*
Our local hospital just changed blood suppliers. Red Cross used to supply blood but recently upped the price around $75 a pint beyond the price of the nearest competitor, United Blood Services. Red Cross wants nearly $200 a pint, United, around $125. That’s a big difference and I would expect many hospitals to jump from the Red Cross ship as well.
Has the Red Cross begun distributing the millions that poured in after 9-11 yet?
People came out in droves to donate blood after 9-11. Blood has a shelf life of 42 days and 49,000 units of blood were destroyed without testing because the blood can be stored no longer than 42 days. The testing is a government mandate that was violated.
I have heard that the Red Cross has a new office building and a very highly paid CEO.
Is the Red Cross losing it?
Lee
Replies
*
Lee, I heard pretty much the same thing . If its true its pretty sad.
*I've taught a few thousand people CPR as a Red Cross volunteer and dated three Red Cross employees over the years. Some observations and thoughts:If you want to earn as much money as possible, don't work for a non-profit. So who does work there? People who want to help out and make a difference. Sometimes they are skilled in addition to being motivated. Sometimes they are only motivated.This applies to staff AND to top brass. Nobody went from RC CEO to be the highly paid head of Exxon. Best anyone has done after a stint at the Red Cross is a failed presidential bid (and going home to Bob's new, improved weiner).The Red Cross is saddled with several stautory mandates that cause them grief and expense. Support of American military personnel and dependents. Charging for donuts in WWII (that everyone loves to complain about) - they were required to charge, they didn't want to.The Red Cross gets lots of donatations after earthquakes and hurricanes. But they have more expenses from the thousands of single-family house fires they go to each year. Vouchers for clothing, hotel, food, etc. (Vouchers support local merchants, food and blankets don't).They certainly have had and continue to have problems. They didn't deal with HIV-blood issues soon enough (who did?). Directed donations to popular disastors have not been handled well.I think the country is a better place because millions of kids have learned to swim; boaters are taught safety, citizens know CPR, and disastors victims get some relief. I personally don't think that the widow of a TWC stockbroker grieves more or is a better human being than a mother whose child died in an apartment fire. But many American donors disagree with me on that. And tax laws prohibit charities from giving money to people who don't need it. Something none of the charities anticipated. I don't see a good answer. Change the law so tawpayers can subsidize funneling money to rich people? Give all the money back? Not distribute benefits to everyone evenly? My understanding is that the RC is returning anyone's donation that requests it. Send it to that rich widow yourself.I donate about $3,000 to 4,000 a year to charities, my wife more. And donate about 300 hours a year of my time. What are the thoughts of others who "walk the walk"?
*When donations are solicited under the explicit pretense that they will go to a specific recipient, they will go there. If they do not, it is fraud, Plain and simple.The RC has issued a formal public apology for the mishandling of the money donated for the 911 victims, and has begun distributions. Although I believe they have only dispersed 25%(approx.) so far.They appear to be making good, but only after public outcry and pressure mandated it. Time will tell whether they fulfill their promise as to the distribution of funds, and what will become of the huge amounts of interest generated while they dragged their feet.In all fairness to the RC, this was a catastrophe without precedent, as were the donations, and some learning curve must be allowed.
*David, i agree with most of what you say. My local Red Cross is fantastic, great people, and the First Aid classes came in handy when my neighbor came running over with her seizuring baby years ago. It does seem that at the higher echelons the volunteerism attitude breaks down, though, in many non-profit organizations. I recall the Nat'l Wildlife Federation got a big land donation, sold it, and put up their new office building. I used to give lots to the US Humane Society until i learned how much the CEO made.However, none of that precludes one from acting/donating on a local level in any organization if one desires to observe accountability. But if a person wants to hop on a bandwagon for self-gratification and then scream it's not going the direction they want, tough luck.I also have no more sympathy for the WTC victims than for the family down the road who recently died from a badly-installed propane heater in the fifth-wheel camper trailer in which five people were trying to over-winter.
*i going home to Bob's new, improved weinerMade me LOL, esp given that the cooks are talking cod sperm/cold sperm in some worst meals-type thread where I was gagging.I also agree w/your assessment of non-profits.Thanks for the chuckle, David!
*The RC has me kinda ticked off over their blood drive policy. They don't supply blood to our local hospital, but regularly come in and hold blood drives anyway. I don't object to that, but their drives interefere with the blood drives of the organization that i doesservice our hospital. The other organization will schedule a blood drive, and RC will then announce they're having one a week earlier. Since you have to wait 30 days between blood donations, pepole can't do both drives that would be glad to. And the RC refuses to make any effort to coordinate blood drives with anyone else, or work around their schedule. I appreciate most of the work they do, but they come accross as a bit arrogant to me.
*David, you make some great points, points I was unaware of. So, are you saying it's illegal for the Red Cross to set up funds to direct charitable contributions, like "Relief to Somalia" (hypothetical), like "Victims of 9/11" (hypothetical), that all donations go into a general fund and redistributed according to Red Cross policy?It seems to me as though it's quite common for disaster relief funds to have particular disasters attached to them and for people to donate to specific funds.Either I'm misunderstanding or I've been mislead. Please straighten me out.As a yearly graduate of Red Cross First Aid and CPR classes I'm grateful for the service too. I'm grateful for the service provided when a family gets burned out of their home around here as well.For those who know it, I'm fervently hoping the Red Cross does not fall victim to the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle states that all rise to a level of incompetance and stay there without promotion. Sometimes bad decisions can be made in the offices that really screw up life on the streets.Lee
*"So, are you saying it's illegal for the Red Cross to set up funds to direct charitable contributions, like "Victims of 9/11" (hypothetical)?" -Lee Lee,Thanks for your thoughts. My understanding (I'm on the board of three non-profits, but am not a lawyer or CPA - thank goodness!) is that1) donors instructions must be respected. If the check just said "American Red Cross", then it can go into the general fund or whatever. But if it said "9-11" or "for WTC attack" then it has to go for that. This was first a problem for the ARC after the 1989 Loma Prieta (SF - World series) Earthquake. They got far more in donations than they could spend on the disastor. That had never happened before. Even shunting "undirected donations" to the general fund left more than enough to handle their earthquake expenses. They spent some of the excess on earthquake preparedness in the Western U.S. They would have loved to have been able to fund other programs and single-family crisises, but couldn't.2) Tax-exempt organizations must do charitible, educational or religious work. Feeding the homeless counts. New clothes and a hotel room for a burned-out family does too. Current tax-code intepretation is that writing a check for $100,000 to someone with a net worth of 3.4 million (home in Greenwich CT, life insurance policy, retirement accounts, wrongfull death suit, etc.) does not. So unless current tax law is changed, they may be stuck with the unenvyable task of determining need between survivors, all of whom have been through the ringer, emotional. For ARC to lose their non-profit status (i.e. break those tax rules) would kill the organization.So, the ARC can certainly have a "WTC fund" and collect donations for it. But many of the survivors of the WTC may not meet the IRS definition of needy. And if everyone gets $100,000, are they still needy after the first $50,000? I don't think anyone knows. It is uncharted territory in many ways.
*Splinter: I've been trying to figure out the non-profit staff / leader dichotmy for a while now. I can see a few factors. The folks in the trenches all have tough jobs with low pay. Mostly they are there for reasons of the heart. A few are there who just couldn't cut it in the for-profit world.Some of the upper jobs are pretty well paid. Like for-profits CEO's the argument is that you need to pay to attract talent. And a CEO who makes the organization 10% better is worth any salary. But it does seem that some of those supposedly more-qualified folks lose sight of the mission, the donors, and the staff. Of course that happens in for-profits as well. In both arenas, there are seminars and meetings and memos that tend to isolate the CEO into a world of their peers.Could you just elevate the best chapter manager and do better? Probably not. A CEO is to the staffmember as the GC is to jobsite go-fer. They are not interchangable.I've found the Experimental Aircraft Association to be well managed and staffed from top to bottom. Almost everyone is a pilot, they all seem to enjoy their jobs. It works well. Now I'll admit that educating me, a future airplane homebuilder, is not as noble a calling as feeding the hungry. But maybe there's a lesson to be learned. Find people who enjoy the work. Have staff and leaders that believe in your mission.I agree with you that money and time given locally are the most likely to be used as you expect. And you have the most say in what goes on locally. -David
*I guess i don't buy the idea that a non-profit has to meet the salaries of for-profit corporations. Or even that for-profits should be offering those kinds of salaries, but that's just communist, i know... There is talk at the University of MT of having private people contribute funds to make up the difference bet. what a univ. prez gets here and what they'd be paid elsewhere. How anyone who can't live on $140,000 in Montana with a house and state car provided should end up in charge of managing our tax dollars is beyond me. The point was also brought up that as long as private business can subsidize public salaries, we might as well put out a cup for the judges and building inspectors, too. Hmmm...need a quick diploma/settlement/permit?I'd like to keep the non-profit CEO salaries lower on purpose, to weed out the money-grubbers. I don't have figures to back up my hunch, but i can't imagine the adverse publicity generated over the excesses of the leaders of United Way and the NAACP didn't amount to a net loss for those groups. Also, a great deal of the money funneled to a lot of health organizations, inc. the Red Cross, March of Dimes--even Boy's Town--goes to fund barbaric, repetitive, and useless animal experimentation bec. there's gold in them thar hills. I like the idea of keeping them lean and mean.
*> How anyone who can't live on $140,000 in Montana with a house and state car provided should end up in charge of managing our tax dollars is beyond me.Splinter,It isn't that the university president can't live on that. The problem is, once you get a good university president, other universities start offering better pay to him or her to come be president there. Then you have a vacancy and you get applicants and you offer the job to the best, but that applicant, being the best, also got offers from other universities offering more money. You end up hiring the applicant that is far enough down the list to have not received a competing offer from a higher paying school.Even in the non-profit and public sector world, there is competition.Rich Beckman
*I know the argument that to get the best, you have to pay more, but that's a conditioned response, not a law of nature. After a certain amount, it becomes nothing more than bragging rights, right? What about offering some intangibles? Montana does pretty well in that respect with our big skies, tall mountains, and clean air--maybe it could do better in the "legacy" department, name something after the prez, lifelong rights to use the gym, something like that. Service has to become sexier than a big paycheck. I guess i have a little too much JFK/Shaw in me. ("Ask not what your country..."/ "...dream things that never were, and i ask, why not?")Or maybe Orwell is right after all:i Society has always seemed to demand a little more from human beings than it will get in practice.
*Splinter,the quote is from his essay on 'The art of Donald McGill' and it is Society has always to demand a little more from human beings than it will get in practice. He goes on to say....leaders who offer blood, toil, tears and sweat always get more out of their followers than those who offer safety and a good time
*> but that's a conditioned response, not a law of nature. After a certain amount, it becomes nothing more than bragging rights, right?Yes and no. I don't think it is the level of pay that determines that point so much as thei differencein pay levels between, for example, Montana and other states. I'm guessing the difference is dramatic given your statement:> There is talk at the University of MT of having private people contribute funds to make up the difference bet. what a univ. prez gets here and what they'd be paid elsewhere.If I'm making $140,000 with house and car, and someone offers me $150,000 with house and car, I doubt I would make the move if I was happy where I am. But if someone offers me $200,000 with house and car, there would have to be strong reasons to not go to keep me where I am.Rich Beckman
*i there would have to be strong reasons to not go to keep me where I am.How about having the new cafeteria named after you? I'm sure there will always be people to whom the Fortune 500 list will be meaningful; i just don't think they make the best CEO's for non-profits. Ever read about Millard Fuller, the guy who founded Habitat for Humanity? The guy had it all, major success, and decided the money was NOT enough...pretty cool legacy, no?
*Yes, that is a cool legacy. There are people like that, and clearly not enough. Did Mr. Fuller give his money away? Or did he just decide he had enough? How much was it?Rich Beckman
*Fuller attained wealth in catalog sales with another guy you might have heard of: Morris Dees, head of the Southern Poverty Law Center. His faith, health, marriage, life deteriorated, so Fuller and Dees sold the business, the Fullers (wife Linda) giving their share of 6 million to Christian charities. They rejuvenated the marriage, started building affordable houses at no interest, moved to Africa to test the theory there, and promoted HfH in a big way since.
*
Our local hospital just changed blood suppliers. Red Cross used to supply blood but recently upped the price around $75 a pint beyond the price of the nearest competitor, United Blood Services. Red Cross wants nearly $200 a pint, United, around $125. That's a big difference and I would expect many hospitals to jump from the Red Cross ship as well.
Has the Red Cross begun distributing the millions that poured in after 9-11 yet?
People came out in droves to donate blood after 9-11. Blood has a shelf life of 42 days and 49,000 units of blood were destroyed without testing because the blood can be stored no longer than 42 days. The testing is a government mandate that was violated.
I have heard that the Red Cross has a new office building and a very highly paid CEO.
Is the Red Cross losing it?
Lee