In the last few years a lot of effort has gone into evaluating the effectiveness of charities. The organization Giving What We Can emphasis that cost-effectiveness in charities is essential:
…even restricted to the field of health programs in developing countries, research shows that some are up to 10,000 times as effective as others.
The site divides charity giving into categories, such as health, education and empowerment. Within the health section, the site gives a nice breakdown of disease priorities according to the effectiveness of their treatment (largely based on the DCP2 from the Disease Control Priorities Project), where effectiveness is measured in disability adjusted life years per dollar spent. All well and good. However an interesting thing happens when you click on the Emergency Aid section:
It is a very difficult intervention type to assess, because it is so wide-ranging, there is little quantitative data, and because each emergency is unique. At this point in time, we have no information on the cost-effectiveness of different types of emergency aid, but we hope to rectify this in the future.
For a more detailed analysis of an intervention-type, see our pages on health.
For all their work, this charity cannot find any data to estimate the effectiveness of emergency relief.
There is no basis on which to separate emergency and health programs. Both are concerned with saving lives, they have the same outcome of interest. Emergency conditions appear differently to us, the giver, but to the patient who is dying the conditions don’t seem that different. Yes, we see/hear/feel more about emergencies than ‘normal’ health problems and emergencies have a sort of ‘Biblical’ significance, but from the point of view of a child dying of malaria, or the mother of a malnourished baby, I don’t imagine there is a distinction.
What this site and others show, in high contrast, is the peculiar position of humanitarian aid in our thinking.