Is the American Red Cross Reputable?

I remember hearing something about some kind of scandal with ARC after 9/11. Does anyone know if we should be giving them money or maybe there is a better charity, like the Salvation Army?

The controversy was that the head of the ARC was holding back some funds for the next disaster. They were getting swamped with donations for the victims, and she figured it would be in the country's best interest to save some in case there was another disaster (and there will always be another)

they will use the money for all their disasters and for computers, office updates and other
And yes there was a scandal because so much money flowed to red cross and most people don't realize it is not ear marked for the current disaster. Also if people had insurance they get nothing. They get food and water - but as you can see those who need that are not getting it.
These agencies don't seem to be any better than the government in getting food and water on the ground where needed. Since they will not enter an area until it is safe - these people are out of luck.
I have no idea how to get these people what they need right now TODAY
WATER and FOOD today

Salvation army gives to poor
Habitat for humanity builds homes for poor
Save the children helps after everyone else forgets

...unless you are the CEO.

was that the ARC takes a percentage of donations to pay for operational expenses, and to prepare for the next incident. They respond to thousands of incidents, all over the country, every year. When the townhouse down the street burned down, there was the ARC. I'm sure no one gave them money for that service.

Some people apparently thought they were donating money directly to the victims of September 11th, instead of to the Red Cross to provide services for the victims.

The Red Cross, after complaints from some donors, eliminated the overhead charge and provided services from other sources of revenue.

if I can help it.

They pay their CEO a pretty hefty salary (poster above put it at 450K, but I thought it was more with benefits, etc).

After the San Fran quake they doled out a pretty small percentage of donations then came out w/some lame ass excuse about holding the money back for the next disaster. That may be, but their appeals said that donations would go for the quake victims, not the next disaster. After receiving lots of bad press the Red Cross doled out a little more.

They proceeded to do the same thing after 9/11; doled out part of the money & sat on the rest.

Also, Libby Dole used to be head of the Red Cross. That's enough for me. If they were the only relief in town I would donate. Since there are plenty of others, I choose not to.

BTW, my dad remembers in WWII the Red Cross charging for donuts & the Salvation Army giving them away for free.

Everyone has to make their own choices. That's just my take.

best

It's a very large organisation so a lot of money does get wasted in the Red Cross (and many other organisations).

Many people have a problem with the Salvation Army since they will use religion as well, however if it comes to spending and helping it is without any dobut the most successful organization with hardly any overhead or bureaucracy and will spend the fast majority of the money on the poor people.

I know what you mean. I was once foolish to collect money for organization which shall remain nameless, but I had to discover later on that it took them three years to get the money at the people and 75% of the money was lost. It was a disgrace.

I don't know how bad the Red Cross is, but probably a large amount of money will get lost in that charity. Besides charity is not what is called for. Action is what is needed IMO

Right now the Red Cross is asking for diapers and underwear. If you have a problem with the money part, at least send this stuff to people that need it.

At least you'll know that the CEO is ot getting an underwear bonus (Unless it's in his size :P)