500 Million Dollars to Build 6 Houses in Haiti?
For any non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and charitable bodies, these organisations generally rely on generous donations from the public as one of the main methods funding their works. It doesn’t matter if the organisation is a religious society like a temple or church, or a social welfare one like an old folks’ home, orphanage, or even a disaster relief society like the Red Cross. In all of these organisations, soliciting funds comes with the responsibility to deliver what was promised. It maintains trust with the public who donated their hard-earned income for the causes they support. But what happens if what was promised is not fulfilled?
In recent times, the American Red Cross has been under great scrutiny by the American public, many whom have expressed their disappointment in the Red Cross’ recent disaster relief efforts. The American Red Cross is one of the most recognisable charities in the world, with a strong media presence and popular support by influential people such as President Obama. Their recent incompetence and questions about misappropriated funds however, have seen the organisation’s once strong reputation for humanitarian work slowly erode over the last 10 years. Critics attribute the failures of Red Cross to its new management, which they say has been more focused on the Red Cross branding and turning a profit rather than the actual humanitarian works that Red Cross has carried out for decades now.
One of the most questionable recent projects by the Red Cross was their efforts to help rebuild Haiti after a major earthquake hit the country in 2010. In a country already wracked by widespread poverty, the devastating natural disaster killed hundreds of thousands of people and left countless more homeless. Red Cross managed to raise USD500mil which they pledged towards building thousands of house but since their fundraising efforts began in 2010, they have only built six houses in the last six years. In the same amount of time, other organisations which entered Haiti to help succeeded in building thousands of house despite receiving far less donations.
I thought I would share this article about the Red Cross which was written by an investigator who has been researching their activities for the last few years. Every act we do, especially those that involves helping others, should always be carried out with a good motivation. If a good motivation is not generated, then it is so easy for us to be corrupted by the power, influence and wealth that accompanies the position of aiding others. I am not here to criticise the Red Cross or to comment one way or another. But I do hope that if what the investigator says is true, then the appropriate remedial measures will be taken for the benefit of those that the Red Cross has diligently served for decades. Please do take a read and I hope that you may learn something new from this.
Larry G.
Or view the video on the server at:
https://video.tsemtulku.com/videos/haiti-red-cross.mp4
Red Cross Built Exactly 6 Homes For Haiti With Nearly Half A Billion Dollars In Donations
The neighborhood of Campeche sprawls up a steep hillside in Haiti’s capital city, Port-au-Prince. Goats rustle in trash that goes forever uncollected. Children kick a deflated volleyball in a dusty lot below a wall with a hand-painted the logo of the American Red Cross.
In late 2011, the Red Cross launched a multimillion-dollar project to transform the desperately poor area, which was hit hard by the earthquake that struck Haiti the year before. The main focus of the project — called LAMIKA, an acronym in Creole for “A Better Life in My Neighborhood” — was building hundreds of permanent homes.
Today, not one home has been built in Campeche. Many residents live in shacks made of rusty sheet metal, without access to drinkable water, electricity or basic sanitation. When it rains, their homes flood and residents bail out mud and water.
The Red Cross received an outpouring of donations after the quake, nearly half a billion dollars.
International Disaster Response Volunteer carries Estphane Shan in Croix Desprez towards a First Aid Post.
The group has publicly celebrated its work. But in fact, the Red Cross has repeatedly failed on the ground in Haiti. Confidential memos, emails from worried top officers, and accounts of a dozen frustrated and disappointed insiders show the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.
The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people. But the actual number of permanent homes the group has built in all of Haiti: six.
After the earthquake, Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern unveiled ambitious plans to “develop brand-new communities.” None has ever been built.
Aid organizations from around the world have struggled after the earthquake in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country. But ProPublica and NPR’s investigation shows that many of the Red Cross’s failings in Haiti are of its own making. They are also part of a larger pattern in which the organization has botched delivery of aid after disasters such as Superstorm Sandy. Despite its difficulties, the Red Cross remains the charity of choice for ordinary Americans and corporations alike after natural disasters.
One issue that has hindered the Red Cross’ work in Haiti is an over reliance on foreigners who could not speak French or Creole, current and former employees say.
In a blistering 2011 memo, the then-director of the Haiti program, Judith St. Fort, wrote that the group was failing in Haiti and that senior managers had made “very disturbing” remarks disparaging Haitian employees. St. Fort, who is Haitian American, wrote that the comments included, “he is the only hard working one among them” and “the ones that we have hired are not strong so we probably should not pay close attention to Haitian CVs.”
The Red Cross won’t disclose details of how it has spent the hundreds of millions of dollars donated for Haiti. But our reporting shows that less money reached those in need than the Red Cross has said.
Lacking the expertise to mount its own projects, the Red Cross ended up giving much of the money to other groups to do the work. Those groups took out a piece of every dollar to cover overhead and management. Even on the projects done by others, the Red Cross had its own significant expenses – in one case, adding up to a third of the project’s budget.
In statements, the Red Cross cited the challenges all groups have faced in post-quake Haiti, including the country’s dysfunctional land title system.
“Like many humanitarian organizations responding in Haiti, the American Red Cross met complications in relation to government coordination delays, disputes over land ownership, delays at Haitian customs, challenges finding qualified staff who were in short supply and high demand, and the cholera outbreak, among other challenges,” the charity said.
The group said it responded quickly to internal concerns, including hiring an expert to train staff on cultural competency after St. Fort’s memo. While the group won’t provide a breakdown of its projects, the Red Cross said it has done more than 100. The projects include repairing 4,000 homes, giving several thousand families temporary shelters, donating $44 million for food after the earthquake, and helping fund the construction of a hospital.
“Millions of Haitians are safer, healthier, more resilient, and better prepared for future disasters thanks to generous donations to the American Red Cross,” McGovern wrote in a recent report marking the fifth anniversary of the earthquake.
In other promotional materials, the Red Cross said it has helped “more than 4.5 million” individual Haitians “get back on their feet.”
It has not provided details to back up the claim. And Jean-Max Bellerive, Haiti’s prime minister at the time of the earthquake, doubts the figure, pointing out the country’s entire population is only about 10 million.
“No, no,” Bellerive said of the Red Cross’ claim, “it’s not possible.”
When the earthquake struck Haiti in January 2010, the Red Cross was facing a crisis of its own. McGovern had become chief executive just 18 months earlier, inheriting a deficit and an organization that had faced scandals after 9/11 and Katrina.
Inside the Red Cross, the Haiti disaster was seen as “a spectacular fundraising opportunity,” recalled one former official who helped organize the effort. Michelle Obama, the NFL and a long list of celebrities appealed for donations to the group.
The Red Cross kept soliciting money well after it had enough for the emergency relief that is the group’s stock in trade. Doctors Without Borders, in contrast, stopped fundraising off the earthquake after it decided it had enough money. The donations to the Red Cross helped the group erase its more-than $100 million deficit.
The Red Cross ultimately raised far more than any other charity.
A year after the quake, McGovern announced that the Red Cross would use the donations to make a lasting impact in Haiti.
We asked the Red Cross to show us around its projects in Haiti so we could see the results of its work. It declined. So earlier this year we went to Campeche to see one of the group’s signature projects for ourselves.
Street vendors in the dusty neighborhood immediately pointed us to Jean Jean Flaubert, the head of a community group that the Red Cross set up as a local sounding board.
Sitting with us in their sparse one-room office, Flaubert and his colleagues grew angry talking about the Red Cross. They pointed to the lack of progress in the neighborhood and the healthy salaries paid to expatriate aid workers.
“What the Red Cross told us is that they are coming here to change Campeche. Totally change it,” said Flaubert. “Now I do not understand the change that they are talking about. I think the Red Cross is working for themselves.”
The Red Cross’ initial plan said the focus would be building homes — an internal proposal put the number at 700. Each would have finished floors, toilets, showers, even rainwater collection systems. The houses were supposed to be finished in January 2013.
None of that ever happened. Carline Noailles, who was the project’s manager in Washington, said it was endlessly delayed because the Red Cross “didn’t have the know-how.”
Another former official who worked on the Campeche project said, “Everything takes four times as long because it would be micromanaged from DC, and they had no development experience.”
Shown an English-language press release from the Red Cross website, Flaubert was stunned to learn of the project’s $24 million budget — and that it is due to end next year.
“Not only is [the Red Cross] not doing it,” Flaubert said, “now I’m learning that the Red Cross is leaving next year. I don’t understand that.” (The Red Cross says it did tell community leaders about the end date. It also accused us of “creating ill will in the community which may give rise to a security incident.”)
The project has since been reshaped and downscaled. A road is being built. Some existing homes have received earthquake reinforcement and a few schools are being repaired. Some solar street lights have been installed, though many broke and residents say others are unreliable.
The group’s most recent press release on the project cites achievements such as training school children in disaster response.
The Red Cross said it has to scale back its housing plans because it couldn’t acquire the rights to land. No homes will be built.
Other Red Cross infrastructure projects also fizzled.
In January 2011, McGovern announced a $30 million partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The agency would build roads and other infrastructure in at least two locations where the Red Cross would build new homes.
But it took more than two and a half years, until August 2013, for the Red Cross just to sign an agreement with USAID on the program, and even that was for only one site. The program was ultimately canceled because of a land dispute.
A Government Accountability Office report attributed the severe delays to problems “in securing land title and because of turnover in Red Cross leadership” in its Haiti program.
Other groups also run into trouble with land titles and other issues. But they also ultimately built 9,000 homes compared to the Red Cross’ six.
Asked about the Red Cross’ housing projects in Haiti, David Meltzer, the group’s general counsel and chief international officer, said changing conditions forced changes in plans. “If we had said, ‘All we’re going to do is build new homes,’ we’d still be looking for land,” he said.
The USAID project’s collapse left the Red Cross grasping for ways to spend money earmarked for it.
“Any ideas on how to spend the rest of this?? (Besides the wonderful helicopter idea?),” McGovern wrote to Meltzer in a November 2013 email obtained by ProPublica and NPR. “Can we fund Conrad’s hospital? Or more to PiH[Partners in Health]? Any more shelter projects?”
It’s not clear what helicopter idea McGovern was referring to or if it was ever carried out. The Red Cross would say only that her comments were “grounded in the American Red Cross’ strategy and priorities, which focus on health and housing.”
Another signature project, known in Creole as “A More Resilient Great North,” is supposed to rehabilitate roads in poor, rural communities and to help them get clean water and sanitation.
But two years after it started, the $13 million effort has been faltering badly. An internal evaluation from March found residents were upset because nothing had been done to improve water access or infrastructure or to make “contributions of any sort to the well being of households,” the report said.
So much bad feeling built up in one area that the population “rejects the project.”
Instead of making concrete improvements to living conditions, the Red Cross has launched hand-washing education campaigns. The internal evaluation noted that these were “not effective when people had no access to water and no soap.” (The Red Cross declined to comment on the project.)
The group’s failures went beyond just infrastructure.
When a cholera epidemic raged through Haiti nine months after the quake, the biggest part of the Red Cross’ response a plan to distribute soap and oral rehydration salts — was crippled by “internal issues that go unaddressed,” wrote the director of the Haiti program in her May 2011 memo.
Throughout that year, cholera was a steady killer. By September 2011, when the death toll had surpassed 6,000, the project was still listed as “very behind schedule” according to another internal document.
The Red Cross said in a statement that its cholera response, including a vaccination campaign, has continued for years and helped millions of Haitians.
But while other groups also struggled early responding to cholera, some performed well.
“None of these people had to die. That’s what upsets me,” said Paul Christian Namphy, a Haitian water and sanitation official who helped lead the effort to fight cholera. He says early failures by the Red Cross and other NGOs had a devastating impact. “These numbers should have been zero.”
So why did the Red Cross’ efforts fall so short? It wasn’t just that Haiti is a hard place to work.
“They collected nearly half a billion dollars,” said a congressional staffer who helped oversee Haiti reconstruction. “But they had a problem. And the problem was that they had absolutely no expertise.”
Lee Malany was in charge of the Red Cross’ shelter program in Haiti starting in 2010. He remembers a meeting in Washington that fall where officials did not seem to have any idea how to spend millions of dollars set aside for housing. Malany says the officials wanted to know which projects would generate good publicity, not which projects would provide the most homes.
“When I walked out of that meeting I looked at the people that I was working with and said, ‘You know this is very disconcerting, this is depressing,” he recalled.
The Red Cross said in a statement its Haiti program has never put publicity over delivering aid.
Malany resigned the next year from his job in Haiti. “I said there’s no reason for me to stay here. I got on the plane and left.”
Sometimes it wasn’t a matter of expertise, but whether anybody was filling key jobs. An April 2012 organizational chart obtained by ProPublica and NPR lists 9 of 30 leadership positions in Haiti as vacant, including slots for experts on health and shelter.
The Red Cross said vacancies and turnover were inevitable because of “the security situation, separation from family for international staff, and the demanding nature of the work.”
The constant upheaval took a toll. Internal documents refer to repeated attempts over years to “finalize” and “complete” a strategic plan for the Haiti program, efforts that were delayed by changes in senior management. As late as March 2014, more than four years into a six-year program, an internal update cites a “revised strategy” still awaiting “final sign-off.”
The Red Cross said settling on a plan early would have been a mistake. “It would be hard to create the perfect plan from the beginning in a complicated place like Haiti,” it said. “But we also need to begin, so we create plans that are continually revised.”
Those plans were further undermined by the Red Cross’ reliance on expats. Noailles, the Haitian development professional who worked for the Red Cross on the Campeche project, said expat staffers struggled in meetings with local officials.
“Going to meetings with the community when you don’t speak the language is not productive,” she said. Sometimes, she recalled, expat staffers would skip such meetings altogether.
The Red Cross said it has “made it a priority to hire Haitians” despite lots of competition for local professionals, and that over 90 percent of its staff is Haitian. The charity said it used a local human resources firm to help.
Yet very few Haitians have made it into the group’s top echelons in Haiti, according to five current and former Red Cross staffers as well as staff lists obtained by ProPublica and NPR.
That not only affected the group’s ability to work in Haiti, it was also expensive.
According to an internal Red Cross budgeting document for the project in Campeche, the project manager – a position reserved for an expatriate – was entitled to allowances for housing, food and other expenses, home leave trips, R&R four times a year, and relocation expenses. In all, it added up to $140,000.
Compensation for a senior Haitian engineer — the top local position — was less than one-third of that, $42,000 a year.
Shelim Dorval, a Haitian administrator who worked for the Red Cross coordinating travel and housing for expatriate staffers, recalled thinking it was a waste to spend so much to bring in people with little knowledge of Haiti when locals were available.
“For each one of those expats, they were having high salaries, staying in a fancy house, and getting vacation trips back to their countries,” Dorval said. “A lot of money was spent on those people who were not Haitian, who had nothing to do with Haiti. The money was just going back to the United States.”
Soon after the earthquake, McGovern, the Red Cross CEO, said the group would make sure donors knew exactly what happened to their money.
The Red Cross would “lead the effort in transparency,” she pledged. “We are happy to share the way we are spending our dollars.”
That hasn’t happened. The Red Cross’ public reports offer only broad categories about where $488 million in donations has gone. The biggest category is shelter, at about $170 million. The others include health, emergency relief and disaster preparedness.
It has declined repeated requests to disclose the specific projects, to explain how much money went to each or to say what the results of each project were.
There is reason to doubt the Red Cross’ claims that it helped 4.5 million Haitians. An internal evaluation found that in some areas, the Red Cross reported helping more people than even lived in the communities. In other cases, the figures were low, and in others double-counting went uncorrected.
In describing its work, the Red Cross also conflates different types of aid, making it more difficult to assess the charity’s efforts in Haiti.
For example, while Red Cross says it provided more than 130,000 people with homes, that includes thousands of people who were not actually given homes, but rather were “trained in proper construction techniques.” (That was first reported by the Haiti blog of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.)
The figure includes people who got short-term rental assistance or were housed in several thousand “transitional shelters,” which are temporary structures that can get eaten up by termites or tip over in storms. It also includes modest improvements on 5,000 temporary shelters.
The Red Cross also won’t break down what portion of donations went to overhead.
McGovern told CBS News a few months after the quake, “Minus the 9 cents overhead, 91 cents on the dollar will be going to Haiti. And I give you my word and my commitment, I’m banking my integrity, my own personal sense of integrity on that statement.”
But the reality is that less money went to Haiti than 91 percent. That’s because in addition to the Red Cross’ 9 percent overhead, the other groups that got grants from the Red Cross also have their own overhead.
In one case, the Red Cross sent $6 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross for rental subsidies to help Haitians leave tent camps. The IFRC then took out 26 percent for overhead and what the IFRC described as program-related “administration, finance, human resources” and similar costs.
Beyond all that, the Red Cross also spends another piece of each dollar for what it describes as “program costs incurred by the American Red Cross in managing” the projects done by other groups.
The American Red Cross’ management and other costs consumed an additional 24 percent of the money on one project, according to the group’s statements and internal documents. The actual work, upgrading shelters, was done by the Swiss and Spanish Red Cross societies.
“It’s a cycle of overhead,” said Jonathan Katz, the Associated Press reporter in Haiti at the time of the earthquake who tracked post-disaster spending for his book, The Big Truck That Went By. “It was always going to be the American Red Cross taking a 9 percent cut, re-granting to another group, which would take out their cut.”
Given the results produced by the Red Cross’ projects in Haiti, Bellerive, the former prime minister, said he has a hard time fathoming what’s happened to donors’ money.
“Five hundred million dollars in Haiti is a lot of money,” he said. “I’m not a big mathematician, but I can make some additions. I know more or less the cost of things. Unless you don’t pay for the gasoline the same price I was paying, unless you pay people 20 times what I was paying them, unless the cost of the house you built was five times the cost I was paying, it doesn’t add up for me.”
[Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes]
For more interesting information:
- Nepal Disaster 2015
- Reaching Out in Bentong
- Guess what they are selling in Nepal?
- Shell Oil Drilling in Arctic Ocean
- From Hollywood to Landfills
Please support us so that we can continue to bring you more Dharma:
If you are in the United States, please note that your offerings and contributions are tax deductible. ~ the tsemrinpoche.com blog team
Increasingly now, there are more and more agencies setup to deal with disaster relief, if RED cross does not get their act together many other agencies are ready to step up and replace them.
Although it seems it is the American chapter that is creating some negative public perception, but thats all it can take to bring down this esteemed agency. The Red Cross occupy a unique space whereby they go to war torn countries, and places and they do not carry arms or take sides. They are neutral, such reputation have its advantages in areas of conflict to help people who are hurt by wars and conflicts.
I do hope the Red Cross can gain back the public trust on its role in an ever changing world.
The Red Cross is almost a household word in most parts of the world, as a “brand-name” for a powerful humanitarian movement. I remember that back in those days when I was schooling, and when it was necessary for all studens to join Societies or Movements, as part of one’s extra-curricular activites program, the Red Cross Society was very popular and had a great number of students joining it.
The worst part of this news coming through about a sum of 5oo million dollars having been collected by the international Red Cross Society ,from sponsors eager to contribute to bringing relief from suffering to the many victims of the terrible earthquake that had hit Haiti, and afterwards, learning that five years down the road,only 6 permanent houses had been built for the thousands and thousands of homeless victims still living in shelters, is that there is so much suffering waiting to be alleviated or removed, and the people tasked with doing something about this and having the means to do it, are dragging their feet over it!
This does shake somewhat one’s faith in humanity!
The Red Cross long has been known for providing emergency disaster relief — food, blankets and shelter to people in need. And after the earthquake, it did that work in Haiti also. But the Red Cross has very little experience in the difficult work of rebuilding in a developing country.
The main problem here is that the Red Cross gave much of the money to other groups to do the hands-on work, resulting in additional fees. 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. So how sure are we that the fund intended for the victims will be ‘received even after the donors are long gone?
It seems that there has been talk about this issue. The charity says it has done more than 100 projects in Haiti, repairing 4,000 homes, giving several thousand families temporary shelters and donating $44 million for food. But the charity will not provide a list of specific programs it ran, how much they cost or what their expenses were.
It is very often that we see fund raising efforts and charities spring up suddenly out of nowhere every time disaster strikes somewhere. Overnight, they set up homepages, booths in shopping centres, send out runners with donation boxes to prey on people’s kindness and generosity. Nobody checks what happens to their donation as people trust and assume that if it’s for charity it’s something good and the charity bodies would also be doing good and not abuse their trust.
We’ve heard that sometimes even after funds or supplies have been channelled to the local disbursement agencies, they could be hijacked by unscrupulous officers and instead sold for profit or pocketed while the needy remained in need or had to pay exorbitant prices to buy these stolen supplies.
Disasters remain spectacular fund raising opportunities. People are generally kind and generous and it is easy for these NGOs to fill their coffers.
If what is reported about American Red Cross is true, this is scandalous. Who knows if there’s a similar pattern in some other agencies. How do the management and administration of such dubious agencies sleep at night? If they live lavishly on these donations while the people they are supposed to help had little or no benefit, I wonder how they pass each day without any conscience. Thousands or maybe millions of people have parted with their cash and counted on them.
Therefore, personally I would rather part with my money or extend service to an organisation where the people running it operate out of compassion and the law of karma is the guiding principle. Then I would be sure that whatever is given will be used for the purpose it was intended, i.e. helping others. Better still, if the donation was used for an even higher purpose, to help others not only within this life but also their future lives.
It is a massive trend among the affluent and middle income class of the developed and developing nations to donate generously towards causes of the world: alleviate poverty, school the uneducated, rebuild homes for the victims of disasters, fight religious/political tyranny, etc etc. As the world needs help, many NGOs are setup and become a phenomenon in the process. Many people though NGOs are run by volunteers who only want to do good for the victims.
Hence, please do appreciate the sharing by Larry G. here as this article shred light to just a fraction of the multi-billion dollars business of NGOs. Red Cross, and the NGOs working on the same big brand domain of the claim-bearing-label business will always strive to create positive relationship with the donors, first. The victims in the Haiti case or any case for the matter are secondary. Therefore it is a more attractive business policy to create senior positions for the foreigners in the Haiti event and dismiss the locale, and ended up sub-contracting the work to other NGOs, resulting in an inflated cost.
It is also evident from the case of Haiti that budget holders in Red Cross have begun to lost touch with their conscious to ensure that each dollar donated by generous contributor should actually reach the victims intact and be accounted for. 500 million dollars is a huge sum for people in Haiti who are in dire need for aid and a steady roof. Where did the money goes if they are still found in the same conundrum as 6 years before. Six houses in six years?!?
The cherry of the cake goes to the over-the-top marketing gimmick throughout the 6 years trying to cover up the failure in making any progress. I think it kind of work with feel-good donors who might not be too bothered with where the monies go as long as they are seen at the fund raising gala signing the cheque. While Red Cross did a very good job in raising fund, questions should be asked on whether Red Cross has descended to an over-sized organization lacking the agility to be mobilized for serious development work.
The rebuilding and emergency relief activities need nimble and on the ground people who make things happened in the shortest time with the most reasonable cost possible, and with an altruistic mind. These people do not work for the credit but for the benefit of others.
Thank you Rinpoche for sharing this article.
Humbly, bowing down,
Stella Cheang
This is the first time I spent time to read about reports about Red Cross. I think since young, I have already heard all the good projects and things done by Red Cross. I guess that since they have left a good impression, I have never thought about any of possible mistrust in Red Cross.
I agree with Larry G organisations who rely on donations must have good motivation towards benefitting others. Since we are relying on public donations, we must instil confidence in the public that their fund is being put to good use. Red Cross being a reputable organisation who attracts a lot fund must be transparent and accountable.
May all turn out well. If there are indeed misuse of fund, may it be stopped so that there is no more misuse in future.
What do people usually hope for when making donations with their hard earned money? That it can go towards alleviating sufferings of those in need. In fact, statistics have shown that helping is a very lucrative industry. Despite the bad economy, there is never a shortage of altruistic souls willing to part with their money for a noble cause. However, as noble as the idea of charity may be, there are some realities about charities that are not all about goodness and integrity. Some charity organisation, intentionally or not, apparently even fail to properly channel those donations and actually hinder the very idea of helping. It is hoped that the severe underperformance by Red Cross in this instance is thoroughly examined so as to enable satisfactory remedial actions and prevent future reoccurrences.
It is disappointing to read how an international acclaimed disaster relieving charity as the Red Cross can be brought down by bad management. Handling such a big sum of monies donated by people who cared, is a huge responsibility. Most times people with altruistic minds and motivations should be placed in position of command. Otherwise some will let their greed or ego take over and then funds are mishandled. Its sad that those people who really need the funds or help are not receiving any due to bureaucratic delays or decisions. So many years after the Haiti earthquake and still no signs of progress which I think is too much as even if initial hiccups that could happened should have been solved. A charity company should run on compassion and not as a profit making venture. Kudos to those who had been able to complete their missions in the Haiti disaster.
If this is true, it is a terrible waste of resources; not to mention the amount of sufferings that still exist despite the huge amount of money raised that was supposed to alleviate these sufferings. All in all, what a shame!
It is a terribly inefficient method to disperse money to local organizations that has it own overheads and inefficiencies plus the possibilities of greed to content with.
I know it is not easy but the Red Cross must reexamine what went wrong so that it does not loose it credibility that it has built up over it’s great history.
It is very sad to seesomething like this happens to Red Cross who happens to be a very prestigious charity body. With their influence and supporters, they can really help alot of people who are in need. However, instead of filling their promise to help more people in Haiti, they only build six house. They had received donations that can let them contribute more than six houses for sure and yet after so long the result is so little. This really questions the transparency of the funds in this organisation and are they truly fulfilling their vision and mission? It had been a great organisation but their recent activities and results of their work is really unsatisfied.
It is truly unfortunate how some organizations would capitalize on the sufferings of others for their own benefit. I am not denying that the Red Cross have been a great organization in providing aid for disaster relief for many decades, in fact, I was tempted to join the Red Cross in my teenage years, though I ended up joining St Johns voluntary works instead.
I have been following this issue of the Red Cross for some time now, and this is not the first failed project that the Red Cross had to answer to. Although their forte is disaster relief, there were several occasions where they were poorly organized to the point that they were more of an obstruction rather than help, and local officials would get very upset and send them away. It is also said that the Red Cross is now no longer the top choice when one needs the help for disaster relief.
The change on an international scale when the Red Cross ‘downsized’ and had their new CEO who’s main objective was to turn the losses Red Cross had, into a profit… have taken a toll on their actual mission, which is saving lives. Downsizing looked like a good decision on the financial point of view, but as a result it reduced their outreach and ability to respond to emergencies at a fast rate. Along with it, experienced staff were laid off, and loyal and experienced volunteers that became upset with this change left the organization, heartbroken.
In the case of Haiti, it is quite clear that there was a huge mismanagement of funds, as pointed out by the researcher. 500 million is a lot of money, and it was even said that the amount probably is more than the whole nation’s wealth. One of the disappointing thing about the Red Cross was that they continued to lead people on with their false advertising and promises… and they continued to raise funds using the Haiti earthquake despite not producing any results or having accounted for the previous promise. Take for example Doctors without Borders stopped their fund raising activities when they have enough funds. In the case of the Red Cross, they raised so much money… that it reached the point where just doing disaster relief does not justify the amount raised. At the same time, they don’t want to return the money, so they ‘venture’ out into ‘developing the country for the people’. Unfortunate for the people of Haiti… as the funds that generous donors gave which was supposed to help relief some pain and suffering in their lives, were so poorly managed and spent.