Katrina Relief...Please donate to Red Cross

[stueym]

It is very easy to be cynical about what is going on down there indeed the extended mass (hysteria/news generating) grief process necessitates looking for someone to blame as a stage of grieving. However with the weekend bringing many fund raising events I want you to make sure you understand there are people who really do need help/are getting help.

I wanted to share with you this, a note from a colleague of mine from Louisiana now displaced with her adult family to TX. This is not anonymous SPAM I know this lady and she is an experienced and intelligent IT consultant in our company. It speaks volumes about what we all should concentrate on.

PLEASE DONATE WHATEVER YOU CAN TO THE RED CROSS....There will be time to 'crucify' M Brown & friends, FEMA and the politicians later.

From Joyce Carpenter

For everyone who has contributed to the Red Cross…..I wanted to share with you my families’ experience:

We thought we would be going home tomorrow, so we have been self sufficient and staying to ourselves. Now we know that we will be here about 1 month. The officials in our parish have advised us to return home, pick up some items and then leave again. We have decided just to stay here for now. With the price of gasoline, the 8 hour trip(16 round trip) would be too costly. We have pretty much all we need.

So, we visited the Red Cross shelter in Tyler TX today, about 30 miles east of Athens, where we are staying. First we had to register and then we had our first home cooked meal in about 5 days. Home cooked Mexican food sure beats What-a-Burger and Pizza, anyday!! They also took my husband’s blood sugar and provided us with a meter we can use, since we left without his on Sunday. As some of you know, my daughter and her husband have lost everything with the flooding of their home. Theresa was able to get diapers and clothes for her 2 year old. Zachary was provided with several toys. Now that we are registered, they will provide us with 3 meals a day, money will be provided to help with the hotel expenses and food stamps are available if and when we need them.

We were not alone there….we met many people there and many don’t have any reason to go back. That’s the talk here…….not even going back. We are hearing of many that have already been offered jobs around here and many are registering their children in school. Going home for many is not an option.

My son and his family are in south Houston and have also registered with Red Cross. They also were provided with diapers for Jackie, 18 months, toys for Mitchell, 10 years old, and books for Steven, 15 years old. They were provided with food stamps and will also be provided with 3 hot meals a day. The same story applies to my nephew and his family staying with my brother north of Houston.

And the stories continue……many, many, many people are being helped with your contributions to the Red Cross………Thank you for all your help and all your prayers.

[HeuristicsInc]

hey, awesome. it's good to see that the donations we make are making a difference in their lives.
-bill

[NeilThrun]

Yeah, crucifiction of the politicians should wait. Maybe avoided altogether. Was anyone prepared for such devestation? No, no where in the world is prepared for that amount of natural and socio-cultural disaster.

[the idiot king]

Yeah, crucifiction of the politicians should wait. Maybe avoided altogether. Was anyone prepared for such devestation? No, no where in the world is prepared for that amount of natural and socio-cultural disaster.

we knew what would happen to n.o. well in advance (we're talking years). the politicians should be crucified later for cutting budget for preparations for this catastrophe.

[NeilThrun]

Yeah, crucifiction of the politicians should wait. Maybe avoided altogether. Was anyone prepared for such devestation? No, no where in the world is prepared for that amount of natural and socio-cultural disaster.

we knew what would happen to n.o. well in advance (we're talking years). the politicians should be crucified later for cutting budget for preparations for this catastrophe.

Unfortunatly the budget had to be cut, while I do feel we spend way to much money on weapons, something had to be cut. So It does make realitive sense that they would cut back funding on an event that could possibly never take place. While yes is likely for the gulf coast region to be hit with huricanes, there was also the complete chance it would have never happened. So assuming that budgets needed to be cut, which is completely debatable depending on your military spending views, with out prior knowledge of this event I would have easily supported cutting funding for something like this. Which I guess is kind of sad in retrospect.

Its horrible that we have to spend money making device to kill people when we can't even save all of the people already dieing from disease, starvation, disaster and poverty. Why do we need guns when people are dieing with out violent intervention.

[the idiot king]

i agree that there was a chance that it may have never happened, but it was the sort of thing that was so incredibly likely...the only question was when.

[GlennCase]

I am not sure that I would personally donate to the Red Cross, having recently discovered that the C.E.O. of the Red Cross makes a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/14/ ... eId=CH0013" target="blank">SUBSTANTIALLY comfortable living</a>.

Feel free to check out <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html" target="blank">this 2004 article</a> to see who was found to be the most efficient charity organizations.

ROCK!

Glenn (DR FUNK)

[HeuristicsInc]

well, then you can donate to catholic charities... i did. they are also doing katrina work right now.
-bill

[erik]

Dude, she runs the Red Cross. They took in close to 3 billion dollars last year. That's not the kind of job you just pick up on weekends.

After taking a look at this list, you can see that their fundraising efficiency is 80%. Which is to say that their advertising budget is 20% of the amount that they collected from private donations. The average was 89%. But their charitable commitment is at 91%, meaning that of all the money they spent, only 9% of it went to management, overhead and fundraising. The average was 84%.

In short, for the amount they spend on advertising, they should be getting a lot more donations. They totally sucked at that in 2004. But once they have your money, they spend 91% of it on the things you want them to spend it on.

[GlennCase]

Dude, she runs the Red Cross. They took in close to 3 billion dollars last year. That's not the kind of job you just pick up on weekends.

Granted, I am sure it isn't an easy job, and there should be SOME compensation involved.

However, when you are making in the realm of a half million dollars that year (more than our president), and a good portion of that comes from people who are giving their money to help people? That seems fairly wrong to me. Personal opinion here.

Keep in mind, this isn't the only person getting paid either, this is just the highest paid person in the organization.

After taking a look at this list, you can see that their fundraising efficiency is 80%. Which is to say that their advertising budget is 20% of the amount that they collected from private donations. The average was 89%. But their charitable commitment is at 91%, meaning that of all the money they spent, only 9% of it went to management, overhead and fundraising. The average was 84%.

80% efficiency ties them for 177th most efficient charity organization out of the 200 in the report. It looks like the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/14/ ... >Salvation Army</a> C.E.O. makes a hell of a lot less money, and the S.A. has a much higher efficiency rating at 91%. (and that STILL means they are tied for 95th most efficient charity of 200)

In short, for the amount they spend on advertising, they should be getting a lot more donations. They totally sucked at that in 2004. But once they have your money, they spend 91% of it on the things you want them to spend it on.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad that these organizations exist. ANY help is better than no help. I just don't see how anyone in a non-profit, charitable organization can make that much money from the donations, and still have a conscience.

[erik]

Keep in mind, this isn't the only person getting paid either, this is just the highest paid person in the organization.

Under the category of "Management and General", Salvation Army spent $122,000,000 more than the Red Cross in 2004.

80% efficiency ties them for 177th most efficient charity organization out of the 200 they reported. It looks like the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/14/ ... >Salvation Army</a> C.E.O. makes a hell of a lot less money, and has a much higher [fundraising] efficiency rating at 91%.

I don't really care about how much they spend on fundraising, as long as they make alot back, and the Red Cross does. What I care about is how much of my donation will actually be spent on charity, as opposed to running the business. For the Salvation Army, their charitable commitment percentage is only 83%, and that sucks (or at the very least, it's below average). For every dollar you give to the Salvation Army, 17 cents gets spent on stuff that isn't charity. For every dollar you give to the Red Cross, 9 cents get spent on stuff that isn't charity. Eight fewer cents gets spent on people who need it when you give a dollar to Salvation Army instead of giving it to Red Cross.

[GlennCase]

I don't really care about how much they spend on fundraising, as long as they make alot back, and the Red Cross does. What I care about is how much of my donation will actually be spent on charity, as opposed to running the business. For the Salvation Army, their charitable commitment percentage is only 83%, and that sucks (or at the very least, it's below average). For every dollar you give to the Salvation Army, 17 cents gets spent on stuff that isn't charity. For every dollar you give to the Red Cross, 9 cents get spent on stuff that isn't charity. Eight fewer cents gets spent on people who need it when you give a dollar to Salvation Army instead of giving it to Red Cross.

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this much. If the highest paid person in the Red Cross organization makes $651,957 in a single year, how many other 'higher-ups' have salaries that are just below that? (and she makes <a href="http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/peanuts/" target="blank">Peanuts</a>, when compared to the head of the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/14/ ... atype=Misc" target="blank">Boy Scouts</a>)

When you compare that to the Salvation Army's top salary of $166,850... that tells me that you don't have an individual in that organization that is getting filthy rich off of the donation money. They may not have as much of a charitable commitment, but I think there is a certain salary level when it just looks like you are in the charity business for all the wrong reasons.

Again, just opinion here. There is no such thing as a perfect charity without expenses. I'm not even saying that no one should donate to the Red Cross, but based on the information I have seen? I surely won't.

ROCK!

Glenn (DR FUNK)
http://glenncase.songhole.org

[erik]

They may not have as much of a charitable commitment, but I think there is a certain salary level when it just looks like you are in the charity business for all the wrong reasons.

To me, the charitable commitment is what it's all about. That's the bottom line. How much of my donation is going to help people? Charity is about making sure that needy people get money. That's why people donate.

The Red Cross spent more money on people who needed it in 2004 than the Salvation Army. The Red Cross put a larger percentage of their expenses towards charity than the Salvation Army did in 2004. The Red Cross spent less on salaries than the Salvation Army did in 2004. These are things which cannot be disagreed upon.

[GlennCase]

I won't disagree with those stats.

But, maybe the Red Cross actually SHOULD be taking a higher percentage out of the money for their expenses. They are listed as being 408 million dollars in the hole that year (Worst income to expense ratio out of the 200 charities in the report). Yet, they can still pay their top person over half a million dollars in the same year? It sounds like they don't know how to manage the donation money properly. This does not give me faith in their ability to dispense the money in a wise manner.

Again, I am respectfully agreeing to disagree here. I am not saying that someone should choose one charity over another. Maybe you could look at this as the Red Cross being generous to a fault. Donate where you like. It is good to see that people are willing to help, and that funds are coming in.

In the end, however... it boils down to this. I don't see how someone can have the conscience to make half a million bucks in a year from donation money. No matter HOW high up in the corporation they are. I would have a very difficult time sleeping at night. Then again, I suppose I would be able to afford one hell of a bed with that much money.

These are just the reasons why I will personally not give to the Red Cross.

ROCK!

Glenn (DR FUNK)
http://glenncase.songhole.org

[erik]

I won't disagree with those stats.

But, maybe the Red Cross actually SHOULD be taking a higher percentage out of the money for their expenses. They are listed as being 408 million dollars in the hole that year (Worst income to expense ratio out of the 200 charities in the report). Yet, they can still pay their top person over half a million dollars in the same year? It sounds like they don't know how to manage the donation money properly. This does not give me faith in their ability to dispense the money in a wise manner.

Bah, it sounds like some bad shit went down in 2004 and so instead of worrying about whether they spent more than was donated that year, they just spent the money. They have a net worth of about 2 billion dollars apparently, I'm glad that they spent what was necessary to help people out instead of saving it and not spending it just to appear profitable.

To me, it boils down to this: I would rather donate to a company that spends $650,000 on a CEO and $175 million on salaries overall, when compared to a company whose CEO makes $160,000 but that spends $298 million in salaries overall. I don't see how a CEO who spends only 83 cents out of every donated dollar can sleep at night, myself.

[HeuristicsInc]

glenn:

Red Cross executive salaries and benefits were -and are- paid entirely from general operating funds. To clarify, no monies from the Liberty Fund or the Disaster Relief Fund are used to pay normal salaries for any Red Cross employee, including the salary of the President and CEO. Red Cross Chairman Bonnie M. Hunter and members of the Board of Governors are volunteers and receive no salary. Red Cross implemented ongoing reviews to assure adherence to our executive compensation structure and policies, engaging an outside consulting firm to provide market compensation data and evaluations, and to tie executive compensation directly to the achievement of results. The compensation for the position as President and CEO falls well within the midrange of competitive salaries provided to us by the consulting firm. Red Cross compensation levels are intended to strike a balance: executives will be paid competitively while ensuring that our responsible stewardship of donor dollars and other revenue will be indisputable. Reviews on executive compensation and benefits are conducted continually and the Board relies on this continual flow of information to help make decisions on executive compensation and benefits.

[GlennCase]

glenn:

Red Cross executive salaries and benefits were -and are- paid entirely from general operating funds. To clarify, no monies from the Liberty Fund or the Disaster Relief Fund are used to pay normal salaries for any Red Cross employee, including the salary of the President and CEO. Red Cross Chairman Bonnie M. Hunter and members of the Board of Governors are volunteers and receive no salary. Red Cross implemented ongoing reviews to assure adherence to our executive compensation structure and policies, engaging an outside consulting firm to provide market compensation data and evaluations, and to tie executive compensation directly to the achievement of results. The compensation for the position as President and CEO falls well within the midrange of competitive salaries provided to us by the consulting firm. Red Cross compensation levels are intended to strike a balance: executives will be paid competitively while ensuring that our responsible stewardship of donor dollars and other revenue will be indisputable. Reviews on executive compensation and benefits are conducted continually and the Board relies on this continual flow of information to help make decisions on executive compensation and benefits.

I appreciate this information. If this is true, then I would feel a little better about donating to the Red Cross, personally.

Might I ask where you got this information?

ROCK!

Glenn (DR FUNK)
http://glenncase.songhole.org

[HeuristicsInc]

red cross.
i emailed them
pm me with an email address if you want a forward.
-bill