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.

First « 1 2 » Next