https://www.propublica.org/article/the-red-cross-secret-disa...
> The Red Cross botched key elements of its mission after Sandy and Isaac, leaving behind a trail of unmet needs and acrimony, according to an investigation by ProPublica and NPR. The charity’s shortcomings were detailed in confidential reports and internal emails, as well as accounts from current and former disaster relief specialists.
> What’s more, Red Cross officials at national headquarters in Washington, D.C. compounded the charity’s inability to provide relief by “diverting assets for public relations purposes,” as one internal report puts it. Distribution of relief supplies, the report said, was “politically driven.”
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-15/corporate-takeover-re...
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/08/do...
CEO Compensation: $556,772
Total Income $2,660,138,000
Program expenses 2,435,461,000
Fundraising expenses $169,676,000
Administrative expenses $116,402,000
Total expenses: $2,721,539,000
Expenses in Excess of Income (-61,401,000)
Beginning Net Assets 1,593,810,000
Other Changes In Net Assets -546,736,000\
Ending Net Assets 985,673,000
Total Liabilities 2,250,133,000
Total Assets 3,235,806,000
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...
$1 in every $16 spent is on fundraising. That seems a lot.
That said, the bigger question isn't the amount they spend on fundraising but how much good they do with the money they raise. And the Red Cross has decidedly mixed reviews at that.
Off the top of my head the formulas give the best rating if the total compensation of the board is less than 10% of income, the cost of fundraising is less than 35% of income and at least 65% of the income goes to the cause/projects.
Of course I am with you, if you have ever attended some of these non-profit fundraisers, its pretty disgusting, a ballroom full of people living the high life, taking beneficial tax deductions, and so full of self-congratulatory righteousness you'd have to ask them to save some room if you'd have any interest in patting them on the back.
I think the beef with Red Cross is that the money is not spent effectively. Take a look at the investigative links nearby for more. These dollar figures, although crisp and numerical, do not illustrate the real issue.
They should stop worrying about PR and focus on doing what they claim to do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/29...
Meh, you spend lots of money on alcohol (or whatever your poison is) to feel good, if helping locally makes you feel good then that's an ok thing to blow money on.
Just don't forget the rest of the world. The American Red Cross has/had major issues. I would not say the International Red Cross does.
Try - http://www.givewell.org/
My take is: people will always remember that one negative article they read once, and assume everything is wrong. I would suggest asking them "so, which one is good?", and see whether they know what they are talking about.
(Disclaimer: I don't donate to the Red Cross now, but I've done it)
Or the Texas Diaper Bank: https://texasdiaperbank.networkforgood.com/projects/33717-ch...
501(c)(3)'s must disclose their finances to the IRS where they are publicly available. I didn't look at that rather an audit summary, some highlights:
2016 income: $197M
Total Assets: $529M
2016 CEO compensation: $379,139
Board size: 14
Estimated total Salary of Board: 10% of income ($19.7M)...this should definitely be verified in light of CEO compensation.
Program Expenses: Estimated 65% of funds spend on program activities.
I'm generally reserved about going crazy about supporting aid efforts, since the nightmare regarding aid projects post-Haiti really did dampen my enthusiasm. Exhibit A: https://www.wnyc.org/story/272660-what-happened-to-the-aid-m...