Jonathan Katz does not tell us what the American Red Cross did with money the American people gave it with designation for Haiti. To get any more than what the Red Cross itself tells us, we evidently must pay or look elsewhere. In Google Books, the search function does not work for The Big Truck That Went By. 

The Red Cross .pdf may be downloaded from http://www.redcross.org/what-we-do/international-services/haiti-assistance-program . They say they have expended $415 million out of $486 million donated for Haiti: 16% for emergency relief, 8% on livelihoods (providing income-generating opportunities to affected populations), 4% on the cholera epidemic, 12% on other sanitation and water supply, 16% on other health initiatives, 33% on housing and neighborhood recovery, and 11% on disaster preparedness and risk reduction. As time has passed, the fraction for relief has shrunk, of course, and the fraction for housing has increased correspondingly. The remaining $71 million is to be spent for Haiti later, mostly in the housing segment. It is not clear whether the $486 million is the 91% of any donation they typically spend for humanitarian services and programs, leaving $48 million for such purposes as administration and fundraising. 

Shortly after the earthquake, complaints of contribution designations for Haiti being ignored by the Red Cross appeared in the press; if these are true, the amount designated might greatly exceed half a billion dollars. The ethical conundrum, honoring donors’ sentiments vs. doing the most good possible world-wide, probably lacks a solution since it pits ethics of property against ethics of charity. Red Cross Fundamental Principles include “..give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.” (http://www.redcross.org/about-us/mission) 

But contributions to the American Red Cross are not the bulk of what was promised world-wide: $16.3 billion. Emergency relief cost $5.2 billion. Maybe Jonathan Katz can tell us (from behind his $12.99 pay wall on Google Books) what part of that was the cost of goods delivered to and services rendered upon Haitian soil. 
When trying to help where the pillars of education, honest government and honest enterprise are missing, a donor (governmental or private) cannot deliver money to local entities and fruitfully demand an accounting for it. Buying locally what is needed, paying whatever it takes, is sure to attract international opportunists because no amount of money will buy what is not at hand to be bought. 

Rather, the donor must give a little bit and lend a little bit here and there, judiciously choosing to empower certain local people to employ the labor of others. It must witness in person whether the ignorant recipient spends the money as if s/he were honest, educated and wise, whether the gifts benefit other local people, whether the loans are repaid. Those who perform can be trusted with more. The principles of micro-lending apply in disaster cleanup just as in normal development. Accounts are things built and people helped, not numbers. Nothing happens quickly. 

The witnesses themselves must have been vetted: corruption is not unknown among the fortunate. Neither is neglect of accounting unknown among honest aid workers where circumstances are dire and there are too few to accomplish the hands-on work. 

Elizabeth Abbott (2011) writes of Haiti’s kleptocratic society and government. “The relative dearth of literature on the Duvalier regime, especially for the Jean-Claude years, make[s] newspapers and periodicals essential literature.” Based on decades of press reports read by Americans, Haiti appears to be worst-case: a place where ignorant people were brought by greedy people and learned greed along with the rudiments of technology. “The colony became France’s richest, the envy of every other European nation. With its fertile soil and its thousands of sugar, coffee, cotton, and indigo plantations, it furnished two-thirds of France’s overseas trade, employing one thousand ships and fifteen thousand French sailors.” These enslaved people killed the greedy people who had brought them; they became independent. Yet never in two centuries did they rid themselves of the greed they had been taught. 

But Haitians who emigrate to the United States are evidence to the contrary. According to Flore Zéphir (1996) p.94, ”In conclusion, Haitians’ responses to African Americans are class based. Haitians seek to disaffiliate themselves from African Americans of the underclass whose behavior and attitudes they find totally reprehensible. However, they show no resentment toward middle-class African Americans who[m] they perceive to have similar work ethics and values which presumably enable them to overcome adversity.” Perhaps these Haitians are so because they are the ones who have chosen to disaffiliate themselves from kleptocracy and leave their country. To get their visas and do this, they have to have somehow acquired a strong sense of right and wrong.