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.
This has already been debunked on skeptics stackexchange http://skeptics.stackexchange....
Absolutely. they could have built more than 6 homes for Haiti government officials with it, and very nice homes too.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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?
you could move to a paradise country with no taxes. I think Somalia doesn't have a national tax.
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?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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.