Emergency spending

Christian Century, April 10, 2002 by Chris Herlinger

FROM THE STREET, Ground Zero now looks like an orderly construction site. Most of the debris from the fallen World Trade Center towers has been removed, leaving a huge hole that has become one of the major tourist destinations in New York City. Visitors line up for tickets and proceed to reviewing stands overlooking the site.

There has never been an event in U.S. history like September 11 and there has never been a charitable response to a disaster like it either. In terms of dollars raised, the response to September 11 is unprecedented. Charitable agencies have not only never before received such large donations, they also have never before been under such pressure to spend it in the glare of such a public spotlight.

The spotlight was most unforgiving to the American Red Cross, whose president, Bernadine Healy, resigned in the midst of a controversy about how soon the Red Cross planned to spend the $543 million it had raised as a result of the September 11 tragedy and how much it would disburse to victims. While critics such as journalist Marvin Olasky were willing to give the Red Cross the benefit of doubt (writing in the Wall Street Journal, Olasky said wanting to strengthen the Red Cross's ability to respond to the future was a "reasonable defense"), they also said the charity had forgotten the tenet that those making a donation want it spent quickly and for those immediately affected. Olasky called this "American charity's `just in time' tradition: Keep a very low inventory; go with the resources you have right now; when the next emergency hits, call upon the American people once again."

But was it wise to spend the money in this fashion? Not necessarily, especially given the unprecedented nature of this disaster. We're in new territory, said Ken Curtin, the liaison between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and charitable organizations. Americans are used to responding to hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. They are used to rebuilding houses and providing immediate material assistance such as blankets and food. Such deeds hark back to a rural tradition in which neighbors helped neighbors rebuild a lost home or barn following a disaster. Americans still want to send goods such as water or clothing.

"That 100-year-old mind-set is still there," said Joann Hale, a member of the United Church of Christ who has been working on behalf of Church World Service in New York and New Jersey.

The result of that dynamic in New York City--which had not experienced a large-scale disaster or emergency in decades--was initial confusion. Volunteers appeared from around the country and found that there was little to do. When a relief worker interviewed on television said that rescue workers needed socks, New York was inundated with them. The city was spared what those in the relief community commonly call the "second disaster"--sorting through unwanted donations--because of the restrictions on trucks entering Manhattan in the days after the disaster. The socks eventually ended up in suburban warehouses, as did thousands of containers of bottled water. (The water was donated to New York-area food banks, prompting one New Jersey food bank employee to say: "We don't have to worry about a drought now.")

Millions of checks were sent with the best of intentions for the victims, but there was confusion about who exactly the victims were or are. Were victims only the families of those who perished? But what of other New Yorkers--the livery drivers and cooks and busboys (many of them undocumented)--who did not lose family members but have lost their jobs directly or indirectly as a result of the disaster? Assisting them is part of the ongoing work of church and faith-based groups--as is the ongoing work of trauma and grief counseling.

The idea of long-term recovery, of course, is antithetical to the sense of urgency, even panic, many charities felt after September 11. As an example of the pressure to "put assistance in people's hands immediately," Curtin cited the example of unemployed people who had worked near the World Trade Center and who received private assistance for their rent and mortgage payments when, in fact, they were eligible for FEMA aid. As a result, the private assistance that might have been used over a longer period of time will be diminished just at the time federal aid runs out.

Such an outcome was something few nonprofit officials considered or planned for in the tense and harried days and weeks following the disaster. Because of the pressure to spend donations quickly, insufficient attention was given to the "unmet needs" that always follow a disaster--in this ease, the needs of limo drivers, day laborers and secretaries who lost their jobs not only in New York City but in Long Island, New Jersey and other surrounding areas.

"Eventually we're going to be facing a terrible gap and a lot of people are going to be suffering as a result," Curtin said. "The pressure of having too much funding warped the system and caused nonprofit agency decision-makers to panic. Instead of being needs-driven and conscious of resources, the pressure was to spend. But that's part of the conventional wisdom: spend it quickly."