SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
A few days ago, I submitted the story about the article criticizing the Red Cross' use of funds in Haiti. Purely by coincidence, I just tripped across an interview on Reddit: the two authors of the article answering questions from the public. To make things even more interesting, Jonathan Garro from the Red Cross also jumped in to provide a counterpoint.
I have no axe to grind here: I donate to the local Red Cross, and am therefore interested to know whether the organization makes effective use of the money it receives.
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Black Eye for the Red Cross - Continued
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 17 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thesis on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:16PM
I was placed in an executive position at what I would call a "small-to-medium" sized chapter, through a special "government-funded" program many years ago. My job was to create a sustainability at the chapter through community outreach and grant proposals. I did my job very well, for donations and services increased at that chapter, which went direct to the community it served. I was a volunteer for many years prior to being placed into that position. I stopped volunteering after my stint was up. Let me explain why...
In my position there, I got to see the inner workings of ARC HQ, from a local chapter perspective. The organization is far too top heavy at the national level IMHO, and was becoming more so when I left. It struck me as being no different than corporate America, with the top few making massive salaries, while dismantling the simple things that worked well at the lower levels. It turned into a money grab by the few at the top of the food chain at national headquarters IMHO, and that took away from the services that the local chapters provided to many smaller communities.
Fast forward a few years: HQ completely took over the Health & Safety aspect, removing one of the best money making things that local chapters had (teaching first aid and CPR related classes). The majority of the money that was made there stayed local, and went back into the community. HQ didn't like that. They wanted the monies. Now HQ gets all the money direct from participants via online signups, and I have no idea how much of a cut the local chapters get, if any for providing the service, in my area anyway. I suspect they get very little, if anything at all.
Many local chapters are now closed in some states, and larger areas are served from what volunteers have termed "super-chapters" based in very large cities. They are expanding this practice nationwide. I had over 150 volunteers working under me when I was at my local chapter, and now there are none. That alone should tell you how disenfranchised that folks are, who helped to provide services to their local communities for free. It is not as efficient as it was, and is getting worse. Nobody wanted to drive over an hour away to the new "super-chapter" to teach classes, or to get supplies, so they stopped volunteering.
The only thing that the ARC is good at to this day, and have always been good at, is communication between service members and their families through AFES. The government will not let them fuck that up here in the US, for how that is done is tightly controlled, and ARC has to play by the rules set by the government and the Pentagon.
It was a good organization back in the day, but it has lost its way, and I personally do not think it will ever get back to what it was. There are too many bureaucrats at the top lining their pockets, IMHO.