This is unromantic, but what the charities need is money

[Recursion]

Last edited Tue May 12, 2015, 08:24 AM - Edit history (2)

Not blankets. Not canned food.

I know that sounds awful and mercenary. But the simple fact is that it costs them more to process in-kind donations than they are worth.

I get the problem. I get that you want to help with stuff you have around the house. And, yes, those baked beans could feed a family. But logistics are a real thing. The simple fact is that a $1 donation does more for the Red Cross than the in-kind donation of a $1 can of beans.

I get it. I do. It feels less immediate. It feels like you're just signing a check and turning away. But the simple fact is that what the Red Cross and Red Crescent don't have is money, and you can fix that. A cool aspect of the modern world is that as far as I know all of the merchant accounts will let you donate to them without charge, meaning if you charge even just $1 on your card, they will receive the full $1. Paypal is the same.

I know it doesn't make you feel as good. But it's what will actually help. It looks like I'll be in Kathmandu starting in two days, because this last quake just knocked down everything that was still standing, and we need all hands. Please, please consider donating, and please, please, please consider donating cash in any amount you have. Even a small donation could save a life. Thank you.

EDIT: Kittywampus is exactly right, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. This is not an advertisement for the Red Cross/Red Crescent. This is a general statement about NGO's and charities. Whoever you want to give to, they can do more with cash than you can.

[peacebird]

1. Red Cross is no longer a charity I trust. Not after the hurricane Sandy debacle. Here's another take

Red cross likes to say 91% of money raised goes to help, but sadly that is just not true...

"After inquiries by ProPublica and NPR, the Red Cross removed the statement from its website. The Red Cross said the claim was not "as clear as it could have been, and we are clarifying the language."

The Red Cross declined repeated requests to say the actual percentage of donor dollars going to humanitarian services.

But the charity's own financial statements show that overhead expenses are significantly more than what McGovern and other Red Cross officials have claimed.

In recent years, the Red Cross' fundraising expenses alone have been as high as 26 cents of every donated dollar, nearly three times the nine cents in overhead claimed by McGovern. In the past five years, fundraising expenses have averaged 17 cents per donated dollar."

http://www.propublica.org/article/red-cross-ceo-has-been-misleading-about-donations


And specific to hurricane Sandy:
Among NPR and ProPublica's findings:

* The Red Cross national headquarters in Washington "diverted assets for public relations purposes." A former Red Cross official managing the Sandy effort says 40 percent of available trucks were assigned to serve as backdrops for news conferences.

* Distribution of relief was "politically driven instead of [Red Cross] planned."

* Food waste was "excessive," due to factors including inexperienced staff, poor communication and "political pressures."

* In one shelter, "sex offenders were placed in a special area off of dorm, but they weren't there, they were all over, including playing in children's area," according to a confidential "lessons learned" memo from the Red Cross.

* Relief organizers were ordered to produce 200,000 additional meals one day — to drive up numbers. They did it at extraordinary cost, even though there was no one to deliver them to and most went to waste.

* "It was just clear to me that they weren't interested in doing mass care; they were interested in the illusion of mass care," says Richard Rieckenberg, who helped lead the Red Cross' response to Sandy and Hurricane Isaac.
* It wasn't just Sandy. When Isaac hit Mississippi and Louisiana earlier in 2012, Rieckenberg says: "We didn't have food in the shelters, we didn't have cots, we didn't have blankets in the shelters, which to me was incredible because we saw this hurricane coming a long way away."

* Also during Isaac, one Red Cross official had 80 trucks drive around empty or largely empty "just to be seen," as one of the drivers recalls.

* "Our experience with the Red Cross is they're a little late to the game," says Police Lt. Matthew Tiedemann, the emergency management coordinator for Bergen County, N.J., who says the Red Cross failed to provide volunteers and resources to open shelters after Sandy. "The reality set in that I was in the sheltering business. It was pretty time-consuming, considering I was putting together cots when I should have been managing an emergency," he says.

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359365276/on-superstorm-sandy-anniversary-red-cross-under-scrutiny

[KittyWampus]

5. This thread is about the need for relief. You COULD have posted other charities to donate to

rather than an anti-Red Cross screed.

BTW, I have posted OP about the Red Cross.

But to post nothing but an anti-Red Cross rather than post other suggestions and a simple warning about the Red Cross is misguided (the nicest word I can think of).

[F4lconF16]

14. Actually, not all of us are aware of the details.

I, for one, managed to appreciate both the message in the OP and that post.

But I get that's hard for some people.

[leftofcool]

2. No way! Sorry, I have found better charities.

[KittyWampus]

4. So post the other charities FFS. This isn't about you. It's about the need for relief.

[KittyWampus]

3. FFS, to DU'ers pointing out issues w/Red Cross- YOU MISS THE POINT.

I can't believe this thread has already turned into DU'er preaching about the Red Cross. I have posted OP's about the Red Cross in the past.

BUT FFS, THIS IS ABOUT A DU"ER ON THE GROUND ASKING FOR MONEY.

Don't want to sent money to the Red Cross. FINE. Send it to your charity of choice.

[FSogol]

6. +1, Well said. n/t

[Recursion]

8. Thank you, that. Sorry. I didn't say it well.

I'm not saying the Red Cross/Red Crescent is the be-all/end-all. I'm saying whatever charity you support, even a dollar will go a long way. Thanks for pointing that out.

[KittyWampus]

9. Recursion, maybe you should rename your OP. Thanks for the info.

[Recursion]

10. Good point. Done (nt).

[FSogol]

7. K&R. n/t

[Heidi]

11. Kick, kick, kick!

[octoberlib]

12. Great post! I donated money after the first earthquake to an

organization that was sending medical supplies over there. The person who runs it is a Nepali living in America and he talked to charities who were on the ground over there to ascertain their needs.

[jeff47]

13. The same applies closer to home too.

Your local food bank can get more than one can of beans with that $1. So don't go buy some food for your local food drive. Send them the money instead.

[F4lconF16]

15. Kick and rec

Important info. I know we were always happy to accept donations over food when doing food drives a few years back. Even if they are going to buy the same kind of food you would have donated, they can most likely get it cheaper. Money is almost always the best thing to donate, and it gets to the people it's supposed to help faster.

Thanks for being over there and helping out.

And btw, I thought you were fine on the Red Cross thing,
your OP didn't appear to be specific to them to me.

[steve2470]

16. k&r nt

[uppityperson]

17. k&r, agree and here's a link for reputable NGOs

http://www.maheshpoudyal.com/nepal-earthquake-25-april-2015/


Money doesn't feel as good but is much more useful.