Actions have consequences how to#

We will be considering four categories of vulnerability: It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to which someone’s life and livelihood is put at risk by a discrete and identifiable event in nature or in society.” A seminal book on disaster vulnerability (Piers Blaikie, et al., 2003) provides the following definition: “By ‘vulnerability’ we mean the characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impacts of a natural hazard.

Actions have consequences how to#

As Kim Maphis Early reported in a CDP blog, this effort aims to “ return local actors, whether civil society organizations or public institutions, to the center of the humanitarian system with a greater role in humanitarian response.”( Time to Let Go) Those on-the-ground conduct program planning and management, allowing them to use their local knowledge, history and connections to develop services that are compatible with the cultural, socio-political and economic climates of the places that they serve, giving communities a more holistic recovery.”Īnother step we are discussing at CDP is how to improve the way we serve vulnerable populations in our grantmaking work. One step we have taken here at CDP is to work with 14 foundations and corporations on how to bring more decision making to the local level. Poor countries are not only more vulnerable to climate change issues, they have fewer resources to do something to mitigate the disaster or recover afterwards.Īccording to a new report from the U.N., “hunger is growing and the world is not on track to end extreme poverty by 2030, mainly because progress is being undermined by the impact of climate change and increasing inequality.” Researchers Junia Howell and James Elliott recently reported in another study: “ The more FEMA aid a county receives, the more unequal wealth becomes between more and less advantaged residents, holding all else constant, including local hazard damages.”Īt an international level, the challenge is even greater. And federal disaster spending appears to exacerbate that wealth inequality.” Put another way, after a disaster, rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. When FEMA employees developed disaster reimbursement policies years ago, my hunch is that they were focused on how to best help people recover from disasters, with a heavy emphasis on protecting “taxpayer risk.” Were they thinking of housing ownership patterns? Or neighborhood wealth patterns? Or who typically lives in vulnerable geographical areas? As NPR observes: “Federal aid isn’t necessarily allocated to those who need it most it’s allocated according to cost-benefit calculations meant to minimize taxpayer risk.

The same is also true along racial lines, with white communities benefiting disproportionately.” Studies by sociologists, as well as climate scientists, urban planners and economists, suggest that disasters, and the federal aid that follows, disproportionately benefit wealthier Americans. An NPR investigation found that “ across the country, white Americans and those with more wealth often receive more federal dollars after a disaster than do minorities and those with less wealth. Who is considered part of a “vulnerable population?” And what is the best way to help them?Ĭonsider this example. It is set out in our vision: “A world where donors strategically plan for and respond to disasters in order to minimize their impact on vulnerable populations and communities.” One of our intended actions as an organization is to “help vulnerable populations.” This has been one of our commitments from our inception and has been a major focus of our grantmaking.

Here at the Center for Disaster Philanthropy (CDP) we have been spending time and energy thinking through what we do – and how we do it – in order to evaluate whether our actions result in the consequences we intend for them. Sometimes the consequences are unintended.