Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkxingu
Feb, one of the things the NPR piece brought up is how numbers can be manipulative. For example, 91% can refer to post-administrative costs (which can be exorbitant) or any of a number of different manipulations. Also, that money could be being spent driving empty trucks around for publicity, which a few investigative reports claim to have happened in a few of the past disasters.
|
Exactly. That's why I only donate to local groups that I've gotten to know. (and by local, I mean working locally, not just local to NH - for example, the Gospel Rescue Mission in Tucson: I volunteered there when I lived there and know the folks and the work they do).
The Red Cross is definitely off my list after a few episodes with personal friends. One family, whose house was struck by lightning and burned to the ground, was denied ANY assistance from the Red Cross "because they had insurance". It didn't matter that they lost everything except one car and the cash one of the kids had in their pocket - they were told to simply "figure it out".
Another friend, who was a volunteer medical doctor, quit working with the Red Cross after discovering that ALL donations go into a single fund and are used wherever the Red Cross decides (a process she found quite alarming as well), regardless of the donation's designation. Which is to say, the $100 you donate for "Harvey victims" may not go there at all, ever.
So, unfortunately, caveat emptor applies to charity as well.