In my previous posting, "The Hug Says it All," I told a story of my neophyte experience as a volunteer of the American Red Cross (ARC). In sharing some of those experiences with others, and reading stories about the Red Cross and its performance at Superstorm Sandy and hurricane Isaac, it's clear that the effectiveness and even the role of this organization can be questioned. For me, it sets up an interesting contrast between the hugs from recipients of ARC disaster aid and some perceptions of the ARC as an institution. I told you about the hugs, now a few words about the debate.
Founded in 1863 in Geneva, Switzerland, the International Red Cross mission was to protect human life and health, ensure respect for all human beings, and to prevent and alleviate human suffering. Initially, its focus was driven by the unique authority it had under international humanitarian law to protect the life and dignity of victims of international and internal armed conflicts.
In 1881 the U.S. Congress chartered the American Red Cross to aid FEMA in disaster relief efforts. Today's ARC has four other services added to its mission: community services to help the needy, communication services for military members; collection and distribution of blood and blood products; and education on preparedness, health, and safety.
The criticism that boiled over following Sandy and Isaac revolved around the how responsible the organization is with donors money, and how effective it was in delivering services to those disaster sites. Media reports claimed that the ARC mis-represented the amount it spends on fund raising and administration, and that its blood distribution service is actually a business, making their charity efficiency ratios look better than they actually are. They also focused on the apparent distraction of public relations, citing a number of occasions in which ERV's (Emergency Response Vehicles) were directed to PR events rather than to actual areas of need. ARC management was cited for excessive reorganizations leading to a lack of supervisory experience and controls.They called into question the competence, capability, and motivations of both paid leadership and volunteer staff.
Another criticism, often cited by individuals, is that too much of the money distributed by ARC to disaster relief victims is fraudulently acquired. Even further, that the function of providing cash relief to pay for housing, food, and clothing should be a function of government agencies or first responders rather than a non-profit third party. The premise is that the reason government agencies lean on the Red Cross is that they're there and convenient, and save the government from expense.
All I know is that when standing outside a blackened home in the wee hours of a cold morning next to barefoot, pajamaed parents and children with that dazed and dejected look in their faces, there is often no one else stepping up to answer the question, "what do I do now?" Even if some of those victims were actually folks that had wormed their way into the situation to bilk the Red Cross out of a nights lodging and a few bucks for food and clothing, it seems worth bearing that waste in order to be able to serve those in true need.
No question it can be done better, and no question volunteers will make many more errors in judgement than professionals. In my view, however, better to suffer those errors and inefficiencies than to leave folks standing by the roadside. I'm hoping Bonnie and I can continue to be part of the solution.
Comments
Post a Comment