
Texas Official After Harvey: The ‘Red Cross Was Not There’ - moritzplassnig
https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-official-after-harvey-the-red-cross-was-not-there
======
js2
Red Cross response:

[http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/Red-Cross-
ProPubl...](http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/Red-Cross-ProPublica-
Response-10-03-17)

~~~
DrScump
They are already under scrutiny for where their Haiti relief funds went.

From 2 weeks ago, 170+ comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326335](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326335)

~~~
pvaldes
Would be unfair to compare both situations.

Haity has an endemic level of corruption and lack of civil organization. And
there are frontiers to cross also.

I don't think that red cross had to face the same level of corruption in Texas
or would need to bribe texan autorities just to allow moving material from
point A to point B.

~~~
hawkice
Conversely, the lack of bribing Texan authorities would explain why a
(possibly) similar level of malfeasance led to more criticism and more
immediate disappointment. I think, by your reasoning, it _would_ be fair to
compare with Katrina response, and they were also criticized for financial
mismanagement in their Katrina response.

------
brooklynrob
Nor was FEMA, or at least its "FEMA Tech Corps".

And the incredible civic hackers who started w/ Harvey and are STILL at work
now as Nate makes landfall? The big tech companies couldn't make time or money
to give them a hand. See [http://www.xconomy.com/texas/2017/10/05/as-relief-
moves-to-r...](http://www.xconomy.com/texas/2017/10/05/as-relief-moves-to-
recovery-questions-about-femas-tech-corps/)

(Also see [http://www.xconomy.com/texas/2017/09/08/harvey-techies-
pass-...](http://www.xconomy.com/texas/2017/09/08/harvey-techies-pass-baton-
and-apis-to-florida-peers-as-irma-nears/#) and
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2017/09/06/houston-t...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2017/09/06/houston-
techies-build-apps-for-harvey-and-irma/#2a4995106001) for context).

~~~
transverse
The difference is that Red Cross was collecting donations left and right. Now
where did my donation money to Red Cross for Harvey really go?

------
post_break
This is why everyone in Houston was begging people not to donate to red cross
but local charities.

~~~
pvaldes
Local charities are great. But the problem with local charities is that they
do not have the same formation or experience than red cross volunteers have.
And they do not have the same stuff.

Disposable medical material is expensive for example. And after the emergency
ends, none of this material remains in the area to remember the money spent.
Formation is expensive also and red cross provide it for free to their
volunteers. If you are a new volunteer you are tutored by people with more
experience also.

Local charities based in churchs etc, have often valuable information about
the social fabric in the area. But is very easy to fall in traps and to commit
not obvious errors in emergencies when you start, like giving priority first
to the wrong people in a triage. Is hard not to avoid spending valuable
minutes in a friend with a minor wound, because is your friend, but in the
meanwhile some people could be dying silently at a few meters. It is never
easy.

------
Feniks
Not sure why the IRC is even needed in the, at least on paper, wealthiest
country in the world.

I thought NGOs like that were reserved for 3rd world countries.

When there's an earthquake in Japan does the Red Cross fly in? In my opinion
disaster relief is something the government should deal with. I'd consider it
a point of pride as a nation. It would be shameful if my country had to beg
for outside help.

------
c3534l
The Red Cross is a charity. You're not entitled to them swooping in and making
everything okay again. It's your local governments job to ensure there's
public emergency relief.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>The Red Cross is a charity. You're not entitled to them swooping in and
making everything okay again.

Sure, but people ARE entitled to seeing some tangible results after donating
money. Especially considering the massive amount of money Red Cross receives.

~~~
freehunter
Exactly this. If I donate to the Red Cross for their Harvey relief fund and
they sit on my cash instead of helping, yes I'm entitled to complain.

------
borne0
I donate to local charities because I can see the results and I can trust the
administration to give the majority of the funds to the people/purpose who
need it.

Usually it's run by volunteers or a religious organization (provided their
mandate is to provide help regardless of the receivers religion).

Are there any charity organizations with totally transparent accounting? I
don't need nor expect charity organizations to be run by volunteers, and I'd
prefer them to pay their administrators/employees a reasonable wage. But I
have no idea which organizations user their donations efficiently.

~~~
moonka
Check out Charity Navigator. They are a good resource to get a little more
transparency. They tend to toss up pages for large events like this as well:
[https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=5239)

I ended up donating to All Hands after getting some requests from people I
know close to the area, but it was nice to take a look at them on Charity Nav
and see them with high marks:
[https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=13109&fromlistid=269)

------
scarface74
I’m torn on the one hand, even at its most effective, how could a private
organization do as much as a government that effectively has unlimited
resources? On the other hand, this government with its current leadership has
been anything but effective and we are better off depending on private
organizations.

~~~
freedomben
I agree with you. Thinking further tho, governments don't really have
"unlimited resources," they really have the ability to simply take the
resources they want from their citizens.

If we build up a government under great leadership that is highly effective,
laying all the structure in place for taxation, then we have quite a task in
front of us if we later want to dismantle it and switch to private orgs as a
result of new leadership that has come in and is wasteful and/or ineffective.

Sadly, this makes me think the least risky strategy over the long-term is to
avoid the fire of government in the first place.

~~~
forapurpose
Why would we trust private orgs more? At least government is democratically
controlled and despite the small-government rhetoric, I don't see it as
inherently more corrupt or less reliable than private orgs - just look at the
news about them, even recently (Red Cross, Weinstein, Equifax, etc etc.).

Government does many great things: Air travel and automobile deaths are way
down (per mile). Research funding has provided endless improvements in quality
of life and amazing advances to the frontiers of knowledge (the Higgs Boson
comes to mind). Public education, from pre-K through college, has transformed
and educated the world. And let's not forget those government engineering
projects that orbit distant planets, send us pictures, and sometimes land on
them and drive around.

Private orgs and government are two tools in the toolbox that do different
things, with some overlap. For things that require equity, such as disaster
relief, I think we need government. It's not nearly perfect, but I'm not
holding my breath until the nearly perfect institution, public or private,
appears.

------
pvaldes
I'm totally pro-transparency; but to me this is just trying to push the NGOs
for doing the job and giving the money that the government do not wants to
spend on USA people. At the same time that all the money goes for the design
of the new "vietnam 2.0, lets try it again"

"Do my job, because I don't care, or I will start a publicity campaign against
you". Very sad.

