Stephanie Beasley’s recent article, “Back-to-Back Hurricanes Force Donors to Rethink Their Disaster Approach” (October 15), raises important issues regarding the best philanthropic response to disasters, particularly the growing need to fund prevention and preparedness.
This was a key theme in a book we recently edited, Philanthropic Response to Disasters: Gifts, Givers and Consequences, which highlights both the possibilities and complexities of changing philanthropic behaviors when disaster hits. One thing is clear: Grant makers need to be less reactive and think more about how they can be effective in the long term.
A switch to prevention and preparedness would require redefining the word “disaster” itself. Disaster is associated with drama and immediacy, but doesn’t encompass slow emergencies, such as drought and famine.
Moreover, allocating resources to prevention and preparedness might be difficult, since they don’t feel as urgent as immediate disaster relief and recovery. The relative success of a prevention plan can also be harder to measure than the immediate response. Beyond that, if philanthropy already funds resilience building but doesn’t label it as disaster philanthropy, it might need to rethink long-existing categories and funding strategies.
The pressure to respond quickly also conflicts with the need for due diligence. As Beasley’s article notes, roles and responsibilities need to be agreed on and in place, even if, in the event of disaster, there is adaptation and improvisation. But donors, who often expect action right away, might need to reset their expectations.
Rethinking how resources are distributed also raises issues regarding how government policy and regulations can both facilitate and hinder philanthropic responses to disaster. Arguably, policy and regulation must catch up with changing understanding of disaster.
As Patricia McIlreavy of the Center for Disaster Philanthropy notes in Beasley’s article, it’s also important to tackle root-cause problems, such as poverty or food insecurity, that a disaster might worsen. The goal, as the article notes, should be to “minimize the extent to which people are negatively affected in the short and long term.” Above all, foundations need to think and act beyond the immediate response, increasing funding for prevention, recovery, and resilience.
Diana Leat, Independent researcher of philanthropic foundations
Susan D. Phillips, Professor of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University
Alexandra Williamson, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies
