7 ms·

Could it be that actually getting things done in horrible environments requires interacting with, and paying off, some shady people? This is of course a charita

Could it be that actually getting things done in horrible environments requires interacting with, and paying off, some shady people? This is of course a charitable guess, but could it be that the Red Cross has made a decision to make morally questionable choices in the short term in support of the greater good, and they know they can't publish such truths and continue to exist?

onion2k 11y ago
If the only way they can exist is by doing things so morally reprehensible that they have to keep everyone ignorant of their actions then they shouldn't exist.
- KJasper 11y ago
  That's great in theory, but should the people suffer more of Haiti because of these individuals? I'm guessing that none of these organisations could exist without compromising things for the greater good.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    This assumes that the Red Cross is the only organisation that could help in Haiti, and that their approach is the only one that could possibly work. Neither of those things are necessarily true. If they're bribing people then they should report that - not the details (although maybe they should), but they should at least be saying "We raised $500m, and spent $50m on bribes so we could get the job of helping people done. It sucks but that's what we're working with here." 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?
- scarmig 11y ago
  "Morally reprehensible," in this situation, could be something like "bribe a corrupt official." If it takes bribing a corrupt official to save lives, I don't think most donors would have a real issue with that. 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!"
  - noonespecial 11y ago
    If I were a "big bad charity" I'd much rather spend my millions hiring Blackwater to go bust a few corrupt heads than pay them off. If we're going down the conspiracy theory path, at least make it exciting!
    - scarmig 11y ago
      Actually, a charity devoted to rooting out corruption in developing countries would probably end up being one of the most efficient and effective for raising living standards. 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.
      - MichaelGG 11y ago
        I doubt it. Right now, in Guatemala, they have an ex president in prison. And the current tax admin under investigation. And the vice president resigning because she was stealing all over. And on and on. Same thing every 4 years. It's no secret, nothing happens or changes. 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.
KingMob 11y ago
Perhaps, but I have a friend who worked in water quality in Haiti after the earthquake, and it's possible to get things done even with corruption and graft present. 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/ http://www.charitynavigator.org/ for more.
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  No, don't go to Charity Navigator, go to Givewell (http://www.givewell.com http://www.givewell.com). The quality of their research is much better, and they focus on the question that really matters: what effect your donation will have on the margin.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    So now we need a Charity Navigator Navigator?
    - byjess 11y ago
      Charity Navigator Navigator is actually funded by Dow Chemical, FYI.
    - mlrtime 11y ago
      Great, as if I didn't need more excuses not to give money. I think I stick to the local community soup kitchen/churches even though I'm not religious.
      - jimrandomh 11y ago
        It's good to do things where you can witness and verify what's going on, but soup kitchens are many orders of magnitude less effective than distributing insecticide-treated bednets to combat malaria, or Givewell's other recommended charities.
madaxe_again 11y ago
Unlikely. Far, far more likely, according to a friend who is very senior in the British Red Cross, when I asked her about how they use their money, is one of two scenarios: 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.
- djthorpe 11y ago
  Hi, can you confirm that the British Red Cross is a different organization and more transparent? Ideally they should confirm this on their webpage, but they don't.
  - ics 11y ago
    The British Red Cross is a different organization which predates the American Red Cross by about a decade– both are roughly 150 years old.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
You may be a bit too charitable to the ARC. This is not the first time that these kinds of questions have been raised about ARC disaster relief projects and gone unanswered. >>$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?
- bretthagler 11y ago
  Where 100% of http://newstorycharity.org http://newstorycharity.org donations go: (1)http://newstorycharity.org/roseline http://newstorycharity.org/roseline *be sure to click on the home cost breakdown. The 33 families we've funded in 6 months: (2) http://newstorycharity.org/families-page#funded-families http://newstorycharity.org/families-page#funded-families Example of a video every donor gets: (3) http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose
skillachie 11y ago
They are just lining their pockets hence their reluctance to be fully transparent. 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
- sanderjd 11y ago
  And yet that doesn't speak to your parent's actual question, which is a good one: how does an organization balance transparency and the necessity to get things done despite potentially awful conditions on the ground? Certainly organizations doing longer-term work can afford to spend time finding ways to route around corruption, but that could be incredibly difficult in many emergency situations, and incredibly damaging for an organization's reputation when shady dealings come to light.
  - skillachie 11y ago
    >>shady dealings come to light. 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
- sjg007 11y ago
  Possibly, but you can be sure the IRS and FBI will investigate.
cpeterso 11y ago
If they need to bribe people, they could hide that in some "Administrative fees" budget item. They could still disclose how much they spend on projects and aid.

onion2k 11y ago

If the only way they can exist is by doing things so morally reprehensible that they have to keep everyone ignorant of their actions then they shouldn't exist.

KJasper 11y ago
That's great in theory, but should the people suffer more of Haiti because of these individuals? I'm guessing that none of these organisations could exist without compromising things for the greater good.
- onion2k 11y ago
  This assumes that the Red Cross is the only organisation that could help in Haiti, and that their approach is the only one that could possibly work. Neither of those things are necessarily true. If they're bribing people then they should report that - not the details (although maybe they should), but they should at least be saying "We raised $500m, and spent $50m on bribes so we could get the job of helping people done. It sucks but that's what we're working with here." 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?
scarmig 11y ago
"Morally reprehensible," in this situation, could be something like "bribe a corrupt official." If it takes bribing a corrupt official to save lives, I don't think most donors would have a real issue with that. 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!"
- noonespecial 11y ago
  If I were a "big bad charity" I'd much rather spend my millions hiring Blackwater to go bust a few corrupt heads than pay them off. If we're going down the conspiracy theory path, at least make it exciting!
  - scarmig 11y ago
    Actually, a charity devoted to rooting out corruption in developing countries would probably end up being one of the most efficient and effective for raising living standards. 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.
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
      I doubt it. Right now, in Guatemala, they have an ex president in prison. And the current tax admin under investigation. And the vice president resigning because she was stealing all over. And on and on. Same thing every 4 years. It's no secret, nothing happens or changes. 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.

KingMob 11y ago

Perhaps, but I have a friend who worked in water quality in Haiti after the earthquake, and it's possible to get things done even with corruption and graft present. 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/ http://www.charitynavigator.org/ for more.

jimrandomh 11y ago
No, don't go to Charity Navigator, go to Givewell (http://www.givewell.com http://www.givewell.com). The quality of their research is much better, and they focus on the question that really matters: what effect your donation will have on the margin.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  So now we need a Charity Navigator Navigator?
  - byjess 11y ago
    Charity Navigator Navigator is actually funded by Dow Chemical, FYI.
  - mlrtime 11y ago
    Great, as if I didn't need more excuses not to give money. I think I stick to the local community soup kitchen/churches even though I'm not religious.
    - jimrandomh 11y ago
      It's good to do things where you can witness and verify what's going on, but soup kitchens are many orders of magnitude less effective than distributing insecticide-treated bednets to combat malaria, or Givewell's other recommended charities.

madaxe_again 11y ago

Unlikely. Far, far more likely, according to a friend who is very senior in the British Red Cross, when I asked her about how they use their money, is one of two scenarios: 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.

djthorpe 11y ago
Hi, can you confirm that the British Red Cross is a different organization and more transparent? Ideally they should confirm this on their webpage, but they don't.
- ics 11y ago
  The British Red Cross is a different organization which predates the American Red Cross by about a decade– both are roughly 150 years old.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

You may be a bit too charitable to the ARC. This is not the first time that these kinds of questions have been raised about ARC disaster relief projects and gone unanswered. >>$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?

bretthagler 11y ago
Where 100% of http://newstorycharity.org http://newstorycharity.org donations go: (1)http://newstorycharity.org/roseline http://newstorycharity.org/roseline *be sure to click on the home cost breakdown. The 33 families we've funded in 6 months: (2) http://newstorycharity.org/families-page#funded-families http://newstorycharity.org/families-page#funded-families Example of a video every donor gets: (3) http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose http://newstorycharity.org/maria-rose

skillachie 11y ago

They are just lining their pockets hence their reluctance to be fully transparent. 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

sanderjd 11y ago
And yet that doesn't speak to your parent's actual question, which is a good one: how does an organization balance transparency and the necessity to get things done despite potentially awful conditions on the ground? Certainly organizations doing longer-term work can afford to spend time finding ways to route around corruption, but that could be incredibly difficult in many emergency situations, and incredibly damaging for an organization's reputation when shady dealings come to light.
- skillachie 11y ago
  >>shady dealings come to light. 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
sjg007 11y ago
Possibly, but you can be sure the IRS and FBI will investigate.

cpeterso 11y ago

If they need to bribe people, they could hide that in some "Administrative fees" budget item. They could still disclose how much they spend on projects and aid.