 |
 |
From: Ian Burton <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [RADIX] Possible wildfire DRR success or not?
Picture an isolated farm house surrounded by flood water as far as the eye can see from horizon to horizon ... On the roof ridge sits the farmer's wife with some chickens a cat and a dog. Then a row boat comes into sight and the oarsman slowly rows closer and closer till he stands up with a megaphone and shouts "RED CROSS" The lady stands up and holding onto the chimney shouts back, "My husband already gave at his office!" Ian. OBVIOUSLY an old story that could not happen today!
Sent from my iPhoneOne 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.
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.Laura OlsonGeorgetown University, Emergency and Disaster Management ProgramOn 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."
