How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars For Haiti and Built 6 Homes 235
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.
They throw money at shit they don't need... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not donating to private charities is easy (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [rescue.org].
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 [goodreads.com] too, but that stopped bothering anybody long ago.
Re:Not donating to private charities is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"And you could move to a country that has 100% tax. North Korea comes to mind."
But Massachusetts has way better food.
Re: (Score:2)
"And you could move to a country that has 100% tax. North Korea comes to mind."
But Massachusetts has way better food.
Have you eaten in Massachusetts?
Re: (Score:2)
"And you could move to a country that has 100% tax. North Korea comes to mind."
But Massachusetts has way better food.
Have you eaten in Massachusetts?
There was a place in Cambridge Square called "The Wurst House". A nice German eatery. They tore it down though.
They have a lot of Donut shops though. The saying is that you can see the sign fo rthe next donut shop from the one you are in at the time.
Re: Not donating to private charities is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
'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: (Score:2)
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.
I promise to behave now.
Speaking of that, faith based initiatives have to be a conflict for some tax hating people. I mean, it's a nice and long overdue bridge connecting religion and the state, but we don't wanna pay taxes..
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if mi had instead only opposed particular uses of taxes, then they would not have referred to taxes as "monies taken from you and me at gunpoint".
Nobodies gonna take away my goddamned guns!
Oh wait.....ummm, nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
But I do think, that spending thus-collected funds on anything not threatening the very survival of the country — such as defending from external enemies or maintaining law and order within — is immoral.
So letting the country's people starve, or not giving them an education that increases the economic prosperity of the country, is no threat to its existence ?
Please justify why the army and police cannot be substituted by private industry.
Re: (Score:2)
People's food needs in the absence of government coercion are already taken care of by private actions: farming, jobs, and in extreme cases by charity. The government need not be involved.
Education provided by the government is at least 2 to 4 times as costly as it needs to be for a good education. All but the poorest parents can afford to pay for teachers, and private education reduces the likelihood of government indoctrination, whether such indoctrination be Nazi, communist, religious, or whatever.
Army a
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that since taxes are ultimately collected by the threat of, or actual use of, gunfire, that any use of tax money should be so important that it not using it would be worse than the way it is obtained. This should be considered in full context of all human activity and with respect to the amount of money involved.
The context for your cancer patient includes such things as most people have health insurance, not all cancers can be cured, long-term care differs from emergency care, not all people g
Re:Not donating to private charities is easy (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [youtube.com] of a discussion with Paul Krugman and Robert Solo that's quite inspiring.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 [google.com] 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 [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And you could move to north korea, where the government knows what's good for you.
Taxes are pretty low there, I'm told. And if they are good enough for Sarah Palin, they are good enough for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I listened to your clip and, much as I cringe at anything Palin, she says "South Korean allies" at 0:45/0:46. Did I miss something there?
Re: (Score:2)
I listened to your clip and, much as I cringe at anything Palin, she says "South Korean allies" at 0:45/0:46. Did I miss something there?
Yes you did. 34 to 38 seconds when she says: "Obviously we have to stand by our North Korean allies - we're bound to by treaty.", at which point Glen Beck corrects her by saying "South Korean" after whic she says ""oh yeah, or Um Yeah".
Have another listen
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I missed that. Thank you. Her political popularity provides a beacon of hope for every idiot in the country.
Re: (Score:3)
All laws are enforced "at gunpoint". Your statement is meaningless in its generality.
Re: (Score:2)
That all laws are (ultimately) enforced at gunpoint has large and significant meaning. It means that no law should be so unimportant that enforcing it at gunpoint is improper.
Although I do not like to follow this train of logic, it's important to point out that some laws are not immediately enforced at gunpoint. Let's say you're caught on camera trampling on the flowers at city hall. You're identified as engaging in this violation of the law, a court date is set and you don't go. A judgement for a fine is m
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's true only if they intend to come back. Otherwise, don't let the screen door hit you on the ass when you go.
Article 1, Section 8, sentence 1. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
individual - town - county - state - United States --- the individual is 4 layers separated from the U.S.. It is you who has failed to understand the meaning of the written word.
Re:Not donating to private charities is easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Another good one is MSF (Doctors Without Borders).
http://www.doctorswithoutborde... [doctorswit...orders.org]
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... [thenation.com] http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05... [nytimes.com]
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:They throw money at shit they don't need... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
1) Cut off nose to spite face.
2) Profit ?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit companies like that are often bullshit because they are just money laundering fronts. Paying people to fill seats is a big tip off. Consider reporting them.
Waste Money on Call Centers Too (Score:2)
Fraud (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/09/the_business_of_blood.html
Re: (Score:3)
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 end
Re: (Score:2)
Why a single dime in USA? Try a penny. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... I've done work for the Red Cross and they are extremely wasteful. We were brought in to audit the design, development and QA process to make it more efficient and less prone to defects and to reduce iterations... but even though THEY brought us in they fought the process every step of the way. We eventually ended up firing them as a client. I think they just wanted someone to rubber stamp their chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
Oxfam is no better, There redistribution is around 1%, one cent of every dollar collected. High salaries and benefits consume the rest.
Salvation army has only 3% overhead. 97 cents of every dollar collected go for aid.
red cross CEO makes over $1M (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
President Obama is paid 400,000 dollars a year. He does get free room and board though.
Debunked already. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I had come across that a couple days ago and was about to post it.
At least they're ahead of Doctors Without Borders, I hear they didn't build any permanent residences in Haiti. Where does all the money go?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I had come across that a couple days ago and was about to post it.
At least they're ahead of Doctors Without Borders, I hear they didn't build any permanent residences in Haiti. Where does all the money go?
Medical treatment.
http://www.doctorswithoutborde... [doctorswit...orders.org]
Haiti had a massive cholera problem (as a result of cholera being introduced to the island by UN workers).
MSF had a detailed report on what they did with the money.
Emergency Response After the Haiti Earthquake: Choices, Obstacles, Activities and Finance
Six months after the earthquake
Six months after Haiti’s January 12 earthquake, MSF describes the organization’s largest ever emergency response.
http://www.doctorswithoutborde... [doctorswit...orders.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a joke. The Red Cross is a disaster relief agency which provides refugee camps, temporary shelters, food, water, medical care and communications.
Judging the effectiveness of such an agency by how many permanent residences they happen to construct is a non-sequitur.
Re:Debunked already. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the link [stackexchange.com] again. The Red Cross made no such claim.
Re:Debunked already. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
That's a good summary of the Pro Publica/NPR article. https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
I would add that the people who wrote that article actually went to Haiti where the Red Cross said they provided aid, and talked to the people there on the ground.
I will bet money that the guy who wrote that attack job http://skeptics.stackexchange.... [stackexchange.com] did all his research sitting on his/her ass surfing the Internet within the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a good chance they spent it on something else. I can not remember the exact circumstances but I know that I read an article back about 30 years or so ago about how the Red Cross would use a major disaster like the Haitian earthquake as a fundraiser but not necessarily earmark the funds it received for that specific cause. Don't know for sure but it could well be they still operate like that.
Gave money to the Red Cross? (Score:2)
Not nearly as bad as they make it sound. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said on another site, Not as bad as they try to make it sound.
The reporters at Pro Publica and NPR went to Haiti. The reporters went to the locations where the Red Cross said they had been working, to see what the Red Cross had accomplished, and they talked to the people that the Red Cross was supposed to have been helping.
I don't suppose you went to Haiti yourself to check them out, did you?
God helps those... (Score:2)
that have the money
Local charity (Score:5, Insightful)
- PETA euthanizing more animals than they shelter [petakillsanimals.com]
- 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)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
- 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 [pacificpolicy.org] 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 [pacificpolicy.org] 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 [pacificpolicy.org] 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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
But people are people. If you don't audit then there will be graft and corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
This and many other examples like - PETA euthanizing more animals than they shelter [petakillsanimals.com] - 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) 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 organizat
Re: (Score:2)
Arrogant maybe, but someone that donates money and time to help others is hardly self centered. At least he's trying to help someone and I don't care if he wants to insure that it's actually helping someone instead of wasted by doing it locally. You feel so concerned for Haiti you should donate your efforts there.
New Executives destroyed the Red Cross (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 assume that they wanted the company destroyed. After all, these high power execs also destroyed the companies from which they came.
6 + more... (Score:2)
Their CEO, Gail McGovern makes $500,000 / year in base salary. I bet it's built her a house or two...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am shocked, shocked. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 tha
Re: (Score:2)
Heh (Score:2)
Damn, I'm cynical.
To be blunt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Under a well-run socialist government, you can set the priorities in a rational way, where there is the greatest need. In Haiti, they have to develop, equip and maintain their main hospitals, and in public health, the most cost/beneficial priorities are pregnancy and infant care, vaccinations, and sanitation.
Private charities respond to emotional and psychological needs.
We spend so much money on breast cancer that we're harming women from over-screening. The Koman Foundation got hijacked by the anti-abortio
Over Paid Red Cross Executives (Score:2)
I lost respect for the Red Cross when they over paid their executives.
Ask a Vet (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ask a Vet (Score:5, Informative)
Don't give money to big charities (Score:4, Interesting)
... 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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're paid off or someone on the review board is involved in one of the corrupt institutions.
Conflicts of interest are really common in these subcultures. They all know each other. They all go to the same events. They're all fucking each other in the back room. So its really hard to know what they actually think or if that is just what they're saying.
You see this is a lot of issues. Its a big issue in journalism as well. They all know each other and they all talk to each other. You think an article
they suck (Score:2)
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 backgrou
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haiti government (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more and more convinced that the Republican and Democratic parties are like the head and tails of a quarter. No matter which one you look at it's just the other side of the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more and more convinced that the Republican and Democratic parties are like the head and tails of a quarter. No matter which one you look at it's just the other side of the same thing.
The proof of that is the Obama health plan, which is really the health plan of the Heritage Foundation, a far-right think tank.
The Democratic Party today is further to the right than Richard Nixon (whose Secretary of Health and Human Services was Daniel Patrick Moynihan), who supported a guaranteed national income and a national health program.
Clinton was a "centrist" Democrat, which is not really in the center of American opinion but pretty far to the right. It's only in the center of the big campaign cont
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, you should just steal money from all the fiscally irresponsible people around you because we know you'll manage it better than they could.
Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We have to vote against the person that we don't want to be president.
Wrong. We have to vote for members of the electoral college who have promised to vote against the person we don't want to be president. (This matters because districts, gerrymandering, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. 'Voting against' is a consequence of a of a two-party system which is a consequence of a simple-majority, winner-take-all system. A system like run-off voting would fix this problem
I do agree the electoral college has far outlived its usefulness and is contrary to how a democracy should work, with its failure rate of 5% [youtube.com].
For all the hero worship the Founding Fathers get they made tremendous blunders when it came to the voting system.
Re: (Score:2)
> Wrong. We have to vote for
Please refrain from redundant inflammatory statements. Seriously, he wasn't wrong any more than you are.
I have been reading about the US American electoral college system on and off for decades and I still don't understand it which I am told puts me on an even footing with most US Americans.
Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Who didn't lie that lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? The one that said "WMD" in Iraq? Or the Bush that said "Read my lips. No new taxes?" It's a long and distinguished list of prevaricators that operated out of that oval office.
Re: (Score:2)
A lie is a lie. You can't pick and choose like that. They all lack integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and she doesn't swallow!
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I despise Hillary Clinton I have to say she didn't steal all that money. It was a team effort and I'm sure there are many people who had a hand in it. I've been looking at the travesty that is the 2016 Presidential Campaign and overall Hillary is far from the worst of the possibilities. It's depressing how far the bar has fallen for presidential candidacy.
Re: (Score:3)
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.