Giving to the Red Cross--Effective?

[arnisador]

There is a discussion that developed here about whether the Red Cross is a good choice for a charity to donate to in the event of a crisis like Hurricane Katrina.

I recall the flap about Elizabeth Dole's salary and about donations for one disaster being spent on other crises. Today another article critical of the Red Cross appeared:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050929/ap_on_re_us/katrina_red_cross_hk4

My question is: Is the Red Cross a good choice of charity to donate to in a case like this?

For me, it seems clear they do a lot of good overall, and they've learned not to switch funds designated for a certain cause to something entirely different. But, I do have some concern that their overhead rate is a bit high--yet, I see why in their case it might need to be so. I feel comfortable supporting them based on what I know about the matter.

 

[Rich Parsons]

There is a discussion that developed here about whether the Red Cross is a good choice for a charity to donate to in the event of a crisis like Hurricane Katrina.

I recall the flap about Elizabeth Dole's salary and about donations for one disaster being spent on other crises. Today another article critical of the Red Cross appeared:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050929/ap_on_re_us/katrina_red_cross_hk4

My question is: Is the Red Cross a good choice of charity to donate to in a case like this?

For me, it seems clear they do a lot of good overall, and they've learned not to switch funds designated for a certain cause to something entirely different. But, I do have some concern that their overhead rate is a bit high--yet, I see why in their case it might need to be so. I feel comfortable supporting them based on what I know about the matter.

The numbers do not lie.

Yet liars sure can run the right statisitc programs to get the results they want.

$400 hammers are tools, just as the engineer that is a contracter hired for 6 months to write code, is listed as a tool for it is the way it is done. So when you average it out the pricve of the hard pieces go up.

So, what one has to understand is the training and what is spent on over head.

1) How much is allocated to collecting blood?
a) Advertisemnt?
b) Sending people to places of work?

2) What does it take to have evac ambulances and support equipment on hand?
a) The cost of maintaining them
b) The cost of trying to buy everything during an emergency situation, and then do you sell it back?
c) I am sure expendables are only gotten when required. So what is the cost to carry the people on hand who know the where and how to get the best or cheapest of what you are looking for?

. . .

Over all I think they are good. I know of worse.

Yet, that is my subjective opinion.

 

[michaeledward]

The Red Cross does provide a great deal of assistance in the event of a disaster like a Hurricane.

Much of that cost of that service, gets paid for immediately by the Red Cross, which then in turn bills the government for the services provided.

Huh?

So, let's look at a Hypothetical

• I am washed out of my house in New Orleans.
• The red cross finds my family a hotel room in Ann Arbor Michigan.
• The room voucher costs the Red Cross, say, $1,200 per week.
• Two months later, the Red Cross is reimbursed all of the money by the Federal Government.

Why do we donate to the Red Cross, again? Why not eliminate the middle-man, and just donate to the government (I mean, other than Michael Brown).

 

[JAMJTX]

I would not give a dime to the Red Cross. I look for charities where a large portion of the money goes to the work and not into the pockets of the directors, etc.

The Red Cross directs less than 40% of donations to relief efforts and they are mostly useless.

A friend of mine told me a story about the night 1/2 of thier house burned down.

It was about 3:00 A.M.. Him, his wife and 3 young kids escaped through the front door. The Fire Dept. got there quick enough to contain the fire at the back of the house, but it was 1/2 gone and the rest had smoke and water damage.

The Red Cross showed up on the scene. One fireman said "Oh God! They're here!". The Red Cross rep did all she could to make her self seem concerned but mostly she was just in the way. My friend asked for blankets for the children and was told "we don't do that". But she did have 2 cheap plastic flash lights that he could buy for $15.00 each. She did offer to call a cab if they needed a ride someplace.

Another RC experience:

At an office, the wife of one co-worker died leaving him with 2 kids. The office took up a collection and raised over just over $1100 for him. But someone that knew him really well said that he would never accept the money from them. So someone called the Red Cross, explained the situation and asked if they could give the money to the RC and the RC give it to him. They agreed. So the brought the $1100+ to the RC. The guy took about a week off. When he came back one of the office workers was talking to him and he mentioned how the Red Cross came over with a check for $300. They called the Red Cross to see what happened to the other $800 and they said it went towards expenses. The sad part is, they never mentioned that upfront, they just said they "understood" and would be glad to pass the money along to him.

The Red Cross may do some good work in places, but mostly it's a scam.

 

[michaeledward]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/better-to-give-than-to-re_b_8164.html

From Harry Shearer's 'Eat the Press' column

To Whom It May Concern:
I realize the Red Cross has the best of intentions, but most of the storm victims I have met still cannot get through to the RED CROSS on the one and only 800 number that is circulated.

I have been trying to contact the RED CROSS every day for the past month and the line is always busy.

Curiously, yesterday an ad appeared asking people to DONATE to the RED CROSS. The following number was provided: 1 800 HELP NOW.

It appears to "give" to the RED CROSS is far easier than to "receive." I got through immediately.

Was this just luck? In the form of an experiment, I have called the donation phone number ten times in the past two days. Each time I successfully get through to a REAL person. Each time I have identified myself as a displaced citizen wanting to process for assistance. I am repeatedly instructed to call the same old number that I have tried for the past month -1 800 975-7585. When I offered my constructive protest, and asked that my call be "transferred" to an assistance person, I was told that there was no way to transfer my call and that I had to go through a special 800 number. The number given each time is the same number I had been calling for the past month to no avail.

You can test the accessibility for yourself.

Again, intentions are not in question, but efficiency and management are. To think that Americans have so generously contributed to this organization and yet the Red Cross has not been able to increase their availability. WHAT ABOUT USING SOME OF THE MONEY TO ADD A FEW PHONE LINES? WHAT ABOUT USING SOME OF THE MONEY TO PAY SOME OF THE REFUGEES TO ASSIST WITH PHONE TRAFFIC? This is only common sense.

People not only try to reach the RED CROSS by phone. Many have traveled to a Red Cross Shelter. But most of the shelters cannot process the information. In the area where I take refuge, you have to make appointments first "by phone" and then drive forty minutes away to another town to meet with a county Red Cross representative (by appointment only). Again, the number is always busy. And why should anyone to have to drive a substantial distance? Many people don't even have cars. Each and every shelter in each and every small town should have the ability to process the needed information. If there are not enough volunteers to staff this aspect of service, then HIRE/TRAIN SOME OF THE STORM VICTIMS!!! This is only common sense.

My intention, with this letter, is to contribute to a constructive "learning curve" on how our response charities and organizations can better serve people the next time around. Otherwise, I for one would not encourage Americans to give in the future to the Red Cross. It may have worked for 9/11 because of the close area surrounding ground zero, but Katrina-Rita disaster is widespread, and the methods of service must be fluid and disaster specific. Each disaster will have varied circumstances and SMART logistical flexibility is paramount.

PLEASE BRING THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESS. IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO FIX THE PROBLEM. I WOULD CALL THE RED CROSS DIRECTLY, BUT .....(you now know the story). I WOULD HOPE THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION CAN SOMEHOW MAKE THE NATIONAL EVENING NEWS OR TOMORROW MORNING'S PAPERS.

Thanks for your efforts to promote such constructive change.

DAWN DEDEAUX

 

[arnisador]

On 9/29/05, the Wall Street Journal ran an article along similar lines, stating that people in E. Biloxi, MS are praising the Salvation Army but heavily criticising the Red Cross:

Along Battered Gulf, Katrina Aid Stirs Unintended Rivalry (Available online to subscribers only)

 

[arnisador]

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/33735.html

Board president Roddey Burdine said other U.S. shelters are facing similar problems. "It is understandable that people want to help in Louisiana. But they have to realize that the local shelters need their help as well." He said animal lover and actress Ali MacGraw recently filmed a public-service announcement at the shelter to encourage local giving.

Tanya Doriss, director of IMPACT Personal Safety, which teaches full-contact self-defense courses in Northern New Mexico, said her group was already feeling the pinch. IMPACT submitted 22 grant applications this year and received only three, she said. Normally, the group's success rate is about 75 percent. IMPACT is also getting less money from the city because of the decline in gross-receipts-tax revenues. And major donors are cutting back, writing checks for $500 instead of $5,000, Doriss said.

No nonprofits begrudge money going to New Orleans, she stressed, but "we're watching money that supports services in our own community be siphoned off at an unbelievable rate."

Support for Katrina victims is taking money away from other charitable organizations, including those that teach self-defense.

 

[michaeledward]

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/33735.html


Support for Katrina victims is taking money away from other charitable organizations, including those that teach self-defense.

Teaching self-defense is a charity? That doesn't sound quite right to me.




On the other points in your article, a friend of mine is on the board of directors at the Manchester (NH) Animal Shelter. He, and several other directors are concerned about donor fatigue and its impact on the shelter operations. Especially with the expected increase in operating expenses for the upcoming winter. We have all seen the reports that predict natural gas will be 50% higher this year compared to last year; electric and oil heating are predicted to be 30% higher.

Here's hoping that is political spin; when expenses come in at only a 30% increase, the politicians can claim they helpe lower expected costs.