The Best Way to Help Victims of Disaster and Disease - Article Example

Khalid Alharthi M. Catherine Beck English W131 February 18, The Best Way to Help Victims of Disaster And Disease Helping others is a great thing to do. Everyone is dependent on other’s help to some extent. This is very much true in the case of the survivors of disasters such as earthquakes or cyclones and victims of epidemics. Several countries and aid organizations provide help to those people in the affected areas. Everyone wants to help others, but do we know how to deliver that help perfectly? It also becomes necessary to make sure that the money and help is really effective or really meets the needs of the people in need. The article titled “Billions Go to Victims of Disaster and Disease. Does It Really Help?” by Nurith Aizenman discusses this issue of how we can know whether the help that we are giving to people in need, for example war refugees or survivors of disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or even diseases addresses the real needs of the people. The main aspect of aid programs that the article focuses on is the beneficiaries’ views. The author explores the importance of considering the views of beneficiaries in the monitoring of aid programs. Using the features, outcomes and analysis of a specific program called “Ground Truth” as a case the article discusses the question of how to decide the effectiveness of aid programs. The author claims that the process of gathering the information from the people affected is not enough,. The author supports the idea that feedback from beneficiaries need to be collected. She emphasizes on developing a culture within aid organizations to give importance to improving the aid programs based on the input from the beneficiaries. However, I consider that the best way to provide aid to the victims could be to use all the money to help as spending the money on surveys or data collection will only be unnecessary waste of money. Also, the technological tools she recommends in her article may not be the most effective considering the economic and social condition of the people in the affected areas. The target audience for the article would be researchers, aid-organizations, Non-governmental organizations, and governments. It also appeals to anyone involved in aid operations. As the article cites authentic sources of information such as that of several NGO’s and the World Bank, for example, and statistical data, researchers will take an advantage of this article to support their ideas and findings in their research. . In addition, governments might consider supporting the idea of using technology for collecting surveys information if they find it helpful. Moreover, organizations would start collecting surveys using technological tools as this article introduces them to some of the tools used by NGOs involved in monitoring aid programs. . The article not only presents figures and data to explicate aid program monitoring, but also employs certain rhetorical techniques to present its ideas to the target audience. The author relies on pathos, logic, and ethos in his article. She uses pathos in her article to get the audiences attentions when she says. One example is: “Your heart goes out to them”. These words touch the feelings and the emotions to help the victims. For example, when people see a human being suffering, they would do their best to help this person out, so that’s why she uses this rhetorical strategy in the beginning of her article to draw the attention of her readers to the issue on hand. Moreover, her words appeals to logic and reasoning when she gives her reasons and evidences and examples of true stories that happened a few years ago in Pakistan and Ebola, this kind of tone would convince the target groups such as researchers and governments who can be convinced only with sets of data. In addition, her words have an ethical appeal as she cites a trustworthy and credibility sources. For example the article draws heavily on Nick van Praag, whos held high positions at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Aga Khan Development Network, and the World Bank. The key supporting evidence for the author’s argument comes from Van Praag’s responses to the issue of monitoring effectiveness of aid programs and the importance of consulting beneficiaries. Such a source of information makes her article sound more convincing to her target readers. In the detailed discussion of the monitoring programs and the tools used by them, the author talks about the technological tools used in monitoring of aid programs and collecting feedback from beneficiaries. She says that Ground Truth use phones for surveys but those surveys are not accurate because people do not take them seriously because of certain reasons. The reasons are: not all people carry phones, they may not take the survey via phones seriously, and door to door survey would be more accurate. First of all, not all people carry phones, many poor people couldnt handle phones prices, paying phone bill or even using phones. For example, in some African countries, people live a very normal life, no phones, no internet, and no type of technology. Second reason is that people in this area may not take the survey via phones seriously. For instance, most people dont give information by messages because it seems to be spams to them. Therefore, using phones instead of going in person to do field work or to conduct surveys may not be the most effective method because we cannot guarantee 100 percent that people will respond to these messages. Third, I think using papers and walking door to door to ask people who really have problems and being affected by the disaster is the best way to conduct a survey because the donors will be witnesses, and they will collect correct information at the same time. In conclusion, surveys will be better if done face to face and not via phones because it help us to see what the real problem is and what they actually need and to make sure that everyone answers the survey. Moreover, being in the field to help and take surveys will make people take the survey seriously. However, I agree that the author could be right when she says that donors need to focus on the continuous feedback because research from Charity Navigator (2015) has shown that not all donations are used to help the needy. A percentage of the donations go to the organization and the rest of it goes to the needy. Therefore, people should verify which organization is trustful and use their money for the mission and not for any other activities. Also Charity Navigator website has a global search engine that can help donors to check out on each charity’s name and its percentage of funds used. Also the charity should use all this money to help the needy perfectly. So, I think that the funds allocated for aid purposes should be used efficiently by not wasting it on inefficient surveys and data collection methods. The author’s argument for the use of technological tools in surveys could be justified in one aspect because they help save time and be efficient. However, that would also be a waste of time on the first day of help for the victims because collecting, analyzing, studying the issue, and then performing an action would take much time. It would delay aid, in my view. The organizations should first start helping out by figuring out how to reduce the impact of the disaster on people by using professional people who has knowledge. For example, if Indonesia had an earthquake, organizations should help by rescuing people from the disaster, spending money on other companies that have the tools that would help people to get out from the crashed buildings. Second, the organizations can start to collect information by walking door to door and asking people personally. This method would help a lot to be witness and to see what actually they need and also to make sure that everyone has answer the question. Third is to carry out aid activities without wasting any more time on surveys. The use of technology in aid monitoring could be helpful to some extent, but the use has to be considered carefully so that aid remains the priority always. Surveys should be only used to support and should not delay the aid programs themselves. In conclusion, the article has brought to light the importance of considering beneficiaries views and field data to improve aid programs. While it is important to ensure that the aid reaches the beneficiaries properly and that the people in need really benefit from such programs, it is also important to make use of the funds efficiently. Data collection should not delay aid and technology may not be the most effective means of data collection. To help victims of disaster and disease, we need to consider three things: performing the help as soon as possible without waiting for the survey, conducting door to door surveys, spending hundred percent of the funds on the needy. Works Cited Aizenman, Nurith. "Billions Go To Victims Of Disaster And Disease. Does It Really Help? NPR. NPR, 8 Feb. 2015. Web. 07 March, 2015. Charity Navigator. Charity Search. 2015. Web. 15 March, 2015. Read More