If you paid attention to Superstorm Sandy in 2012, you probably know that some of the centralized institutions charged with disaster relief, such as the Red Cross and FEMA, performed very poorly. You may also have heard about Occupy Sandy, an Occupy Wall Street spinoff devoted to helping people after the storm; by all accounts it performed very well. The latter group's effectiveness was recognized even by the Department of Homeland Security, an organization not ordinarily inclined to look kindly on the Occupy movement.
So it is disturbing but not really surprising to see a ProPublica story claiming this:
Occupy Sandy
Senior officials [at the Red Cross] told staffers not to work with Occupy Sandy.
Red Cross officials had no concerns about Occupy Sandy's effectiveness. Rather, they were worried about the group's connections to the Occupy Wall Street protest movement.
Three Red Cross responders told ProPublica there was a ban. "We were told not to interact with Occupy," says one. While the Red Cross often didn't know where to send food, Occupy Sandy "had what we didn't: minute-by-minute information," another volunteer says.
The three spoke to ProPublica on the condition of anonymity because they continue to work with the Red Cross. One says the direction came from an official based in Red Cross headquarters in Washington. Another understood the direction came from Washington. A third was not sure who gave the instructions….
Fred Leahy, a veteran Red Cross responder who was a Community Partnerships Manager in Sandy's aftermath, recalled a meeting a week after the storm in which he and two other officials, one from Washington, discussed "the political and donor ramifications of associating with Occupy Sandy due to its outgrowth from Occupy Wall Street." He says the meeting was called after an inquiry from Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern.
"Occupy Wall Street was not very favorably received by the political people in the city," Leahy says. Major Red Cross donors were from the same elite political circles "and they didn't understand Occupy Wall Street."
Leahy denies that there "explicit injunction" not to work with Occupy Sandy. Those three anonymous sources seem to disagree. ProPublica also interviewed several Occupiers who "say the Red Cross did not take their calls in the early days and weeks after the storm hit." One of them reports that a Red Cross worker said "they couldn't be seen working with us."
The sources differ as to how long the ban lasted. (That's partly because it may have stayed alive long after it was officially killed: "One person says the policy was rescinded in a matter of days, but that it took weeks to communicate to all the corners of the Red Cross relief effort.") But while it was in place, ProPublica reports, "some Red Cross responders were so troubled, they tried to work with people from Occupy covertly. They say they maintained a spreadsheet of Occupy contacts separate from the other contact lists to hide from senior Red Cross officials that they were working with the group."
To read the rest of the ProPublica piece, go here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Local relief efforts are always better at identifying needs and delivering the services. What they consistently lack is stockpiles of resources. The best thing the Red Cross can do in most of these cases is show up at a staging area with skids of water, food an blankets and let the locals coordinate distribution. But that doesn't fit with their top-down, we-know-what's-best model.
Them, too. But like the Red Cross they have resources which the locals don't. Let FEMA and Red Cross bring the supplies and let the locals handle the last mile of distribution.
This sounds like a bit of a tempest in a teapot. I mean, I agree with the narrative, that localized relief efforts were more effective than monolithic organizations. But the edict where Red Cross workers were ordered to not interact with a local, "non sanctioned" relief effort may be less conspiracy-theory, and one more bound to rigid protocol.
Look what happened with the WHO publishing disease statistics. Some WHO worker would chat with some aid worker on the ground who would rattle off some number of cases that he'd seen. Then the WHO extrapolated that unsubstantiated number to the population at large and it appears in some official publication. Then the aid worker sees the number and realizes it came from him.
The nice thing to see is that you can still get Americans together to do good in a crunch time.
For some things, ad hoc groups focused on an immediate goal work pretty well, if the right spirit is there.
The Red Cross is mostly a fund raising organization, and it sees disasters first and foremost as fund raising opportunities.
Mostly?
Entirely
Local relief efforts are always better at identifying needs and delivering the services. What they consistently lack is stockpiles of resources. The best thing the Red Cross can do in most of these cases is show up at a staging area with skids of water, food an blankets and let the locals coordinate distribution. But that doesn't fit with their top-down, we-know-what's-best model.
And as much as I hate the politics of the Occupy people, credit where due.
FEMA sucks.
Them, too. But like the Red Cross they have resources which the locals don't. Let FEMA and Red Cross bring the supplies and let the locals handle the last mile of distribution.
Major Red Cross donors were from the same elite political circles
I mean, this says everything that needs to be said, right? This is a direct admission of what their priorities are.
This sounds like a bit of a tempest in a teapot. I mean, I agree with the narrative, that localized relief efforts were more effective than monolithic organizations. But the edict where Red Cross workers were ordered to not interact with a local, "non sanctioned" relief effort may be less conspiracy-theory, and one more bound to rigid protocol.
Look what happened with the WHO publishing disease statistics. Some WHO worker would chat with some aid worker on the ground who would rattle off some number of cases that he'd seen. Then the WHO extrapolated that unsubstantiated number to the population at large and it appears in some official publication. Then the aid worker sees the number and realizes it came from him.
Fuck the Red Cross. It's a criminal enterprise.