We live in a disaster-prone world — more so now than at any other time in recent history.
Consider the past year alone: As a global pandemic continued unabated, climate-driven catastrophes touched nearly every corner of the planet. Hurricane Ida slammed into Louisiana and the East Coast. Devastating wildfires tore through California and Colorado. A deep freeze hit Texas, overwhelming the state’s power grid. Historic flooding killed more than 230 people in Germany and Belgium. Cyclones in India and Indonesia and a typhoon in the Philippines left more than 1,000 dead.
And those are just the disasters with a direct connection to climate change. A massive earthquake, for example, killed more than 2,200 people in Haiti. Humanitarian crises, such as those precipitated by the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar have displaced millions. Since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, nearly 13 million people have been displaced in that country — the highest number in the world.
These crises demand the same level of generosity, urgency, and creativity that philanthropy has brought to the pandemic. Unfortunately, old ineffective patterns continue to drive significant shortfalls in overall disaster giving.
Since my organization, the Center for Disaster Philanthropy, and Candid began tracking disaster philanthropy in 2014, data has consistently shown that foundations underfund these crises.
In 2019, another major year for deadly and costly catastrophes, foundations and charities spent $352 million in response to disasters and humanitarian crises across the globe out of $30 billion in total giving from private, government, corporate, and individual donors, according to our latest report. The amount spent by foundations and charities is bafflingly low given the devastation on communities and the environment caused by disasters during that period — especially when compared with the nearly $32 billion in pandemic giving from foundations and corporations since the start of the crisis.
Why does the sum total of philanthropic dollars not match the sum total of need? Largely because persistent myths continue to undermine disaster philanthropy. These myths help perpetuate chronic gaps between giving and need in disaster-affected communities, especially those primarily made up of Black, Indigenous, people of color, and other marginalized populations.
In my 18 years of working in disaster philanthropy, I have encountered four prevailing myths about disasters that have stood in the way of more philanthropic support.
Myth 1: Giving to disasters is throwing good money after bad. Many grant makers are hesitant to provide funding to rebuild homes in areas of the country that suffer routine, climate-caused flooding. In reality, such funding can have an enormous impact if it helps create more sustainable housing capable of mitigating the effects of future disasters.
Philanthropy can help ensure that risk-reduction measures are part of the rebuilding process by providing money for higher grade materials that are not fully funded by government sources. This might include something as simple as 99-cent hurricane ties, which make buildings more structurally sound but typically aren’t available in tornado-prone areas through local, state, or federal funding.
Alternatively, donors can support salaries for coordinators of volunteers, construction managers, and case managers — critical staff capacity that speeds up recovery and reconstruction.
Myth 2: Giving to complex humanitarian emergencies is too risky. Many grant makers believe that donations to organizations in countries such as Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen could potentially disappear through graft. Similarly, some philanthropic organizations choose not to fund in political hotspots. Regrettably, malfeasance occurs worldwide, as human nature cannot be confined by borders. Theft exists here in the United States just as it exists in any other country.
Rather than focus on the geographic location of a philanthropic investment, grant makers should concentrate on which groups they are funding. By giving to organizations that have the appropriate mechanisms in place to prevent financial and workplace abuses, grant makers should have the confidence to fund in any country across the globe.
Donors should also recognize that supporting reliable access to water, food, shelter, routine vaccinations, and education for the world’s millions of displaced people is never a risky bet. Ignoring such basic needs is tantamount to ignoring an entire generation, given that the average period of displacement for internally displaced people — those who have been forced from their homes but remain inside their country’s borders — and refugees is 10 and 20 years, respectively.
Myth 3: The most important time to provide funding is in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. Our research shows that more than half of all funding by foundations and public charities went to immediate relief efforts while a paltry 10 percent went to resilience, reconstruction, and recovery. Individual and institutional donors are hardwired to support relief efforts immediately after a disaster when the devastation and need are most evident. Yet, full recovery often takes years. Superstorm Sandy struck the New Jersey and New York areas, among the nation’s wealthiest regions, nearly 10 years ago, but many of those communities are still not fully recovered.
From a philanthropic perspective, directing dollars to recovery, not just relief, is a more effective long-term strategy. The bulk of such funding should come in the form of multiyear, general operating support grants to local organizations. These approaches are the cornerstone of the Council on Foundation’s Philanthropy’s Commitment during Covid-19 pledge and the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, and should be the basis for all disaster giving. Both approaches look beyond the needs identified in the first hours and days following a disaster, and toward a view that encompasses full and equitable recovery.
Additionally, grant makers could consider a project-based approach that funds specific areas of need after disasters, including education, economic development, public health, nutrition, and water, sanitation, and hygiene.
Myth 4: Local, state, or federal funds will fix everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. The average FEMA funding awarded for two recent catastrophic hurricanes — Laura, which hit Louisiana in 2020, and Harvey, which hit Texas and Louisiana in 2017— was, respectively, $3,049.42 and $7,900, according to research by SBP, formerly the St. Bernard Project. Neither amount would cover the cost of a new roof, let alone an entire home.
While the combined total giving from governments does far exceed what private philanthropy can contribute, foundation dollars are critical to ensuring that underserved communities are afforded the opportunity to rebuild their lives in a disaster’s aftermath. Philanthropy needs to bring its assets to the table. That means providing flexible funding, filling gaps that governmental agencies are unable to fund, and awarding multiyear grants with as few conditions attached as possible. It also means partnering with local organizations that have pre-existing knowledge of a community and its needs.
We at the Center for Disaster Philanthropy have long asserted that we are all disaster funders. That sentiment has never been truer. After two years of living with the pandemic, philanthropic organizations worldwide have not only stepped up giving, they have also changed their investing approach, including providing far more flexibility and making equity a priority. Now we need to make sure other disasters and humanitarian emergencies are treated with equal levels of support.
It’s time to confront the myths that have stood in the way of effective disaster funding. Regardless of which communities we support and what issues we care about, all of us — especially if we are committed to equitable outcomes — need to be strategic disaster philanthropists.
