Earlier this week, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit Turkey and Syria, killing thousands in its wake (18,342 are reportedly dead in Turkey and 3,377 in Syria), and injuring many more. People are still looking to get those trapped under the rubble out, with time being of utmost importance. As help pours in from several countries, many generous civilians are spreading the word for financial aid or are contributing to it.

While such assistance is always helpful to communities that do not have large pools of budget for massive calamities such as this earthquake, there are also concerns about waste and corruption in these matters. For instance, following the 9/11 attacks, charities were set up to help the victims, but they turned out to be dodgy. Due to such unfortunate practices, donors or charities do not particularly look at these affected areas. Instead, they opt for less complex or uncertain causes than disaster relief.

However, donors keen to help must look at potential charities where their money could be used for good. While this is important, there are also a few other things that must keep in mind, which we will explain today.

Donors must focus on the long-term recovery of calamity struck areas
After a disaster, one of the first steps is immediate relief work. For instance, search and rescue, helping with food and water, and instant medical care, amongst others. These steps are always challenging not because of lack of funds, but in terms of organisation, how to reach the place, and in this case, the need for heaters and electricity due to the biting cold.

However, such things become difficult due to closed roads and airports, and this is where donors can’t help. Such things have to be thought about before the calamity.

While Turkey and Syria work through these issues with the assistance of other nations, donors must remember that second emergencies occur after victims have been rescued. For instance, people die weeks and months after the rescue to the lack of medical facilities and necessary supplies, especially where many live in refugee camps. An example is the aftermath of Puerto Rico, where thousands of survivors died as help did not come on time.

As a result, donors must focus on recovery. Once people are reduced from the rubble, or when the water recedes after floods, people will want to build their homes, and that’s where you must help them with food, clothes, medicines and so on. There are some complexities here, but this is where your money will make a real difference.

Importance of money over goods
While money is useful, there are times when charities have all the donations but have other barriers, such as a lack of staff for field work, access to the affected areas, or low supplies. It is called room for funding, a term that describes how more funding can help charities do more work they are invested in.

When charities ask for money, without having a clear plan about what to do with it, that's bad. On the other, when they list out what they will do with the donations, for instance, building homes, buying clothes, or so on, is always better.

Donations are helpful when people stop giving money
According to reports, donations always come through in the early days after the disaster, with about eighty per cent happening within the first week following the calamity. However, once news about the disaster recedes from prime time, people tend to move on.

While charities save the money and use it over the coming months and years, there are instances when they run out of cash due to their rebuilding efforts. It is where things get tricky. Due to the instant money that comes in, it is sometimes poor for long-term recovery. An example is the Haiti earthquake in 2010 that killed 1,60,000 people. Due to its news coverage, it received $13 billion in aid. Similarly, when Bangladesh and Myanmar were destroyed due to Cyclone Nargis, only $300 million was raised by the government alone. It was because the authorities were not ready to take foreign aid, and by the time they agreed, the news about the disaster moved out of the media cycle. As a result, many US citizens did not know about this.

So, due to varied issues, donors may miss out on important crises. It is why they must keep an eye out for areas that desperately need their help. While impulse donation is not bad, it is often good to divide your donations. A few months after the disaster, they must always follow up on the charities and ask whether they need more assistance or funding. Remember that places like Syria, which is already war-torn and has many sanctions, will have a more severe impact in the long term.

How charities must be transparent
In such situations, it is often very difficult for one to know what is happening on the ground after the rescue. It is equally challenging for charities to navigate through uncertainty. There will also be times when a complicated situation will make it difficult for them to be transparent. But despite the odds, they must ensure to tell their donors what they are planning to do.

For instance, after the 2011 Japan disaster, charities instantly pushed out news saying they no longer need money, and instead, donors must send it to Doctors without Borders, an organisation working towards making disaster relief more effective.

Similarly, since no two disasters are the same, it gives room to charities for experimenting with how they distribute aid. For instance, GiveDirectly tried an experiment, where they gave cash to people who were the poorest after a disaster. The result of the experiment proved that this technique works in richer countries, but it raises a few concerns in poor nations. For instance, badly affected countries will have issues with the transport of housing, and this makes the whole experiment to send them money even more arduous. Similarly, last year, GiveDirectly use AI to pay money to those whose houses were destroyed the most by scanning images from the satellite.

In the face of a disaster, people have proven they can be extremely generous. Many have sent millions and billions in aid, which is not a small feat. However, what is the need of the hour is how we continue to experiment and work to improve existing means of disseminating aid to the most vulnerable people.