Red Cross Sitting on a Third of Sandy Donations

[longknife]

The Red Cross was the top recipient of donations after Superstorm Sandy, bringing in $303 million to help victims. But as of mid-April, $110 million of that remained unused, the organization says. Though the Red Cross—and some disaster relief experts—says that's a good move, allowing it to assist...more

@ Red Cross Sitting on a Third of Sandy Donations - $110M remains unspent

One of the reasons I won't donate to them. There are far better way like donating to local churches.

 

[bodecea]

The Red Cross was the top recipient of donations after Superstorm Sandy, bringing in $303 million to help victims. But as of mid-April, $110 million of that remained unused, the organization says. Though the Red Cross—and some disaster relief experts—says that's a good move, allowing it to assist...more

@ Red Cross Sitting on a Third of Sandy Donations - $110M remains unspent

One of the reasons I won't donate to them. There are far better way like donating to local churches.

Rule #1 with the Red Cross.....make sure you clearly, in writing, state where you want your money to go. Even then, it may get sucked up in administrative costs/general funds.

 

[Circe]

I think it's a mistake to give to the Red Cross and I never have, since they supported the War in Vietnam in the '60s. I thought that was seriously rotten, and wrote an angry letter about it and never supported them since.

I think their collection and distribution practices are VERY questionable. It's just one scandal after another.

 

[dilloduck]

I worked for them as an employee. I don't donate to them anymore. They are far more political than they claim to be and I saw occasions where "volunteers" stayed in hotels and ate in restaurants while victims lived in shelters and we fed by the Salvation Army or Baptist Kitchens. Local of even personal is the best way to help.

 

[syrenn]

I worked for them as an employee. I don't donate to them anymore. They are far more political than they claim to be and I saw occasions where "volunteers" stayed in hotels and ate in restaurants while victims lived in shelters and we fed by the Salvation Army or Baptist Kitchens. Local of even personal is the best way to help.

we were never employees, but ill agree with you. The politics and waste within the red cross is THICK!

 

[RoadVirus]

Pretty sad you can't even trust the Red Cross.

 

[konradv]

When the Red Cross goes into an area, they're doing so without donations earmarked for that disaster. They have to have money already on hand when an event occurs. It's a matter of course that some of the donated money must be kept for the next disaster or the organization wouldn't be able to function in a timely manner. How long would it take for them to do their work, if they had to wait for donations specifically meant for that operation before they could start?

 

[tjvh]

When the Red Cross goes into an area, they're doing so without donations earmarked for that disaster. They have to have money already on hand when an event occurs. It's a matter of course that some of the donated money must be kept for the next disaster or the organization wouldn't be able to function in a timely manner. How long would it take for them to do their work, if they had to wait for donations specifically meant for that operation before they could start?

Then why did they ask people specifically to donate to Hurricane Sandy Relief if they knew the money wasn't going to that cause? It seems to me if they ask for Sandy relief donations, the donations should go to Sandy relief and nothing more. I think it is very wrong to tell people their donations are going to one thing, then they sit on the money and use it for some other cause that some people who donated might take issues with. I'm not saying the Red Cross is a bad thing, but if I donate for a specific cause, I expect that donation to be applied to that specific cause. No matter... Hurricane Sandy victims got plenty of support which begs the question: "if the Government is going to use our Tax dollars anyway, why donate at all?"

 

[Granny]

I do not donate to the Red Cross either and for the same reasons as others posted. I've heard a number of WWII vets say they had to pay for anything they got from the Red Cross while in the field ... even a cup of coffee or cigarettes saying "Donated by the American Red Cross."

The same holds true for United Way - too much corruption, scandal and mismanagement of funds.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I gave up on the RC in disgust a long time ago. It's too much corruption and waste. I give up...**** 'em.

 

[dilloduck]

When the Red Cross goes into an area, they're doing so without donations earmarked for that disaster. They have to have money already on hand when an event occurs. It's a matter of course that some of the donated money must be kept for the next disaster or the organization wouldn't be able to function in a timely manner. How long would it take for them to do their work, if they had to wait for donations specifically meant for that operation before they could start?

I bet the Red Cross could borrow the money it needed for relief efforts until their coffers filled back up.

 

[Rozman]

I heard a few news stories today saying they spent $100 million out of $300 million.

 

[Rozman]

Then I heard a few calls into a radio show saying people on Staten Island are still living in tents.
They don't seem to be getting much help from anyone.

 

[Rozman]

Maybe Obama is going there tomorrow....

 

[whitehall]

I'm not making any judgments here but it isn't hard to find out that that the Red Cross has about 318 employees including 14 managers at 86k, and 10 directors at 85k,

 

[Noomi]

The Red Cross was the top recipient of donations after Superstorm Sandy, bringing in $303 million to help victims. But as of mid-April, $110 million of that remained unused, the organization says. Though the Red Cross—and some disaster relief experts—says that's a good move, allowing it to assist...more

@ Red Cross Sitting on a Third of Sandy Donations - $110M remains unspent

One of the reasons I won't donate to them. There are far better way like donating to local churches.

Don't give a dime to the Red Cross. This is why I don't support them.

 

[freedombecki]

I support causes through the Red Cross from time to time, because they've always been there in times of crisis for people in need during disasters who had nobody else to turn to because of being impoverished. They also bring much-needed blood and plasma to people who are hurt and would die without it.

I'm sorry the organization is occasionally used badly and criticized mercilessly for being what it is--a business, and one that organizes charities in the most efficient way it can. Sometimes it takes a high-maintenance adviser to head the Red Cross. And I know for a fact at least one of them gave everything she made back to them when she was their CEO, and that was Elizabeth Dole.

Like other businesses, they're composed of people who are not perfect. Every business and every government is, too.

Seems to me we have more people willing to spank them than thank them.

 

[Kondor3]

This is the sort of thing that I was trying to convey in a thread about Glenn Beck and in-kind donations to the victims of Moore, Oklahoma, a week or so ago.

It's not just the Red Cross. It's the Salvation Army. And Feeding America. And branches of a multitude of other well-known charities and nonprofits that have a Disaster Relief component to their mission.

It might be true that the town needs 2,000 extra blankets to house refugees in several of its large surviving covered spaces, for the first few days, or a week or two, but it doesn't need 20,000 blankets, or 200,000 blankets... these disaster-relief NPO's have a lot of inventory positioned around the country already, and what we are oftentimes doing when we donate is to replenish the warehouses rather than the materials going directly to the victims of the disaster du jour.

Money donations are always the best... in-kind donations (blankets, food, etc.) oftentimes get sent to prep-centers for cleaning and then onto warehouse shelves or in the dumpster or landfill, depending upon the value and condition and need and remaining shelf-life for the in-kind materials.

It's an entirely valid approach... warehousing and pre-positioning and staging supplies scattered about the country... in order to get what's needed, where it's needed, right away, without having to wait for donations to start pouring-in a day or two or three later. If your town is hit, you don't need those 2,000 blankets tomorrow or the day after... you need them tonight... and they've gotta come from someplace.

Folks managing NPO's don't wear halos, but most of 'em are decent folk who do the best job they can with a minimum of funding and extras to make improvements... after all, the fewer pennies-per-dollar that go to administration and overhead, the more likely you are to donate to them, after flipping through the Chronicle of Philanthropy and the like, yes?

It's OK to take pot-shots at some of these NPO's, but I suggest a long, healthy contemplation before coming out as overly condemnatory... just a suggestion.

 

[konradv]

When the Red Cross goes into an area, they're doing so without donations earmarked for that disaster. They have to have money already on hand when an event occurs. It's a matter of course that some of the donated money must be kept for the next disaster or the organization wouldn't be able to function in a timely manner. How long would it take for them to do their work, if they had to wait for donations specifically meant for that operation before they could start?

Then why did they ask people specifically to donate to Hurricane Sandy Relief if they knew the money wasn't going to that cause? It seems to me if they ask for Sandy relief donations, the donations should go to Sandy relief and nothing more. I think it is very wrong to tell people their donations are going to one thing, then they sit on the money and use it for some other cause that some people who donated might take issues with. I'm not saying the Red Cross is a bad thing, but if I donate for a specific cause, I expect that donation to be applied to that specific cause. No matter... Hurricane Sandy victims got plenty of support which begs the question: "if the Government is going to use our Tax dollars anyway, why donate at all?"

Because they wouldn't get as much. It's human nature to want to donate to a specific cause, but the Red Cross needs money for ALL causes. If they did it your way, when you need help, they might not be able to.

 

[konradv]

When the Red Cross goes into an area, they're doing so without donations earmarked for that disaster. They have to have money already on hand when an event occurs. It's a matter of course that some of the donated money must be kept for the next disaster or the organization wouldn't be able to function in a timely manner. How long would it take for them to do their work, if they had to wait for donations specifically meant for that operation before they could start?

I bet the Red Cross could borrow the money it needed for relief efforts until their coffers filled back up.

On what collateral?