[masters3d]

"The point is that the concern we should have is not just about the $500,000,000 donated for Haiti for which the good hearted donors received just six $400 shacks. The concern is about billions of donated dollars intended to help people all over the world. The Haiti data demonstrates that for each billion donated to the Red Cross we get a total of 12 each $400 shacks which we wouldn't put our lawn mower in.

The greatest mystery for me is why the major media outlets keep advising well intended Americans to give to the Red Cross. If any of us operated like the Red Cross has for years the media would be screaming for our prosecution as it should. Why not the Red Cross? And worse, why do they encourage hard working and generous Americans to give to an organization about whom there is public knowledge of extreme abuse of billions of donated dollars ?!" - Hotes Foundation

Reference:

https://hotesfoundation.org/500-million-for-6-shacks-in-hait...

https://hotesfoundation.org/red-cross-haiti-relief-scandal/

[donkeyd]

I went to Haiti last year for a vacation. I met a lot of people there working for NGOs and upper class Haitians. From what I heard from them, there are two major money leaks in the country:

NGOs: They pay their employees heaps of money, to do relatively small amounts of work. These aren't the people we see on TV who get out there to work 12 hour days and save lives. These are people who go there because they need a job and like traveling. They're the people who get the office jobs. These are all young people who spend massive amounts of time and money on leisure. Most of this money ends up in the pockets of already rich Haitians, like restaurant owners and rental agencies. The UN seems to be one of the worst at this. I've seen UN people living in $4000 a month houses full of Apple stuff and expensive cooking equipment. They would write reports that were then dismissed by the government.

Corruption: A lot of NGOs try to work with local organizations to get stuff done. This is good, because it gives the locals a chance to earn money by working to rebuild their country. However, what often happens is that higher-ups in these organizations disappear with donated money, or just suddenly have new cars. This is actually quite a big problem there, since the country seems to be inherently corrupt, something I've seen multiple times during my short stay there.

From my experience, Haiti feels a lot like a failed state and most people I've spoken don't think there will be any improvement in the next couple of decades. They're also fearful of what would happen if the UN were to leave, since they'd lose a massive inflow of money and the poor might revolt, causing for even more chaos.

[mrmondo]

Interesting indeed. I work for an NGO / non-profit in Melbourne, Australia and we work with a /lot/ of other Australian NGOs and I can honestly say most NGOs (at least in Australia and New Zealand) are not at all like this. Salaries are generally significantly lower in the NGO/Non-profit sector and generally speaking these roles tend to attract morally driven individuals that are primarily concerned with their impact on society or at least the sector they work in (obviously a generalisation but speaking from experience).

[zxcmx]

My experience of local NGO / nonprofit workers is similar, although I see that they are frustrated with organisations that seem to increasingly spend more on seeking grants and reporting than "service delivery".

Also, well funded NGOs over here often tend to have significant government-based revenue streams, which can discourage activism on the fundamentals (which government might not agree with).

I do not question the dedication of local workers I've met, but the larger issue with respect to foreign aid is what happens to the money "in country" when it comes time to distribute goods or get things done in the local economy.

[brownbat]

I would like to see major disaster relief specials try a tagline at the bottom:

Text ##### to donate $5 to GiveWell, which will channel your funds to the charity measurably best equipped to alleviate human suffering like (but not exactly like) the suffering caused by this disaster.

On the other hand, there was outrage after 9/11 when donated blood was diverted to other needs. Some donors apparently wanted all 475,000 units of donated blood to be used specifically to treat 9/11 victims (who required in total something like 200-300 units of blood, which was available in existing stocks).

One of the best things we could do would be to convince people that suffering is suffering and helping is fungible.

[fencepost]

> Hotes Foundation

Who?

And yes, I did look it up. It's a tiny private foundation about which almost nothing is known, and the quoted articles are basically trash talking based on a couple of news stories and saying basically "see how much better it is to give to us?" except (in theory) they don't accept donations they want people to go in person to disaster sites and help on site.

[yeukhon]

Good question. There is Salvation Army, which accordingly to the comparison to Red Cross, has done extremely better job, delivering its mission well. But why didn't orgs like FB or Google (I forgot which) advertized SA? SA is well-known too.

I think there is a social effect, but more likely because the people working at Red Cross has better reach to the big organizations and media outlet, despite the backlashes.

The same with World Health Organization (WHO). Top officials still buy luxury first-class ticket and hotel room. Why? Whatnis wrong with an econ seat?

[Rebelgecko]

The Salvation Army's religious beliefs (which they occasionally try to make law) are a dealbreaker for me and presumably others. Even though it's easy to laugh about things like not accepting donations of Harry Potter toys, it's concerning when they try to force their beliefs onto others (for example, threatening to pull out of areas that require employers to offer benefits to the partners of gay employees)

[will_hughes]

> But why didn't orgs like FB or Google (I forgot which) advertized SA? SA is well-known too.

I don't know the actual reason. But it could be because of the religious connection. While I've seen that the Salvation Army has done a lot of good, they also connect it with their belief system. This makes me uneasy.

Fundamentally I'd be happy to donate to a charity that I knew would:

- Responsibly manage the funds

- Ensure that those in need actually get the funds or directly funds activities for those in need (i.e shelter, food, etc)

- Not turn around and then spend significant fractons (or, in some cases, multiples) of the donated amount in trying to get more donations from me/other donors.

- Not connect the donations / activities with a religious belief system

Unfortunately those seem few and far between.

[synicalx]

It's funny really, outside of religion, people don't seem to be naturally inclined to be both charitable AND scrupulous. Personally, I'm ok with a charity associating their work with religion if the end result is positive.

You get a lot of "secular" charities that rake in a lot of money and yet don't produce much in the way of results (White Ribbon, for example), and you also see a lot of religious charities that have big budgets and also produce good results (Salvos are a good example of this).

Not to say this is the rule by any stretch, but it does seem to be a readily observable trend.

[Brotkrumen]

If you subsume Megachurches under religious charities, I can point you towards a few nice examples of abuse. Say pat Robertson funding an African diamond mine with donation money or pastors conning the poorest into sending their paycheck because "god will maybe repay them manifold in hard cash"

[Renaud]

Hmmm Doctors Without Borders ? Humanist and secular organisation that does pretty good?

[synicalx]

As I said, not a rule just a trend.

[WillReplyfFood]

Also notewhorty for there very small bureaucratic water-head- and even more notice-able for there doctors who do not apply following overly rigid rule systems.

One of them always gave away free soap bars, so that locals could sell them on the markets. Those guys are astonishing- my deepest respect to everyone who toured with them.

Also -if you look as NGOs, who get into troubles as a quality sign (if your NGO workers get into the thick of things, they are where people really need help), Doctors without borders are always where it hurts. (Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia).

[will_hughes]

> It's funny really, outside of religion, people don't seem to be naturally inclined to be both charitable AND scrupulous.

I think you can easily remove "outside of religion" and have this statement stand.

There are far too many examples of supposedly "charitable" religious organisations working almost entirely to benefit their own directors/employees.

[Pigo]

I know what even a whiff of religion means for some people. But I have to say that I can't think of any charitable organizations I trust more than the churches in my area. I know some people think it's all jet-flying televangelists, but there's a number of non-denominational and Vineyard churches here that have open books for the hundreds of thousands they donate every year.

The main focus of some of these churches is to organize volunteer operations, staff community outreach programs, and building things besides new sanctuaries. No one is getting rich at these places, so there is little publicity. But I wish more people were aware sometimes, if for no other reason than to know there are positive places to donate your time and money if it doesn't rub you the wrong way.

[ianamartin]

SA is tied to Catholics, and this is a big deal breaker for a lot of people.

[zimzam]

The Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian movement. (Not an affiliation: a full movement in that there are Salvation Army churches)

[fiddlerwoaroof]

That’s not true, the Salvation Army is, as I understand, its own Christian denomination.

[grzm]

Yup. It separated from Methodism. Even have their own tartan!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Tartan

[ianamartin]

I stand corrected by the comments here. Apologies for getting this wrong.

[FabHK]

Not sure whether that (Hotes Foundation) is a good source, but clearly the American Red Cross has a really bad reputation among cognoscenti.

Now, I think it's great that Apple encourages and enables donations after major disasters, but I wish they were a bit more selective in their choice of recipient.

[mcv]

Is the problem with the Red Cross in general, just the American Red Cross, this particular project of the Red Cross, or with charity projects in Haiti? Because I think I've heard of other NGOs who spent a lot of money to accomplish nothing in Haiti.

[clavalle]

I'd really like to see some more in-depth reporting on this.

I think it is very plausible that the Red Cross didn't bribe the right people or underestimated the depth of bribes it would take to get anything done. By the time they looked up, the money was gone and nothing was done and they dug their hole deeper by lying, probably expecting the local officials to back up their story. Instead, they threw them under the bus in order to attract more spending.