Tragedy begets generosity. Separate incidents in Colorado this summer — the Aurora theater shootings that left 12 dead and 58 injured and fires that claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in property and several lives — only reaffirmed that fact.
Amidst the horror, people donated food and supplies. They rushed out and gave blood and dipped into their pockets to provide financial support for victims.
The blood and sundries were donated with a tacit understanding that the non-profit to which they’re given knows best how to manage its inventory.
But what about money?
The infrastructure to provide financial relief to victims of gun violence is not nearly as well-developed as are safety-net charities for the poor or those that help in natural disasters.
And, as a result, generosity in the wake of tragedy often begets animosity.
It’s happening in Aurora. The same thing happened after shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech.
A group representing victims in the Aurora shooting has come forward to say they should have a greater say in how the nearly $5 million donated to the Aurora Victim Relief Fund is handled.
And they should. But that does not mean that the most vocal — or those with the most pressing current needs — should expect to dictate every outcome. Put another way: The group should have a say, but it should not have the only say.
And they must have some patience — understanding that while there are crooks who tried to capitalize on their pain, the legitimate organizations affiliated with the fund are not among them.
We can only guess as to the hardships — financial and otherwise — now faced by victims.
Some people who need or are eligible for victims services have had a difficult time getting noticed, and criticism in that regard is warranted.
We also agree with the sentiment that those who oversee money donated for victims have a duty to direct as much of it to those for whom it was intended as is practicable.
But it is not realistic, as the victims group asserts, to have a formula in place for dispersing all of the money in 30 to 45 days.
The scope of the tragedy is so large, and the potential costs to victims so varied, that rushing would be a mistake.
What’s the payout for someone who will live the rest of their life with a debilitating injury?
What if they’re eligible for Medicaid?
How much should they receive vs. a family who lost a loved one?
Should a victim who has had significant money raised on her behalf by friends and family get an equal cut of this $5 million pie?
a process be set up that attempts to weigh numerous variables; empowers someone to make final, tough decisions; and, at the same time, demands accountability.
That may not be the quickest way to distribute the money, but it is one that will work better for victims in the long run.
