Page not available

You seem to be lost. To find what you are looking for check out the most recent articles below or try a search:

10/5/22 Chronicle of Philanthropy – Opinion: Typical Post-Disaster Giving Practices Could Hamper Hurricane Ian Recovery

By Ben Smilowitz

Chronicle of Philanthropy

October 5, 2022

In the aftermath of Hurricane Ian, a familiar narrative is already taking shape. It goes like this: A major disaster sparks a flood of donations to the big relief organizations. These groups, with their large marketing departments, scramble to solicit funding, even if they lack the capacity on the ground to deliver aid. In the meantime, local nonprofits in disaster zones work overtime to address community needs, often without reliable electricity or internet service — or the ability to focus on fundraising in the days following a disaster.

On each anniversary of these megastorms, earthquakes, wildfires, and other catastrophic events, the same questions get asked: What was achieved? How have the affected communities benefited from the outpouring of generosity that followed the disaster? Have those benefits been distributed equitably? The answers are usually disappointing.

Donations sent to large national and international organizations such as the American Red Cross are often delayed and diverted — sometimes for months or even years — before only a fraction reaches local nonprofits. And studies show that each time funds change hands, at least 9 percent is taken for overhead costs. Spending on overhead is fine when it’s deserved, but too often large organizations take such funds when they aren’t delivering any actual services — a problem that was well documented following Superstorm Sandy in 2012 and the Haiti earthquake in 2010.

Meanwhile, most international disaster and humanitarian aid from foundations in the United States continues to bypass the local groups that can use it most effectively. A new report by Candid and the Council on Foundations found only 13 percent of U.S. philanthropy humanitarian funding “went directly to organizations based in the country where programs were implemented.” Other research shows that number is as low as 3 percent.

Given all that the philanthropic and nonprofit world has learned from past disasters, isn’t it time to change this narrative? The answers aren’t complicated, but grant makers and individual donors need to consistently embrace them.

Tap Into Local Philanthropy

The most obvious place to start is with the nation’s more than 900 community foundations, which typically have a strong sense of local needs. Rather than sending money to national or international organizations headquartered in Washington, D.C., New York, and Chicago with minimal direct connection to the impacted areas, donors can direct funds to credible community foundations in the hardest hit places.

More than a dozen community foundations are located in the parts of Florida where Hurricane Ian was most destructive, and several have already launched disaster relief funds. For example, the Community Foundation of Sarasota County’s Suncoast Disaster Recovery Fund is working with local nonprofits, school districts, and governments to ensure resources go directly to neighborhoods in need.

Such local relief funds have proven to be among the most effective vehicles for giving in the immediate aftermath of a disaster and the ensuing years of recovery. Following Hurricane Katrina, philanthropic leaders from across the country came together to create the Foundation for Louisiana (first known as the Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation) to act as a local conduit for disaster funds. The foundation has since supported hundreds of nonprofits in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, serving as a model for how to raise and equitably spend post-disaster dollars. Similarly, the Robin Hood Foundation in New York quickly and impressively raised and disbursed more than $82 million to local nonprofits following Superstorm Sandy.

Many community foundations across the country have well-established crisis and disaster funds that have successfully provided ongoing relief following recent disasters in CaliforniaHoustonOklahoma, and Puerto Rico, and all need continuing support.

Identify Effective Community Nonprofits

When considering charities to support after a disaster, donors often turn to organizations that publish information about nonprofit effectiveness, such asGuideStar and Charity Navigator. For general vetting purposes, both platforms provide ample information about governance, finances, and overhead and administrative costs. But such measures are less helpful when it comes to disaster giving and too often lead donors in the wrong direction. For example, Charity Navigator’s Hurricane Fiona “how to help” list shamelessly excluded nonprofits based in Puerto Rico when checked more than two weeks after the September 18 storm.

Rather than judge nonprofits according to slightly differing data on overhead expenses, donors should consider whether an organization can truly help when disaster strikes in a particular area. While nearly every charity says it deserves donations, most do not have existing relationships in communities and culturally competent local staffs and volunteers.

The nonprofit I head, the Disaster Accountability Project, discovered the extent of the problem when we surveyed hundreds of organizations following earthquakes in Haiti and Nepal and found many were raising funds without the capacity to deliver services. While the findings generated significant media attention, releasing this research six months or one year after the disaster was too late to influence donor behavior. We recognized that real-time, data-driven information was needed about how and where to donate.

To help fill the gap, we created SmartResponse.org, an independent information platform that curates lists on how to help after a disaster and provides immediate, localized information to donors. Since launching in the fall of 2017, more than 600 nonprofits from more than 60 countries and 25 U.S. states and territories have registered on the site at no charge. After undergoing a basic vetting and approval process, they share information about their services, local staff, finances, and track record in the region.

Such information allows donors to more easily differentiate between giving to Feeding America’s national headquarters in Chicago and giving directly to a local food bank or pantry in, say, Fort Myers after Hurricane Ian or San Juan, Puerto Rico, following Hurricane Fiona. Many of these groups don’t even have a functional website, so SmartResponse may be their only way to provide information essential for establishing credibility with donors, especially to those seeking to make expedited gifts after disasters.

Local nonprofits know which members of a community are most vulnerable, who might require accommodation or assistance, and which neighborhoods or communities are hardest hit. By hiring local staff and purchasing local supplies, they inject life into economies during otherwise devastating times. They strengthen community services such as food banks, independent living centers, disability-rights and housing-advocacy groups, legal aid, and other social safety-net programs that ensure needs are met and people don’t fall through the cracks. Finding these groups may be a little trickier than responding to another solicitation from a large relief organization, but it’s worth the effort.

Ben Smilowitz 

Ben Smilowitz is the founder and executive director of the Disaster Accountability Project and SmartResponse.org.

9/12/21 The Hill: Why wouldn’t we create a 9/11 style COVID commission?

Why wouldn’t we create a 9/11 style COVID commission?

By Ben Smilowitz, opinion contributor — 09/12/21 05:00 PM EDT

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

A 9/11 Commission was obvious when created in November 2002. To date, COVID-19 has killed 200 times more people than 9/11 across the U.S., and continues to threaten lives domestically and around the globe.

Any event that results in:

• The deaths of more than 600,000 Americans, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• A 40% greater likelihood of death depending on race, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• A failure to effectively protect and care for seniors, and results in over 184,000 nursing home deaths, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• Months of waiving key protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act, on its 30th anniversary, effectively stripping protections designed to safeguard the civil rights and independence of people with access and functional needs and other disabilities, deserves a 9/11 commission.


The deaths of over 3,600 American healthcare workers, largely due to insufficient access to effective personal protective equipment (PPE), deserves a 9/11 style commission.


One in eight ICUs across the country, reaching maximum capacity– simultaneously, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• Trillions of dollars of economic damage and long-term, elevated unemployment rates, necessitating multiple, multi-trillion dollar stimulus packages, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• Nationwide school closures, in some cases for over one year, resulting in 55.1 million children out of the classroom, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• A once in a generation adverse impact on children’s mental health, resulting in a 31 percent increase in mental health-related emergency room visits for youth aged 12 to 17 during 2020 as compared to 2019, deserves a 9/11 style commission.

And any event where:

• The viral spread of misinformation outpaced government efforts to save lives and inform the public, resulting in thousands of deaths, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• Public health experts have described national, state, and local government information sharing as inconsistent, incomplete, and inaccessible, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• Tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of Americans died alone because the vast majority of hospitals, nursing homes, and other health centers would not allow visitors into COVID-19 wards, and had no guidance on how to do so, deserves a 9/11 style commission.


• The White House, CDC, other federal agencies, and states offered divergent and sometimes conflicting public health guidance specific to the same public health emergency, deserves a 9/11 style commission.

What could a 9/11 style commission achieve?

• Document exactly how the pandemic unfolded to better understand the decisions, actions, and policies that lead to significant loss of life and suffering.


• Use those findings to guide recommendations for saving lives and future pandemic response.


• Prepare for the inevitable: We don’t know when we will experience another pandemic. Other parts of the world experienced outbreaks in recent years (i.e. SARS, MERS, and Ebola, to name a few) and we have been relatively lucky in the U.S. However, as travel increases and becomes more accessible, we must be ready for future public health threats that could be even more deadly than COVID-19.


• Restore public confidence in our nation’s ability to keep our communities and families safe.


• The public must be able to trust treatments and public information provided during health emergencies.


• It is a national security imperative that our nation be able to mobilize, free of partisan bickering or political motivation, in the face of external biological or viral threats.


• Science has saved generations from viral and bacterial infections, cures cancers, and extends life expectancy. We must find ways to depoliticize health and science.

Specifically, a 9/11 style commission could investigate:

• How to prevent and/or reduce disparate/poor health outcomes based on race, geography, and other socioeconomic factors. A commission could identify missing data points that, if collected, could help us improve future responses and save lives. A commission could examine factors that resulted in poor health outcomes during COVID-19 and identify opportunities for improvement.


• How to prevent supply shortages and cost increases of critical goods after future public health and other types of disasters. How to prevent unnecessary and dangerous competition between states for critical goods. How to protect state budgets and taxpayer dollars from devastating cost increases that may follow future disasters.


• Use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) by examining how and when it was utilized, and make recommendations for how the Act can be used after future public health emergencies. A commission should also examine policy proposals that would have delegated authority to states, allowing governors limited use of DPA within their respective states.


• How to improve responses to disasters across state lines, reducing fragmentation and inconsistencies, reducing competition between states for critical goods, and strengthening coordination.


• Instances in which laws like the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) were waived during the COVID-19 disaster and identify ways to improve future responses so the rights of people with access and functional needs and other disabilities are protected.


• How to better protect health care workers after future public health emergencies. Explore ways surge capacity was successful and worked and identify opportunities for improvement in the future.


• How to protect nursing home and assisted living residents and staff after future pandemics. Identify failures and successes and compile lessons learned.


• How to prevent/reduce food insecurity, especially for those most vulnerable, during future pandemics and other disasters. Examine the “Mutual Aid” networks and how they might be strengthened, and how they compare in function, size, and capability to existing Voluntary Organizations Assisting with Disasters (VOADs), Citizen Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), and American Red Cross volunteer capacity/availability.


• How to strengthen public health infrastructure from hospitals and ICUs, to contact tracing, testing, and other public health services.


• How to improve continuity in education, including strategies for student engagement, connectivity, and support during future pandemics.


• The effectiveness and impact of the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) and other stimulus programs. How could they have been improved? What lessons learned can we glean for future disasters?


• Innovations and policy recommendations introduced during the pandemic to improve the public health response.


• Ways to address and mitigate the negative impacts on mental health caused by social isolation and other aspects of the pandemic.

If history has taught us anything, we know that a commission alone is inadequate to address these issues. The 9/11 Commission issued 41 recommendations in its first report and many were quickly implemented. Some of these improvements undoubtedly prevented additional terrorist attacks.

However, despite these improvements, four years later, the U.S. was woefully unprepared for Hurricane Katrina when it crashed into the Gulf Coast. Additional reports followed, including one by Congress titled, “A Failure of Initiative.” Only some recommendations were fully implemented and we continue to pay the price.

What is most certain, is that if we fail to come together to examine this crisis and make improvements on all levels of government, we will be doomed to repeat its failures.

Ben Smilowitz is founder and executive director of Disaster Accountability Project and SmartResponse.org, a nonprofit started after Hurricane Katrina.

1/28/2021 KBOO (Portland, OR): Interview w/Ben Smilowitz on Defense Production Act

Hosted by:

KBOO News Team, Althea Billings

Produced by:

KBOO

Program:

Evening News, News In Depth

Air date:

Thu, 01/28/2021 – 5:30pm to 5:45pm

The United States’ approach to tackling the coronavirus crisis is changing now that the Biden administration has taken office. They’ve announced a 100 day mask challenge, and are in the process of pushing Congress to pass more stimulus relief. The challenge of the pandemic has also shifted to include vaccination, to reach herd immunity. Concerns about supply, production, delivery and administration are top of mind. One proposed solution to these problems is to use the Defense Production Act. This act allows the federal government to require cooperation from companies when it comes to producing things related to American security. It can put federal contracts at the top of the line, subsidize manufacturing to make the process quicker, and at a reduced rate.

KBOO’s Althea Billings with Ben Smilowitz Executive Director of the Disaster Accountability Project, to learn more about the Defense Production Act and how it might be used to further the Biden administration’s vaccination goals.

https://kboo.fm/media/100634-invoking-defense-production-act-covid-crisis-could-save-money-expedite-vaccinations

12/15/20 The Hill: The White House should order production of 1 billion vaccine doses

BY BEN SMILOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 05/14/20 08:30 AM EDT

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Now that a COVID-19 vaccine has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the White House should immediately leverage the Defense Production Act to ramp up production to save as many lives as possible and allow our economy to recover. Any delay in expanding productive capacity will unnecessarily extend this deadly pandemic and cause further harm to our economy.

The same White House that invoked the Defense Production Act as many as 300,000 times in the last year alone, mostly to prioritize defense contracts unrelated to COVID-19, surely knows how to use the law to secure vaccine doses for everyone in our country.

When it comes to using the Defense Production Act, the White House has a big “magic wand” and could use the law to produce a billion doses.

Instead of focusing on only the prioritization of available vaccine supply, the White House should focus on expanding productive capacity utilizing Title 3 of the Defense Production Act.

The big question is, will they?

In addition to securing vaccine doses for our nation, we should use the Defense Production Act to satisfy global vaccine demand. No doubt we would save hundreds of thousands of lives and advance our global humanitarian efforts. Even the “America First” crowd should see value in this proposal.

First: Americans aren’t safe until the virus is under control, globally. We’ve seen how quickly the virus can travel across the globe and the economy will not fully recover until travel, trade, and business is able to safely resume.

Second: The U.S. can recover costs by selling hundreds of millions of surplus vaccine doses to other countries.

Third: Increased production here in the U.S. will benefit the U.S. economy and increase jobs. Do we want the world to buy the Chinese vaccine or the American? Let us produce and sell. Time is of the essence.

The past week’s news of the U.S. government purchasing only 100 million vaccine doses from Pfizer and having to wait in line behind other countries before securing additional doses suggests that Pfizer has production limitations. We know there is tremendous global demand and this is an opportunity for U.S. industry to produce more and sell.

Meanwhile, although the White House announced that, through executive order, Americans will receive vaccinations first, experts estimate that widespread vaccine availability may not be realized until summer, or later.

Title 3 allows the federal government to procure and/or install equipment needed for increasing productive capacity. For example, if Pfizer does not have the space or equipment needed to increase production, the federal government can assist using these Title 3 authorities and increase production 10 or 20-fold.

More widespread utilization of Defense Production Act could have increased our nation’s production of personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and helped us avoid the deadly shortages experienced by health and front-line workers and in nursing homes. So much death could have been avoided.

And states, businesses, and consumers are still paying inflated costs and facing shortages for critical safety supplies. The nonprofit Disaster Accountability Project drafted federal legislation that allows states limited use of Title 1’s prioritization and Title 3’s production authorities, within their state boundaries. The legislation is already on the radar of over 250 congressional offices and has been waiting months for bipartisan action.

Now that a COVID-19 vaccine has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the White House should immediately leverage the Defense Production Act to ramp up production to save as many lives as possible and allow our economy to recover. Any delay in expanding productive capacity will unnecessarily extend this deadly pandemic and cause further harm to our economy.

The same White House that invoked the Defense Production Act as many as 300,000 times in the last year alone, mostly to prioritize defense contracts unrelated to COVID-19, surely knows how to use the law to secure vaccine doses for everyone in our country.

When it comes to using the Defense Production Act, the White House has a big “magic wand” and could use the law to produce a billion doses.

Instead of focusing on only the prioritization of available vaccine supply, the White House should focus on expanding productive capacity utilizing Title 3 of the Defense Production Act.

The big question is, will they?

In addition to securing vaccine doses for our nation, we should use the Defense Production Act to satisfy global vaccine demand. No doubt we would save hundreds of thousands of lives and advance our global humanitarian efforts. Even the “America First” crowd should see value in this proposal.

First: Americans aren’t safe until the virus is under control, globally. We’ve seen how quickly the virus can travel across the globe and the economy will not fully recover until travel, trade, and business is able to safely resume.

Second: The U.S. can recover costs by selling hundreds of millions of surplus vaccine doses to other countries.

Third: Increased production here in the U.S. will benefit the U.S. economy and increase jobs. Do we want the world to buy the Chinese vaccine or the American? Let us produce and sell. Time is of the essence.

The past week’s news of the U.S. government purchasing only 100 million vaccine doses from Pfizer and having to wait in line behind other countries before securing additional doses suggests that Pfizer has production limitations. We know there is tremendous global demand and this is an opportunity for U.S. industry to produce more and sell.

Meanwhile, although the White House announced that, through executive order, Americans will receive vaccinations first, experts estimate that widespread vaccine availability may not be realized until summer, or later.

Title 3 allows the federal government to procure and/or install equipment needed for increasing productive capacity. For example, if Pfizer does not have the space or equipment needed to increase production, the federal government can assist using these Title 3 authorities and increase production 10 or 20-fold.

More widespread utilization of Defense Production Act could have increased our nation’s production of personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and helped us avoid the deadly shortages experienced by health and front-line workers and in nursing homes. So much death could have been avoided.

And states, businesses, and consumers are still paying inflated costs and facing shortages for critical safety supplies. The nonprofit Disaster Accountability Project drafted federal legislation that allows states limited use of Title 1’s prioritization and Title 3’s production authorities, within their state boundaries. The legislation is already on the radar of over 250 congressional offices and has been waiting months for bipartisan action.

Right now, the White House has an opportunity to dramatically accelerate vaccine production or continue to focus on prioritizing existing supply while Americans wait and hundreds of thousands more people die.

Ben Smilowitz is founder and executive director of Disaster Accountability Project and SmartResponse.org, a nonprofit started after Hurricane Katrina.