來源 |PHILANTHROPY DAILY
在全國抗疫工作的緊要關頭，湖北紅十字會的一系列行為操作引起社會的強烈質疑。這裡我們找到一篇2018年的文章，點評了美國紅十字會應對德克薩斯颶風和一些其他救援行動的實際效果和社會評價。在公眾對透明度的要求和參與公益積極性大步提升的今天，到底紅十字會的價值在哪裡？如何改進？希望本文可以提供一些借鑑和思考。
本文作者Martin Morse Wooster是一位美國知名的報刊編輯和新聞評論員，經常就慈善大事件發表評論文章。
在過去的一年裡(2017年)，波多黎各、佛羅里達和德克薩斯都遭遇了颶風，這使美國紅十字會的活動再次受到人們關注。和過去一樣，有些關於紅十字會的問題是很難回答的。
這個組織的工作做得好嗎？
紅十字會怎樣才能做得更好？
捐贈者是否應該相信他們的捐贈能夠被有效利用？
近來，紅十字會受到了一連串的批評，引發了關於“左翼”和“右翼”的爭議。雖然我不知道“左翼”和“右翼”對於紅十字會的立場到底有什麼區別，但是毫無疑問，每個向該組織捐款的人，不管他們的政治立場如何，都希望他們的捐款能得到有效利用，希望他們的錢能幫助災民，而不是為紅十字會總部的官員或昂貴的公關活動支付高薪。
此外，美國紅十字會不是一個完全私人的組織。它是半官方的。我認為對於這個團體，比較好的表達是“美國國會特許的機構”。但由於它是準政府機構，也是唯一一家在國家災害規劃中佔有一席之地的非營利組織，它應該受到與其他任何政府機構一樣的嚴格審查。
自2014年以來，ProPublica報道了許多關於紅十字會的故事。其中最長的一篇是賈斯汀·埃利奧特(Justin Elliott)和美國國家公共電臺(NPR)記者勞拉·沙利文(Laura Sullivan)在2015年寫的文章，內容是紅十字會在2010年地震後重建海地的行動。
他們發現，紅十字會為地震籌集了數億美元，並用這筆錢建造了6所避難房屋。
美國紅十字會空降海地後遇到了很多問題。他們沒有足夠的能說流利的法語或克里奧爾語(Creole)的工作者；同時海地有著古老的土地登記制度，這使得人們很難知道某一特定的不動產屬於誰。
但是紅十字會卻聲稱它幫助了450萬人——在一個有著1000萬人口的國家。當時的海地總理讓-馬克斯•貝爾維爾(Jean-Max Belleville)表示，紅十字會“不可能”幫助了那麼多海地人。
事實上，許多紅十字會的項目適得其反。
在坎佩切鎮建設住房的努力最終不但沒有建成住房，還引起了許多海地人對外籍人員高工資的抱怨。另一個與美國國際開發署(U.S. Agency for International Development)合作的價值3,000萬美元的住房建設項目也失敗了，部分原因是這些組織無法購買土地。
最後，紅十字會聲明，它收取9%的捐贈款用於日常開支，91%的捐款用於海地救災。但大部分資金都流向了其他非營利組織，比如國際紅十字會聯合會(International Federation of the Red Cross)。埃利奧特和沙利文計算得出，實際上只有60%的捐贈資金用到了海地項目。
最近，埃利奧特、傑西卡·胡斯曼(Jessica Huseman)和德卡·穆爾唐尼(Decca Muldowney)表示，在德克薩斯州的一些郡，應急管理官員抱怨紅十字會對颶風哈維反應遲緩。在德威特郡，應急管理協調員辛迪·史密斯給紅十字會的一位官員發了一封電子郵件，說“紅十字會並沒有像他們認為的那樣和災民在一起”。
其他小郡縣的官員表示，紅十字會反應遲緩。由於技術故障，本應指導人們到最近的避難所的承包商沒能做好工作。由於各種各樣的問題，紅十字會原本計劃通過一個網站向每個受災者提供400美元，但是這一項目被推遲了很久，而同期的其他機構接受捐款的網站卻能完美運行。
休斯頓市議員戴夫·馬丁(Dave Martin)告訴記者，颶風過後幾天，他在停車場遇到了美國紅十字會的首席執行官蓋爾·麥戈文(Gail McGovern)，並表示他收到了很多關於紅十字會的投訴。他說，麥戈文告訴他，“你知道我們為卡特琳娜颶風籌集了多少資金嗎(發生在2005年，美國死亡人數最多的颶風)?20億美元。我們在這裡連個零頭都籌不到。”
馬丁回答說:“真的嗎，蓋爾?這就是你對我的回應?”
紅十字會發布了一份冗長的回應，稱在休斯頓地區有2100名紅十字會工作人員，已經分發了370萬份食物。並表示，它“已授權”通過這400美元的補貼來分配1.48億美元，但沒有說這筆資金已經分配。他們還說是由於避難所的開放和關閉不穩定，導致其承包商很難引導人們前往最近的避難所。
最後，紅十字會表示理解馬丁議員的失望，但他們沒有反駁麥戈文所說的話。
在《旗幟週刊》Weekly Standard)中，格蘭特·維什德(Grant Wishard)為紅十字會辯護。他指出，紅十字會是唯一被授權“對各地的災害作好準備和作出反應”的組織，它往往是更小、更靈活的組織提供援助的框架。他援引印第安納大學慈善學教授萊斯利·倫考斯基(Leslie Lenkowsky)的話說:“紅十字會應該建立一個框架，而其他救援組織要在這個框架內展開工作。”倫考夫斯基補充說，“如果我們沒有起這樣作用的組織，我們就必須建立一個。”
當然，美國紅十字會將永遠是處理災難的最大和最重要的慈善機構。但它不應該是唯一的。2015年，ProPublica發表了一篇關於如何向災害救援組織提供幫助的文章，文中給出了明智的建議:做好調查。捐給當地。
顯然，紅十字會可以做得更好。改善這一狀況的一個方法是，在救災捐款領域展開更多的競爭。
相關文章
- 世衛組織發佈：未來十年全球的健康挑戰
- 美國首例新冠病毒確診病例康復全記錄
- 關於流行病我們可以從研究吸血蝙蝠學到什麼(雙語)
（點擊文末“閱讀原文”查看英文原文）
日期：2018.1.4
來源：PHILANTHROPY DAILY
題目：Can donors trust the American Red Cross？
The past year, with major hurricanes in Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, has once again cast light on the activities of the American Red Cross. As in the past, there are questions one needs to know about the Red Cross that are hard to answer. Is the organization doing a good job? How could the Red Cross do a better job? Should donors feel confident that their gifts are being used effectively?
This year, the Red Cross has been subject to a barrage of criticism. But that criticism ultimately springs from one source: a series of articles that ProPublica has been writing on the Red Cross’s effectiveness, sometimes in collaboration with National Public Radio. I wrote about these articles at Philanthropy Daily three years ago. ButProPublica has continued their work and it is long past time for an update.
For what it’s worth, I should note that ProPublica is a left-wing outfit. In fact, Justin Elliott, who is the lead reporter on Red Cross stories does other things: his most recent piece, about getting the logs for people who met with Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney, manages to mention two groups the left can’t stand—Opus Dei and the Koch brothers—in the same headline.
But I don’t know what the difference is between the “left-wing” or the “right-wing” position on the Red Cross. Surely everyone who gives to that organization, regardless of their politics, wants their donations to be used effectively and that their money to help victims, not pay high salaries for bureaucrats in Red Cross headquarters or expensive public relations campaigns.
In addition, the American Red Cross is not a completely private organization. It is quasi-governmental. I think the term of art is that the group is “a congressionally chartered instrumentality of the United States.” I’m willing to accept that the nonprofit is 85-90 percent private. But because it is quasi-governmental, and the only nonprofit that has a place at the table in national disaster planning, it deserves as much scrutiny as any other government agency.
ProPublica has dome many stories on the Red Cross since 2014. Their longest one, by Justin Elliott and NPR reporter Laura Sullivan, was a 2015 piece about the Red Cross’s efforts rebuilding Haiti after a 2010 earthquake.
They found that the Red Cross had collected hundreds of millions for earthquake—and used the money to build six homes.
Parachuting into Haiti, the American Red Cross had many problems. They didn’t have enough workers fluent in French or Creole. Haiti has an archaic system of land registration that makes it hard to know who owns a particular piece of property.
But the Red Cross claimed that it helped 4.5 million people—in a nation that has a population of ten million. Jean-Max Belleville, prime minister at the time of the earthquake, said that it was “not possible” that the Red Cross had helped so many Haitians.
Many Red Cross projects backfired.
One home-building effort in the town of Campeche resulted in no homes built and many complaints from Haitians about the high salaries paid expatriates. Another $30 million home-building project, in collaboration with the U.S. Agency for International Development, failed, in part because the groups couldn’t buy land.
Finally, the Red Cross said it would take nine percent for overhead and spend 91 percent of every donor dollar on Haiti. But much of the money went to other nonprofits, such as the International Federation of the Red Cross, and these nonprofits took their own overhead bite. Elliott and Sullivan calculate that only 60 percent of donor dollars actually went to Haitian projects.
Most recently, Elliott, Jessica Huseman, and Decca Muldowney say that emergency management officials in some Texas counties have complained about the Red Cross’s sluggish response to Hurricane Harvey. In DeWitt County, Emergency Management Coordinator Cyndi Smith emailed a Red Cross official on September 9, saying “Red Cross was not there as they were suppose(d) to be with the shelter.”
Officials in other small counties said that the Red Cross’s response was late and sluggish. A contractor who was supposed to direct people to the nearest available shelter didn’t do a good job because of technical glitches. Finally, a Red Cross program where they were supposed to give $400 to every disaster victim via a website was delayed for some time because of various problems, while another website to acceptdonations functioned flawlessly.
Houston City Councilman Dave Martin told ProPublica that he ran into American Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern in a parking lot several days after the hurricane and said he had gotten many complaints about the Red Cross’s performance. He said that McGovern told him, “Do you know how much we raised with Katrina? $2 billion. We won’t even raise hundreds of millions here.”
Martin responded, “Really, Gail? That’s your response to me?”
The Red Cross issued a lengthy response that said it had 2,100 Red Cross employees on the ground in the Houston area, and had distributed 3.7 million meals. It said that it “had authorized” distribution of $148 million via the $400 payments, but did not say that the funds had been distributed. It said the fluctuating opening and closing of shelters made it hard for its contractor to steer people to the nearest shelter.
Finally, the Red Cross said it understood Councilman Martin’s frustration, but they did not dispute what Gail McGovern said.
In the Weekly Standard, Grant Wishard offers a defense of the Red Cross. He notes that the organization is the only one mandated to “prepare for and respond to disasters everywhere” and that it is frequently the framework by which smaller, nimbler organizations can give relief. He quotes Indiana University philanthropy professor Leslie Lenkowsky, who headed the Corporation for National and Community Service during the George W. Bush Administration, as saying “the Red Cross will create the framework which those other groups of first responders are working in.” Lenkowsky adds that “if we didn’t have an organization like the Red Cross we’d have to invent it.”
Of course, the American Red Cross will always be the largest and most important charity dealing with disasters. But it shouldn’t be the only one. A staff-written pieceProPublica produced in 2015 about how to give to groups that help in disasters offers sensible suggestions: do your research. Give locally. If you are so inclined, give cash to groups like GiveDirectly.
The Red Cross can do better. One way it can improve is if there was more of a competition for donor dollars for disaster relief.
閱讀更多 中國發展簡報 的文章
