3 ms·
possibly to get the money to the CDC or government organizations, with the expressly stated restricted use being defined in advance by a non-profit or NGO as be
by scott_s 12y ago
possibly to get the money to the CDC or government organizations, with the expressly stated restricted use being defined in advance by a non-profit or NGO as being for the Ebola response
This attitude - "I gave you money to help x, I only want it to be used on x" is part of the problem. In order for relief agencies to be prepared for the next problem, they need resources on hand that don't have strings attached. But such agencies have learned that if they do this - take money donated at the time of one crisis, and keep it on hand to help with the next crisis - people will be upset.
Planet Money explains this well: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-571-why-raising-money-for-ebola-is-hard http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-...
- sixdimensional 12y agoThat makes sense, I hadn't thought of it that way. I guess the degree to which people donate to such agencies without restriction is related to how much trust is involved for that agency. Thank you for sharing the link with the podcast. To be honest, I hadn't realized that the CDC had a foundation until I saw this today and had been wondering about how to be able to direct funds to them specifically (I did definitely know about other relief agencies, such as Doctors without Borders). I had been specifically wondering about the interplay of the newer crowdfunding models (like Kickstarter or even Watsi) and traditional donation models here, and whether there were new/different opportunities for rapid response methods to approach this kind of challenge (and how one might go about it).