91% of funds received by the Red Cross go into its programs, 5% to admin.

[TwilightZone]

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/3277.htm

With all of the Red Cross bashing going on, I thought that some actual facts might be helpful.

They're not perfect, of course, and it's probable that they contributed to the delays in post-Katrina relief in NO, but the claims flying around about them paying 90% of their funds to admin expenses and funneling all of their funds to their executives are getting a little ridiculous.

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the Red Cross. I haven't even contributed to them (I have contributed elsewhere.)

Edit: typo

[flamingyouth]

1. That's actually very good.

Anything above 87% is considered good. Thanks for the link. :hi:

[acmejack]

2. They aren't all bad..

I do dislike the fact that the head of ARC pulls in $645,000/yr. That seems a tad excessive to the uniformed layman.

[TwilightZone]

6. $450,000, actually.

According to the link I provided.

[acmejack]

9. what's $195,000 between friends?

Still seems to be excessive, maybe it's simply jealousy on my part. I understand the head of the Salvation Army makes $20,000.

edit for spleling

[TwilightZone]

10. It's certainly a lot of money.

And, I don't claim to know whether the responsibilities are worth that or not.

The Salvation Army head gets housing, transportation, etc., in addition to salary, but it's still a small fraction of the $450k.

[Mr Rabble]

13. Thats a LOT of responsibility for $450,000.

Say what you like, but I think people in these super imperative positions should be paid handsomely.

Not only would it allow them to truly serve without being worried where their mortgage is coming from, it seems a pittance compared to a for profit companies wages.

Also, when the shit hits the fan, you have the entire population to answer to.

[Jacobin]

3. they have some ridiculously highly paid execs. lots of them

I give to the Salvation Army and other local charities that I know.

I don't trust the Red Cross, particularly after 9/11

[TwilightZone]

4. The link I provided said that an org with under 15% admin expenses

is rated with their highest mark.

The Red Cross's admin expenses are 5.4%.

Apparently, it's not "ridiculously high" from their perspective. Quite the opposite.

[Jacobin]

16. dude, or dudette, as the case may be

Percentages can be quite misleading.

for instance, if they collect a billion dollars a year, they can spend $50 million on overhead....which is not chump change but, its 'only five percent'.

The director of the San Diego branch makes $300,000 a year. Sorry. that's not charity. its big business

[donco6]

5. I won't give to Salvation Army for any reason.

I'll stick with the RC. They do a fine job.

[JuniperLea]

7. don't call them about housing victims

they told a friend of mine that the liability is too great and they should just send money to the arc.

[TwilightZone]

8. Well, there are other alternatives. Send your friend to:

http://www.hurricanehousing.org/

It's a side project of Moveon.org.

I don't think that the RC has been involved in arranging housing, but I could certainly be mistaken.

[JuniperLea]

11. well they could have said, "we dont do that but others do"

instead of send us da money.

thanks for the link!

[TwilightZone]

12. Very true.

Though, they are a little busy at the moment! :)

[TwilightZone]

14. ...

:silly:

[serryjw]

15. Your not being entirely fair

There is no organization in America that gets the FREE press like the RED CROSS does. They are 6X as big as American Second Havest that I had never heard of before last week. I have heard many horror stories of the response from RC. Their admin expenses/fundraising are high for an orgaization that large. I still will not forgive them on what the almost did after 9-11. If you like them God Bless you, they will never see a dime from me.

[Laelth]

17. Beware! Get context before posting.

This thread is a response to the following story:

Investigation finds Red Cross agreed to withhold Orleans aid, operates in tandem with Homeland Security

Jennifer Van Bergen

Top Red Cross official Bush appointee, donor
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Investigation_finds_Red_Cross_agreed_to_withhold_New_Orleans_aid_operates_in_tandem_with_Home_0913.html

The full discussion can be found in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1777255

Strange that the Red Cross has people here whose job it is to control spin in this forum (or so it would seem). Makes me very suspicious.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--softened accusatory tone among friends. Mea cupla.

[TwilightZone]

19. Wrong. This thread is in response to people claiming that 90% of the RC

budget goes to administrative costs.

I found that claim so unlikely that I actually bothered to Google the Red Cross to find out what the real numbers were. What I found is what I posted.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if you like the RC or not. In fact, my donations re: Katrina went elsewhere. I would like us to bother to use facts once in a while, though. They're not hard to find.

Using facts tends to spoil the agenda, however, which is why many don't bother.

Lastly, if you honestly believe that I'm here to control spin, you need to put away your "how to find a conspiracy in anything" manual.

Edit: clarification

[Laelth]

23. Touchy, touchy!

I was referring to Danieljay who said this:

and I volunteer my off time AND rotate with paid staff supporting the efforts of our nearly 1200 local volunteers. Right now I'm supervising a phone bank, matching evacuees to local shelters, case management, taking donations, referring thousands of calls of in kind donations to the proper agencies.

In another building, we are conducting fast track trainings daily for several hundred volunteers who may be deployed in this disaster. I guess I could add "dispelling Red Cross myths" to my responsibilities.

Tinfoil hat? Me? Just cuz' I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me!

:tinfoilhat:

-Laelth

[TwilightZone]

27. Not really.

I just wasn't too thrilled with being labeled a shill based on what I considered to be somewhat flimsy evidence.

I have nothing to do with the Red Cross, and you can decide whether to believe that or not. I've given time, money, and services to several organizations re: Katrina in the past couple of weeks, none of which went to the Red Cross, mainly because I saw needs elsewhere.

As far as the other thread, I do find the questioning of Danieljay's legitimacy to be a bit appalling. People seemed rather willing to assume he was a fraud, based on seemingly nothing more than their dislike of the Red Cross. But then I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I took him to be what he claimed to be.

[NVMojo]

30. thanks for posting!

[MojoXN]

18. Just two questions...

How long did it take for 9/11 victims and/or their families to receive any sort of money from the Red Cross? And, who is the titular head, the figurehead, if you will, of that organization?

Answer these, and you'll understand the animosity toward the R.C.

MojoXN

[TwilightZone]

20. I'm not questioning the animosity.

I couldn't care less if people DISLIKE the Red Cross. I'm questioning the use of ludicrous claims like "90% of the money they collect goes to the adminstration costs" to try to make a point.

If there's plenty of info out there for people to conclude that they hate the Red Cross (as there obviously is), why do people still feel compelled to completely make stuff up?

[MojoXN]

21. "why do people still feel compelled to completely make stuff up?"

Because that is human nature. People from both sides of the aisle want to do anything and everything possible to propel their politicians to victory. The truth of various matters is, unfortunately, the first casualty of politics as well as war.

MojoXN

[TwilightZone]

25. Agreed, however...

If one's position on an issue is solid, fabrication should be unnecessary. (Yes, that's too simplistic to apply to reality.)

If the RC is the evil organization many make it out to be (and again, my intent is not to defend them, only point out the ridiculousness of some claims against them), the evidence should suffice without wild modification.

It's difficult to lend credibility to a position if a person includes a wild claim that is easily proven false. His or her position may be otherwise solid, but the false claim tends to overshadow the legitimate points of the argument.

[LittleClarkie]

22. The thing that bugged me about all that

was it seemed so counterproductive. There were folks shouting that people shouldn't have to leave their homes, or that they should be afraid they'll never get their property back. But with no drinkable water and the place nearly toxic, that's counterproductive. People shouting about the Red Cross being useless, and not to give to them. But then how do we help? The Red Cross seems as good as any to give to. We have people here collecting both food and donations.

It bothered me, like we were working against the rescue in a weird way. Not intentionally, but still. Of all the times we didn't need more chaos, I feared we were adding to the chaos.

[TwilightZone]

26. Agreed.

I think that people are desperate to lay blame for the aftermath of Katrina and no one is immune from the accusations. Some are deserved; some may not be; some definitely aren't. I'm not sure where the Red Cross belongs in those options.

You're right - it's completely unproductive, and frankly, I'm sorry that I bothered to bring it up, because arguing about it is really pointless and obviously accomplishes nothing. In hindsight, I wish I hadn't wasted the time.

I do, however, find it funny that I'm suddenly a Red Cross shill, mainly for pointing out what anyone could find out on their own in five minutes. I've donated time, money, and services to several organizations in the past couple of weeks. The Red Cross is not one of them, in part because I saw needs elsewhere.

The people along the Gulf Coast need help, and I don't particularly care who it comes from.

PS: Clark '08!

[hopein08]

24. What about this article?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Investigation_finds_Red_Cross_agreed_to_withhold_New_Orleans_aid_operates_in_tandem_with_Home_0913.html

[OneTwentyoNine]

31. Held back HALF of the 9/11 money collected??$$271 MILLION?

I bet a hell of alot of Americans that donate BIG to the Red Cross would like to know about that. BTW,home come it seems that Republicans are ALWAYS at the helm of the RC. Such as..Liddy Dole,Bobs wife?




The Red Cross has repeatedly been cited for poor handling of donations for disaster victims. Some have even referred accused them of "bait-and-switch fund raising."

An investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel after 9/11 revealed that while pledging that 9/11 donations (minus overhead) would all go to victims, the Red Cross held back more than half of the $543 million it had raised.

The Red Cross says they funneled these monies to prepare for terrorist attacks.

"We had planned for a weapon of mass destruction attack," former Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy said, saying funds were diverted to a "Liberty Fund."

"The Liberty Fund is a war fund," Healy added.

[momisold]

32. Libby Dole, not Liddy.

Libby as in Elizabeth.

[LiviaOlivia]

28. kikck

[Digit]

29. Knew someone w/Red Cross in 70's...he spent his time in bar I worked in

He was an affable guy, probably dead now. I was shocked as a young gal how much time he spent in the bar (which was around the corner from the White House).
He never said what his role was in the Red Cross and then again, I was only 21. My thought at the time was that he never spent anytime away from the bar, so I wondered how he got away with that. I was young, but I wondered about that.
I can say that the Los Angeles reporters that used to hang out in my establishment put me on the front page of their newspaper saying I did not trust Tricky Dick....lol. I still have the newspaper.