Private donations to aid agencies for the Asian Tsunami appeal have already reached a staggering $150 million and are set to rise. It's a phenomenal response by Australians when added to extremely generous aid package announced by the Howard Government and important contributions made by the various state governments and Australian businesses.
In a sense, this reponse isn't surprising. The scenes and stories beamed into our lounge rooms have been horrific that one can only be moved by the pictures of devastation and human misery unfolding before our eyes.
For many giving to charity has been the only way to make a difference and to combat the sense of powerlessness that we all feel.
In doing so, the public has placed enormous trust in the aid industry.
And in return, these agencies have a duty to repay this trust by detailing exactly how they plan to use the money and how they actually spend it.
In its fundraising for the Bali Appeal, the Red Cross attracted adverse media coverage over issues relating to how the money was spent and just how quickly it was dispensed.
To its credit, for their tsunami appeal, the Red Cross has stated very clearly how its money will be allocated and has committed to reporting on outcomes.
One agency, Medecin Sans Frontieres has remarkably even stopped taking money for their appeal after having already reached its fundraising target.
In contrast other aid agencies have been at best vague in disclosing expenditure plans, fundraising targets and committing to detail on-going financial reporting.
While a number of aid agencies have started providing accounts of what they are doing on-the-ground, which is important information, few have as provided easily-readable financial reports which gives the public a detailed breakdown about where the money is going; though groups like World Vision and Plan seem to be heading down this path.
The response to the crisis is still only two weeks old and so the aid agencies can be excused for not yet providing full information. But it would be a mistake for any aid agency to believe that a thorough accounting for all outlays is not required on a regular basis.
Channel Seven's Today Tonight recently asked five agencies, World Vision, CARE, UNICEF, Red Cross and Oxfam to submit themselves to scrutiny. Oxfam "was the only organisation which refused to reveal the cost and distribution breakdown of its charity donations" according to the reporter.
The amount of money spent on administration costs is an important issue for those who want to see as much of their charity dollar get to those in need and interested in efficiency.
Most aid agencies have signalled that they plan to keep about 10 per cent to cover their costs. But given that the banks are waiving fees, the contribution of volunteers and the lack of need for any advertising due to the assistance of all media outlets around the country, it is difficult to see how a figure of 10 per cent can be justified. This is especially so since the Red Cross was able to keep its costs down to four per cent in its Bali Appeal.
Aid agencies need to give the public a good idea of just how efficient they are. And other information that would also be useful for public in making this assessment is the amount spent on other overheads such as accommodation, travel, and wages.
Oxfam has now started running a TV advertisement featuring personality Magda Szubanksi who says that at least 90 cents in every dollar will "go to the region". This is too vague. While it implies that Oxfam will spend about 10 cents on administration costs, the actual figure is probably higher as Oxfam often contracts its work out to "partner organisations" in the affected countries, who in turn charge their own unspecified administration fees in addition.
The Australian public has responded to this appeal with unprecedented generosity. It's only fair that the aid agencies who have benefited from this kindness respond with an unprecedented level of openness about how the money is being spent and use it efficiently and solely for the purposes it was collected.
No comments:
Post a Comment