posted on: Friday, January 29, 2010

By Kevin Laskowski

More than $528 million have been raised for Haiti relief in the aftermath of a catastrophic earthquake that killed as many as 200,000 people and left 1.5 million without homes. As people texted donations, downloaded music, and contributed to relief efforts, there was no shortage of good advice and principles for giving effectively:

Give cash: Stephanie Strom of the New York Times put it succinctly, “Don’t send shoes, send money. Don’t send baby formula, send money. Don’t send old coats, send money.” MSNBC intoned, “From volunteer medical teams who show up uninvited, to stateside donors who ship boxes of unusable household goods, misdirected compassion can actually tax scarce resources, costing time, money, energy — and lives, experts say.”

Give to local groups with significant experience on the ground: For instance, like many others, GiveWell recommended Partners in Health (PIH), citing “its significant local experience and capacity in Haiti.” After all, PIH got its start serving the poorest regions in Haiti in 1987. It has been working there ever since and provides medical care to poor communities in 12 countries around the world.

Give general operating support: In his perhaps misleadingly titled piece, “Don’t give money to Haiti,” Felix Salmon argued against earmarking your donations for Haiti. He pointed out that “the Red Cross has still only spent 83% of its $3.21 billion tsunami budget — which means that it has over half a billion dollars left to spend.” That’s right: the Red Cross alone could match the combined millions that have been donated for Haitian relief right now, but it can’t use any of that money in Haiti because of donor restrictions. Flexible dollars not only help groups respond to disasters quickly but help prepare them for the next.

Give over the long-term: Under an equally contrarian headline, “Don’t Give Money To Haiti Now,” Perla Ni contended that “donors need to stagger their funding and guarantee it over many years, instead of sending the money all at once.” Donations for Haiti relief are already beginning to slow despite the fact that relief efforts will likely cost $3 billion and reconstruction will certainly take years. People want to make sure that the resources for rebuilding are there long after the Hope For Haiti Now relief album disappears from the charts.

In sum, give, and, when you do, give flexible, long-term support to local groups (or, at least, groups as close to the people you’re trying to help as possible). It’s great advice—and not just for Haiti.

In following news of this disaster and our response, the hallmark of modern foundation philanthropy—the annually renewed (maybe) project grant with its restrictions and requirements—is absolutely nowhere to be found. In its place, I find all the best advice pointing in the opposite direction, and a responsive public texting millions for a country in crisis. Certainly, that’s partly because grantmaking takes time, but I think it’s also because, on some level, we understand that if we really want impact when the stakes are high and need is great, this is what we ought to do.

I’m all for giving thoughtfully, strategically, even catalytically. However, times such as these remind me that the constraints we often put on our dollars in the name of effectiveness can be luxuries others can’t afford and we can do without. As foundations contemplate their responses to this crisis, I’m hoping they take that lesson to heart—both in this hemisphere’s poorest nation and around the world.

Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Friday, May 25, 2007

A Call to Action: Organizing to Increase the Effectiveness and Impact of Foundation Grantmaking suggests that it will take nonprofits across the nation mobilizing together to change the way foundations provide grants. This is quite a challenge considering the variety of nonprofits in the sector and the lack of communication between them.

Do you think that nonprofits are hesitant to speak up about changes in foundation support out of fear of losing funding altogether? How can nonprofits, of various sizes, missions and regions, become mobilized to call for better grantmaking?

Download the report for free.

posted on: Tuesday, March 27, 2007

In NCRP's recent report A Call to Action: Organizing to Increase the Effectiveness and Impact of Foundation Grantmaking, nonprofits provide commentary about how project-specific grants limit how much they can alter a project or create a new project when there are changing needs in the communities or constituents they serve. Some of these groups felt that foundations were less in touch with the constituents and so should not be deciding the direction of the nonprofit.

Do you think that current grantmaking policies help or hurt nonprofits in fulfilling their missions? Does it help for foundations to provide guidance for nonprofits through project-specific funding or limit how much nonprofits can actually do?

Download the report for free.

posted on: Thursday, March 08, 2007

NCRP’s newest report A Call to Action voices the concerns of nonprofits regarding the lack of available core operating grants and how this undermines their ability to fulfill their missions. It advocates for an increase in foundations’ core operating support giving and encourages nonprofits and their allies from philanthropic institutions to mobilize and develop a strategy to build a more responsive and effective grantmaking culture.

Do you agree or disagree with the report? Should foundations give more funding towards covering the cost of nonprofits’ general operations? If so, how do you think should we go about developing a strategy and mobilize for change? If you don’t agree with the report, why not?

Download the report for free.