The problem with the Red Cross, cont.

By Felix Salmon
November 14, 2012
Eduardo Porter, today, has a great column about philanthropy, explaining that although Americans place trust in charity to help those in need, that trust is largely misguided.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Eduardo Porter, today, has a great column about philanthropy, explaining that although Americans place trust in charity to help those in need, that trust is largely misguided. For one thing, he points out, “most philanthropists, generous as they may be, don’t usually see replacing government services as their job.” And more generally, human services charities receive less than 12% of all US charitable giving.

Which is why the Red Cross is exceptional: unlike any other charity, the government has given it the responsibility “to lead and coordinate efforts to provide mass care, housing, and human services after disasters that require federal assistance.” That, in turn, makes it accountable not only to its donors but to all taxpayers. And Ernie Scheyder’s article about the Red Cross today makes for very disturbing reading, on that front. Something, for instance, clearly went very wrong here:

As Sandy approached, the American Red Cross headquarters in Washington, D.C. arranged five staging areas in cities expected to be just outside the storm’s path, Lowe said. Supplies and staff were mo ved out of the New York region to avoid damage.

One of those cities was Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where Lowe said response vehicles and other supplies were stored. When contacted after the storm, though, local Red Cross officials in Harrisburg said they had prepared primarily to serve local victims. Only after they made sure Pennsylvania residents were all right – a process that took three days – were resources sent on to New York City.

The problem is only partially that there were mixed signals, and that the Pennsylvania officials thought the resources were for them rather than for New York. It’s also that no one at the Red Cross wants to even admit that there was a mistake. Instead, they seem to blame mythical traffic jams which were so bad as to hold up traffic for three days:

The Red Cross said traffic delayed by three days its efforts to serve Staten Island, the Rockaways, Coney Island and other hard-hit communities in and around New York City. That was despite all main bridges to those communities being open the day after Sandy.

The Red Cross is the charity which people give to reflexively whenever there’s a disaster — but look at where the Red Cross’s money actually goes: in 2010-11, for instance, it spent $271 million on domestic relief, $340 million on international relief, and a whopping $2.21 billion on blood and plasma services. It’s basically a blood bank with a disaster-relief agency attached, and a constrained one at that: the Red Cross says that its primary mission in a disaster is to supply food and run shelters, not to provide transportation, arrange cleanup operations or coordinate last-minute volunteers. And boy do they stick to that mission: when one woman asked the Red Cross for help moving a 90-year-old bed bound woman from the Rockaways, she was told that there was nothing they could do, that wasn’t a service they provided.

That reveals a level of bureaucracy and rule-following which is never appropriate in a disaster situation, where experienced operatives learn to respond to needs rather than to directives.

To be fair, the Red Cross is also constrained by its donors. After 9/11, it made the sensible decision that a lot of the money it had been donated would be best used in future emergencies, but the public outcry forced it to reverse course. As a result, the Red Cross has to deal with seriously backwards accounting: it basically has to pay for its disaster-relief operations with money received after the disaster occurs, and can’t use those donations for any other purpose.

Still, the way to deal with this problem is simple: don’t give money to the Red Cross. Give unrestricted donations instead to organizations like Doctors Without Borders or Team Rubicon, who know what they’re doing and who respond to need rather than to orders and conventions. The Red Cross does do good work. But there’s absolutely no reason why it should always get the lion’s share of post-disaster donations.

Comments
6 comments so far

I don’t know how much the Red Cross is like the Winter Olympics, but I do wonder whether someone with a Harvard MBA and a new surfeit of free time might find interest in putting together a case study and trying to improve the organization based on recent experience.

Posted by dWj | Report as abusive

Comparing the Red Cross to the quick response volunteers is like comparing an army of occupation to a rapid-response force. There is room for both. But still, you are mostly spot on. Staten Island has some of the highest land in the city. The Red Cross could have deployed in the interior and been ready to move down to the coast. In fact, they could have deployed on high ground in any borough and been prepared to do the same.

Posted by samadamsthedog | Report as abusive

Felix in so many of your posts you use numbers and metrics. Can we find any to use to judge the Red Cross?

My opening position would be that they are far more effective than the federal governments at disaster relief both on a dollar for dollar measurement and on a man hours development.

A larger issue is to step back and look at how well rather than how poorly we have done at preparing for and surviving catastrophic weather events. In 1850 Sandy could very well have killed 10,000 people.

It’s ok to strive for 100% restoration of power, water, heat, and transportation 7 days after a hurricane scores a direct hit on a massively populated area… but that’s not any more realistic than drilling +52,000 oil wells (2008 US total) without royally screwing a couple up.

Posted by y2kurtus | Report as abusive

You seem to have it ‘in’ for the Red Cross. Have you gone bonkers? Suggesting people do not donate will only make matters worse. Suggesting they divert that money to other charities will only focus attention on them, and those people who believe that not only should charity begin at home, but should stay there and exist solely as a tax reduction vehicle will then do to the other charities what they have already done to the Red Cross.

In Europe we do things differently and see charities as being necessary for relief in third world countries more than at home because looking after the security and safety of citizens is the job of the government, not volunteers. It’s a joke that the US doesn’t have a properly funded domestic relief system and needs to rely on the Red Cross – which you then lambast because you personally were slightly inconvenienced and couldn’t get power for a few days. Shame on you!

Posted by FifthDecade | Report as abusive

I’m not sure where you are getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic info I was looking for this info for my mission.

Wedding ceremony in which primarily through with body mass, It’s a particular warning flag about related intensity(Recommendations safe you might be with the weight and height). “That standard could be 15 when, Waterbury utters. Folks who wants do that a great many, Come up.

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/