Newspaper Editorials Rebuke Red Cross for Response to Attacks

Chicago Tribune

Many of the families of victims in the World Trade Center attacks, after being devastated by the deaths of loved ones, now are being jolted by a mess of a system established to help them out financially. A certain amount of confusion might have been expected.

America’s amazing response to the victims of terrorism — more than $1.2-billion has been contributed — is unprecedented. This has demanded complex coordination and information sharing to reach an equitable distribution of the donated funds.

But now scores of families, deeply in mourning and seeking financial help, are having to make countless phone calls and wade through bureaucracy without destination. Contributors are starting to ask, and rightly so: Where is my money going? The answer is, not necessarily where you think….

Only about half of the nearly $550-million the Red Cross collected in the Liberty Fund, a special fund for victims of the September 11 attacks, [has been alloted] to go to direct aid for them. The organization planned to use some of the money to beef up operations unrelated to the disaster — upgrading its telecommunications, bolstering the nation’s blood reserve, and preparing for future bioterrorist attacks. Now that is a disaster of the Red Cross’s own making. If people can’t trust that their donations will go where they’re supposed to go, people just won’t donate….

The Red Cross has some real work to do to restore its reputation. It can start by establishing a very simple idea as rule number one: Don’t mislead your donors. Dr. Healy…had stressed that this broader use of the money was made clear in all advertisements for the Liberty Fund established for victims of the September 11 attacks. That was like saying it’s too bad if you failed to notice the fine print that flashed at the bottom of the TV screen. The message was clear: Your money will help the victims of terrorism. The message was misleading.

All that is a shame because there is one other casualty of the September 11 attacks that has been largely overlooked: the nonprofits in local communities that do essential work but have no connection with the disaster. Many of them are having trouble raising funds because people feel that they did their part for disaster relief, or they feel a little poorer because of the struggling economy, or they have lost their jobs. The fiasco at the Red Cross carries a reminder for everyone involved in philanthropy. Credibility is everything.

The New York Times

The outpouring of private charity since the September 11 terrorist attack — more than $1.2-billion, by far the largest response to a single disaster in American history — continues to be a source of wonderment. That good feeling cannot be compromised by confusion or cynicism surrounding the money’s distribution. [Nobody] has devised a system of one-stop shopping — a simple, comprehensive way for victims’ families to apply for the full range of benefits and services they may need.

The unusual pressures created by the September 11 attacks surely played a role in the decision last week by the board of directors of the Red Cross to dismiss its president, Bernadine Healy. Various reasons were advanced for her firing, including an arrogant managerial style and her decision to divert some of the $500-million the Red Cross had collected since September 11 to programs with little direct relationship to the disaster. Her cause does not seem to have been helped by her stubborn resistance to participating in a central database of victims proposed by Eliot Spitzer, the New York State attorney general. Dr. Healy finally did agreed to participate, just before her dismissal.

Mr. Spitzer proposed the database as a way to ensure fairness and efficiency in the distribution of funds, as well as to prevent duplication and fraud. It could also link those seeking help with the institutions capable of providing it….

Under Mr. Spitzer’s scheme, victims’ families and other survivors needing help could register with his office and catalog their needs. The charities would then reach out to the families, sparing them the exhausting and even demeaning chore of chasing after help. The attorney general is also thinking of setting up a central committee of relief agencies, modeled after Oklahoma City, that would meet regularly to review the database and decide, victim by victim, how to distribute the money.

But the database is far from a reality. If Mr. Spitzer is unable to persuade the charities to cooperate, other New York officials, particularly Gov. George Pataki, should throw their prestige and authority behind the effort. Matching people to resources is going to be a tough, painstaking job whose complexity the charitable community seems to have badly underestimated.

Los Angeles Times

Americans have opened their hearts and wallets wide since September 11, donating at least $1.2-billion to help the families of those lost in the terrorist attacks. Now, weeks later, getting money to the thousands of families unable to duck bills any longer is proving to be a nightmare for relief agencies. And for victims, getting that help has often heaped humiliation onto grief, sending them from agency to agency, overwhelming them with paperwork, and making many feel like beggars.

The Red Cross, the agency most visible since the attacks, has had particular trouble coping with the flood tide of money. Late last week, growing turmoil within the agency led Dr. Bernadine Healy to announce that she will step down at the end of the year as Red Cross chief. Her resignation has highlighted some lessons for charities and victims’ families alike as this massive relief effort proceeds….

These agencies should remember they are accountable to the public as well as to their boards of directors. [Red Cross] ads imply donations will go toward the World Trade Center victims when, in fact, the Red Cross expects to distribute only a portion of the $500-million it has collected since September 11 directly to families. Charities like the Red Cross historically take in more money during a disaster than in quiet times. They count on a portion of these funds to cover their legitimate ongoing infrastructure needs — but they have an obligation to be up front about it. Finally, agencies need to hold some of their funds in reserve for the longer-term psychological needs of victims — for grief counseling or parenting problems, for example, or for treating depression and drug and alcohol abuse. The extraordinary events of past weeks have presented the Red Cross and other relief agencies with an unprecedented challenge. It was impossible to be fully prepared. That’s no excuse for future bungling. The Red Cross must coordinate with others quickly and rectify what could be a tremendous loss of faith with its donors everywhere.

USA Today

In the aftermath of September 11, people have donated more than a half-billion dollars to a special Red Cross fund to help terror-attack victims. Now the Red Cross appears intent on diverting a significant share to other purposes. That isn’t illegal, and the other causes may be worthy, but the switch appears a mismatch with donors’ intent.

The controversy erupted publicly Friday when Red Cross President Bernadine Healy abruptly resigned from her post, in part because of unspecified disagreements with the Red Cross board over the funds.

Currently, only half of the money is slated for disaster operations and families who lost loved ones in the attacks. About $200-million has yet to be earmarked. Most controversial is the organization’s plan to use as much as $80-million from donations made to its September 11 Liberty Fund on programs unrelated or only marginally linked to the terror attacks.

While the Red Cross hasn’t hidden those intended uses, Dr. Healy’s TV appeals following September 11 spoke of offering “lifesaving assistance, including food, shelter, grief counseling, and precious blood.” Not mentioned? Community outreach and scheduled or ongoing programs to which about 15 percent of the September 11 collections is headed….

After resigning, Dr. Healy defended the plans as necessary “for this new kind of disaster.” And she insisted that the agency has done all it can to tell the public its plans, both on its Web site and by informing donors that the funds were for “September 11 and its aftermath.”

But not everyone combs the Red Cross Web site or parses the fine print of its appeals. Thousands were moved to donate, believing they were helping terror victims. Those beliefs were supported by the decision of the American Red Cross to set up a special fund in response to the attacks.

This is not the first time the Red Cross has offended public sensibilities by misdirecting money donated in response to a disaster.

In 1998, the Red Cross was accused by the Minnesota attorney general of holding back more than $4-million collected for victims of the Red River Valley floods. After denying the allegations, the Red Cross distributed more of the money. It was a potentially valuable lesson, apparently not remembered.

Certainly, the public’s unprecedented generosity creates unprecedented challenges for charitable groups. The Red Cross and all nonprofits need to make certain that donors’ wishes are followed and that money flows quickly and efficiently to those who deserve it.

Raising big donations is less than half of this battle. Success will be measured by the good it does.