I stopped after a few paragraphs. I don't want to excuse the more than likely incompetency on the part of the Red Cross. It may in fact be inexcusable. But I'm sick of the criticism that aid and non profit organizations spend too much on administration, overhead, and non-cause efforts. I understand that it's a not for profit, but that doesn't mean a heavy marketing arm, or paying employees a competitive salary, should be off the table. I know this isn't necessarily relevant here, but I feel that people will see donations not spent on cause and equate it with waste and then carry this heuristic with them when evaluating other not for profits, or searching for a charity to donate to, as if the ratio of direct-cause and overhead is the only indicator of efficacy. Edit to add that this is a general complaint, not directed to you insom. Just what's on my mind.
I totally understand and I didn't feel like you were attacking me Personally, I think there is a fine line between charities and non-profits being held accountable for where their money goes and understanding that overhead is going to be a big part of it. In my opinion, the Red Cross is too big to think that my $10 dollars is going to directly feed a mouth. Are they still doing great work? Probably. Is the money going to go further for a company half their size? Probably. But you need all types. The Red Cross has their hands everywhere and are able to act instantly in any crisis anywhere. They have access and reputation and experience. There is something to that. But, if you want your $10 to feed a mouth, it's probably best to buy 10 $1 hamburgers and give them to the homeless people outside the liquor store.
"Charities and non-profits being held accountable" is a good part of why they have so much overhead. All those reports no one reads except to look at the pretty graphs and pie charts take a ton of work to prepare. No one becomes an accountant for the warm fuzzy feelings.