The Red Cross in Haiti

Thanks, bags. The Red Cross is seen as a welcome aid organisatiin that can cross frontiers, but this indicates they have lost their way in Haiti and failed to fulfil their promises. I wonder what the Disasters Emergency Committee has been doing whilst so little has been happening?

Thanks for that interesting (but concerning) article thatbags.

My husband has been talking about this ever since the earthquake happened in 2011. I think there was also a documentary some time ago that said nothing was being done in Haiti, or indeed many of the countries that have been the subject of DEC appeals.

Who monitors these charities and holds them to account to check that they are using the money wisely? People across the world are usually very generous in donating when disasters occur but if they feel that charities can't be trusted to use the money in the way it was intended they may stop giving.

Been reading some more about it - the Clintons headed up some of the relief work for a while. It seems to have been beset with red tape and mismanagement, with lots of money poured into sticking plaster efforts and lots more siphoned away into assets for the disaster organisations. Much disagreement between Haitian minsters and those holding the funds. Too many layers of aid, all taking their 7 or 10% as it trickles down for the Haitians, who need infrastructure of housing, plumbing, roads, schools and hospitals and have received very little because no-one can agree a way forward.

Makes one wonder what is the point of donating!

I also wonder, if the Red Cross, such a well established and experienced charity can't do it, who can?

An interesting link, thank you bags and like when I have been doing a bit more reading. My understanding is that Haiti is now in a parlous state, in that NGOs are pulling out and no one is willing to invest in the country. I find it astonishing that the Red Cross preferred foreign rather than local assistants, even though most of these could speak neither French nor Creole. It's all very depressing. Of course, people gave willingly at first, because immediate aid was needed as the survivors lacked even the basics of life and because many feel that giving money is all they can do to help but the task of rebuilding one of the world's poorest countries seems to have been spectacularly mismanaged.

I think I mentioned on here before that I contribute to a few charities, but I'm thinking of stopping the Red Cross because they keep sending me quite expensive paperware gifts that must cancel out my donations.
Unnecessary, and a waste of money. I keep meaning to write to them about it.
But that is pretty shocking about the Haiti situation.

It would be a shame to stop supporting the Red Cross because things have gone wrong in Haiti. I have several friends and family who have worked and are working know all over the world for the Red Cross- doing a fantastic and very difficult job, in difficult conditions. Young people with very high qualification, who have chosen not to go up the professional ladder- but to dedicate their lives to work for others.

So, if there is a problem there, I hope it will be investigated properly and dealt with and sorted out. But don't stop supporting them.

Tomorrow in our village, will be a big celebration of an amazing event about 150 years ago- when our tiny village welcomed 80000 FRench soldiers and more than 30000 horses- with terrible injuries, gangrene frost bites and all sorts of communicable diseases- without hesitation and making great sacrifices for them. Our house and the Church welcomed the worst cases-- a wonderful story of solidarity, after Henry Dunant's actions at Solferino.

One of the least publicised and most effective interventions in Haiti has been and continues to be the work of Cuba. It's aim is not just to go in and offer immediate aid but to train local people to provide long term help for the country. Of course it doesn't fit in with the USA's policy of condemnation for Cuba and its regime. Read about it herehttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cuban-medics-in-haiti-put-the-world-to-shame-2169415.html

Sorry missed space so it doesn't work www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cuban-medics-in-haiti-put-the-world-to-shame-2169415.html

Here's a report of the Red Cross response, which lacks some detail but gives some balance. The truth is in there somewhere......

uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/05/uk-aid-haiti-redcross-idUKKBN0OL17I20150605

I'm not sure the Red Cross response is that reassuring.
Quote: "One of its rental subsidy programmes was operated by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), the Geneva body of which the American Red Cross is a member and this added to overhead costs.

While the American Red Cross reports 91 cents on every dollar goes to humanitarian programmes and services, the IFRC told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that when it runs a programme it levies an extra 6.5 percent plus in-country expenses to cover offices, telecoms and other operating costs."

In other words, the Red Cross already takes 9%, hands over management to the iFRC who take a further 6.5%, plus expenses. Sounds like a good old fashioned gravy train, doesn't it.

This paragraph from the ProRepublica article seems to sum up the ethos of the Red Cross:

"Inside the Red Cross, the Haiti disaster was seen as “a spectacular fundraising opportunity,” recalled one former official who helped organize the effort. Michelle Obama, the NFL and a long list of celebrities appealed for donations to the group.
The Red Cross kept soliciting money well after it had enough for the emergency relief that is the group’s stock in trade. Doctors Without Borders, in contrast, stopped fundraising off the earthquake after it decided it had enough money. The donations to the Red Cross helped the group erase its more-than $100 million deficit. "

The reference to a spectacular fundraising opportunity reminds me of the good day to bury bad news fiasco and leaves a similar unpleasant taste.

I'll be donating to Medicins Sans Frontieres in future.

Precisely the reason I refuse to donate to Red Cross etc and I return the freebies they send.

MSF will never fund raise funds for more than what they need; DD works for them and says they are the only organisation whose ethos is so clear.

They also have a very small infrastructure too ensuring that funds go to where their needed rather than posh HQs etc. DD couldn't believe how small the office is.

Is this article about the US Red Cross or the International Red Cross? It does sound very American dominated and hide-bound by all sorts of bureaucracy. However, I also object to the Red Cross's tactics in sending me sets of cards, coasters and ballpoint pens and I too prefer to send my donations to MSF in the knowledge that they will be used for relief rather than useless admin.

Strange, as they don't send all this sort of stuff in the post here in Switzerland? So is it a local British thing- eg UK management of the Croix Rouge that made that decision (probably because it works...)!?

Just wanted to say though, that those people I know who worked for the Croix Rouge or who are working there now- are fantastic people who are doing a fantastic job

Médecins Sans Frontières is an amazing organisation- so well worth supporting, of course.

It's probably just the British Red Cross, granjura. I'm sure each national administration has its own methods of fundraising. And there is an enormous amount of comptetition for charitable donations, hence the pressure methods that are increasingly used. An old friend of mine, a nursing sister, had worked for the International Red Cross in disaster relief and had, in the process acquired a very dangerous form of malaria. She was the model of what one would expect a relief worker to be.

Anno I think you are right, the article does indeed refer to the American Red Cross, but the truth is that the international Red Cross is a labyrinthine organisation.
This is from the Wikipedia entry for the International Committee of the Red Cross:
"The ICRC is part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement along with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and 189 National Societies."

So when we donate, how do we know where our money's going?

It is described as a 'humanitarian institution.......[with]a mandate [granted by the Geneva Convention] to protect victims of international and internal armed conflicts. Such victims include war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants'

I am sure we would all want to support such ideals.
But what seems to me to have happened in Haiti is that they have gone beyond their mission of disaster relief and protection of victims, and strayed into the realms of public works which should have been managed by the Haitians themselves, with overseas financial assistance and suitable audit.

Really Janeainsworth "which should have been managed by the Haitians themselves". This is a country which has suffered from interference from Western powers for centuries resulting a level of poverty greater than most countries in the world. Is it your view that having caused all the damage they have these countries should now turn round to the Haitians and tell them to just get on with it? Great report about the history of this

www.poverties.org/poverty-in-haiti.html

trisher I can't open your link, but I am aware of Haiti's turbulent history.
I am not suggesting that they should just be told to 'get on with it', as you put it, but Haiti has been an independent nation for over 200 years.
The Red Cross has at best screwed up and at worst used donated funds to clear its deficit, so perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you think foreign aid should have been administered and how national autonomy should be balanced with oversight by, and accountability towards, the sources of overseas aid.

The more intermediary agencies there are between donations and intended recipients the less money there is. Each agency will take a cut for 'administration' and expenses etc
In one report about Haiti a reporter was quoted as saying that a minimum of 28% of the donated money disappeared into 3 agencies' coffers, and there were more than those three involved.

As for using the money to clear its £100m deficit, that stinks.

The frontline workers do amazing work but the bureaucracy behind them is highly suspect IMO.

The Cuban system of taking locals and training them in medicine and health care free of charge would be a start. Establlishing proper farming with crops for local consumption would also help. Aid isn't necessarily just about money it is also about stopping the outrageous actions which have impoverished the country in the first place.
There are so many awful things which have been done
"On top of flashy invasions, the American government’s economic stunts have had just as damaging effects on Haiti if not more. By driving people away from their land, forcing the agriculture to cater their need for luxury crops, imposing their products on the market and creating quite a few sweatshops to manufacture much-needed cheap goods, the American government has done some good to its own economy and wrecked that of Haiti. Along with the lives of its inhabitants.
and
Between the 1980s and the 2000s, Haiti went from being a rice exporter to a massive importer, all thanks to the US. They managed to replace the country’s robust pigs with US ones that require much more medicines and expensive treatments. As for its agriculture, it became export-oriented, causing a massive rural exodus that doubled the capital’s population in 25 years. In any given country, an unplanned migration of that scale will lead to the creation of massive slums everywhere.

- See more at: www.poverties.org/poverty-in-haiti.html#sthash.QaFla6Li.dpuf

This system of causing poverty and then sending in aid agencies to clear things up is ridiculous.

Spoke to the Head of the Swiss Red Cross today at our event- sadly in Haïti they had to work with local organisations that sadly still are linked with the old dictatorship of Papa Doc- and things did go wrong.

Very very proud and moved today, of that first big event in 1871 when our tiny village took in 80000 dying, injured an beaten soldiers and about 25000 horses- and cared for them- at the end of the last Napoleonic war. And very proud of my totally dedicated friends who work tirelessly for the IRCC all over the world, in awful conditions- when they could easily have got well paid jobs int he professions, banking or business. Well done them. It would be a shame to stop supporting them because their trust has been abused in Haiti.

That event sounds incredible granjura, an amazing act of compassion from your village, something to be very proud of.

And I totally agree that those selfless individuals working for the IRCC and other aid agencies should be supported and recognised despite the difficulties of getting aid to those in appalling situations.

That may well be the case granjura but a person who has a senior position in an organisation is more likely to say it's someone else's fault than admit any responsibility on the part of the organisation.

You don't have to look very far on the internet to find numerous negative reports about the Red Cross's performance in various areas.