SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An internal investigation of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies response to the recent Ebola epidemic uncovered an estimated $6 million of fraud committed by its workers:
The Red Cross has uncovered several cases of fraud by officials during efforts to combat the Ebola outbreak that struck West Africa in 2014-2016, estimating losses of $6-million (5.2 million euros). In a statement, the Geneva-based International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) said it was "outraged", and said it would "ensure any staff involved are held to account."
[...] In Sierra Leone, it said it had found evidence of "likely collusion" between former IFRC employees and a bank, leading to a potential loss of $2.1-million. Overbilling and fake invoices by a provider of customs clearance services in Guinea cost the organisation $1.2 million, and two other investigations in the country are under way. The IFRC also said it had previously found that in Liberia, inflated prices for relief items and payroll costs had cost it $2.7 million.
Also at DW
And
Ebola aid money fraud: Red Cross statement.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @10:20AM (3 children)
... it attracts people that want to grab as most of it as possible.
It seems the problem is outsourcing the things that people expect them to do themselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday November 06 2017, @11:10AM
It seems that making a profit by any means takes precedence over doing the right thing.
"By any means" includes corruption. And no, it's not a thing that happens only in Africa, it happens in the mighty USofA, POTUS cabinet even [bbc.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Monday November 06 2017, @01:10PM (1 child)
"It seems the problem is outsourcing the things that people expect them to do themselves."
I think this is key. The Red Cross has become far too big. It no longer provides aid itself, it just collects money and passes is along to local aid organizations. After taking a cut, of course. In the end, the Red Cross is too big, too bureaucratic and too inefficient. If you don't know any local aid organizations, and want to help, donating to some big umbrella organization like the Red Cross is probably better than nothing. Maybe. [huffingtonpost.com]
Total aid pledged to Haiti after the disaster in 2010 was more than half of the GDP of the entire country. That level of aid should have seen the island completely renewed. Where did all that money go, really?
My take from this, and other such events: helping with catastrophes in far away places doesn't make much sense. Not only do we not know which organizations are actually useful - we also do not understand the local conditions. Send free food to Africa, thereby putting local farmers of out business? Send aid to Puerto Rico, only for it to be tossed in the dumpster? Send money for re-building, and have it spent on flimsy buildings in flood zones? In any case, have the bulk of the money scooped by multiple layers of administrative overhead, and much of the the rest pocketed by corrupt politicians? Is any of that useful?
Far better (imho) is locating and supporting a local aid organization. If I donate to a local food bank, I know where my money went, and I can see what they do with it.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @01:36PM
"Give local" is a good strategy, but there are global problems (e.g. an Ebola outbreak) that are better handled early or where the money may more effectively help people (e.g. anti-mosquito bed nets and clean water access in parts of Africa).
GiveWell is a trustworthy organization that assesses non-profit and their effectiveness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveWell [wikipedia.org]