Red Cross’s Harvey Fundraising Challenge: Winning Over Skeptics

As Hurricane Harvey cuts its deadly path through southern Texas, the usual calls to donate to the American Red Cross have sprung up from all corners — including from former President Obama, TV host Ellen DeGeneres, and NFL Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

Amazon said it would match donations to the Red Cross up to $1 million. Starbucks, Home Depot, and many other companies said they’d pitch in money, too.

But there was another reaction, one that’s been bubbling up for the past several years as the Red Cross has received sustained criticism of its recent relief efforts.

“Don’t give money to the Red Cross,” wrote Felix Salmon, a prominent financial journalist who has been critical of the organization in the past and writes about charities on his blog Cause and Effect. “There is no reason to believe that the Red Cross will be particularly effective in Texas, and the Red Cross itself has given almost no details about what it’s doing in the region, how much money it’s spending, and what it will do with any extra donations.”

That skepticism about the nation’s pre-eminent relief organization has become more widespread in recent years following critical news-media stories about its response to the massive 2010 Haiti earthquake and U.S. disasters like 2012’s Superstorm Sandy and last year’s major flooding in the Baton Rouge, La., area. Officials in Louisiana said that shelters set up by the Red Cross were understaffed, with some lacking food and water for long periods, according to investigative-news site ProPublica. In response to a question from The Chronicle about how the Red Cross would reassure donors that their money was being put to good use, Elizabeth Penniman, vice president for communications, did not directly respond but said that donors should give to any charity they feel is reputable.

“As always, massive disasters like Hurricane Harvey create more needs than any one organization can meet on their own, and people should donate to the charities of their choice — but please donate,” Ms. Penniman said in an email.

To figure out what more the charity might do to ease public concerns, we asked three prominent experts. Here’s what they said.

The Red Cross Needs to be Transparent About Its Fundraising Efforts

“What people want to know is, ‘If I make a contribution for Texas floods, will it be used for the Texas floods and how?’” says Bob Ottenhoff, president of the Center for Disaster Philanthropy. “I think the best antidote [to criticism] is transparency and accountability.”

In the past, the Red Cross has taken heat for not spending all of the money it raised for particular disasters in the affected areas; sometimes it saves the money it did not use to help pay for future disasters. There’s nothing wrong with that, but “it doesn’t look good to the public,” says Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University.

He adds that practice angers people when they find out that the organization already has money to use for the current disaster: “It leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths when the Red Cross is constantly out there pleading for donations when it’s clear … that they don’t need the donations.”

The Red Cross should also be honest about its failures with past relief efforts and be clear about how it will fix any problems, says Richard Rieckenberg, former mass-care chief for the Red Cross, who has been publicly critical of the organization’s responses to disasters in recent years.

It’s not that the Red Cross commits fraud or embezzlement with donations, he says, but he does believe that the organization wastes money. “I don’t think they’re corrupt, they’re just ineffective,” he says. (The Red Cross has pushed back against Mr. Rieckenberg’s and others’ criticisms, which have appeared in major news outlets, like NPR.)

The Red Cross May Be “Too Big to Fail”

The organization sets up far more shelters for people in need after major disasters than any other charity, says Mr. Redlener. Because of that, it is essentially “too big to fail,” he says: “If they disappeared all of a sudden, the country would be in serious trouble.”

But that only makes the need for change more important, he says, noting that he’s heard some “good and bad” anecdotes about the Red Cross in Texas already.

“If the Red Cross is going to have this massive amount of responsibility, then they need to take responsibility and accountability for exactly how those shelters are set up,” says Mr. Redlener, who is also the president emeritus of the Children’s Health Fund, which provides medical care to families through mobile clinics.

The Red Cross should be concerned that many people are questioning its capabilities, says Mr. Rieckenberg, because some donors will be hard to win back.

“People have a long memory,” Mr. Rieckenberg says. “How do you prove that your organization has become much more effective? You can’t rely on the popularity you enjoyed and that that popularity is always going to hold.”

So far, Mr. Rieckenberg doesn’t think the Red Cross has adequately responded to concerns about its previous work. “I haven’t seen that they’ve had a come-to-Jesus moment,” he says.

Donors Should Demand More

Donors should write letters and messages to the Red Cross demanding that it be more accountable, says Mr. Rieckenberg. Withholding donations won’t help the charity understand that it is losing support from people who want to provide disaster-aid contributions, he says. “The only way you’re going to get these organizations to shape up is trying to assert grass-roots pressure on them,” Mr. Rieckenberg says.

Donors and grant makers should also think critically before they give to the Red Cross, Mr. Redlener says. “If you want to give money, you want to give wisely, even though it might take more effort and understanding what the options might be.”

But donors should give, says Mr. Rieckenberg, even if it’s not to the Red Cross. He says: “I don’t want people to use [the criticism of the Red Cross] to not donate at all.”

Smaller Groups May Get a Boost

Many smaller, local organizations may get more promotion as people look for alternatives to the Red Cross. “I would tend to say that local organizations are better at using money than national organizations — at least potentially. I can’t speak of all of the organizations out there,” Mr. Rieckenberg says.

However, Mr. Ottenhoff, of the Center for Disaster Philanthropy, cautions against giving to smaller, local groups in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, noting that large, national organizations have more resources to aid people now. There are many national organizations aside from the Red Cross to donate to, like the Salvation Army, Save the Children, or Direct Relief.

“I would say this is not the moment” to give local, he says. “What we need right now is support for those organizations who have experience in dealing with disasters, who have the capabilities and the capacities to handle these disasters — and that is going to tend to be national organizations with local chapters.”