I have read other reports that were less than complimentary about the methods the Red Cross uses to collect and distribute aid. I decided a number of years ago not to make any contributions through them. We made our Haiti Relief donation through our local Jewish Federation, I trust them to use the money to aid those in need.
Gaetan Drossart, its head of mission, said it was wrong for charities to raise more than they could spend. ‘Organisations want to be in front of the cameras in an emergency to attract attention since this gets the money,’ he said. ‘The humanitarian business is no different to any other business.’
Drossart wants limits placed on the numbers of groups allowed in to disaster zones given the chaos and poor co-ordination he witnessed in the earthquake’s aftermath.
Just down the road from his office colourful wooden sheds called Transitional Shelters dot the landscape. These tiny temporary homes were built not because survivors wanted them — they would have preferred to have ruined properties rebuilt or new homes — but because donors wanted visible signs of progress.
They are taking twice as long and — at £345 million — nearly three times as much money to build as planned. The flagship community was Corail, about ten miles outside Port-au-Prince. Families were lured here with promises of clean water, medical care, education and jobs in proposed garment factories. The actor Sean Penn, who spent several months in Haiti after the quake, was among those who persuaded people to move. (emphasis mine)
Now these unfortunate people are marooned on a rocky patch of land: the factories have not materialised, there are no hospitals, the schools are inadequate and they have started being charged for water at more than twice the cost in the camps. Vast squatter camps have sprung up on the hillsides around them.
‘They promised us when we came here we would find everything we needed,’ said Marjorie Saint Hilaire, a mother of three boys whose husband was killed in the quake. ‘Now we are living in a desert.’
The Red Cross has long been suspected of being more concerned with their persona than what they actually do.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't always like that - at least I'd like to think so.
DeleteI believe I related before that I worked briefly at Greenpeace, thirty years ago. Even then you could see the split between people who cared about the issues and poseurs and sanctimonious d-bags. The latter seem to have taken over every major enviro and charitable "brand".
I've found there is a sweet spot in charitable giving - a "goldilocks" stage where institutions are small and young enough to be uncorrupted but with enough critical mass to still get stuff done.
Red Cross is past its sell-by date.
The Red Cross is a can of worms. If you donate at the national level, it just goes to fund smug academic elites who are mired in the socialist-view "book learning" and have little to no actual disaster experience. These assholes draw a pretty paycheck while inking Xs and Os on a whiteboard, and attending all the right functions. They do idiotic, nonsensical things with your hard-earned money.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the LOCAL Red Cross disaster teams stand between victims and chaos at the scene. They are mostly unpaid volunteer nurses (and others). They attend training on their own dime, and respond quickly. They always have a disaster bag packed.
Where I live, these teams respond to anything from house fires to tornado scenes. Their experience is invaluable. Who else would know to send a volunteer to the farm supply store for more bandages when there are no other resources, or how to psychologically deal with on-scene families who are missing children in a flash flood?
If you give to the Red Cross, do so locally. Approach a Red Cross volunteer nurse and ask "what can I purchase and give you that will help in a disaster? Are you all short of blankets? Gauze? Do you need to purchase supplies for your jump bag? Can I give you fifty dollars to purchase the disaster supplies you need?" This keeps your donation in your own community. In the event that something terrible happens, you have helped your town/city prepare to survive on its own until help arrives (which could be days).
If you want to give to disaster relief at a national level, I recommend the Salvation Army. When the our local RC volunteers and power company guys responded to Katrina, they were amazed that the SA was already set up and taking care of victims and first responders right in the heart of the disaster. Five stars.
As a sidenote, Noah and I are both currently enrolled in a Basic Disaster Life Support course. We receive NO academic credits for the course. It's extensive, and focuses on triage, medical treatment of victims, transportation of victims and supplies, and communication in the event of a massive disaster.
ReplyDeleteCops, nurses, firefighters, utility company personnel, etc. all take this SAME course. We will all speak the same language, and know EXACTLY what the next guy is doing, and what he/she is responsible for. This is a DIRECT result of the meltdown during Katrina and the fatal lack of communication when the Twin Towers were hit.
The emphasis of this course is on local preparation and response; as it should be. The people in the trenches will do better the next time we face the unthinkable.
At the federal level, it's still a cluster f*ck; they're busy planning a handful of strategically placed little camps that will hold a few thousand people for a couple of days. Really? {insert eye-roll here}. Don't depend on the Feds, people. They're idiots.
Local is the way to do it, no doubt. I wish I knew why the elites think that having highly removed champaign-drinking snobs thousands of miles away knowing what is needed better than the local people with their hands-on experience is better. Of course, the idiot mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana do not count -- they were just local people who believed in far-off control.
ReplyDeletelady red - thanks for the lowdown on the Red Cross - local vs national is a distinction we'll keep in mind.
ReplyDeleteMatt - I think national level institutions of all kinds are getting a (well deserved) bad reputation these days. Personally, I'm seeing a split in sentiment around Portland - "nationalism" (even as innocuous as "Made in the USA") doesn't carry much weight, patriotism == jingoism == racism, etc... typical lefty tropes.
Yet, overt regional chauvinism (Oregon and Portland) - and appeals thereto - are perfectly socially acceptable. I know of nascent manufacturing companies that are tuning their plans and branding accordingly.
This is a two-edged sword, of course. The local business folks are much more suspicious of DC and prefer to be left alone - even as they may mostly be "progressives". OTOH the erosion of national feeling and cohesion cannot be without consequences long term.
AFG has been working in the third world a lot lately (specifically one continent). The problem with local charities in the third world is that they make what we call corrupt in the United States look like Sunday School with a Coexist picnic after. Don't believe reports you hear of "using local channels to funnel aid in the most culturally sensitive manner" being the best method. It's not. It concentrates the money, food, or what-have-you with the Third World elites. Elite meaning "blood-thirsty thug."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what the best way is. To only allow in a few aid organizations? That creates a ridiculous monopoly where the money (and charity is indeed a profitable business) is all concentrated among the few with rubber-stamp power. A VERY TAME example of this is what we went through trying to get the 501(c)3 I worked with into Bethesda Naval Hospital. A long story short - they refused to allow vital nonprofits in because they "already had enough." The one I worked with (as a volunteer) distributed volunteer-made adaptive clothing for the wounded. These guys had no clothes - how do you fit pants over a fixator? It was a particular problem for female wounded. For MONTHS they could go without appropriate clothing. And I had to work with some very dedicated nurses to figure out how to sneak these things in so that someone in a fixator, attached to breathing apparatus, or with extensive burns could have clothing that fit their very personalized issues (we could order special made items for special cases).
Whereas in Walter Reed, the volunteer could visit with the wounded personally and make sure that they had the items they needed, or order for them, I had to funnel through nurses. It worked, but not as well as it could have. And it took more than a year for us to figure a way in. It may be different now, I had to bow out of the work when my surgery went bad.
And this is a non-corrupt military hospital in the US! These people weren't getting kickbacks or bribes, or anything - they just had the power to say no. And they did. So much so that another charity took out a humiliating (to the DoD) ad in a paper trying to get their necessary mission accomplished.
Then there's the colossal CF that the whole Greg Mortenson thing turned out to be.
And another personal example... Girl Scouts. I ADORE my daughter's Girl Scout troop. Her leaders are incredible, they work SO hard, and the group is great. It does some wonderful volunteer work. But... instead of the National Organization supporting the local, it is the other way around. My daughter's troop has to send them $$. They beg for donations every year, and send home a special envelope. And the national organization is so far removed from the grass roots troops that it would be funny if the antics and political posturing of the national organization didn't make people look at Girl Scouts in general funny.
So, answers? I have none. We donate quite a bit to charity, but we do it to those whom we know. The one that I worked with for the wounded? Amazing charity. Love them. Give them $ all the time. The local Goodwill? Same thing. There's a local homeless shelter that we try to focus our giving to, as well. But when it comes to things desperately needed overseas for disasters, it becomes hinky. Who can we trust? I just don't have answers for that one, and so when I give, I do tend to give to branded international organizations (usually Catholic Charities, in our case). That way, at least SOME of what I donate will get there. I think.
@ lady red:
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more re. the efficiency and benefits of supporting the Sally Ann. I used to fundraise for the organization, and the only reason I did it was because the the aid output:input ratio was so high. I don't begrudge the SA a penny of my money.
Personally I try to have nothing to do with the ICRC - especially after they were found sheltering 2 wanted Hamas members for one and a half years. And yet, as my link shows,
ReplyDeleteeven with that level of cooperation, the ICRC still couldn’t manage to get into Hamas-controlled Gaza to visit with kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit during his captivity. Or, perhaps because of that level of cooperation, they just weren’t trying all that hard. Kind of makes it tough for Israelis to trust them, huh?
So yes, I agree with Lady Red, AFW and the others here. Give to your local organizations; they will most likely be more honest and more efficient. It's really such sad yet frustrating situation.
I thought lewy was spot on when he said: I've found there is a sweet spot in charitable giving - a "goldilocks" stage where institutions are small and young enough to be uncorrupted but with enough critical mass to still get stuff done.
ReplyDeletethanks - I was thinking of a local charity which is my favorite.
Delete- They do great work and their fundraising is pitch-perfect - just enough contact and reporting to the donors that they feel connected, but not so much that it becomes an end in itself.
- small team of professional (and paid) administrative staff, to fully utilize and enable the army of volunteers. Nothing kills the enthusiasm of volunteers faster that operational clusterf*ck.
- growth, but organic growth without getting overstretched.
I have no idea how to solve world hunger or provide worldwide disaster relief but at least feral cats in Oregon are getting help!