Red Cross to Partner with God
The Red Cross continues to lay out their plans for revising the way they do things, in response to some Congressional pressures, and in time for the rapidly-approaching hurricane season. As a donor's advocate, I applaud most of their new efforts to be more responsive to the communities they seek to aid, and more respectful of the donors they seek to solicit.
Buried in their plan, as if it is an absolute no-brainer unworthy of discussion, is this little tidbit:
The American Red Cross also plans to work more closely with other charities, like local churches, providing them with financial assistance.
Understand exactly what this means: If you give money to the Red Cross, a secular organization, they reserve the right to give it to a religious entity at a later date, if they see fit.
Now, don't get me wrong on this---I recognize and celebrate the fact that much of the great social welfare work in this country is done by churches. If I were looking for groups that knew the needs of a particular community, I would probably start with well-connected churches.
But not every donor feels the same way. It is undeniable that one of the reasons for the Red Cross's unparalleled success in crisis situations is that some donors, who don't have the time to research their recipient, want only to reward relief agencies that don't operate under a religious mandate of any sort. It's just a fact of life. Some donors don't want their monies to go to groups that are religious. This affects the Salvation Army all the time, as they unabashedly acknowledge that they are a Christian organization and that their good works are shaped by their love of God. This philosophy undeniably attracts some donors, but it repels others, often to the benefit of the Red Cross.
I can only hope that the Red Cross will be painfully transparent in their fundraising materials. You simply cannot have it both ways. Currently, all monies that are collected are spent by the Red Cross, and the Red Cross only, in the way they best see fit. While in times of crisis, this may handcuff them in their abilities to best meet a particular community's needs, it's easy for prospective donors to understand. No one is ever misled. But if they adopt this new policy, and plan on, when appropriate, sharing their funds with other groups, including churches, they darn well better acknowledge that in their solicitations. Anything else would be disingenuous.
Buried in their plan, as if it is an absolute no-brainer unworthy of discussion, is this little tidbit:
The American Red Cross also plans to work more closely with other charities, like local churches, providing them with financial assistance.
Understand exactly what this means: If you give money to the Red Cross, a secular organization, they reserve the right to give it to a religious entity at a later date, if they see fit.
Now, don't get me wrong on this---I recognize and celebrate the fact that much of the great social welfare work in this country is done by churches. If I were looking for groups that knew the needs of a particular community, I would probably start with well-connected churches.
But not every donor feels the same way. It is undeniable that one of the reasons for the Red Cross's unparalleled success in crisis situations is that some donors, who don't have the time to research their recipient, want only to reward relief agencies that don't operate under a religious mandate of any sort. It's just a fact of life. Some donors don't want their monies to go to groups that are religious. This affects the Salvation Army all the time, as they unabashedly acknowledge that they are a Christian organization and that their good works are shaped by their love of God. This philosophy undeniably attracts some donors, but it repels others, often to the benefit of the Red Cross.
I can only hope that the Red Cross will be painfully transparent in their fundraising materials. You simply cannot have it both ways. Currently, all monies that are collected are spent by the Red Cross, and the Red Cross only, in the way they best see fit. While in times of crisis, this may handcuff them in their abilities to best meet a particular community's needs, it's easy for prospective donors to understand. No one is ever misled. But if they adopt this new policy, and plan on, when appropriate, sharing their funds with other groups, including churches, they darn well better acknowledge that in their solicitations. Anything else would be disingenuous.
posted by Trent Stamp at 9:07 AM
10 Comments:
Trent, it's not like the American Red Cross owns enough real estate to be able to set up shelters in a few days notice anywhere in the country. The Red Cross does this through partnerships with community organizations who have the facilities necessary to establish a shelter. In many cases, this means religious organizations -- whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever. It is also a fact that, in response to something as massive as a Katrina, the volunteer pool from which the Red Cross had to draw was simply inadequate.
Don't bust Red Cross' chops just because they are trying to anticipate the next Katrina scale disaster and are trying to partner with organizations that can bring them both sheltering facilities and volunteers to man them.
Don't disagree with a word you said.
I'm just pointing out that this sharing of their dollars is new for them, and that they have gone out of their way historically to make sure donors know they won't divert any of their funding to others, secular or religious.
I just hope they're transparent with their potential donors, many of whom have supported the Red Cross because, right or wrong, they wanted their dollars to not go to religious organizations.
Trent, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. IMO, this approach by Red Cross is a byproduct of them simply becoming too big to maintain clear identity with their primary mission. Twice now, with the 9/11 and the Katrina disasters, they have demonstrated poor oversight of donor funds. It seems that there is such a thing as collecting too much money. I've long felt this way about United Way, another very visible agency with incredible, almost coercive fundraising leverage. UW attempts to convince us that they can make better donation decisions than we can.
The fact is, with a database like Charity Navigator, a donor can quickly and easily select a preferred cause of importance to him or her as well as identify the most efficient, effective organization to execute assistance. Case in point - when I wanted to find the best charity for a Darfur crisis donation this week, it took me exactly 30 seconds to ID the agency that had a 97% programs disbursement rate.
Given this, it seems foolish to churn hard-earned dollars through a disbursement agent like Red Cross or United Way, only to have them take 5-15% off the top.
And don't get me started on CEO salaries of these mega-charities...
Maybe this is actually a good strategy. One of the knocks on the Red Cross that I've heard is that they try to be too secular. You make a good point when you say they're acknowledging that churches know the needs of their communities better than a large, national organization. As long as the Red Cross is honest about where they're using donated funds and holds accountable the organizations who receive funding , I don't see this as a huge problem. It actually would make me more inclined to give to the Red Cross.
I dare say that the Red Cross will only use religious organizations as a last resort, I doubt that a significant portion of their funds will directed through them. This being the case, I doubt that non-religious donors should be concerned about their funds being used by religious organizations.
Also, as a volunteer disaster relief worker in Louisiana, we had little to no time to "proselytize."
We were primarily concerned about the immediate needs of people.
As to the Red Cross and religious affiliation,for the secuclar humanist, donating to a charity with religious affiliation can be felt as hypocrisy and timidity; when such a donation results from failure of the organization to make its affiliation publicly known, it can be felt as a betrayal. Charity Navigator is valuable in part because it enables a donor to choose a charity which does not have such an affiliation.
As both a Red Crosser and a contributing community member I think it is important to be clear as to "how" the one line Trent is referng to as a partner with "God" will be done. The details of "how" are just being finalized. The Red Cross will ensure the details are known -- we are so transparent that we are under almost a 24 hour media watch. Don't get me wrong there is not one Red Cross staff person who complains about this. We know the trust and respect that the community has endeared us with and we want to maintain that. If dollars are given in such situations it will not be used to carry out their religious mission but to shelter, and feed those displaced. Clearly we would need to pay those expenses. This is not new -- it has always been the case. Churchs, Unions, Schools, Convention centers all open their buildings to help shelter persons. We maintain a strong non-secular position to ensure all are serviced. Clearly church shelters will not be seen as "open" to all needing help and clearly in large scale disasers will be just one of many locations used. How the Red Cross will use donated dollars to help meet the mission will not change but if a "partner" spends their money to help meet the mission it is meeting the communities expectation. As you state our Nation is larger today and the Red Cross as the leader and with partners can meet the larger demand.
if the RC discriminates against gays and lesbians like the Salvation Army (and their good Christian Values ;^( then they are off my list.
The Red Cross would do well to utilize local organizations to help implement disaster aid more quickly and efficiently. It just makes good logical sense! Local orgainations were first on the scene in Louisianna and Mississippi during the Hurrican disater. They always are!
Local organzations ,religious and non-religious alike don't discriminate their relief efforts based on sexual preference, color, or religion. Who is the person that thinks they do? Obviously, you haven't been in a relief effort to see churches and religious organiztions like The Salvation Army work. Their care is for everyone - gays,lesbians and those with traditinal sexual preferences. To express care and concern motivated by the Love of God does not require that Religous organizations, like TSA, condone or approve their private behavior! Evidently Your PREDJUDICE against Religious organizations is bleeding over into your comments.
I doubt you will turn The Salvation Army's help away when you find yourself in need! Or, maybe you will discriminate and turn it away...it would not suprise me. Some of the most predjudicial people I have met happen to be gay! Some of the kindest and caring also happen to be gay! That is life, that is humanity!
Trent,
Why does the Red Cross seem to be in a "pissing contest" with the FDA? In over eight letters the FDA has fined ARC over $10M for improper handling of blood products as I understand it. You would think that 1) they would do a better job of safeguarding the donations they receive and 2) with such a high-paid executive there would be some leadership here to put an end to what appears to have been going on for something like 10 years...
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01447.html
Post a Comment
<< Home