June 15, 2010 | Read Time: 2 minutes
The cause of the drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is the reason why giving in response to the catastrophe has been modest, say philanthropy experts. So far, donors have contributed more than $4-million.
“This is by all accounts a man-made disaster,” says Gene Tempel, a professor of philanthropic studies and higher education at Indiana University. “People expect BP and others to step up and take care of this damage.”
The International Bird Rescue Research Center, whose employees are helping to clean oiled seabirds, shares the view that BP should bear the cost of clean-up efforts.
On its Web site, the Los Angeles organization says that it welcomes donations for its continuing programs but will not accept contributions earmarked for its work on the Gulf Coast.
Charities typically are able to raise more money to deal with natural disasters than emergencies caused or exacerbated by humans, Peter Walker, director of the Feinstein International Famine Center at Tufts University, told The Chronicle after the South Asian tsunamis.
In the 1990s, he said, the average amount of aid given for earthquake survivors was 10 times the average amount given for famine survivors, at least in part because famines are often caused or made worse by political corruption or armed conflict.
Foundation and Corporate Gifts Unlikely
Foundations may be especially cautious about making contributions in response to the oil spill because of Internal Revenue Service regulations that forbid making grants that provide private benefit, says Mr. Tempel.
“They may be fearful that if they provide any kind of support that it might let corporations distribute more money to stockholders,” he says.
Mr. Tempel thinks grant makers might get more involved supporting long-term projects, such as an effort to bring new industry to coastal Louisiana towns that will still be struggling several years from now, but he doubts many foundations will make immediate gifts.
“It’s going to take some time,” he says.
Corporations are also unlikely to give, says Bob Carter, vice chairman of Changing Our World, a fund-raising consulting company in New York.
“If I were sitting at Corporation X and nonprofit groups wanted me to do something I thought BP ought to do — unless it was proven to me that BP was incapable or unwilling to do something — I would certainly not be the first to step up,” he says.
Devastating as it is, the oil spill isn’t the kind of event that will generate an outpouring of generosity, says Mr. Carter.
“There’s anger over this, and there’s somebody to whom it can be directed,” he says. “It’s not like the helplessness of a tsunami or something like that. It’s a completely different emotional reaction.”
