8 ms·
Facebook is steering users to donate to the Center for Disaster Philanthropy
- SirensOfTitan 9y agoOnce again a highly editorialized title on HN that doesn't match the article. The title of the article reads: Facebook Ditched The Red Cross For Hurricane Harvey Relief ...the title on here implies some type of nefarious action on Facebook's behalf, but the article goes into way more detail and, just like the original title, has a lot more nuance. > The Red Cross has faced intense scrutiny and criticism for its work in previous disasters. During Hurricane Harvey, people have encouraged others on social media to donate to groups other than the Red Cross. From HN rules: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. Your editorializing does nothing for the discussion except propagate falsehoods for those who read headlines.
- hkmurakami 9y agoStory was submitted an hour ago, so I wonder if BuzzFeed itself changed the title. (Looks like the submitted link URL confirms this)
- SamBam 9y agoYou read it as "highly editorialized" and as implying "some type of nefarious action" but that was entirely your own reading. I'm guessing that this "nefarious" reading was your first impression, but recognize that it may not have been everyone's first impression. Those of us who have head about the poor job Red Cross has been doing in the past few years saw from the headline that Facebook isn't using Red Cross, and interpreted it as exactly as the article intended: The Red Cross has faced intense scrutiny and criticism for its work in previous disasters, and FB decided not to use them.
- SirensOfTitan 9y agoThe original title was: > Facebook is steering users to donate to a small org no one has heard of ... which has quite an implication. I don't feel worried about: '[t]hose of us who have head about the poor job Red Cross has been doing,' but uneducated folks who just scanned this particular headline. One thing to clarify is that the original title looks like it was Buzzfeed's, not the submitter. And it seems like Buzzfeed realized at some point the original title was too inflammatory. I could have done a much better job at checking this and redirecting my ire elsewhere for sure.
- SamBam 9y agoAh. When I saw your comment, the HN headline was "Facebook is steering users to donate to the Center for Disaster Philanthropy," which is also different from BuzzFeed's current headline, so I assumed that's what you were talking about. "Facebook is steering users to donate to a small org no one has heard of" is a worse headline, I agree.
- nickodell 9y agoIt's annoying that the article doesn't talk about how effective the Center for Disaster Philanthropy is. Sure, the Red Cross has mismanaged stuff, but this new charity could be even worse. All the article tells us is that Facebook thinks highly of them.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mjevans 9y agoLet's do some research: Red Cross: Mostly OK, but... there are some occasional issues. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/american-red-cross/360 https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/american-re... http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-find... Meanwhile the Center for Disaster Philanthropy ... is smaller. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10788 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... I actually can't quickly find any issues on them, though comparing the one common source they seem to have far better transparency, and lower internal overhead (I suspect more volunteers?).
- AndrewCHM 9y agoFor direct sources of the information Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/publications http://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/publication... CDP: http://disasterphilanthropy.org/who-we-are/financials-annual-reports/ http://disasterphilanthropy.org/who-we-are/financials-annual...
- ColonelBlimp 9y agoI might be wrong, but I haven't found any reference on the Center for Disaster Philanthropy website of their non-profit status (e.g. 501(c)(3) organization). So my question is: are they a charity?
- jerkstate 9y agoI mentioned to a few close friends today that I had made a donation to the Red Cross for hurricane relief and encouraged them to do the same, and pretty much everyone told me that it was a bad charity. I guess I wasn't paying attention to their scandals but the Red Cross has a pretty bad PR problem right now. Hopefully they deal with it because getting that kind of feedback about something that should have made me feel good made me feel pretty bad.
- thrillgore 9y agoThe best organizations to support I find are regional food banks or healthcare groups. I've given some fund to Direct Relief and the Houston Food Bank. Your local food bank may also be providing support, so check with them first. I'm generally reserved about going crazy about supporting aid efforts, since the nightmare regarding aid projects post-Haiti really did dampen my enthusiasm. Exhibit A: https://www.wnyc.org/story/272660-what-happened-to-the-aid-meant-to-rebuild-haiti/ https://www.wnyc.org/story/272660-what-happened-to-the-aid-m...
- roywiggins 9y agoPro Publica's story on the Red Cross' handling of Sandy, for reference: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-red-cross-secret-disaster https://www.propublica.org/article/the-red-cross-secret-disa... > The Red Cross botched key elements of its mission after Sandy and Isaac, leaving behind a trail of unmet needs and acrimony, according to an investigation by ProPublica and NPR. The charity’s shortcomings were detailed in confidential reports and internal emails, as well as accounts from current and former disaster relief specialists. > What’s more, Red Cross officials at national headquarters in Washington, D.C. compounded the charity’s inability to provide relief by “diverting assets for public relations purposes,” as one internal report puts it. Distribution of relief supplies, the report said, was “politically driven.”
- imron 9y agoSee also: http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red...
- joelrunyon 9y agoFacebook also takes 5%+ of the donations sent through it's platform. https://www.facebook.com/help/901370616673951 https://www.facebook.com/help/901370616673951 I know they have to cover "fees", but it seems like it's not really necessary for a multi-billion dollar company to do that, when there are lots of non-profits (Charity Water comes to mind) that actually put the ENTIRE amount towards charity and pay the processing fees through other fundraising methods (private donors, etc).
- captheorem 9y agoThe 5% is to cover 501c3 vetting, mostly. It's not a profit center. In this particular case, the fees are waived.
- joelrunyon 9y agoHow do you know in which cases the fees are waived?
- will_brown 9y ago>The 5% is to cover 501c3 vetting What is that? You mean verifying whether or not the entity is a 501(c)(3)? Because that takes about 1 minute to verify, and if vetting is what I think it is, making the cost a percentage of donations is exactly what you say its not, a profit center, directly taking money away from the 501(c)(3).
- evgen 9y agoReally? You managed to determine if the people running the FB page were actually entities in control of or authorized by that 501(c)3 to engage in fundraising activities using their name? You were able to ensure that the destination for funds was legit and the collection process didn't violate some obscure FB term of service? You are truly a wizard to be able to do that in about 1 minute, you should get Facebook to hire you...
- simonk 9y agoThe Charity Water is just a marketing gimmick the money they get from "private donors" would of just gone to the cause then. There are real fees from the credit card company to absorb and it seems like they are doing a lot of work in looking into what charities to work with and making sure its not a scam.
- nathancahill 9y agoMy friends run a small rapid response disaster team organization. They've been some of the first on the scene of a lot of the most recent disasters, including the 2011 Japan tsunami, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake (they are also in Texas now). They've brought back depressing stories about the amount of bureaucracy and thumb-twidiling that goes on during the first couple days of a disaster, where large organizations are struggling to coordinate efforts. In one case, an entire plane-load of bottled water from Red Cross could not be distributed because they didn't have the "approval" from higher up. Similar to startups, small orgs can be much more nimble than their incumbent counterparts.
- kryptogeist 9y agoDo you mind sharing the organization's name?
- nathancahill 9y agoGlobal DIRT
- pcurve 9y ago"group works to change how donors think about giving during disasters, focusing on long-term recovery" But many other charities do this too and they got panned for doing so, including Red Cross. When people donate for a specific cause, many do it with expectation that fund will go to that particular cause in expedient manner, rather than rainy day fun or worse, diverted for different cause altogether. Perhaps Red Cross should provide 2 options for donating: 1. Use my fund for immediate needs. 2. Use my fund as you see fit. And if all immediate needs are met, then simply disable option #1 and inform users, "Thank you, there is no longer need for immediate needs. We can still use a lot of help in recovery fund" or something.
- jarito 9y agoThey do. If you go to the Red Cross site, you can select what you want your donation used for. This includes Disaster Relief, Where It is Needed Most, Your Local Red Cross, Home Fires and Harvey.
- iamnotlarry 9y agoI have been involved in a few disaster recovery scenarios. Some of them have involved the Red Cross. The best efforts I have witnessed have been under the direction of locals. When the government or Red Cross or whoever showed up, they realized very quickly that they would create chaos if they tried to take over. I have seen Red Cross meals brought in and stacked against the walls while people brought home-cooked meals in and fed disaster victims. When the Red Cross tried to stop it, they were informed they were not in control of the facility. Anyone who wanted a Red Cross meal could have one. Anyone who wanted casserole or spaghetti or pulled pork could have that. In the end, thousands of dollars of Red Cross aid went to the dumpster. Disaster organizations in the western U.S. have come to understand that sometimes local citizens have their own organizations that work extremely well with local knowledge. It's better to work in support of them than to try to roll over the top of them.
- thex10 9y agoThis aligns with a thread I read on this last night [0]. I'd never really thought about the advantages local organizations would have over national ones, but it makes sense. [0]: https://twitter.com/alexisgoldstein/status/902726348216692736 https://twitter.com/alexisgoldstein/status/90272634821669273...
- spoiledtechie 9y agoThis reminds me of how our government currently works. Local is a LOT more important than federal.
- okreallywtf 9y agoIn some situations, when it comes time for people to try to get back into their homes and recover what they've lost the federal government is going to be integral. Many people who have lost everything do not have flood insurance (and in many cases never even considered needing it). In cases like this where people are losing everything due to unpredictable weather catastrophes that are likely exacerbated by climate change I think its a perfect opportunity for the federal government (being an aggregator of funds from the entire nation) to help those who need it the most. As the climate gets more extreme we're going to need more programs like the national flood insurance program (and better/improved ones) [1]. [1] https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program
- jmspring 9y agoUsing as FB as a "platform" to donate to a charity seems like a bad idea. Someone mentioned "Red Cross" directly, is that worse than going through FB? There are many charities and it will be hard to narrow down. Go with one friends recommend or do some research and recommend another. Look to local news/press around Houston for what is recommended. FB, probably the least helpful option.
- lsh123 9y agoI have experience in payments and donations are one of the big businesses for payments startups. Bad things happen in the world, records are broken in daily TPV/fees. I am a pilot and there are a couple efforts run by local pilots (found them on AOPA group on FB). I reached out directly to the people who run them and asked what they need. I did the same for Katrina (using message boards instead of FB). It is not always money.
- madshiva 9y agoif the U.S. know how to manage a debt, budget, there's no need for donation. Only poor donate, rich still be rich.
- ttsphotog 9y agoI think this is a healthy and needed swing towards holding charities accountable for what they actually do. Sure I do feel a little bad for the Red Cross but come on. We also need to take care on looking too much at a nonprofit's overhead spending. This is a great TED talk on that subject and will really make you think about the whole sector. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... EDIT - Oops just noticed iamapipebomb had linked to this too.
- tqi 9y agoGoogle's Hurricane Harvey donation button is also directing funds to CDP: https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=hurricane+harvey&oq=hurricane+harvey https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=hurricane+harvey&oq=h...