
Facebook is steering users to donate to the Center for Disaster Philanthropy - coloneltcb
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclancy/facebook-is-steering-harvey-relief-to-a-small-org-no-one?utm_term=.km2k7dXJWE#.jjovRxaGrO
======
iamnotlarry
I have been involved in a few disaster recovery scenarios. Some of them have
involved the Red Cross. The best efforts I have witnessed have been under the
direction of locals. When the government or Red Cross or whoever showed up,
they realized very quickly that they would create chaos if they tried to take
over.

I have seen Red Cross meals brought in and stacked against the walls while
people brought home-cooked meals in and fed disaster victims. When the Red
Cross tried to stop it, they were informed they were not in control of the
facility. Anyone who wanted a Red Cross meal could have one. Anyone who wanted
casserole or spaghetti or pulled pork could have that. In the end, thousands
of dollars of Red Cross aid went to the dumpster.

Disaster organizations in the western U.S. have come to understand that
sometimes local citizens have their own organizations that work extremely well
with local knowledge. It's better to work in support of them than to try to
roll over the top of them.

~~~
spoiledtechie
This reminds me of how our government currently works. Local is a LOT more
important than federal.

~~~
okreallywtf
In some situations, when it comes time for people to try to get back into
their homes and recover what they've lost the federal government is going to
be integral. Many people who have lost everything do not have flood insurance
(and in many cases never even considered needing it).

In cases like this where people are losing everything due to unpredictable
weather catastrophes that are likely exacerbated by climate change I think its
a perfect opportunity for the federal government (being an aggregator of funds
from the entire nation) to help those who need it the most. As the climate
gets more extreme we're going to need more programs like the national flood
insurance program (and better/improved ones) [1].

[1] [https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-
program](https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program)

------
jerkstate
I mentioned to a few close friends today that I had made a donation to the Red
Cross for hurricane relief and encouraged them to do the same, and pretty much
everyone told me that it was a bad charity. I guess I wasn't paying attention
to their scandals but the Red Cross has a pretty bad PR problem right now.
Hopefully they deal with it because getting that kind of feedback about
something that should have made me feel good made me feel pretty bad.

~~~
will_brown
American Red Cross, 2016 financial highlights:

CEO Compensation: $556,772

Total Income $2,660,138,000

Program expenses 2,435,461,000

Fundraising expenses $169,676,000

Administrative expenses $116,402,000

Total expenses: $2,721,539,000

Expenses in Excess of Income (-61,401,000)

Beginning Net Assets 1,593,810,000

Other Changes In Net Assets -546,736,000\

Ending Net Assets 985,673,000

Total Liabilities 2,250,133,000

Total Assets 3,235,806,000

~~~
bahjoite
> Fundraising expenses $169,676,000

$1 in every $16 spent is on fundraising. That seems a lot.

~~~
will_brown
As you might expect there are a number of non-profits that act as watch dogs
for other non-profits, almost like a Better Business Bureau (BBB) type of
concept, and they grade them on these financial dealings. Historically, I
think Florida has the worst, where you see many non-profits spending upwards
of 90% of their income on salary and administrative costs, meaning at best 10
cents on the dollar gets spent on the cause.

Off the top of my head the formulas give the _best rating_ if the total
compensation of the board is less than 10% of income, the cost of fundraising
is less than 35% of income and at least 65% of the income goes to the
cause/projects.

Of course I am with you, if you have ever attended some of these non-profit
fundraisers, its pretty disgusting, a ballroom full of people living the high
life, taking beneficial tax deductions, and so full of self-congratulatory
righteousness you'd have to ask them to save some room if you'd have any
interest in patting them on the back.

~~~
QuercusMax
Just so you know, the BBB is _not_ a watchdog. It's an organization made up of
businesses, paid for by those businesses. It's not unbiased whatsoever.

------
nickodell
It's annoying that the article doesn't talk about how effective the Center for
Disaster Philanthropy is.

Sure, the Red Cross has mismanaged stuff, but this new charity could be even
worse. All the article tells us is that Facebook thinks highly of them.

~~~
mjevans
Let's do some research:

Red Cross:

Mostly OK, but... there are some occasional issues.

[https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277)
[https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/american-
re...](https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/american-red-
cross/360) [http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-
find...](http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-
fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances)

Meanwhile the Center for Disaster Philanthropy ... is smaller.

[https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10788)

I actually can't quickly find any issues on them, though comparing the one
common source they seem to have far better transparency, and lower internal
overhead (I suspect more volunteers?).

~~~
AndrewCHM
For direct sources of the information

Red Cross: [http://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-
events/publication...](http://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-
events/publications)

CDP: [http://disasterphilanthropy.org/who-we-are/financials-
annual...](http://disasterphilanthropy.org/who-we-are/financials-annual-
reports/)

------
pcurve
"group works to change how donors think about giving during disasters,
focusing on long-term recovery"

But many other charities do this too and they got panned for doing so,
including Red Cross. When people donate for a specific cause, many do it with
expectation that fund will go to that particular cause in expedient manner,
rather than rainy day fun or worse, diverted for different cause altogether.

Perhaps Red Cross should provide 2 options for donating:

1\. Use my fund for immediate needs.

2\. Use my fund as you see fit.

And if all immediate needs are met, then simply disable option #1 and inform
users, "Thank you, there is no longer need for immediate needs. We can still
use a lot of help in recovery fund" or something.

~~~
jarito
They do. If you go to the Red Cross site, you can select what you want your
donation used for. This includes Disaster Relief, Where It is Needed Most,
Your Local Red Cross, Home Fires and Harvey.

------
nathancahill
My friends run a small rapid response disaster team organization. They've been
some of the first on the scene of a lot of the most recent disasters,
including the 2011 Japan tsunami, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake (they are also
in Texas now).

They've brought back depressing stories about the amount of bureaucracy and
thumb-twidiling that goes on during the first couple days of a disaster, where
large organizations are struggling to coordinate efforts. In one case, an
entire plane-load of bottled water from Red Cross could not be distributed
because they didn't have the "approval" from higher up.

Similar to startups, small orgs can be much more nimble than their incumbent
counterparts.

~~~
kryptogeist
Do you mind sharing the organization's name?

~~~
nathancahill
Global DIRT

------
joelrunyon
Facebook also takes 5%+ of the donations sent through it's platform.

[https://www.facebook.com/help/901370616673951](https://www.facebook.com/help/901370616673951)

I know they have to cover "fees", but it seems like it's not really necessary
for a multi-billion dollar company to do that, when there are lots of non-
profits (Charity Water comes to mind) that actually put the ENTIRE amount
towards charity and pay the processing fees through other fundraising methods
(private donors, etc).

~~~
captheorem
The 5% is to cover 501c3 vetting, mostly. It's not a profit center.

In this particular case, the fees are waived.

~~~
will_brown
>The 5% is to cover 501c3 vetting

What is that? You mean verifying whether or not the entity is a 501(c)(3)?
Because that takes about 1 minute to verify, and if vetting is what I think it
is, making the cost a percentage of donations is exactly what you say its not,
a profit center, directly taking money away from the 501(c)(3).

~~~
evgen
Really? You managed to determine if the people running the FB page were
actually entities in control of or authorized by that 501(c)3 to engage in
fundraising activities using their name? You were able to ensure that the
destination for funds was legit and the collection process didn't violate some
obscure FB term of service? You are truly a wizard to be able to do that in
about 1 minute, you should get Facebook to hire you...

------
jmspring
Using as FB as a "platform" to donate to a charity seems like a bad idea.

Someone mentioned "Red Cross" directly, is that worse than going through FB?

There are many charities and it will be hard to narrow down. Go with one
friends recommend or do some research and recommend another. Look to local
news/press around Houston for what is recommended.

FB, probably the least helpful option.

------
ttsphotog
I think this is a healthy and needed swing towards holding charities
accountable for what they actually do. Sure I do feel a little bad for the Red
Cross but come on.

We also need to take care on looking too much at a nonprofit's overhead
spending. This is a great TED talk on that subject and will really make you
think about the whole sector.
[https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...](https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong)

EDIT - Oops just noticed iamapipebomb had linked to this too.

------
lsh123
I have experience in payments and donations are one of the big businesses for
payments startups. Bad things happen in the world, records are broken in daily
TPV/fees.

I am a pilot and there are a couple efforts run by local pilots (found them on
AOPA group on FB). I reached out directly to the people who run them and asked
what they need. I did the same for Katrina (using message boards instead of
FB). It is not always money.

------
tqi
Google's Hurricane Harvey donation button is also directing funds to CDP:

[https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=hurricane+harvey&oq=h...](https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=hurricane+harvey&oq=hurricane+harvey)

------
SirensOfTitan
Once again a highly editorialized title on HN that doesn't match the article.
The title of the article reads:

Facebook Ditched The Red Cross For Hurricane Harvey Relief

...the title on here implies some type of nefarious action on Facebook's
behalf, but the article goes into way more detail and, just like the original
title, has a lot more nuance.

> The Red Cross has faced intense scrutiny and criticism for its work in
> previous disasters. During Hurricane Harvey, people have encouraged others
> on social media to donate to groups other than the Red Cross.

From HN rules: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is
misleading or linkbait.

Your editorializing does nothing for the discussion except propagate
falsehoods for those who read headlines.

~~~
hkmurakami
Story was submitted an hour ago, so I wonder if BuzzFeed itself changed the
title.

(Looks like the submitted link URL confirms this)

~~~
DiabloD3
I concur, BuzzFeed never changes the slug after changing the headline.

~~~
Cursuviam
The only time I think we changed the slugs at my college newspaper was when I
did not realize my terrible memey titles in the cms would be on the public
url. Got some angry emails over that.

------
madshiva
if the U.S. know how to manage a debt, budget, there's no need for donation.
Only poor donate, rich still be rich.

