From the Spring 1998 Watchdog Report
Appetite
Stimulants for the Starving
In-Kind
Donations: Not Always Kind to Recipients
It is easy to be impressed when reading of the large
quantities of donated medical supplies and drugs that charities
and businesses send to areas devastated by wars, earthquakes and
other disasters. These donations usually help to alleviate human
suffering but sometimes they cause additional problems.
Here are some examples from the World Health Organization
(WHO) of in-kind donations that made bad situations worse:
During its war for independence, Eritrea sent out
carefully worded requests for medical supplies needed by its suffering
population. In many cases the specific requests were overlooked
and large quantities of inappropriate drugs arrived in this distressed
country. Those drugs included seven truckloads of expired aspirin
tablets, which took workers six months to burn, and 30,000 bottles
of expired amino acid infusion that could not be easily disposed
of because of its strong smell.
Southern Sudan was devastated by war in 1990. Amidst
the rubble and the intensity of the rescue effort, the goods arriving
included a shipment of fifty boxes of donated drugs. All were
labeled in French, which is not spoken in Sudan, and only twelve
boxes contained drugs that were at all usable. Some products were
highly inappropriate, such as appetite stimulants and contact
lens solution, and other products could have even been dangerous
for Sudanese people.
In Lithuania in 1993, eleven women temporarily lost
their eyesight because they were accidentally treated with a donated
veterinary drug that had been received in packages without product
information. Doctors had incorrectly matched the products
name with leaflets for other products.
And during the Bosnian War in 19921996, fifty
to sixty percent of all donated medical supplies were inappropriate,
according to a recent article by a group of European doctors in
The New England Journal of Medicine. The doctors suspect
that massive amounts of drug dumping occurred in Bosnia,
including, medical supplies from World War II and plaster tapes
dated 1961. By mid-1996 about 17,000 metric tons (or about 37.5
million pounds) of inappropriate medicines were taking up space
in Bosnian warehouses.
Why would so much useless or unusable medicine be
distributed? A company might have an excess supply of drugs that
are about to expire. Rather than incur the costs of destroying or
storing the drugs, it might ship them to a stricken region, thereby
avoiding expenses and receiving a tax deduction. It costs about
$2,000 to destroy a metric ton of medicine. So the donors responsible
for giving approximately 17,000 tons of inappropriate medicines
cited above may have received some hefty tax deductions and saved
themselves $34 million in drug destruction costs that must be paid
for by the recipient country or humanitarian groups operating in
the field. In addition, the authors of the Journal article
cite the health and environmental hazards, and the expenses of storing,
handling and sorting unneeded or useless medical supplies.
Handling drugs that are useless, improperly labeled,
or do not conform to the needs of the recipient country severely
strains the already limited human and financial resources of international
emergency-relief organizations. Further, because of the suddenness
and immediacy of large-scale disasters, it is difficult to coordinate
worldwide relief efforts. For example, when the earthquake in Armenia
occurred in 1988, the Armenian government sent urgent faxes to governments
all over the world, asking for specific emergency assistance. Massive
amounts of supplies arrived so quickly that it was not possible
to stop the transport of excess donations. It was therefore not
surprising that there ended up being possibly ten or twenty times
the needed amount of particular goods, according to Philippe Autier,
MD.
The World Health Organization and other entities have
developed strict guidelines for donations of medical supplies during
large-scale disasters, but there is still much waste and inefficiency.
Better coordination and adherence to these guidelines by donors
and charities would allow more successful use of available resources.
COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES
Charity financial statements often disclose the amount
of donated items that are collected and distributed. However, they
usually do not tell you how useful these items are to the final recipient
or if they will result in additional problems. It is far too easy
for a charity to accept all kinds of donated items from contributors
who are looking for a tax deduction or who want to avoid the cost
of discarding unwanted inventory. To discourage charities from puffing
up their charitable purpose expenses with in-kind donations of questionable
value and to offer an apples-to-apples comparison with charities that
do not obtain in-kind donations, AIP's Charity
Rating Guide shows how a charitys dollars are
being spent. AIP encourages charities to separate their cash donations
from their in-kind donations to enable donors to see how their dollars
are being spent. Beware of charities that include questionable donated
goods in their program expenses so that they can claim 99% goes
to program.
|