November 29, 2001 | Read Time: 4 minutes
Perhaps a fair and honorable way exists out of the bureaucratic morass that has arisen over the question of what to do with donations for victims of the terrorist attacks. But we will reach that point only if we first accept the truth that everything changed after September 11 — a truth that important segments of the charitable world are only beginning to grasp.
In the face of unspeakable loss, the one thing that we, as a nation, were clearly prepared to do was to give with extraordinary generosity to assist people we did not know but whom we knew, without hesitation, we must help. We did what we could, and that aid now amounts to at least $1.2-billion. And that does not include the countless acts of kindness at the grounds zero and in cities and towns throughout the country.
Ours was an unprecedented outpouring of sympathy, and an expression of faith in the future. Unfortunately, however, we cannot have nearly so much faith in our institutional structures of charity, which seemed singularly incapable of discerning why we had chosen them.
As donors, we believed we could trust venerated institutions and notable leaders to understand that their role was to determine the intent of the givers, not to bend before a windfall for their pre-existing institutional agendas, however laudatory.
We have been treated to a sorry display of the inability of major charities like the Red Cross to act with a sense of knowing what they are doing or why. We did not donate to the Red Cross, or the United Way, or the September 11th Fund. We gave to individuals. It was they, our neighbors and countrymen and women, who solicited our sympathy, not the organizations through which the funds were to be funneled. That was the social contract we created overnight.
If any attempts exist to do anything other than direct all the proceeds to these victims, charities had better do so with clear purposes and an inclusive process. And the process should be informed by the principles of the charitable world: First, respect the will and intention of donors. Second, remember that nonprofit groups are mission- and service-driven. Third, admit to themselves and to the world that a well-developed, time-tested, ethical set of practices for requesting, receiving, and disbursing charitable contributions was severely disrupted like so many other important civil processes. Fourth, acknowledge that some of the reasons the nonprofit world is struggling now is that it has lost sight of the principles that have for so long underlain these practices. Fifth, take stock of the magnitude of the problem and create new structures, possibly temporary, like field medical stations in a time of war.
Here is a proposal: First, we know the names of the charities that have received the September 11 donations. Some were established with just one purpose in mind. Others had a track record of integrity or expertise and were called on to provide some order in a chaotic situation. We also know, one would presume, the names of something in excess of 90 percent of the millions of donors.
Because the problems of discerning donors’ intent and fairly disbursing their charitable gifts are bigger than any one individual, foundation, or government agency, it would be wise to appoint a cross-disciplinary, national committee to set out the principles on which action should be taken to help the victims and immediately direct aid to them.
The standing that such a committee would have is based on the simple fact that the job must be done. Such a group should be small. It would be chaired by someone such as the head of a major university or foundation who understands how nonprofit groups in this country operate, both what they do well and what they can do poorly, who has impeccable credentials, and who is known to make major organizational roadblocks disappear.
Without becoming too prescriptive, the committee should have representation from the families of victims, both U.S. citizens and the citizens of other countries.
The committee would have two jobs. The first would be to negotiate quickly a set of common principles on which the dispersal of funds might be based. This will not be easy, but what is easy in a world where so many assumptions require reexamination? Keep in mind that public confidence is at stake.
The second job would be to construct a short questionnaire, based on the possible priorities for distribution of the September 11 donations, and then to survey a sample — preferably all of the donors — to determine if they would consent to a distribution of funds to purposes other than the care of individual victims of the attacks or their families. Any donor should be given the opportunity to participate in the survey. Surely, one survey-research company or a consortium of several companies would gladly take on this challenge.
With luck, such a plan would fulfill the wishes of the donors to help the victims and to do so sooner rather than later. It would provide an example of how a great people can overcome customary institutional boundaries to respond to new realities. It also would demonstrate that the nonprofit world knows and respects the principles on which its public trust is based.
Donald A. Moore is director of external communication for the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, N.Y.
