Learning From 9/11

The 2001 attacks inspired an outpouring of volunteerism, money, and lingering cynicism about charities

Most of the $2.2-billion that poured into charities to help the victims of the September 11, 2001,

terrorist attacks has now been spent. But the nonprofit world is still feeling the after-effects of the disaster that galvanized the American public to offer what at the time was an unprecedented amount of money and help.

On the plus side, some evidence suggests that a “9/11 generation” has emerged, one that is more likely to volunteer for charitable causes. In a recent study by the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency, 65.4 million people said they donated time to a charity last year — 5.6 million more than in 2002.

At the same time, charities are slowly recovering from the black eye they suffered as a result of the scandals that plagued early September 11 fund-raising efforts — especially the decision by the American Red Cross (later reversed) to set aside some donations for long-term needs and other disasters rather than spend it on relief for victims.

A year after the terrorist attacks, in September 2002, only 60 percent of Americans said they had a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in charitable organizations, down from 90 percent before the attacks. That figure has moved up to 69 percent, according to a survey scheduled to be released next month by New York University’s Organizational Performance Initiative. But the survey, which polled 1,000 Americans in July, also points to underlying doubts about charities’ ability to spend money wisely: 71 percent of respondents said such organizations waste a great deal or a fair amount of money, up from 66 percent last year and 60 percent in October 2003, when the question was first asked.

Confidence in nonprofit organizations is not likely to climb back to pre-September-11 levels anytime soon, says Paul C. Light, the New York University professor who oversaw the surveys. “That period before September 11 was a period when Americans gave the benefit of the doubt to charities, when support for charities was generally soft and benign,” he says. “I believe that has changed for the foreseeable future.”

Competition With Other Causes

Other major disasters have competed for attention and donors since 2001, most notably the South Asian tsunamis and Hurricane Katrina. But some charities continue to soldier on with projects to help September 11 survivors and victims’ families, to memorialize those who died in the attacks, and to promote better understanding between Muslim and Western cultures — even if money is now harder to come by.

“We were one of the charities that received the largest amounts of money, but over time that immediate sense of compassion takes a back position to other crises,” says Alice Mae Britt, chief executive officer of Heroic Choices, in Princeton, N.J., which was set up to meet the long-term needs of children who lost a parent in the attacks.

Its contributions from individuals and corporations fell from $2.8-million in 2002 to $114,000 in 2004.

Heroic Choices is one of more than 300 new charities that were created in September 11’s wake. While some of those groups are winding down as they achieve their initial goals, Heroic Choices is among those that have expanded their missions, now helping children who have survived any kind of trauma.

Meanwhile, some of the major funds that were set up to help September 11 victims are still in business, albeit with only a fraction of the money they once had collectively. Scholarship America, in St. Peter, Minn., has one of the biggest remaining budgets — $112-million to help pay for the education over the next 25 years of children who lost a parent in the disaster.

Other groups — including the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and the Survivors’ Fund at the Community Foundation for the National Capital Region, in Washington — are paying for mental-health counseling for survivors, mindful of the long-term psychological problems that emerged after the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Charities are also planning and raising money for three projects to memorialize the nearly 3,000 Americans who died in the terrorist attacks, with varying levels of success. A project to build a memorial to victims of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon is proceeding with little controversy. Another to honor the passengers who crashed a hijacked plane into a Pennsylvania field is moving slowly following a debate over its design. But the biggest project of them all, a plan to build a memorial on the site of the World Trade Center in New York, is bogged down by escalating costs, political battles, and a lawsuit by relatives and friends of some of those who died when two airplanes brought down the twin towers.

While those charities are still preoccupied with September 11, others are looking for ways to prevent catastrophes, or at least respond better should one occur.

Some grant makers and charities are working to tackle the question that was on many people’s lips just after the terrorists, all Arab Muslims, struck: Can we deter future attacks by promoting more cross-cultural understanding? A handful of private foundations have pumped millions of dollars into programs to teach Americans about the Middle East and about Islam, promote the work of Middle Eastern scholars, and protect the civil rights of Arab-Americans.

But grant making has been hindered by federal anti-terrorist guidelines and, some groups charge, by a failure to recognize a pressing need.

“There’s a lot of talk about what to do but little response from philanthropy on this,” says John Marks, founder and president of Search for Common Ground, a Washington group that works internationally to resolve conflicts.

If the charitable world is forced to respond to another terrorist disaster, one group warns that it should not count on first responders such as police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians to be adequately prepared.

The First Response Coalition, in Washington, a nonprofit group that was created by emergency personnel after September 11, says government officials have not yet fixed a serious weakness — the communications systems used by different first responders are still incompatible.

“Disastrous things do occur — that’s the sad fact of life,” says Steven Jones, who heads the coalition. “But it shouldn’t be exacerbated by the fact that the people trying to save lives and property can’t talk to each other.”