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.
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.
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.
This! I've seen this in other large "non-profits" as well. It's like they don't even know how to do more with less (I own two businesses and could speak volumes on the subject) - they just declare that they "need" more money, fundraise, and then blow it out the way their high-priced consultants tell them to. I don't think they're necessarily evil, but they are run by people whose good intentions far outweigh their management skills (to be charitable, pun intended).
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
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?
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.
you could move to a paradise country with no taxes. I think Somalia doesn't have a national tax.
And you could move to north korea, where the government knows what's good for you.
Sure, and if you drink too little water you die and if you drink too much water you die - so therefore it's impossible to drink a healthy amount of water.
The interesting thing to me is that there are also countries where people have it pretty good. And it's not just about race, culture, religion, etc.. For example, there are huge differences between North and South Korea.
In the countries at the top of the world happiness report (e.g. the Scandinavian socialist countries), an ordinary person can have a secure comfortable life even if they make the occasional mistake, have a nice work/life balance, and aren't particularly smart or lucky. On the other hand, in the countries at the bottom of the list, even people who don't make any major mistakes in their lives, and work really hard and are even quite smart - are often still trapped in insecure lives without basic necessities.
Now, I'm not necessarily in favor direct wealth or income redistribution (taking tax money from rich people and giving it directly to poor people to spend however they like). But there are a lot of indirect things that governments can do - that really do work to insure that ordinary people have secure comfortable lives. Some things are even a bit outside the box - such as functioning as an employer of last resort during major recessions and depressions.
Anyway, I'm not an expert but, for Slashdotters who are genuinely concerned about inequality, there's a really good YouTube video of a discussion with Paul Krugman and Robert Solo that's quite inspiring.
Another good one is MSF (Doctors Without Borders).
http://www.doctorswithoutborde...
Yes, and as the original Pro Publica article said, MSF collected money for Haitian operations, and then told people not to send any more money because they had enough money. They don't need money. Their main need is for competent personnel. When a crisis hits, MSF is swamped with volunteers, and they have to separate the competent volunteers with experience in crisis work, from the well-meaning inexperienced volunteers who will just create more problems.
When's the last time you heard a charity say they had enough money?
The Red Cross OTOH had meetings where the executives referred to it as a great fund-raising opportunity.
The Red Cross is a parking lot for incompetent, ideologically biased political appointees, like Elizabeth Dole, who among other things edited the AIDS education manuals to eliminate anything that would offend the Christian right, like homosexuality. http://www.thenation.com/artic... http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05...
OTOH, the staff below them includes a lot of dedicated, competent people, which is why they're always blowing the whistle to the press.