Insight: Red Cross Response to Sandy Fails to Meet Expectations

[No Elephants]

Insight: Red Cross Response to Sandy Fails to Meet Expectations
By Ernest Scheyder

ROCKAWAY PARK, New York | Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:13am EST

(Reuters) - Noreen Ellis begged the American Red Cross for help a few days after Superstorm Sandy slammed into the U.S. East Coast.

A 90-year-old bedbound woman living on Ellis's block needed to be moved from the Rockaways, an eight-mile long, narrow spit of land in New York City, to a shelter with heat and electricity.

"I said, 'This woman needs to be transported. Can you help?' And the Red Cross said, 'We don't do that,'" Ellis said.

She shot back: "What does the Red Cross do?"

<snip>

Ellis's frustration, echoed by many residents in the places worst hit by Sandy across the New York region, exposed a gulf between what many people expected the charity to do in times of crisis and what it actually delivers.


SLOW START

But the Red Cross efforts got off to a very slow start.'SEND ME PEOPLE'

"The Red Cross is useless," said Nastaran Mohit, who runs the Occupy medical clinic in the Rockaways with volunteer doctors. "They come to me every day asking, 'How can we help?'

"I say, 'Send me people.' And they tell me they'll get back to me."



<snip>

(Reporting By Ernest Scheyder; Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Jennifer Merritt; Editing by Martin Howell and Steve Orlofsky)

Sorry, I could do a limited amount with this story because every sentence is its own paragraph.

Full story here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/14/us-storm-sandy-redcross-idUSBRE8AD08E20121114


The Red Cross was controversial after 911, collecting millions and claiming a right to use the monies in any way it wished. After a public outcry, it did dedicate the monies, but not what had already been spent. I imagine that was the bulk of the money, the money that people gave right away. I sympathize, because the Red Cross does have to cover its overhead, but it was pretty clear right after 911 that people were giving for the 911 victims. And the Red Cross does okay on its blood business. So, for me, that was strike 1.

The Red Cross pulled out of NOLA totally before Katrina hit, because it recognized that NOLA was unsafe. For me, that was strike 2.

The Red Cross has been ineffectual during Sandy. For me, that is strike 3. I will not be donating to the Red Cross in the future.

Yet, the government is always telling us to give to the Red Cross after a disaster, as are people on radio and television.

BTW, the head of the Red Cross does nicely in terms of salary.

Charity navigator says close to a million. However, I found this

McGovern’s salary is actually half that. For fiscal year 2010, the one-time cost of her relocation from Boston to Washington, D.C. — about $475,000 — was included with her regular pay in the latest Charity Navigator posting, Punches said.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120604/NEWS20/306040030/Does-Red-Cross-CEO-get-exorbitant-pay-

First, half a million a year when your organization gets donations from people making a fraction of that amount ain't bad. And that is only the salary, not the full compensation package.

Second, half a million bucks is the cost of moving from Boston to NY? Are you kidding me?

This site compares the salaries of people running charities worth, say, $3 billion, with salaries of people running for profit companies of comparable size, but that is an invalied comparison, IMO. A relevant comparison, yes, but not if you say the for profit CEO makes $2 million a year and therefore the head of a charity should make something comparable.

Anyway, no matter what she makes, it's too much if donations are not helping people right after a disaster, when they need it most.

ed Cross makes over half a million a year, and that is just in salary. I don't know what the full compensation package consists of.

[Enthusiast]

1. Since 9/11

I have not been a fan of the Red Cross.

[snot]

2. The conservative takeover of the ARC was outed during Katrina.

They'd spotted it as a cash cow; it's been much less effective since the takeover.

PS: Speaking of effectiveness, pls consider re-posting this in DU3?

[snot]

3. (E.g.,

in one report after Katrina, someone who worked or used to work at the Red Cross explained that their local board had been taken over by 'cons, who slashed staff from 15 people to 2, who were utterly unable to accomplish all that was needed. Of course, meanwhile, the U.S. public continues to contribute . . . and I'd bet that upper management salaries went up, and that services were subcontracted out to private companies, etc.

[No Elephants]

4. I am not a DU3 poster, but, if you wish to re-post at DU3, please feel free.

Thanks for the implied compliment, too.

Happy holidays.