121
122

We’re ProPublica Reporters Justin Elliott and Jesse Eisinger. Ask Us Anything About Our Investigation Into the Red Cross’ Disaster Relief Failures (self.IAmA)

submitted by JEisingerJesse Eisinger

OK, THANKS FOR ALL THE QUESTIONS. WE'VE GOT TO HOP BUT IF ANYONE HAS STORY IDEAS OR TIPS, PLEASE EMAIL ME OR JUSTIN: JESSE.EISINGER@PROPUBLICA.ORG AND JUSTIN.ELLIOTT@PROPUBLICA.ORG

I’m Jesse Eisinger, a Senior Reporter for ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative news organization, covering Wall Street and finance.

And I’m Justin Elliott, a reporter for ProPublica, covering politics with a focus on money and influence.

We’ve just published an investigation (along with NPR’s Laura Sullivan) into the Red Cross’ failures to provide basic disaster relief after Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy. Read it here.

Quick look at what we found through internal documents and interviews with Red Cross insiders:

• Emergency relief vehicles were rerouted after Sandy for PR purposes. • Some of the disabled Sandy victims left to sleep in wheelchairs. • Sex offenders sheltered next to children.

These are just a few of the things we found investigating the American Red Cross and its response to Superstorm Sandy. What the charity’s CEO said in public -- calling the response “near flawless” -- and what we found in internal documents couldn’t be more opposite. Today, we’d like to open up the investigation to you all and answer almost anything about the American Red Cross and its “secret disaster.” ASK US ANYTHING.

We’re also still looking for help reporting the story. So, if you have experience with or information about the American Red Cross, including its financial and statistical reporting, you can help us in several ways. SHARE A TIP.

PROOF

all 70 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]yarrbles108 9 points10 points  (0 children)

How do you respond to the Red Cross's refutation of a number of your key points? http://blog.redcross.org/#sthash.shcE2CmI.HxaJGxaK.dpbs

[–]terryparrisjr 2 points3 points  (6 children)

This question comes from Twitter user @dcschrader. He asks:

"How many Red Cross workers did you interview? Did they have positive things to say?"

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Our core conclusions were drawn from the Red Cross' own internal assessments that came out of national headquarters in Washington. It was then a careful reporting process to understand the documents (there are a lot of acronyms and jargon in the disaster relief world).

To @dcshrader's question: Jesse, Laura, and I interviewed dozens of people, including many Red Cross officials and volunteers, storm victims, and government officials. It was very difficult to find sources with positive things to say about the Red Cross' responses to Sandy and Isaac. More importantly, multiple sources confirmed and fleshed out the Red Cross' own conclusions from its internal assessments.

By the way, we are still reporting on the Red Cross and anyone with comments, criticism, or tips who would prefer email can reach me directly: justin@propublica.org

[–]stoicsmile 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I was on the ground managing shelters during Sandy. You guys couldn't have hit further from the nail head with this one. Red Cross is an easy target because they don't prioritize covering their ass over providing services. But when the shit hit the fan, it was the Red Cross scrambling through a maze of red tape to actually get the services out to people. Some of the things you have accused the Red Cross of doing were being done to a much greater extent by other agencies. DHS abandoned a shelter they were providing security for because it started snowing. They also had about 30 "shelter workers" following Jan Napolitano around from shelter to shelter for photo ops. The Sandy response was botched, but to focus on the Red Cross is lazy and irresponsible. They are transparent. And next time there is a disaster they will have to be much less so because of muck-rakers like you guys.

[–]ROKandHARDPLACE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great point!

[–]terryparrisjr 1 point2 points  (2 children)

@dcschrader has a followup:

"What abt FL Emergency Manager you spoke to for an hour? Y didn't he make story?"

[–]JEisingerJesse Eisinger[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

We spoke to dozens of people, the vast majority of whom didn't make it into the story. The story flowed from the Red Cross documents from Red Cross HQ in Washington.

I did speak to Mike Whitehead, who generously gave of his time. I welcome his thoughts on our story, either to me directly (jesse.eisinger@propublica.org) or through his blog. Mike and I mainly discussed general approaches to disaster response. When I asked him specifically about the Red Cross's efforts during Sandy, he told me "I'm not in the business of criticizing people." He did not, however, then praise the Red Cross's response to Sandy.

[–]ROKandHARDPLACE 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's some spin. "He didn't criticize....BUT HE DIDN'T PRAISE THE RED CROSS."

Wow.

[–]slyncka 2 points3 points  (1 child)

What do you think the response will be? With the CEO? With the next disaster?

I remember when starting this investigation you had resistance from the Red Cross. Something about proprietary information or trade secrets.

Was getting this information easier/harder versus a company such as a drug company or retailer?

[–]JEisingerJesse Eisinger[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, the Red Cross through its law firm Gibson Dunn fought one of Justin's public records requests arguing that having to detail how it spent the Sandy donation money was a "trade secret.".

Hmmmm.

The reporting on this was an interesting change for me, as someone who typically covers finance, banks and investment banks. Good people wanted to speak to us about the Red Cross because they were concerned and wanted to make it a better organization. They held the Red Cross to high standards (properly).

With banks, people don't expect them to be philanthropic organizations. Uh, to put it mildly.

As for your initial questions, we don't know what the organizational response to our stories will be. They have put out a series of responses to our stories, but they are highly misleading. They haven't cited any specific inaccuracies.

But many people we spoke with said that given the re-organizations, lay-offs and disaffection among workers, reservists and volunteers, they are worried that the Red Cross is not well prepared for the next disaster.

[–]JLDdc 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Are you going to publish more articles about the Red Cross in the coming months? If you plan to, will you better balance your reporting to tell the story of both the positives and negatives? The weight of your investigation was very thin and negative--only relying on documentation that Red Cross performed an after action on to make improvements.

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 1 point2 points  (1 child)

We are certainly still reporting and we may publish more articles.

Our story is based on the overwhelming evidence of Red Cross internal assessments, on-the-record accounts of Red Cross officials on the ground, and interviews with victims and state officials.

We gave the Red Cross a chance to provide other documentation about its Sandy and Isaac responses and the charity declined to do so.

[–]deadlast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What impact do you expect your report to have on Red Cross's willingness to engage in candid internal assessments to improve its work, after such assessments have been used as the centerpiece of your article? Would such a critical top-down examination of the Red Cross's efforts have been possible without the Red Cross doing the heavy lifting?

[–]raisedroofbeams 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Did you get the sense that the diversion of relief vehicles for PR purposes/photo ops was a matter of official policy, or the fault of middle managers trying to impress higher ups?

[–]JEisingerJesse Eisinger[S] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

It was driven by national headquarters. Check out the "Lessons Learned" doc page 12: https://www.propublica.org/documents/item/1225674-sandy-and-isaac-lessons-learned.html

It lists "Hindrances To Service Delivery" and the first one is... NHQ! National Headquarters.

And under that it says one of the hindrances was "diverting assets for public relation purposes."

This was backed up by multiple interviews, including people on the record. In the Staten Island press conference incident, the Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern made media appearances over multiple hours.

But in some cases, there may have been some attempts to impress higher ups as well, such as the sending of 80 empty trucks around Hattiesburg, Miss.

[–]CatherineBarde 7 points8 points  (5 children)

I am a long time volunteer with Red Cross and I was the one that took the photos of the CEO of Red Cross and FEMA at the press conference. You reported that this was "staged" and Red Cross wasn't there. In fact, this was the mass feeding and distribution center set up in Staten Island, at Miller Field and the nation's leaders in disaster response came there to address the community and the nation. Volunteers from all agencies providing relief were there, but you left out those photos I took in the reporting. For the thousands of volunteers there, yes, with their vehicles parked and goods unloaded, working 18 hours a day, this omission is hurtful to those who volunteer and the families who support them.

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Hi Catherine,

Thanks for writing in.

With regards to the Staten Island press conference with Gail McGovern: we did not report that the "Red Cross wasn't there." Quite the opposite: the problem was that the Red Cross was there and tied up vehicles for hours at a press event.

We reported that multiple officials complained at the time that emergency response vehicles (ERVs) were being tied up at press conferences, including that event. As one mass care chief complained to a Red Cross executive: “I can’t afford to have my ERVs sitting around all morning."

This broad theme is also reflected in the Red Cross' own Lessons Learned presentation, which notes that national headquarters hindered relief efforts by "diverting assets for public relations purposes." http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/1225674-sandy-and-isaac-lessons-learned.html#document/p12/a184370

[–]CatherineBarde 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Thank you for sharing what you based this on. Looking at this, do you think it is possible that "one mass care chief" didn't know that the vehicles were there, only to have food, blankets and comfort kits filled with basic essentials loaded then unloaded and passed out for hours? That this was their mission, to provide these much needed essentials to people in such a desperate time? That because a press conference took place during this wonderful effort, he may not know the whole story and it found its way in a report? I don't know what his job was, any more than he probably knew mine. I only can only speak to what I saw first hand. Amazing volunteers providing much needed items during one of the nation's worst disasters and head of Red Cross reassuring a nation that we would be there. And we still are!

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 2 points3 points  (1 child)

To be clear: our account was not based on the account of a single Mass Care Chief. It is drawn from the accounts, independently given, of three officials who were on the ground and observed or participated in the event. It is also contemporaneously documented in a letter to a Red Cross vice president: https://www.propublica.org/documents/item/1346529-letter-to-trevor-riggen-nov-18-2012.html#document/p2/a184558

[–]CatherineBarde 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, it still looks like the same thing to me. If the ERVS were loaded with food, blankets and instead, taken to the fixed Kitchen/Distribution site in Staten Island for a mass feeding operation, at a central location, wouldn't that be a better use of resources? I could see how others, who didn't know or wouldn't be in the loop, could be frustrated. It was difficult in those first hours/days trying to assess where the greatest need was. I saw this first hand, day after day, readjusting for the needs when we went street by street feeding families. I would see the same families at lunch and then later for dinner. They would tell us they might need more blankets or ask for diapers. Those items were on the next delivery, later that day. I could understand how adjustments on a larger scale could be made, without middlemen knowing. This was the largest disaster I have responded to and I am so proud of our work, the volunteers I worked with and how many people we were able to help and continue to do so.

[–]ROKandHARDPLACE -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

/u/catherinebarde

I want to thank you for your selfless volunteer work. The Red Cross is not in crisis mode and the Red Cross does more good than most realize.

[–]scw336 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Did you get the sense that there is some kind of fundamental flaw in the idea of a disaster-relief agency or that the Red Cross is just run poorly? As mentioned previously FEMA has been terrible in its past responses as well. Do you believe the preparation and work related to "disaster-relief" may need to be reworked to promote a more locally-based response system so as not to be hampered by the bureaucracy of a large organization?

[–]JEisingerJesse Eisinger[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That's a good, important question.

Some disaster response experts we spoke to believe that it may be better for disaster response to be more localized. That way the responders can bring their local expertise to bear on the disaster.

FEMA, by and large, is a coordinating agency. And it has been run more effectively under the Obama administration than under the Bush administration. Recall "Heck of a job, Brownie!" after all.

[–]scw336 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you know what, if any, responses there have been by state or federal government representatives - either publicly or off the record since your report came out? Has the Obama administration commented?

[–]stoicsmile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some disaster response experts we spoke to believe that it may be better for disaster response to be more localized. That way the responders can bring their local expertise to bear on the disaster.

Which is the opposite of the takeaway most agencies made during Sandy. Most "experts" in this field have been talking more and more about regionalizing these kinds of responses. Red Cross included. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it was the Bergen County OEM who you interviewed who said this. This is a commonly held opinion by a lot of county OEMs because they tend to like to have a lot of control of their jurisdictions.

My question:

When Atlantic County OEM decided that they were bussing all of their residents to other counties, how would a "more localized" response have compensated from a sudden influx of thousands of out-of-county residents? Where are the resources going to come from when these local responders get overwhelmed like they did during Sandy?

And who is going to pay for it? Should Gloucester County pay to feed and house the five thousand Atlantic City residents that showed up at the Rowan University Shelter?

[–]window5 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Why was the Red Cross even expected to respond to Sandy? NYC and New Jersey are major metropolitan areas. That area has a huge public sector, plenty of resources to respond with.

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 10 points11 points  (6 children)

This goes to the Red Cross' congressionally mandated role responding to disasters alongside the government. Here the group's congressional charter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1279148-congressional-charter-of-the-american-national.html

And here is its' memorandum of understanding with FEMA: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1279092-fema-american-red-cross-moa-october-2010.html

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 4 points5 points  (5 children)

You have to love this prose, by the way -- they don't write law like this anymore:

"The purpose of the corporate [is] .... to carry out a system of national and international relief in time of peace, and apply that system in mitigating the suffering caused by pestilence, famine, fire, floods, and other great national calamities, and to devise and carry out measures for preventing those calamities ..."

[–]fairequalscredible 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Does Pro Publica try to raise money for its work at times like this when you feel you are doing your best work? I have a friend who has been working the last two years on a project for another nonprofit repairing homes in New York and New Jersey - completely funded by the Red Cross. Did you not think it was important to cover in any way what is known about how donations were spent?

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 3 points4 points  (7 children)

We're extremely interested in how donations were spent. That question is actually what got us into reporting on the Red Cross many months ago. We still don't have a clear picture of what happened to the $312 million donated after Sandy. Here's our original story focusing on money questions: http://www.propublica.org/article/long-after-sandy-red-cross-post-storm-spending-still-a-black-box

In terms of ProPublica, as reporters we stay out of anything related to raising money for the organization. We're focused on journalism.

[–]fairequalscredible 2 points3 points  (6 children)

As for the fundraising question - you are coming across quite critical of the Red Cross for trying to raise money during a disaster response - and it does seem they need to think about how they do that. But yesterday I got a fundraising email from ProPublica, touting your work on the Red Cross specifically. It's the same practice. I was a journalist for 22 years, I understand "the wall." Don't think it's fair for one non profit to call out another non profit and then hide behind "journalism."

I found this list just sitting on the Red Cross website. You could contact these organizations, verify they received these funds and ask what they did with them. In order for the important work of forcing a large institution to be transparent to be effective, you have to do a bit more leg work than what I've seen in the reports so far, which come across pretty slanted. Fairness will only add credibility to your laudable intent. Without it, the work is suspect.

New York Disaster Interfaith Services — $4.417 million NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development — $3 million United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) — $2.5 million Salvation Army — $2.5 million Lutheran Disaster Response — $1.965 million Ocean County Long-Term Recovery Group — $1.85 million Catholic Charities USA — $1.6 million Greater New Jersey United Methodist Church — $1.5 million Catholic Charities Community Services — $1.247 million Society of St. Vincent de Paul — $1.241 million Monmouth County Long-Term Recovery Group — $1.1 million The Health & Welfare Council of Long Island — $1 million United Way of Long Island — $1 million Middlesex County Long-Term Recovery Group — $782,000 Operation Hope — $675,000 Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey — $600,000 Atlantic City Long-Term Recovery Group — $586,000 Atlantic Country Long-Term Recovery Group — $586,000 National Baptist Convention USA — $506,000 Operation Hope — $500,000 New York Legal Assistance Group — $500,000 Hudson County Long-Term Recovery Committee — $490,000 Puerto Rican Association for Human Development — $446,000 Make the Road New York — $250,000 Volunteer Center of Bergen County — $400,000 Cape May County Long-Term Recovery Group — $338,000 Puerto Rican Action Committee of Southern New Jersey — $327,000 Jewish Community Center of Rockaway Peninsula — $239,000 Union County Long-Term Recovery Group — $236,000 Essex County Long-Term Recovery Group — $200,000 Housing Corporation (formerly Hurricane Sandy Relief Fund; Norwalk, Conn.) — $200,000 Ironbound Community Corporation — $175,000 The Disability Opportunity Fund — $118,000 United Way of Connecticut (211) — $99,000 Henry Street Settlement — $80,000 New York Cares — $25,000

[–]ROKandHARDPLACE 0 points1 point  (5 children)

And thank you.

[–]Lummutis 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Just so you are aware, your bizarre and reactionary comments in this thread have made me more distrustful of the Red Cross. And your recent post history ( /u/ROKandHARDPLACE ) indicates that you are a scumbag. I'll be sure to discourage anyone from giving to this organization. Keep up the great work.

[–]ROKandHARDPLACE 0 points1 point  (2 children)

/u/lummutis

http://blog.redcross.org/#sthash.shcE2CmI.HyTfMlNO.dpbs

Here you go.

And don't blame me for your AMA going south. I'm not the only one who could see through these "journalists."

[–]Lummutis -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It's not my AMA. I'm not a journalist, but I do think that a well-funded and investigative press is important. Clearly, the journalists of this piece actually investigated and interviewed extensively in their research. No organization is above criticism, and I have no reason to discount what they are reporting. And you've certainly provided no evidence otherwise. You've literally just linked to a statement by the Red Cross' PR team. Lulz. Great job.

[–]ROKandHARDPLACE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you've acted like a child by exclaiming, "I'm never going to donate to the Red Cross..." because of my posts...

Sigh.

And then you admit to stalking this account's history.

...

[–]Geoff_with_a_J 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, what is your deal? Why are you posting so many unnecessary comments in this one?

[–]EponymousBen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven't read the report yet, but did catch the NPR version. It made me think back to a story on Planet Money about raising money for Ebola preparation, and how the public getting mad when the Red Cross tried to set aside some of the money raised for the 9/11 response (which was much more than was needed) to plan for the next disaster. Public outcry was deafening, and the Red Cross has been prevented from being proactive in fund raising ever since.

Do you think that this is driving the organization to focus so much on self promotion early in a disaster in order to insure that they can fund rescue activities?

[–]trigunned 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Hi to both of you and thank you for doing this. Great investigation, great work! Thanx for doing that.

I would like to know how you felt during this investigation? And what was your motivation? How did you start invesitgating?

[–]JEisingerJesse Eisinger[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Our motivation is to shine a light on powerful organizations and people, government, corporate and non-governmental. We hold the powerful accountable -- and the Red Cross is a worthy subject for scrutiny, given Americans trust it with their money almost more than any other non-profit.

We started on this project because we got a tip, sometime in the spring. As it happens, we couldn't confirm that tip and didn't run a story on it. But we did realize in reporting it out that the Red Cross's disclosures were troublingly opaque. So we wrote that small story: http://www.propublica.org/article/long-after-sandy-red-cross-post-storm-spending-still-a-black-box

Justin started making public records requests and wrote several stories about that. As he was doing that excellent reporting, tips started pouring in.

And then we got some of the documents.

After that, it was a matter of confirming the documents, fleshing the story out, finding other sources, running everything we had by the Red Cross for their comments and the context. And writing!

All slow and painstaking, alas. And so unsexy. We need to start meeting sources in garages or something.

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And we also had help from the talented Laura Sullivan of NPR. (Her two-part radio version of the story is here: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359365276/on-superstorm-sandy-anniversary-red-cross-under-scrutiny )

[–]trigunned -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thumbs Up!

[–]sometimebard 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Your nut graph, so far as I can tell, is the one that begins "The Red Cross botched key elements of its mission after Sandy and Isaac..." The next paragraph is a "what's more" about PR and politically motivated decisions.

I know you wanted to keep the investigation from making larger conclusions or judgments about the Red Cross, but I'm curious about what you might have found if you'd pushed against the institutional setup more. Did you consider pushing the piece in this direction at all—more interviews of top execs, tracking expenditures, etc.? Were you not able to or were you just not as concerned with this? (asking as a young journalist on the subject of approach)

I was impressed by the article and I'm glad ProPublica is getting this attention.

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good question and thanks for the kind words. I would describe the two sentences you identified as the sort of dual nut graf of the story.

We're certainly not opposed to making larger conclusions or judgements when warranted. In this case most of our reporting focused on the deep problems in the responses to Isaac and Sandy and the p.r. obsession by the Red Cross' leadership.

We're actually still reporting on the Red Cross and very interested in a number of issues, including the expenditures of the hundreds of millions of dollars donated not just after Sandy, but every year to the Red Cross. If anyone has thoughts or information on that, email me: justin@propublica.org

[–]ARCvolunteer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What are your objectives for this report? What are you looking for as an outcome?

From my perspective we have established the following: 1) The Red Cross is less than perfect (News flash!) 2) The Red Cross does more than some large corporations to "look in the mirror", identify areas they are challenged in and work to implement changes to make things better after each incident via lessons learned. The fact that some of the documents you referenced exist are very exciting and encouraging to me as a volunteer and should be to every donor and partner! 3) They have outlined where and how the money was spent and the good they have done along the way. 4) Ramping up a 97% volunteer organization in an unprecedented disaster in real time WILL have its challenges, thanks for pointing that out!

So lets redirect all this energy toward how the Red Cross can continue to do the great work they do for our communities and how they can do it better. We are all ears for constructive feedback.

My last question to you and your team... What are you going to do to help move this in the right direction?

[–]Lummutis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This looks like it came from a PR firm.

/r/hailcorporate

[–]stoicsmile -1 points0 points  (0 children)

For those of you who aren't buying what this rag is throwing down, or those of you who want the red cross to be able to afford to provide more and better services to people affected by disasters,

Donate here

What the Red Cross does and how they do it exposes them to this kind of exploitation by irresponsible media outlets looking to sell adspace. However, you'd be hard-pressed to find an agency that does so much good for so many people. Every day, the Red Cross responds to house fires and is unique in that they are able to give direct monetary assistance to people displaced.

[–]BruteSquad44 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Why does ProPublica cover some big stories and not others? Like my friend sent you guys a tip about a major pharmaceutical company that was allegedly using a fake advocacy organization in order to get people to participate in their clinical drug trial, and then to keep them in the study. Scary stuff, they set up a fake facebook, twitter, and even Pinterest account. The lack of transparency was entirely unethical, especially considering the drug being tested is controversial.

Kinda a big thing right there, and she didn't even get even get a generic response back. ProPublica definitely lost some credibility in my eyes after that. I would've liked to have seen some investigative journalism with that story. So I'm curious how the reporters at ProPublica decide what stories to pursue, and which ones to look into?

[–]JEisingerJesse Eisinger[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Friend, we have about 35 people here, and about 20 reporters. Some of us are even busy with other big stories. We gotta pick and choose. And we probably miss good tips.

That does sound like a good one so please re-send to me: jesse.eisinger@propublica.org

As for how we pick our stories, it's basically all instinct. Does it stir the conscience? Is it relevant for the public interest? Can we report it out or would it be impossible? Sometimes we try to ask big questions and try to report specific answers and sometimes we get specific tips and try to confirm and broaden them out to make them relevant to the widest audience possible.

[–]BruteSquad44 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll pass your email address along to her.

[–]weltallic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Red Cross CEO is Gail J. McGovern.

Is it true the only reason you're investigating this "corruption" is because your whole group just hate women?

Is it true ProPublica is just a bunch of hateful mysogynists?

[–]permanentent -1 points0 points  (0 children)

i haven't had a chance to read yet - so sorry if you answered this in your report, but how does their recent responses compare to less recent responses? how would you reform the organization if you were the head boss?

[–]page_mathews -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Hi guys, can you tell us something we don't know about you, and something fun or surprising, like a hiden talent? :)

[–]JEisingerJesse Eisinger[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Justin's real name is Ignacio and he plays the ukelele in a Yes cover band.

[–]ROKandHARDPLACE -4 points-3 points  (9 children)

RedCross is not a government agency. Why have you not investigated the government organizations (FEMA) who were really responsible for taking care of the people in dister relief?

Should red cross be held accountable for housing sex offenders in areas with children?

Does the Red Cross have tbe time and means to separate sex offenders from.children in the aftermath of a natural disaster?

Why not focus on the federal government?

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Also -- on the sex offenders front: The Red Cross does have procedures in place to make sure everyone in a shelter is kept safe. But in this case, according to an internal Red Cross document we obtained and published, "staff didn't know/follow procedures." https://www.propublica.org/documents/item/1225674-sandy-and-isaac-lessons-learned.html#document/p6/a184402

[–]JustinProPublicaJustin Elliott 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Good questions. You're right, the Red Cross is not a government agency. But it turns out they have a unique relationship with the government. They have a charter from Congress (from over a century ago) that mandates that the Red Cross responds to disasters alongside the government. (There is also supposed to be congressional oversight of the Red Cross.)

They also get big boosts when Prez Obama tells people to donate. If you want to nerd out on the RC's relationship with the government, check out:https://www.documentcloud.org/.../1279092-fema-american... and https://www.documentcloud.org/.../1279110-the... andhttps://www.documentcloud.org/.../1279148-congressional...

More generally, we believe this is an important institution worthy of scrutiny. That's partly because Americans donated over $300 million to the Red Cross after Sandy.

[–]ROKandHARDPLACE -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

"Donated," is operative in this discussion. FEMA is not run on donations.

It just makes more sense, to me, to go after a Federal agency that is funded in full by tax payers.

While the Red Cross does survive on donations by the public, they are one of the better organizations to donate to. After any natural disaster, you know that hundreds of charity orgs pop up where less than 5% of donations actually go toward national disaster relief.

As to the Red Cross and the Congressional mandate, taken in a historical context, it's hard to be critical of the relationship.

[–]window5 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Are coercive get out the vote efforts a subject that ProPublica would investigate? http://nypost.com/2014/10/30/democrats-threaten-voters-to-get-to-the-polls/ Party officials are able to find out if a person voted or not? What if people start to feel threatened that if they do not register as a democrat and vote in every election they are going to have trouble with the IRS or their family member will not get a government job or their home will be assessed for higher taxes?