One story in today's New York Times focused on the Red Cross' new commitment to be clear to donors about when their donations met the goals of an event (like a tsunami). It appears that many donors have lost faith in the Red Cross, particularly its accounting, and have significantly reduced their contributions. The rest of the article discussed the dilemma for organizations like the Red Cross that actually need to raise money for less compelling events or needs and end up stuck when they can't get the public to be more interested in another cause.

I think it's useful to remind ourselves that the charitable world comes about because of the need to fill the void left by the lack of public mandate for public support and lack of incentives for the for-profit world to meet a particular need. Simply put, tsunamis offer no incentive for engagement by for-profits -- there's no money to be made. Similarly, the public at large must prioritize its spending to accommodate its global or even local (e.g. New Orleans) disasters that are too extreme for a locality to address.

Generally, all of this is about the haves sharing with the have nots with some thinking that it all balances out in the end. But does it really? Why is it that the nonprofit sector is the last "person" standing trying to fill a void using the selective resources and minds and hearts of those who have the means and the mind and heart? This system, this three legged stool, clearly has some limitations beginning with the recognition that the donor always has options. To be the preferred option the nonprofit must make the case and we thus circle back to the problem faced by the Red Cross -- trust. And to regain trust, the Red Cross is right to set new rules to be donor driven, recognizing it will not be able to do everything needed -- still, more than the for-profit and public sectors are choosing to do on their own.