Disaster relief has undergone a complete metamorphosis in the past decade. The charities that administer it have, in the main, changed from being the preserve of the gifted, or not so gifted, amateur to professional organizations fired by the entrepreneurial spirit.

The church ball jumble sale still plays its part but such traditional activities are rapidly being overtaken by high-powered advertising campaigns and selective mailing shots, chosen by the most sophisticated marketing techniques. Perhaps this has robbed "charity" of much of its charm, but professionalism is what is needed for such tasks as taking 50 freight planes a night through a Federal Nigerian blockade to the beleaguered Biafran heartland.

Three charities specializing in disaster work raise between them about £10m a year, and if the myriad of other charities—including the Red Cross and War on Want — are taken into account the figure could well be double. This work has become big business and big business methods have become necessary — not only to raise the money but also to keep track of where it goes.

Three of the majors in the field are Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and Christian Aid. Each raised something over £3m last year. Each pares administrative expenses to the bone and each spends heavily on advertising. All three use similar techniques for fundraising and depend on a solid infrastructure at local level for much of the donkey work.

Oxfam last year collected a record total of about £3.3m, though the final accounts have not yet been settled. The largest amount— £900,000 — came from the gift shops, and other local efforts raised a further £100,000. Sponsored events contributed £70,000. of which £20,000 came from the controversial charity walks. (These are gradually being phased out.)

Oxfam spokesmen say they are moving away from traditional fund-raising methods, and the organization has very little investment income. Altogether Oxfam employs about 270 people. There are about 120 at headquarters staff — and even there they depend heavily on volunteer helpers. There are 28 regions, each with a full-time officer and one or two staff, whose job is to stimulate between 60 and 200 regional branches.

Then there are the staff in the field. India, Africa and Latin America each have three field directors and the officers control a staff or two or three. This is a small field staff, but Oxfam is busy sponsoring indigenous committees to handle the work on the theory that the men on the spot usually know best. If a disaster occurs. volunteer teams of professionals are rushed to the spot.

Obviously a structure such as this needs good logistic support and, most of all, money. Oxfam is strong in its advertising department and devotes considerable attention to market research. Accounts and mailing shots are handled by computer.

Oxfam claims that 81 per cent of cash received goes out in aid in the month that it arrives. Of the remaining 19 per cent, 16+ percent is ploughed back in direct fund-raising efforts such as advertising. Only 2 1/2 per cent covers the administrative expenses — telephones, staff pay, stationery and offices.

The story is much the same for the Save the Children Fund. According to Mr. Timothy Phipps. the accountant, the fund last year received about £3m.. of which fair proportion came from the Commonwealth and affiliated funds in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The fund has 1,200 full-time workers throughout the world and 120 of them are based in the London headquarters. Altogether about 85 per cent of the income goes out in aid. Of the remaining 15 per cent the lion's share goes on fund raising and 2.2 per cent on administration.

The cash is raised in the usual ways — by the fund's 650 local branches, by special events and individual donations. The fund relies heavily on modern management techniques. It has its own public relations, graphic design and audio-visual departments. and retains the services of the KMP Partnership advertising agency.

The fund's projects tend to last between one and three years. In order to guarantee the finance to keep them going, about £850,000 is tied up in investments.

Christian Aid is luckier than the others in that it has a built-in infrastructure — the churches. This means that administration expenses are low and via the congregations, expert advice is cheap. Last year it raised £2.8m, and this year the organization is hoping for over £3m. Administration fund raising and pay for the 100 head office staff, totals about 13 per cent of revenue. Christian Aid has virtually no overseas staff. It prefers to work through the national Christian councils and tends to keep away from expatriates, In West Bengal. for instance, CA is working through the local churches' agency for social action. It means that there is less publicity —no teams rushing here and there —but, perhaps, local knowledge of a situation more than compensates for this.

Christian Aid's policy is to tread very warily in tense political situations. For example, CA has decided not to release the East Pakistan flood funds for use in the present emergency. Officials feel, not unreasonably, that the Pakistan Government may take umbrage at this and refuse to allow them to return to work in East Pakistan. Instead. they intend to raise fresh funds and save the flood funds tor relief work in East Pakistan.

Such caution has paid off in the past. After the Nigerian civil war Joint Church Aid, an international church organization, to which Christian Aid contributed, but did not participate. was banned from relief work by the Federal Government. It had played too great a part in feeding Biafra and in breaking the military blockade for the Federal Government to allow it to continue. Christian Aid, however, continued to play a great part in relief through its local infrastructure:

But while the home, operations of the charities are efficient enough in terms of cash raised, the sheer scale of the disasters they have to cope with shows up their weak points. Often — as in the relief work during the Nigerian civil war —there is lack of coordination that can hamper their effectiveness.

In fairness. few organizations show quick reactions in disaster situations. World governments and the United Nations usually react even more slowly than charities. Often there are formalities and the sensibilities of governments to be reckoned with before the aid can begin to flow, and there is still no world machinery to coordinate relief work.

The Nigerian civil war taught the world's relief organizations a great deal. In Bengal, when the aid arrives there will be no excuse for the dreadful miscalculations in logistics, the appalling lack of experienced feeding teams, and the inefficiency caused by inexperienced administrators.

Competition between the charities for fund-raising at home led to competition in the field during the Nigerian disaster which was often counter productive. But on this occasion the five major British charities have got off to a creditable start with an emergency committee to coordinate relief. What is now needed is permanent action to coordinate relief on a world scale for the disasters of the future The question now is: can the world still afford to leave so much responsibility in the hands of the private sector.