Good Intentions Are Not Enough
Home
June 09, 2009
The worst in-kind donations
This post has been moved to Good Intentions' new website.
Click here
to read the post.
Jun 9, 2009 3:28:37 PM
|
Common aid problems
,
Disaster
,
In-kind donations
NEXT POST
Well-intended attempts to help after a disaster may make a confusing situation worse
This post has been moved to Good Intentions' new website. Click here to read the post.
PREVIOUS POST
Common donor misconceptions
This post has been moved to Good Intentions' new website. Click here to read the post.
Saundra
1
Following
2
Followers
Search
My Other Accounts
Twitter
|
Good_Intents
Recent Comments
Outdoor Playground Equipment:
Its disgusting that this is even an issue, this...
|
more »
On
Placing children in orphanages or up for adoption can be a lucrative trade
Mwritenour:
I applaud your efforts, but am aware of the hug...
|
more »
On
My Smart Aid Wishlist
Sean:
Fantastic article on this here (from February 2...
|
more »
On
Don't Choose a Charity Based on Administration Costs
If you're going to request donations, then really request donations. Don't put up a barely visible "Donate" link and pray for the best. But as more people feel the recession's pinch, donations have been falling at the worst possible time.
Posted by: Sujan Patricia | July 28, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Dear Evan,
Thanks for taking the time to give your thoughts on the dog food. Your point about the fact that it was made by a dog food company rather than an actual donation of dog good is well taken. This is actually the second time I've heard of dog food being donated, once was after the tsunami. I don't know if that was also just made by a dog food company or was actually dog food. The problem in this case is the perception, and unfortunately, that's a hard one to get around.
Posted by: Saundra | June 29, 2009 at 04:14 PM
Are you referring to the New Zealand company that offered to retool its dog biscuit plant to provide foodstuffs for Kenyans?
I really don't think that should be considered "offensive" as it was a donation *by* a dog food company rather than a donation *of* dog food. The proposed biscuits were very nutritionally balanced unlike most of the flour-heavy supplies given for famines. And this doesn't even go into the fact that many animals in the West live much more comfortably than many in the third world. So-called "dog-food" would be a nutrional step up for many, even if its original purpose would make it seem somewhat offensive.
The refusal of the offer caused unnecessary suffering and starvation.
Posted by: Evan | June 26, 2009 at 03:53 PM
Great post! I blogged about it here: http://schweitzerfellowship.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/bras-for-africa-knickers-for-haiti/
Posted by: Patrice | June 10, 2009 at 01:12 PM