileged.
Protecting Privacy
Donors should be guided by the values of providing benefit and avoiding harm, protecting recipients’ privacy and dignity, acting in solidarity with those in need, and promoting equity and social justice.
Giving to individual strangers, no matter how much it helps them meet their own needs, is often in tension with those values. Moreover, the structure of crowdfunding tends to reinforce a hierarchy between donors and recipients while doing little to tell the story of how everyone is vulnerable to climate change-driven disasters.
We all have a duty to help one another, particularly those of us who are well off and can watch these disasters unfold from the comfort of our homes. So, what’s the best way to respond as climate disasters take place with increasing regularity?
Giving to community nonprofits in the affected areas is a particularly effective way to help strangers. These organizations can support people according to their needs, may adopt longer-term and sustainable solutions, and do not require public demonstrations of need in exchange for help.
In response to the wildfires in Maui, for example, the Hawai’i Community Foundation is coupling rapid relief for those affected by the fires with longer-term recovery projects to address housing security, health and wellness, and economic opportunity. The Hawai’i People’s Fund is mobilizing aid for particularly vulnerable community members, including people with disabilities, those who are unhoused, Indigenous people, and communities of color. Similar efforts are underway through organizations such as the Maui Food Bank and Maui Nui Strong.
The benefits of ethical giving through local community groups are not unique to Maui. Local organizations are now seeking support to respond to the victims of Hurricane Idalia, including Second Harvest of the Big Bend and Feeding Tampa Bay.
Crowdfunding can certainly be an important piece of an effective disaster response, as long as the focus remains relatively narrow. For example, crowdfunding allows those seeking funds to keep their friends and family up to date about their struggles and needs while providing a seamless vehicle for support. This type of crowdfunding is both ethical and sensible as it takes longstanding practices of mutual aid and local support online to relieve some of the burdens of raising money.
Problems arise when this tool is used to appeal to the wider public in cases where the donor and recipient do not know one another. Helping strangers is important and, in many cases, a moral imperative. Crowdfunding, however, is an ethically inferior way to go about it.
