Diadem wrote:K-R wrote:And why should they? Putting aside any other issues with the Red Cross, this seems like an entirely sensible way of doing things.ObsessoMom wrote:The Red Cross also fundraises for money "for" a particular crisis, but the money they raise does not go "to" that crisis. All donated money goes into a general fund, and is not earmarked for any particular purpose. (This is why so little of the vast sums of money raised "for" Haiti after the earthquake actually ended up in Haiti. The Red Cross regards every catastrophe as a fundraising opportunity, but feels no obligation to make payouts proportional to the money raised "for" any particular catastrophe.)
I agree. The part of ObsessoMom's post you quoted read like a ringing endorsement of the Red Cross to me.
As long as the Red Cross uses fair criteria to decide how much money to spend on any particular disaster, at least. If the criterium used is "how many white people are affected" then of course that is a problem. But I don't think we have reason to think they are doing anything like that.
I don't agree. If the Red Cross is clearly stating that they will take your money and use fair criteria to decide when and how to use it then that's fine. If instead they say they're raising money for Texas but it goes to a general fund instead they are being misleading. Donors have their own criteria to decide how much money to spend on any particular disaster and believe they are making that choice when they donate for Harvey victims. The RC is misleading those donors.
I agree that using a general fund for disaster relief is a sensible strategy but misleading donors to get those funds isn't ok.
It's a sensible way to spend the money, not a sensible way to raise it. Unless you want to argue that any method is good to get people to donate more?
A better example:
MSF spend their money in a sensible way and they raise it transparently, taking into account donor expectations.MSF article wrote:"Following the earthquake, MSF initially developed fundraising activities and the generosity of people around the world in response to the tragedy that befell Haiti has been overwhelming. While the MSF medical relief effort was immediately shaping up to be massive in volume, the total of funds donated to MSF by the public specifically for this emergency threatened to eclipse what MSF could foresee to spend. Striking the right balance so early on was complicated by the fact that it took weeks for the real scale of needs to become clear as well as to gauge what other organizations would bring in terms of practical emergency assistance.
MSF takes the expectations of donors seriously and decided to discontinue active fundraising for the victims of the earthquake in the days following the disaster. While MSF continued to welcome donations, pro-active earmarked fundraising for Haiti was put on hold. Instead, MSF called upon donors to continue to support the organization for its current and future emergency work in general." MSF, “Emergency Response After the Haiti Earthquake: Choices, Obstacles, Activities and Finance,” Pg 25.