Once 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.
The only time I think we changed the slugs at my college newspaper was when I did not realize my terrible memey titles in the cms would be on the public url. Got some angry emails over that.
You 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.
The 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.
Ah. 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.
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?).
I 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?
I 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.
> 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.”
NPR covered them a couple years back. Specifically, Gail McGovern, who alienated many of the long time employees. She focussed on what she knows best, marketing, rather than humanitarian aid and brought in more of her associates from prior companies.
I don't often read Slate, but the piece below rounds up a lot of the objections to Red Cross relief efforts. It sounds like not just a PR problem: more like a real life problem.
Meh, you spend lots of money on alcohol (or whatever your poison is) to feel good, if helping locally makes you feel good then that's an ok thing to blow money on.
Just don't forget the rest of the world. The American Red Cross has/had major issues. I would not say the International Red Cross does.
The 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.
The Red Cross has had this 'PR Problem' for ages. It came under a lot of criticism for its handling of funds after 9/11 and even then it wasn't a new story. It's a sort of disaster evergreen that doesn't seem to affect them very much, for some reason.
I heard the same about literally every other charity.
My take is: people will always remember that one negative article they read once, and assume everything is wrong. I would suggest asking them "so, which one is good?", and see whether they know what they are talking about.
(Disclaimer: I don't donate to the Red Cross now, but I've done it)
It's actually pretty good. Having worked with a number of nonprofits, around 10% going to fundraising is pretty normal. Things like fundraising galas are expensive.
That said, the bigger question isn't the amount they spend on fundraising but how much good they do with the money they raise. And the Red Cross has decidedly mixed reviews at that.
As you might expect there are a number of non-profits that act as watch dogs for other non-profits, almost like a Better Business Bureau (BBB) type of concept, and they grade them on these financial dealings. Historically, I think Florida has the worst, where you see many non-profits spending upwards of 90% of their income on salary and administrative costs, meaning at best 10 cents on the dollar gets spent on the cause.
Off the top of my head the formulas give the best rating if the total compensation of the board is less than 10% of income, the cost of fundraising is less than 35% of income and at least 65% of the income goes to the cause/projects.
Of course I am with you, if you have ever attended some of these non-profit fundraisers, its pretty disgusting, a ballroom full of people living the high life, taking beneficial tax deductions, and so full of self-congratulatory righteousness you'd have to ask them to save some room if you'd have any interest in patting them on the back.
I think the beef with Red Cross is that the money is not spent effectively. Take a look at the investigative links nearby for more. These dollar figures, although crisp and numerical, do not illustrate the real issue.
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).
The 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.
Admin costs + charity projects are actually separate bank accounts. You can see their financials on their site[1], but part of their angle is that you can actually see where the money is going. It's not just ethereal, it's where their money is actually going.
Half of what this post is about is The Red Cross not being trust-worthy because of their lack of transparency in where funds go + are allocated to projects.
It might be marketing - just as knowing your funds are secure in a bank - or your overall brand reputation is marketing - but it's not a gimmick.
But it's clear communication. People are missing that.
Small donors like to see their money go directly to projects + don't understand overall operating costs (on the whole).
Larger donors tend to see the overall operation and can fund that directly.
Most of the problems people have with the Red Cross are that 100% of the money doesn't go directly to the fund they donated to (which is fixed in this model).
This creates more goodwill and more trust, which brings in more donations. Net win for the charity. I don't see why more don't do this...
But that model still can't be entirely correct. If you raise enough at your high-rollers gala to cover the 3% costs of processing $100,000 in credit card payments, and you receive $150,000 in payments, you're going to need to spend an additional $1500 to cover that. There's no way around it. And you can't say "well, these donations were covered, but these other ones weren't." How do you select which ones are covered? It's all fungible, and it's all going in the same pot.
It's simply more honest to say that everybody is donating into the pot, and that there's overhead on everyone's payments. (And almost all overhead costs, even "fixed" costs, tend to rise with the amount donated.) That's the truth of it, and trust should be earned by telling the truth. Donors should by now understand that.
As for Red Cross's problems, it's much more to do with the fact that they constantly bungle their mission, clashing directly with local aid workers and not getting aid to the people in need. The fact that 26% goes to marketing, much higher than most other charities, is just the icing on the cake (and can't just be solved by shoving piles of money in different pots and claiming that the high-rollers pay for the marketing).
But it's still just creative accounting. If your administrative costs are $1M and your program costs are $9M, you could either
1. Ask Joe BigBucks to donate $1M, put that in one account, and ask the public to donate $9M and put it in another, and tell the public "all your funds are going to projects," or
2. Ask Joe BigBucks to donate $1M, put that in your account, ask the public to donate $9M and put it in the same account, and take $1M out of the account for administration and $9M for projects. Now you tell everyone that 10% of their donations go to administration.
The only difference is what you tell people. You still wine-and-dine your high rollers to get them to donate $1M. You're still doing the exact same amount of fund raising. Your still spending the money on the exact same things.
I don't care that they're "audited separately" -- your administrative and program spending would also get audited if they were in one pot, like every other charity.
It's just creative accounting to make donors feel better. The "private donors" (aren't we all?) realize this, so they're happy to label their donations "administrative" to continue this charade. They get that $1M in that pot means $1M more to spend on programs, otherwise they wouldn't fund it.
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).
Really? 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...
My 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.
"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.
They 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.
I 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.
This 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.
In 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].
Interesting. In a small town where Red Cross came in, I recall locals being told their food wasn't allowed to be served to the National Guard & other volunteers since it had not be properly inspected. I'm not sure who's fault this was but it did annoy a lot of people & they found ways around it.
Using 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.
I 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.
I 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.
67 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadFacebook 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.
(Looks like the submitted link URL confirms this)
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.
... 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.
"Facebook is steering users to donate to a small org no one has heard of" is a worse headline, I agree.
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.
Red Cross:
Mostly OK, but... there are some occasional issues.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/american-re... 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.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?).
Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/publication...
CDP: http://disasterphilanthropy.org/who-we-are/financials-annual...
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.”
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red...
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-15/corporate-takeover-re...
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/08/do...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/29...
Meh, you spend lots of money on alcohol (or whatever your poison is) to feel good, if helping locally makes you feel good then that's an ok thing to blow money on.
Just don't forget the rest of the world. The American Red Cross has/had major issues. I would not say the International Red Cross does.
Try - http://www.givewell.org/
They should stop worrying about PR and focus on doing what they claim to do.
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-m...
My take is: people will always remember that one negative article they read once, and assume everything is wrong. I would suggest asking them "so, which one is good?", and see whether they know what they are talking about.
(Disclaimer: I don't donate to the Red Cross now, but I've done it)
Or the Texas Diaper Bank: https://texasdiaperbank.networkforgood.com/projects/33717-ch...
501(c)(3)'s must disclose their finances to the IRS where they are publicly available. I didn't look at that rather an audit summary, some highlights:
2016 income: $197M
Total Assets: $529M
2016 CEO compensation: $379,139
Board size: 14
Estimated total Salary of Board: 10% of income ($19.7M)...this should definitely be verified in light of CEO compensation.
Program Expenses: Estimated 65% of funds spend on program activities.
CEO Compensation: $556,772
Total Income $2,660,138,000
Program expenses 2,435,461,000
Fundraising expenses $169,676,000
Administrative expenses $116,402,000
Total expenses: $2,721,539,000
Expenses in Excess of Income (-61,401,000)
Beginning Net Assets 1,593,810,000
Other Changes In Net Assets -546,736,000\
Ending Net Assets 985,673,000
Total Liabilities 2,250,133,000
Total Assets 3,235,806,000
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...
$1 in every $16 spent is on fundraising. That seems a lot.
That said, the bigger question isn't the amount they spend on fundraising but how much good they do with the money they raise. And the Red Cross has decidedly mixed reviews at that.
Off the top of my head the formulas give the best rating if the total compensation of the board is less than 10% of income, the cost of fundraising is less than 35% of income and at least 65% of the income goes to the cause/projects.
Of course I am with you, if you have ever attended some of these non-profit fundraisers, its pretty disgusting, a ballroom full of people living the high life, taking beneficial tax deductions, and so full of self-congratulatory righteousness you'd have to ask them to save some room if you'd have any interest in patting them on the back.
I think the beef with Red Cross is that the money is not spent effectively. Take a look at the investigative links nearby for more. These dollar figures, although crisp and numerical, do not illustrate the real issue.
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).
They actually do make sure all those donations that people give to different fundraisers go directly to the things they donated to.
They do specific fundraisers to handle admin/office costs, but those aren't conflated with the actual donations they solicit on a per-project basis.
The point is that they actually raise 105% of the funds rather than just 95% of them. I don't think that qualifies as a "gimmick."
Same net donation is made to the charity and same net fees are paid.
The only difference is that they can make the donors for individual charity projects feel like more of their money is going to the cause.
So it's a marketing gimmick.
Admin costs + charity projects are actually separate bank accounts. You can see their financials on their site[1], but part of their angle is that you can actually see where the money is going. It's not just ethereal, it's where their money is actually going.
Half of what this post is about is The Red Cross not being trust-worthy because of their lack of transparency in where funds go + are allocated to projects.
It might be marketing - just as knowing your funds are secure in a bank - or your overall brand reputation is marketing - but it's not a gimmick.
[1]https://www.charitywater.org/about/financials.php
The people who are paying 5% of their fundraising are still just donating the Charity Water.
Small donors like to see their money go directly to projects + don't understand overall operating costs (on the whole).
Larger donors tend to see the overall operation and can fund that directly.
Most of the problems people have with the Red Cross are that 100% of the money doesn't go directly to the fund they donated to (which is fixed in this model).
This creates more goodwill and more trust, which brings in more donations. Net win for the charity. I don't see why more don't do this...
It's simply more honest to say that everybody is donating into the pot, and that there's overhead on everyone's payments. (And almost all overhead costs, even "fixed" costs, tend to rise with the amount donated.) That's the truth of it, and trust should be earned by telling the truth. Donors should by now understand that.
As for Red Cross's problems, it's much more to do with the fact that they constantly bungle their mission, clashing directly with local aid workers and not getting aid to the people in need. The fact that 26% goes to marketing, much higher than most other charities, is just the icing on the cake (and can't just be solved by shoving piles of money in different pots and claiming that the high-rollers pay for the marketing).
https://www.charitywater.org/content/site/assets/files/2091/...
1. Ask Joe BigBucks to donate $1M, put that in one account, and ask the public to donate $9M and put it in another, and tell the public "all your funds are going to projects," or
2. Ask Joe BigBucks to donate $1M, put that in your account, ask the public to donate $9M and put it in the same account, and take $1M out of the account for administration and $9M for projects. Now you tell everyone that 10% of their donations go to administration.
The only difference is what you tell people. You still wine-and-dine your high rollers to get them to donate $1M. You're still doing the exact same amount of fund raising. Your still spending the money on the exact same things.
I don't care that they're "audited separately" -- your administrative and program spending would also get audited if they were in one pot, like every other charity.
It's just creative accounting to make donors feel better. The "private donors" (aren't we all?) realize this, so they're happy to label their donations "administrative" to continue this charade. They get that $1M in that pot means $1M more to spend on programs, otherwise they wouldn't fund it.
In this particular case, the fees are waived.
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).
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.
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.
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.
[0]: https://twitter.com/alexisgoldstein/status/90272634821669273...
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
Related to this topic: Houston requiring a permit to feed homeless: http://www.khou.com/news/local/houstons-homeless-feeding-ban...
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.
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.
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_abou...
EDIT - Oops just noticed iamapipebomb had linked to this too.
https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=hurricane+harvey&oq=h...