died and he remarried in the case was settled the company did all of these shenanigans objecting to every evidence evidence, the subpoena, the testimony and it was settled in randall's favor that had won the largest history in the united states of $250,000 in 1834 terms, as $6 million today. he bought land to repay debts. . .

they were often left it up off the ground when the trains were going fast and they didn't stop them. there were a lot of problems, but it was again they were all testing things out and there was of the first to experiment in this form and technique. after this period with the roads

and canals he did come back to new york city and that is what i am going to talk a little bit about now. he came back to promote his idea as an elevated railroad. he wanted -- and i think this also speaks to what kind of person he was. he didn't just see the plan of the city. he saw a movement in the city and thought about how people were going to get around and how the island was going to develop. he was one of many people that came up with the plan for an elevated railroad and there are some wonderful distinction in the newspapers he gets into a few of some other designers referring to them as sort of stealing all of his ideas. but in fact they had taken a lot of his ideas. he had great support from a bunch of scientific organizations but ultimately his model was presented at the new york crystal palace in 1853, and

a sample of it is detected here not accepted and he lost many years advocating and he lost an enormous amount of money because he had a working model that was hugely intricate and made in philadelphia. the reason i know how it was made is there was a lawsuit because the workers were asking to be paid because they were apparently paid and that again is there are many inventions we don't know of about to place in the maryland where he lived. there is some obscure and interesting advertisements and newspapers about 500 men came to this town of 3:00 and he would find something or the description in somebody's journal of validate a table that

he has invented. hopefully some other things will come to light. but he did not -- this was a lot of financial trouble and he then offered to the city she resurveyed the city and was much more up-to-date map this wasn't really easy work for someone of his age but it reflects a lot of the financial desperation that he was feeling. for awhile he was going to pay him for that. he petitioned him directly but then in the end they did not and randel seems to have died in albany not well off at all. his legacy is an incredible, this incredible vision he had for the city and this incredible

excitement that he had about the invention and innovation and creativity with regard to transportation and planning. the other part of the legacy that i mentioned earlier is the data. he was able to do them on a project to do the topographical reconstruction is all possible because of randel. and as i learned when i was doing this book there were survey years and journalists from all over the country millions of them they took place as the country development moved across the west. a lot of those records and the data in them is increasingly being used by the colleges to figure out what was there and try to bring things back. so i see randel very much as part of this legacy he made possible in some ways by

changing the city and the land to preserve it in some ways even if it is an active imagination in many cases a creativity. i am going to read you one last section from the book because the only reason i know randel has to do with just i grew up in new york city what happens in a place for a long time in the early years of time sort of come to inhabit us and we see things are around us in a very different way. i'm going to read the last passage and then i would like to take questions. the garden in the machine is part of the national movement to lay down the country's infrastructure. part of the necessary network of internal improvements duquette for the land, of some of that

settlement commerce and industry. they were among the agents bringing them into the garden she is a stretch traveling across the suburban and industrialized landscape. it's become house the commission has noted the garden in the machine. they've become significant recreational rats. many old railroad lines have become trails through the road and urban living. the high line which clattered between factories and warehouses in lower manhattan transfer raw materials and produce has become an aerial refuge with architectural beauty curbing of the energy of the streets and sidewalks below, it too is a garden in the machine. one that honors its industrial history and its resurrection as

a plot of native landscape. the high line was built in the 1930's and many elevated lines around and above new york city many of them carrying passengers. the possibility of traveling avoiding the carriages seemed a wild visionary scheme and presented to the public in the middle of the 19th century. it reached alongside another wild visionary scheme the elevator. once adopted the elevator railroad expanded itself out to the pencil line of the grid. the elevator permitted new york city to expand up and out of the direction that was never dreamed of. they found a rebirth and brought people to new allegations. manhattan remains an island with a variation and in the island of theirs. [applause] hockley

[applause] >> i was worried that i would talk way too fast and be under my time but i am sure that there is time for a few questions. >> my question is to the great system. at the new york historical society we have the marvil marker that marks fourth avenue and 26th street and when i read the tours i point this out and i tell them that this stood at the

particular corner and i believe i got that information from reading something in the last three or four years. could you tell me if you know what corner these markers were marching in the center of the street? >> they were definitely on the corner and i can remember i think they were usually on the northeast corner, but it varied. it really had to do with the conditions on that particular spot. he wanted to put the markers in and i didn't mention everybody was running off with his markers. he would put wooden pegs, they would disappear -- yet to put in

and constantly having to go back and in the again. i don't know this for sure but i don't have a sense that he would try to do them consistently that he would have to change depending on conditions but the would be in a sixth avenue in the one intersection and the was an interesting section for the topographical reconstruction because if you just have elevations at all of these points, you have no idea what is in between them. what was in between the points in that data. a variety of the career reminds me a little bit of rob's in the

survey the engineering canals do you know if they ever ran into each other? >> the one i could find that he ran into that was an apprentice to him on one of his pennsylvania survey is who wrote these incredible letters about randall was charles jr in the bridges and railroads and also ended up in a lot of trouble with the companies he worked for sometimes being independent minded, but he wrote these beautiful letters to his family and he would apologize for not having written more. he was very religious and acutely conscious so you can see that in all of his books. but i don't know who else he

bumped into. it is a small circle of people and i imagine whose names he would recognize that he did come in to. >> did he ever privately or publicly express his ideas for what manhattan should look like or disagree with the commissioners? >> not that i know of. i did find interesting letters and the connections to the survey year generals and upstate albany and the archives and which he tells dewitt when he is in the cities in central state that i showed the maps of he shows life move to the square because it wasn't a good place. would be better elevation. i put the cemetery over here because i would be much better for people to get to an easy year access level ground and he does seem to have a sensitivity to the tauter sea and the landscape and how that should shape the design.

he clearly felt he could express that opinion to do it and he clearly had that. there is an interesting exchange. one of the guys that didn't like the grid we have all read about or heard about and he hired randel were consulted with randel. it's not a part of his statement that is often read that she hired him to give judgment on what the city was doing in terms of leveling the streets and he was worried there was going to be flooding and randel agreed with him and said they shouldn't be leveled. it's a very interesting part of that, so she does seem to have some sensitivity to that.

>> you say she died in poverty essentially. do they know where he is buried? >> he is buried in a range new jersey. we went out to the church in the cemetery where a lot of his relatives are buried and he was apparently buried with his first wife because her family was buried the first wife and a cousin who was from that area and all around that area we searched today through poison ivy looking at headstones the were faint and we didn't find anything but we did discover very sadly the huge section of the cemetery had been black

topped with a parking space so we don't know if that is one of the headstones. some of them are indeed in very bad shape. >> the second wife, latisha was very interesting. matilda was helping him a lot with his work. there is one reference in the notebook to, actually two of them to her being on the survey. so she may have assisted him in the field if my reading of them is correct, which it might not be. [laughter] it seems like it's there. and she worked with him on the map and she was very involved with his family and friends coming into town and taking care of them. the second wife, latisha, seemed to manage his business affairs.

he was writing letters to her. he would tell her what to do. he had at 1.8 hockley -- clay business. he had a ceramic trade and she was working with that. she comes up a lot in one of the court case testimony's because of the receipts in the money trail. she also was involved in a lot of the land related lawsuits and she became -- she and her son, john randel, jr. brought a case against randel at one time which seems, i spoke with a legal scholar, but have been the road to getting the credit terse off. >> there were children, no

family -- >> the three's -- i can't find any records from much held up. but there were definitely kids from the second marriage. and there are the newspaper notices i can find about them are obituaries. two of them died very young and the one that sood randel what his mother was a doctor. he helped fight the yellow fever epidemic and they got back and he was very ill and died shortly after that. two more questions, okay. >> if i ask you to flip back to the slide on the elevated railroad, it appears the upgrade is one level up to date in underground i assume they are

foundation structures to support the elevated railroad, but they also could be if the spaces are left vacant. is there a hint or talk of that? to transport different -- >> not in any of the documents that randel wrote. he had great plans for that. he had gas and water pipes to run under there and i -- >> was very interesting. it was a position who seems to -- one of the early members of the public community to call for this and he seems to have based on his description he may have worked on the blueprints that went along with his proposal i can't find them i can't tell if

it is in this one or one of the other ones i have that isn't here she describes the refuge bagasse can run down the streets he also is involved in trying to bring public water supply to baltimore. he was clearly interested in absolutely everything to do with infrastructure. one last question? >> thank you. [applause] >> it's always been understood the early engineers in america, all of the people of the like were kind of doing engineering on the go because so much was not, but i think he's made very strong case that randel was doing of the surveying that some of this is not just the quantity

of covering large parts of land and the various people were survey years but you have convinced us i think that he went further and elevated surveying itself in new york to a higher level. can you comment on that and any chance to set an application with of the surveying? >> i can't answer the latter part. i still don't know if randel had an impact on the surveying generally because he seemed so mostly concerned about getting it right himself. he didn't seem to be training people all but with one exception. most of the crew if you read the notebooks are being hired for drunkenness and laziness and not showing up. they were often in taverns and kept stealing his horse.

he doesn't seem to have attracted day his own set of apprentices. so i don't know if others looked -- he referred to a lot of documents as highly respected. so i think that he had -- iain that he was a member of the aaa in the various institutes in the societies and involved in experiments there. so i think that he had prestige but i don't know if it filtered down into the sort of apprentices and followers. but one question or point that you made is they were doing engineering on the fly. but they were also looking to europe to learn and filtered, and randel according to one of my assistance says very strongly randel was familiar with the work of a survey your sali and test who did a lot of experiments on the temperature

affects on various materials and that makes a lot of sense because that transactions i'm not sure which one it is came out in the late 1700's, and the white had so much on the community in albany they got papers and books from all over the world and it could very well be that that showed up there

bookexpo america announced their selections for the 2013 book panel and the categories of adults, young adult and middle grade. the panels will highlight authors jennifer, sr. and matthew word. for a complete list of authors competing on the panels, visit

bookexpoamerica.com to read several will be at south myself interactive a technology festival in texas. nate silver and douglas will be among the authors signing of selling books at the south by southwest bookstore offering by barnes and noble. the festival will feature a presentation of self publishing and graphic novels. south by southwest interactive will begin this weekend and goes until tuesday, march 12th. publishers weekly has compiled a list of the fastest-growing independent publishers from the year 2012 and some of the driving publishers include charles e. green and smithsonian box. the list sites hi e-book sales and market expansion as some of the reasons the publishers have done well this past year. state of to date on breaking news on authors, and publishing by liking as on facebook at facebook.com/booktv or follow less on to utter at booktv. you can also visit the web site,

booktv.org and click on news about books. of booktv interview american university professor jennifer lawless about her book "becoming a candidate." the interview was recorded at american university media production center in washington, d.c. as part of our college series. >> host: becoming a candidate is the name of the book "political ambition and the decision to run for office." the author american university professor jennifer lawless. professor lawless, why do people run for office in the u.s.? >> guest: lots of reasons. basically because they thought about it and they've seen something percolating in the back of their mind so somebody gets to wake up in the morning and decide this is interesting. i wasn't thinking about this, but it's a very long and engaged

political process. >> host: is it because they are concerned about policy or because of their ego issue? >> guest: it depends on who you are talking about. one of the biggest finds in the book is the difference where the men are far more likely than the women to think they are qualified to run for office. to think they would win if they ran for office. but to some extent they might be involved. but certainly it's about the policy and it's about the idea of entering the electoral arena as a way to make the world a better place. >> host: going back to the gender issue why is it men are convinced that they would be successful and popular? >> guest: you can ask fourth graders how well they perform their tests and fourth grade boys overestimate their performance. so, if you hearken back to the patterns of traditional socialization, men have generally been told that they are good at what they do especially when they are operating in the male-dominated environment, and women tend to

be not discouraged from operating that way but it are encouraged to require different types of qualities and trade. so they're a little more self-deprecating. but in addition, because politics is such a male-dominated arena a lot of them think they have to be twice as good to get half as far so they are doubling their qualifications and also using a different yardstick to gauge them. >> host: is there a difference in a race between white, black, latino? >> guest: there is. both sex and race are - predictors' basically of whether you will be interested in running for office. so any kind of minority status, any way that you deviate from the norm, which is a white male, we see variations. the good news though is the political recruitment can close that kind of gap. so an electoral gatekeeper like the e elected officials or political activists encourage people to run for office but they are very likely to take

them on that suggestion. and we have seen the increase encouragement especially among african-americans and latinos. >> host: professor lawless, you walk through a couple case studies you give examples. what is an example of somebody that will gabor developed an interest in policy and ran for office successfully? >> guest: i think bill clinton is the most obvious example. he writes in his memoir sometime in his 16th year he decided politics was the calling for him and so at that point he became very cognizant of the reality that he wanted to run and he began looking for the office so when he was in his early 20s and there was an open congressional seat in arkansas he figured there was a good time to throw his hat in the ring and if he lost the race there would be a good shot that he would perform well enough not to ruin his political career. shorty and that he lost the race but ran for attorney general and he won and became governor and obviously president. >> host: so if somebody loses

the first race, how much is a term of for them? >> guest: i don't think it's that much of a turnoff. that isn't a major focus. i'm interested in why people do it in the first place. now i ran for congress in the second congressional district in 2006 and i lost which is why i am here. what i can say is it is an amazing experience. most people that throw their hat into the ring are doing it because they are so passionate about the issue they are so interested in making a difference they still want to be involved in the political field that a loss is an unfortunate consequence of the campaign itself is so and so the rating that they want to do it again. >> host: jennifer lawless, tell us about your experience. why did you run, what was the primary etc. >> guest: i ran in 2006 and the democratic primary in the second congressional district against an incumbent who had been there for awhile. prior to that he served as the secretary of state and had been a state legislature in the

establishment devotees and i ran as because i thought that he wasn't representing the district on the issues that mattered the most to me -- >> host: such as? >> guest: he voted 27 times against a woman's right to choose and i was pro-choice, i was very much pro-choice and felt that was an important issue. he also cast a series of votes we authorizing egregious positions on the patriot act. he was not very outspoken about the war and iraq. so i just thought there were other issues where they were not being of adequately represented that there is a very substantial advantage and we see the establishment field of the candidates that go against someone in a primary. so i felt like i had to do it if i wanted to bring up this change and i it just written my first book which is it takes a candidate why women don't run for office. i was aware of the limitations the women felt, and because i was so cognizant of those things, i think i believed that

i could overcome them. and i wound up with about 40% of the vote which was better than people expected, but not good enough for me. >> host: did you become known as a single issue candidates? >> guest: it's difficult not to when you are running in a primary where only a few issues differentiate you and in my case, it was particularly difficult because the one issue where we were the most different was reproductive freedom was also a traditional women's issues so it became very easy for the media to frame this out on a referendum on abortion rights for the candidates that favored in the now candidate who didn't read so we worked very hard over the course of 16 months to demonstrate that this was far more than a single issue campaign and that it was about bringing what i considered it a market leadership. >> host: at what point did you say i'm not doing this?

>> guest: i can chinley say that even on the worst days at the end of the day it was still worth it and at no other point that i think this is not the right thing to do. >> host: so given your experience what would you tell women who may have an interest in running for office today? >> guest: i think the most important thing to keep in mind is that there is a curve but you can't assess whether you are qualified when you get into the race because what happens is it takes about two weeks to acquire the qualifications and the fix can that you need to persevere. but if you assess yourself based on those qualities and characteristics before you actually run of course you are going to think you don't have them. i remember when i first announced that i was running. my parents who had always been very supportive of what i wanted to do said that i couldn't run because i cried and they didn't want me to cry every night. people are mean and terrible and they didn't want to listen to it. and it's true. the first couple of weeks or

very difficult - but that's how long it takes to develop with the fix can you need to be do that are so grateful you have the opportunity. 99% of interruptions you have of people are incredibly positive. and the thing i was particularly surprising to me is that most people have never actually met the candidate. so they are so grateful when they have the opportunity to speak with you even if they disagree with everything you believe because if you feel like we have an opportunity to voice their opinions and actually have their own preferences heard, whether it is going to be somebody that wins or loses and somebody that is a part of the debate. >> host: in your book "becoming a candidate," you have a chart of how many officials there were in the united states. >> guest: there will over 500,000 elected officials and we tend not to realize that because so many of them are the local level. we tend to think about the 535 federal elected officials, the president, vice president and congress. but the system was set up in the united states and such a way people run for office and we have an uncontested races for

literally hundreds of thousands of local positions. so, if people are interested in getting involved, they don't necessarily have to order a congressional campaign. they don't have to worry about the media rifling through their trash. they don't have to worry about an invasion of privacy in most cases. most of the offices garner very little attention and provide an opportunity for people to bring about positive change. >> host: jennifer lawless, what what turned a candidate of? i just want to use some key words for you to talk about that, negative campaigning. >> guest: everyone says they hate it. everyone says they don't want to do it but mark my words the minute you find yourself with an opportunity to do it you seize it and i tell you why. if you have to engage in a negative campaign and if your opponent is campaigning in a negative way as well it means it is a close competitive race. you need to differentiate yourself and the other thing i would say is we have reached the point in american politics where now we have kind of conflict of that portion of attacking a person verses attacking that person's position.

and i think people have to realize that and negative campaign can be one in which you are really just different treating yourself on the issues. you don't have to take down your opponent's personal traits. you don't have to take down his or her family. you don't have to run a kind of smear campaign. but negativity in terms of differentiation is actually a kind of useful way to educate voters. >> host: fund raising? >> guest: everyone hates it. i hate it. it's miserable. the good news for women as they are just as effective when they do it. part of the reason that we have the women in politics is not because they are not able to raise as much money or because voters won't vote for them on election day. they are not running in the first place. so it's a terrible scale. they also wish there was less money in politics and they could spend less time raising those funds but once you pick up the phone you are probably going to be quite successful. >> host: of the 500,000 plus elected officials how many men

and women? >> guest: it's difficult. we don't actually know. we know in the federal government about 18% went in and we know 45 of the 50 states have now governor, you know, 90% of the large cities but once you get to the local offices there aren't systematic attention to the the school boards have better representation. school boards are not as likely as other offices to be the first office that then propose a future career in politics. some people use it as a stepping stone. >> host: is a steppingstone to a definition of success in politics? >> guest: it can help. we tend to have the career politics and country so most people do startup local level and climb to the state level or maybe one day run for federal office. but it's by no means a requirement. what i learned from conducting the surveys and interviews as well over 4,000 men and women that are situated to run for

office is that it's important that you focus your political ambition on the issues that you care the most about. if you care about federal issues it isn't necessarily the most effective to start by running of the local level and wait for 20 years to climb the ladder. it's the most effective on the issues that are most enthusiastic. >> host: do you have in your book becoming a candidate the study of a failure, somebody that ran for office for the wrong reasons etc? >> guest: we have people that resurveyed so resurveyed and interviewed about 4,000 women and men in the professions likely to leave the political career, lawyers, educators, political the activists, an equal number of women and men and there was a follow-up between 30 to 45 minutes in length of 300 of them and over the course of the interviews they were some examples of people who said they thought they wanted to run for office. they were not sure where to

channel their ambition so people that were party activists encouraged them to run for the position they were not enthusiastic about and their heart was not in it so when they lost the campaign it wasn't devastating to them because it was unclear that they wanted the position in the first place. so, we see that in the high level of politics as well. they're certainly been candidates realizing this is and what they want to do. >> host: you said we, who is we? >> guest: scientists and also voters. there is nothing more unappealing that a candidate for the high level office whose heart is not in yet. one example when we look at the 2012 fannin the 2010 house and senate races the most competitive races are those where the candidates are spending all of their time campaigning and why their vision is right. it's not a coincidence that those are the competitive races.

these are two people that want nothing more than anything else to win. without that kind of competitive spirit and drive, politics becomes boring. >> host: you said we called and conducted the survey spirit who helped you? >> guest: the research is based on three waves of surveys and interviews with potential candidates starting in 2001. so most were conducted with richard fox, a professor of the university of los angeles. >> host: did your last name have a negative effect do you think in your campaign? >> guest: it made people think about it. there were people that said i was in congress and frankly when you're trying to build name recognition everything helps. if it is regarding your name i will take it.

>> host: what about in today's media world? >> guest: at george washington university i have a systematic assessment of the local media coverage and congressional races in 2010 because there is a conventional wisdom that women are not covered the same way as men and that ultimately the coverage focuses more on their appearance yet empathy and integrity as a very competent people and there is a choice that you wanted a politician, so there was a negative coverage to different coverage and based on my own experience i didn't feel that we've. i felt like i had received a fair amount of coverage probably more than i deserve to but i felt like it wasn't gender gap also be undercut this analysis we wound up reading and coding systematically looking at 5,000 newspaper articles from all of the races in 2010 and we found

no differences whatsoever. now, the bad news is that not that they're being covered the same way because of the substantive good coverage of the overall amount of coverage has gotten a little more superficial and so men are now covered regarding their parents. beyond chris christie or paul ryan they spend a lot of time talking about their rate or their exercise regime. although that might level the playing field because it isn't just women that have to talk about these now it may be at the expense of the substantive coverage. >> host: what advice would you have for the candidates reaching out to the media? >> guest: i would say two things. when they call always talk to them because you need to build good relationships with them and if they are approaching you there is no reason not to take them up on the opportunity they are offering and the second stop wasting their time and send out a press release every day announcing something that isn't important. send out a press release that is

new for a -- newsworthy because it can cover those event they will continue to cover you. if you waste their time -- >> host: what you teach at american university? >> guest: i teach american tv to women's leadership and contemporary politics, but last semester i taught a class called election 2124 we followed the congressional and presidential election in the excruciating detail. i also teach women in politics, public opinion. >> host: what are two conclusions you have about the 2012 election? that's a terrible, terrible question but -- >> guest: that's okay. it's a broad question. two things i would say are very relevant in 2012 as the primary is really matter. and even though it seems that mitt romney got through the republican primary almost unscathed she doesn't wait until a lot of the dates that cost

some of the account candidates the nomination. he was still stamped with the results of a lot of the the date and came into the general election looking a lot less moderate than he would have liked. even if you are not on of the candidates moving to the right and the primary or the left on the democratic side the chances are you're still going to be stamped with what the primary looks like. the other thing i would say is women really matter. this was one he election there was a substantial gender gap in every presidential election since 1980 and all elections since 1986 but here was that one example of a president not being able to win without the women's vote and he cultivated that vote and he won that vote and was able to keep their support to the same extent that he had earlier. >> host: will you run for office again? >> guest: i have no immediate plan that was the most important and the best experience i have

ever had. >> host: becoming a candidate is the name of the but political ambition and the decision to run for office cambridge university press. american university professor jennifer lawless is the author.

up next on book tv "after words" with ken berger. this week former ceo of national public radio kenneth stern and his book charity for all while charities are failing and a better way to give. he explores what he calls the unaccountable world of u.s. charities and how they are managed. this program is about an hour.

>> it's a pleasure to meet you and i must say it was a pleasure to read your book. charting navigator, this is something that i have referred to with colleagues as the battle for the sold. that's how important i think this issue is so i commend you for taking it all on, and i think that of the newest books i've read you have some special insights. in fact that is my first question for you. over the past year i want to just give you a list of some of the books that have come out. giving a 2.0, doing more than give, the art of giving, give smart. first want to commend you for not having the word gig in the title of your book but how do you differentiate this from some of the others i've just mentioned as much as you may know about them? >> guest: first thing you for having me on the show and saying the kind words about the book. i think i will steal that phrase

battle for the soul from you. i think it is quite a good one. i'm not entirely familiar with all the books you've mentioned. i think the fact that a lot of books have been written about the charitable section reflects the importance of the people realize it or not, just enormously significant sector. 1.1 million charities and 5.5 revenue. it meets a public square and all things concerned about education scientific research and everything that goes into making a great country so it doesn't surprise me a lot of people focus their time and energy on the charitable sector. i think my book differs from those that have come before as trying to understand how the charities need to be more effective and the market pressures and the things what needs to change in order for us to have the sector that we all want.

>> host: i think that your ability to articulate the problem and to state the problem that we face, that the enormity of it and the serious nature is an exceptional and it does differentiate from some of these other books. you know, you start off early in the book discussing the american red cross. and i think doing a good job of dissecting some of the serious problems that they face, you make the following statement: when the highest charity -- which is by the way, 3 billion a year -- in the country it's bound together by rubber bands and duck tape it is a sign of a misunderstanding of how to build effective charities. the question i have for you as i read that is if the american red cross isn't managing its performance well to ensure that it is efficient and effective at getting good results, who is going to be able to achieve that and bring it to scale? what are your thoughts on that?

>> guest: i think the problem with of the red cross -- there's such a lot in that question, ken. i could go on -- at the first try to get the american red cross challenge, which is how people -- how the challenges not i think sort of that is a piece of it but help people perceive and fund the red cross. i think the red cross is a supply line company of whose job is a limit of the enormous pressure and crisis to get the lifesaving critical and often lots of supplies from one place to another that are dispersed and in desperate need to get to marshall lots of people are not professional but working full-time it's an enormous challenge. think about the other institutions that have similar challenges. under the best supply line companies. fedex, wal-mart, the military. they put billions of dollars into their infrastructure. the red cross if they are lucky

they put seven single-digit millions in to it because the funding comes at a moment of crisis when people are losing money, half a billion dollars will come in around katrina but all really to help those victims, not the next victims. in order for the red cross we have to understand the challenges around the victims and the building. >> but don't you also think that in addition to those structural challenges there's also the question of leadership because of your 3 billion-dollar operation and passionately committed to being as effective and result oriented as possible in the whatever ways you can marshal resources would be your first priority so isn't it also a responsibility for the organization, too? >> guest: absolutely. one of the stories i tell him the american red cross starts with the story to burgundian to

the two -- bernadine heeley two in 2001 was the ceo of the red cross and ran into the challenge we were talking about during 9/11 she ran into the problem the red cross couldn't respond in a timely fashion to the challenges of 9/11. the pentagon bombing was and models of the 24-hour had quarter, the crisis center but they still couldn't get the resources to it in time. so she said we need to rebuild the infrastructure of the red cross and she had an opportunity to read half a billion dollars came into the liberty fund to help the victims and truly what the red cross does in the media systems there's a lot of money left over. she says i can't help the victims of 9/11 anymore but i can help the next.

her role of thinking about the future was a public flogging and being fired because the way the people receive their donations and what they want to do its as you know often called the liberal of rescue. i see some victims that i want to help and it's easy to be too hard for me to imagine the desire to do that. she lost her job and of course that is a lesson to the future leadership of the red cross, the long lesson but what people want to keep their jobs. >> host: i think that we see a lot of the charity navigator, charities that will do solicitations on their web site that say one thing. and then when you follow the money you see something very different. and i think one of the things the donors often get upset about is that they are being told ex is going to occur but you have to read the fine print the fy is going to occur. i agree with you of the

structural challenges that we face but i do think that the organization needs to have outspoken perspective on how it is a battle for the soul and critically important to the survival of people to build the right systems but i hear what you're saying. if i were to identify the one thing that had the most concern in the book, it was wondering if you had a chance to fact check some of the things that were indicated to you. case in point, you were talking about organizations without side reputations and they had asked them for information and claimed to be effective and data driven that they were stonewalled by these organizations. >> one of them was the harlem children so and and i met with

the children zone and have asked them for information and i had encountered that type of stone wall and i wonder did you reach out to the children whose own or one of the organization's to fact check what they were telling you what their side of the story had been? >> host: i talked to a lot of people in the course of the book. but me give you a context of the stories and one of the other ways that my book is different is a story driven at narrative. it tells larger truth to the experience of the individual players like what the creation story as the organization that i admire here in new york city and call them refugees from the hedge fund industry, when they were at an organization the

largest hedge fund i forget the moment they were doing well and they wanted to make contributions but apply the skill set the had learned during the hedge fund industry to analyze the treasury which they thought would be a sort of extraordinary difficult thing because they went to these charities. they would find the type of organization that the need. then they often didn't find there and can't and we build upon that and say we are researchers we will go to the charities themselves and often found the charities didn't know or in some cases they were unwilling to share with them data. it's that story that led them to create a great organization and so through their high as they told of the story that speaks to the larger truth which is charities are often not transfer and and when they are they

actually don't know whether they are successful or not because they are investing in the research and the data to know that. >> host: you mentioned the market mechanisms are missing for charity and then i quote you dutrow customers of the charitable organizations are generally in different dennett tracks. there is no problem with that statement. what my question to you this shouldn't beneficiaries or clients be the true customers of charities? >> no question that out if i suggest otherwise in the book ultimately we should be my experience is that they often evaluate the charities in their own experiences as opposed to

are these charities serving the ultimate stakeholders well and looking through the eyes. i think the challenge as often they are not the providers of the money and this isn't a critique. i think by and large they are extraordinary people doing extraordinary things that they are victims, subject to the same market mechanism anyone is and they listen to the donors whether it is government, individual, they have an enormous say and much more influence than the ultimate stickers and the charities. >> host: one of the monitoring performance of the charity is a movement towards what's been called a constituent foynes comer beneficiary feedback as a tool to measure results and to get that place that's missing. i didn't hear anything about

that in your book. what are your thoughts on the beneficiary feedback tool to measure the results? >> guest: i guess i would say that i am principally a proponent of evidence based research of which the voice might have a part in it, but i think that the charities that i admire the best and admire the most are those who use statistically significant approaches to try to understand whether they are regardless of the feedback from a data driven perspective for doing well or not doing well and the organizations i wrote about on the partnership they invest heavily in the data and i think some of the soft feet could back