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.

Comments

They throw money at shit they don't need...

[kiphat]

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.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[ErikTheRed]

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).

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Though not about the Red Cross, I have two anecdotes about Haiti relief efforts. A 20 year old friend of mine wanted to help so he signed up with a charitable organization to travel to Haiti and help. He used all of his savings to pay for plane tickets, housing, meals, and to donate to the program. He also did it using his 2 week vacation time for the year. They were assigned to teams of about 10 each of college aged Americans. They were given shovels, rakes, and wheel barrows and told to clean up the destroyed shanties. They worked morning until night while the locals watched them. Each week part of the group left and a new group arrived. Some stayed for one week, some for two, others for 2 months. This was going to be a year long project or more to clean the ruined shanties from the valley and hillside. A bulldozer and backhoe could have done it in a month or less, then they could begin rebuilding. The big question is why were the locals that would benefit from all this work not helping? They just stood around and watched. This was unskilled labor anyone could do it.
The other is our local university has a charitable student org that was also getting students to self pay to go help "Rebuild Haiti". All they ended up doing was teaching English.
Waste, waste, everywhere.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[ShanghaiBill]

All they ended up doing was teaching English. Waste, waste, everywhere.

How is teaching English a waste? Haitians speak a creole, that is unintelligible to even standard French speakers. This isolates them from the world economy, and is part of the reason they have 15% of the per capita GDP as the neighboring Dominican Republic, where standard Spanish is spoken. English lessons should be very useful.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[DescX]

I don't know how it works in the states, but there are multiple ways for charitable organizations to draw revenue here.

Fun story; I left such an organization where IT costs had ransacked the place rather silently. I was hired to keep a seat warm and not ask questions. Bit of a latch-key kid, so I come off mousey but tend to hit hard. I pushed nearly every single day for consolidation of architecture, refactoring efforts, and other things that would keep costs at net zero and set us up for efficiency. I over-worked knowing tens of thousands counted on what I did. Of course, that's way more involved than keeping a seat warm and definitely not what the sleepy organization bargained for.

Over the first month I wrote some paper saving software. When it came time to use it, the org opted to ship out several thousand pre-printed items instead of, y'know, using the said software to reduce costs and waste. I don't normally care about the trees, but it was quite ludicrous watching the post office take off with truck after truck of forms that my code was fully capable of handling on demand, as required. Strike 1. It gave me an axe to grind with executives from that day on, and I didn't let up, with good reason.

I was sent on bogus "training". Our core system was an AMS where the owners did the old bait-and-switch; avoid insolvency or whatever the hell else is going on under the guise of seeking opportunity in new ventures; let the company fail; then consult for it. I could smell this a mile away and suggested we save a buck and do remote courses to satisfy the parent company's training requirement. Nope - I had to be flown somewhere on company dime, hotel and all, to watch a "trainer" click a few GUI buttons on an entirely SQL-driven system. What fun. I made my displeasure clear. Strike 2.

Oh, and day to day purchasing choices. I explicitly stated I didn't want new equipment and would periodically walk in to discover a shiny new on my desk. The least knowledgeable staff managed to sucker management into buying a fancy new server before I even heard about it - which we couldn't use on site for various good reasons. When I tried to get permission to grab a consultant so I could run him ragged on my own terms, the idea turned into an excellent way to screw around and waste time. Management batted 5 or 6 competitors back and forth, often using closed door phone calls with these consultants as an excuse to slip out at 1:00pm. There was some new horse shit every week. Strikes 3, 4, 5, 6......

Needless to say, this wasn't the kind of place a to start a career, and I'm too young for a heart attack, so I quit. Sorry I can't share more. The membership of this particular organization continues to enjoy their basic services and I have no desire to jeopardize that enjoyment -- and the organization doesn't vend life-or-death services, so there's really no incentive to blow a whistle. I'm just happy I kept everything running, made some kind of forward motion, and was able to stop a few bad deals cold. ...it needs to be said that in at least one non-profit, I most certainly met people who were both acting in evil ways and managing poorly. The trouble is, there's no distinction between the negative effects from either problem at end-of-day. Evil and mismanagement look, and act, identical.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[Applehu Akbar]

Something similar just happened in Nepal. The UK raised a huge food and materials drive that positioned hundreds of tone of relief supplies at a military base in Yorkshire, ready to be sent in. It's still all sitting there. Apparently Nepal wants to charge customs duty of 30% on all the relief supplies that are coming into the country.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[tompaulco]

I refuse to give them a single dime.

I never give them dimes either, but I do donate blood every 8 weeks. They can't embezzle that.

But they do. They sell it and claim it as a donation, so they don't pay taxes on it, but they don't allow you, the giver to claim it as a charitable donation. Also, they claim 91% of their donations goes toward humanitarian efforts, but they don't include the moneys received from selling the blood, because that would lower their percentage down into the 60s or 70s or lower according to NPR.
Far better to donate to a local hospital and eliminate the waste and the approximately 50% of blood donation that ends up spoiling on the shelf.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[ChrisMaple]

1) Cut off nose to spite face.

2) Profit ?

Debunked already.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has already been debunked on skeptics stackexchange http://skeptics.stackexchange....

Re:Debunked already.

[amicusNYCL]

I wouldn't call that "debunked". People are certainly throwing around the $500 million number assuming that all went to housing, which is not correct (only about $100 million did), but the Red Cross still failed at their own stated goals, and their lawyers refuse to provide any accurate accounting of where the money went beyond lumping large sums into large buckets (e.g., $24 million went into development of Campeche). The Haitians living in Campeche are equally curious about where the money went, because they haven't seen much done beyond some sidewalks and a wall painted with the Red Cross logo. The Red Cross specifically said they were going to build hundreds of homes and rebuild entire neighborhoods, and they've done neither. Even though it's true that they did not budget $500 million to that single effort, they still have failed to accomplish what they said they were going to do, and they have still failed to account for where that money went.

Re:Debunked already.

[PRMan]

Not when they claim that a large portion of the $500 million they raised was spent on building houses.

Not nearly as bad as they make it sound.

[Iamthecheese]

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.

Re:Not nearly as bad as they make it sound.

[amicusNYCL]

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 only there was a 19 minute story filed with that kind of discussion.

To be sure, building in Haiti is very difficult. Land title and government requirements are complex and time-consuming. But still, it can be done. A nationwide review found other charities have built almost 9,000 homes so far. Not far from the Red Cross's neighborhood development project in Campeche, two charities, Global Communities and PCI, built 260 one-story homes and 75 two-story homes and rebuilt the main road in Ravine Pintade. Now the charities are building a series of multifamily homes with running water.

JOHN WILDY MARCELIN: (Through interpreter) This little house will have two bedrooms. And this is the kitchenette living room, and this will be the bathroom.

SULLIVAN: John Wildy Marcelin is head of construction. He says this project's had a lot of momentum because the majority of the managers are Haitian. He says they're passionate about rebuilding their country.

MARCELIN: (Through interpreter) All this work you are looking at now, the calculation was made by Haitian people, Haitian engineers, Haitian architects, Haitian foreman. We know what to do.

SULLIVAN: The Red Cross does not seem to have used that strategy. One manager emailed supervisors in Washington complaining that Haitians were not being hired for top positions and in some cases, were treated disparagingly. Current and former employees told us the Red Cross relied on foreigners who often couldn't speak either French or Creole.

Not donating to private charities is easy

[mi]

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.

I refuse to give them a single dime.

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.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[kenj123]

you could move to a paradise country with no taxes. I think Somalia doesn't have a national tax.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[thesupraman]

No.. He was quite clearly attacking the idea of taxes as a source of charity and wealth redistribution.. Not all taxes.
If you cannot see the difference then you have no place in any discussion about taxes.. Except as an example of the problem.
The point is very clearly that poorly run private charity is easily fixed (move your donations). Publicly run charity is next to impossible to fix and rapidly devices into a self serving politically motivated disaster.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[kenj123]

Your point is completely invalid. the instant mi said this:
'Oh, and they are unconstitutional [goodreads.com] too, but that stopped bothering anybody long ago.'
mi is CLEARLY sarcastically expressing an opinion about all taxes.

That opens the whole libertarian can of worms that makes me laugh in total disgust.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[nbauman]

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.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[drsmithy]

All laws are enforced "at gunpoint". Your statement is meaningless in its generality.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Scandinavian countries are socialdemocratic, not socialist, and their state welfare programs have been severely curtailed since joining the European Union. GDP first.

Really? The GDP of the Scandinavian countries has taken a nosedive since they joined the EU? For one thing Norway isn't even an EU member and Norway's GDP growth seems to have gone back to the pre-2000 rate. Not that Norway is a typical case study of a no-EU member since their GDP is powered by Oil, a fact which has still not prevented Norway from being a poster boy for how to have a booming economy outside the EU (after all every European country is floating on an ocean of Oil right?). The GDP of Denmark has been on a general climbing trend since they joined what later became the EU in 1973. It has flatlined since the 2008 credit crisis but that crisis was predominantly an American invention. Sweden's GDP climbed after joining the EU in 1995 and is still climbing after the 2008 crisis. If we also count Finland as a Scandinavinan country which it technically is not Finland's GDP has also flatlined since 2008 but it climbed steadily after the country joined the EU 1n 1995. Economic stagnation in EU countries has a lot of causes including the Euro crisis but the ineptitude of eurocrats is not the only cause of stagnation in these countries the ineptitude and stupidity of local politicians also has a lot to do with it as well as the ineptitude of politicians, bankers and business people across the water which caused the 2008 crisis in the first place. The EU may be flawed but it is not the root of all evil, ineptitude, corruption and stupidity.

Re:Haiti government

[frovingslosh]

Absolutely. they could have built more than 6 homes for Haiti government officials with it, and very nice homes too.

Local charity

[vivaoporto]

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?

Re:Local charity

[grcumb]

- UNICEF expenses of 52 million dollars (pdf) [unicefusa.org] 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)

(I'm not even going to comment on PETA because they have jack shit to do with the current conversation.)

You are actually complaining about an administrative overhead of 9%? Seriously?

For comparison, Apple's OPEX was a little over 25% of revenues as of March 2015. Google's was a little less than 25%. Microsoft's was 22%

These are all operations that have significant global logistical operations, and involve a combination of scale and skill in their day-to-day operations.

I assisted UNICEF (as a local 'fixer') with their operations when cyclone Pam hit Vanuatu. (See here for a blow-by-blow account.) It is emphatically true that costs are very high in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Spending time nickle-and-diming over expenses can cost lives. We needed phones, cars, room to work (their local HQ was damaged), food and water, and sufficient staff and infrastructure to move hundreds of tonnes of food and supplies at a time.

For the record: The Red Cross and UNICEF were the first organisations to deliver emergency supplies, because they had the foresight to pre-position materials and equipment in-country prior to the disaster. That was money well-spent.

And yet... and yet the biggest problem we faced was middle management second-guessing the people at the operational level, failing to support them because of the expenses they were incurring. And this fear continues to permeate precisely because of stories like this.

Let's be perfectly clear: It was the AMERICAN Red Cross that screwed up so royally here. Not the International Red Cross, which provides unique and necessary services throughout the world.

You wouldn't tar every single technology company with the same brush as games maker Electronic Arts (who really do deserve their own special circle in Hell). So why, when one NGO manages their way to disaster, does giving to charities suddenly become unwise?

I have witnessed—up close and in more detail than anyone could ever want—the effects of disaster. I'm still working to document the many successes and failures of cyclone Pam. And I will say without hesitation that the mantra here in Vanuatu was 'we will not be another Haiti'. Haiti really was a clusterfuck from start to finish, mostly because of the local government's inability to control and coordinate the response. In Vanuatu, government officials stayed on the front foot, and were unafraid to take NGOs to task when they first refused to cooperate.

People need to be reminded: Disaster zones are shitty places to work. They are in fact some of the worst places in the world. And on top of this there are indeed thousand-dollar-a-day careerists who descend on them as a matter of course. But for every one person like that, there are hundreds of dedicated professionals who have devoted themselves simply to helping out. Many of them work on a purely voluntary basis. Mistakes get made every day, for countless reasons, but not least because in a post-disaster situation, you're working with whatever information you've been able to gather by word of mouth; you've got virtually no means to coordinate your efforts, and you cannot know what the worst-affected areas look like until you go there yourself. On top of all that, you're working as much as 20 hours a day, resting for maybe 10-15 minutes at most, and eating whenever someone stuffs an emergency ration into your hand.

Not to put too fine a point on it, It's really fucking hard.

So yes, rag all you like on the American Red Cross.

Re:Local charity

[amiga3D]

Interesting response. I have to say that you make good points. Still, as long as a charity hides information on where their money was spent it only causes these accusations to gather momentum. The best thing is to explain where money was spent and why as openly as possible. If you fail to be open it will only look like you have something to hide.

Re:Local charity

[tompaulco]

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?

Agree. Local charities aren't big enough to mismanage the funds, and the people are close enough that they will probably volunteer their time as well and not need a half million dollar salary.
There is too much graft and corruption in all of the big charities. Red cross makes $2 billion a year selling your blood and not giving you any tax credit for it, but claiming it on their taxes as a donation.
United Way and March of Dimes encourages quotas, threat of firing and ostracizing to force people in organizations to take part in fund raising for organizations which donate to causes which they don't necessarily agree with.
All of these big organizations spend more than 10 cents out of every dollar on actual humanitarian causes, and as you can see often cannot even tell you how they spent the other 80-some cents, and neither can they people that the organizations claim to have benefited.

New Executives destroyed the Red Cross

[nwaack]

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.

Re:Never give to any charities

[Anonymous Coward]

And as soon as the tornado rips your trailer park to shreds, you'll be the first one with your hand out looking for donations.

I am shocked, shocked.

[Just Some Guy]

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.

Re:I am shocked, shocked.

[penix1]

Red Cross blood services has been separated from the National Red Cross Disaster Services for many years. I remember when it happened. It caused the closure of many Red Cross offices because it was Blood Services that was supporting the Disaster side. They have a separate management tree, budget and facilities. A big part of the cost associated with blood is in the testing for blood diseases and processing such as blood separation processes. The testing alone costs a small fortune.

So please keep in mind that although Blood Services carries the Red Cross name it really is a separate entity.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[sheetsda]

This is the woman people want for president

Here in the USA we do not have the luxury of voting for the person we want for president. We have to vote against the person that we don't want to be president.

See also

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[amicusNYCL]

I don't have any love for Hillary Clinton, but before I accept your claim that she is the personification of evil, do you mind providing a source for any of the claims you're making there?

I was watching an interview

What interview?

with this minister

Which minister?

there is nothing to show for it but a couple projects that were photo ops

Do you really believe that? Over 9,000 homes were built, at a minimum, not to mention consumables like food and water, as well as temporary shelters, repairs to existing structures, and money for rent.

This is the woman people want for president

Are you trying to say that she personally approves or disapproves of all Clinton Foundation work in Haiti, which in turn somehow oversees all international efforts? That everything that happens is traced to Hillary personally? Her husband founded the thing, that's why it was originally called the William J. Clinton Foundation. Hillary joined the thing in 2013 (which is several years after the 2010 earthquake, in case you're curious), and she said she was going to work on issues concerning women, small children, and economic development.

Or, is this what you wanted to talk about:

The 26-member international Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission, headed by Bill Clinton and Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive, convened in June 2010. That committee is overseeing the US$5.3 billion pledged internationally for the first two years of Haiti's reconstruction.

The commission was critiqued by Haitian groups for lacking Haitian civil society representation and accountability mechanisms. Half the representation on the commission was given to foreigners who effectively bought their seats by pledging certain amounts of money. An international development consultant contracted by the commission was quoted as saying, "Look, you have to realize the IHRC [commission] was not intended to work as a structure or entity for Haiti or Haitians. It was simply designed as a vehicle for donors to funnel multinationals' and NGOs' project contracts."

Because, for a minute there, you sounded like just another political idiot taking any opportunity to bash whoever you don't like. But surely that's not the case, right?

Re:6 + more...

[hondo77]

Is she worth it? Has she cut expenses and/or increased income enough to justify her pay? I don't know the answers to that but I would at least look into it before criticizing her pay.

Fraud

[Etherwalk]

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.

Ask a Vet

[Gim Tom]

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.

Re:Ask a Vet

[Gim Tom]

In my case it was when I was trying to get home from South East Asia on emergency leave after my mom had a cerebral hemorrhage with a poor prognosis for survival. I landed at Travis AFB near San Francisco after being awake for most of 3 days travel with only a little cash, but a good balance in a Bank America checking account and the Red Cross at Travis said it would take them 3 or 4 days to get an ok to cash one of my checks. I gambled my last cash on a bus ride to San Francisco International Airport and fortunately Delta was happy to take my check for a ticket and I got home in time to see my mom in the hospital. That is my personal experience, I have heard GI's tell of much worse.

Don't give money to big charities

[Karmashock]

... 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.

Re:Don't give money to big charities

[koick]

A great, objective resource is charitynavigator.org. Only give to charities with a 4 rating.

Re:Japan suffers Tsunami and Nuclear plant failure

[amiga3D]

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.

Re:Haiti government

[nbauman]

The Welfare Reform Act, which you credit to Clinton, was a Republican project only signed by Clinton when presented to him for the third time. It did a great deal to reduce poverty by getting the undeserving poor off their fat, lazy asses.

Unfortunately nobody got the undeserving rich off their fat, lazy asses. Democrat or Republican, they're still getting government handouts. GWB, you recall, was a drunken loser and a failure all his life, until his father's friends cut him into a government-subsidized football stadium deal.

The big-time undeserving rich can be found in the medical insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Obamacare has now forced people to get their health care through the insurance industry, which takes a 20% cut off the top of your premium dollar. They've guaranteed that Medicare will pay the pharmaceutical industry whatever they choose to charge, even if it's $50 for an asthma inhaler that costs $15 in Europe, or $100,000 for a cancer drug that was developed with government-funded research.

The welfare "reform", that Clinton signed, was a disaster for the poor. It worked passably well when the economy was booming, and there were jobs for everyone who wanted one, but after the economic bust, the poor were really suffering. There have been plenty of studies to show that.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion...
OpEdOpinion
Will Hillary Clinton run against her husband's welfare legacy?
June 1, 2015
By MELINDA HENNEBERGER, Bloomberg News

Almost 20 years ago, when Bill Clinton made good on his campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it," some of his oldest friends were beside themselves....

A smaller percentage of Americans are getting the help they need: In 1996, 68 of every 100 families living in poverty received cash assistance. Today, only 26 of 100 do, and in 10 states, that number is under 10. Because federal aid is no longer guaranteed to anyone living in poverty, states can simply make it harder to qualify for help, and then point to the low number of people they're serving as a measure of success....

The consensus among Clinton's aides, both those who supported and opposed the bill, was that the move was not politically necessary. Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos told the president that he did not have to sign the bill to be reelected, but was far enough ahead of GOP nominee Bob Dole that he'd win in November either way.

Benjamin Franklin:
  “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Now I understand why Howard Zinn said that the founders of the country were upper-class property-owners serving their own interest.

Franklin's advice may have worked when the county had a labor shortage and there was work for everyone who wanted to work, and free farmland for everyone (except negroes) who wanted to strike out on his own, but it doesn't make any sense when there's massive unemployment and no more free farm land.