• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Red Cross Exec Doesn't Know What Portion Of Donations Go To Harvey Relief

K

KSweeley

Member
This is ridiculous!!!! The American Red Cross' vice president of disaster operations and logistics does NOT know exactly how much of donations are actually going towards Hurricane Harvey relief!!!: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...rtion-of-donations-will-go-directly-to-harvey

As Americans are opening their wallets and donating to relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, one of the most prominent charities is the American Red Cross.

But donors might be surprised to learn the Red Cross doesn't make clear what percentage of their dollars will go directly to helping the victims of the storm.

A study released by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, concluded that the Red Cross had spent $124 million — one-quarter of the money donors gave for earthquake relief in Haiti in 2010 — on internal expenses.

Kieserman said that as of Wednesday morning the Red Cross had spent $50 million on Harvey relief, mainly on 232 shelters for 66,000 people.

Chang: Through donations, how much of every dollar goes to relief?
Kieserman: Yeah, I don't think I know the answer to that any better than the chief fundraiser knows how many, how much it costs to put a volunteer downrange for a week and how many emergency response vehicles I have on the road today. So I think if he was on this interview and you were asking how many relief vehicles in Texas, I don't think he'd know the answer and I don't know the answer to the financial question I'm afraid.

Ailsa pressed on. She said that NPR had reported that 25 percent of the money donated for Haiti to the American Red Cross after the 2010 earthquake went to internal spending.

Chang: Is that still happening? Such a substantial percentage of donations going to internal administrative costs, rather than to relief?
Kieserman: It's not something I would have any visibility on. I can talk about what it costs to deliver certain relief services.
Chang: Yeah.
Kieserman: But the way the internal revenue stream works, uhh ...
Chang: You don't know what portion of that amount.
Kierserman: Not really.
Chang: You don't know what portion of that total amount is for relief.
Kieserman: No, I really don't. I wish I could answer your question, but it's not something I have visibility on in the role that I play in this organization.

She asked him if he has "visibility" on any efforts by the Red Cross to reduce the amount of money spent solely on internal costs.

"The folks I work for are very, very attentive to cost effectiveness and cost efficiencies in making sure that as much as every dollar that we spend on an operation is client-facing," said Kieserman.
Click to expand...

I first discovered this article from a YouTube video of a person urging people to NOT donate any money to the American Red Cross for Hurricane Harvey relief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQA8yte6f54
 
T

Turin Turambar

Member
It doesn't seem very surprising to me. It's a huge organization, which acts in lots of different places and with different programs. Calculate that exact % goes for Harvey relief isn't exactly snapping fingers.
 
S

smurfx

get some go again
people seriously need to start donating to other worthwhile charities. many local charities do a way better job than they ever would.
 
D

Dreams-Visions

Member
Bigboss242 said:
Do not donate to the Red Cross they are no longer a reputable organization.
Click to expand...

No they're still okay. It's just that they have a large infrastructure that donations have to also support. They have the kind of overhead that say...people just out there in the field volunteering their time don't have.
 
K

KSweeley

Member
E

East Lake

Member
Not surprising!

NPR and ProPublica went in search of the nearly $500 million and found a string of poorly managed projects, questionable spending and dubious claims of success, according to a review of hundreds of pages of the charity's internal documents and emails, as well as interviews with a dozen current and former officials.

The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people, but the number of permanent homes the charity has built is six.

The Red Cross long has been known for providing emergency disaster relief — food, blankets and shelter to people in need. And after the earthquake, it did that work in Haiti, too. But the Red Cross has very little experience in the difficult work of rebuilding in a developing country.

The organization, which in 2010 had a $100 million deficit, out-raised other charities by hundreds of millions of dollars — and kept raising money well after it had enough for its emergency relief. But where exactly did that money go?

Ask a lot of Haitians — even the country's former prime minister — and they will tell you they don't have any idea.
Click to expand...
In Search Of The Red Cross' $500 Million In Haiti Relief

Edit: Beaten!
 
R

RRockman

Banned
hahaha-no.gif


You won't see a dime from me Red Cross
 
S

Staccat0

Fail out bailed
Red Cross has a lot of issues, but they are still usually first to the scene and have the biggest short term impact with a major disaster.
 
K

Kyuur

Member
25% is reasonable overhead for such a large charity. Not to say it couldn't be lower, but it's not shocking.

It's also not surprising they don't have clear budgeting in place. I would imagine their work is quite fluid in terms of where and when cash needs to go.
 
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
South Park needs a gif maker like Master of all Science because I wanted to post that clip at the end of Free Hat where the original cuts of Star Wars are put in a giant warehouse labelled "Red Cross 9/11 relief funds"
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Breads said:
Operating costs of 15-25% is the norm for charity orgs right?
Click to expand...

Established orgs? Yes

Tend to be higher for new orgs who need to get their name out.

The ones to look out for are the ones who raise "awareness".
 
kiunchbb

kiunchbb

www.dictionary.com
It is a dirty secret, redcross spent a lot of money on administration, marketing, etc. Running a huge organization like red cross isn't cheap, those ads you saw on TV isn't free either.

However it is still a lot better to donate money to red cross than smaller nonprofit, with huge organization like this, it is very difficult to hide wasteful spending due to whistleblower from employee.

Large organization like red cross also used reputable auditor to review their book and fund. They are also huge enough that they are under watchful eye of the government.

Small nonprofit on the other hand is full of dirty shit, people expenses personal home as office, luxury car as transportation, kickback from vendors, buying from their own or relatives business with inflated price, huge ceo salary for a small firm, reimbursement for board meeting in Hawaii etc... There are zero oversight, the government is not monitoring them, the company is so small that the owner/relative maintain their own book, for auditor they will hire some no name cpa that willing to sign anything.

If you really hate red cross, consider donating to the local food bank. Not some non profit you never heard off.
 
L

Lombax

Banned
Something my grandfather told me about his time in WWII that still resonates with me today.

"Back at base the Red Cross would charge us for coffee. At least the salvation army was there to help!"
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Lombax said:
Something my grandfather told me about his time in WWII that still resonates with me today.

"Back at base the Red Cross would charge us for coffee. At least the salvation army was there to help!"
Click to expand...

As long as you are not gay.
 
P

Purkake4

Banned
blakep267 said:
THEyre reputable in the sense that they don't steal money. It's just that money you donate doesn't get allocated to an exact cause.
Click to expand...
Yup, there's many worse and a few better ones. It also has a lot of international clout being one of the first international charities. Your mileage may vary on their policy of political neutrality.
 
P

Pein

Banned
I don't see the problem, red cross is pretty massive, can't really aim at one thing when you're so spread out.
 
O

Onlinehero

Member
Breads said:
Operating costs of 15-25% is the norm for charity orgs right?
Click to expand...
Should be bottom half or sub that. I think the Red Cross in Sweden has ~14%, Save the Children aims for 12 but hits ~10%. But that's a smaller country and more manageble. I'm sure costs will go up in a disaster zone where your volunteers are in danger. Red Cross international has people getting kidnapped and killed and a chunk of cash goes to support international, it'd probably be a difficult task to give an exact figure during an ongoing crisis such as this.

But hey whatever can get you out of donating with a clean councious, eh.
 
oxrock

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
From what I understand of the organisation, they use donations as they see fit to help in various situations. So if you donate $100 to help hurricane Harvey victims, maybe only $50 of it goes there and the rest is stockpiled to help for future disasters or ones in different areas.
 
K

KSweeley

Member
oxrock said:
From what I understand of the organisation, they use donations as they see fit to help in various situations. So if you donate $100 to help hurricane Harvey victims, maybe only $50 of it goes there and the rest is stockpiled to help for future disasters or ones in different areas.
Click to expand...

That is quite misleading to me then because if I use this: https://www.redcross.org/donate/hurricane-harvey?campname=Harvey&campmedium=aspot I'm assuming from reading that site, 100% of the donations are going to Hurricane Harvey relief.

Main site also has:

"Make a Difference
Help those affected by
Hurricane Harvey"

With a "Donate Now" button: http://www.redcross.org/index.jsp
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
KSweeley said:
That is quite misleading to me then because if I use this: https://www.redcross.org/donate/hurricane-harvey?campname=Harvey&campmedium=aspot I'm assuming from reading that site, 100% of the donations are going to Hurricane Harvey relief.

Main site also has:

"Make a Difference
Help those affected by
Hurricane Harvey"

With a "Donate Now" button: http://www.redcross.org/index.jsp
Click to expand...

It's not wrong, they are on the ground helping as soon as possible. They don't wait for donations to clear the bank.
 
J

Joni

Member
Earmarked donations are a disaster as it prohibits these organisations from using money where it is best served.
 
B

Brakke

Banned
Kieserman, vice president of disaster operations and logistics

Seems reasonable this dude wouldn't know the answer to this question. "it's not something I have visibility on in the role that I play" strikes me as valid. That's kinda just how managing bigass organizations works. Someone else gives him a budget or a revenue stream, his role is to direct those resources into relief.

As a matter of accountability, *someone* should be able to answer the question, but there's nothing necessarily nefarious about this guy not being able to.
 
K

KSweeley

Member
Sinfamy said:
Didn't they mishandle billions in the Japan relief funds?
Click to expand...

Yes, a friend of mine who lived in Japan during the major earthquake told me to never donate to the Red Cross because the donations for the Japan earthquake relief was mishandled.
 
A

Ac30

Member
Joni said:
Earmarked donations are a disaster as it prohibits these organisations from using money where it is best served.
Click to expand...

Eh, my partner worked at a charity where some larger donations weren't earmarked and when the Ebola crisis happened terrified large donors called in and demanded funding be shifted to helping Africa (keep the disease in Africa basically). Meanwhile there was another natural disaster that was much more damaging and in need of funds and, well, gotta appease the donors.

Bigboss242 said:
Do not donate to the Red Cross they are no longer a reputable organization.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the ICRC and the American Red Cross are seperate entities, but yes, I wouldn't either.
 
E

Earthbound64

Banned
KSweeley said:
I didn't copy and paste the entire article. I copy and pasted the portions that kept the context of the article.
Click to expand...

487 words
versus
467 words

The only sentence removed was
"Dating back to 2014, NPR and Pro Publica have reported that the Red Cross misstated how donor dollars are spent."


EDIT: Not trying to thread s*** or police or anything. It's just frustrating for sources to be deprived of a click because their entire content was reproduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Jez Corden] If Microsoft really IS bringing Steam, Epic Game Store, etc. to Xbox consoles, it needs to answer these big questions
2 3 4
155
8K
sachos replied
Peter Moore: The Final Console Generation, MS going Third Party, and MS debated putting the original Halo on PlayStation
2 3
140
11K
Astray replied
  • Poll
Why Xbox Abandoning The Traditional Console Business Model, Makes Business Sense
Business Analysis Platform 2
72
5K
WitchHunter replied
Interview with Shuji Utsumi (SEGA Co-COO) by Japanese media outlet Seizo-Trend
Business Game Dev
1
1K
Unknown? replied
[GI.biz] Analysts offer predictions for 2023 in games
16
2K
Magic Carpet replied
Top Bottom