 |
 |
One other issue with Red Cross donations is where they go... on the Canadian Red Cross site, if a donor chooses "Use Where Needed Most" under donation options instead of "Alberta Wildfires", funding goes into the general fund and can be used for any part of the Red Cross mission (blood drives, administrative costs, salaries/wages, etc.). All text to support Red Cross funding drives go into the general fund, etc. When donations are reported for a disaster, only the amount specifically labelled to go to a disaster like the wildfires is reported to the media / on the Red Cross website as donations for this purpose and often the bulk of funds have been donated to "Where It Is Needed Most", which probably will not be spent on the disaster the donor was hoping to support. This loophole keeps transparency and accountability for donations low. U.S. example of donation choices here - the first two go into general funds and would not be reported when a large disaster is ongoing and the media / public is interested in how much the Red Cross has been able to raise for relief. Use my donation to support - Where It Is Needed Most Support all of the urgent humanitarian needs of the American Red Cross. Disaster Relief Help people affected by disasters big and small. Your Local Red Cross Provide for local Red Cross programs and services in your community. Texas Floods and Tornadoes Help those affected by Texas Floods & Tornadoes On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Laura Olson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > While I have no experience with the Canadian Red Cross, experience with > its U.S. counterpart provides precedent worthy of consideration. > > The American Red Cross takes in the bulk of all charitable dollars after > disasters, but uses spending practices which are purposely opaque. Having > taken in 32.7% of corporate and foundation dollars in the immediate > aftermath of Katrina and more than half of the donations from individuals > (between $2.1 - 2.7 billion according to different reports), they designed > programs at the national level with negligible levels of local input - > programs which quickly showed themselves to be ill-suited to the needs of > the population they intended to serve. Local Red Cross affiliate staff > vigorously protested national policies. > > Efforts to change this programming to make it more responsive to local > realities using evidence-based assessments met with resistance at the > national level, but did eventually produce reforms - a process that took 18 > - 24 months. Other NGOs were nimbler in their adaptations and showed > greater humility when facing the need to adapt. As time passed, continued > criticism resulted in a protectionist instinct and the organization turned > inwards to focus on 'brand' and legacy. Furious efforts to spend down > Katrina accounts and shut down programming generating controversy ended > this foray into recovery. > > Quite interesting is the fact that the Red Cross takes in more funding > than it can effectively give out, so in terms of recovery (not > response/relief) it becomes a donor to other NGOs - providing grants (many > to further Red Cross goals which the organization then also takes credit > for, and others to completely independent and original projects - many of > which have been groundbreaking in past disasters). Within the NGO > community, the additional Red Cross role of donor further exacerbates > tensions over donations and brings in issues of control over NGO > agenda-setting. > > > https://www.propublica.org/article/red-cross-ceo-has-been-misleading-about-donations > > > http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359365276/on-superstorm-sandy-anniversary-red-cross-under-scrutiny > > > http://www.npr.org/2014/12/04/368453320/red-cross-misstates-how-donors-dollars-are-spent > > > http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/katrina_report_2006.pdf > > Laura Olson > Georgetown University, Emergency and Disaster Management Program > > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Ben Wisner <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> A charity watchdog organisation in Canada has raised a question about >> support by government for the small, local efforts to provide assistance >> during this huge evacuation. The suggestion is that the Canadian Red Cross >> gets a large proportion of the assistance -- the Canadian government >> matching what the CRC raises Dollar for Dollar -- but only a small amount >> goes to local groups not affiliated with the Red Cross. Citing earlier >> experiences, the watchdog representation said,"In the 2013 Alberta floods >> the Red Cross received $43 million, local charities received less than two >> per cent of that yet they had to do the bulk of the work." >> >> This issue, about which I can't judge one way or the other but simply >> pass along, further complicates the assessment of the response and may >> further validate Ilan's provisional answer to the 'success or not >> question': mixed! >> >> See: >> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fort-mcmurray-fire-charity-donation-red-cross-1.3571749 >> . >> >> >> Dr. Ben Wisner >> Aon-Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, University College London, UK >> & Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania >> & Environmental Studies Program, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, USA >> >> "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." >> > >