- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Red Cross Exec Doesn't Know What Portion Of Donations Go To Harvey Relief
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:00 pm to ihometiger
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:00 pm to ihometiger
From a business model, it makes sense. The less money they give to victims, the more they can keep. It's actually genius.
0
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:02 pm to ihometiger
RC is one of the biggest bs scam organizations that exists....besides goodwill.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:03 pm to ihometiger
Been wary of Red Cross ever since a former co-worker of mine told me about her experiences after Sandy. Her family home was destroyed and they were left with practically nothing.
Multiple Red Cross vehicles and workers were in her area, and promised to help deliver her family simple tools for them to dig stuff out of the rubble to salvage, as well as provide other services for her disabled family member, but then those people never returned the next day, and her family had to start over at square one.
Now I'm not gonna jump on the frick Red Cross bandwagon just yet (which seems to be growing in popularity), because I know Red Cross is a huge organization with many administrative costs that does good in some places, but this was just a firsthand account that I've heard.
Truly believe that Red Cross' management structure might make it difficult for certain employees to answer certain questions, but there are definitely more effective charities that should be prioritized for donations in certain situations.
Multiple Red Cross vehicles and workers were in her area, and promised to help deliver her family simple tools for them to dig stuff out of the rubble to salvage, as well as provide other services for her disabled family member, but then those people never returned the next day, and her family had to start over at square one.
Now I'm not gonna jump on the frick Red Cross bandwagon just yet (which seems to be growing in popularity), because I know Red Cross is a huge organization with many administrative costs that does good in some places, but this was just a firsthand account that I've heard.
Truly believe that Red Cross' management structure might make it difficult for certain employees to answer certain questions, but there are definitely more effective charities that should be prioritized for donations in certain situations.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:04 pm to slackster
quote:
This is pretty much how I feel. If their internal costs are 50% of donations, but they can generate $100MM in donations, they're getting $50MM to those in need. An efficient organization that gets 95% of the money to those in need isn't as impactful if they can only generate $10MM in donations.
Yeah. Everyone goes OMG their CEO makes $700k/yr...but would be the first to turn on them when their $120k/yr CEO who's never managed an organization of that size completely fricks everything up.
It's a constant challenge for these larger orgs, in particular.
This post was edited on 8/30/17 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:07 pm to PapaPogey
quote:
Unfortunately a lot of these companies aren't as honest as they lead to believe. I mean what's another 15-20% to pay administrative fees? That's it, these companies make piles of cash and then become greedy like they deserve more for what they are doing, when I'm most cases people think every penny is going to the needy. It's a sham on so many levels.
They have to file Form 990's annually. And are available for anyone to view. Most reputable charities post them on their websites, too.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:07 pm to slackster
Right, regardless of what percentages they keep or donate, it still trumps what everyone else is donating, even if those companies are at 100%. So yeah, it's brilliant business, but its also taking advantage of people and they know it which is why they continue to do it.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:10 pm to Golfer
So what makes you think she deserves that much money?because it's hard to run? Give me a break. That doesn't even include bonus and incentives.The point is that they use people for their own personal gains while some other organizations don't.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:12 pm to Golfer
Here is a Facebook post from one of my friends that has been volunteering and donating at GRB since it opened.
quote:
Here's been my experience w the red cross at the GRB convention center in Houston. When red cross arrived on the first day, they brought 2000 cots and about 10 red cross people that were all over 60. By the end of the day there were about 300 random volunteers & nearly 4000 evacuees. The red cross set up a command center & started doing press events to raise funds. They left everything to the initial untrained volunteers who showed up and took control. This included organizing the shelter, volunteer coordination, evacuee intake, distributing and collecting towels, food and water distribution, assembling all of the cots, and taking in, sorting, and distribution of donations. The understanding at the end of the first day was that the red cross would take over the following day as things got larger. Second day saw a lot more evacuees, volunteers, and donations come in. The red cross people mostly wandered around and said they didn't know or they had to find someone in charge when any strategic decisions had to be made. They started turning volunteers away, instituted a policy that no one under 18 could volunteer, and tried making new volunteers watch a 20 min video on "client interaction" before they could start doing anything. This was stupid and compounded because the red cross people would often leave people in the room for over an hour because they didn't know where to assign them or forgot about them. By the end of the 2nd day, there over 8800 evacuees and over 2000 volunteers. The original planned capacity of the shelter was 5000 and that was doubled to 10000 by the end of that night. The 3rd day saw more of the same w over 10000 evacuees and who knows how many volunteers. By the end of that day, the city took back control of the shelter and relegated the red cross to a supporting role. They rescinded the rule against volunteers under 18, got rid of the video requirement, and started to institute a sustainable volunteer plan. They also opened another 10000 person capacity shelter at the football stadium facilities to be run by the county w red cross in supporting capacity. This is my experience & you make of it what you will, but they seemed unable to implement a strategic plan, lacked communication amongst their personnel and volunteers, and were incapable of leading or making decisions at anything but the top levels of leaders. Their focus seemed to be more on raising funds and logistics of mobilizing goods - which is important but did not meet the operational needs of running the shelter.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:12 pm to Golfer
quote:
They have to file Form 990's annually. And are available for anyone to view.
I understand that, but most people are oblivious because the AMC is pimped so hard because they're the top dog. Your money goes a loner way with other organizations, period.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:13 pm to ihometiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/30/17 at 10:34 pm
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:14 pm to PapaPogey
Because they're running an org with hundreds of millions in and out, and thousands of employees.
And according to the Red Cross' independent audited financial statements, 9 cents of ever dollar donated goes to overhead...not 25.
And according to the Red Cross' independent audited financial statements, 9 cents of ever dollar donated goes to overhead...not 25.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:17 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Yes, there are organizations that provide most of their funds to the needs and not administrative, and SP is a good example of that.
There is no excuse for less than 75 cents of every dollar not being able to be show to be used on disaster relief. No excuse.
Catholic Relief Services is north of 90%.
If you want 100%, donate to the charitable are of Kiwanis or Rotary. They cover their administrative costs from membership dues, so anything raised from the public goes to the cause.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:17 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
Every single car that pulls out of that Red Cross headquarters is a BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus. That's never sat right with me.
Meh, that's not a real big issue to me. It's a giant organization and I don't expect people to do it for free. It takes smart hardworking people to keep AMC going, so I'm sure a few decent salaries are deserved somewhere. A million dollars a year though? Hell no
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:18 pm to PapaPogey
quote:
I understand that, but most people are oblivious because the AMC is pimped so hard because they're the top dog. Your money goes a loner way with other organizations, period.
Sure it does, but a good chunk of the people donating wouldn't do it without the exposure the Red Cross has.
Getting 60 cents on the dollar to people is better than not getting that dollar at all, and an argument can be made that the Red Cross is getting a lot of dollars that wouldn't be donated otherwise.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:19 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
That whole organization is a self serving sham
I forever severed ties with them during the BR flood last year where the RCross showed up at a place where churches were giving out free meals. Told the churchsters to go away and had military personnel to keep them from coming back in.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:19 pm to Golfer
Right I'm agreeing with you. They have to spend more money because they make more money. That doesn't change my opinion that other smaller organizations can do more with your money.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:21 pm to slackster
quote:
an argument can be made that the Red Cross is getting a lot of dollars that wouldn't be donated otherwise.
Oh there's no doubt about it. They're the big pimp on the block.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:22 pm to ihometiger
Red Cross, Susan Koeman, etc.... they're all the same, their main purpose is to provide a service for people to feel maximum self gratitude for minimal effort. "Text $10 to 999999 to help feed a starving child today" or hurricane relief" or whatever the flavor of the month is.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:22 pm to PapaPogey
Correct. Which is why I like to financially support local orgs vs. the national/international ones.
Catholic Charities is the only truly large org I support, and my gift actually goes to the local office.
Just wanted to pop in here as I've worked on behalf of some charities that do great work and people have misconceptions about overhead/administrative costs.
Catholic Charities is the only truly large org I support, and my gift actually goes to the local office.
Just wanted to pop in here as I've worked on behalf of some charities that do great work and people have misconceptions about overhead/administrative costs.
This post was edited on 8/30/17 at 9:38 pm
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:23 pm to ihometiger
I would never give money to the red cross. But I gladly donate to the cajun navy. 
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News