
In Search of the Red Cross' $500M in Haiti Relief - juanplusjuan
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief
======
avar
The biggest revelation to me in that article, which I feel should be
highlighted more, is that the Red Cross provides almost zero information about
how it spends its money.

It refuses to provide more than very vague information about how the money was
spent in Haiti (information like "35% of $488 million on shelters"), with no
specific details about what projects they spent the money on, how those
projects went etc.

When the author challenged the general counsel of the Red Cross to provide
more detailed information ("because clearly you must have it") he just gave
her some evasive boilerplate spiel about having provided the summary
information he'd provided already.

How can anyone donate to a charity that's so stunningly opaque about how it
spends its money?

~~~
sopooneo
Could it be that actually getting things done in horrible environments
requires interacting with, and paying off, some shady people? This is of
course a charitable guess, but could it be that the Red Cross has made a
decision to make morally questionable choices in the short term in support of
the greater good, and they know they can't publish such truths and continue to
exist?

~~~
skillachie
They are just lining their pockets hence their reluctance to be fully
transparent.

1)Set up a few small projects 2)Take a few pictures 3)Create a few press
articles to appear as if all funds are being sent to the people in need

Rinse and repeat when the next disaster hits.

All charity based organizations should have no problem being fully
transparent. Do not make excuses for them

~~~
sanderjd
And yet that doesn't speak to your parent's actual question, which is a good
one: how does an organization balance transparency and the necessity to get
things done despite potentially awful conditions on the ground? Certainly
organizations doing longer-term work can afford to spend time finding ways to
route around corruption, but that could be incredibly difficult in many
emergency situations, and incredibly damaging for an organization's reputation
when shady dealings come to light.

~~~
skillachie
>>shady dealings come to light.

Most of the shady dealings that would come to light here will be within the
organization. How much time have you spent in the Caribbean or the "third
world"? Time and time again I see charities pop up but just to take advantage
of donations.

Its always easier to point the finger in the opposite direction when time
comes for accountability. Expose the shady dealings and set the truth free.
Then you will see the "shady dealings" and yes if the organization is indeed
corrupt exposing the truth should hurt them if not close them down all
together. Let the donated funds go to a more effective and honest charity

DO NOT MAKE EXCUSES

All charity based organizations should have no problem being totally
transparent. Failure to show the impact and details of what was done is
indicative of an opportunistic organization that may be corrupt. “Money and
funds without obligations and accountability?...Don’t mind if I do!" That is
the apparent mindset

Sad but true for a large amount of charities

------
jacquesm
I stopped giving to 'big charities' twenty years ago and since then have only
helped people locally where I can see what happens to the money. That's a real
pity because of course on a relative scale those are probably much less in
need than the people in Haiti (and Nepal and other areas devastated by natural
disasters). But the red cross - once a paragon of virtue - and a number of
other big time charities that were very successful at raising capital but
extremely poor at spending it well - if at all - except on themselves are
directly to blame for this and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only person
that feels that way.

They'll never get another cent out of me until at least one of their large
scale disaster responses works out well. If they can't spend a few million in
a direct, useful and efficient way then I don't see how they could spend
orders of magnitude more.

Governments are similarly inept at spending their money efficiently (well,
maybe not quite _this_ inept but there is plenty of incompetence there too),
but we can't avoid paying into the tax coffers and where applicable we do get
roads, healthcare, education, national defence, a police force and social
security in return.

Because of the total lack of end-to-end accountability with organizations like
the red cross and others like it there is nothing to stop them from
squandering what they rake in. It would be a lot more efficient to mail an
envelope with cash to a random address in a disaster area than it is to expect
these organizations to make a go of it. They really ought to be ashamed of
themselves rather than belligerently defensive such as illustrated in the
article.

Security situation indeed, I think he meant 'job security'.

~~~
RobertoG
Maybe is time for them to modernize of close. I think that Internet make
possible new models of charities. A donation can be, at the same time, not
local and very personalized.

I would like to recommend watsi: [https://watsi.org/](https://watsi.org/)

You can donate to concrete people and, they give you an accurate report, after
the fact, of what happened. I think we need more charities like them. Maybe
something with education?

Disclaimer: I'm not related except as a donator.

~~~
duaneb
I don't think that would scale to disaster relief. You need to organize people
on the ground and deal with problems.

~~~
TylerE
More importantly you need to organize WELL in advance, before the specific
need is known. If you wait until the hurricane actually HITS, you'll be weeks
late getting shelter, food, etc, inbound. That stuff needs to be bought and
warehoused in advance.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Stuff can always be shipped from other parts of the world on the moment's
notice if you have enough cash ready, so you don't necessarily need to
stockpile it on site before anything happens. But what you can't really buy
quickly is trained personnel that can organize relief works on site - this
alone justifies having them as a standing organization.

~~~
TylerE
I don't think that's really. Lots of speciality goods like survival shelters
actually CAN'T be ordered in large quantities on a moments notice. Something
like bottle water or MREs, sure. But not so much durable goods.

Most manufacturers these days run super-lean, often not stockpiling inventory
at all.

------
jonstokes
My wife and I worked in some Red Cross shelters in Lake Charles, LA in the
immediate aftermath of Katrina. I wrote a bit about what I was doing here:
[http://arstechnica.com/security/2005/10/disaster-
livecd/](http://arstechnica.com/security/2005/10/disaster-livecd/)

My take-away from that is that I would never, ever donate a dime to that
organization. The people in the local chapters who were the first to respond
immediately after the disaster were fantastic. But when the national org
eventually came in (and brought layers of on-site bureaucracy with them) it
was a train wreck, and they started throwing their weight around cluelessly
and got in the way of everyone and everything. If the full-time, paid staff of
the Red Cross had just left things entirely in the hands of the local
volunteers and had stayed out of the area entirely, things would have gone
much more smoothly.

Private companies did so much more than many of the relief orgs. Sprint, for
instance, gave us free event phones for the shelter residents to use to try to
contact family. No worries about billing, or even if they'd get the phones
back. Home Depot's efforts in the aftermath have been well-documented. And I
believe it was IBM (my memory may be faulty) who donated thousands in computer
equipment to the shelters where I was working, which the shelter residents
used to track down friends and family who they'd been separated from by the
storm.

I don't know if I'll ever have another experience like talking to some lower-
level person at a big company, telling them that I'm there from a Katrina
shelter where I just showed up to volunteer and have no formal association
with any org, then immediately being escalated all the way up the chain to
someone who makes decisions and that person says, "just tell us what you need
from us and we'll do it. Don't worry about any cost or billing issues. Tell us
what and when and where." That was awesome.

It was also a stark contrast, to be totally empowered by the likes of Sprint
and IBM on the one hand, and then ignored and pushed aside by the Red Cross on
the other. Pretty crazy.

The Salvation Army was maybe the one aid org that had their act together. Red
Cross national staff and FEMA were worthless. Anyway, I regret that I didn't
write all this down after it happened. Between my wife and I there's a great
book -- or at least a really long magazine article -- in there somewhere.

~~~
_nedR
I find it interesting that your main complaint is that the red cross lets
bureaucracy and red tape get in the way of actually helping people on the
ground, while the article seems to complain about the lack of accountability
and transparency from red cross (which would require some bureaucracy and red
tape). Maybe the Red Cross has trouble reconciling these seemingly conflicting
goals (in addition to their alleged lack of competence)?

------
mason240
There is a good analysis of this on skeptics stackexchange.

[http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27927/has-the-
re...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27927/has-the-red-cross-
raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-to-build-6-houses)

>TLDR: The article has accidentally or deliberately confused the earthquake
relief project with the much smaller neighborhood renewal project, and
attacked them both for not doing things they weren't intended to do. The Red
Cross did much more in Haiti than build six houses.

~~~
NotOscarWilde
Already in the TLDR there is a figure of speech used to attack a point:
"accidentally or deliberately".

In neutral speech, there is no need to bring that up, as everything is either
accidental or deliberate. Yet people use this to hint at the "deliberate" part
of the phrase while having the other part in there for deniability.

~~~
Crito
I disagree, I think people use it to emphasize the possibility that it was
accidental. Without that phrase, such assertions tend to be interpreted with
implicit "deliberately".

> neutral speech

Is not ideal or practical in the real world. It's a nice idea, but to best
facilitate understanding we should recognize the realities (unfortunate or
misguided as they may be) of how we _actually_ use language.

(If you really want to imply "deliberate", but want plausible deniability,
then you just leave out the phrase entirely. If you don't say _" accidentally
or deliberately"_, people will infer "deliberately", but you never actually
said that word and therefore you have deniability.)

------
lucb1e
TL;DR (the informational bits):

> First the Red Cross took a customary administrative cut, then the charities
> that received the money took their own fees. And then, according to the Red
> Cross' records, the charity took out an additional amount to pay for what it
> calls the "program costs incurred in managing" these third-party projects.

> In one of the programs reviewed by NPR and ProPublica, these costs ate up a
> third of the money that was supposed to help Haitians.

[...]

> said that a fifth of the money the charity raised would go to "provide tens
> of thousands of people with permanent homes ... where we develop brand-new
> communities ... including water and sanitation."

> The charity built six permanent homes and, according to their own account,
> no new communities.

[...]

> the project manager [...] was entitled to allowances for housing, food and
> other expenses, home leave trips, R&R four times a year, and relocation
> expenses. In all, including salary, it added up to $140,000.

\---

These are the only factual bits I can find. I'm not saying the rest is untrue,
but they include statements from locals who "cannot see that $24 million has
been spent here," whatever that means.

Another example is where it says "first, the plan was to build houses," then
going on to describe that people are still living in tents. But how many
people live in tents? What percentage? How many houses were actually built? Or
did they build 10 villas and leave the rest in tents? There is no real
information that I can find.

A bit further on, it does include this:

> The original plan was to build 700 new homes with living rooms and
> bathrooms. The Red Cross says it ran into problems acquiring land rights.

... so then out of the 700, how many were built? It doesn't say anything about
that.

~~~
justinpropub
Hi -- I'm Justin Elliott, one of the reporters on the piece, with Laura
Sullivan of NPR. FWIW you should take a look at the ProPublica version of the
story -- we get more into the numbers, and link to various documents:
[https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-
raised-...](https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-
a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes)

To answer your question specifically about the neighborhood of Campeche: Zero
houses have been built there by the Red Cross.

~~~
vasilipupkin
The NPR story I heard yesteday went out of its way to emphasize that Red Cross
did do some good things in Haiti. So, in your view, is the failure mainly due
to difficulty in operating in Haiti and their lack of local expertise? Or is
Red Cross just hopeless and we should stop donating to it ?

~~~
justinpropub
There's no question Haiti is a difficult place to operate, especially after
the earthquake. For a broader take, check out this excellent take:
[http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Truck-That-
Went/dp/1137278978](http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Truck-That-
Went/dp/1137278978)

That said, according to our sources -- about a dozen current and former Red
Cross employees -- and a bunch of internal documents, many of these problems
were of the Red Cross' own making. Sometimes it was basic issues like leaving
key jobs unfilled for months. Or prioritizing public relations concerns over
aid. But a lot of it flowed from the fact that the Am Red Cross doesn't do
international development and no roots in Haiti. The more successful groups
tended to be the ones that had roots there, had Haitians in high positions,
etc. As for the next big disaster: I think it's case by case. Look for groups
in the country in question -- whether actual local groups or foreign groups
who have been there for a long time and have deep ties.

~~~
reagency
Do you why it was the ARC who went to Haiti instead of the IFRC?

------
bretthagler
We could fund 83,000 homes in Haiti with $500,000,000.

We're Newstorycharity.org - a current YC nonprofit working in Haiti to
crowdfund homes \- 100% of public donations go to home construction \- donors
see exactly who they give to before they donate and a video of the EXACT
family they funded in their new home after

We're launching a summer campaign "100 Homes in 100 Days"
[newstorycharity.org/100] in Haiti, and would love for the support of this
community in showing how the future of philanthropy is built on transparency
and technology.

~~~
earless1
Do you guys ever need volunteers that speak English and Creole fluently?

~~~
bretthagler
yes - we're always looking for competent translators!
brett@newstorycharity.org

------
mod
This organization is doing good work in Haiti, check it out:
[http://mohhaiti.org/](http://mohhaiti.org/)

They get a stellar rating; to my recollection, 96% of donated funds go to the
cause (4% overhead).

They're an overtly Christian organization, which may or may not be your thing.
But they're doing good work.

Disclaimer: A company I worked for did some work for them a couple of years
ago. I'm no longer affiliated in any way.

~~~
mckoss
I don't agree that the modern Red Cross has anything to do with Christianity.
I've never heard of them evangelizing or take any position on religion. Why do
you think that?

~~~
cmiles74
I believe they mean that the Mission of Hope program that they mention is
overtly Christian.

~~~
mckoss
Thanks, I misread the comment.

------
Gupie
$500M sound like a large sum. It is if that is you personal wealth. However
for Haiti with a population of over 10M it is only $50 per head.

According to the article the Red Cross built shelters for 130,000 people. The
would be $384 per shelter if that was all the Red Cross did. But they also fed
people, provided clean water, medical aid...

It is easy to attack big charities. You get support from people who feel
guilty for being mean bastards, for people who don't like foreign
organisations, from big business who want to profit out of natural
disasters...

~~~
lsaferite
> The American Red Cross says it "provided homes" for more than 130,000
> Haitians, but acknowledges that much of that is made up of people who went
> to a training seminar on how to fix their homes, received temporary rental
> help or lived in shelters like these in Bon Repos, which start to
> disintegrate after three to five years. Residents say they don't have
> bathrooms, kitchens or running water.

I think the 130k people number is a big fat lie.

~~~
res0nat0r
Stolen from the top comment on Reddit:

> Providing homes does not equate building a brand new home. Why would people
> think that?

>> When land was not available for new homes, the Red Cross provided a range
of housing solutions including rental subsidies, repairs and retrofitting of
existing structures, fulfilling our promise to ensure tens of thousands of
Haitians are back in homes

> Red Cross takes a tough stance in NOT paying off greedy government
> officials. Saying there was a lack of land is the same thing as saying they
> couldn't justify paying outrageous prices for land. Many charities have to
> enter environments like these knowing they are going to be inundated with
> scammers. And that's the kind of news they don't need, being tricked into
> doing business with them.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/38nkp8/the_red_cr...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/38nkp8/the_red_cross_has_defended_its_work_in_haiti/crwcipb)

------
pumblechook
NPR is targeting ARC, but this is actually a bigger, more difficult problem
for the charity industry than one organization not disclosing where it spends
its money.

I used to work for a large ($500 million+ annual revenue) NGO fundraising
department, both in major gifts and direct response marketing (digital), and I
have colleagues who now work for similar organizations (including ARC). We
would all tell you that most organizations, even (maybe especially) the
largest ones, are absolutely horrible at having any idea whatsoever of the
impact of their programs. Even worse, the leadership in these organizations
are ambivalent at best at assessing the impact.

Why? Because organizations simply don't have much, if any, incentive to do so.
And perhaps more shocking to me, the vast majority of donors don't care. Most
people are content to give and reap the warm/fuzzy feeling they get, then not
think about it again until year end when taxes are due. Simply put, most
people treat giving like buying a product at the store: they hand over money
in exchange for the warm and fuzzies. Transaction over.

The people who actually demand some sort of accountability are a minority who
are often treated as anti-charity, as in, "Why would we spend money on
assessing impact when we can spend that money helping more people?". The
result are token 'watch dog' groups like Charity Navigator that latch on to
red herrings like 'efficiency' ratings which non-profits have learned to
manipulate to the point that they are functionally useless.

ARC is simply the product of a rotten system, and it is far from the only one.
If you want to help cure this sickness, only give to organizations that can
demonstrate the impact your dollars are having on the cause you care about.
Ignore the so-called efficiency splits that say charity Y gives z% of your
dollars to programs. These are accounting shenanigans, and nothing more

------
cletus
Sadly this kind of mismanagement and questionable decision-making isn't new
[1] [2] [3].

It really seems like a lot of big charities are simply in the business of
raising money rather than helping people. One wonders how that money is
actually spent.

It seems very much like good local charities are a far better conduit for
charitable gifts.

[1]
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross#September_...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross#September_11_controversy)

[2] [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-faces-at-the-red-
cross/](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-faces-at-the-red-cross/)

[3]
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-28-katrin...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-28-katrina-
red-cross_x.htm)

~~~
avar
To add to that, another article from NPR about Red Cross mismanagement after
Hurricane Sandy: [http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359365276/on-superstorm-
sandy-...](http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359365276/on-superstorm-sandy-
anniversary-red-cross-under-scrutiny)

------
jnbiche
Just think the impact that would have had if it had been divided up and given
directly to each Haitian adult. The adult population of Haiti is roughly 6
million, so we're talking about almost $100 per adult Haitian. Roughly, it's
about 1/8 of the per capita GDP of Haiti.

Imagine what you could if you were a poor American and received 1/8 of the
American per capita GDP after a disaster (~6000 USD). That's a new roof, or a
replacement vehicle, etc.

It's not life changing, but it would have been very significant, and massive
in scale.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Maybe not as much as you'd think. Haiti doesn't have goods for ready cash.
Most of the relief issue was shipping goods into the country where needed.

~~~
GFischer
But maybe good ol' capitalism would have worked then, if many people had some
income to spend, an enterprising importer could have shipped some stuff out of
China or something :) . Relief can be very inefficient in those cases.

I posted on
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9666194](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9666194)
that jbniche's theory seems to be supported by the studies in that article.

Edit: I think a combination of both approaches might be needed. I'd really
like to know what the Red Cross did and the effect it had, but we can't if
they're being so opaque.

~~~
notahacker
Good 'ol capitalism is more likely to operate the other way though: the _since
all my tenants /customers have significantly higher cash reserves than before
and this village's supply chain and living options are actually even worse
after the earthquake, I can put my prices up by even more_ way.

A fair amount of GiveDirectly's recipients' success comes from it only being a
fraction of people in the village that receive the funds

~~~
GFischer
Indeed.. I might have been a bit naïve. But the current model doesn't seem to
work.

Watsi-style disruption might be the other option, but it doesn't scale for
fast relief.

------
comboy
For those wanting to help, I highly recommend Givewell[1]. I imagine many of
HN readers are (were) also lesswrong readers. This article[2] gives you some
insight how Givewell evaluates organizations that they support.

[1] [http://www.givewell.org/](http://www.givewell.org/)

[2]
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/cbs/thoughts_on_the_singularity_inst...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/cbs/thoughts_on_the_singularity_institute_si/)

------
xacaxulu
I've spent years working in sub-Saharan Africa with defense, security, oil
firms etc. and have spent a fair amount of time interacting with non-profit,
NGO, microfinance orgs. Not only do they operate with the weakest of reporting
requirements, taxation burdens and investigatory/compliance statutes, but the
people they employ are usually doing so out of a desire to help people, often
taking seriously sub-standard salaries for similar work. So the top brass at
these orgs are killing it and raking in money, while most of the grunt work is
done by hapless bleeding hearts who are seriously underpaid for the work they
do. It's a win at both ends for management.

------
guelo
Here is the Red Cross's response, [http://www.redcross.org/news/press-
release/13-Facts-about-th...](http://www.redcross.org/news/press-
release/13-Facts-about-the-Red-Cross-Response-in-Haiti)

------
chkuendig
I just finished reading The Big Truck That Went By [1] by Jonathan Katz. It's
an amazing account on what happened after the earthquake has hit and why most
development help didn't have the impact we had hoped for.

One of the reason he touches is that emergency relief groups like the Red
Cross (and other, e.g. MSF) aren't setup to do the nation-building Haiti
actually needed, but for more rapid and short term support as is needed in war
zones, refugee camps or rural disaster areas (tents, water, food etc.).

I can only recommend the book. I found it through his article on the NYTimes
[2] which touches most points.

 _Most embarrassing for a journalist, they were wrong in ways that would have
immediately been made clear had we taken the time to ask some basic questions.

Food and water, for example. When I was in Haiti two years later, to research
the relief effort for a book, I was shocked to discover that no one could tell
me with any precision if there was ever a food or water shortage in the first
place. No one among the responders had even contacted the Coordination
Nationale de la Sécurité Alimentaire — the Haitian government agency
overseeing food security — to find out what might be needed. Indeed,
earthquakes tend to inflict the worst damage on cities, not farms — especially
in countries that already have limited infrastructure — and Haiti’s urban
areas didn’t have any sewers or piped drinking water to begin with.

People indeed lost their homes and incomes, and markets closed. But the World
Food Program had enough supplies in its Port-au-Prince warehouses — which
survived the quake — to feed 300,000 people one full meal for three weeks.
There was no acute food or malnutrition crisis after the quake; that much we
know. But it seems very likely that the city could have avoided one even
without the frenzied aid push._

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Truck-That-Went-
ebook/dp/B009O...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Truck-That-Went-
ebook/dp/B009OZN6GM)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/magazine/how-not-to-
report...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/magazine/how-not-to-report-on-an-
earthquake.html?_r=0)

~~~
unics
Some good points that I've never considered. It seems some basic needs aren't
always food, clothing, shelter in all disasters. Communication is key and
clearly lacking in Haiti's case.

------
orbitingpluto
My antecdote about corruption in Haiti.

Went to a friend's wedding in 2007. One of the guests worked at CIDA (Canadian
International Development Agency). I asked the guest as many questions as I
could. There was a preliminary research trip before a Canadian official made
her visit to Haiti. The purpose? To geolocate and photograph the facilities.
And when I say facilities, think toilets. Making sure the white Canadian could
poo-poo comfortably counted as aid.

Sure Haiti is incredibly corrupt, I remember that one of the ex-president's
(Not Aristide) was head of the local kidnapping ring in Port Au Prince. But
that's just small stuff. America and Canada use Haiti like it's their own
toilet and want it to remain that way, in spite of the intentions of a select
few and the limited posturing to the contrary.

One of the most disturbing things for me is to look at Hispaniola on Google
Maps. The Dominican Replublic is lush and green. Haiti is a greyed out
####-hole.

I could go on and on, but reading up on an actual humanitarian in the region,
Dr Paul Farmer, and his publications is a good start:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Farmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Farmer)

~~~
mturmon
About the difference between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and the
regionally-unique levels of poverty in Haiti: I think this can be traced
historically to the Haitian slave revolt of 1791-1804, and the resulting shock
and revenge taken on Haiti by the U.S., France, and other powers.

Such action-at-a-distance may seem fanciful, but here's a surprising fact:
Haiti was still paying reparations to France until 1947, as compensation for
damage and lost property from the slave revolt, including the value of the
freed slaves themselves.
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt_of_Haiti](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt_of_Haiti))

~~~
reagency
Indeed. The US and Europe owes Haiti billions, but the real challenge is in
getting a stable nation in place so USA and Europe can pay the reparations
usefully.

------
swframe
At the end of the story, they mentioned that local Haitian organizations were
building lots of homes. It was also mentioned that there is lots of money
still unspent. It seems that the Red Cross (or the US Gov) just needs to fund
those organizations with a proven track record.

Sometimes I think news organizations are (unintentionally) exacerbating the
root cause of these problems. They report on incompetence but don't report on
how the public can fix it. I don't think the Red Cross will fix it without
public pressure. It leaves the audience with a sense of helplessness that
leads to cynicism and apathy. It would be better to end the story with
suggestions on how the average citizen can fix these issues.

------
cwebbus11111
Am Mrs. Carol Webb from Orlando Florida—USA. I was extremely in need of a loan
for my business because my business was running down and i was finding it
difficult to get a loan from banks/other financial corporation due to my
credit score. I was desperate to try almost every money-making opportunity on
the internet and Finding Nathan Dylan and his services rendered was a breath
of fresh air in my life. Finally i met a genuine lender and a service that I
can trust—and I have to say Nathan Dylan did not disappoint me! The service he
rendered to me was extremely wonderful and now the future finally looks bright
for me and my business because i was enable to get a loan amount of
($500,000.00). If you must contact any firm to get any amount of loan you need
today, with low interest rate of 2% and better repayment schedule, please
contact Nathan Dylan Services (NDS) via email (nathdylan@outlook.com) to solve
any financial problems you might be passing through now.

------
geetee
VICE on HBO did a good piece on the failure of USAID in Haiti:
[https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-
context/26018-hb...](https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-
context/26018-hbo-to-air-vice-s-haitian-money-pit-tonight-and-it-is-worth-
watching.html)

~~~
reagency
USAID! Thy funneled $billions to Russian oligarchs in the 1990s! Harvard
University faculty ran that shitshow.

------
meesterdude
I'm building an app that utilizes people giving to charities - red cross
seemed like an obvious choice to include, but now there's no way.

This has been helpful in sleuthing out reputable charities:
[http://www.charitynavigator.org/](http://www.charitynavigator.org/)

~~~
mckoss
I would not let a single news story exclude you from including them. I've seen
too many cases where journalists completely botch an investigative story due
to biased sources and their own ignorance.

I personally would like to see the Red Cross's response.

~~~
meesterdude
FWIW, they have something of a history if I recall; i only recently found out
a few days ago, really.

~~~
mckoss
From my memory, they had a reputation for bait and switch - raising money
during a disaster, but spending it elsewhere. I think they cleaned that up,
including a change in leadership.

This article is new in claiming innefectiveness at usefully spending money to
help disaster victims. I would love to see a detailed audit.

~~~
TylerE
It's not that they are duplicitous really - it's that stockpiling large
amounts of supplies has a leadtime measured in months. Money you give today
can't buy tents in Haiti tomorrow - those have to be ordered, manufactured,
shipped...

~~~
rosser
I'm sorry, but tents do not have a lead time of _five years_.

~~~
TylerE
Sure, but if the lead time is more than about 12 hours, it doesn't matter how
long it ACTUALLY is, it's too long, people are dead before whatever $essential
gets to them.

------
sehugg
Wow .. could their PR be any more defensive?

 _NPR and ProPublica were "creating ill will in the community, which may give
rise to a security incident," the email says. "We will hold you and your news
organizations fully responsible."

No security incident happened — but residents did ask if they could keep the
brochure._

------
bargl
OH man this infuriates me. I’ve spent time volunteering in two different
locations (Bolivia and Haiti), both were great experiences for me, but I only
feel that my time in Bolivia really benifited the people there in the long
term.

I spent about three months on the ground in Haiti after the earthquake. I
wasn’t a first responder or anything, I actually arrived 6 months after the
earthquake, so most of the emergency relief was over. I left during some
unrest and was told not to return by the nuns there for fear of my safety. I
regret not going back to this day.

After that I went to Bolivia for 6 months. There I was a teacher and mentor to
some of the more rural communities. Again, both were great experiences but we
actually helped in the Bolivian community in a long term manner, where as in
Haiti, we didn’t really help anyone, we just floundered like fish out of
water. Which is what I think most people were doing.

The reason I think this was the case for most NGOs in Haiti is because of the
bias that is expressed in the article. NGOs come to work on the Haitians not
with them. I was there to sell them a bill of goos, and not to ask what they
needed.

This was made very clear by one example. I was shown a “groundbreaking” new
technology, where you could assemble a house from simple materials made of
compressed wood that would stand up to hurricane force winds. The issue is
that it wasn’t something the Haitian people wanted to use. When we showed it
to them they seemed baffled as to how this was a permanent house. They all
aspire to the same things we do, that is a solid 4 walls and roof over our
heads, not just temporary shelter.

The shelters ended up being a dead end project that floundered because we
couldn’t get Haitian support, and I left feeling that I had been more a burden
then a support for my friends in Haiti.

In contrast my time in Bolivia was focused and intense. We were working for
the nuns in Bolivia, not on them. The goal of this project was to build up a
school on the shoulders of American volunteers and then leave the community
when it was stable, and when the nuns said they didn’t need us anymore.

In the beginning of the program the volunteers taught core math and science
courses and they were integral to the operation of the school. 10 years later
(during my time there) we taught basic English classes and visited the
neighboring communities. It was rewarding work, but we could see that soon
they would no longer need volunteers. After about 20 years of volunteers in
this community the school was self-sufficient and the nuns let us know that
they didn’t need any more volunteers.

The main difference between our success in Bolivia and relative failure in
Haiti was customer buy in. In Haiti we were working on the people not for
them. The trust (as stated in the article) wasn’t there and the Haitian people
were not leading the effort. This led to some very beautifully created
architecture that the people didn’t want to live in.

In my opinion the goal of any NGO should be to build self-sufficiency in a
community so that it can stand on its own. The Red Cross didn’t do that. There
are organizations out there that have (even in Haiti) if you’d like some
references on how to donate to a meaningful charity read Mountains Beyond
Mountains and help Paul Farmer out, or just donate to Partners in Health.
Note: I have no affiliation with him or his foundation.

I do have more anecdotes, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

Edit: Re-Wrote the whole thing. Thank you nate_meurer, I hope this is clearer,
if not please let me know where I can clean it up and I’ll try to get it
right. The original in comments in my response to nate_meurer.

~~~
nate_meurer
I can tell you have rich experience and strong opinions, but your writing is
so unclear I can't understand what you're saying. I have a vague idea which of
your experiences (Haiti or Bolivia) was positive and which was negative, but
the reasons are unclear. Would you be able to clarify a bit?

~~~
bargl
Thank you, I'm going to re-write this. I was angry when I wrote the first
draft and just posted it.

I've decided to post the original here just so that people can read what was
originally there, even though it wasn't very good.

 __Original Below __

OH man this infuriates me. I spent about three months on the ground in Haiti
about 6 months after the earthquake. Ii was both in Port Au Prince and Cap
Hatien. I am no expert on how to make donations and aid help in a long term
manner, but I have seen two different attempts at this.

1) My time before Haiti and in Haiti, American's were telling Haitians how to
fix things. They were thinking without consulting their "customers" and doing
so in a very authoritarian way. I saw one project, where they came up with
compressed board houses that they could live in permanently. When we showed
the result of 100s of man hours to the Haitians you know what they said? We
want a permanent house.

2) In Bolivia the nuns were given American teachers to teach the students
instead of requiring them to pay Bolivians. But the GOAL of this program was
to remove the teachers over time. My sister was at the same site about 2 or 3
years after inception. She taught Biology, Math, Science, Etc to all of the
High school age kids. There were 4-6 volunteers. When I went there 10 years
later we were teaching middle school kids English and traveling out to the
boonies (because Okinawa Numero Uno was no longer the boonies) to teach, and
play with the kids to give the parents a break.

2 years later they shut down the program. It was the sadest and happiest
moment I've had regarding missionary work. They no longer needed American
teachers. This community had grown with a culture of calling white people
"Teacher" even the adults and now there were no more Teachers going there.

What was the difference? Customer buy in. Just like a successful company, in
Bolivia they worked for and with the nuns(and people), in Haiti they worked on
the nuns and people.

It appears that the red cross did the same thing by not hiring Haitians to
higher positions of power and giving them control over their own lives. If you
read Mountains Beyond Mountains, written about Paul Farmer you'll see someone
who went and worked with his customers to an extreme level.

~~~
nate_meurer
Thanks! I'm struck by the time commitment made by organization you worked for
in Bolivia. Decades of work indicates a depth of relationship that seems to
evade most NGO work done in Haiti, and your experience reinforces that for me.

Did you come away from your Haiti experience with a favorable impression of
any other organizations there?

~~~
bargl
I love the group Partners in Health. Mostly because of their founder Paul
Farmer, I don't know how they've made the transition to being a bigger
organization but when they were smaller they rocked Haiti in a good way.

I personally met the founder of 1000 jobs. He goes down there a LOT and has
personally spend his time and money on Haiti to a degree most people would
find staggering.
[https://www.1000jobshaiti.org/jh/mission.asp](https://www.1000jobshaiti.org/jh/mission.asp)

After Haiti I found this group. I like them a lot so far but I don't have
hands on experience with them.
[https://www.coloradohaitiproject.org/experiencing-
haiti/](https://www.coloradohaitiproject.org/experiencing-haiti/)

~~~
nate_meurer
Excellent, thank you for taking the time to tell your experience. I find the
most valuable feedback comes from folks like you who are closest to the
action.

------
88e282102ae2e5b
Their defense is pretty weak. Essentially they're claiming the reason houses
didn't get built was because they didn't know how to build them, or that there
were land disputes. All of which are true. But that should have prevented them
from spending any significant amount of money.

~~~
pvaldes
The sad facts is that you can spend lots of money, don't do nothing bad... and
don't achieve nothing.

Not always your fault.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23507559/ns/world_news-
americas/t/...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23507559/ns/world_news-
americas/t/haiti-goes-hungry-tons-food-rot-ports/#.VXHXsyRsvrc)

" _I 'd have rather thrown the aid in the water, said Michaud. The Canadian
Embassy intervened and the $10.000 'custom fee' demanded by port autorities
was later waived_".

[http://thehaitianblogger.blogspot.com.es/2008/12/food-
donati...](http://thehaitianblogger.blogspot.com.es/2008/12/food-donation-rot-
in-storage-in-new.html)

" _Large tracts of land, including former sugar plantations are in the hands
of a few elite families. Much of the rest is divided into small plots for
farming_ "

[http://www.3news.co.nz/world/two-months-on-haiti-rots-as-
rai...](http://www.3news.co.nz/world/two-months-on-haiti-rots-as-rains-
threaten-2010031310#ixzz3cD1q54JB)

------
bretthagler
Where 100% of [http://newstorycharity.org](http://newstorycharity.org)
donations go:
(1)[http://newstorycharity.org/roseline](http://newstorycharity.org/roseline)
*be sure to click on the home cost breakdown.

The 33 families we've funded in 6 months: (2)
[http://newstorycharity.org/families-page#funded-
families](http://newstorycharity.org/families-page#funded-families)

Example of a video every donor gets: (3) [http://newstorycharity.org/maria-
rose](http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose)

------
tertius
I find it interesting that no one here has mentioned the Clinton Foundation,
they raised a LOT more money and we have the same problem. They did build a
hotel though... And they're getting more involved in gold mining.

------
sul4bh
This makes me think if they will repeat this all over again in Nepal.

------
vittore
We need totally transparent charities across the globe. A lot of my friend
here in US prefer to support small local charities that they exactly know how
money are going to be spent, even more, they can donate time and participate
in those activities. Unfortunately for the charities of a large scale other
concerns comes to play, especially here in US - taxes.

------
carsonreinke
I always like to research a charity a bit, because of this fear. Charity
Navigator is a good one:
[http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...](http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277#.VXHAU-
uuewA)

------
brianstorms
This story reminded me of the Pink Ribbons [1] documentary, which exposes the
money-making charities behind breast cancer. Worth finding and watching.

[1]
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2035599/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2035599/)

------
kamilszybalski
One of the best and most transparent charities I've ever donated to -
[https://www.charitywater.org/](https://www.charitywater.org/) I heard the
founder speak at a company event a while back and it's truly inspirational.

------
vasilipupkin
Sorry for the plug - but that's why I invested in
[https://publicgood.com](https://publicgood.com) \- I think they can make it
easier to donate to more nimble, locally focused and potentially more
effective organizations

------
masters3d
[http://www.hotesfoundation.org/500-million-for-6-shacks-
in-h...](http://www.hotesfoundation.org/500-million-for-6-shacks-in-haiti-a-
drop-in-the-bucket-of-red-cross-donation-abuses/)

------
dsugarman
Does anyone know anything about the effectiveness of other Haiti efforts like
Mercy Corps?

~~~
bretthagler
Hey - the CEO of [http://newstorycharity.org](http://newstorycharity.org) (YC
S15), we fund houses in Haiti and are radically transparent and accountable.

See where 100% of donations go:
(1)[http://newstorycharity.org/roseline](http://newstorycharity.org/roseline)
*be sure to click on the home cost breakdown.

The 33 families we've funded in 6 months: (2)
[http://newstorycharity.org/families-page#funded-
families](http://newstorycharity.org/families-page#funded-families)

Example of a video every donor gets: (3) [http://newstorycharity.org/maria-
rose](http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose)

Would love to hear your thoughts/feedback! - brett

~~~
droithomme
This looks very interesting. So donors can pick a family and fund a house
directly. Your spreadsheet shows a total building cost of about $6000
including everything and the houses are clearly not pressboard shacks.

Is your agency having problems dealing with title claims like the Red Cross is
claiming is the issue that prevented them from fulfilling any of their
promises to build?

Also, another source claims that the Red Cross only spent $400 on each of the
6 permanent homes they managed to build
([http://hotesfoundation.org/500-million-for-6-shacks-in-
haiti...](http://hotesfoundation.org/500-million-for-6-shacks-in-haiti-a-drop-
in-the-bucket-of-red-cross-donation-abuses/)). Since you've been down there
and are involved with building I wonder if you happen to have seen the 6
permanent $400 Red Cross homes? What are they like? I wasn't able to find
photos of those, only of the temporary shelters made of press board, and the
tents.

~~~
bretthagler
Yes exactly! re: So donors can pick a family and fund a house directly.

We haven't seen those Red Cross homes, but we are focused on building
sustainable homes that will last for decades. Much different than quick
temporary aid.

------
coldcode
Any charity that doesn't give you a detailed list of what the money was spent
on shouldn't get your money.

~~~
Matth3wMarshall
coldcode, we're New Story (YC S15 nonprofit) focused on crowd funding houses
for homeless families living in danger around the world -
[http://newstorycharity.org](http://newstorycharity.org)

We show each and ever donor a breakdown the home cost and then a video of the
EXACT family you help - here's an example - [http://newstorycharity.org/maria-
rose](http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose)

I'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback :)

------
ck2
Red Cross is notoriously corrupt, yet after every disaster they get so much
free publicity.

~~~
pvaldes
Have you any proof of this?

------
kyrre
this is the exact scenario in envision whenever someone asks for donations,
which happened /a lot/ when i was living in London, where it appears to be a
thriving "industry"

imo, working for charitable organizations is unethical

~~~
Matth3wMarshall
kyrre, unfortunately the world of big NGOs and charity is broken. I think
you'd also like the book - Confessions of an Economic Hitman

A couple months ago 2 friends and I launched New Story (YC S15 nonprofit)
[http://newstorycharity.org](http://newstorycharity.org)

Our mission to show donors EXACT what their money goes to funding (by showing
a home breakdown costs) and EXACT who they help by showing donors a video of
the family in their new home - here's an example
[http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose](http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose)

------
CyberpunkDad
Just listened to the NPR piece the other day and it does really sound shady.

------
wahsd
Wait. Didn't VICE do an excellent expose on this very topic, relief
capitalism? edit: they call it disaster capitalism, but relief capitalism is
also a real thing.

Pretty sure it's not the full episode, but this is a summary of the episode.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNM4kEUEcp8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNM4kEUEcp8)

America's dirty little secret is that the majority of our "aid" is really not
aid at all an not really meant for aiding and assisting. This is not really a
new thing. It's actually a very old and disastrous thing.

------
the_ancient
Never Donate to the Red Cross..... There are far far far far better
organizations out there.

------
pvaldes
" _The original plan was to build 700 new homes with living rooms and
bathrooms. The Red Cross says it ran into problems acquiring land rights.
Their internal memos, show there were other serious problems, including
multiple staffing changes and long bureaucratic delays. And then there was a
period of almost a year when the whole project appears to have sat dormant._ "

Haiti people was claimed as one of the worsts enemies of Haiti.

A lot of projects were stopped for months by bureaucracy. Some volunteers even
claimed to had been menaced with a trial if they dare to move a single rock
blocking the street without papers (that often never arrived). Volunteers and
doctors did what they can, and it was a lot (thousands or probably hundreds of
expensive chirurgical interventions). Finally, tired to sit and wait for
months, volunteers spend their last pennies and started returning to their
homes and former lives. Other big disasters with hundreds of lifes in danger
occur, and Haitians just lost traction and their opportunity to use all those
talented people.

Red Cross provides information about how spends the money and pass external
audits from independent companies. Each year. In all countries. Local finances
are published in red cross bulletins that are available each six months to all
people supporting the red cross with their money or time. Maybe this periodist
just didn't knew how to use google:

[http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m4...](http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m43540127_2014_TheAmericanNationalRedCrossFS.PDF)

Or maybe some of the promised money from donors was just this, a nice promise,
and now they need a scapegoat.

~~~
shkkmo
I am sure there were lots of problems and issues providing relief in Haiti.

The problem here is that the Red Cross seems to be dramatically
misrepresenting how much they accomplished with the money they raised.

>Maybe this periodist just didn't knew how to use google:

Um... did you even read the article or were you too busy being smug?

