Did anyone else hear this piece on All Things Considered yesterday? It profiled some good-hearted folks responding to the tsunami with what the segment's producers termed "grassroots aid". Rather than contributing to a high-profile organization like the Red Cross, these folks are responding to the disaster by seeking out more direct ways to help. Their stated reason is a concern over inefficiencies in large aid organizations.

This seems very NPR, and very naive. Okay, so the folks who're sending nets from one community of fishermen to another are probably accomplishing some good -- but the urge to grassroots-ify everything needs to be reined in. The FBI is warning that scams related to the disaster are already in full swing; I'm afraid that the folks quoted in the ATC piece who're collecting money to send to a Sri Lankan bank account may be getting taken for a ride. With these sorts of ad-hoc partnerships there simply can't be oversight of the same quality employed by established aid organizations with good track records.

There's a tendency to distrust bureaucracies -- certainly I fall victim to it as much or more than most. And given the occasional large-scale charity scandal, it's understandable to have some level of skepticism. But equally important is the fact that the people running those huge charities are professionals who are in a better position to coordinate efforts efficiently and to leverage economies of scale. Grassroots charity is a nice idea, but it seems unlikely to do as much good on a per-dollar basis as cutting a check to the Red Cross. To the extent that that relationship is true, boutique charity -- while still an admirable impulse -- looks unfortunately narcissistic.