but how much is given anually?

[kimba1]

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/01/17136505-disaster-relief-dealing-with-oklahoma-city-bombing-fund-horrible-victim-says?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1


ever notice alot of charaties never say the percentage of how much is actually given to the cause

[BT]

Wonder how much was given to the victims of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake? and for how long?

[BT]

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/1906_Earthquake/additional_information/earthquake-facts.asp

[Plane]

If a relief fund outlasts the victims of the event , is this a successful management?

There might have been fewer gifts , if it were clear at the outset that the victims woud have trouble using the money.

[BT]

I don't think surviving a disaster is equivalent to winning the lottery.

[Plane]

Enduring a disaster is like the opposite of winning a lottery.

The compassion of other persons is excited by the misery of the survivors, the intent of the compassionate giver is poorly served by a stingy institution that is intent of preserving its existance as an institution above providing relief .

A fund that ran down to nothing as it spent the availible money on the relief of the victims would not be a failure to my thinking, as long as it was as well as possible directed twards that relief.

Why would a person give a gift to an inistitution whose secondary purpose was relief of misery and primary purpose was self perpetuation?

[BT]

So i take you are not a big fan of the Red Cross?

[Plane]

I generally give to the Red Cross rather than to a newer institution for relief, I like that the Red Cross is predeployed and well organised and doesn't waste a surplus.

If I were a giver to care for a smaller target group, that small group would be where I wanted the money to go, using the money otherwise is betrayal. If I were intent on general preparation or response to disaster generally I would give to the Red Cross and not more directly.

Also consider the March of Dimes , when the vaccine for Polio was developed the organisation was almost successed out of existance, they decided to take their surplus and their organisation onto a new problem. I don't mind this because the origional cause was never thereby shortchanged.

[kimba1]

I think if the organization is detering people to the point the money thy very litte money is distributed than it should be desolved.

Notice it never disclosed how much is distributed

[kimba1]

After reading other data they may likely be above board in eveything they do . But the fact they donated to other causes undermines thier credibility as a foundation devoted to helping a specific cause.

[Plane]

Yes.

I think they should not be free to give to other causes unless the problem the funds were donated for is entirely solved.

They might be excused at not indulging every request of every victim , a victim might be just as frivolous as any one, but some of the examples given seem unexcused entirely.