Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 30, 1990 TAG: 9003300782
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The syndicated columnist ran a sampling of some 15,000 letters she received about contributions to the Red Cross to aid victims of the San Francisco earthquake last fall. The letters complained that not all the money was spent for that purpose. In an interview with this newspaper, she called it a "betrayal of public trust."
The allegations about the money were true when made, but by the time they hit print the Red Cross had made an adjustment in its Northern California relief effort. The agency had planned to spend about $22 million to aid earthquake victims out of $52 million raised. Complaints from San Francisco, led by Mayor Art Agnos, resulted in the agency's decision to send along the additional $30 million.
The adjustment was a departure from standard operating procedure for the Red Cross, according to Stephen Warren, director of communications for the agency's Roanoke Valley chapter. When money is needed to aid victims of a specific disaster, the agency makes a plea for funds and asks donors to designate the relief effort on their checks. But if more money is raised than needed, the excess routinely goes into a fund to be used for other emergencies.
This was the case in the Roanoke Valley in 1985: The Red Cross' fund-raising effort for valley flood victims brought in more than $1.1 million, but only about $626,000 was spent here. The rest was used to aid flood victims elsewhere in Southwest Virginia and in Maryland and North Carolina.
Is this a "betrayal of public trust"? That's strong language. The fund-raising tactic is misleading, but not malevolently so. Perhaps some people who gave to aid earthquake victims would not have done so if they'd known their money might go to Hurricane Hugo victims instead. But most individuals who give in times of emergency simply want to help fellow humans in distress. The location and type of disaster isn't of overriding importance.
An exception might be corporate gifts to help a community recover from a disaster. After the flood of '85, a number of Roanoke Valley businesses gave to the Red Cross. Perhaps they realized that their money might not stay here. The only way to guarantee a local expenditure would be to give to a local organization.
Should the Red Cross spend as much money as it gets on individual relief efforts? To do so would require the agency to redefine its mission. It supplies emergency needs only - primarily shelter, food and clothing. If it spends more money than it needs for this purpose, it would be getting into areas of social service in which it has no expertise.
For instance, should the extra earthquake-relief money go, say, to help the homeless in San Francisco? Would donors to emergency relief be willing to have their money help, say, San Francisco AIDS victims instead?
As it happens, much of the extra $30 million going to Northern California will be spent on earthquake-preparedness programs, Warren says. Even this, however, stretches the Red Cross' description in its charter as a disaster-relief agency.
The Red Cross spokesman points out that the San Francisco relief effort was the first in which contributions exceeded emergency need by tens of millions of dollars. On the other hand, only $15 million was raised for Hugo victims, while $90 million was needed. The balance was provided by the disaster-relief fund of leftover contributions.
The Red Cross ought to keep spending relief money where the need is greatest. It also ought to make clear to donors that it does so. After Landers' column, contributions might fall off drastically if it doesn't.
by CNB