How should I respond to a humanitarian disaster?
This is a blog post I've written in the aftermath of the Nepal earthquake. It's written for people who already know to give money, not things. It's intended to be applicable after other catastrophes too.
If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the conclusion:
Just give to Oxfam. I can't promise this is the optimal choice, but I reckon it's a good one.
There is a humanitarian giving mismatch
Imagine a world where the victims of natural catastrophes (or indeed any other misfortunes) had access to wealth and consumer power; in that world an efficient market could develop in which people could buy themselves the services they need. We don't live in that world. More than 90 percent of natural disaster– related deaths occur in developing countries, according to the World Bank. And regardless of where they occur, they may leave their victims penniless anyway. So instead we have a mismatch, in which donors give to the causes that donors are most driven towards. And donors always focus their giving to where there is greatest need for the beneficiaries, right? Wrong.
You are driven by irrational biases (and so am I)
People have natural biases that draw them more towards some causes than others. I'm not even talking about the most egregious biases (such as the finding that men give more when the fundraiser is an attractive woman). Another example is that media coverage of disasters has a dramatic impact on donations to relief agencies (source). Studies indicate that donors are more inclined to give when they believe that the beneficiary is not responsible for their own situation (see this link or this one). This can help explain why the 2004 tsunami generated £1,400 per victim, whereas the more recent Syrian conflict generated only £270 per victim (according to the Guardian) But that's OK because if people give a bit more than they otherwise would have, that's still a good thing, right? Wrong.
There is a cannibalisation effect
Anecdotally, it appears that fundraising became harder for charities that don't work on tsunami relief over the course of 2005. I got this impression just based on a small number of conversations I had with charities I knew at the time, but William MacAskill has provided some more robust data on this here. But in a sense it doesn't matter, because they are all good causes, so if I give to one rather than another that's still good, right? Wrong.
Charitable giving varies hugely in its effectiveness
I have written about this elsewhere (see, for example, this blog post) However, to bring this to life specifically within the context of disaster relief, disaster relief efforts are frequently criticised on the grounds that they are essentially exercises in logistics conducted by people who are experts in poverty/community development/health/whatever. Even where they are conducted by experts in logistics, they are unprepared, because in order to have an impact, they need to be effective immediately, in response to a disaster which gave no warning of its arrival. To see an example of some of the criticisms in the wake of the 2004 tsunami, scroll down below. To further muddy the waters, the most rational giving approach would be to consider all giving opportunities and try to select the best one: from that perspective, disaster relief may not be the best choice at all (as suggested by Givewell and Giving What We Can). So by now we should just throw our hands in the air in despair and not give at all, right? Wrong.
The solution is to give in an unrestricted way to someone like Oxfam
If images of suffering people move you to be compassionate, then it's good to give. But let's not try to tie charities down to our particular prejudices and biases. Instead give charities the freedom to choose the most appropriate way to deploy the funds given to them. A large organisation like Oxfam has the capacity to choose from many different interventions to optimise their work, and for either the most recent Nepal earthquake, or indeed any future catastrophes, will likely already have people on the ground, leaving them better placed to respond. If you do want to donate to Oxfam, here's a link. And being the sort of person who likes to evaluate things and do things in the most efficient and effective way, I have done the research to ensure that Oxfam is the best possible choice, right? Wrong.
It's really hard to know whether Oxfam really is the best choice
When evaluating charities, it's incredibly difficult to produce a good overall assessment of a charity like Oxfam which has so many programmes. On average Oxfam spent £24.45 per beneficiary in the financial year 2013-14. This is relatively cheap, based on the data I have available to me (which is incomplete). This is a woefully inadequate way of assessing the effectiveness of the charity, but (sadly) the best I have available to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------NOTES/SOURCES/FURTHER DETAIL BELOW-------------
-------------NOTES/SOURCES/FURTHER DETAIL BELOW-------------
-------------NOTES/SOURCES/FURTHER DETAIL BELOW-------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[NO NEED TO READ THE BELOW UNLESS YOU ARE KEEN!]
Givewell has written about this
http://blog.givewell.org/2008/08/29/the-case-against-disaster-relief/
http://blog.givewell.org/2012/08/10/revisiting-the-2011-japan-disaster-relief-effort/
http://www.givewell.org/international/disaster-relief/haiti-earthquake
http://blog.givewell.org/2015/04/27/giving-to-support-the-relief-effort-for-the-nepal-earthquake/
http://blog.givewell.org/2014/10/23/investigating-the-ebola-response/
Similar blogs
http://www.whydev.org/the-problem-of-donating-to-disaster-relief-efforts-and-how-ngos-can-start-to-solve-it/
GWWC
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/research/charities-area/emergency-aid
Another useful link
http://www.impact.upenn.edu/2015/04/nepal-earthquake-how-can-i-help/
Natural disasters tug at hte heartstrings
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/21/charity-giving-brits-natural-disasters-war
http://futureworldgiving.org/2015/01/09/donors-prone-to-blaming-the-victims-of-man-made-humanitarian-disasters/
list of articles suggesting that donating to disaster relief is not particularly effectvie
http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/emotional-donating-the-science-and-un-science-of-disaster-response/
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/research/charities-area/emergency-aid
http://blog.givewell.org/2008/08/29/the-case-against-disaster-relief/
Source of More than 90 percent of natural disaster– related deaths occur in developing countries
http://www.dcp-3.org/sites/default/files/dcp2/DCP61.pdf
Also referred to in https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/research/charities-area/emergency-aid
men give more when the fundraiser is an attractive woman according to an article in the independent, referring to a study of nearly 700 fundraising webpages from the 2014 London marathon.
------------ROUGH NOTES/EARLIER DRAFT OF THIS ARTICLE------------
------------ROUGH NOTES/EARLIER DRAFT OF THIS ARTICLE------------
------------ROUGH NOTES/EARLIER DRAFT OF THIS ARTICLE------------
------------ROUGH NOTES/EARLIER DRAFT OF THIS ARTICLE------------
HIGHLEVEL THESIS
-there is a mismatch between hte income and the need
---- drivers of hte maount of income include a preference to give to natural disasters
---- dirvers of hte amount of need are complex, but in partiuclar quite unlreated to the things that driver donors to give (note that in the private sector, these two things rae much better aligned)
As an example, the Tsunami was a perfect example of a giving opportunity that was a perfect candidate for appealing to the donor: it was a natural disaster - no scope to blame this on corrupt or incompetent locals. It happened close to Christmas time, meaning that people in the West were naterually icnlined towards thinking in a humanitarian way. According ot the magazine of the Humanitarian Practice Network, " NGOs with expertise in building refugee camps deployed throughout the affected zones, but there was virtually no need for NGO-built refugee camps because survivors were taken in by family and friends. Nor was food security a major issue in most (though not all) stricken areas. In fact, there were very few food shortages, hardly surprising in a region of such natural abundance, and the local health authorities actually coped very well, all things considered. In short, the massive deployments of foreign relief workers were to a very considerable extent an exercise in superfluity. " (http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-29/tsunamis-accountability-and-the-humanitarian-circus )
- i'ts hard to know where the need is greatest
Do you want to be a donor to "an exercise in superfluity"? No? Nor do I. So this perhaps suggests that we should assess how much need there is for relief after a natural catastrophe (for example the recent Nepal earthquake) and then keep on giving until the need is exhausted. But actually it's really difficult to work out how much need there is, i.e. it's hard to know when to stop giving to support the relief efforts for any one event. I would like to say that we should simply take charities' word for it - i.e. if they are asking there must be need. However, even charities will struggle to make this assessment quickly (although they should be able to workit out with time). If we could trust charities to openly tell the public that they are refusing donations, then we would be in safer territory, however precedents for this are few. the only ones I know of are those stated in whydev's excellent blog post (namely the Japanese Red Cross after hte 2011 Japan earthquake and MSF after the tsunami) In fairness, it's a tough call to make, since funds are biulding up most quickly immediately after the event, at a time when it's hard to have a thorough assessment of the situation.
- when you give, be aware that ther are probalby better uses of your philanthropy
I've deliberately hidden this particular point a good way down the blog post so that only the most earnest readers spot it. According to Givewell
- reasons to go for a big, major brand (like Oxfam or MSF)
They cna be more effective if they already hvae staff posted there. Also if it's a charity that runs lots of porgrammes it can be more flexible and nimble. As givewell put it "Allow your funds to be used where most needed – even if that means they’re not used during this disaster." And in order to do that, you need to follow this next piece of advice
- Make your donation unrestricted
I don't feel able to indicate exactly which programmes are going to be the most effective, so let's leave that judgement to the people who are closest to the ground. Also, let's leave hte cahrity to jduge.
- Give money, not things