Whose really doing the heavy lifting in humanitarian aid…
Why 99% of the global work that is done is supported by less then 2% of the funding…
Crisis assistance and humanitarian aid is growing at an unprecedented rate. In fact recent studies show that each year between $20- $30 BILLION dollars are donated to charitable work globally.
And while there are THOUSANDS (if not MILLIONS) or charitable organizations and individuals globally, the reality is that most of those dollars go to a select few big name organizations that in actuality do very little of the work.
Spend a few short minutes googling, “nonprofit funding discrimination” or “humanitarian aid shortfalls” and you’ll find yourself in a never ending list of news articles and stories talking about the disparities in aid, and how its essentially become a monopoly with less than 2% of overall contributions actually reaching responders doing the work on the ground.
This problem isn’t new. Its been happening for decades, and some of it- believe it or not- is intentional. Most organizations have an agenda, and if they don’t their government funders definitely do. So why does such a limited amount of funding actually reach those doing the work on the ground? A few things to consider:
Post disaster and especially in conflicted/war torn areas- getting on the ground is challenging. Therefore, these organizations and funders often just funnel money into big name orgs (you know the ones with big prime time commercials and fancy logos) and they may or may not even be working in the area. Frequently they don’t have local partners so they just fund whatever existing work is being done- whether that work actually relates to the need or not. For example after the war in Ukraine broke out emergency funding went to support dozens of international educational organizations. Most of the schools in Ukraine at that time were shut down- so funding that was intended to pay for lunches for hungry kids at school trying to navigate war torn Ukraine, actually just went into the coffers of these organizations. Is funding for education bad? Absolutely not- but its a prime example of how funding didn’t actually reach the ground.
Funding is restricted. In todays scam heavy, fraud heavy world, restricting funding seems like a natural protection for donors, right? The problem is that often these restrictions are ridiculous and actually negatively impact the ability of organizations to get the work done. A prime example: an organization in Moldova feeding thousands of displaced persons was given a grant for food, but the grant specifically stated that only food could be purchased with the money. No paying the local women who cook the food. No buying Tupperware, containers or silverware to serve the food. No money for gas for the stoves, or equipment to cook with. Literally just food. But with limited additional funding the organization could barely even afford to expand, despite having a ton of money for the actual food! Another prime example: Funding for psychosocial support but the money can’t be used to pay staff salaries (most often psychosocial support is provided by licensed therapists and psychologist- most of whom need to be paid). The examples of restricted funding are endless. So ultimately without other sources of funding to support the “other” needs- money ends up just going to big name orgs and leaving out the grass roots organizations actually doing the work.
Reporting for these grants is time consuming, expensive and often prohibitive. Big donors and governments all want to get their 15 minutes of kudos and pats on the back. So obviously anyone they give money to needs to report back so that they can then advertise what great work they are doing, and also ensure work is actually being done (and reasonable reporting is fine). But often its not just reporting back. Often, these grants require 40 and 50 page reports (sometimes multiple times per year), technical analysis and expensive financial reporting, and often at a cost more than what the actual grant represents. For example: An organization was once offered a $10,000 grant to help decrease flooding in a refugee camp. The donors were provided with photos, receipts and appropriate accounting of how the funds were spent. Two weeks later the donor sent the organization 10 pages (10 literal pages) of questions- each requiring lengthy paragraph responses on how the funds were used and the impact. Responding to those questions took dozens of hours and took a staff member away from doing the actual important work. Another grant required a small grass roots food organization with only three staff to employ two different accounting experts in order to qualify and the grant funds could not be used to pay their salaries and fees. No wonder grass roots organizations don’t get these funds, they literally can’t afford it!
They lack a tax status. Its understandable that large donors want their tax break. We get it. The tax man wants what the tax man wants. But when an individual or social group are the ones doing the big lifting they are often excluded from funding opportunities and donations that would actually help them continue their work because they don’t have a tax status. We believe that those doing the work should get the support, regardless of their tax status. In our case, people can donate to GAPS and we can fund them alleviating the need for individuals responding to an acute crises to need to set up nonprofits which go defunct months later.
But despite these challenges, small grass roots organizations and individuals are doing the heavy lifting and with barely any of the support.
So that’s the GAP we intend to fill. By using our expertise, resources and connections to help local responders and grass roots organizations continue to do the work.
photo shot at Aro Ha
