Slashdot Mirror
How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars For Haiti and Built 6 Homes
An anonymous reader points out an investigation from NPR and Propublica into how the Red Cross spent the $500 million in relief funds they gathered to help Haiti after the country was devastated by an earthquake in 2010. They found "a string of poorly managed projects, questionable spending and dubious claims of success." While the organization claims to have built homes for 130,000 people, investigators only found six permanent homes they could attribute to the charity. The Red Cross admitted afterward that the 130,000 number included people who had attended a seminar on how to fix their own homes.
"Lacking the expertise to mount its own projects, the Red Cross ended up giving much of the money to other groups to do the work. Those groups took out a piece of every dollar to cover overhead and management. Even on the projects done by others, the Red Cross had its own significant expenses – in one case, adding up to a third of the project’s budget." The Red Cross raised far more money for Haiti than any other charity, but is unwilling to provide details on where the money went. In one case, a brochure that extolled the virtues of one project claimed $24 million had been spent on a particular area — but residents of that area haven't seen any improvement in living conditions, and are unable to get information from the Red Cross. The former director of the Red Cross's shelter program said charity officials had no idea how to spend the money they'd accumulated.
"Lacking the expertise to mount its own projects, the Red Cross ended up giving much of the money to other groups to do the work. Those groups took out a piece of every dollar to cover overhead and management. Even on the projects done by others, the Red Cross had its own significant expenses – in one case, adding up to a third of the project’s budget." The Red Cross raised far more money for Haiti than any other charity, but is unwilling to provide details on where the money went. In one case, a brochure that extolled the virtues of one project claimed $24 million had been spent on a particular area — but residents of that area haven't seen any improvement in living conditions, and are unable to get information from the Red Cross. The former director of the Red Cross's shelter program said charity officials had no idea how to spend the money they'd accumulated.
Having witnessed first hand how the Red Cross spends its money on IT infrastructure it doesn't need, I refuse to give them a single dime.
there are people who would do better job at a tenth the pay 'nuff said
This has already been debunked on skeptics stackexchange http://skeptics.stackexchange....
Gave money to the Red Cross? Consider the advice of the great philosophers Nelson and Mr. T.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
How about giving it to the Haiti government? Surely they know best what areas to focus on?
I wonder how much of their budget is spent on pushing their image online? I only really wonder because of the large contingent of posters on other discussion sites that seem to be willing to postulate all sorts of excuses for the Red Cross, some of the excuses were plausible at least, but many just seemed to be there to cast doubt on there being any problem with the RC.
Maybe they were all just rabid fans of the RC, yeah that's probably it, definitely.
As I said on another site, Not as bad as they try to make it sound. The red cross initially committed to building homes but when that didn't work out due to them not being able to buy land they spent the money on improving some homes, building a hospital, and helping out elsewhere as possible. It's true there was a lot of administrative waste, but that waste was due to careful management. The article echos complaints of hiring "lazy" locals. Then it criticizes them for hiring expensive ex-patriot workers. Then it criticizes them for contracting the work out to other companies causing high administrative costs. Well how the fuck were they supposed to do it? If they had advertised for volunteers they would have been criticized for spending the money in another country. It can cost a lot to assure money is spend effectively. Maybe they erred too far on the side of caution on this one, maybe they got as much done as was possible. I don't know. Neither do you. This is making a chicken out of a feather and makes me wonder what real news I'm missing out on.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
that have the money
I was watching an interview with this minister that has been down there since it happened and he said "if you want anything done in Haiti it has to go through approval of the Clinton Foundation" ............. something in the area of 6 Billion dollars and 15000 troupes were sent to Haiti .. a quarter million people ended up homeless and there is nothing to show for it but a couple projects that were photo ops.. This is the woman people want for president... how evil do you have to be to steal from people that have nothing... I'll say it .. pretty dam evil.
That's the advantage of benevolence based on private charities — the mismanaged ones lose donations and disappear. I too stopped donating to Red Cross long ago — my charity money goes to the IRC.
Try that attitude with public charities — financed by monies taken from you and me at gunpoint (taxes)... Whatever you may feel about their goals and methods, you can not simply stop paying them — your only recourse is to raise awareness hoping for the eventual healing to begin.
Oh, and they are unconstitutional too, but that stopped bothering anybody long ago.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This and many other examples like
- PETA euthanizing more animals than they shelter
- UNICEF expenses of 52 million dollars (pdf) in expenses related to management and fundraising (out of a 600 million dollars budget, and that's one of the best managed ones out there)
show that it is much more efficient to donate time or money locally instead of to big organizations.
Donate to your local food bank, soup kitchen, volunteer some time in the retirement home, the satisfaction will be the same and the effects will be much more efficient. Or, at the very least, don't screw people over, it is more than enough if you can do that.
Why should you donate anything to help someone in the other side of the world while people needs your help in your own neighbourhood?
And try as much as possible to get away from paying taxes.
The first rules of fiscal management!
It's not a question of being selfish. It's about not giving to a bunch of parasites who live off the working population.
The Red Cross decided they needed high-power ex execs from places like AT&T who have no idea whatsoever how to run a relief charity. They destroyed the company from the inside out.
I propose a new name for these rascals: The Red Double Cross.
Their CEO, Gail McGovern makes $500,000 / year in base salary. I bet it's built her a house or two...
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
I will always be grateful for them helping me out when my apartment burnt down (one tenant died) . In short, they put me and my then fiancée in hotel for a few days when we had no money and no family in the area. I will continue to donate money.
:x
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Tens of billions trying to create a army in both places.
New power stations, roads that decay quickly, if actually built at all.
While I am not sure I believe the article, the truth is that Red Cross is, to a very large extent, a self-serving organization, in that the vast majority of funds that it collects are used for running Red Cross. The percentage that is used to help victims is very small.
They just wanted to purchase a "feel good moment" for $10 and go to sleep thinking they helped some child eat that night. I seriously doubt many people who donated actually cared more about the cause than they did their own personal gratification.
The ARC has called me three times a week for several months asking for someone by name. Fuck if I know what they want, but after telling them 3 or 4 times that I've never heard of the guy they're looking for, I added their number to my call blocker.
In my hometown, Red Cross kept raising the rates they charged to local hospitals for donated blood. Eventually it became so expensive that a local coalition founded their own blood bank and began distributing blood products for much lower prices.
I don't begrudge the Red Cross selling donated blood. Supplies, equipment, refrigeration, etc. all cost a lot of money and even a 100% volunteer organization can't wave that stuff away. I begrudge them charging so much that another, much smaller group without the same national recognition or economies of scale can set up a parallel system offering the same services for far less money.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Damn, I'm cynical.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
ACS spends $6.40 on salaries and "overhead" for every ONE DOLLAR spent on direct patient care or research. (go see their 2008 financial filings for the data, which is the year I got disgusted with them and stopped caring)
this is why I'm a socialist. Anyone who complains about gov'ts wasting money has never paid any mind to how charities spend their bucks. With gov't we can at least bring corruption charges when this sort of thing happens (assuming we have the political will). With these private charities it's all nice and legal...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They are all varying levels of a scam. This is a perfect example - major charity raises tons of money in a relief effort, takes minimum 30% off the top, sends the rest to smaller regional charities who take 30% minimum off the top and have to kick back a percentage to the original charity for "travel costs, observations and consultation." These smaller regional charities then distribute the money to local charities who take 30% minimum off the top and have to kick money back to both the first and second level organization. However, at this level, some work actually may start to get done. Too bad that more than $.90 of every $1 is already gone.
The link you posted do not debunk anything at all, just that they did not literally built only 6 houses. Don't you think the title is clickbait a little? I don't think I read any of the 2 articles but I read one yesterday about this and yes, seems like they had paid about 50 (?) millions in food and related things and built temporary shelter but appart from that there is still a long way to go to the 500 millions. Similar groups seemed to have done a lot more with a lot less, so we're still waiting for the Red Cross to tell us what it did with the money.
I lost respect for the Red Cross when they over paid their executives.
Having witnessed first hand how the Red Cross spends its money on IT infrastructure it doesn't need, I refuse to give them a single dime.
What I have heard from multiple sources, including people who have worked for it, is that the Red Cross lies to people about where money is being used as part of its business model. It claims to be raising money for disaster X and then puts the money into its coffers. While it does spend some money on disaster X, there is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that the money you sent in for disaster X will be used for disaster X.
There's a word for that: fraud.
They are all scams that take most of it as "overhead" and only pennies on the dollar help those truly in need. I donate only to individuals and only when I know they truly need it.
The Red Cross doesn't show up to a disaster site until the cameras are there. It's the way they've been as long as I can remember. It seems like the people that run it have become more and more corrupt over the years and I don't have much use for them. Whereas I have nothing but good things to say about the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is much more transparent and pays there top people at the same rate as everyone else that works for them and they are almost always one of the first assistance organizations on site regardless of media coverage or none.
I don't know about other veterans experiences with the Red Cross, but one I had over 40 years ago has kept me from giving them a dime ever since. I would not be surprised if many veterans had similar or worse experiences. I remember my Father talking about his during WWII, but didn't really understand until it happened to me.
... And don't give to any charity unless you can audit to some extent how the money is spent.
The waste in these things is beyond unethical. Huge salaries for management, lots of money funneled to things that have NOTHING to do with what they raised the money for...
The Red Cross pocketed most of that money. In their minds they need that money for their other good works. So tehy show up at a disaster say "oh look at teh poor people, give to the red cross to help them"... and then basically just put all that money into their general fund.
There's no compartmentalization. So money donated to help Haitians could actually go almost anywhere... including the CEO's yacht/hooker/cocaine fund.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
When various charities started targeting international famine in the 1970s, a meme arose that only 50% of donations become actual food on the family table. In the 1990s, there was an advertising campaign that 95% of donations directly benefited starving families. What "directly benefited" meant was not explained.
During the Iraq war, a limbless boy was given a personal-use charity drive. Then many other charities began putting his photo on their promotional and reporting materials. A few of them admitted in the small print that no donations benefited this specific child.
For some years now, my mother buys raffle tickets from a national charity every month. It's not a donation but the charity makes a profit from her purchases. Still, every third month, the charity phones her and demands a proper donation.
A charity is a business with all its attendant problems. But some seem to upgrade themselves to tax collectors and worry about spending the money later.
They served KYB while showing a powerpoint presentation
I personally don't believe in charity. Instead of giving money to charity and see 95% of the money get wasted in the huge overhead, I prefer to safe money and buy shares in an ETF.
I don't know if I can't trust the 0.20% or 0.50% cost for the ETF, but I can trust them to invest in African businesses. When African businesses get money they can grow. Since they are private companies, they have reason to make investors (like me) happy to run their business as good as they can. And more importantly they are not the local government. They have to deal with the local government of course, but the more money (investments) they get the stronger they will be to resist the government.
Of course, they will not perform like the best business in the world and they are not the kind of ETF that you invest in for your retirement plan. But I save 50 euro a month which I invest in various ETF all over Africa.
When the stocks drop in value (and they do that in double digits in a few weeks in such a volatile market), it just means I can buy more shares of an ETF with the 50 euro a month.
When the stocks raise in value (and they do that also in double digits in a few weeks) my stock value increases dramatically. If they ever manage to get a stable political system in these countries, that the volatility can be kept in control and we might someday see a yearly double digit economic growth.
Since it is money normally meant for charity I don't expect any profit or whether I get my money back. But over 15 years, and many ups and downs, I can only conclude that the investments have been able to keep my invested capital above the inflation rate, even more. The total value of my shares in ETF are now a nice 26201 euro while I invested about 9000 euro (a bit more, I didn't keep my accounting up to date unfortunately) over the years. It's not wonderful, but it is more than I would have got when I just gave 50 euro a month to some random charity (which would be 0 euro).
I don't have that much money to donate, but now I help businesses and add a bit to their economy, and apparently I get a little thanks as a return with the increased value of my shares. And I'm pretty sure that I'm helping poor Africans too. Helping African entrepreneurs who can become successful might inspire other Africans to start their own business, and once more Africans become entrepreneurs, they can finally start to develop their economy which need more local workers who get a wage. And a good economy is the corner stone of freedom and democracy (not bombing the shit out of them like some politicians do to spread freedom and democracy). And it lets the Africans organize their country like they want to instead of having systems that work in other countries but not in theirs imposed on them.
And just imagine what might happen when more and more African countries become stable. Nigeria for example has seen their stocks drop with double digits until they become virtually worthless. Where I had to save for a few months before I could buy an ETF share in the past, I can now buy 10's of share with just 50 euro. Just imagine that this down trend keeps on going for over a decade while I can gather thousands of cheap shares to support the little economy that is left and after that they finally are able to reform their economy into a new China with double digit growths. A 15000 euro investment could eventually turn into millions a few years before retirement when lucky. When they completely fail, I wouldn't care, because I would be happy to have done my social duty to help the poor.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
In addition to the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the debts, and provide for the common defense, the Congress shall have the power to provide for the general Welfare of the United States.
Yes, Virginia, the United States government has the Constitutional power to tax and to spend for general welfare, and no amount of libtarded "taxes are theft" nonsense changes that.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Haiti really never had a chance. Read the history of the country then thank God you were not born there or you'd be just like them. Don't be so fucking judgmental.
Take the Big Government solution to these problems - throw so much money at them that in their blindness from all the floating lucre they stumble in the right direction.
About 10yrs ago I decided to do some volunteer work. By the time I was done, I decided not to volunteer anymore. It's just too depressing that most, if not all, of the charities are run so poorly. But the red cross was one of the worst. I told them I was a programmer and a DBA so they made me the "host" meaning I handed out cookies and made people frozen pizzas while they donated blood. For this I had to go through a background check, speak with a councilor. They told me that if I couldn't pass the background check, that was ok, I could drive the trucks if I had a record. You know, the trucks with the blood in them. Really.
Then they needed help with this Access database, I was a DBA right? No, get back to the cookies! they say. They hired this consulting firm to help them with Access, who charged them $20k and sent it a kid strait out of community college.
They'd run adds on TV "We're running low on blood! We desperately need you to donate this weekend!" but that came out of marketing, who didn't tell the doctors or nurses, so they'd get slammed when they weren't staffed to handle it.
The red cross is completely mismanaged, disorganized, and clueless. But then again, so was every other charity I found so...
My wife works in disaster response management for the *American * red cross (different corporations.) She's read TFA and with expertise and some contacts on the international side, sez that this response is ~true:
http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/13-Facts-about-the-Red-Cross-Response-in-Haiti
Biased i am, of course, but good information, i think.
so is slashdot now a standard of a few days lag on EVERY article??
(When a Republican lies): "Republicans are uniquely evil and dishonest."
(When a Democrat lies): "They all do it."
If you want to help build houses, they get it done.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Bitcoin's blockchain public ledger is transparent. You can track every dollar and how it is spent. If a charity is just it will report its bitcoin address and prove the bitcoin addresses to all payees as well. It will be a matter of time before we can trace how each dime is spent and hold their feet to the fire. Or better yet send donations directly to the victims and bypass the the corruption altogether. Just give me a Q code and I'll do the rest.
expected this and more when I heard the rc relief workers only gave food to women in some places. no wonder it entered this phase.
Real estate only goes UP they said!
[quote]“For those folks around the country who want to donate funds to help families in Oklahoma, please be alert and only donate to reputable relief charities such as the Salvation Army or the Red Cross,” state Attorney General Scott Pruitt said.[/quote]
Source:
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-tornadoes-state-attorney-general-advises-donors-to-be-aware-in-helping-with-relief-effort/article/3828385
Oh the irony!
Build 6 homes and keep the rest.
Oh, you thought charities exist for the poor? Charities exist for the people that work at the charities who live by preying on the charitable, and ironically they benefit from having more poverty and suffering in the world.
You give a shit about Haiti? Maybe your country shouldn't have gone there, trashed the place and enslaved the people ('civil conscription'? lol):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti
If China decided it wanted to help the poor people in the US by sending free food... the US would have them brought up on dumping charges with the WTO. So why is it different when the US does it to other countries?
Am Mrs Mariam from USA, i am really happy that i and my husband are cured of HIV with the herbal medicine of Dr fadeyi, i have been suffering from this disease for the past 3 years without solution until i came across the email of this doctors who have cure so many people with his herbal medicine, i also chose to give him a chance to help me and my husband, he told me what to do and i kindly did it, and he gave us his herbal medicine and direct me on how to use, i also followed his instructions for use and he asked us to go for a
check up after 3weeks and which we did, to my greatest surprise our result came out as negative, we are really happy that there is someone like this DR who is ready to help anytime any day. to all the readers and viewers that are having doubts towards this testimony stop doubting it and contact this Dr and see if he will not actually help you. i am not a stupid woman that i will come out to the public and start saying what someone have not done for me. he is really a great man contact him now. doctorfadeyitempleofspell@gmail.com
Seems to me they have no trouble spending the money, it's the value for money that is the problem.
That is why I will only donate through the humanitarian fund of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: every cent I spend ends up benefiting those in need. The overheads are not taken out of the donation money but come from other sources such as church owned farms and tithes instead.
I remember the whole debacle over this issue, and others for that matter. They refused to administer the whole of the funds to Haiti saying this money went into the general fund and was in reserve for future disasters.
They seem to have a habit of advertising the need for one thing but distributing funds for another.
They may have their place in disasters but efficiently distributing large funds is not one of them IMHO. I think only the government could be slower and less efficient.
> How is teaching English a waste? Haitians speak a creole, that is unintelligible
Volunteers teaching English IS a waste.
You won't reach any meaningful number of people. What % of the population do you think you might reach with a few dozen planeloads of volunteers? If you want to have 3,000 volunteers teach 30,000 Haitians English for 6 months, and there isn't enough shelter for the Haitians, where are you putting the volunteers? Do you just build a dozen Hiltons? What about the labour that those 30,000 Haitians are missing out on, both in terms of their incomes and in terms of the work that would be suspended?
HOWEVER, teaching Haitians to teach English could be useful, or helping develop educational and organizational structures where those not present. Note this is not showing up to teach English. You can tell a good NGO from a bad by their long-term plans for each situation.
...by conservatives that charities are necessarily more efficiently at allocating resources than government. Diseconomies of scale are inherent to any firm of sufficient size. The major problem with any organisation is scope creep: straying from the core mission/purpose and taking on more tasks, doing them all poorly.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
The nation builders dropped $12 billion in Iraq, and built ISIS. http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Send money directly to the extreme poor https://www.givedirectly.org/o...
Au contraire, Haiti is a good example of where untimely decolonization ultimately leads. We're seeing more of the same stuff in Africa in countries that were allowed to run themselves without ensuring that they're actually capable of doing so, but Haiti has been independent like that for a while longer, and so the effects are more prominent.
NPR CEO makes ~$117,000 more per year than the American Red Cross CEO.
NPR has built 0 houses in haiti.
Both organizations are NPO's.
When you click the link to the story you are supporting one of these organizations...
Haiti decolonized because their masters had become so horrible that the system could no longer continue. When you drive people beyond a certain point they revolt. The terror of retribution is outweighed by the misery of continuing under the system. Never drive people to the point death is preferable to life under the lash. So now you have a people who revolted to be free but lacked any idea of how to build a society. In Africa most of the colonies were stripped of their resources by the European powers and then, when they ceased to be profitable they were freed. Not surprising they flounder along. Most of those countries have artificial borders carved by outsiders with no consideration of tribal boundaries. Constant war was thus guaranteed in many cases as multiple tribes struggle for supremacy against traditional rivals that they share borders with but little else.