Community Chat

[sidsmom]

I don't have a single issue with American Red Cross and

how they use my donation...in fact, I hope they use my donation

for admin costs. They a very visible non-profit which awards them

with lots of donations which awards more people to use their services.

Win-Win.

The 'overhead', 'fundraising', 'salary' talk is silly for a huge non-profit

with such widespread charitable actions which have saved

so many lives.

This is an amazing TED Talk which explains For Profit vs Non Profit.

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en#t-79...

When you prohibit failure, you kill innovation.

When you kill innovation & fund raising, you can't raise more revenue.

If you can't raise more revenue, you can't grow...and

when you can't grow, you can't possibly solve large social problems.

It's the classic case of catching fish.

To catch more fish, you need a bigger net.

A bigger net will be an expensive investment, but you'll catch more fish.

More fish = more revenue.

[Moonchilde]

Thank you, @sidsmom. My rationale echoes yours precisely, but my heart is not into "getting into it" in this thread. 

[software]

I guess it's shame on me for not knowing what the Red Cross really does.   They show up, that's a good thing, hand out blankets and cots in a shelter.   It's usually the Salvation Army feeding everyone.   I guess the Red Cross hands out "care packages"   But I've been in disasters and I have friends who have been in disasters and I've never known anyone who's been helped by the Red Cross.  

I think locally they put up families in a hotel if their house has burned down any time of year, disaster or not.

But during the super tornado outbreak in 2011 it was Samaritans Purse and the Salvation army doing all the heavy lifting on the ground the minute the tornado passed over.   Samaritans purse saw all the predictions and was already on the ground prior to the outbreak.    ANd it was the local Salvation Army feeding everyone, primarily first responders, but anyone who needed a meal.

I have been the recipient of a blood transfusion several times, I paid for the blood on my hospital bill.    So no need to donate for that.    Plus the Red Cross uses many volunteers to do a lot of the work.

Call me ignorant but I don't get the Red Cross, again shame on me.

[software]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

I don't have a single issue with American Red Cross and

how they use my donation...in fact, I hope they use my donation

for admin costs. They a very visible non-profit which awards them

with lots of donations which awards more people to use their services.

Win-Win.

The 'overhead', 'fundraising', 'salary' talk is silly for a huge non-profit

with such widespread charitable actions which have saved

so many lives.

This is an amazing TED Talk which explains For Profit vs Non Profit.

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en#t-79...

When you prohibit failure, you kill innovation.

When you kill innovation & fund raising, you can't raise more revenue.

If you can't raise more revenue, you can't grow...and

when you can't grow, you can't possibly solve large social problems.

It's the classic case of catching fish.

To catch more fish, you need a bigger net.

A bigger net will be an expensive investment, but you'll catch more fish.

More fish = more revenue.

---

  I see this as a criticism of faith based charities, which are not going away any time soon.  Not a thing wrong with rewarding frugality, in any setting.

You say tomato, I say to-mah-to.

[chrystaltree]

Others have said the same thing.  Honestly, I can't be concerned with where the Red Cross money goes.  I'm not naive, there are operating costs and salaries and I'm sure that some of the money that's flowing in will not be ear market specifically for hurricane victims.  I wouldn't eve want that.  The Red Cross does a heroic job 24/7 not just during a catastrophe.  I assume and certainly hope that some of the money coming in is going to their reserves for future use.  I trust the Red Cross, I do not trust many "charities" that are popping up all over the place.  

[Lucky Charm]

I've been a Red Cross volunteer and also have donated many times to the Red Cross.

They are on the ground in a disaster like the hurricanes, they are there for you when you've lost your home and need immediate help.

[Lucky Charm]

---

@Lucky Charm wrote:

I've been a Red Cross volunteer and also have donated many times to the Red Cross.

They are on the ground in a disaster like the hurricanes, they are there for you when you've lost your home and need immediate help.

---

I mean to say, if you're home should catch fire and you have no where to sleep.  They assist you immediately.

[CelticCrafter]

---

@NicksmomESQ wrote:

 I stopped donating to the Red Cross after 9/11. I heard  they invested in a new computer system out of the money they collected for the victims!! 

---

@NicksmomESQ I heard that exact same thing!  I was so angry, my daughter was 11 at the time, emptied her piggy bank to give to them.

I know quite a few people that lost everything because of Sandy and not one of them had a good word to say about the Red Cross. 

[Cakers3]

I find it disturbing that those who will not donate to the Red Cross state that they give to animal causes instead. 

My suggestion is to find an organization that will help people and find an organization that will help animals.  Double your donations.

To exclude the suffering of people because one doesn't like the Red Cross diminishes the help people need.  To assume that they will be taken care of without your donation is skirting the issue.

There have been remarks made here that Texas victims do not deserve help but the animals do. 

It would really be nice if people could open their hearts to people and animals, regardless of where they live.

[Mj12]

I certainly don't think any charity should have a large % go to admin costs.  But I'm hearing some people slamming the head of the RC and other charities for their salaries.  The RC is the equilivent of a Fortune 100 company - the CEO makes $$$ and to attact the best talent you need to pay them well.  I want the very best people running charities.  If that takes some $$, so be it.

As for new computer systems, well, why wouldn't we want them to have up to date systems to better run their charity?

JMO