More likely, the Red Cross is one of many charitable organizations with low direct payout (combined with inexperience on the ground). This is a notorious problem, and was enabled by an earlier era of no-questions-asked donations. But in recent years, big investors have demanded much more accounting of the money, and some organizations aren't up to the increased scrutiny.
Check out http://www.charitynavigator.org/ for more.
Or, every one of us could do something different, instead of loading all our eggs in one Red-Cross basket? Sorry. I don't see a reason for this disagreement. Anyone that donates time and/or money to help other people, whether they are on the corner of the street they are standing on right now, or literally thousands of miles away, is a good person in my book.
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
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
1) They misreported how much they collected. Apparently they regularly say they've collected more than they have in order to encourage people to give yet more, and to appear to be "the big magnet charity".
2) They've lost it. This apparently happens with alarming frequency - money just kinda vanishes, and they find themselves deployed to some godforsaken corner of the planet with inadequate materials and funding, end up coming back, spend a month waiting back in blighty, go out there, still nothing ready, fly back... oh, we spent all the money on flights and meetings and figuring out how to spend the money.
However, admitting that publically would embarrass the official (if named), remove the efficacy of all future bribes (which are by nature secret), and could even open the organization up to legal action.
I don't, FWIW, think that's what's going on here, but it's a plausible enough line. Certainly better than "I already told you everything you need to know!"
Except in this case it seems they bribed so many corrupt officials that there was nothing left for actual aide...
I think it's far more plausible they just waste the money away on "Administrative" fees and project mismanagement at enormous scale.
This is a "charitable" organization which has run rampant and unchecked for a long, long time. Nobody has dared to question the organization before because of the stone wall of "charitable projects and relief" they've constructed.
The fact that they are a "not-for-profit" foundation that survives on donations (2.9 Billion USD in 2014) yet wont disclose financials really turns me off. I can't help but feel there is corruption within the organization leading to purposeful waste of income as well as possible embezzlement by high ranking executives.
Something about non-profits seem to make them sacrosanct. If you criticize them among friends, it's almost certain that someone will rip into you for being miserly and not caring about the poor $VICTIMS.
Cynically, I think the root of this tendency is the fact that many people don't care about the efficacy of a donation, as such, but only about how it indicates the giver is a morally superior being, over all those non-givers. Whether the organization blows the money on coke and hookers (or, more plausibly, ineffective staffing and programs) is besides the point.
Especially organizations with powerful brands, like the Red Cross.
Hire someone to offer the bribe. Target a well-known corrupt official, and gather lots of evidence to make it obvious that a bribe has happened. Publish the results, get a scalp.
On top of punishing the individual corrupt official, if every official knows that any bribe offered might be a trap, they'd be much more likely to turn it down. Certainly makes the cost of bribery for bribers a lot more expensive to account for the extra risk.
Hell, you don't even need to hire someone. Just have an open offer that if someone can prove they successfully bribed an official, you'll pay them three times the bribe amount.
Busting lower level folks probably won't fix anything. You'll just get mired in their terrible slowness and endless rules, pointless paperwork and so on. At least bribing folks, you can get stuff done.
Also, at what point does "compromising things for the greater good" become untenable? To go down the argumentum ad absurdum route, if we learned that the Red Cross were hiring contract killers to eliminate officials that were standing in the way of building homes for Haitians would that be something they shouldn't do, or that they should do but they should keep quiet about? At some point it is right to say "Let's not do that even if it means people will suffer." That's definitely before killing people, obviously, but is it before bribing people?
>>$170 million providing shelter
>>the number of permanent homes the charity has built is six.
I know their primary mission is not housing, but that is a large number for some tents and a vanishingly small number of houses. Where did the rest of the money go?