Tell me about the Red Cross

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Tell me about the Red Cross

Heath: Apr 30, 2008; 🍂🎃🏞️💦

The Red Cross has been in the news a lot lately, in addition to popping up in frequently reposted Facebook articles claiming a variety of things about the organization, that anywhere from 60-98 cents of every donated dollar goes directly into the pocket of some executive in DC and not to helping anybody out, or that the ARC greatly exaggerates its actual impact in helping, etc. I worked for them for a little while in the blood services department, and I've had other family members who have been working for them for decades, and they've always been a part of my life. So I know a fair amount about how the organization works and what it does, but I will admit that while I'm skeptical of the claims of how bungling they are, I'm also not entirely sure how much of the org is really on the level anymore. That said, I have the utmost respect for the volunteers and the people on the ground who are just trying to help out and get aid to the people who need it. What I want to know about is peoples' actual experience either volunteering for, donating to, or working with/for the Red Cross and from people who have or haven't been assisted by them. I've always donated to them without hesitation, but all this bad press is making me second guess it and whether or not my money would be better spent elsewhere. I feel like the problems the ARC is catching heat for are endemic to any kind of charity outfit, and I know from experience that just because an organization is huge and overbloated doesn't mean that giving money to a smaller organization is necessarily better, because they're just as capable of loving up but don't get the heat for it.

# ? Sep 10, 2017 03:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 05:27

Canine Blues Arooo: Jan 7, 2008; when you think about it...i'm the first girl you ever spent the night with; Grimey Drawer

There is nontrivial evidence that the American Red Cross embezzles a lot of it's donors money. This is kind of supported by some additional soft commentary on youtube and the like.

Canine Blues Arooo fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Sep 10, 2017

# ? Sep 10, 2017 10:16

a cute sea otter: Apr 24, 2017; I shall personally eat your entrails on my tummy!

IIRC there was a followup to that on NPR that semi-justified some of those points, just to balance things out. Saying they have a higher admin cost than many b/c a lot of it is fast response prep and they don't really do housing. I didn't pay too close attention, I don't give there, I donate to MSF because my GP used to voluteer with them. There's good reasons to not give to any charity if you look hard enough.

# ? Sep 10, 2017 13:50

Heath: Apr 30, 2008; 🍂🎃🏞️💦

Canine Blues Arooo posted:

There is nontrivial evidence that the American Red Cross embezzles a lot of it's donors money. This is kind of supported by some additional soft commentary on youtube and the like.

I'm not real inclined to believe what a dude on YouTube thinks about ARC (especially since he claims the ARC is actively harming people, which is flat out untrue) and the NBC video you linked seems to not take a specific side on the issue and says that a lot of the criticism comes from people tweeting not to donate to ARC based on the same figures that don't seem to be well substantiated about how much money goes where.

What makes me wary of these kinds of reports is that nobody seems to ever posit exactly what is an appropriate amount of money to be spent where, what the purview of the ARC is in relationship to what they're even able to do, and what's being counted among "administrative" costs. These news articles and the things people post seem to imply that 25 cents on the dollar is being paid to Gail McGovern personally or goes exclusively to the top level administrators, which I have a lot of doubt about. What I wonder is how much "administrative costs" includes things like prepositioning blood products, which is an expensive endeavor (this is what I did at ARC when I worked there.)

I have a whole lot of distrust of the people at the top of ARC and Gail McGovern especially, and I will acknowledge that the org has some deep problems in leadership, but I don't think it's as bad as people are making it out to be - it's like with anything else, you're only going to hear the loudest voices from the people who feel slighted or perhaps were legitimately not helped by the Red Cross, and people (at least that I have seen) that talk about the Red Cross helping them or doing good tend to get dismissed as paid shills or plants. What I worry about is that the people who are volunteering and trying to do good are going to get discouraged.

# ? Sep 11, 2017 02:55

John Smith: Feb 26, 2015; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

ARC is a poor performing charity on the simple and straightforward basis that its performance score as assigned by givewell is low.

# ? Sep 11, 2017 15:08

Canine Blues Arooo: Jan 7, 2008; when you think about it...i'm the first girl you ever spent the night with; Grimey Drawer

Heath posted:

What I worry about is that the people who are volunteering and trying to do good are going to get discouraged.

Quite frankly, I hope that these people stop giving any time or money to the Red Cross and instead find another group to channel their philanthropic efforts. The Red Cross and Gail McGovern don't deserve the good will the awesome people on the ground generate for their lovely organization.

# ? Sep 11, 2017 19:20

kliksf: Jan 1, 2003

Propublica has an ongoing investigation of the Red Cross and it's not pretty.
https://www.propublica.org/series/red-cross
Some of the biggest scandals seem to be taking money and doing nothing with it but banking it, having sketch record keeping, misleading congress, being no-shows during actual disasters and wedging themselves in as the main conduit for donor money in a catastrophe like notifications that appear on your phone to help hurricane victims are always going to the Red Cross, no other organization has their reach in that regard, if they were doing good things with your donation money it's not a problem but they have a track record of taking money and doing nothing or next to nothing in a disaster's aftermath.

# ? Sep 12, 2017 04:57

The Doctor: Jul 8, 2007; Fallen Rib

The Red Cross, and international humanitarian aid generally, is an absolute clusterfuck. Have a look at disaster relief efforts in Haiti for confirmation. They are massively disorganized, accountable to no one (and in fact have protected themselves from ever being held accountable by refusing to take on the responsibility of provider of last resort), and have made no efforts to address or acknowledge the political roots of their inherent impotence (imperialism, the proliferation of thousands of independent for-profit NGOs with no universal standards or common agenda - and thus no cooperation or coordination). Instead, they have focused on adopting business efficiencies in order to try to streamline relief organization and implementation, which (surprise) has failed monumentally and disastrously.

The Red Cross likely wasted $500 million in Haiti and have nothing to show for it. The UN and NGOs are responsible for crippling Haiti by following their own practices - which is basically to replace the state's infrastructure with their own instead of helping them to rebuild themselves. The thing to keep in mind when thinking about how lovely the Red Cross is, is that these organizations (The big names like the Red Cross, Unicef, Who) are supposed to work in concert with each other through the UN, but they have competing agendas. Then you have thousands of much smaller agencies who do not have UN certification, but are allowed to administer aid (think about the potentially disastrous effects of this, they do not have to show that they are competent or capable in any way) because anyone is allowed to "help" as long as the receiving state approves it. So, in short, the Red Cross is poo poo but so is everyone else.

IASC and the UN developed a new strategy called the "cluster approach" to disaster relief, in which a cluster of agencies (Red Cross, WHO, Unicef, WFP, Save the Children, etc) are supposed each to take responsibility for a given sector on the ground (nutrition, protection, shelter, etc). But think about the logistics of this when none of these agencies have any degree of cooperation, communication, or interest in working together. You get an absolutely massive waste of resources, redundancy, a complete inability to engage in large projects that require input from multiple agencies. The Red Cross has refused to take on the responsibility of provider of last resort (POLR), which according to the UN, is critical to the success of the cluster approach. This means that they will not agree to be held responsible if no one else succeeds in providing the help that is needed. There are no consequences for their failures. The money you donate to them is pissed away, and they do not have to answer to you for it.

Here's what Chelsea Clinton said about the situation in Haiti following the earthquake (from leaked Clinton e-mails):

Chelsea Clinton posted:

The incompetence is mind numbing...If we do not quickly change the organization, management, accountability and delivery paradigm on the ground, we could quite conceivably confront tens of thousands of children's deaths by diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid and other water-related diseases in the near future...This disorganization across the UN/ INGOs has had a variety of effects on the Haitian government, including that it has now visibly distanced itself from the UN Cluster process (e.g., instead of going to a meeting a day the Haitian Minister of Health is now going once a week - because it was "such a waste of time" and he said that is representative of the government's current modus operandi); though we heard the cluster process was improving - when I asked for a concrete example of how, I was told meetings were "more efficient." This lack of efficiency - not to mention lack of visible consistent progress - has also lead to a further distrust of the UN/ INGOs by the Haitian government and Haitian people in the settlements. The former feels like it shows up to no effect - and the latter feels like very few actor(s) reliably show up. Again, the UN seemed at best chaotic and at worst absent as I travelled around in an action-oriented sense.

And here is an excerpt from a research paper that I wrote on the cluster approach last year:

The Doctor posted:

In 2005, IASC launched the cluster approach as a part of the larger Humanitarian Reform Agenda. Specifically, the new approach was intended to improve upon the �collaborative approach� implemented in Darfur in 2004 and 2005 (2007). According to OCHA, the purpose of the cluster approach is to �strengthen predictability, response capacity, coordination and accountability by strengthening partnerships in key sectors of humanitarian response, and by formalising the lead role of particular agencies/organisations in these sectors� (2007). It represents a new strategy by introducing the concept of sector clusters and cluster leads. Sector clusters refer to groupings of agencies at the global, country, and field levels which are responsible for providing aid in one of the eleven key sectors (e.g Emergency Shelter, Health, Water, Sanitation and hygiene, etc.)" (HR, n.d).

By organizing agencies into clusters, the approach seeks to fill sectoral gaps and minimize overlap in the services provided. Depending on the scale of a disaster, upwards of 1000 independent NGO�s may respond from all over the world. These can include established international leaders as well as fledgling agencies with no experience or reputation at all - with few limitations. In short, �NGOs, as private entities, are permitted by law to offer victims humanitarian assistance� (Stoeffels 2004). All that is required is the authorization of the receiving state. In order to address the tremendous organizational challenges which have arisen as the scale and scope of aid efforts have increased, OCHA has introduced the concept of cluster leads. The role of the cluster lead is �to ensure adequate response and high standards of predictability, accountability and partnership� within a given sector (IASC 2007). Cluster leads thus facilitate communication and cooperation between agencies within a given sector, and take on the role of �Provider of Last Resort� (POLR) (IASC 2008). This means that when other agencies are unable to fill critical gaps in aid services, it is the responsibility of the cluster lead to do so. According to the IASC, POLR is �critical to the cluster approach� and without it �the element of predictability is lost� (IASC 2008).

In 2007, OCHA released an official report on the cluster approach in which they determined that it represented a moderate improvement over past strategies. OCHA argued that the cluster approach successfully filled gaps in aid services, strengthened communication and cooperation, and addressed a chronic lack of accountability by establishing strong leaders with clear responsibilities. In principle, these changes should have translated into improved outcomes for aid implementation on the ground: that means less human suffering and more lives saved. Yet recent reports from Haiti suggest that far from improving outcomes, the cluster approach turned into a disaster in and of itself. In a series of leaked e-mails, Chelsea Clinton described what she perceived as a �malpractice continuum� in Haiti in which �the UN seemed at best chaotic and at worst absent� and �the British Red Cross should know better� (Wikileaks). She warned that if the situation were not immediately remedied �we could quite conceivably confront tens of thousands of children�s deaths by diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid and other water-related diseases in the near future� (Wikileaks). A number of news outlets, including TIME, NPR, and The Huffington Post, published articles in which they accused the Red Cross of squandering $500 million in donations.

The reality is that the cluster approach fails to address the broader political and ideological problems which are at the root of major complications in aid implementation. It is an aspirational strategy: it assumes that the diversity of political actors - including the IFRC, hundreds of independent NGOs, and the states in which it is implemented - will adopt it and do their best to implement it. This has not happened. The majority of IASC members, including the IFRC and the ICRC, as well as the Haitian government, have actively resisted the new approach. It is therefore not simply an absence of leadership, but actors� refusal to lead and be led, which has created a scenario in which cooperation and coordination remain out of reach. An IFRC review (2007) reveals a lack of consensus about the project amongst non-UN members, who feel that it was �pushed through without adequate time for consultation...Most IASC members...have yet to formalize the cluster approach within their own corporate governance and policies� and �member states were inadequately briefed, resulting in more resistance than might otherwise have been the case� (p. 7). This means that the majority of agencies have not actually made any efforts to adopt the new strategy, and states are actively resisting it. What this tells us is that, ultimately, it does not matter if the cluster approach represents a strategic improvement over past initiatives. The majority of political actors are not using it, and thus it cannot change things.

Those actors who have adopted the new approach have done so with major stipulations. The result is that now, as before, it is impossible to hold anyone accountable �for presence or performance� (Stoddard, 2007, p. 5). The IFRC has agreed to take on the position of co-lead of the Emergency Shelter sector with UNHCR on the condition that �the Federation will not accept accountability obligations beyond those defined in its Constitution and own policies� and �Neither the Federation nor the National Societies shall be held responsible for meeting the emergency shelter needs of affected persons when these are not being met by other agencies� ( This means that the responsibility of POLR, which IASC describes as �critical to the cluster approach� does not apply to IFRC, and the IFRC is in no way accountable to the UN (IFRC, 2011). Both the IFRC and the ICRC, the two leading bodies in the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, have expressed apprehensions about a closer relationship with the UN. In 2009, the IFRC released its official �Review of the International Federation�s Shelter Cluster Commitment�, in which those apprehensions, among other complications in implementing the approach, were voiced. Within the IFRC as a whole the review concludes that the cluster approach was �neither universally understood nor universally popular� (Davidson and Price, 2010, p. 39). IFRC members found that while adopting the role of cluster lead had positively impacted the Federation�s image as �an expert in shelter� within the humanitarian community, it had undermined their international reputation as a neutral and independent body (p. 40). �When deployed in conflict affected-countries [it] generated confusion with the ONS, the Authorities and other humanitarian actors and tension with the ICRC� (p. 41). Concerns about maintaining independence and neutrality have resulted in a lack of consensus, and therefore uneven implementation of the cluster approach within the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement as a whole. While the IFRC had a responsibility to adopt the approach as a member of the IASC, the ICRC remains an independent institution, and there is confusion within the 190 Societies as to who must take on a leadership role at the country, regional, and field levels. Matters of consensus aside, the review also announced that �at the time of writing, cluster funding has ceased and the Federation, like other cluster lead agencies, is struggling to finance its commitment� (p. 7).

# ? Sep 25, 2017 13:50

Heath: Apr 30, 2008; 🍂🎃🏞️💦

Is that why the Red Cross was set to build houses in Haiti? The Red Cross has never been in the business of building houses before to my knowledge. Was it a matter of being appointed to do so by the UN, or did they jump up and say that they were going to do so, or was it both?

I'm not sure I understand the POLR thing. It sounds like if the IFRC had accepted the position of being POLR, all it would have done is made them accountable for failures of humanitarian aid generally rather than just for failures of their own organization, and with hundreds of competing groups on the ground, I can see why they would have refused that provision, because it makes them responsible for everyone's fuckups.

# ? Sep 25, 2017 18:51

The Doctor: Jul 8, 2007; Fallen Rib

Heath posted:

Is that why the Red Cross was set to build houses in Haiti? The Red Cross has never been in the business of building houses before to my knowledge. Was it a matter of being appointed to do so by the UN, or did they jump up and say that they were going to do so, or was it both?

I'm not sure I understand the POLR thing. It sounds like if the IFRC had accepted the position of being POLR, all it would have done is made them accountable for failures of humanitarian aid generally rather than just for failures of their own organization, and with hundreds of competing groups on the ground, I can see why they would have refused that provision, because it makes them responsible for everyone's fuckups.

I don't think the UN has the power to "appoint" any of these organizations to do anything, I'm assuming there would be consultations across all of them to discuss the roles which would be most appropriate. The only thing the UN could possibly hold over them would be their certification - which only indicates that the organization is supported by the UN, and is not necessary to administer aid.

I am not sure for how long the IFRC has been building homes, but I would think that it would be part of the shift from immediate post-disaster relief to long-term support which is being seen across all of the major organizations.

The IFRC did not accept the position of POLR. They accepted the position of cluster lead, on the condition that they had no obligations of POLR.

The Doctor posted:

The IFRC has agreed to take on the position of co-lead of the Emergency Shelter sector with UNHCR on the condition that �the Federation will not accept accountability obligations beyond those defined in its Constitution and own policies� and �Neither the Federation nor the National Societies shall be held responsible for meeting the emergency shelter needs of affected persons when these are not being met by other agencies�

# ? Sep 25, 2017 19:18

Heath: Apr 30, 2008; 🍂🎃🏞️💦

That's where I'm confused, because it seems to me like taking the position of POLR is kind of a no-win thing -- if none of these organizations are accountable to the UN, they're not accountable to the IFRC either, and being cluster lead in that sector with no ability to enforce or ensure that other orgs within the cluster carry their weight makes the IFRC responsible for the glut of NGOs not following through on things. I hope I don't sound argumentative because I don't mean to be, it's just that the further I dig into this the more complicated it gets, and it seems like the IFRC (and especially the ARC, because nobody seems to distinguish them in this country anyway) is getting a disproportionate amount of the blame for failed humanitarian aid when it sounds like it was just loving broken at every conceivable level from the get-go, and I am concerned about repeat squanderings from the recent disasters and the inevitable future ones.

# ? Sep 25, 2017 19:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 05:27

The Doctor: Jul 8, 2007; Fallen Rib

Heath posted:

That's where I'm confused, because it seems to me like taking the position of POLR is kind of a no-win thing -- if none of these organizations are accountable to the UN, they're not accountable to the IFRC either, and being cluster lead in that sector with no ability to enforce or ensure that other orgs within the cluster carry their weight makes the IFRC responsible for the glut of NGOs not following through on things. I hope I don't sound argumentative because I don't mean to be, it's just that the further I dig into this the more complicated it gets, and it seems like the IFRC (and especially the ARC, because nobody seems to distinguish them in this country anyway) is getting a disproportionate amount of the blame for failed humanitarian aid when it sounds like it was just loving broken at every conceivable level from the get-go, and I am concerned about repeat squanderings from the recent disasters and the inevitable future ones.

That it is complicated does not mean that wrong or harm is not being done. The Red Cross takes the brunt of the blame because they are one of (if not the most) wealthiest humanitarian aid agencies in the world. They receive billions of dollars in donations every year. They hold massive power. POLR is not about enforcing or ensuring the behaviour of other organizations, it's about agreeing to take on the responsibility when no one else does. The very idea of humanitarian aid is based on the principle of a responsibility to protect (R2P). It is a bit pointless when no one is ever actually held responsible, isn't it?

The major organizations are the ones who must be held responsible to provide aid. They have the most resources, and they have the global presence, voice, power, and, whether or not they deserve it - trust.

# ? Sep 25, 2017 20:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Tell me about the Red Cross