A Slow Decline: Evolving Media and Norms’ Impacts on the Red Cross
Abstract: The Red Cross is at the forefront of many major disasters, and this paper briefly examines its work during 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the 2010 Haitian earthquake, and Hurricane Harvey, using 9/11 as a baseline case study. Moreso, however, it examines the public reception of this work and how it changed, or didn’t change, over time. Through its lack of transparency, the American Red Cross has sustained itself on its reputation and the echoing of that reputation by influential people without providing the valuable resources or aid it promised on a large scale. The availability of individual experiences with the failures of the Red Cross is the first real threat it has faced in over fifteen years. This paper traces the origins of that threat and how it will ultimately lead to the downfall of the entity known as the American Red Cross by evading traditional information sources and focusing, rather, on the personal accounts that are surfacing more frequently due to modern technological and social norms.
Introduction and Baseline
Many Americans hold the belief that the Red Cross is the driving force behind the most effective and well funded relief efforts in the modern day. Specifically in the years between the September 11th attacks and Hurricane Maria, 2001 to 2017, the American Red Cross raised exorbitant amounts of money from the general public in the name of disaster aid. In more recent years, however, this widespread opinion has slowly been on the decline. This opinion has not been primarily changed by the scathing internal reviews or federal investigations, but by the personal accounts of scorned volunteers and victims that were mistreated after disasters. This raises questions about the influence of purchased celebrity opinions on the general public, the validity of the Red Cross’ large scale work, and the nature of relief work itself. Most importantly, though, this reflects the modern social norms surrounding media, knowledge, and accessibility.
People are no longer receiving their information from official government statements or even “traditional” media sources. Instead, many get their news from social media which includes primarily personal experiences or individual research. The last few decades have brought massive changes in technology and the ability to connect with people and ideas across the world, and it is often embarrassing for people even as young as high school students to be unaware of political or international events and decisions. Whether social media and the Internet have simply given the general public the ability to conduct independent research or have created a culture in which it is desirable to do so, the result is that everyone is capable of having an educated opinion and more directly sharing those opinions with those with power or other citizens and voters. These first-hand or independently presented accounts are broadening opinions on social matters. With these broadened views comes an almost forced acceptance of other opinions that are based in fact, even if they are not views one might hold personally. It also forces people to confront ideas they thought were given truths, such as the goodwill and good work of the Red Cross. The way media has been evolving has made it more important for major organizations and businesses to be accountable in order to keep the favor of the public, and the Red Cross’ failure to do so did eventually impact the public opinion of its work.
9/11 was one of, if not literally, the first “disaster” to be completely televised and accompanied by a constant stream of information from multiple sources to the general public, though these sources were mostly sifted through traditional media outlets. 9/11 was also the first major scandal, involving over $1 billion, the Red Cross had in this time period with this technology, but its work was barely impacted by it. The money was not being distributed as the public was arguably intentionally misled to believe it would be, and there were social ramifications against the Red Cross to explain and change this. The Red Cross did respond to these and promise to be clearer in the future, but there were very limited lasting effects. According to a Huffington Post article published in the wake of fundraising for Hurricane Katrina reminding people of the 9/11 Red Cross scandal, Richard Walden writes,
[A Senator] gave orders to Red Cross staff to rid the agency of the 9/11 funds
by any means necessary — which meant $30 million to NY limousine drivers
who had lost Wall Street/World Trade Center income; paying utility bills (no
matter what their owners’ rent and income level was) of many people in SoHo
and Tribeca; and, sent many millions off to powerful Red Cross chapters whose
own fund-raising had suffered when all funds raised were sent to the Red Cross
National Disaster Account. As the Red Cross does not fund non-Red Cross
agencies when it has spare change, few New York institutions benefited from
its 9/11 funds.
Obviously, this subpar “relief” was not what people were expecting their money to go towards when they donated. As the same article goes on to state, “[the Red Cross] do not rescue or medicate people; they do shelter them, feed them and help them relocate via motel/hotel vouchers...all of which is reimbursed via pre-existing contracts as long as there is a state or federal disaster declaration.” People unthinkingly donate to the Red Cross and pride themselves in helping to make a difference in victims’ lives, when this money is clearly being used irresponsibly. Unfortunately, this behavior from the Red Cross did not change after their major mistakes after 9/11, and neither did the behavior of donors.
Hurricane Katrina
The next major Red Cross relief effort was after Hurricane Katrina. This effort was not particularly organized, successful, or well received. There were problems with the experience of volunteers, shortages of water and nutritional food, the dispersion of money, and security within emergency shelters. Lives were lost in situations where people had thought they were in secure spaces and would be provided the necessities; after losing their homes and many parts of their lives this organization was supposed to provide safety. It was unfortunately ill equipped to meet these needs, and the massive amounts of money and resources, as well as physical help, should have gone further than they did. The way the survivors of Hurricane Katrina were treated by the American Red Cross, which was supposed to be the best at helping them, is unjust and inexcusable.
The failures of Katrina should have tarnished the Red Cross’ reputation, but it didn’t. Public response and internal reviews led to an official apology, promises to reevaluate their procedures, and a slight change in leadership, but many were not impressed with this response. It was not as honest as most people were hoping for, and did not answer the questions plaguing donors or survivors of both Katrina and the Red Cross’ efforts. The disaster of their relief attempts after the disaster of the storm was largely ignored, even while its own internal reports slammed the organization for its failed response in both volunteer and tangible aid regulation. These reports called it an inefficient, and at some points actively harmful, ordeal. Mike Goodhand, the head of the international logistics division of the British Red Cross, criticized the responsibilities volunteers were forced to take on by saying, “...for as long as American Red Cross believe they can manage major domestic disaster response programs with well-intentioned but volunteer amateurs, their programs will remain amateurish and their service to those affected sub-optimal." One volunteer was singled out for being placed in charge of a fleet of over one hundred vehicles without the ability to match keys to rental paperwork, match either of those things to cars, or keep track of the vehicles themselves. Katrina victims living in Red Cross shelters reported seeing dozens of postings for lost cars around the hallways and doors. Thomas Riess, the International Committee of the Red Cross’ logistics expert and reviewer of the American Red Cross’ effort, thinks that blunders like this are not only inefficient, but can easily lead to criminal activity. The New York Times reports that he, “warned that a lack of accountability, imposed by a weak system of tracking inventory, threatened to damage relations with victims and donors and pique the interest of the media.” Riess was right in that the media was attracted; only five days after the disaster NBC News released an article titled “Despite huge Katrina relief, Red Cross criticized” which critiques their unclear use of the over $1 billion raised and details a history of similar instances, including the massive critique after the September 11th attacks.
It is clear that the Red Cross’ unclear efforts inspired suspicion, media attention, and even federal investigation. Regardless, the reality of the situation did not seem to pierce the general consciousness of American society. After each global or domestic natural disaster, there was a new fever around donating to the Red Cross, texting this number to help the cause, or buying the soundtrack to the benefit concert the Red Cross had sponsored. If there were enough details of dangerous or risky behavior by the Red Cross to warrant an official investigation at this point in time, why did the American public continue to support it so blindly? The answer is at this point transparency, or lack thereof. Transparency is essential to any organization claiming to function for the good of the public, or that run on public donations, both of which apply to the Red Cross. There should be clear records of donations both monetary and physical, what those donations were allotted to, and what they were used for on the ground at the bare minimum. This seems like something that should be being done for the organization of the company, even if the public never saw it. This does not seem to be happening officially at the Red Cross per Riess’ report, but some of this information is being understood through individual experiences spread through the Internet.
Before this was possible, however, the opaque dealings of the Red Cross worked to their advantage twofold: it allowed them to function poorly and accomplish the bare minimum of their mission while simultaneously allowing them to boast about their successes and keep their organization running on its reputation alone. The Red Cross existed for decades with very little oversight. It is a private corporation, but reaps the benefits of a government agency, like free rent for its Washington DC based headquarters (Katz). This allowed it to get lazy in its practices and policies, and report to no one but itself. Even the aforementioned reports from Goodhand and Riess were only published because an anonymous Red Cross employee gave them to The New York Times. This lack of accountability leads to situations like the Katrina relief effort, and threatens the lives of those who believe they can count on the Red Cross in their time of need. Much of this information was available during the relief efforts in 2005, or became clear in the years after. This is the point the Red Cross should not have been able to return from, however the next disaster, the earthquake in Haiti, was arguably even worse.
The 2010 Haitian Earthquake
With the massive amounts of money being raised each time a disaster struck, the Red Cross shifted some of its policies to address some of the concerns of both 9/11 and Katrina, mostly where the money was going. When money during these disasters was transferred into local chapters of the organization, people felt lied to. They had donated to help these people, the people whose suffering was being exploited on their TV screens in a bid for money. At the time, the Red Cross claimed it provided only immediate relief and was in no way involved with any rebuilding or lasting aid. By the time they got to Haiti, they realized they needed to change.
Unfortunately to the Red Cross but unsurprising to those familiar with their dealings, this shift to long term relief was a failure. Five years after the earthquake struck, ProPublica.com and NPR launched a long term investigation to find where exactly the funds went. One of the articles published in the wake of this investigation found that over a quarter, around $125 million, went to internal expenses. This is far more than the eight percent the Red Cross had claimed. Additionally, this investigation found that they claimed to have provided over 130,000 homes, when in reality they build six houses. The former Prime Minister and other government officials in Haiti poke holes in the claims that the Red Cross helped four and a half million Haitians, saying, “No, no, no. Not possible… 4.5 million was 100 percent of the urban area in 2010. One hundred percent. It would mean the American Red Cross would have served entire cities of Haiti." If you ask them, they can see no effects of the Red Cross’ efforts in the area. A second article based on the information found in this investigation sums up the experience by saying they, “found a string of poorly managed projects, questionable spending and dubious claims of success, according to a review of hundreds of pages of the charity's internal documents and emails, as well as interviews with a dozen current and former officials.” It should come at no surprise that the higher ups in the organization are celebrating the extremely limited impact made on the island. What is surprising, however, is that this is the first instance things started to change in a way that affected the long term goals of the Red Cross.
The investigation mentioned above took place in 2015, half a decade after initial disaster, but others took notice sooner. Though the general public did not seem to follow the work for that long, reporter Jonathan Katz went so far as to write an entire book on the negative impacts all relief efforts had on the island of Haiti. This book, The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster, discusses his experiences living in Haiti for almost three years before the earthquake, and what he experienced in the year after. He describes the inappropriate relief that was provided and the absence of trust in the government. Katz, a respected reporter who was living in Haiti on an assignment for the AP, opened many other journalists’ eyes to what the aftermath was really like. Many people who covered disaster and aid were suddenly looking at the situation and recognizing the failures of the current system. The Red Cross was not without scandals in this first year of response, but its donorship was still through the roof. Though change was being made in small circles, it was still not enough to have a visible impact on the organization that still had the trust of the general population.
Hurricane Harvey
The largest period of time between disasters discussed in this paper is the seven years between the earthquake and Hurricane Harvey, and between these events social media exploded. The monthly amount of active Twitter users grew over 900% in this time according to statista.com. From the second news of the storm started spreading, people flocked to Twitter. At first, there were jokes from residents of Houston, but when the storm actually hit, it changed quickly. As TIME reports, people started posting photos of the flooding in their house or on their street and distress calls. Several of these resulted in successful rescue. “I have 2 children with me and tge [sic] water is swallowing us up. Please send help,” Martiza Ritz Willis tweeted when 911 was not answering her calls due to overload. “Got picked up bty [sic] the fire rescue. Thank You . One of you had connections and all I can say is I’ll be eternally grateful!!!” she tweeted a few hours later. Many emergency response groups urged people to continue to call 911, but this is clear evidence that times have changed.
This new availability of possible connections also impacts the Red Cross. When Katz, previously mentioned author and current slate.com reporter, reached out to the Red Cross’ full time media relations department for information like this regarding Hurricane Harvey, he was told the questions “could not be answered by his deadline” and then, after reaching out again, that they were planning to help around 6,000 people with no details or information about cost or donation totals. If this was all people were able to get, some might assume they were simply busy or had complex plans in place they did not want to explain. Luckily, there was more information available.
Traditional media being replaced by social media also impacts fundraising efforts. Personal claims or direct action take precedent; tweets in the style of “for every retweet this gets I’ll donate $0.15 to x charity” now flood timelines during crises. Even celebrities are turning away from established names and raising money on their own. JJ Watt, football player for the Houston Texans, set up his own page, raised over $37 million dollars from public donations, and was seen on the ground for over a week at shelters handing out supplies. All of this was started on his own Twitter profile and spread throughout social media. People who were looking for other ways to donate were faced with posts with information like this, organized by Tumblr user rodham,
I know a lot of celebrities are giving money to Red Cross and telling people
to donate to them, but I know that the Red Cross pools all the money together
and gives out a little here and there, as well as pocketing a large portion of it for
themselves… As a Houstonian myself, I obviously want all of the money that
people are donating because they think it’s going to go to us, to actually go to us.
So. Please donate to these organizations/charities/fundraisers…
That post goes on to link to some of the articles referenced in this paper. People now have the ability to do research before throwing their money at people, and that research turns up more than the pages the official Red Cross website has to make themselves look phenomenal. This post alone was shared over 650 times on Tumblr, which does not include the times it was reposted to other social media sites and shared further, or the posts that originated on those sites with similar information.
In the end, the Red Cross raised about $429 million dollars in their fundraising efforts, down around $70 million from what they raised seven years earlier for Haiti. It is almost impossible to prove that this is a result of the Red Cross’ declining reputation instead of people simply less willing to donate. What is clear, however, is that there was a push against the Red Cross that had never been seen before. This push included organizations that had been researched and vetted for people to donate to instead, and we know that over half of that $70 million was donated to JJ Watt alone. There was also a larger official reporting of the Red Cross scandals in traditional media, and more emphasis on “tracking” the relief money.
Conclusion and Effects
The Red Cross, existing in the space between a government agency and private business, has no one to answer to. Their internal reviews rarely see the light of day, even when they possibly implicate criminal activity. Though they should provide clear information to the public, their donors, and the victims they are helping, there is no real pressure to do so and it has barely, if at all, affected their reputation. Even the inquiry of the FBI had very little impact on their state of affairs and policies of transparency. This is detrimental for a company that functions in order to help the public, and has only recently raised flags in the public eye. The American Red Cross is in no way the champion of charity or disaster relief, yet it was believed to be so for decades. Now, with responsibility and justice popular parts of a social media driven culture, the Red Cross is seeing the beginning of a movement against it. Hurricane Harvey was the first example of popularized push back against the organization, and this sentiment will continue to grow. Though the Red Cross will probably always have staunch supporters, the current social climate will continue to weaken the organization unless it undertakes an entire rebranding effort rooted in accountability. As evident in this paper, this doesn’t seem like something the Red Cross is interested in doing, and it will continue to weaken because of it.
Works Cited
“Despite Huge Katrina Relief, Red Cross Criticized.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News
Group, 28 Sept. 2005, www.nbcnews.com/id/9518677/ns/us_news-katrina_the_
long_road_back/t/despite-huge-katrina-relief-red-cross-criticized/#.WpbYy2aZOqA.
Elliott, Justin, and Jesse Eisinger. “The Red Cross' Secret Disaster.” ProPublica, 29 Oct. 2014,
www.propublica.org/article/the-red-cross-secret-disaster.
“Hurricane Katrina Led to Largest Ever Red Cross Relief Response.” American Red Cross,
www.redcross.org/news/article/Hurricane-Katrina-Led-to-Largest-Red-Cross-Relief-Res
Katz, Jonathan M. “Don't Give $20 to the Red Cross. We Need a New Kind of Humanitarian
Relief.” Slate Magazine, 28 Aug. 2017, www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/
2017/08/don_t_give_money_to_the_red_cross_we_need_a_new_way.html.
Katz, Jonathan M. The Big Truck That Went by: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left
Behind a Disaster. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Nossiter, Adam. “F.B.I. to Investigate Red Cross Over Accusations of Wrongdoing.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 31 Mar. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/us/
rodham. “Donating to Texas after Harvey.” Gnome-Cleric.tumblr.com, 31 Aug. 2017,
gnome-cleric.tumblr.com/post/164803278780/donating-to-texas-after-harvey.
Rhodan, Maya. “Hurricane Harvey: The U.S.'s First Social Media Storm.” Time, Time, 30 Aug.
2017, time.com/4921961/hurricane-harvey-twitter-facebook-social-media/.
Smith, Morgan. “How Much Has Been Raised for Harvey Relief - and How's It Being Spent?”
The Texas Tribune, Texas Tribune, 28 Nov. 2017, www.texastribune.org/2017/11/28/
how-much-money-going-hurricane-harvey-relief-texas/.
Strom, Stephanie. “Reports Critique U.S. Red Cross's Katrina Response.” The New York Times,
The New York Times, 4 Apr. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/us/
Reports-critique-us-red-crosss-katrina-response.html.
Sullivan, Laura. “In Search Of The Red Cross' $500 Million In Haiti Relief.” NPR, NPR, 3 June
2015, www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-
in-haiti-relief.
Sullivan, Laura, and Justin Elliott. “Report: Red Cross Spent 25 Percent Of Haiti Donations On
Internal Expenses.” NPR, NPR, 16 June 2016, www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/
Senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances.
“Twitter: Number of Active Users 2010-2017.” Statista, www.statista.com/statistics/282087/
number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/.
Walden, Richard. “The Red Cross Coming Home to Roost: Remember 9/11, Anyone?” The
Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 May 2011, www.huffingtonpost.com/
richard-walden/the-red-cross-coming-home_b_7653.html.
Watt, JJ. “Houston Flood Relief Fund.” YouCaring, www.youcaring.com/
victimsofhurricaneharvey-915053.