[–] BoiseNTheHood 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Wow, you mean to tell me that a government organization sucks at charity and is corrupt? Yes, I'm aware that they're technically a "federal instrumentality" as opposed to an agency. They still have responsibilities given to them by the government and are given federal material support during natural disasters.
The Red Cross has a long history of corruption, by the way. Their response (or lack thereof) to the aftermath of 9/11 was particularly despicable. They've "cleaned house" since then but apparently nothing's changed.
[–] knuklz 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
This is not surprising based upon their history and lack of internal accountability. The Red Cross is a large organization and arguably one that has a relatively thick bureaucracy. Certainly, some immediate spending to hit goals on the ground in a disaster area can be difficult if not almost impossible to track. I do know that there are designated resources that are 'anointed' in disaster zones with the ability to spend money to solve an immediate issue. ie. contract a bulldozer to flatten an area to stand up tents or buy a pump and generator to provide water. Deeper accountability has always been difficult for the Red Cross. I always wonder though, is there FIFA like graft happening in the Red Cross. I would imagine that due to the large sums of cash and how it is spend, there would have to be some.
[–] bill.lee 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I can't recall, but I thought there were similar concerns raised about donations following Katrina?
[–] BaIoo ago
the american red cross pay their ceo $500,000 a year basic. if i'm going to be charitable i'm not going to pay an organisation to do it on my behalf, especially when so much of the funds are misused.