Disasters such as the September 11 attacks, the tsunamis in Asia, and Hurricane Katrina spurred Americans to dig deep to support those in need.

But as charities such as the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army are appealing for help in the wake of the recent hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, some experts conclude that donors should be directing their money elsewhere.

Holden Karnofsky, the author of The Give Well Blog, points to a recent report on Disease Control Priorities that concludes that emergency relief is one of the least-effective forms of philanthropy.

The report says charities and donors should focus their money on disaster preparedness and on activities that combat “chronic, everyday health problems.”

“I’m personally hesitant to give to disaster relief again,” Mr. Karnofsky writes of his reaction to the report. “I’d rather up my donations to projects that aim to strengthen everyday health infrastructure for those in chronic need. I do feel an emotional pull to try to help when disaster strikes, and I feel this pull more strongly in the aftermath of the headline than contemplating it in the abstract — but I also agree with the DCP report’s emphasis on using limited funds as well as possible.”

Does that mean charities should abandon efforts to appeal to donors’ inclinations to give in response to emergencies?

Jeff Brooks, the creative director at the marketing firm Merkle, writes on The Donor Power Blog that such a shift would ultimately hurt the ability of groups to build relationships with donors and to raise money for more sustained efforts.

“If you give them a good experience, speak their language, and treat them with respect, they’ll discover the joy of making a difference through your organization,” Mr. Brooks writes. “And they’ll stick around. Not just for disasters, but when there’s need.”

What do you think? Is disaster fund-raising effective? Or should charities seek money to combat more sustained problems?