When evaluating this program though we must consider some of its drawbacks as well; mainly that it doesn’t cover all types of losses incurred during a disaster nor does it always support more minor damages like broken windows or floodwater damage caused by heavy rains.(Rossetto & Stewart 2020). Additionally due to the bureaucracy involved in submitting requests some applications take months before they are approved leaving those affected without critical resources when they need them most.(Stewart et al., 2017). Lastly if an applicant isn’t eligible under one part of the application process they may still be denied even if they meet requirements elsewhere thus disqualifying them from receiving any aid whatsoever(Umana et al., 2018) .

Christian Aid’s Disaster Response Fund was created specifically with impoverished populations living vulnerable regions across the world in mind; offering quick access funds specifically designed address immediate needs like food supplies , medical care , family reunification etc . Furthermore because these funds come directly from donors rather than government agencies applicants get fast access money sometimes within 24 hours allowing those affected quickly back on their feet without having go through lengthy bureaucratic processes common with government funded organizations(Christian Aid nd ). On top of this the fund utilizes a grassroots approach targeting local communities instead large national entities making sure aid reaches exactly where it needed most effectively (ibid.).

Nonetheless since DRF is donor funded certain limitations apply ; donations are unlikely match scale massive devastation brought about major natural disasters like hurricanes typhoons tornadoes etc . Secondly given how dependent project reliant upon public donations sudden spikes contributions could lead unsustainable overspending depletion funds necessary address future calamities(Doronila 2021 ). Lastly although DRF attempt fill gaps lacking government provided services limits placed regulations donors restrict total amount monies disbursed recipients greatly limiting ability expand operations offset larger crises scenarios( ibid.).

Finally USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance works international level partnering governments organizations provide relief goods technical advice cash transfers mitigate effects environmental catastrophes abroad . It operates rapid response teams deploy areas struck disaster assess situation offer emergency shelter medical emergency response kits face masks gloves sanitation safety equipment responder training first responders personnel skilled trade workers help rebuild infrastructure schools hospitals roads bridges etcetera (USAID nd ) . Additionally provides grants larger NGOs allow extend scope outreach geographically reach more beneficiaries once deployed area relieve suffering afflicted groups swiftly efficiently while establishing lasting resilience preventative measures avert similar calamities future (Le Roux 2014 ).

However OFDA has few flaws related its operating procedure ; firstly being limited budgeting capabilities means only high risk locations receive financial support neglected regions fall off radar remain largely ignored thus depriving already impoverished countries much needed assistance renovate restore vital structure s build new ones keeping citizens safe protected against ravages nature(Raja 2020 ). Secondly regulatory framework put place keeps organization hamstrung partner governments hold control purse strings decide what kind aid goes depending upon political interests present moment stance country taken towards United States therefore skewing favoritism certain nations potential detriment others ( Chatterjee 2019 ) . Last but not least delivery supplies goods foreign can sometimes hampered poor logistics resulting delayed arrival destination ground rendering uselessness efforts made alleviate suffering victim population time sensitive cases where matter life death depend timely intervention saving last might thwarted due mismanagement resources leading dire consequences worst case scenario casualties fatalities amongst civilians necessitating further aid people left behind tragedy aftermath terrible tragedy avoidable mistake mismanaging distribution materials required mercy mission failure properly execute plan damages worse original state prompting renewed calls action up scaling capacity ensuring uninterrupted stream funding importation goods adequate preparedness next impending landside flooding tsunami earthquake hurricane volcano eruption whatever form nature takes unleash wave destruction unwary populace below poverty line no protection weather elements beyond simple huts mud houses dwellings desperately need something sturdier fortify themselves incoming deluge water fire wind hail sand soil ice storm surges swirling waters rivers oceans seas reservoirs lakes streams brooks creeks aquifers lagoons seeps wetlands gorges gullies crevices deep valleys flatlands rolling hills mountains plateaus terraces glaciers deserts scrubland plains badlands arid tundra lush forests jungles swamps meadows reedy marshes grassy knolls steppe riverbanks fjords far away archipelagoes remote islands