Temporary Archive: Suzanne Brockmann's Message Board

I think that the critisicm of the Red Cross is largely undeserved, particularly as it relates to specific disasters. Some of it is brought on by their organizational philosophy with regard to the donor dollar--if you give it to the 9-11 fund, it will be spent on 9-11. The problem is there is no accurate way to predict how much is going to come in how much the effort is going to cost and how resilient the donor base is for multiple disasters. That said, they are extremely cautious with the donor dollar.
That said, I don't think that the Red Cross does a great job of explaining their role and mission, how they have changed and I disagree with how they are organized. The Red Cross does not fix things---they exist, at the base level, to provide a conduit for comfort/relief. The "Red Cross" shelters are largely shelters run by Red Cross volunteers. They do not have and ability to do anything other than feed people and provide emergency medical first aid. Recovery is not their responsibility.
Organizationally, I think that they should be more like franchise operation instead of a conglomerate. When Katrina hit, the local Red Crosses across the country were prohibited from conducting fundraising for their own chapters. Everything collected went to Katrina. As a result, in my microcosim, National Red Cross essentially bankrupted the local chapter. They are very beaurocratic and not very forgiving--so when we had to remit all our Katrina collections, we actually had to cash in our CD to cover our expenses. But the big thing is that they have, in my mind, an overemphasis in the national international organization, vice the local which is where 90% of the work occurrs