Chapter 11: The Club, the District, and the Action Groups¶

On February 6, 2023, at around 4 a.m., a magnitude 7.7 earthquake struck southeastern Turkey. In the afternoon, a second earthquake, which the governor of Rotary District 2430 described as distinct from an aftershock, reached 7.5. That same day, the governor wrote to Rotarians around the world: ten cities were hit, hospitals and buildings had collapsed, roads were cut, the main gas line had ruptured, and in the bitter cold electricity and heating were the first problem. The three Turkish districts were applying to the Foundation's disaster fund, but, he wrote, more would be needed to recover.

Eleven days later, on February 17, the district Rotary Foundation committee chair of District 2430 sent an appeal to Rotarians worldwide. Rotarians from Districts 2420, 2430 and 2440 had been working in the hardest-hit areas "since the first hours." They had settled on a three-pillar strategy. The first: urgent needs; more than fifty truckloads of supplies distributed, construction machinery sent, tents put up, food provided. The second: a container city, funded by cash donations collected in the district, a job that would not be finished in the short term. The third: donations from around the world, meant to cover, through several global grants, the container city's health, education and hygiene needs.

And an organization. The three districts coordinated everything together; since the earthquake had hit mainly the territory of District 2430, that district took the lead. The three districts set up a joint committee, "who is evaluating the long term recovery project proposals, collecting information."

On February 28, a Belgian district posted these messages on its website and offered its clubs the chance to match, with its own district funds, a global grant prepared by a Turkish district.

Three weeks after the earthquake, long-term recovery already had a committee, a lead district and foreign partners. The sources are messages from Rotarians involved in the response; reports published later could not be read for this book, and no results are cited here.

What the scene teaches¶

One district leads, the others line up. Three affected districts could have run three responses. They designated a lead, the hardest hit, and a joint committee. This is not a Rotary rule: it is an organizational decision, made early.

The long term is prepared during the emergency. The joint committee was studying recovery projects while the trucks were still rolling. This is the practical consequence of the rule seen in Chapter 10: a global grant reimburses nothing that comes before its approval.

Each source of money got its role. Urgent needs: the first donations and the application to the Foundation's disaster fund. The container city, which a global grant cannot pay for: the district's cash donations. What happens inside the city: global grants. The Turkish districts applied the separation of walls and activity.

Foreign partners came through the network. A Belgian district relays the appeal and offers its funds. That is how the foreign share of a global grant gets built.

Your club may never live through a disaster of this size. But the question is the same at every scale: who in Rotary carries what, and for how long?

The principle: only clubs and districts carry projects¶

The October 2026 Foundation Code settles it in one sentence: "Global grants are only to be awarded to clubs and/or districts." No action group, no ad hoc committee, no partner organization receives a grant. Clubs and districts apply, receive, report, and answer for the funds.

The rest of Rotary advises, connects, checks. The same Code says of action groups that they "may act as consultants, advisers, and strategic partners for clubs and districts." And the Rotary Code of Policies specifies that an action group is not an agency of Rotary International and cannot act on its behalf.

This division gives your club a responsibility it cannot delegate to anyone: it is the project holder. The others help.

Who does what in Rotary during recovery¶

Actor	Role in a recovery project	What it does not do
Host club	assesses, designs with the community, supervises on site	lend, build, act alone
Foreign partner club	co-funds, co-designs, co-signs reports, visits	decide in place of the host club
District	qualifies, signs, commits its district funds, applies for disaster and district grants	replace the club on the ground
Cadre of Technical Advisers	reviews, advises, visits Foundation projects	build the file for you
Regional grants officer	checks the eligibility of an idea before submission	decide on approval alone
Action groups	advise, connect, train	submit an application, write to clubs without the governor's consent

The host club¶

This is the club in the affected area. It carries out the assessment (Chapter 3), designs the project with the community, chooses local partners, supervises implementation, keeps the records. The July 2026 global grant terms require it, as they do the partner club, to set up a grant committee of three members. Among others, board members or employees of a cooperating or beneficiary organization cannot sit on it: the rule protects the club against conflicts of interest.

The foreign partner club¶

This is the international sponsor, without which there is no global grant. It contributes part of the money, and the rule that 15% of contributions come from outside the country rests in practice on it and its district. It co-signs the progress reports and the final report. Its members often bring skills the host club lacks. The disaster guide and the CED guide describe how to find one in normal times; after a disaster, one often comes forward on its own, like the Belgian district in 2023. Choose it for its ability to last three years, not for the speed of its first transfer.

The district¶

The district holds the qualification, without which nothing happens. It is the only one that can apply for a Disaster Response Grant and a district grant. It commits its District Designated Funds (DDF) to global grants.

Three functions intersect there:

The district governor, who changes every year. The governor provides one of the two signatures that authorize the use of DDF and sits on the committee that applies for a Disaster Response Grant.
The district Rotary Foundation committee chair (DRFC), who provides the other signature, confirms that global grant applications are complete and that sponsor clubs are qualified, and monitors the district's qualification. The sitting governor cannot be DRFC.
The grants subcommittee, which follows project progress with the DRFC, and, if there is one, the district disaster committee, which the disaster guide describes in detail (Chapter 18 of the disaster guide).

The Cadre and the regional grants officer¶

The Cadre of Technical Advisers brings together volunteer Rotarians who, according to the Foundation Code, review, monitor and evaluate funded projects, and advise Rotarians who ask on the design of their projects. For a global grant with more than $50,000 of World Fund contribution, a Cadre member will make a mid-project visit (Chapter 10). Better to know them beforehand.

The regional grants officer is part of Rotary's grants staff. The 2025 Guide to Global Grants, which is not part of the July 2026 terms or the October 2026 Code, states that the officer can evaluate an idea's eligibility before you start the application; confirm this with the officer at first contact. After a disaster, that is the call that saves three months of work on an ineligible project.

How a district organizes itself: the District 3292 plan¶

In August 2015, four months after the April 25 earthquake in Nepal, District 3292 (Nepal and Bhutan) published the summary of its relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation program. It is a plan, not a report: what follows describes a planned organization, not its results.

Before the earthquake, the district already had a relief fund committee written into its bylaws. On that committee's recommendation, it created a special steering committee made up of a past governor as chair, the sitting governor, the immediate past governor, the governor-elect, the governor-nominee, a treasurer and a secretary. This committee was to complement "the sitting District Governor every year": it was built to outlast the handovers.

Under it, seven subcommittees: technical design, finance and administration, preparation of global grant applications, procurement and construction monitoring, support to schools, website and publications, emergency relief. A permanent implementation unit, with technical and administrative staff, handled day-to-day work. A dedicated bank account received the funds. Two audit firms were planned, one international for Rotary, the other Nepali for the government. Clubs took part in choosing villages and in social surveys, and could take charge of one or more clusters of villages.

The program spanned five Rotary years and focused mainly on housing and schools, that is, on construction. It provided for an agreement with the national federation of chambers of commerce: the federation would build the schools, the district would provide water, toilets, furniture and computers, "mainly through Global Grant." The separation of walls and equipment was already written in.

Three elements carry over to a district of any size, whatever the project: a steering committee whose members span several governor years; a unit dedicated to grant applications; separate, audited financial management.

Qualification, and what losing it costs¶

Qualification is, according to the Foundation Code, the process that ensures districts and their clubs have "the appropriate legal, financial, and stewardship controls in place." A district signs a memorandum of understanding and applies its financial requirements; a club does the same, and at least one of its members must attend the district grant management seminar each year.

Three consequences weigh on a recovery project:

Disaster Response Grants and district grants require only the district's qualification; global grants also require that of the sponsor clubs. A non-qualified club can take part in the first two, not carry the third.
One overdue report blocks everything. Under the July 2026 terms, the Foundation approves no new application from a sponsor that has an overdue report "for any Foundation grant." For the Disaster Response Grant, a district can apply for a new one only after reporting on the previous one.
The district answers for the club. If a sponsor club is suspended, loses its qualification or can no longer carry the grant, the district becomes financially responsible to the Foundation. In case of serious misconduct, the funds must be repaid and the sponsors can be barred from grants for up to five years.

Qualification is prepared in calm times. On the day of the disaster, it is too late to discover that last year's report was never sent.

Lasting three years with one-year presidents¶

The disaster guide states the problem frankly: a global grant usually spans three presidencies, the one that launches it, the one that runs it, the one that closes it. If the project's memory rests on the president of the year, the project loses coherence at every handover.

The Foundation has solved this problem for itself. Its Code requires the DRFC to be appointed for three years, on the grounds that the district Rotary Foundation committee "must have continuity of leadership," and it recommends three-year terms for subcommittee chairs. The District 3292 steering committee followed the same logic.

This book recommends applying the same rule to the recovery project, at the club level:

a project coordinator appointed for the whole duration, separate from the president, whom the disaster guide calls a multi-year disaster coordinator;
a person in charge of reports, who keeps the Foundation's calendar and does not change at the handover;
a project committee of three to five members, with overlapping terms;
three habits taken from the disaster guide: a quarterly project review on the club's standing calendar, a two-page report to donors every six months even when there is "nothing new," an annual field visit by a club member.

Take a typical example, for a project launched in year 1.

Role	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Club president	launches	runs	closes
Project coordinator	same person	same person	same person
Reports lead	same person	same person	same person
Project committee	three members appointed	one member replaced	one member replaced

This is the organization chart your recovery file must contain: names, roles and durations, written down before the first handover.

The action groups¶

The October 2026 Rotary Code of Policies defines a Rotary Action Group (RAG) as an international group with expertise in a field, whose purpose is to help clubs and districts "in planning and implementing large-scale, community development and humanitarian service projects." Four rules in the same Code matter to you.

An action group does not act on Rotary's behalf. "A Rotary Action Group is not an agency of RI." It must be financially and administratively independent and, under article 42.020.2, cannot be used to promote a partisan cause or another organization.
It can write to clubs only with the governor's consent. It can contact governors, governors-elect and district international service chairs; it contacts clubs "only when a district governor grants express permission," and that permission must be renewed each year. The practical consequence: it is up to your club or your district to call it.
It must support real projects. To keep its status, an action group supports at least three multi-club or district humanitarian projects each year, and demonstrates its ability to connect clubs and organizations in its field.
It can hold funds for your project. Up to $100,000 in donations for a club or district project, more with the approval of Rotary's general secretary.

DNA-RAG¶

The Disaster Network of Assistance Rotary Action Group (DNA-RAG) is the action group devoted to disasters. Its full name is the one its website uses; the Foundation Code, which still writes "Rotarian Action Group," cites it in its disaster policy and encourages it to publish the list of Rotarians experienced in disaster response and the list of organizations that work with Rotary. It is the only mention of an action group in that policy.

Its public mission: "The DNA-RAG works to mitigate the effects of disasters worldwide through strengthening global preparedness, providing emergency response, and supporting long-term recovery." It offers training in preparedness, response and recovery, and announces manuals in preparation. Its vision hopes that coordination among Rotary groups will reduce duplication.

RAGCED¶

The Rotary Action Group for Community Economic Development (RAGCED) has the mission of being "a source of knowledge and expertise" to help Rotarians design, implement and manage sustainable economic development projects. Its stated areas include strengthening entrepreneurs through training, microcredit, mentoring and networks, and, under the heading "Disaster Preparedness," two sentences that echo almost word for word the goals of the Foundation's economic development policy on disaster resilience. It offers a project assistance request form.

Two institutional links tie it to the Foundation. The April 2024 economic development guidelines list it among the resources to consult "early during your planning." And its July 2026 bylaws require its technical lead to be a member of the Cadre of Technical Advisers and to serve as liaison with it.

According to its chair, in an email of September 16, 2026, the Rotary Foundation has given RAGCED new mandates: developing projects aimed at restarting the economy of disaster-hit regions and training communities before disasters, without taking part in immediate relief. No public document read for this book mentions this mandate; it is reported here as its chair worded it.

The handoff between the two groups: a proposal¶

No public text describes a division of roles between DNA-RAG and RAGCED. This book proposes one, based on their public missions and on the sequence of recovery. It remains to be agreed between the two groups, and your club can perfectly well call both from the start.

Phase	Lead group	What it brings the club
Relief and stabilization	DNA-RAG	contacts, partner districts, response experience
Shift to recovery	both together	economic assessment, first project ideas
Economic recovery	RAGCED	project design, microfinance, training, cooperatives
Normal times and preparedness	RAGCED, with DNA-RAG	local development, economic preparedness

flowchart TD
    C[Your club and your district<br/>project holders<br/>consult as needed] --> Q{What need?}
    Q -->|Response and partner districts| D[DNA-RAG]
    Q -->|Economic project| R[RAGCED]
    Q -->|Water, health, other area| A[Other action group<br/>in that area]
    Q -->|Eligibility of an idea| G[Regional grants<br/>officer]
    Q -->|Design, visit| K[Cadre of Technical<br/>Advisers]
    D -.->|This book's proposal:<br/>handoff at the shift| R

The diagram says the essential thing: every arrow leads back to the club. The handoff between action groups, shown dotted, is a proposal of this book, not an established practice. What carries the project from one phase to the next is the local club, which was there before and will be there after.

Academic and professional partners¶

The July 2026 grant terms list educational institutions among possible cooperating organizations, alongside governmental and nongovernmental organizations, provided they take part in implementing the project or in the soundness of its finances. A written agreement, signed by both sponsors and the organization, must establish that the project is "initiated, controlled, and managed by Rotary members" and list each party's responsibilities.

A local university can bring what neither the club nor the field organization has: management training for beneficiaries, data monitoring, continuity after donors leave. In Anilao, in the Philippines, after Typhoon Haiyan, a university in the province provided expertise and management training to the fishers' association that received boats funded by clubs (Chapter 14).

The members of your club are professional partners too: accountants, bankers, engineers, lawyers. The CED guide points out the limit. A member who is a certified accountant can help a partner cooperative keep its books; that member is not its auditor.

The pitfalls¶

Pitfall	Why it happens	Remedy
Entrusting the project's memory to the president of the year	it is the club's custom	a coordinator and a reports lead for the whole duration
Waiting for an action group to come forward	you assume it will come on its own	call it: it cannot write to clubs without consent
Assuming an action group submits the application	it knows the rules better	the club and the district remain the only project holders
Launching three responses for three affected districts	each one manages its own territory	one lead district and a joint committee
Discovering lost qualification at submission	nobody was tracking reports	check qualification and reports in calm times
Presenting the DNA-RAG to RAGCED handoff as settled	it is convenient to say so	present it as a proposal to be agreed
Choosing the fastest foreign partner	the emergency pushes you to accept	choose the one that will last three years

What your club now has in hand¶

At the end of this work, your club has the project's three-year organization chart: who carries what, from one presidency to the next, in the club, the partner club and the district, with the action groups to call and when. It is the piece of the recovery file that follows the funding plan.

The Turkish districts had a joint committee three weeks after the earthquake, because recovery was already being prepared during relief. But Rotary is never alone in a disaster-hit area: authorities, agencies and humanitarian organizations work there too, with their own coordination rules. That is the subject of the next chapter.