MEXICO CITY -- As pressure is mounting on the American Red Cross (ARC) to explain why it has so little to show with the large donation it spent in post-earthquake Haiti, the best choice for the agency is to give more details of the aid rather than excuses.
An investigation carried out by the U.S. media groups ProPublica and NPR News recently unveiled that the ARC raised 488 million U.S. dollars for Haiti and promised to provide homes for 130,000 people. However it appears that only six houses have been built since 2010.
The issues investigated include the lack of houses built by the aid agency, the "generous" salary it pays the expatriate aid workers, disputes surrounding official figures released, how it treated a cholera outbreak and the lack of interest in helping the Haitians, among others.
Questions flooded in. However, so far, the organization has been on the defensive.
It posted a list of "13 Facts" on its website that provided little information.
Answering the accusation that its spending reports "are so broad as to be useless," the ARC presented a breakdown. The agency said, it spent 173 million dollars it raised on "shelter," though the investigative report says the Red Cross built no more than six new homes.
It said it also spent 48 million on "livelihoods," 66 million on "emergency relief," 56 million on "disaster preparedness," without any further explanation.
None of the "facts" answered how much the agency paid its top staff in Haiti, which was one of the red flags raised by the investigative report.
Less than a week after a joint investigative report raised a red flag on the way the ARC operates, a U.S. congressman is calling for a hearing into the affair.
In a letter to the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rick Nolan from Minnesota spelled out what's at stake: the future of the internationally respected disaster relief agency, the NPR reported Tuesday.
"Like millions of Americans," wrote Nolan, he gave to the agency "with the confidence that money would be used wisely and managed carefully to assist those in desperate need."
It appears to be clear to everyone. To the ARC, this is an opportunity to showcase its work in Haiti, if merited, or shed light on potentially faulty internal procedures, so they can be fixed.
If the ARC hopes to come out of this trust crisis, or at the very least to preserve its reputation, it needs to make an earnest effort to answer the concerns of all those who generously gave to improve the lives of others.
