Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 182 posts

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#51

Post by camel_Snake »

finnh wrote: post #48
opportune wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could happen, it just couldn't come out of the blue. Someone would probably need to pay for a nation-wide awareness campaign (the irony) about the evils of corrupt charities such as The Red Cross or Susan G Komen.

What's up with Komen? I realize I could google it, forgive me, but it sounds like you're in a position to give me a quick precis =)

Komen is very litigious when it comes to other non-profits using the color pink in their breast cancer awareness campaigns. They also pay their leadership a ridiculous amount of money but I'm not sure how it compares to other execs of non-profits

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#52

Post by opportune »

finnh wrote: post #48
opportune wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could happen, it just couldn't come out of the blue. Someone would probably need to pay for a nation-wide awareness campaign (the irony) about the evils of corrupt charities such as The Red Cross or Susan G Komen.

What's up with Komen? I realize I could google it, forgive me, but it sounds like you're in a position to give me a quick precis =)

They actually only spend about 20% of their revenues on breast cancer research. They spend a lot of their money, about 40% of revenue, on "awareness companies" which have dubious real-world effectiveness, and can be considered a clever way for them to market themselves and fundraise without actually having to report it as such (they spend 10% on fundraising to begin with).

They're also very litigious. Of course they need to protect their brand, but in a lot of cases they are pretty objectively the bad guys. They have taken legal action against other orgs/charities using "for the cure" in their names, they've taken action against orgs/charities using "cure" and pink together.

In general I think they are more focused on self-perpetuation than curing cancer. There's a lot of reading material on how some of their corporate partnerships have been deceptive in the sense that Susan G Komen received very little directly financially, and took the opportunity as a chance to market themselves instead.

Their CEO and upper management do make a lot of money, but I don't think it's out of line for an organization their size. It's still a matter of controversy though.

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#53

Post by IncRnd »

maxerickson wrote: post #30
provost wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really incredible. What's more fascinating is their 100% promise [1]: > We send 100% of all donations directly to hire local workers and buy local materials so you know exactly where your donation is going. Considering their Careers page lists they are hiring a software engineer, I dug a little further and found this info in their FAQ: > How Does New Story Fund Operational Costs With A 100% Promise? > We are c…

That's just bucket A and bucket B right? Like, the money going towards operations is still donated. The page about the operations money even puts it in terms of having 2 bank accounts: https://newstorycharity.org/the-builders/ So fine, they are able to advertise that they are spending 100% of certain funds on programs. But it is just a marketing gimmick, they still have some overall efficiency, just like any other ch…

It's similar to the difference between opex and capex. You can call it a marketing gimmick, but 100% of the money put into capex is capex, at least according to the page you linked.

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#54

Post by ardit33 »

simonw wrote: post #12

Worth re-iterating: The American Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross are independent organizations, with very different reputations.

So, for us that are not into the non-profit world, who is the more reputable and actually helps people?

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#55

Post by kobeya »

dogruck wrote: post #15
coupdejarnac wrote: post #7

It's kind of surprising people still donate to Red Cross, given their extremely poor track record. I suppose they have brand name recognition. South Park had a great jab at them, with all the 9/11 donations being stored away in an Indiana Jones lost ark style warehouse.

I'd say it's sad, but not surprising. People are sheep.

Downvotes because the truth hurts, I guess.

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#56

Post by thechao »

orf wrote: post #28
austinheap wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charities around the world are run unethically. It's far from an American-exclusive thing.

Sure, but the extent of it seems to be American exclusive. Are there not a bunch of cancer charities that simply do nothing but enrich the owners?

Perhaps Americans are more diligent in tracking down bad actors?

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#57

Post by oconnor663 »

tehwebguy wrote: post #32
maxerickson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just bucket A and bucket B right? Like, the money going towards operations is still donated. The page about the operations money even puts it in terms of having 2 bank accounts: https://newstorycharity.org/the-builders/ So fine, they are able to advertise that they are spending 100% of certain funds on programs. But it is just a marketing gimmick, they still have some overall efficiency, just like any other ch…

It means everyone donating knows what their money is going to. If you want 100% of if to go to houses, it will.

That doesn't mean as much as it sounds like it does, though. Suppose an organization has $100 of "houses only" money, and another $100 of "general fund" money, $20 of which is also spent on houses. Now say I donate $5 of my own money to "houses only". There is absolutely nothing stopping the org from (and arguably nothing wrong with) reducing the "general fund" spending on houses by $5, so that the ultimate amount that goes to houses is unchanged.

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#58

Post by wavefunction »

danielvf wrote: post #44

I built an internal system reporting on billions of dollars of project spending for a large NGO family. People inside the family of organizations could see financial budgets, actual financials, and progress information for any of thousands of projects. Every project had a person responsible for it, written out goals and risks, at least quarterly progress updates, and funding organizations checking up on the projects…

Thanks for your work on their behalf and your optimistic message.

Even a bit of progress or positive change is priceless.

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#59

Post by jopsen »

MistahKoala wrote: post #33
mistb0rn- wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctors without a frontier? It's sad though, I think many europeans would like to donate money for people in need, but when you find out things like this ... Americans really managed to ruin this as well.

Mystified as to why you seem to think this is in some way an American problem. We have lots of fake charities in the EU.

In the EU charities aren't as big... Or as well branded. At least not the sketchy ones.

Most big charities I know in the EU have good records... Particularly the state-sponsored ones.

- to be fair I could be uninformed :)

Re: In Search Of The Red Cross' $500M In Haiti Relief (2015)

#60

Post by QAPereo »

ardit33 wrote: post #54
simonw wrote: post #12

Worth re-iterating: The American Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross are independent organizations, with very different reputations.

So, for us that are not into the non-profit world, who is the more reputable and actually helps people?

International is fantastic, American is a travesty.
Post reply on HN