Originally posted by: Mucker
I made a significant donation after 9-11 to the Red Cross and thought it was going to a good cause until I read a Newsweek article about a month after that saying that the Red Cross was just handing out money to anyone that was walking in. One example was of a cab driver who was making $4000 a month whose business was hurt and he was only making $2000 month. They were giving checks of up to $12,000 to these people with out doing background checks on peoples finances. I was appalled. I was hoping my money would go to people who REALLY needed it or to world relief efforts.
Unfortunately, that soured my whole experience and I will not donate to any of the large corporate type of outfits like this any more. I have decided all of my donations will be with my time or at the local level. There is always someone out there that has to scam all of the time and leave black marks on these organizations. Another thing that PO'd me was when the woman (I am a man) who was running the Red Cross during 9-11 was forced out because she wanted to save some of the donations for further disasters. I liked her idea, and thought they made a poor decision with her....so, no I will not donate to this entity although my heart goes out to all affected.....
m
Mucker,
With all due respect, let me clarify some points for you.
Yes, there was a great amount of fraud. The fund has received approximately 1 BILLION US, and we were stewarded to distribute these monies. Many were affected, both the families of lost ones, and the financially affected (ie if your financial dependency was from the site, like a security guard who worked in the building but lost his job because of it). When tens of thousands of applications come flowing in, it is NOT EASY to spot fraudulent claims. If it was, believe you me, we would not give that $ out. In fact, we are actively taking these fraudulent claimants to justice.
Regarding amounts people were given, due to the nontrivial task of trying to "fairly" hand out these monies, there is no cost effective way to determine comparison amounts. What do I mean by this. There are many a scenario, which I will not get into detail. But here's one that will give you a decent picture. Say one family has 5 children and no savings. Say another has 1 terminally ill child whose medical costs far exceed the monetary costs of the other family's 5 kids growing up till they're 18. How do you divide the money? Say a security guard or waiter or taxi driver that worked at the WTC for 15 yrs, is now jobless. He was financially affected. His wife is terminally ill as well. How much should he get? Then you have the discrepancy of income, ie the i-banker vs the secretary. The disparate in standard of living across the board of thousands of people is huge. What about the business owner or street vendor across the street who lost their business? What about the firemen who inhaled all that bad air? What about dependents currently going to college? What about mental trauma and post-traumatic stress syndrome that sets in YEARS after the event? Do you give them money now or later? and how much for PTSS? Does everyone get it? How would you set up an application program right now for something that someone may suffer from several years from now but are perfectly fine now?
People don't realize how difficult it is. There are INFINITE variables. Also, how in depth are we going to go? Should we audit all our cases just to make sure everyone got what they should have? What type of proof should we have asked for from the cabbie and his $2k/month but said he made $4k? (Keep in mind it's a cash based job). Do you think the ARC WANTED to be negligent and give this cabbie the extra $2k?
There's no simple plug in formula where x = # of kids, y = salary amt, to get z dollars. Many have unfortunately taken it upon themselves to compare apples to oranges, this white family got more than this black family. There may have been extenuating circumstances. For those that have taken statistics, you KNOW how easy it is to manipulate the numbers to come up with whatever result you wish to have.
Regarding Barbara Healy's stepping down, she did so on her own. Why you ask? Let me tell you why. The media. As said many a time, the media can be your best friend one week, and your worst enemy the next. Up till 9/11, donations are all deposited into a SINGLE BANK ACCOUNT. This SINGLE war chest pays for every disaster. Did you know there are at LEAST 3 disasters going on in the US AT ANY POINT IN TIME? From floods to fires to earthquakes to mudslides to hurricanes to tornadoes. You name it, it's happening. Thus, say it costs $2 million for one disaster, $4 million for the next, $1 million for the third.
http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2004
After 9/11, the masses and media, with good intentions, but a blind eye to being realistic, stated that "I want my $50 to go to 9/11 victim's families and nowhere else." Ok, THINK about this. If only $400 Million was needed (hypothetical random # I chose), what should we do with the other $600 Million? Continue to hand it out? The most efficient and effective thing to do would be to save it for the next disaster. But no, the media had a field day with this. So now all of the ARC policies have changed.
If you say, "I want this $50 to go to Hurricane Jeanne," it now gets allocated there. Now, THINK about it. Say Hurricane Jeanne raises $50 million in funds, but only $20 million was needed. What should we do with the other $30 million now since we can't allocate it anywhere else? Say each family got help for downpayments, new furniture, beds, etc etc etc. Should we just give them cash for the remaining $30 million?
Say the next hurricane that comes up does $100 million in damage, but raises only $70 million in funds. Heck, that $30 million extra Jeanne has could've REALLY helped these Ivan victims. But no, ARC hands are now tied, restricted from using those funds.
Now think about it. A fund is set up for each disaster, with how many disasters in a given year? You'll have numerous funds that have several million left over just sitting there, and others completely empty because the fundraisers couldn't cover it. What a great, efficient way to run things eh?
This is what Barbara Healy explained to the nation in her address. She went on a campaign trying to edumacate fools, but thanks to the media exaggerating and their twists and lies (ARC earning interest off your donations, ARC "diverting" 9/11 funds to other disasters), we got a bad rap. After a while, the negative stigma was etched onto her. Every time her name or pic was shown, people thought "scandal!" even though there was no scandal. Thanks again to the media.
Knowing this, Barbara Healy stepped down of her own free will. Barbara did this because she thinks as all great CEOs do, what's the best course of action for the organization, and she did the most self-sacrificing thing any CEO could do, that was to step down. It was the only way to remove the negative stigma, and the only way for the American public to gain back its faith in the ARC. Thus, we lost a great CEO and implemented a horribly inefficient funding system.
In summary, we lost a great CEO, ARC didn't scam anyone, yes, there were fraudulent apps made and some were paid out, but are now being brought to justice (ie taken to court), and we now have an inefficient funding system that the American public and media are happy about.
Before you pass judgment, find out both sides, never just one. Hopefully this sheds light and truth in an otherwise clouded, one-sided story.