Community Chat

[sunshine45]

---

@Sassealassea wrote:

Through the years I have donated to the Red Cross and various other organizations via direct giving.  I feel that self direction to the cause of my choice is more meaningful for me.

i don't understand why QVC is labeling their fundraising effort as a "Partnership in Giving" to the Red Cross.  There is no indication on the FAQ page that QVC plans to match contributions.   A partnership suggests together.

---

@Sassealassea

As Texas and Louisiana continue to battle the devastation of Hurricane Harvey, QVC is helping those affected by making a $100,000 corporate donation, and matching customer and team member donations, to the American Red Cross.

QVC has matched customer donations to the American Red Cross up to $100,000 (our customers have already reached this threshold), and all team member donations are being matched as well. Customers can find information on how to support relief efforts on QVC.com.

QVC is committed to supporting our communities near and far and is keeping those affected by this disaster in our thoughts.

http://newsroom.qvc.com/happenings/qvc-donates-hurricane-harvey-relief-efforts/

[Ms tyrion2]

---

@software wrote:

---

@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.

---

I didn't read it as criticism of faith-based organizations. However, there are many of us who prefer charities who are not faith-based. I choose not to donate to religious based charities. Personal preference and it's rather sad the most intense criticism of secular charities is coming from those who prefer faith-based organizations.  

I'm glad we have choices.

[Cakers3]

---

@Mj12 wrote:

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

---

@Mj12  While it seems that these CEO's are paid way out of line you make a very good point-it takes mega time and mega talent to run these agencies.

Anyone who has had a CEO in the family knows that it is a 24/7 job.  The CEO doesn't clock in at 8 and clock out at 5.

People are in dire need; tearing down one organization is time not well spent; do some research and find one more compatible with your personal view as to how an organization should be run.

And just to push a little more-what would YOUR plan be to run the Red Cross?

Ya got nothin'.

@Mj12  Generic you, your, etc.  I agree with your post.

[pitdakota]

@Cakers3, I had not heard any of that and have to say I am sorry that some might feel that way.  People are human beings no matter where they live.  They are someone's mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, etc., and their lives matter period.

@Mj12, those computers and related software are needed.  I remember when the tornado hit Henryville, Ind. one of the volunteers was complaining about the software and its limitations trying to get information for a resident in a shelter that needed help with getting a prescription.

I am not a Red Cross volunteer, but I did assist with the relief effort in Henryville, Ind., when the F-5 tornado hit several years ago.  I was very impressed with the Red Cross.  They were on the ground quickly and staffed the shelters that people needed in the immediate aftermath of the tornado.  In fact, they brought in a truck with washers and dryers to assist people that needed to do laundry. 

The most important thing is to donate to your charity of choice or get out there and volunteer to assist in disaster relief.  Believe me, if you volunteer...you quickly learn about the overwhelming needs in a time of crisis and the huge job these charities face.  And it takes everyone together to move forward. 

[jlkz]

People will find their own reasons to give or not give money, to volunteer or not volunteer to different charities.

I give throughout the year to local organizations.  When there is a major catastrophe, I will donate to the Red Cross.

As for CEO salaries:  a poster hit the nail on the head.  The scope of the responsibilities is extensive: There is no " Off Switch " at the end of the day or week.  Organizations that serve the public when devastations occur need to have funds for many purposes:  readily accessible data available from computers; ability to deploy people and resources immediately; ability to maintain a well-trained, dedicated staff; and, and ability to maintain funding relationships to ensure today's needs are met as well as reserves for the future.  

Emergencies can happen at any time.  To have dependable options in place and ready to meet needs takes great administrative personnel.   Talent does not come cheap.

How are you donating your time, talent or treasure ?

If you cannot or do not want to donate $ to the Red Cross,

how about blood donations ?  This is one thing for which there is no substitute.

I hope when all Hurricane- related issues are done, that politics will not rear its ugly head and cause those organizations who have helped humans and animals to be vilified.

Financial and resource accountability are very important.  So is the on-going strength of character of those who guide for-profit and non-profit organizations.  These folks will be in my prayers for continued success.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

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.

---

I find it equally disturbing that some feel that their chosen charity (human or animal) is worthy and the choice of others is UNworthy, they made a poor choice, etc. I find it disturbing that people need to trash one charity in favor of another (theirs of course) in disaster situations.

I, like others, have donated to both human and animal charities - and will continue to do so as/when motivated. The whole 'some people deserve it' thing is gross.

[RedTop]

I prefer my donations go into the hands of those who need it, so most of my donation dollars stay local.  

For many years my family adopted an angel off the Salvation Army angel tree, and purchased as many items as we could from their wish list.  We stopped participating in the holiday program once we learned our gifts were split up and did not always go to the child we specifically shopped for.   I then started making a red kettle donation and let it go.   I also stopped donating my gently used items to their retail thrift shop when they stopped letting me hand them off to an inside store employee, and expected me to leave my bag or box on the loading dock in the alley---to be rummaged thru and stolen by locals looking for items to sell at flea markets.   These items now go to our local Union Mission, where an employee helps unload my items, and they are unpacked, and available to those who need them within 24 hours.   

While I haven't donated money to the Red Cross; this organization has made a lot of money from the blood and platelets I readily shared with them.   For years I willingly shared my blood and platelets to help others in need, and while I felt great for doing so, my efforts left me with a severe carpal tunnel issue.   My last donation came close to permanently damaging/paralyzing a nerve in my arm, that took more than 3 months to recover---and is still an issue.   My medical doctor advised me to stop donating unless I am willing to risk permanent damage.   

I try to put my disaster relief donation in the hands of those who were affected.   I donate supplies or personal items, or give to churches who are helping another church in the disaster area.  My family helps the local no kill animal shelters we have adopted from, and we donate to the assistance program at our vet office to help others care for their pets.   

I sent money to a cousin in TX, to assist her family members who were affected by flooding.   I always donate to help local veterans.   

[software]

---

@Ms tyrion2 wrote:

---

@software wrote:

---

@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.

---

I didn't read it as criticism of faith-based organizations. However, there are many of us who prefer charities who are not faith-based. I choose not to donate to religious based charities. Personal preference and it's rather sad the most intense criticism of secular charities is coming from those who prefer faith-based organizations.  

I'm glad we have choices.

---

The speaker is an activist who aims to transform the way society thinks about giving.   This society is probably the most generous of any on the planet - past, present or future.   I don't need him to "transform" anything.  Which is why I see it as a criticism of faith based organizations.

While we may disagree on where our donations go, we can all agree that we are some of the most generous people in the world.

Not arguing, just clarifying.

[Moonchilde]

Regarding the Red Cross Blood Bank "making money" from blood donations:

Every step of the processing involves expensive machines, technical expertise and supplies. Who would be okay with any of the steps below being skipped? Think any are unnecessary? Think they should all be free? Keep in mind that blood donated to hospital blood banks is certainly charged for, as most of the same procedures are followed except those related to national/regional data/record keeping.

Step 1: The Donation
. Donor registers
. Health history and mini physical are completed
. About 1 pint of blood and several small test tubes are collected from each donor
. The bag, test tubes and the donor record are labeled with an identical bar code label to keep track of the donation
. The donation is stored in iced coolers until it is transported to a Red Cross center

Step 2: Processing
. Donated blood is scanned into a computer database
. Most blood is spun in centrifuges to separate the transfusable components – red cells, platelets, and plasma
. The primary components like plasma, can be further manufactured into components such as cryoprecipitate
. Red cells are then leuko-reduced
. Single donor platelets are leukoreduced and bacterially tested.
. Test tubes are sent for testing.

Step 3: Testing
. Steps 2 and 3 take place in parallel
. The test tubes are received in one of three Red Cross National Testing Laboratories
. A dozen (emphasis mine) tests are performed on each unit of donated blood – to establish the blood type and test for infectious diseases
. Test results are transferred electronically to the manufacturing facility within 24 hours
. If a test result is positive, the unit is discarded and the donor is notified. Test results are confidential and are only shared with the donor, except as may be required by law

Step 4: Storage

. When test results are received, units suitable for transfusion are labeled and stored
. Red Cells are stored in refrigerators at 6ºC for up to 42 days
. Platelets are stored at room temperature in agitators for up to five days
. Plasma and cryo are frozen and stored in freezers for up to one year

Step 5: Distribution

. Blood is available to be shipped to hospitals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.