 Okay, I'm Glenn Gamboa. I'm the philanthropy editor at the Associated Press. And I'm excited to welcome you all to this conversation. It's part of a partnership that we at the AP have with the Chronicle of Philanthropy and the conversation to help the public better understand how philanthropy works and what it achieves. Want to give some thanks to the Lily Endowment for providing support for this effort and for enabling us to do more discussions just like this one. So first, a little housekeeping. We'd love to hear your questions for this great panel. We'll try to have some time for that at the end. There's a lot of them and they have a lot to say. But so if you could please type them into the Q&A section and we'll try to get to as many of them as we can. Today we're here for crisis in Ukraine and beyond how you can help now and over the long run. And we have a panel who has tackled this issue from a variety of approaches from the front lines, from studying it. And I have the honor of introducing our moderator today. Kate Spie Homes is a fellow at Harvard University Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. There she serves as the deputy editor of the Media Manipulation Casebook, which publishes deep dive investigations into online disinformation campaigns. She's also worked at the Open Society Foundations and as a freelance reporter frequently covering global news. She was a 2020 International Woman in Media Foundation Reporting Fellow and her work has been published in Bloomberg, Slate and Wired, among other outlets. Kate Spie, you've been covering this Ukraine-Russia conflict for years. Can you start us off with some context as to how it has come to this? Sure, and I should add that I covered it primarily at the conversation where I was the international editor before joining the Shorenstein Center. So this is kind of like a homecoming for me to be here at this event that's jointly hosted by the conversation. It's nice to be back. And yeah, I think the main thing to remember is that this is not a new war. The war began in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and that conflict killed 12,000 to 14,000 people estimated. So this has been going on for a long time. It's just entered a deadlier new phase with a full invasion that was launched earlier this year. And some of our panelists have been working in Ukraine for many years now and know the scene on the ground well as it built up to the current crisis. Others have a different approach to the crisis have come in more recently. And I'm really excited to talk to everybody about how people can help. There is so much interest from Americans and people worldwide to support the fight in Ukraine and the people in Ukraine and the refugees. So I wanna introduce our panelists. I know that you guys have a lot to say. I wanna get right to it. We will hear from Sandrina DeCruz, who's the Director of Disaster Response at Global Giving, which supports nonprofits and charities worldwide. Beth Gaisley, Professor of Public Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington who recently wrote for the conversation about how to help in Ukraine, a very widely read article. Patty McElrivy, who is President and CEO of the Center for Disaster Philanthropy, which guides philanthropy giving in disasters of all sorts. Nate Mooc, CEO of World Central Kitchen, which is the emergency food provider of Chef Kos Andres. That does emergency food provisions worldwide, including in Ukraine. And we have Art Taylor, President and CEO of Give.org, which monitors charities to ensure they are trustworthy and provides information about charitable giving people. And last but not least, Thomas Teig, President and CEO of the Medical NGO Direct Relief, which has been working in Ukraine for years and has entered a new phase of its engagement around providing medical material to people and hospitals on the ground in Ukraine. So thanks to everybody for joining us today. Since we do have a bounteous panel with six of you, I am going to try to speak to everybody on multiple occasions. I'm gonna ask you to keep your answers short so that everybody gets a chance to speak. And we're gonna try to do this more in a conversation style, no pun intended, more than as a Q and A. So I'm gonna sort of ping people, but please join in if you have something to say. We wanna get lots of voices and perspectives here. So first question is for Beth, Patty and Thomas. The scale of description in Ukraine makes it clear that this, the need on the ground is going to go on for a long time, not just now and not just tomorrow, but for many years to come. We know media attention will turn away long before that. And we have some data showing that American money will also tend to be diverted well before that. I wonder if we could show the slides that show when Americans give and how much. So I'd like the panelists, the three of you that I mentioned are everybody to take a look at this. You can see how the amount of money rises really quickly in the beginning after first two weeks, four weeks, up to six weeks after a disaster. And then in many cases, the amount tends to level off. And what the leveling off means is that not much more money is going towards crises. There are a couple of examples that are exceptions. Hurricane Katrina is a notable exception where money kept coming in. Here we have amounts, like where do US charities give? Again, like Hurricane Katrina, if this is a domestic crisis, we can see that the amount that Americans give is much higher for domestic crises and it tends to be much lower for international crises. I can see that the typhoon in Philippines was by far the least, even though the scale of destruction may have been greater than Hurricane Katrina. So Beth, let's start with you. Does this data reflect your experience looking at how Americans give? Yes, I think it does, Catesby. But a couple of points. First, these figures mainly focus on natural disasters. Ukraine, as you mentioned, is still in the middle of a military invasion on top of an eight-year civil war and we don't know the outcome. We have to be realistic. But we do know this is still a disaster on an unprecedented scale, both in terms of the amount of physical destruction as well as the number of displaced people. So far, Americans appear to be giving on the same grand scale at percentages similar to Katrina or 9-11 where half or more of Americans made a contribution. And I'm hopeful that those facts and the political commitment our country is making to Ukraine keeps the crisis in the media and in the public side longer than eight weeks. Second point, this disaster is going to require a multi-generational response. You hear this phrase a lot in emergency management disaster. Your recovery is a marathon, not a sprint. If Ukraine prevails, we're talking about rebuilding a nation that's being bombed bits, rebuilding everything from universities to hospitals to homes, cultural sites. If Ukraine falls, we're talking about supporting millions of displaced people who may be becoming permanent asylum seekers. So one of the typical pieces of advice for donors who really do want to support these crises long term is to consider splitting your gift, designating some of it for immediate relief aid and then the remainder for longer emerging and longer term needs. Thanks, Patty and Tom, anything to add to that? Yeah, if I may. I think, thank you, Kate B, for having us here. And I think Beth really outlined it very well. I mean, the challenge is people give for three reasons. They give proximity, scale and media and complex humanitarian emergencies have always been a challenge, because it has always been exactly, as Beth said, very complicated. When is the end? When do I give? How do I give? And as CDP Candid, our own research has shown complimenting the universities, the vast majority of giving even to those disasters that we highlighted, it's for that immediate. Only 6% goes to response and recovery. So it's even more desperate than you would hope. It's really a very small amount that goes into those response and recovery and towards reconstruction. And I think the challenge we have in some ways over this is the narrative we have about recovery because it's seen as this timeline, something we do later. And I respectfully disagree with that because a lot of recovery is about the approach we take. If we want to have a really strong, equitable localized recovery, we need to explore how to support those organizations as close as possible on the ground as soon as possible on the ground. And by the way, what I mean by it's an approach on a time, this is an example. It's the difference between a warm meal and temporary shelter. Critically important when you first crossed a border when you're in the midst of a crisis. But what everyone truly wants in a disaster is as soon as possible to have a home filled with a pantry full of food that they can cook their own meal. That's about giving people recovery, the hope of a future, an agency in there in what they wish to do, how they wish to recover, where they wish to go. And that's what we need to try and educate ourselves, the public, the communities about more and more is listening to Ukrainians on the ground and saying, what do you really need and how do we get it to you? How do we explore that? Giving them the power of choice, the agency of that decision-making of their future. The sooner we can do that, the better. If you could chime in. Well, I agree. I mean, I think we've in that chart you showed directly to still working in each one of those events from Katrina on with many of the same people we were working with at the time. And Ukraine, as you mentioned, we've been working and we'll continue to. So I think that the dilemma is really not on the part of the people who are giving. I mean, they're doing an extraordinarily generous thing personally. And I think the dilemma comes on the part of those of us who receive it, what is the responsible thing to do? How much do you mean to now? I think we've been talking about that here and we've said, we're not gonna hold anything back. I mean, that's insulting to people in Ukraine for whose benefit directly relieve money. And so we've organized around if you have a clean shot, you take it, you do it thoughtfully. You work with local people who have the strongest vested interest in how this shakes out and you do it with respect. So I think it's so early right now. I think these general trends of Americans have a short attention span. There's always something pulling for our attention. So it's been extraordinary how intensely covered it has been from all the major outlets. But at some point, I think it reaches a saturation when people just can't absorb anymore. So I think I understand it. It's just something we all have to deal with. But I think to keep an eye on the long-term as both Patty and Beth said, of course, I think what that means in terms of our day-to-day activity is strengthening the local institution. Who's gonna be there in five years? Which institutions, which organizations, and try to make sure that with the money and resources that are being provided to nonprofits, that it keeps that in mind, move as fast as you can with an eye on the long-term and who's gonna be there in the next five years. And listen carefully, and that's what we try to do here. So the three of you who just responded, follow-up question here. I remember an article in the conversation several years ago, and I can't remember exactly which crisis it was in response to, but the headline was something like, want to help in, let's say, Houston. Maybe you should just wait a little while. And the thrust of the article was that people give in the beginning, right? And then they kind of forget, and in many cases, a lot of the need can arise much later. And so if you want to give, one of the most helpful ways to do it is to wait. Would you guys recommend that advice in regards to Ukraine or would you recommend something more like scheduled giving, long-term giving? How should people handle the now versus the later? I think it really varies depending on the individual, the organization, how much money they have. I mean, I don't think there's any one perfect solution that's out there. It's what aligns to your values, what aligns to your own mission as an individual, as a family, as an organization. And I always say, if you can give, set up a sustainable gift, set up monthly giving, you've already decided what organization you want to help. Trust them to know when to do it. They don't need you. If you've done your research, that organization doesn't need to tell you when to start recovery, when to start different approaches. They already know. What they need to know is that they have confidence that the funding is coming. And whether that's through a one-time gift at the beginning or whether that's through a sustaining gift into general operations or unrestricted to allow them to be flexible to the needs on the ground, that for me is always the best way to help. You do your research, you find the organization and you trust them to do what they need to do. I agree. Absolutely 100%. And when I mentioned splitting gifts, I wasn't talking about withholding support. I was talking about making a long-term commitment. One of the things that comes out of disaster research is that we understand the need to build a strong infrastructure. And so we're not only helping people meet their day-to-day needs, but we're also building resilient long-term capacity to help people in the future. And you'd be amazed at how much the budgets everything from the Red Cross to some of the people representing institutions here, their budgets go up and down because people do have short-term memories when it comes to giving. That's not good for disaster recovery organizations. So the kind of long-term giving that Patty's talking about is really essential, but it's also built on this idea that we build relationships with organizations. And if we trust them to make an impact, then we have to trust them to do that over time and give them the capacity to do that. Thanks. We have about 30 seconds left, Thomas, if there's anything you'd like to add there. Well, I agree with what the other speaker said. I think it's nonprofits, you have to understand the role we're playing. I think we're public government-like and that exists for the public benefit, but we're supposed to be more nimble. We should move fast emergencies. We shouldn't hold back. And I think recognize that the big reconstruction, no nonprofit organization is gonna have enough, you're talking about hundreds of facilities damaged and to the extent a group is gonna be engaged in that long-term, earn it now. With the money you've got, communicate it well, show what you're doing, explain why. I think that should take care of itself, but that's why you have governments and IMF. I think those big wheels sometimes they go far, but they're slow to get turning. And I think the role that organizations can play is moving fast and doing it thoughtfully and understanding the role that they're playing and the role that they're not. That's a great segue for the next question I had. And this next question is for Sandrina, Art and Nate. What we've seen in this conflict in particular is like social media direct calls for funding to specific people or specific organizations. And you can use PayPal or you can use GoFundMe. There was even the use of Airbnb to give money to individual families in Ukraine for those who weren't following people would book Airbnb's in Ukrainian cities. They were never planning on using Airbnb, waived its fee at a certain point because there was some pushback about Airbnb taking a fee. And this was seen as a way to sort of cut the red tape and get money directly from people who wanna help to the people who are on the ground who need help and who know best how to use that money. I'm wondering how those of you against Sandrina, Art and Nate, how do you balance the big organizations that have the experience on the ground? And as our panelists said, know best how to use the money with some people's desire to give straight to the individuals themselves. Maybe Sandrina, you wanna start? Sure, I can kick us off. So we advocate for supporting an ecosystem of humanitarian response organizations. But most importantly, we advocate for prioritizing local experts and local organizations that are closest to the crisis. They're most intimately familiar with the complex issues and the needs as they're arising on the ground and as they're shifting on the ground as well. And for this particular case, we're talking about in Ukraine, but also in Poland, Romania, Slovakia and other areas as well. And so the idea here is that these local teams are going to be able to support their communities long after the crisis is no longer making the headlines. And we often hear, because global giving response to crisis, humanitarian crisis and natural disasters all over the world. And we often hear from these communities that their voices are not heard in the disaster response. And so our experience is that giving to vetted, trusted local organizations helps to strengthen the short-term support and the long-term recovery needs. And I would say that my next recommendation has to do with giving recurring donations which we touched on a little bit and sort of having this longer-term commitment especially for local organizations that can establish these trusting relationships with their communities. And as we know that the recovery process takes decades, that's extremely important. And it's also beneficial to some extent because organizations to one extent or another they provide updates. And so you can keep up with what's going on in that particular location and develop that sort of awareness as well as to what's going on in those communities. And then I think it's really important to emphasize especially in times of crisis to give cash rather than in-kind donations and understanding that we feel very compelled to give as we see people that might be cold, that want food and we wanna give coats and canned goods and the like but it's important that we keep in mind that giving cash enables those organizations to be able to make decisions in real time as to what the needs are or how they can support the people that are coming in through those doors. It also helps us stimulate the local economy as we're seeing is starting to be a critical issue in Ukraine. And then the unfortunate reality is as well that when it comes to in-kind donations sometimes teams are literally sifting through tons of donations. And so rather than actually delivering that direct support to Ukrainians that needed they're having to be in the back in a warehouse having to organize all those donations. Thanks, Sandrina. Art, so your organization monitors charities, right? And you try to keep track of who's doing the best getting the money where it's going? Who can people trust? So I'm interested in your response to the question of how can people best give? How can they best know that the money is getting where it is meant to be? Presumably people want to get to people and not to other causes that a nonprofit may decide are important. And that the people may it may be important but I think the donor desire is in an interesting tension with what the broader scene may be on the ground as well. Yeah. Well, I think that we've learned many years ago that it's really important for charitable organizations to be clear upfront about what they intend to do because we also know that at the end of it there is an accounting that comes. And the media will want to know well, what actually happened with all of this money that was raised? And I think every charity should seek to be in a position of saying, we tried to do exactly what we said we would do with the money. You go back and read our appeals, if you go back and check our website for what we said we would do, that's exactly what we did. And when we couldn't do that, we let everyone know that we were shifting what we plan to do and for the reasons that they were willing to do it. So keeping the public informed about not only what you wanna do upfront but what you're currently doing with those resources will go a long way in making sure that the organization is in a position to help next time because it's coming as well. The other thing though, in terms of donors the first thing people wanna know is where to give. And there's usually a mad rush to figure out which organizations are actually out there doing something. And what we've seen is that there are people out there as well as organizations trying to help people but there are also institutions that are collecting funds to help in different ways. I know that the Humane Society is actually collecting money to help with animals. And there are other organizations that are probably working to do infrastructure type things. And so people don't often know right away which organizations to go to or even what type of help is being offered. And I think what we try to do in our organization is quickly try to get those vetted charities out there on our website so that people can see who's doing what and why. And we're also offering the continuing advice to organizations to be really clear about what they're doing so that in the end there is less confusion about what happened to the money because the work is really difficult. It's not work that an organization can stand up and say we guarantee that we're gonna get these kinds of outcomes. And we need to be very humble about what we say we're gonna do and not simply promise things that we can't deliver just to draw funds. The last thing I'll say is that when you think about the needs of people in a particular crisis and it has been said many times it goes on from the continuum of we need immediate help to just eat and have shelter and clothing to getting support longer term for actually rebuilding those pantries as has been said and furthermore, further on. I think organizations have to decide how far into that they're going to go and how far realistically should they go? Because there comes a point at which as Tom pointed out, charities aren't really equipped to rebuild countries. That has to take a much larger, I think global sort of support than most organizations are willing to and able to provide. Now last thing I promise I'll be quiet. The whole question about should we fund organizations versus individuals? Well, if you can find people who are standing up and saying I need help and there's a way to give to them I can certainly understand a person saying I'm going to do that. But I also say to people, if you're interested in assuring that the response is sustained and that this person that you're wanting to help today gets help further down the road you might also want to consider organizations because they're the only ones in a position to do sustained kinds of activities that can help more people over a longer period of time. Thanks, that's an interesting point to put on it. Again, coming back to the immediate versus long-term nature of crises, right? Nate, as far as organizations on the ground doing the work you lead one of the World Central Kitchen what's your take on this of how best to help people there? Yeah, I think it's actually a pretty great thing to see the desire and so much outboring of support for the Ukrainian people and even all the GoFundMe's and the PayPal's and the things like that because I think it's indicative of a trend which is a healthy one in which donors really want to know where their money's going, right? And I think for a long time and we're seeing this trend shifting away but for a long time, people have donated to kind of a black box and they hope that organizations will use their funds wisely and maybe the organizations will claim to use their funds wisely and then in the end we find out that's not always the case. And so I think there is a push for a lot more radical transparency in the space which is very, very healthy and important. The technology is here today that we should have this. For our work right now in Ukraine, for example, we're serving anywhere between 300 and 400,000 meals a day. We're moving millions of pounds of food via trucks and trains across the country. We have thousands of distribution points every single day and all of this data is tracked in real time or nearly real time. Some of our partners don't have reliable connectivity and so we're able to provide donors with maps showing that they can browse through and click on things and see literally what happened this day. So where is their money being used? And I think that type of connectivity and interaction with a donor base is going to be ever more critical as we move forward. And really with the technology and the tools we have today, there's really no excuse not to have that type of real time data. So I think in terms of donors giving to Ukraine, it's totally understandable that people wanna give to something very specific because it's like, if I give money to this person in this GoFundMe, it seems like they're gonna use it for this specific purpose. But as Art said, that doesn't necessarily scale and so any sort of bigger giving needs to really go through a trusted organization that's doing the work on the ground. I think specifically for Ukraine, what you're seeing is a couple of different areas of need. You have the displaced refugee populations that have left Ukraine, that have very specific needs around relocation, housing, long-term support around jobs and essentially rebuilding their lives at least for the short-term and potentially for the long-term. And I think there are a lot of ways, there are a lot of incredible organizations doing work with those refugee populations in many different ways. There's right on the border as people are leaving, there's some of the longer-term support that's been discussed and you have amazing work being done across the board. And so kind of identifying some of that if that isn't an area of interest. And then there's the needs within Ukraine right now. So populations that are cut off from access to humanitarian aid and need assistance immediately. So these are folks that need food, water or other goods, other items right now. And so there's really, you know, they're really only a handful of organizations that are working within Ukraine due to the security situation, especially as you get over to the eastern side of Ukraine where the need is so acute. And so, you know, I think it's important to really look at the type of kind of assistance that donors are looking to provide or most enthusiastic to support and then kind of direct that to the different types of organizations that are able to meet the need. And especially for a situation so complex and moving so rapidly as Ukraine is. But, you know, I think donors are pretty savvy these days. People are pretty, you know, in tune of where they're giving and how they're giving. And so I'm hopeful and optimistic that, you know, they're making all of us better. I know they're making World Central Kitchen better with our work because, you know, they demand it. And that sort of real-time transparency is so, so important. Sandrina, did you want to jump in? Yeah, I wanted to add a little bit to what Nate said. And I agree with the points that he's made in certainly seeing that appetite on the part of donors to, you know, do the research to want to know more about what's going on and also bring in the important component that local organizations within Ukraine and a lot of cases like they have no choice but to operate in these really insecure environments. And what we're hearing from a lot of the global giving partners, nonprofit organizations in Ukraine is that they're having to work through a lot of volunteers. I mean, in some cases, yes, some of their staff were able to leave the country, but a lot of them have decided to stay and to provide the support that they can. And also wanting to compliment a little bit of what Art said earlier. And again, you know, fully agreeing with, you know, the need to do this type of review and try and ensure that, you know, our organizations are transparent. But when it comes to the long-term recovery process in certain contexts, it is actually those charities within those countries that are leading the way. And so, you know, we are still working with local nonprofits in Puerto Rico that are helping to reestablish the critical water infrastructure after Hurricane Maria. And so, yes, it is true. They work in collaboration sometimes with the government, but I'm thinking even here or in Venezuela rather, nonprofit organizations that are trying to build back the medical system as well. I want to pause here with this best, you know, ways where people can actually help to talk about volunteerism for a moment. Nate, I believe many of the people working for you are volunteers, is that correct? Yeah, it's a combination. We, you know, I think as Sandrina was saying, you know, it's so important to build local infrastructure and support the local groups and organizations. So, on the ground in Ukraine, we have local staff that we've built up and hired along with sort of an army of volunteers and also folks that work for many of the restaurants. We have about 350 restaurants currently active in Ukraine right now cooking every day. So, those staff are also being paid. So, it's a combination of paying local staff because I definitely don't want to be reliant or encourage free labor, but also at the same time, you know, volunteers play a really critical role, especially in and around Ukraine. I mean, we're seeing this, we saw this outpouring of supportive volunteers on the border sites, you know, people flooding from all over Europe, certainly in Poland and Romania and Moldova and Hungary and Slovakia and all of these amazing people that were coming in to support the refugees that were streaming into their countries. And within Ukraine, you know, people are doing amazing work on their own, not getting paid for it or separate from their day jobs. And it really, really is a critical way to also build up that local capacity, right? We don't want to come in and, you know, kind of bringing a bunch of stuff from the outside and tell people what to do. Really, it's about going in and activating the resources that are already there on the ground to be fast and efficient and really helping that coordination, which we have the experience with, but really leveraging the local groups, the local organizations that can do it so well. So, volunteers I think across the board are so important to many of the nonprofits that are working. And then also, as Sandrina said, partnering with the local organizations and the groups that are still there and will be there for the long term. Tom, Thomas, sorry, I've been giving you a nickname that I don't mind to give. Thomas, does Nate's experience reflect what you've been in Poland, correct? Are you also seeing as combination of paid staff and volunteers? And then I want to ask the question, is volunteering a good way for people to help? Would you guys recommend volunteering? I think our experience with Director Leaf is where like most organizations are support organizations. I mean, it's being driven by local people and should be. I think our equivalent, I think to what Nate described is that, I'm sort of unusual, but there was a private multi-level skill hospital in Kiev that converted to a free hospital because there was no income. So, we agreed to pay the staff of 300 people, just pick it up. So, they're free services for people who can encounter serious injuries. So, then they're providing a public benefit service right now, but their character was private. So, we nonprofit groups have weird descriptors and we talk like, well, what sector are you in? I'm in the agriculture sector, the food sector, the health sector. And I think pretty much every person on this planet is a member of every sector. So, I think the dilemma in a big emergency is like the groups are thinking in terms of what they're focused on skill, recognizing there are a lot of other things. Like Art said, people really care about animals. And that's a wonderful thing to do. And I think to recognize that no one group can do it all and or should try, but to really lean into it, engage the people who are there and try to sustain for the long-term with whatever philanthropic funds come in, keep your eye on the long game because you can, quick victory that has a long-term bad outcome is not good. It's place people who, whether it's in a restaurant or a hospital, I think that's not the desire or the productive use. So I think this is different too. I would just say that volunteers in a war zone is different than volunteers in another type of environment, to clean up after a natural disaster for sure. There's high personal risk and it's worth considering carefully. In Europe, I think there's been a wonderful outpouring. What we've seen in Poland is again, trying to work and leverage what's there. And I think $10 million to backstop the copayment for refugees so that they can go in from Ukraine. They're covered by the national health insurance, but which requires a little copayment if you need a medication. So we agreed to work with a company that can do person-specific tracking and backstop the copayment, which is narrow in focus, but it's easy to explain. It's very highly trackable. So there's integrity in that process, but it involves working with a private business who we all want to make sure don't have that ripple effect consequence and suffer because again, the problems are big enough, the ripple effect is huge. And just to understand the role, what's the highest embassies that this philanthropic money that does what people want honors their intention, but also has a catalytic effect now and in the future. If I may, Kate's becoming, I think it's great the volunteers on the outpouring that's there. I think Thomas spoke a little bit about the responsibility in volunteerism. You don't want to be a burden to organizations. I would say for organizations that are using Ukrainians as volunteers, especially those national organizations that need our support in a big ways. In the same way we fight against the inequities of not paying your interns, we should really be challenging ourselves about not paying Ukrainians. They are straining their coping mechanisms right now. We, yes, the outpouring is there, but we have to help them. And we have to figure out how to make that happen. And I know that's challenging in a lot of ways right now, but we've got to make sure that funding is getting as much as possible to Ukrainians, to individuals, to families, especially those who are helping at the front lines of this crisis. If I may just quickly though on the accountability and transparencies, because I've heard a lot of comments about that. And I think it's wonderful. There's an ecosystem. We all recognize the values, civil society plays, governments plays. We all have a role in the recovery and reconstruction. And even, let's be honest, in the current response needs for Ukraine. You know, it's incredibly important. But I want to just manage expectations, knowing this is a call to the public, to the American public, this conversation. Manage your expectations. You do not want the organization to be looking at you in the response. You don't center yourself in the response. They need to be focused on the Ukrainians and the work that they're doing. And if the expectation is lots of reports, lots of communication, lots of feedback, it takes a lot of money to do that. And it pulls money from the response. I'm not saying it's an all or nothing by any means. Of course, it's a balance. But I just want to manage expectations that organizations on the ground, they need to be nimble. They need to be flexible. They need to be able to manage and adjust and adapt on the fly. And if they know that they've got to go back and ask your permission before they do that, it's going to hinder their ability to be as responsive as they need. You've heard from Nate, you've heard from Tom as their programs have probably shifted half a dozen times just in the last week and a half. They need to have that flexibility and you need to give it to them and not expect too much demand back in terms of how they report back to you. So I just wanted to highlight that. I really want to put an appeal out there for the organizations on the ground, give them your trust, expect yes, but not too much. So you're saying there's a tension between accountability and transparency, which is what people as donors crave and the nimbleness that we've heard emphasized repeatedly here that organizations need on the ground in order to be able to respond. And the overhead and you want low overhead. So don't put too much expectation on things that will cost them to do. That's actually for you and not for the Ukrainians. Thank you for that. I know that Nate has to leave us in a few minutes and I just before he does have the question start with him, but then we can talk with other folks here. I do want to take a moment to acknowledge that this conversation is about Ukraine, which is experiencing a full-scale war at this moment. It is not the only place in the world that is experiencing war or hunger or displacement. And as we saw from the slides in the beginning, Americans tend most often to give to domestic crises. And then after that, it drops off pretty substantially. So I would just ask, starting with Nate because I know you have to go and I know your organization is working in many different places. Where else should people who want to help be paying attention to right now? Yeah, I mean, there's a lot going on. And as we enter hurricane season in the next month or so, that'll continue to get worse. Recently, there was a cyclones hitting Madagascar where our team was there's flooding in South Africa, obviously ongoing issues in places like Yemen and Syria. There's a constant refugee crisis going on on the Southern border of the United States right now. There's a big wildfire in New Mexico where our teams are on the ground right now as well. I mean, unfortunately there is no shortage of places to help. And as you said, Ukraine has a lot of the world's attention, rightly so. It's the fastest refugee crisis we've seen perhaps ever. We're looking at the potential for a massive shift in what's happening in the world and overall with this invasion and what it means for Europe and for the United States and for the world itself. And so of course there's a lot of attention on this. And so hopefully this can be a way to catalyze support from the public and also to use this moment to talk about some of the other things that are going on as well. So I don't think it ever has to be an either or and sometimes it's up to organizations like ours to help share, use this moment to say here's what we're doing in Ukraine with your support and we're also doing these other things that you might wanna know about. So it brings more people sort of into the house so to speak and hopefully can be an opportunity to educate folks on what else might be going on. But people have busy lives, they have their own lives. You can't expect them to track everything. So we try to do our best but there's certainly a lot of places that certainly need our help. I think a good way to look at it our founder, Chef Jose Andres talks a lot about longer tables and I think creating opportunities for people to be part of that and to learn more and to join an organization or support an organization not necessarily for a one-off disaster response which might be their entry into the work itself but then to share and build those longer tables that connect all of us together. So just one way to look at it. Thanks, Beth, if you had to make a case for broader giving or more global giving what would be your case to make? I know you study civil society so I'm interested in particular about places where you've seen maybe a civil society response that could use a boost. Well, effective and long-term giving is really about donors building relationships with the places they're supporting the people they're supporting. So I'm not gonna presume to talk about one part of the world over another part of the world but what I would say is that the organizations I favor are organizations that are really transparent and open about what they need. There's a famous story about Doctors Without Borders which is an organization I really respect after the 2004 tsunami sent out a public notice to its donors, thanking them for their support of East Asian giving but telling them that there were other crises and other parts of the world that required medical response and at this point forward, donations would go to those other places. Well, of course they got pushback, right? But they hopefully also educated a number of donors along the way about trusting charities to understand where the needs are greatest and also understanding how to plan for the future. We've heard a lot about trusting charities in this panel today. I think that phrase has come up several times and I'm curious to sort of close out this portion of the conversation because I do wanna get to questions from the audience. Art, trusting charities, you look at charities and you assess whether they should be trusted or what should be trusted and what they should be trusted to do. So any final word to donors, to our listeners here about charities trusting them and wanting to make a difference on the ground? Well, trust is the key currency in our work. I mean, we can't do anything if people don't trust your organization. So we certainly want to encourage people to trust because we know that if people trust, they give more. But there's also trustworthiness and not every organization that is trusted is trustworthy. So I think it's important for every organization to do what's possible given the situation to demonstrate their trustworthiness. And as I said before, one of the key things is to try to do what you say you're going to do. That's one of the most critical things you can do. And if at some point you can't do that, you need to let people know and that maintains the trust. And I think we're at a point where certainly the larger organizations have baked in systems and communications teams who do this as part of their normal work. This isn't something that is a stretch for organizations to have to do. They have that built in. It's part of their operation and they do it well. So it's really important because again, we want people giving joyfully. We want people giving confidently. We want people giving knowing that they actually have a chance to succeed with their gifts. And I think organizations can do a little bit of work here and many of them do. And it goes a long way in maintaining, I think the trust that people have in those organizations. I said a final question before we went to the audience, but I do have one final question. I'm going to take my moderators prerogative here. What shouldn't people do? There are ways to do harm when trying to do good. And I just pose this to the panel as a final question before we go to the audience. Is there anything that you would advise against that's more harmful than useful in Ukraine? Thank you for asking that question. I was so ready to answer this question in our prep. Well, in disasters, cash over stuff and unrestricted giving over restricted giving. That's the basic formula. The other thing too, and Art may want to speak to this as well, is that we're well beyond the point where people ought to be using the artificial idea of an overhead ratio as a way of determining effective giving. This is an area actually where the academic research is really helping because we're starting to formulate a really good argument about how much non-programmatic expenditures are related to high performing nonprofits. And lower overhead is not a better organization. So the other thing, and if I can just, every disaster is contextual. So if I can just add one more thought, I'm really struck right now by the fact that everybody in the room can't reach some of the people who need help right now. We're in the middle of a military conflict. And so I'm looking for organizations right now that are really making a connection between humanitarian law and what they do as charities because we ought to be pressing those who can make these decisions to open up humanitarian quarters and help us get aid to the people who need it. Yeah. Anybody else wanna give a what not to do, harmful practices? I guess, I mean, I think it ties a bit, very much I think Beth gave a great overview and to touch a bit on what Art had said, a bit the trust and the trust-based philanthropy. And I do think there's a certain aspect of you've researched these organizations and the same, you think about it like a fire department. I think people often, they think they know better than the organizations on the ground who've been working in this crisis or working with these individuals. And they'll wanna tell you, this is what you should be doing. And I would say, okay, in the same way, you have a fire department. And if your house is on fire, you love if all your neighbors show up with buckets of water, but let's be honest, you want the fire department. And the charities who work in these conflict settings, they're the fire department. They are trained and aware and an understanding of the complexities of the security issues, of the sanctions, of how to try and access these populations, of how to try and be principled in the way Beth was saying that humanitarian principled approach that's really looking in international law, those organizations, they need your support, not to tell them what to do, but to understand that they have an expertise and to believe in that expertise. And again, you might wanna do your research, find one that really aligns with you in the way that Art was saying, the way Beth has highlighted, but definitely trust not just them in terms of the finances, but trust their expertise. And I think that's where you get the, oh, but I wanna give canned goods. Well, trust when they're telling you no, believe them, there's a reason why they're saying no. Very true. And if I could augment to that, because I do think that what naturally flows from that is a trust that these organizations are also, to some extent, especially local ones, able to operate in a more informal manner, and they may not necessarily be able to report out on exactly what they're doing because it would put them at risk. And so this appreciation for trusting those teams and letting them do their work and funding them in such a way that they're able to then support those communities and then as they're able to, and as it makes sense that they can come back and provide those report outs as needed. Thanks. So I have two questions from the audience that I think I wanna combine into sort of one broader question and I'll pose it to whoever really wants to answer this question, because it's a big one. One question is the U.S. government spending in Ukraine going where it needs to go and will it help the humanitarian situation? And the other question was, will Ukraine need a Marshall Plan after the war is over? And I think that those questions basically get at the same issue, which is, is the U.S. government engaging currently or going to engage in a way that is actually enormously helpful to people on the ground? Is the money getting where it needs to go? What do you guys see from the perspective as humanitarian aid people looking at government spending in the country now and later? And we have, I should say, just a few minutes. I mean, I could take a crack at it. I think the attention is the government's putting on things that only governments can do. And that's the national security dimension, which I mean, direct relief doesn't do with, you see the effects when it fails, but I think that's appropriate. I think, again, those big wheels, will there be a Marshall Plan or not? I don't know, we've been spending a lot of money at the governmental level on everything. So I think, but something that only the government can do at scale is the armaments and the kind of stuff that's clearly the priority of the Ukrainian people. They're trying to save their country. So, I think it's too early to tell. I think the desires there, whether the money will be there, if we'll get bogged down on politics is unclear, but I think in the near term, there's a huge need that's not being met. Philanthropic dollars can make a big difference now. It's a little premature to try to forecast how this thing's gonna shake out in my view because we haven't seen this in modern history. And the last time we did, it was a brutally long shake out, but things have changed. So I'll defer to people who are more thoughtful and experienced than myself on that one. But I think that's the government's role at the U.S. level is probably where it can do the most good for now because even the aid programs are a bit slow getting going. Those big wheels take a bit to set up at the governmental level. Anyone else? We have three minutes left to answer that question or if that feels too big, we can ask another question from the audience. For me, I think it's just what I'd said earlier. It's an ecosystem. We need everybody to contribute to this. This crisis is gonna go on for a while and unfortunately the recovery will take a long time and it's gonna take all types of dollars. And that means there is money going in from the U.S. government through the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance. There's money going in through Department of States, population refugee migration. That money then is programmed out to organizations on the ground in the same way that philanthropic dollars are programmed out to organizations on the ground. So I think it's gonna take all of us in terms of that. And as Thomas said, there's quite a bit of funding going in for other political, military, economic needs that nonprofits may have opinions on. But to be honest, we try and stay out of that world in a large way because we don't want to be aligned too much with anyone government's positioning. It can create trouble for organizations on the ground in terms of, as Sandrina said, their operating environment, their space, their security, their safety. So I do think that we need to speak out about what's happening. We need to call for attention. We need to call for funding. But how much is going in, I think only time can tell and where this actually ends up. Thanks. I'm gonna take one last question from the audience. I apologize to people who sent in their questions. There were a lot of good ones and we only had one hour. So there's two minutes left for this question. Is there evidence that giving to Ukraine is squeezing out other important causes or are people just digging deeper for this crisis? I'll let whoever wants to have the last word answer. Just a quick mention that in prior research on disaster philanthropy, that doesn't seem to be the fact that there's a floating out effect. So you're saying in general, people just dig deeper and they give more. There's not a choice being made between A and B. Yeah, that's what prior research says with all the caveats we already mentioned regarding the scope of the prior research. Kate, there is very, normally philanthropy is not incredibly generous into complex humanitarian emergencies. Very much so in disasters from natural hazards, but in complex humanitarian emergencies where there's this protracted nature where there's no real clear event that ends and people know they give. The giving has always been on the smaller side. So I would say that it's less taking from others, but maybe more a clarion call of, hey, we actually should give more into these complex humanitarian emergencies in future. And so in some ways from CDPR positioning is, does this set us up to actually have a greater narrative to pull more people into the tent of giving into complex emergencies? If you've done it in Ukraine, why not give to Tigray? Why not give to Yanmar? Why not give to other places? And I would add to that really quickly is that we've seen a decline in giving overall the number of people giving, not the total amounts. We've seen a decline in the number of people giving. And we can always be hopeful that when people see these kinds of events, that will pull some of them back into the world of giving. We've seen just a huge loss in the numbers of families giving over the years. And maybe these kinds of events can stimulate a different thinking about what organizations can do if we give them the resources. That's nice. I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to cut it off here, guys. It's the end of our hour, but I like ending on that sort of optimistic note in the middle of this very desperate situation that you guys are all working really hard to try to address. Thank you so much to all of our panelists. To the listeners, many of the organizations that are represented here, their websites are resources for those who want to give. They have a lot of information, so I encourage you, if you're interested in giving and following the advice here, to look into some of the organizations that folks lead here on this panel and hopefully that can help guide you in your quest to support Ukraine and beyond. Glenn, any final words? No, thank you, Kate Spie, for moderating such an exciting panel. I wanna thank all of the panelists for being here. I know it's a busy time and I wanna thank you for all you do. And I did just wanna mention to people wondering where Nate Mooc had to go to the White House. So we're like, well, okay, I guess that's a little important. So, but I wanted to thank him for his time as well. And thank you all of you for coming. We're having these panel discussions pretty much every month or two. So please sign up for the newsletter and look out for upcoming events. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Goodbye. Take care. Bye-bye.