@Briggins, I'm saying several things. My primary point is that a tremendous amount of resources is currently being moved towards Haïti, at the expense of places that have not been as covered in the media recently - this is something that should make (relatively) small-scale operations such as Metric's think hard about their strategy. In other words : Haïti at this point doesn't need more attention, which is part of what Metric is providing, to, as you pointed out, a key demographic. Now, from a structural perspective, there are several issues : Earmarking donations towards one given place can lead to problems (for example, some NGOs got stuck having to spend money in places hit by the Tsunami, when, had the gifts not been specifically earmarked, they could have been free to spend it in areas where they considered their assistance could have been more useful). I think we can agree that the "most acute" phase of the Haïtian crisis is most likely over. Life is, to an extent, going back to normal in Port au Prince. The gangs have started to get their heads around the current situation, the cops have started beating them up again, woman are being raped, and the "whites / 15 families / ruling class" from the top of the mountain are figuring out how to make the best of the situation. Money donated to the Red Cross unfortunately won't change that, because it is a governance problem, which, given that it wasn't addressed to any satisfactory level before the quake likely won't be after it. Henceforth, much of the money that is going in now is going in to rebuild the infrastructure (and ICRC hospital), with a high risk of a rather significant part of it going into a black hole of corruption and bad governance. Not exactly the most efficient use of small-donor funds in my mind, and a huge risk of putting the cart before the horse. Now, as to wasting my time on the internet and providing suggestions, try the Dr. Hawa Abdi foundation in Somalia - http://dhaf.org/ . Hawa and her two daughters (all three are gynecologists) have been providing care to 90'000 refugees who live on her land, in the middle of an islamist-controlled area. Because the area is controlled by islamists, the WFP has cut food aid to the camp for at least the next quarter (it's a complicated story, essentially has to do with the inevitability of providing aid to groups labeled enemy combatants by the US government, one of the WFP's bigger donors). By the time the aid is restored, there is a remote chance that local farmers will be about to harvest a local crop - making the WFP's return an economic disaster for them, because it will make their crops essentially worthless (why pay for grain if you can get it for free, or for a nominal amount after it was "diverted" ?). It is also extremely difficult to access for journalists, so no one talks about it. How's that for a waste of time ?