|
The Red Cross has been in the news a lot lately, in addition to popping up in frequently reposted Facebook articles claiming a variety of things about the organization, that anywhere from 60-98 cents of every donated dollar goes directly into the pocket of some executive in DC and not to helping anybody out, or that the ARC greatly exaggerates its actual impact in helping, etc. I worked for them for a little while in the blood services department, and I've had other family members who have been working for them for decades, and they've always been a part of my life. So I know a fair amount about how the organization works and what it does, but I will admit that while I'm skeptical of the claims of how bungling they are, I'm also not entirely sure how much of the org is really on the level anymore. That said, I have the utmost respect for the volunteers and the people on the ground who are just trying to help out and get aid to the people who need it. What I want to know about is peoples' actual experience either volunteering for, donating to, or working with/for the Red Cross and from people who have or haven't been assisted by them. I've always donated to them without hesitation, but all this bad press is making me second guess it and whether or not my money would be better spent elsewhere. I feel like the problems the ARC is catching heat for are endemic to any kind of charity outfit, and I know from experience that just because an organization is huge and overbloated doesn't mean that giving money to a smaller organization is necessarily better, because they're just as capable of loving up but don't get the heat for it.
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:There is nontrivial evidence that the American Red Cross embezzles a lot of it's donors money. This is kind of supported by some additional soft commentary on youtube and the like. I'm not real inclined to believe what a dude on YouTube thinks about ARC (especially since he claims the ARC is actively harming people, which is flat out untrue) and the NBC video you linked seems to not take a specific side on the issue and says that a lot of the criticism comes from people tweeting not to donate to ARC based on the same figures that don't seem to be well substantiated about how much money goes where. What makes me wary of these kinds of reports is that nobody seems to ever posit exactly what is an appropriate amount of money to be spent where, what the purview of the ARC is in relationship to what they're even able to do, and what's being counted among "administrative" costs. These news articles and the things people post seem to imply that 25 cents on the dollar is being paid to Gail McGovern personally or goes exclusively to the top level administrators, which I have a lot of doubt about. What I wonder is how much "administrative costs" includes things like prepositioning blood products, which is an expensive endeavor (this is what I did at ARC when I worked there.) I have a whole lot of distrust of the people at the top of ARC and Gail McGovern especially, and I will acknowledge that the org has some deep problems in leadership, but I don't think it's as bad as people are making it out to be - it's like with anything else, you're only going to hear the loudest voices from the people who feel slighted or perhaps were legitimately not helped by the Red Cross, and people (at least that I have seen) that talk about the Red Cross helping them or doing good tend to get dismissed as paid shills or plants. What I worry about is that the people who are volunteering and trying to do good are going to get discouraged.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Is that why the Red Cross was set to build houses in Haiti? The Red Cross has never been in the business of building houses before to my knowledge. Was it a matter of being appointed to do so by the UN, or did they jump up and say that they were going to do so, or was it both? I'm not sure I understand the POLR thing. It sounds like if the IFRC had accepted the position of being POLR, all it would have done is made them accountable for failures of humanitarian aid generally rather than just for failures of their own organization, and with hundreds of competing groups on the ground, I can see why they would have refused that provision, because it makes them responsible for everyone's fuckups.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
That's where I'm confused, because it seems to me like taking the position of POLR is kind of a no-win thing -- if none of these organizations are accountable to the UN, they're not accountable to the IFRC either, and being cluster lead in that sector with no ability to enforce or ensure that other orgs within the cluster carry their weight makes the IFRC responsible for the glut of NGOs not following through on things. I hope I don't sound argumentative because I don't mean to be, it's just that the further I dig into this the more complicated it gets, and it seems like the IFRC (and especially the ARC, because nobody seems to distinguish them in this country anyway) is getting a disproportionate amount of the blame for failed humanitarian aid when it sounds like it was just loving broken at every conceivable level from the get-go, and I am concerned about repeat squanderings from the recent disasters and the inevitable future ones.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 19:46
|
|