# Before you give any donation to the Red Cross remember their past deceits!



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

This from https://money.howstuffworks.com/american-red-cross4.htm

Some of the Red Cross' financial donors have been angered to find out that some of the money they donated was diverted to fund future relief efforts, instead of the disaster that prompted their donation. For example, about $200 million of the $1.1 billion collected in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was put aside to fund future relief efforts. Donor complaints resulted in the money being shifted back to 9/11 relief, the resignation of Red Cross president Bernadine Healy, and a promise of greater transparency in the agency's financial dealings in the future.

Despite those efforts, complaints surfaced again in 2005, when funds donated for relief from Hurricane Katrina were not earmarked for long-term rebuilding (something for which Red Cross funds are not traditionally used).

Others complained that the Red Cross' relief efforts after Katrina were insufficient, poorly organized and targeted to white storm victims, while black victims didn't receive help for days. The Red Cross has refuted some of these claims.

More:
https://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-06...liberty-fund-red-cross-relief-agency?_s=PM:US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross

See "September 11 controversy"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

So what are you suggesting??



> Others complained that the Red Cross' relief efforts after Katrina were insufficient, poorly organized and targeted to white storm victims, while black victims didn't receive help for days.


Getting revenge with our votes??


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Just suggesting that if you want to give to the victims of Sandy there may be a better, more efficient method than giving money to the Red Cross!


----------



## TSWalker (Nov 2, 2011)

Andy said:


> Just suggesting that if you want to give to the victims of Sandy there may be a better, more efficient method than giving money to the Red Cross!


Respectfully, sir... such as?


----------



## dbhdbhdbh (Aug 10, 2012)

The Red Cross ALWAYS uses past donations to fund current relief efforts. 


Think about it- How could they function otherwise? They go in immediately. This means they have to have food, blankets, and other supplies available at the time of the incident. They have to have a supply chain established, warehouses, trucks, computer systems to help manage allocation and distribution, coordination with other relief agencies so they go in as soon as possible, but not at a point to endanger the RC workers or to get in the way of rescue efforts. If they tried to set all this up only once donations for that particularly disaster had been received, it would take them weeks to ramp up. Their model is the only one that can work.


When you give to the RC you are contributing to the principle that people in disasters should get help. I would find it hard to say that I want to help victims of a hurricane on the East Coast, but absolutely not some flooding or tornado victims in the midwest. What would be the rationale for such an attitude?



I am thankful my family is OK, and that I have the ability to help others. I give to the RC to help people in need. I do not demand my money back once an area has recovered. I do not try to dictate which disaster victims should benefit. They are all human beings.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

Yup, the Red Cross is imperfect, and has occasionally done things with which I have disagreed.

Then again, if I only donated money to those charitable organizations with perfect records, and all of whose actions I agree with 100%, I'd wind up "de-funding" a whole lot of basically worthwhile charities, who do a lot of good work, for a lot of needy people.

Sometimes, I compromise. And if the net results tend to be good, I'm satisfied.
-- 
Michael


----------



## dbhdbhdbh (Aug 10, 2012)

What he said.


And note that charging into devastated areas trying to help survivors is hardly an easy or simple undertaking. The most we can do is provide resources to people who know what they are doing, and hope they do the best they can. As far as I know, there is no other US entity that has anything approaching the experience and expertise of the RC in responding to these disasters. If there are others, and they are doing well, then tell us about them and I will contribute there also. But to withhold money from the RC because they operate the only they can? Not going to happen.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

dbhdbhdbh said:


> Think about it- How could they function otherwise? They go in immediately. This means they have to have food, blankets, and other supplies available at the time of the incident. They have to have a supply chain established, warehouses, trucks, computer systems to help manage allocation and distribution, coordination with other relief agencies so they go in as soon as possible, but not at a point to endanger the RC workers or to get in the way of rescue efforts. If they tried to set all this up only once donations for that particularly disaster had been received, it would take them weeks to ramp up. Their model is the only one that can work.
> 
> When you give to the RC you are contributing to the principle that people in disasters should get help. I would find it hard to say that I want to help victims of a hurricane on the East Coast, but absolutely not some flooding or tornado victims in the midwest. What would be the rationale for such an attitude?


Elegantly and persuasively stated, sir. I am very much for punishing charitable organizations that spend too much money on themselves, but generally feel that trying to micromanage how my $50 or $200 contribution gets used is silly. I cannot possibly know as much about how to efficiently spend that money as the charity. As long as the individuals involved are smart, qualified, pursuing strategic goals I support, and not engaging in personal or nepotistic rent-seeking, I leave those decisions to the experts.

If I'm ever in a position to donate six- or seven-figure sums, then it may be worth my while to delve into the details deeply enough to have a meaningful opinion. Until then, just promise me you'll do something good with the money.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

With all due respect, Andy, I have no problem with the Red Cross using donations for future relief efforts. I think that is a sound financial practice. Think about it. After a major disaster like Sandy and Katrina, millions of dollars are donated. Unfortunately, not all of the disasters that warrant the Red Cross' efforts are catastrophes. They use the donation overflow from the major disasters to be able to fund their less calamitous efforts. After the major tornado disaster in Alabama back in April 2011, the Red Cross was instrumental in providing clean water and temporary shelter to all of those affected regardless of race or economic status. Their presence was a much-needed comfort to those that had lost everything. Millions of dollars were donated and I am sure that not all of the money was spent on that particular relief effort. A quick look at the Better Business Bureau's online listings of charities and you get a better idea. The Red Cross uses 92% of every dollar donated for actual programs, 4% for fundraising, and only 4% for administrative costs. Compare that to the United Way where only 89% goes to programs, 1% to fundraising, and *10% *to administrative costs. Check out the list of these salaries paid to leaders of charitable organizations. You will notice that the Red Cross did not even crack the top 25.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

A somewhat contradictory post (from me).

The American Red Cross is a notoriously expensive charity with some of the highest salaries and operating costs(if not the highest) in the sector.

I have had a lot of dealings with the ARC, BRC and the IFRC in Geneva over the years. Internally, the ARC are not at all well thought of throughout the rest of the federation. Most all criticisms are valid and you may find this hard to believe; their suspension from the IFRC has been discuss on occasion but will never come to anything. They are extremely powerful within the federation. 

However, emergency response is a very expensive business to be in. The three most important things when an emergency strikes are rapid response, capacity, and money. Things the ARC have lots of. There is no other organisation (military included) with the resources to do what they do (in an American disaster context.)


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

dbhdbhdbh said:


> Their model is the only one that can work.


The problem with this attitude is that it does not provide a system of checks-and-balances. I realize that disaster relief is inherently inefficient, but I also realize that without people questioning how resources are allocated by the RC, there is no real incentive to improve efficiency.

I like the RC's mission, but the days of them getting a "free pass with no questions asked" are long gone...and I think that's a good thing.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> I like the RC's mission, but the days of them getting a "free pass with no questions asked" are long gone...and I think that's a good thing.


I wholeheartedly concur with this statement. I am all for oversight and "checks-and-balances." The exorbitant salaries paid to some of the top people in these organizations are reprehensible. (Of course, I live in a state where our highest paid state employees are football coaches and the Jefferson County sewer debt is over $3 billion.<--that is what we get for having a state treasurer named Young Boozer.:redface


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Earmarking money (for future use) is fine. Huge salaries is not. But being a top level executive should have its rewards, just as any skilled labor should have. The RC is by far better at responding and has more experience than an organization like FEMA. You get what you pay for.

I've worked with them directly in the past, and they have the organizational skills to justify their cost. THey're not perfect, but no one is.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

World Vision. Salvation Army.


----------



## TSWalker (Nov 2, 2011)

Orsini said:


> World Vision. Salvation Army.


My mother, God rest her soul, was a Salvation Army officer. They are a church first, a disaster relief organization second or third. There is no way to guarantee or determine whether or not a dollar given to them is being used for victims of Sandy, to pay the rent on a thrift store, or to lobby against gay rights. Warts and all, the American Red Cross is the most direct channel for disaster relief, bar none.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

TSWalker said:


> They are a church first, a disaster relief organization second or third.


As is WVI.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> A somewhat contradictory post (from me).
> 
> The American Red Cross is a notoriously expensive charity with some of the highest salaries and operating costs(if not the highest) in the sector.
> 
> ...


Hello VR, I wonder if I can tap your inside knowledge? I have always been given to understand that Greenpeace are an extremely poor charity to donate to, excessive salaries, and erratic distribution of donations resulting in a very low ratio of the funds acrued becoming actual spending upon their stated aims. Are you able to comment?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I serve and have served on countless boards of public charities and foundations, including the United Way and the Salvation Army. None is perfect, but overall they do a very good job. And are much much more efficient than government. I have never seen a nickel of the money raised by the Army or any of these charities used to lobby against gay rights. Some of the various United Ways do engage in lobbying (part of their advocacy function), but only as it relates to public policy associated with their charitable mission.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I quit giving any money to the United Way when a transparency study conducted by a local news station released some of the salaries paid to local officers. For example, the executive director of the United Way in Huntsville, AL, receives over $110,000 per year. Whereas, a local commander in the Salvation Army only makes $42,000 per year. Their are numerous people in the United Way making over $100,000 per year. A director of the UW in the Carolinas was fired after it was discovered she was receiving over $1 million a year in compensation. On a brighter note, they are all a little better than UNICEF. The fearless leader of that organization gets $1.2 million salary, the use of a chauffeured Rolls Royce for all of his personal travel, AND a $150,000 expense account.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> And are much much more efficient than government.


Well, that's damning them with faint praise. 

Then again, I tend to believe that the only thing which makes government tolerable, is that it's utterly inefficient. I'll take a slow, stupid, lazy villain, over an active, intelligent, motivated one, any day of the week.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

drlivingston said:


> I quit giving any money to the United Way when a transparency study conducted by a local news station released some of the salaries paid to local officers. For example, the executive director of the United Way in Huntsville, AL, receives over $110,000 per year. Whereas, a local commander in the Salvation Army only makes $42,000 per year. Their are numerous people in the United Way making over $100,000 per year. A director of the UW in the Carolinas was fired after it was discovered she was receiving over $1 million a year in compensation. On a brighter note, they are all a little better than UNICEF. The fearless leader of that organization gets $1.2 million salary, the use of a chauffeured Rolls Royce for all of his personal travel, AND a $150,000 expense account.


I'm somewhat skeptical of the UW as well. Here in PA, there were a few instances of embezzlement by local UW higher-ups a couple of years ago. Also, I've never been comfortable with the UW model, which seems to be more about publicizing the UW local leaders than about sincerely helping those in need. Charity should not be so flashy.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Hello VR, I wonder if I can tap your inside knowledge? I have always been given to understand that Greenpeace are an extremely poor charity to donate to, excessive salaries, and erratic distribution of donations resulting in a very low ratio of the funds acrued becoming actual spending upon their stated aims. Are you able to comment?


Limited. Greenpeace does not really move in the same circles that I do - I'm direct humanitarian. Though they have charitable status in most countries(not all, note, including Canada), I would argue that Greenpeace is not not actually a charity. They are way too involved in political lobbying, and overtly hostile(at times) activism to be truly deemed so. My own opinion only - i'm not really trying to debate what is or is not charity, you understand. I'm not tryingto to dismiss what they do, you understand. I suppose what I'm saying is that, you can't make a tangiable connection between a charitable donation and the beneficiary (all of us and the natural world). It's somewhat oblique, imo.

I have no insight to their salary structure and busgetary spend.

I will add however for context, that my organisation is one of the world's most efficient (will remain nameless). It costs us 11% to operate and the rest is direct aid. A recognised best practice is no higher than 18% in the sector. Our CEO is the only person with a salary in excess of €100k. €120k in fact. Probably the lowest internationally for those with iNGO status, a global presence and 10000 staff....


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

12345Michael54321 said:


> Well, that's damning them with faint praise.
> 
> Then again, I tend to believe that the only thing which makes government tolerable, is that it's utterly inefficient. I'll take a slow, stupid, lazy villain, over an active, intelligent, motivated one, any day of the week.


Understood, but no faint praise intended. I was just making the only potentially relevant comparison.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

drlivingston said:


> I quit giving any money to the United Way when a transparency study conducted by a local news station released some of the salaries paid to local officers. For example, the executive director of the United Way in Huntsville, AL, receives over $110,000 per year. Whereas, a local commander in the Salvation Army only makes $42,000 per year. Their are numerous people in the United Way making over $100,000 per year. A director of the UW in the Carolinas was fired after it was discovered she was receiving over $1 million a year in compensation. *On a brighter note, they are all a little better than UNICEF. The fearless leader of that organization gets $1.2 million salary, the use of a chauffeured Rolls Royce for all of his personal travel, AND a $150,000 expense account*.


Frankly, that's an very unfair comparison. With over 11,000 employees operating in almost 200 countries, hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and revenues well over 3 billion dollars, I would expect this organizations' leader to receive a million dollar salary. Comparing leading that organization with managing the United Way of Huntsville or a local commander in the Salvation army is like comparing the salary of the head of NBC with the local station general manager in Albuquerque. It does not compute.

And to Mr. Romeo, hats off to you and your organization. It must be fulfilling work that you do.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

B-rob, I was not trying to compare the local organizations with a global one. They were just local examples of a world-wide problem. I was calling attention to the proliferation of these highly paid fiduciaries.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

drlivingston said:


> B-rob, I was not trying to compare the local organizations with a global one. They were just local examples of a world-wide problem. I was calling attention to the proliferation of these highly paid fiduciaries.


:thumbs-up: Got it!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

How much should an executive of a global organization get paid?

Are we talking $100k (which is comparable to an outside sales rep or a really good car salesman)
$400K (President?)
$25M (Insurance company CEO)


----------

