<story><title>In Search of the Red Cross&apos; $500M in Haiti Relief</title><url>http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>avar</author><text>The biggest revelation to me in that article, which I feel should be highlighted more, is that the Red Cross provides almost zero information about how it spends its money.&lt;p&gt;It refuses to provide more than very vague information about how the money was spent in Haiti (information like &amp;quot;35% of $488 million on shelters&amp;quot;), with no specific details about what projects they spent the money on, how those projects went etc.&lt;p&gt;When the author challenged the general counsel of the Red Cross to provide more detailed information (&amp;quot;because clearly you must have it&amp;quot;) he just gave her some evasive boilerplate spiel about having provided the summary information he&amp;#x27;d provided already.&lt;p&gt;How can anyone donate to a charity that&amp;#x27;s so stunningly opaque about how it spends its money?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>danso</author><text>More context on this project:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;series&amp;#x2F;red-cross&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;series&amp;#x2F;red-cross&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;After the first investigative story into their Hurricane Sandy response efforts [1], the Red Cross argued that how it spent its money was a &amp;quot;trade secret&amp;quot; [2]. It later stepped back from that position [3]. Later that year (Oct. 2014), ProPublica&amp;#x2F;NPR published their first indepth story about Red Cross [4]; I haven&amp;#x27;t read the entire project but I think the OP is the second big feature. And full disclosure: I used to work at PP but not on this project.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;long-after-sandy-red-cross-post-storm-spending-still-a-black-box&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;long-after-sandy-red-cross...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;red-cross-how-we-spent-sandy-money-is-a-trade-secret&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;red-cross-how-we-spent-san...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[3] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;red-cross-reverses-stance-on-sandy-spending-trade-secrets&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;red-cross-reverses-stance-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[4] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;the-red-cross-secret-disaster&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.propublica.org&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;the-red-cross-secret-disas...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>In Search of the Red Cross&apos; $500M in Haiti Relief</title><url>http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>avar</author><text>The biggest revelation to me in that article, which I feel should be highlighted more, is that the Red Cross provides almost zero information about how it spends its money.&lt;p&gt;It refuses to provide more than very vague information about how the money was spent in Haiti (information like &amp;quot;35% of $488 million on shelters&amp;quot;), with no specific details about what projects they spent the money on, how those projects went etc.&lt;p&gt;When the author challenged the general counsel of the Red Cross to provide more detailed information (&amp;quot;because clearly you must have it&amp;quot;) he just gave her some evasive boilerplate spiel about having provided the summary information he&amp;#x27;d provided already.&lt;p&gt;How can anyone donate to a charity that&amp;#x27;s so stunningly opaque about how it spends its money?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sopooneo</author><text>Could it be that actually getting things done in horrible environments requires interacting with, and paying off, some shady people? This is of course a charitable guess, but could it be that the Red Cross has made a decision to make morally questionable choices in the short term in support of the greater good, and they know they can&amp;#x27;t publish such truths and continue to exist?</text></comment>