1. Claim of Diversion of Vehicles for Public Relations Purposes:
NPR
October 29, 2014
“Our reporting found incidents where the charity sent as many as 40 percent of its emergency vehicles
to press conferences instead of into the field…”
Red Cross response:
The Red Cross provided abundant explanation and documentation that this allegation is entirely false,
but ProPublica/NPR declined to use our information in their story and even said we didn’t supply
documentation when we did.
This allegation is based on the opinion of a single former Red Cross responder, Richard Rieckenberg,
who claimed that 40 percent of our Emergency Response Vehicles (ERVs) in New York were sent to one
press conference on one day: November 2, 2012. Yet the story uses plural references to indicate that
there were multiple incidents where the Red Cross sent as many as 40 percent of its vehicles to press
conferences. In addition, the report contains no evidence other than this lone source, whom we
refuted, supporting the claim that there was even one instance, much less multiple instances, when Red
Cross sent as many as 40 percent of its vehicles to press conferences. This is one of two alleged
incidents that underpin their claim that we put “PR over people” throughout our entire massive
response. The other dealt with Heidi Klum, whom they actually show delivering supplies to people, not
diverting them.
Though the entire premise is untrue, the 40 percent figure is also simply wrong as a percentage of
vehicles in the region — and we had documented this prior to publication. They quote Rieckenberg
asserting there were only 37 operational ERVs assigned to Mass Care at the time, by which number 15 of
those ERVs that he says were “assigned to public relations duties” would comprise 40 percent of the
total ERVs available. The story cited no evidence for this beyond his recollection. However, we provided
NPR/ProPublica with our official disaster log for November 2, 2012, which showed there were 77 ERVs
available to the New York operation that day, which included the five boroughs of New York City,
Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, and Orange. In that email communication we also strenuously
objected to their threat of their reporting that we “declined to provide” this information — which they
nonetheless falsely did. They were wrong in the percentage of vehicles available and wrong in the
purpose for which these vehicles were used.
Moreover, the only example they use to bolster the claim that the vehicles — regardless of number —
were sent to that location for PR and not relief purposes is from their interpretation of a November 2,
2012 press conference that took place on Staten Island. Their reading of the event is false on all levels.
The ERV’s in question on November 2, 2012 were sent to Staten Island not for a press conference – but
for operational purposes. Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro requested we send them
there to address needs in an area that had been particularly hard hit by Sandy and difficult to access
because of closed bridges and flooded roads. Molinaro asked the Red Cross to send the ERVs to this
exact distribution point, Miller’s Field on New Dorp Lane, where other agencies such as the Salvation
Army were gathered. The vehicles were providing relief on a rolling basis that day, going to the
distribution point to load up and going back into neighborhoods to provide residents with food,
blankets, water, etc.

1

 The ERVs were used for performing mass care duties, including distributing relief supplies and food and
providing mental health support.
While a press conference was scheduled by the Department of Homeland Security at the distribution
site the afternoon of November 2, the ERVs were not sent there for that purpose as alleged by
Rieckenberg without substantiation being required by the reporters, even as we provided the vehicle
log. This distribution site was identified and established prior to any press conference, and the Red
Cross and other groups continued to deliver services there long after the cameras left. This was not a
venue set up for a media event; it was a media availability held at a location where services were
already being provided.
We sent multiple photos of service delivery taking place at this same site, which they did not use.
http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/66111
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/americanredcross/8150429245/in/photostream/
The only photo used to buttress the claim that we had been sent there for a press conference – was a
photo taken by Catherine Barde, a Red Cross volunteer, who was at the site. They used her photo but
never contacted her. After the story appeared, she wrote in a Reddit chat with ProPublica reporters.
“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.” – Catherine Barde, Reddit 10-31-14
After the story ran, the reporters reached out to the operational site manager, Gregory Smith, who
strongly refuted the information in the story in an email to the reporters on November, 6, 2014.
“I know volunteers were told to go to the staging area at New Dorp… just as I was instructed to go to
New Dorp as the operational site manager. I also know that a press conference was being planned for
later that afternoon or early evening at New Dorp. I can only conclude that whoever you are speaking
with interpreted the operational objective of the day was to support the press conference. However, I
know for an absolute certainty that waiting for a press conference that was being planned for the
later that afternoon was not the mission objective, it never was. It shocks me that anyone would
believe it would be. The volunteers and resources were directed to the staging area at New Dorp to
begin the service and resource delivery to the affected areas on Staten Island. What, if anything they
were waiting for was the operational site manager to arrive and begin the site and service delivery
coordination. After flying in from California, sleeping on a cot at a staff shelter in a high school
gymnasium along with dozens of other responders the previous night, I arrived at the site at
approximately 9:00 am and established myself as the operational site manager. Shortly thereafter, I
completed my site assessment and gave instructions for the volunteers to leave the site and begin
distributing resources…which they did.” – Gregory Smith, American Red Cross
Surprisingly, despite these first-hand accounts, neither ProPublica nor NPR issued a correction.
2

 2. Claim of Misdirection of Volunteers During Hurricane Isaac:
ProPublica
The Red Cross’ Secret Disaster
October 29, 2014
“The Red Cross marshaled an army of volunteers, but many were misdirected by the charity’s managers.
Some were ordered to stay in Tampa long after it became clear that Isaac would bypass the city…. “
“The hundreds of volunteers in Tampa weren’t only there for the hurricane: The Republican National
Conventions was going on and the Red Cross wanted a large presence, Rieckenberg says.”
Red Cross Response:
Again, this is an opinion of one Red Cross worker unsubstantiated by the facts. Here are the facts – all of
which were given to ProPublica/NPR and then ignored:
As part of our planning for major hurricanes in Florida, the Red Cross has a standing commitment to
local emergency management to shelter 100,000 people in the Tampa area during a hurricane, and that
was the key driver behind our decisions to place volunteers there. Tampa is a low-lying area, prone to
flooding and with a vulnerable population. As we explained to the reporters, it was the hurricane
heading toward Tampa, not the Republican Convention that guided our decisions.
The Red Cross must make decisions about where we are going to deploy volunteers for an oncoming
hurricane as many as five days in advance of anticipated landfall in order to get people and materials in
place before weather conditions worsen and travel is made more difficult or impossible.
We relied on the forecasts of the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and information from FEMA, state
emergency management offices and other key partners to determine the best course of action.
The ProPublica/NPR reporters wrote that “according to the National Hurricane Center, at least five days
before Isaac made landfall [on August 28], it was clear the storm would not hit Tampa.” The statement
that on August 23 it was clear the storm would not hit Tampa is false. According to publicly available
NHC information (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/al09/al092012.fstadv.025.shtml), tropical
storm warnings for the Tampa Bay area were still in effect as late as August 27, one day before the
storm made landfall.
The report’s claim of “the obvious fact that the Tampa Bay area was under no particular disaster
threat...” was, as of August 27, 2012, incorrect. Moreover, it was not obvious to the news media, which
covered the storm threat extensively at the time; state officials in Florida, who were also making
preparations; or to the Republican Party, which all but cancelled the opening day of their convention on
August 27.
Rieckenberg also alleged, that “Red Cross officials prevented disaster response leaders from moving
volunteers out of Tampa even after forecasts showed that the hurricane wouldn’t hit the city.” As we
explained to the reporters, we cannot move volunteers and resources until it is safe to travel. As soon as
we were confident that the storm was no longer a threat to the Tampa area, and it was safe for our

3

 volunteers to travel, we immediately remobilized volunteers to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the
Florida Panhandle. The reporters did not include our explanation in their stories.
Finally, the report said Red Cross “did not provide figures for how many mass care volunteers were on
the ground in other states before Isaac.” This is simply false. In fact, we gave them a detailed
breakdown of 2,739 personnel we sent to four other states, including the following statistics on the total
number of responders assigned and deployed (some were local and some were in transit) on the day
when Isaac made landfall and the day after:





Alabama (410)
Louisiana (1,231)
Mississippi (947)
Texas (151)

It is recklessly misleading to claim we didn’t “provide figures.”
3. Claim Red Cross Failed to Provide Staff and Service Delivery in Bergen County, New Jersey
ProPublica
The Red Cross’ Secret Disaster
October 29, 2014
“When the storm hit, officials in Bergen County, New Jersey activated their Emergency Operations
Center. In keeping with a carefully established plan, representatives from government agencies and
charities gather there to coordinate, share information and respond to crises 24 hours a day.
A seat was reserved for the Red Cross, the most important nongovernment responder. But the Red Cross’
seat remained empty for the full duration of the Sandy response.
“They were the only major player not there,” says police lieutenant Matthew Tiedemann, who helped run
Bergen County’s response to Sandy. County officials had no easy way to get in touch with Red Cross
leadership to tell them about areas of need on the ground, he says…”
Red Cross Response:
This is another clear case of ProPublica/NPR omitting the response we provided and ignoring positive
public comments about the Red Cross while pretending only negative comments exist. The Red Cross, in
fact, offered to staff the Emergency Coordination Office in Bergen, but the Office of Emergency
Management told us that it was not necessary, as we were already in constant touch with them, and our
operation was in a parking lot across the street. Our offer to staff the Office was declined by the Office
but the reporters failed to include this rebuttal to their allegation.
The story goes on to say that Red Cross “failed” and “Only a couple of low-level volunteers showed up,
and Tiedemann found himself and his staff scrambling to open a shelter and feed thousands.” But the
story ignored the fact that Red Cross opened multiple shelters in Bergen County—6 for evacuation
purposes, as well as others for post-landfall purposes. The peak day in the county was after landfall on
November 5, 2012, when we were serving 185 people in two shelters. We had a capacity post-storm in
our shelters to serve 727.
4

 Finally, the story quotes one Bergen County official who had negative things to say about the Red Cross
from his point of view on the ground. That is the reporters’ prerogative. Why were they afraid to
balance that with positive quotes from other, more senior New Jersey officials in charge of the overall
response? For example, here are quotes that are clearly available on the Red Cross public website which
we provided to the reporters:
“The American Red Cross has been a strong partner with the State of New Jersey, both in the
immediate aftermath of Superstorm Sandy and throughout the long-term recovery process.
The American Red Cross’s dedication and generosity has had a palpable impact on the State
and its residents.” —Terrence Brody, Executive Director, N.J. Governor’s Office of Recovery &
Rebuilding
“When Superstorm Sandy made landfall two years ago, the American Red Cross was there
from the start to help New Jersey families recover from the devastation. In the early parts of
the recovery efforts the Red Cross assisted families to transition out of FEMA’s Transitional
Sheltering Assistance program and return home or locate sustainable housing. Work continues
through Red Cross recovery grants made to organizations throughout the state helping
families recover and rebuild. This includes a significant grant to fund the Gap Funding
Initiative, a program offering grants to eligible homeowners in New Jersey’s RREM program.
Thanks to Red Cross support, thousands of New Jersey families are on the road to
recovery.”—Richard E. Constable III, Commissioner, N.J. Department of Community Affairs
Even if ProPublica/NPR did not want to use quotes from the Red Cross website, there was no indication
that they tried to contact either individual for additional perspective.
4. Rick Rieckenberg Was a High Level Red Cross Official
NPR
Red Cross Diverted Assets During Storm’s Aftermath to Focus on Image
October 29, 2014
“Richard Rieckenberg was one of the officials in charge of the Red Cross's response to the hurricane.”
Red Cross Response:
Much of the criticism of the Red Cross response came from one source, Mr. Rieckenberg, a Red Cross
worker who served only two weeks on Sandy, some of that time in Washington, DC, and the rest in New
York. He was one of 79 technical chiefs on the operation, a position that was five levels removed from
the actual leadership of the Sandy operation, as indicated on this organization chart we provided to the
reporters. Despite this, the reporters described him as “one of the officials in charge of the Red Cross’
response to the hurricane.” In the photo caption above he is cited as a former head of mass care for the
American Red Cross, leaving the erroneous impression he somehow singularly led this function for the
entire Red Cross. This is a gross and knowingly misleading exaggeration of his role, and a critical point
because the story ascribes to him far more knowledge than he ever could have had about the operation
from his limited vantage point.
5. Claim Red Cross Wasted 30 Percent of the Food It Was Serving
ProPublica
5

 The Red Cross’ Secret Disaster
October 29, 2014
“He [Rick Rieckenberg] was in charge of tracking food and, at the time, the Red Cross was already
wasting three out of every 10 meals being prepared, he estimates.”
Red Cross Response:
Once again, no evidence was supplied by reporters, only an estimate from a single Red Cross responder
on the ground in one area for two weeks out of a months-long emergency response across multiple
states. His unsubstantiated estimate without any actual data is accepted as fact by the reporters. Why
was the Red Cross asked to produce solid data discounting this allegation whereas the reporters found it
sufficient to rely on the estimate, memory, and “contemporaneous notes” of the source (notes which
may prove that he recalled certain things but not that his recollections are accurate or in context)?
Clearly, the reporters did not hold their preferred source to the same standard of proof.
That said, neither the reporters nor the source could produce any documents or evidence to show that
30 percent of meals and snacks were wasted at any time during the operation. Our biggest challenge in
the early days after Sandy’s landfall was getting enough food to people and our ERVs were often
emptied almost as soon as they went out.
We do not discount the possibility that some food was unused. Early in large relief operations, there
may be meals that do not reach clients in time. If food has been out on a feeding route for too long and
cold food has become too warm and is above a safe temperature or hot food has become too cool, it
must be discarded for the safety of our clients. We strive to keep waste to an absolute minimum. But
we strongly believe, and think you will agree, that having a volume of food that may end up being
greater than the amount you can deliver is superior to having too little food, thus we will always try to
have as much food on hand as we have any hope of delivering.
We strongly reject the unsubstantiated allegation that 30 percent of the food was wasted at any time
during the response operation. We believe it was irresponsible and reckless for the report to present
this unsubstantiated claim. Their claim would mean that we wasted over five million meals and snacks,
which is ludicrous.
6. Claim Empty Trucks Sent to Drive Around
NPR
October 29, 2014
“In a storm weeks earlier, it even sent empty trucks to drive around to make it appear supplies were
being delivered…”
Red Cross Response:
Again, there is no evidence provided to support this other than the recollection, again, of Rick
Rieckenberg. In addition, even if an official did send trucks to canvass a hurricane-devastated area while
awaiting full supplies, this would in part fulfill the important function of surveying damage and recovery
needs to help plan future feeding routes and other needs.

6

 Does ProPublica/NPR have certain knowledge that it would be better if the trucks sat idle in a safe
parking lot somewhere? And even if some trucks only carried some snacks, this too would be useful to
those affected by the storm.
7. Claim Red Cross has been Misleading the Public About the Cost of Its Overhead and the Red Cross
Withdrew Claims about Its Spending from Its Website.
NPR
Red Cross Misstates How Donor Dollars Are Spent
December 4, 2014
“In place of 91 cents of every dollar donated, the Red Cross offered a different statistic. Officials say that
an average of 91 cents of every dollar they spend goes to disaster services, and that's what they meant
to say all along.”
ProPublica
Red Cross CEO Has Been Serially Misleading About Where Donor Dollars Are Going
December 4, 2014
“After inquiries by ProPublica and NPR, the Red Cross removed the statement from its website. The Red
Cross said the claim was not "as clear as it could have been, and we are clarifying the language."
The Red Cross declined repeated requests to say the actual percentage of donor dollars going to
humanitarian services.”
Red Cross Response:
We firmly stand by our statement that an average of 91 cents of every dollar the Red Cross spends is
invested in humanitarian services and programs. This percentage is calculated on overall spending each
year of the entire organization, and spending on management, general, and fundraising (MG&F). We
calculate it exactly the same way other non-profits calculate it.
Our 9% MG&F cost is based on information contained in our audited financial statements, which are
clearly available – and always have been-on our public website. Here are those public figures for the
past several fiscal years, in the exact format we provided to ProPublica and NPR which ignored them:
Year

Fundraising

2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(In thousands)

$126,580
$130,193
$127,019
$172,407
$189,431

Management
& General

Subtotal
MG&F

Total
Program
Services

Total
Expenses

$152,473
$138,472
$142,682
$140,847
$136,283

$279,053
$268,665
$269,701
$313,254
$325,714

$3,160,993
$3,102,170
$3,169,884
$3,031,879
$3,054,869

$3,440,046
$3,370,835
$3,439,585
$3,345,133
$3,380,583

Ratio
Supporting
Services/Total
Expenses
8.11%
7.97%
7.84%
9.36%
9.63%

The management/general figure covers work that supports the entire Red Cross, since we also must
fundraise for our programs across the entire organization as well, not just disasters.
7

 In a wide range of our materials, donor stewardship reports and financial statements, the Red Cross has
said that an average of 91 cents of every dollar the Red Cross spends is invested in humanitarian services
and programs. This has never been a new number. We have, in fact, been saying it all along. This has
been clear and many of these materials have been in the public domain for years, yet that too, was
clearly omitted in the reporting-particularly by NPR. Listeners and online readers were left with the
erroneous impression that this was some newly concocted number when it was clearly derived from the
figures provided above and the financial data that has long been available on our public website.
We have acknowledged that there have been cases in which we could have been clearer. There were
places on the website where that occurred and there were occasions where we were not precise in our
public statements. But knowing that precision is important, we worked to correct those mistakes where
we found them. On balance, most public references have been correct. Most importantly, the
calculation itself has always been correct, as proven by the numbers above that were provided to both
news outlets.
ProPublica/NPR on Dec. 4 promptly attacked the changes we made for the sake of precision — but in so
doing, conceded that this new language is “technically true.” The story concedes that our calculations
are “technically true,” yet the reporters continue to perpetuate the narrative that the Red Cross has
been misleading.
8. Claim Red Cross Had a Policy Prohibiting Work with Occupy Sandy:
ProPublica
How Fear of Occupy Wall Street Undermined the Red Cross’ Sandy Relief Effort
December 11, 2014
“…Occupy Sandy was "one of the leading humanitarian groups providing relief to survivors across New
York City and New Jersey," as a government-commissioned study put it.
Yet the Red Cross, which was bungling its own aid efforts after the storm, made a decision that further
hampered relief: Senior officials told staffers not to work with Occupy Sandy….
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.”
Red Cross Response: ProPublica/NPR devoted this entire story to the false claim that the Red Cross at
some uncertain point – uncertain even to the ProPublica/NPR team as they published this allegation –
ordered workers as a matter of policy not to collaborate with Occupy Sandy. These unnamed sources
couldn’t name a single Red Cross official as having supposedly given such an order: “One says the

8

 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.”
To buttress this allegation, the ProPublica/NPR team cites a passage from a study conducted for DHS
(see p. 54 of the study). But as we alerted the reporters before publication, this DHS report actually
takes note of “positive and negative” experiences in the Occupy Sandy relationship with American Red
Cross. We even noted the specific page numbers (40-42) where this report noted our cooperation with
Occupy Sandy. Yet the ProPublica/NPR team shockingly fails to note the balanced picture that emerges
from comments such as these on pp. 40 and 41 (which, again, we pointed out to ProPublica/NPR prior to
publication):
• “Occupy Sandy described the American Red Cross as “being our lifeline for hot meals.”
• “An Occupy Sandy member praised the American Red Cross for distributing meals in Brighton Beach
to long lines of residents.”
• “Occupy Sandy members reported that FEMA was slow to offer housing to people and that the
American Red Cross was trying to set up more shelters for people but was hindered by local NYC
laws.”
This last item suggests that ARC was a superior force in seeking to provide housing in Sandy-ravaged
New York but was hindered by other forces. This is just one example of context that is sorely missing
from the extensive ProPublica/NPR reportage.
The ProPublica/NPR team failed to prove the allegations in the story. Given that the Red Cross firmly
denied the story and a key document cited in the story offered an alternative, but totally ignored view, it
is incumbent upon ProPublica/NPR to explain why its information was more credible than the Red Cross
denial.
Furthermore, in the Oct. 23 questions emailed to the Red Cross, the ProPublica/NPR team actually cited
one of myriad examples in which our volunteers went out of their way to work with Occupy Sandy: Red
Cross volunteers planning to distribute flashlights in the Rockaways “discovered they had no batteries. A
Red Cross staffer came to the YANA community center and asked Occupy Sandy volunteers to donate
batteries….”
Yet when ProPublica/NPR published its Oct. 29 story, it tailored this anecdote to appear as criticism
rather than the collaboration it would later decide is important.
9. Claim Sen. Grassley has Initiated an Investigation into Red Cross Finances:
ProPublica
Senator Demands Answers on Red Cross’ Finances
January 9, 2015
“Citing an investigation by ProPublica and NPR, Sen. Charles Grassley is asking the American Red Cross to
explain more clearly how it uses public donations, specifying how much money goes to services and how
much to overhead.”
NPR
Senator Asks Red Cross to Explain Its Finances
9

 January 9, 2015
Shorenstein Center Press Release
January 29, 2015
“ProPublica and NPR found that the Red Cross had put public relations ahead of relief services and had
been serially misleading about its use of donations. The series showed how the charity had failed to
deliver basic aid after several recent major disasters, including Superstorm Sandy, leaving victims in
distress, even though it had received a deluge of support from Americans eager to help. After the series
ran, the Red Cross had to withdraw its claims about its spending and Iowa Senator Charles Grassley
initiated an investigation.”
Red Cross Response:
We can’t help but wonder about the difference in the headlines between the ProPublica and NPR stories
in this instance. NPR: “Senator Asks Red Cross to Explain Its Finances” versus ProPublica: “Senator
Demands Answers on Red Cross Finances.” We take issue with the hyper-extended headline in the
ProPublica piece and we contend it does not accurately reflect the nature of the request from the
Senator’s office, which was a straightforward request for a meeting and information.
In addition, this latest reporting effort has been cited in the Goldsmith finalist announcement as an
“investigation” of Red Cross. The term “investigation” was not used in the statement issued by the
Senator’s office. Here is what the statement said:
“The public's expectation for an important, well-known organization like the Red Cross is complete,
accurate fundraising and spending information,” Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement. “In reaction to
the news reports on this topic, I’m asking the Red Cross to elaborate on how it calculates the facts and
figures given to the donating public.”
10. Claim ProPublica and NPR Could Find Few People Who Had Anything Good to Say about the Red
Cross
“It was very difficult to find sources with positive things to say about the Red Cross' responses to
Sandy and Isaac.”
“We gave the Red Cross a chance to provide other documentation about its Sandy and Isaac
responses and the charity declined to do so.”
— Justin Elliott on Reddit Ask Me Anything
Red Cross Response:
The reporters went to great lengths to reach out to a number of individuals for this story, and we heard
from many who told us verbally and via email that they told the reporters positive things about the
response-quotes which never made it into the story. In fact, Laura Sullivan of NPR even told our VP of
Disaster Services, Trevor Riggen, that everyone she talked to had good things to say about him and
“everyone loves the Red Cross.” But that never made it into the stories.
Justin Elliott’s comments on Reddit are false, reckless on their face and betray a bias that seems far
beneath the standards one would expect of ProPublica, which routinely applies for and sometimes wins
journalism prizes. While an investigative journalist may not want to print it, obviously it’s not difficult to
find someone with positive observations about the Red Cross. And we have shown you in this document
that on numerous occasions, we provided comment and this team claimed that we did not.

10

 As demonstrated by the following examples of positive statements regarding the Red Cross’ operations,
the absence of balanced reporting indicates a troubling bias on the part of the reporters.
One of these individuals was Mike Whitehead, who blogged about his conversation with ProPublica
after the interview. He is the Mass Care Coordinator for the state of Florida and is widely recognized as
an expert in disaster assistance. Indeed, Mr. Whitehead has been most recently recognized for
excellence by FEMA in 2013.
During Sandy, Mr. Whitehead flew up to New York to assist with the Multi Agency Feeding Task Force
and was also a liaison in the New York City Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations
Center. Mr. Whitehead contacted us after he spoke with the reporters, as did many other individuals
who were present on the operation. Several of them, including Mr. Whitehead, told us that they had
concerns about the direction of the story, that it was slanted, and that they tried to provide a more
balanced view of the operation. And yet, not one of them was quoted in the story.
We also know that the reporters spoke with the Head of the Mississippi office of Emergency
Management, who discussed our response to Isaac in what we understand was positive terms, and none
of that was included.
Then there were surveys completed by Red Cross clients – the thousands of people the Red Cross
delivered services to in New York and New Jersey. These surveys were conducted via SurveyMonkey to
assure anonymity for the respondents, and three out of four described a positive experience with the
Red Cross. These are surveys which the reporters asked for and received, but then refused to include in
their lengthy story. Remarkably, Laura Sullivan/NPR told us she did not use the survey data because it
was not a “scientific survey.” Instead, she relied on unsubstantiated, anecdotal claims of a handful of
people. New York Client Survey; New Jersey Client Survey.
In addition, surveys of Red Cross workers after Sandy show that the overwhelming majority – more than
70% - were satisfied with their experience. Everyone who was assigned to the Sandy relief operation
was sent an email asking them to complete the survey. Workers completed more than 3,000 surveys for
the NY and NJ operations. Once again, ProPublica and NPR chose not to include information from these
worker surveys and instead focused on a few dissatisfied workers who had a very limited role in the long
relief operation. New York Worker Survey; New Jersey Worker Survey
Refusing to cite surveys of thousands of people to counterbalance the unsubstantiated claims of a
handful of critics indicates a bias in the reporting and an agenda to reject facts which do not support the
thesis of the reporters.
While NPR and ProPublica rejected these surveys as unscientific, they readily published a blog on Nov.
13 citing our internal employee evaluation surveys to show discontent within the organization. We use
that survey to find areas for improvement, yet NPR and ProPublica used it as more ammunition for
criticism-never mentioning this was a tool for self-evaluation. These two reports make it clear to us that
we will be the subject of negative and critical reporting, regardless of our good faith efforts to find ways
to improve the Red Cross. Clearly, we are in a “no win” situation and being held to an impossible
standard.

11

 Finally, the stories contained almost no mention of all the good work the Red Cross did during Sandy and
how the money has been spent. Bob Scheifele, a Mass Care Chief, who talked to the reporters and is
quoted in the story was concerned by the lack of balance in the story and sent us the following email:
“I feel the story, while accurate on the portions I commented on, failed to report the many wonderful
things the Red Cross did during these storms. A disaster, by definition means things are not going as
they should. The Red Cross is an Army of volunteers that come together, sometimes for the first time
and offer help. … It’s unfortunate the report did not reflect the assistance the Red Cross provided to
many people in NJ and NY. A very large number of whom confronted me personally to thank me and
the Red Cross.” – Bob Scheifele, from email to Trevor Riggen,

October 29, 2014

12