Red Cross Debacle--Day Two
I'll be on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on CNN tonight to follow-up my comments in today's New York Times about Mark Everson's unfortunate doings and its impact on the Red Cross.
One interesting aspect of Everson's sudden ouster from the organization (and one thankfully that doesn't force us to talk about what he did or with whom) is how this will impact the upper ranks of the Red Cross. You may remember that when Everson came in, he brought a ton of his own people with him, including the man who succeeded him at the IRS. This was not unexpected, as most political types like to surround themselves with confidantes and trusted allies, but the influx of former IRS bureaucrats into the fragile halls of the Red Cross was something I worried about at the time, and wondered how it would play inside the organization and especially among those who had been there for a long time.
Now, with Everson forced out, and members of the organization repulsed by what he did to the organization they love (and believe me, they're repulsed by Everson right now), you have to wonder if any of Everson's cronies will survive his departure. It's possible that, to preserve morale and wash their hands of this ugly situation, the Red Cross may have to buy the former IRS folks out if they don't leave of their own accord, and it seems likely that the Red Cross will need not just one new Chief Executive, but to replace 4 or 5 people at the top of the org. chart.
I have in the past put my professional reputation, whatever that's worth, on-the-line to argue that the Red Cross is a pretty good organization doing damn important work. And it appears, in the wake of the California wildfires, that they're learning from past mistakes and getting better at what they do.
But with Everson's behavior, and subsequent departure, morale among staff and volunteers will suffer. Contributions will lag. Public confidence will plummet. And as a result, the Red Cross will be less equipped moving forward to do what they are chartered by Congress to do--to serve as America's first responder. And all because one married man with children couldn't, well, you know what he couldn't do.
One interesting aspect of Everson's sudden ouster from the organization (and one thankfully that doesn't force us to talk about what he did or with whom) is how this will impact the upper ranks of the Red Cross. You may remember that when Everson came in, he brought a ton of his own people with him, including the man who succeeded him at the IRS. This was not unexpected, as most political types like to surround themselves with confidantes and trusted allies, but the influx of former IRS bureaucrats into the fragile halls of the Red Cross was something I worried about at the time, and wondered how it would play inside the organization and especially among those who had been there for a long time.
Now, with Everson forced out, and members of the organization repulsed by what he did to the organization they love (and believe me, they're repulsed by Everson right now), you have to wonder if any of Everson's cronies will survive his departure. It's possible that, to preserve morale and wash their hands of this ugly situation, the Red Cross may have to buy the former IRS folks out if they don't leave of their own accord, and it seems likely that the Red Cross will need not just one new Chief Executive, but to replace 4 or 5 people at the top of the org. chart.
I have in the past put my professional reputation, whatever that's worth, on-the-line to argue that the Red Cross is a pretty good organization doing damn important work. And it appears, in the wake of the California wildfires, that they're learning from past mistakes and getting better at what they do.
But with Everson's behavior, and subsequent departure, morale among staff and volunteers will suffer. Contributions will lag. Public confidence will plummet. And as a result, the Red Cross will be less equipped moving forward to do what they are chartered by Congress to do--to serve as America's first responder. And all because one married man with children couldn't, well, you know what he couldn't do.
Labels: American Red Cross, CNN, Mark Everson, Red Cross, sleeping with subordinates, Southern California wildfires, Wolf Blitzer
posted by Trent Stamp at 10:33 AM
17 Comments:
I'm done with the Red Cross until they replace EVERY single member of the current board. They haven't gotten a CEO hiring right since Liddy Dole.
Seems like we now have trhe ARC harboring another Republican Whoremonger. Do they think eceryone has forgotten about the secret slush fund they tried to establish with 9/11 contributions??
We are we not being told the name of the mans paramour and why hasn't she or he been named and fired???
Why are you Mr. Stamp being so protective of them? Have you been paid off.
No one should give the ARC a penny until they are thoroughly investigated by a neutral group!!!
Not quite ten years ago I argued to anyone who'd listen that for organizational reasons alone such behavior couldn't and shouldn't be tolerated.
And wouldn't be, I said, in the private sector, military, or non-profit arena.
(The military was very publicly purging offenders at the Non-Commissioned Officer level at the time.)
Therefore, I said on my high horse, it couldn't be waved away as a simple act between consenting adults when it occurred in the federal executive branch between two people of the greatest conceivable disparity in organizational power.
Tell you what, though, I sweated a little after saying that. I started to doubt that people still saw the practical side of the problem.
I'm really relieved to read that the principle is still understood.
Or maybe it's not. As jason shows here, maybe it's just seen as a mud-slinging target of opportunity.
I volunteered with the Red Cross in disaster services years ago. I still believe strongly in the good they do.
It would be a tiny bit difficult to replace them if their cash flow dropped to zero due to political ranting.
Yes, concentrate on fixing the applicant-screening process.
No, don't hobble all the apolitical benefits that come from an organization that relies enormously on donations of cash and time from the public
Thanks for the critical analysis of the Red Cross over the years.
I commented on this blog more than a year ago that I was grateful I had never donated to the Red Cross, because with a bit of effort more effective charities could be identified. Sounds like it is still true.
Find people working on issues with passion, rather than to pad a resume, and you are less likely to be disappointed.
As a side point, I still do not see why the decision of the Red Cross to set aside some of the money raised after 9/11 for future events was such a bad thing. I don't pay much attention to appeals, so perhaps the Red Cross had explicity promised to spend everything on 9/11 (similar to the lies HSUS allegedly told in regards to the Vick case). I assume when I donate to a group they will use it in the best way possible, or I would not donate.
The American National Red Cross...under Mark Everson...was finally beginning to move in the right direction and fix a number of it's internal problems. I know national headquarters was in the process of being reorganized and I can't help but wonder if that process, and the inevitable downsizing, played a part in this revelation.
At a national level this is yet another in a long line of forehead-slapping PR screw-ups. At the local level, this is devastating. The light at the end of the tunnel, which was finally beginning to shine, has doubtless been extinguished.
Being involved with the Red Cross personally, I am deeply offended when people chastise the organization for situations out of its control. How on earth does Mark Everson's indescretions reflect on the work thousands of volunteers do each day in different parts of the country?
The Board of Governors has already been overhauled.
The Red Cross never established any "slush" fund after 9/11, the money went into the Disaster Relief Fund which is used to help victims of disasters across the country. It was only after a giant communication error that the Red Cross decided to use the fund ONLY for victims of 9/11 which had never been done before. If the money had been put in the Disaster Relief fund, the Red Cross would not have had to borrow money from the government to pay for other relief operations.
The Red Cross is throughly investigated by neutral parties, the IRS, charity watchdogs, independent audits at local chapters, etc. Overall the organization has an excellent reputation - despite the first posters comments.
When an organization that provides as much good as the Red Cross goes through such controversy and is criticized for circumstances beyond there control it diminishes the work of all the volunteers and staff who work hard. It also destroys morale. Please be careful about what you say.
Yeah, the "overhauled" board of governors are the ones who hired this philanderer! Nice work there. Time to admit that the Red Cross was more interested in hiring a former Bush administration official so they could get Congress off their back than they were in finding someone of decent character. Are you expecting us to believe that Everson NEVER did this before, that he just couldn't resist the little blood bank babes, after a lifetime of fidelity? Puh-leez. I'm sure this guy has been playing the field for years. Only now did he get caught because he was around a few people that didn't tolerate such stupid indiscretions. The Red Cross gets what it deserves. I hope they don't see a dime in donations this month. Maybe then they'll wake up and realize they need to start taking responsbility for their constant screw-ups!
"I hope they don't see a dime in donations this month."
That that right there is the heart of my problem with National. 97% of the work of the American National Red Cross has nothing to do with the folks in D.C or large disasters such as the SoCal fires. Instead, it's local volunteers, your neighbors and friends, who responded to the house fire that displayed a family of 4 late last night.
Should Everson have resigned? Absolutely.
Was he beginning to make progress in reforming the Red Cross? Too early to tell be certain but it was looking like he was.
Does any of this affect service delivery at the community level? Absolutely not, unless people like Jason, Erich and Anonymous get their way.
To anonymous,
If you look at the timeline, you'll see that the legislation to change the Red CRoss board was passed by Congress at almost the same time that Everson was hired.
No, the overhauled board did not hire Everson.
To Erich,
Charity Navigator recently gave the Red Cross a four star rating - 94% of funds going to programs
Are they the best organization? Possibly not. Are they the worst? Absolutely not.
I really do love free speech. And the fact that we can choose who receives our individual donations. I just wish that bloggers would spend just a few more seconds on fact checking prior to posting.
This post has been removed by the author.
Yes Anonymous Guy, I can easily see the four star rating. Do you know anything about the rating system? I do. It monitors financial efficiency and capacity, not qualitative outcomes. Personally, I think it is better at weeding out horrible charities. Many charities do good work without the coddling the Red Cross has received.
Have you ever read this blog before? Trent has been talking about the Red Cross for years, and helping donors make better decisions. Charity Navigator spends a lot of time on the qualitative aspects of non profits, which requires more effort than a few financial ratios.
The Red Cross has been a mess, the board has acted as a holding pen for noteworthy people who apparently do not have the time to spend overseing it. I think some smaller, local charities can and do do better work, and I prefer to support them.
Stop stating that people who disagree with you are ignorant. Stop posting anonymous comments. Be mature, state your facts and take responsiblity for them.
It's frustrating that the media and talking heads are placing so much importance on the CEO of the organization. I cannot say strongly enough that the vast majority of the good work done by the American Red Cross has nothing to do with DC or the national headquarters. The work is done by local volunteers in communities throughout this country without someone in Washington having to hold their hands. The media attention and mega hype given to who is or is not the CEO of the American Red Cross makes it sound as if local chapters freeze when there is a vacancy at the top and stand around looking at each other saying "Gee, what do we do now?" This is the farthest thing from the truth. Local volunteers and chapter employees who respond to home fires in the middle of the night, floods, tornados, etc...don't really care who the CEO is as long as they don't get in the way of our mission to serve. This is not an organization that crumbles when you cut off the head. Why? Because it's not about the CEO or the politics of DC. It's about the mission.
Trent,
I read your piece protecting the Red Cross (your “Scapegoat” post) on November 17 and am just now reading your thoughts on Mark Everson’s indiscretions. I’m the person who contacted The New York Times and asked them to look into the ARC and the Katrina missing donations. It resulted in the August 10th story “Red Cross Faces Criticism Over Aid Program for Hurricane Victims.” And what a sham that turned out to be!
I’ve been working probono with evacuees since August 31, 2005 connecting them to homes, resources and information. In this capacity I had a conversation with Jeanne Ellinport of the ARC on May 17th as I searched for the “hush-hush” money some of my families told me about. As it turns out, a handful of evacuees who had knowledge of this “help” had been instructed by the Red Cross and UMCOR’s Katrina Aid Today agencies NOT TO TELL ANYONE.
Speaking with Ellinport, she confirmed the Means to Recovery Program was indeed a secret. The Red Cross, she told me was NEVER GOING TO GO PUBLIC with this information. It was going to help SOME people, but for now she was telling evacuees who called “there is no money, there is no help.”
Without going into a lengthy blow-by-blow account of the matter, here are the facts as they were revealed:
1. The Red Cross received most of the $4.3 billion in Katrina donations
2. The Red Cross has stated this number to be $2.3 billion
3. FEMA reimbursed the ARC for most of their initial Katrina expenditures – many donors and people don’t know this and the ARC does not explain this. One example is the hotel expense – Fema paid them back for this and more.
4. Kuwait offered the United States a generous amount of money - $500 million in the wake of Katrina (see Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu: “Most Katrina Aid From Overseas Went Unclaimed”) $25 million of this was re-directed to the Red Cross
5. The ARC didn’t spend a dime of the $25 million Kuwait/Katrina donation on Katrina survivors or even on the Gulf Coast infrastructure. They did, however, spend this money on four new buildings for themselves.
6. Means to Recovery rollout date October 1, 2006
7. The *Means to Recovery Program BREAKDOWN:
· $41 million for caseworkers
· $39 million for Katrina, Rita and Wilma survivors COMBINED – which translates into more money spent on overhead/salaries than on direct assistance. Furthermore, it means Katrina donations where not spent merely on Katrina evacuees. *Means to Recovery is a program under the ARC’s Hurricane Recovery Program which is meant to help Katrina, Rita and Wilma survivors.
8. In July, two months after the Red Cross was "outed" for their failure to adequately use Katrina donations, they issued a Press Release refuting allegations of impropriety and made the following statement: "The needs of survivors far outweigh the resources of the American Red Cross and the entire nonprofit sector."
9. Money spent via Means to Recovery by August 2007 = less than $10 million
10. Number of Katrina survivors/evacuees who contacted the Red Cross looking for help and were told there was no money left (not even to help fed a baby or a family for ONE DAY) TENS OF MILLIONS of people.
That Mark Everson is the fifth person to head the Red Cross since the 9/11 debacle is alarming. Mary S. Elcano is the sixth and soon we’ll be reading about who’s number seven. You can’t have this kind of turnover in top management and really believe there’s nothing wrong at the core of the organization. Any organization. That it happens to be the Red Cross, the United States chartered by Congress first responder is beyond disgust.
Mark Everson may just be the poster child of what’s wrong with the Red Cross. It lacks MORAL fiber and content. Everson’s pursuit of self-gratification mirrors the actions of the Red Cross.
The ARC cannot continue to believe they can wipe their slate clean with every CEO firing. There was poor judgment in hiring Everson and poor judgment in how donor dollars have been used. This applies to the 9/11, tsunami, Katrina donations; and if you go back and read about the San Francisco earthquake in 1989 -- you’ll find the same lack of accountability on the part of the Red Cross. The ARC is quick to run off with donor dollars leaving those in whose name it was raised in dire need. We can still see this with Katrina evacuees more than two years after the fact.
The only good that may come of this is that perhaps finally donors will realize their dollars are better used elsewhere. There is no dignity in giving to the Red Cross. There is now only shame.
Kirby Sommers
Founder/President
Katrina Home Drive
http://katrinahomedrive.org
CORRECTION:
10. Number of Katrina survivors/evacuees who contacted the Red Cross looking for help and were told there was no money left (not even to help fed a baby or a family for ONE DAY) TENS OF THOUSANDS of people.
not, tens of MILLIONS.
Kirby Sommers
Mark Everson did the same thing at IRS regarding his behavior. No one did or said anything because they turned a blind eye. He made quite a few female employees extremely uncomfortable with his advances. He no longer harbors any respect at the agency nor did he when he was there. He was there for Bush to chop up the agency, cut costs/employees and overload everyone else left.
Bush really knows how to pick them! Mark Everson made everyone miserable at the agency...and left it in a mess.
I feel badly for the Red Cross. As for the executives that Everson brought with him to the Red Cross...it was stated that one of them ratted him out to the board. Those folks unfortunately will have to pay for Everson's inability to keep his pants on.
Bush can surely pick them!!! What a loser!
Please don't tar the chapters and volunteers of the American Red Cross with the same brush as the national headquarters staff and board of governors! Volunteers who get up at 1 am to help a family who have just lost everything in a fire don't deserve the rabid criticism that should be reserved for political appointees and bureaucrats. I know it is hard to understand the structure of the organization, but there are many, many, many wonderful people worthy of the title Hero!
I am a Red Cross Chapter employee. Whatever Mark Everson did will have no affect on my chapter. The event does not affect morale of me or my fellow employees. I could care less about him. My efforts are on helping people in times of need within the jurisdiction of my chapter.
Post a Comment
<< Home