The questions continue: will the overwhelming flood of generosity shown by Canadians following the Boxing Day tsunami in East Asia and East Africa make fundraising at home harder this year because no one has money left to give, or will it be easier because the philanthropic neophytes who first tested the waters with donations to this cause will extend their newfound generosity to domestic urgencies?

Under the leadership of Ken Wyman of Ken Wyman Associates and Humber College, a panel of four experts discussed the question at length for the benefit of delegates to the Imagine Canada Symposium.

The tsunami was not the only disaster in 2004, Wyman points out; the world also viewed, and reacted to, hurricanes in the Caribbean, floods in Guyana, mudslides in Haiti, AIDS in Africa, earthquakes in China, and floods in Canada and the US.

“The generosity of people in reaction to disaster, and their desire to make a difference, is the same in all these cases,” he says. “What was different this time?”

The huge preponderance of online giving was one major difference. This technology has made it possible for more and more people “to give without waiting to be asked; they respond in the moment”.

Corporate outpouring was much more generous in response to this crisis, says Wyman. “Companies used to say ‘charity begins at home’. This time they came to the table and not only gave, but made it easier for their customers and employees to give. Also, they didn’t insist on recognition of their efforts, as they usually do.”

Panellists were Linda Tripp, Vice-President Public Affairs, World Vision Canada; Lou-Anne Hooper, Senior Director, AMW Direct and Interactive’s Non-Profit Division; Zak Bailey, National Manager, Direct Response, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, and Terry Carter, Carter & Associates.

Looking back to the weeks immediately following the tsunami, Tripp says World Vision, as one of the leading international response organizations with personnel on the ground, was inundated with offers of help, averaging 6,000 calls a day and garnering 38,000+ donations online, with an average gift of $197, much higher than normal, for a total of $28.7 million.

Why was the reaction so strong and so immediate? “It was Boxing Day, people were at home with the TV on, they were celebrating, enjoying the spirit of generosity which belongs to the season. They were looking over their own booty but watching people lose everything they had. Also, we saw people who could have been us, the tourists. Add to that, it was a slow news week, so we saw the disaster over and over again.”

Hooper’s larger clients have seen little negative impact on their fundraising in the last three months due to donor fatigue, she says. But she cites one smaller organization that saw a sharp drop in revenue between Christmas and New Year’s. The organization went to the media with its story that Canadians should be congratulated on their generosity to the disaster victims, but that there are fellow citizens in need right here at home. The response was very positive.

A few “big guys” got the bulk of the largesse, suggests Bailey; “it was consolidated in very few charities”. He points out personal giving for tsunami relief totalled about $200 million, which is about 3% of Canadians’ total giving of $6.5 billion in 2003.

Carter’s concern, as befits a lawyer, is for the insouciance with which so much money had been poured across the ocean, with what he saw as insufficient concern about compliance with strict rules about working with third parties overseas. “You can’t just send a cheque,” he stresses. Charities here need to check the web site of Canada Revenue Agency to ensure they’re au fait with the requirements for control of the use of the money through agency agreements, partnerships, or joint ventures.

They should also take another look at the anti-terrorism legislation, “a bit of a sleeper issue since 2001,” but one which could bite negligent organizations in the back.

In the present situation, says Tripp, accountability becomes the over-riding issue. “What we have is a tremendous opportunity to help the average Canadian understand the need for followup. Now we need rehabilitation and reconstruction, and we have to remember that people are totally traumatized. They’ve lost everything, right down to the boundaries of their property. They have to redefine ownership.”

People also have to remember “there are no big box stores there”, she suggests. Among the major issues faced by those on the ground is the need to get the materials needed to begin reconstruction.

In agreement, Hooper says the NGOs have the responsibility to undertake that education. There’s a lot of donor frustration, she says, as agencies turn from emergency relief to reconstruction, but fail to inform donors of their progress.

“You need to establish donor expectations so they will understand and not be disappointed later. Donors need to know they’re making an impact; you have to tell them how they helped.”

Judging from Bailey’s experience, that update/education task is not being handled as well as it might be. He checked four web sites of agencies which had been involved in relief efforts. Two had not been updated since January 31. Another told visitors how much money it had raised and included details of the situation in the various stricken countries, but failed to explain what it was actually doing with donors’ money.

The fourth, updated March 15, told visitors how much money it had raised and how that money had funded 10 specific projects.

“The keys are managing expectations, transparency, conversion to mission,” says Bailey. “Donors giving to the tsunami aren’t not necessarily disaster-oriented, but no one appears to be asking for more money, trying to retain these donors.”

Carter reminds charities that moneys designated for tsunami relief must be separately tracked and accounted for. If there is an oversubscription and donors hadn’t been told up front that anything extra would be applied to general revenues, the money would have to be returned to the donors. Designated funds would also have to be invested in separate accounts while the charity was waiting to send them overseas.

For the future, says Tripp, a major challenge is to take the opportunity provided by the disaster to help the people in the affected countries become less vulnerable to such whims of nature. Granted their poverty, she says, they have no choices in where to live or how to earn a living. The economic and social issues the disaster laid bare must be addressed.

Many of the donors who came out of the woodwork in this instance had never given to a cause before, she says. “We need to establish what motivated them and figure out how to acquire and retain them. We’re a global village – there are other issues just as compelling.”

She hopes the media will take the opportunity to help educate the public on the overweening needs.

Communications and building relationships will be key to keeping the tyro donors in the philanthropy basket, says Hooper. “There’s a whole new group of potential donors, both individuals and corporations, who could continue to give. But if they’re left high and dry, they won’t be sustained. I gave to several charities – in each case, I got a receipt, but no requests for further donations.”

The tsunami was a good story for the international agencies to establish themselves as vital elements in Canada’s relations with the world, says Bailey, “but they mostly haven’t capitalized on it. I doubt if the issue will get out through the media. The real audience is the donors – you have to reach out to them.”

Looking at the future impact on fundraising, he says, charities must “go back to basic principles – the cause is relevant. Be accountable. Demonstrate actions and results. It’s strategically important and imperative to spend money communicating what you’re doing. Stewardship is important.”

Carter’s warnings to those engaging in crisis relief in the future: “Work through the process and what you’re authorized to do. Check relationships with partners overseas nd make sure the right papers are in place. Even transferring payments between Canadian charities, make sure you know what the recipient charity is doing with the funds. Be sure you keep wiggle room in your fundraising material so you can move the funds elsewhere if you’re oversubscribed. Be sure to track all designated funds, and if you can’t use them according to the donor’s wishes, send them back.”