Navigating Crisis: Lessons from Kenya Red Cross Society's Failed Fundraising Campaign

In her book "Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach," Kathleen Fearn-Banks outlines three potential outcomes of a crisis: (a) severe consequences such as closure, legal action, and damage to reputation; (b) surviving but suffering a loss of public trust and financial setbacks; (c) successful crisis management, maintaining or improving reputation.

This article examines the Kenya Red Cross Society's (KRCS) response to a failed fundraising campaign, the Kenya Drought Appeal, launched in March 2019. Despite the organization's solid reputation for humanitarian work and successful past fundraising efforts, it faced unexpected social media backlash from the public. KRCS later acknowledged several factors contributing to the campaign's poor response, indicating its failure.

This crisis case aims to analyze where KRCS stands among these three possible outcomes and explore strategies it could employ to mitigate negative effects on future fundraising campaigns.

The Background

In January 2019, both the Kenya Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET) and the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) issued alerts indicating a looming food security crisis in several parts of the country. FEWSNET's outlook for February to May 2019 warned of stressed food security levels (IPC 2) due to inadequate rainfall during the October-December 2018 short rains. Similarly, NDMA's bulletins identified 13 counties affected by drought, with 9 at the Alert Phase (IPC 2) and the remaining 4 at IPC 1 (minimal), indicating a deteriorating situation.

The affected counties included Garissa, Tharaka Nithi, Turkana, Marsabit, Samburu, Tana River, Kitui, Isiolo, and Wajir, with Mandera, West Pokot, Meru (North), and Kilifi at IPC 1. Projections suggested below-average crop yields and depletion of rangeland resources, particularly impacting pastoralist communities. Over 900,000 people, primarily in pastoral livelihood zones, were food insecure, with numbers expected to rise. This crisis also threatened livelihoods, with communities resorting to negative coping mechanisms like selling assets and disrupting education. Additionally, conflicts over scarce resources were anticipated, exacerbating the already dire situation for vulnerable communities.

The Kenya Drought Appeal

On March 21, 2019, KRCS launched an appeal for $8 million (KES 824,554,720) to address the severe drought affecting the nation. Secretary General Abbas Gullet appealed to the public on behalf of the organization, citing NDMA reports on the projected number of affected individuals. He outlined how the funds would be utilized, focusing on cash transfers, food distribution, water, sanitation, hygiene, health, nutrition, and livelihood support for 300,000 people across affected counties.

The press briefing served as a crucial platform for KRCS to communicate the campaign and engage with the media. However, despite the preparation and anticipation for the campaign, events both preceding and following the appeal seemed to undermine its success. While press conferences offer opportunities for interactive communication and can generate significant publicity, external factors may impact the campaign's effectiveness.

Ultimately, the success of the campaign was hindered by various challenges and external circumstances, leading to uncertainties regarding its ability to effectively address the needs of drought-affected communities.

The Government Word

Prior to the KRCS appeal, the government, led by then Deputy President (DP) William Ruto, issued statements downplaying the severity of the drought situation. Ruto stated that the country was not facing a food crisis but rather a challenge of food distribution. He even went as far as to assert that nobody had died due to hunger, calling for the arrest of a local chief who reported hunger-related deaths.

The government announced a KES 2 billion funding to support ongoing food relief programs and water trucking in 13 affected counties, emphasizing its interventions to manage the drought and ensure no casualties. Additionally, the DP mentioned a separate allocation of KES 12.4 billion for cash transfers to vulnerable individuals, including the elderly, and assured stable livestock conditions in arid and semi-arid counties.

NDMA CEO James Oduor echoed the government's stance, denying reports of starvation-related deaths in Baringo and Turkana Counties and emphasizing prior advisories issued to facilitate timely responses. Despite heart-breaking images and videos circulating on social media and news channels, the government maintained that the crisis was exaggerated.

The government's assertions presented a challenge for KRCS's fundraising efforts, as they contradicted the urgency conveyed by the humanitarian organization. How could KRCS successfully appeal for public donations when the government, the custodian of the people, claimed the situation was under control? This discrepancy created scepticism among the public and posed a significant hurdle for KRCS in garnering support for its relief efforts.

Contradicting Government and Public Officials assertions on death due to hunger

In an interview with Citizen TV, Tiaty Member of Parliament William Kamket confirmed reports that at least five people had died of starvation in Baringo, contradicting assertions by the Deputy President that claims of death by hunger were 'fake' news. Kamket added that many affected people continued to suffer greatly due to hunger. Days earlier, Turkana South MP James Lomenen had told the Standard Newspaper that he had lost four elderly constituents due to hunger.

Social Media Backlash

KRCS’ appeal caused an uproar among Kenyans on Twitter (now X). The following day, the hashtag #RedCrossTumechoka surged to the top spot on Kenyan Twitter, fuelled by widespread discontent among citizens. Kenyans expressed frustration over the Red Cross's appeal for Sh824.55 million to aid 3.4 million drought-affected individuals, highlighting a lack of transparency and accountability regarding previous donations. Many voiced suspicions of mismanagement, questioning the allocation of funds and demanding detailed accounts of past contributions. Criticism extended beyond the Red Cross, with calls for government accountability and accusations of neglecting its responsibility to address the crisis. There was a strong sentiment that the burden of assistance should not solely fall on citizens, particularly when concerns lingered about the government's utilization of tax revenues. Additionally, there was outrage over the denial by authorities of any deaths directly attributed to the drought, further fuelling public frustration and distrust.

Overall, the trending hashtag encapsulated a broader sentiment of disillusionment and dissatisfaction with both humanitarian organizations and governmental responses to the ongoing humanitarian crisis.

Kenyan for Kenyans (K4K)

The Kenyans for Kenya (K4K) initiative, launched in July 2011 in response to the devastating drought, marked a historic moment in Kenya's humanitarian efforts. Spearheaded by Safaricom Foundation, Kenya Commercial Bank, Media Owners Association (MOA), and Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS), the campaign aimed to mobilize both corporates and the public to raise funds for relief efforts in the drought-affected Northern region. The drought of 2011, described by the United Nations as the worst in over half a century, left millions of Kenyans and refugees in Northern Kenya facing starvation and death.

K4K successfully raised over KES 753 million, surpassing its target, and became a beacon of collective action and strategic communication. The campaign's success was attributed to strategic PR efforts led by Gina Din Corporate Communications (GDCC), significant engagement on social media, corporate pledges, and innovative initiatives like the Nakumatt donation scheme and GE Healthcare's social media competition. Lessons learned from K4K emphasized the importance of domestic funding, co-branding with reputable organizations like the Red Cross, and linking emergency fundraising to long-term goals.

Despite K4K’s success, questions arose from the public regarding the utilization of funds and the impact of K4K's projects. Media reports, for example, highlighted dilapidated projects and raised concerns about accountability, leading to a backlash and questions from the public on how funds were utilized. The success of that 2011 campaign and unresolved issues and answers then threatened to derail the success of the 2019 Kenya Drought Appeal campaign because of not so clear issues regarding K4K campaign impact.

In regards to the relation between the K4K initiative and the Kenya Drought Appeal, it seems like K4K's significant success in mobilizing resources and raising awareness brought forth public scrutiny on project implementation and utilization. Consequently, this led to issues of lack of transparency and effective communication affecting the 2019 appeal, eventually leading to its failure and low response from the public.

The Abbas Interview Rebuttal

In response to backlash following the Kenya Drought Appeal, the Secretary-General (SG) of the Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS) addressed concerns in an interview with NTV's Ken Mijungu on the Sidebar show. He emphasized the urgent need for intervention in drought-affected areas, focusing on saving lives rather than debating causes of death. The SG clarified that KRCS aimed to assist 300,000 of the most at-risk individuals out of the 1.1 million affected, prioritizing preventing further fatalities. The organization planned to allocate funds mainly for cash transfers via MPESA, ensuring swift and accountable aid delivery.

Regarding the previous K4K initiative, the SG debunked claims of financial mismanagement, providing a detailed breakdown of the funds raised and their allocation. He highlighted the successful implementation of mid-to-long-term projects in areas like Kaikor, Chesirmion, and Walda, demonstrating sustainable solutions for food production in arid regions. Addressing misinformation, he clarified that certain reported failures were unrelated to the K4K project and emphasized the organization's commitment to transparency, with audit reports readily available on the KRCS website.

The SG emphasized KRCS's role as a government auxiliary mandated to serve ordinary Kenyans impartially. He praised the organization's track record in responding to various crises, highlighting the dedication of staff and volunteers. Additionally, he defended KRCS's legitimate business ventures as essential for financial sustainability and reiterated the importance of accountability without resorting to character assassination.

Looking ahead, the SG stressed the need for collaborative efforts to address long-term challenges posed by climate change and water scarcity. He advocated for prioritizing quality water provision and sustainable development, urging partnerships with the private sector to leverage expertise and resources for the benefit of all citizens.

In conclusion, the SG reaffirmed KRCS's commitment to its mandate, urging constructive engagement and collaboration to tackle ongoing humanitarian crises and promote lasting solutions for the well-being of Kenyans.

Media Position

The role of the media in supporting KRCS's fundraising efforts during the drought crisis deserves commendation. It's evident that the media played a crucial role in raising awareness and rallying public support for the cause. Despite some doubts cast on media reporting regarding past projects like K4K, KRCS actively worked to clarify any misinformation.

Media reports highlighting the dire situation in for example in Turkana County, with families watching loved ones slowly starve to death, underscored the urgency of the crisis. Reports of famine-related fatalities in the hardest-hit areas further emphasized the severity of the situation.

The Nation provided KRCS with a platform to address accountability and governance concerns, allowing the organization to clarify matters to the public. Additionally, the media house conducted a sit-in interview with the SG to shed light on K4K issues, contributing to the success of the fundraising appeal.

Several media outlets also challenged the government's denial of the drought and urged authorities to confront the issue before it worsened. This proactive stance by the media in challenging the government's position and advocating for action demonstrated their role in supporting KRCS's efforts to provide aid to affected individuals.

The Kenya Drought Appeal Impact

The impact of the backlash following the call for funds had both negative and positive outcomes. On the downside, the response to the appeal was lower than expected, leading to a reduction in the target number of households supported from 25,000 to 12,200. However, several successful factors were noted in the process.

Despite the challenges, KRCS had access to early warning information from various sources like FEWSNET, NDMA, and the Kenya Meteorological Department, which enabled the initiation of early drought actions. Additionally, the British Red Cross provided resources to support the pre-registration of beneficiaries in eight counties, laying the groundwork for unconditional cash transfers.

Engagement with County Steering Groups, chaired by the NDMA, facilitated the allocation of project target sites in the worst affected areas, ensuring no duplication of interventions. Community engagement and accountability activities were crucial in managing expectations and ensuring effective response.

Moreover, the pre-registration of beneficiaries served as a resource mobilization avenue from other partners, facilitating timely cash transfers. KRCS's good reputation within the community ensured the right beneficiaries were targeted, garnering support from local administrators.

Overall, despite initial challenges, these efforts contributed to a more targeted and effective response to the drought crisis.

Communication Strategies for Mitigation

In the wake of the Kenya Red Cross Society's (KRCS) failed fundraising campaign for the Kenya Drought Appeal, effective communication strategies emerge as critical for mitigating negative impacts on future fundraising endeavours, aligning with Kathleen Fearn-Banks' three potential outcomes of a crisis.

Firstly, in scenarios where an organization faces severe consequences such as closure or reputational damage, transparent communication becomes paramount. KRCS must openly address the challenges encountered during the campaign, admitting any missteps, and outlining tangible steps towards improvement. By embracing transparency and implementing robust accountability measures like regular financial reporting and independent audits, KRCS can rebuild trust with the public and stakeholders.

Secondly, should the organization survive but experience a loss of public trust and financial setbacks, proactive efforts to rebuild trust are imperative. KRCS should engage in open dialogue sessions, town hall meetings, and listening sessions to address concerns, clarify misconceptions, and demonstrate sincerity in rectifying past shortcomings. Moreover, leveraging influencers and community leaders to endorse fundraising initiatives can help restore confidence in KRCS's mission and initiatives.

Lastly, in the event that the crisis is successfully managed, strategic communication planning becomes essential for future campaigns. This entails conducting thorough risk assessments, anticipating potential challenges, and developing proactive strategies to address them. Collaborating with government agencies, local authorities, and other humanitarian organizations can enhance coordination and broaden support for fundraising initiatives. Additionally, infusing messaging with empathy and compassion by sharing compelling stories of impact and tangible outcomes of past interventions can resonate with donors and stakeholders, inspiring generosity and fostering lasting connections.

By implementing these communication strategies, KRCS can navigate future fundraising campaigns more effectively, mitigate negative effects of crises, and uphold its reputation as a trusted humanitarian organization dedicated to serving vulnerable communities in Kenya.

Conclusion

The case of the Kenya Red Cross Society's response to the failed Kenya Drought Appeal illustrates the intricate dynamics of crisis communication and management. Kathleen Fearn-Banks's framework of potential outcomes - closure, survival with loss of trust, or successful crisis management - provides a lens through which to evaluate KRCS's experience.

Despite facing unforeseen challenges and encountering significant backlash, KRCS navigated through the crisis with resilience and determination. While the appeal did not meet its intended targets and scepticism prevailed, the organization demonstrated a commitment to transparency, accountability, and responsiveness.

Through proactive engagement with the media, clarification of misinformation, and steadfast dedication to its humanitarian mission, KRCS worked to salvage its reputation and uphold its mandate of serving the most vulnerable. The efforts to address concerns, debunk misconceptions, and outline concrete steps for future action reflect a strategic approach to crisis communication and recovery.

This case underscores the importance of adaptability, integrity, and effective communication in navigating crises. While challenges may arise, organizations like KRCS can emerge stronger by embracing transparency, learning from setbacks, and fostering trust with stakeholders.

Ultimately, the Kenya Red Cross Society's response to the Kenya Drought Appeal crisis serves as a valuable learning experience for organizations facing similar challenges!