Money raised for Aurora shooting victoms going to non-profits instead?

[Clovis]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/28/families-aurora-shooting-victims-say-fund-money-going-to-non-profits/

Survivors and families of victims of the Aurora, Colo., movie massacre are demanding that the more than $5 million raised in donations go directly to them and not to non-profit groups.


Some of the money collected from the Aurora Victim Relief Fund has been doled out to families of the 12 killed and to the 58 injured in the July 20 shooting, which came during a midnight showing of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises." But some of the parties came forward on Tuesday with claims that the money was not going to those it was promised to.

"We are here because we want the public to know what's been going on behind the scenes," Tom Teves, whose son Alex was killed and who now serves as a spokesman for a group of families. “I am certain that the public intended 100 percent of those donations to go to the families of victims, and to use that money to help the healing process. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case."


Teves added that of the more than $5 million collected, the first payout went to non-profit groups. He said families were told that no money would go directly to victims — a stark contrast from what they were originally told.


On Aug. 17, The 7/20 Recovery Committee, a group of government officials and community organizations tasked with distributing the remaining $4.6 million, said it had distributed $350,000 through the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance to those affected by the shooting. That money was delivered in $5,000 checks to 70 victims, according to the Denver Post.
COVA has sent some families a check for $5,000, but not all, including Teves.


"We shouldn't have to beg to get a little voice," he said. "They used our children's pictures, our dead children's pictures."


Tevas added that COVA sent out money from the funds without seeking input from the victims and their families.


The group has asked for a more transparent process in the fund distribution.


"What we are demanding is a robust voice in how this is implemented," Teves said. "The victims have no voice in this at all."

[Clovis]

Interesting.

[Ezzzzy1]

Sounds like the non-profits should have done some better communicating for sure, they totally got flaimed on the news today but there are two sides to every story....

Im sure people that "want" or "need" money are not as patient as they should be. Its almost like the started a lynch mob and went after the hand that is feeding them.

You know there is a long-term side to all of this and I am sure that giving everyone large lump sums would not have been a great idea either. I would rather see them error on the side of modesty then screw this whole thing up from the get go.

[madvlad]

Wherever there is $$$$ there are leaches lol

[#1Townie]

Thats bullshit. When i donate i expect every cent to go directly to what they say. Not get divided up into other organizations. Thwy should be pissed using their family members to raise money for other programs.

[rluper]

^ Agreed. Only a fraction is going to the fund's namesake, the vicitims. It is BS like this that really makes you weary of donating to most "non-profits"

[modette99]

Thats bullshit. When i donate i expect every cent to go directly to what they say. Not get divided up into other organizations. Thwy should be pissed using their family members to raise money for other programs.

This is why I don't donate like that through the various programs. Example for the fire I took down $80 in Animal food to the Animal Shelter in person. I feel if I donate that money will be used elsewhere, and that is not why I donated so Red Cross could make bank due to a disaster. Somewhere along the way charities lost sight of helping people.

If I had the extra to give to a victim due to this shooting to help them out I would actually try and contact directly and donate to one family directly. Then my full amount would be going to help them.

A problem with Charities for ever $1 only .40 cents or so is donated (depends on charity), the rest is ate up in admin fees to pay people at the charities.

The families are not leaches, the Charity is the leach for saying they do something but do something else. They do it all the time....they fail to mention they can have the right to use that money in anyway they want.

$5,000,000 over 70 people is $71,428.57 (lets say administration cost $10,000 per person). That is $61,428.57 each persons family or loved ones should get.

Also no reason to make the distribution a slow process. The money came in quick it can go out quick too. The first should be those dead, next injured. You know the dead people, that is easy information. The Injured is also probably pretty much documented...so its real simple to cut checks na dpay out. $5,000 x 70 people is only $350,000...hmmm so what happened to the rest?

I'm glad to say being on the Board of Directors for RMAR (Rocky Mountain adventure Riders) we are a Non-profit listed with the state of Colorado. We take ZERO pay, in fact it cost me probably $500-$800 to help....and each board member not only with donated time, has also donated to give back to COHVCO. Would it be nice to be paid sure!!! But then can you look int he mirror and call what you do a non-profit??? I personally don't think so. I'm sorry even if the Red Cross CEO only makes $500,000 a year and gave $180,000 back that is still $320,000 a year to do what I believe should be donated time and energy. I mean no one ever looks at them and thinks they should pay "volunteers"...but hey maybe they should have to as they do have a real STAFF. I would like to know more on charities. How many employees, besides the CEO what is the pay for the OTHER people? Like the IT Admin? Is he making $120K a year!!!

[#1Townie]

Agreed. This is also why i dont buy into that shit anymore. Sad to say but charities are some of the biggest scams out there.

[Dietrich_R1]

Salvation Army During Holiday X-Mas... They meaning temp agency is paid something like $20.00/hour for those people to sit outside & ring those annoying bells... This was bout 15 years ago when I heard this.

I would bet a 6 pack that there is a shuffling of these funds... one pocket to the next.

[modette99]

Agreed. This is also why i dont buy into that shit anymore. Sad to say but charities are some of the biggest scams out there.

If true on Wikipedia about Red Cross, I learned something new:
"In 2006 the organization had over $6 billion in total revenues; revenue from blood and blood products alone were over $2 billion." Oh they have 30,000 employees.

So why don't they pay someone something for ones BLOOD? I sold my plasma in college and they paid actually pretty dang good, and they should they use it for various reasons. I think most people don't realize its being SOLD to hospitals not given to people/hospitals.

Do I give, yep. I went to some Woodland Park Community Partners auction...spent $400 or so giving that night. Smaller group so the money is more wisely used. I think once these organizations get to a certain point there is less giving on the part of the operators and more taking.

But I typically as stated do stuff that directly goes to people. For example a fellow rider was having issues attending an event. I paid for some of his meals, I picked up some gas for his bike, and he bummed a spot on the floor of our cabin. I also scored him a $600 Jacket from a sponsor because I went and asked. The dude was very thankful and almost in tears thanking me.

This is why I donate direct to people, I want to see the feedback, the smile on their face the look of "OMFG". I guess this is why I have pleasure in doing the door prizes.

[Graphite675]

If true on Wikipedia about Red Cross, I learned something new:
"In 2006 the organization had over $6 billion in total revenues; revenue from blood and blood products alone were over $2 billion." Oh they have 30,000 employees.



Don't even get me started on the Red Cross. :down:

As someone who has been through several Hurricanes in Florida I can say the Red Cross did NOTHING but jump right on the radio and television and use the disaster to beg for even more money. Unbelievable. They would get on the radio and beg for more and more money but were nowhere to be seen? Wal Mart did more to help our community then the Red Cross ever did. They trucked in water and ice and gave out assistance for free. Red Cross did nothing.

.

[laspariahs]

Most non profits are the best scam going. Most large non-profit CEO's make HUGE amounts of money. It's big business. Reality is, only churches should get non-profit status, but only if they stay out of politics like they are constitutionally supposed to, and of course there is the treaty of Tripoli, supreme court rulings etc.

[modette99]

Most non profits are the best scam going. Most large non-profit CEO's make HUGE amounts of money. It's big business. Reality is, only churches should get non-profit status, but only if they stay out of politics like they are constitutionally supposed to, and of course there is the treaty of Tripoli, supreme court rulings etc.

You might want to know, there are two non-profit/s. The non-profit C I believe it is is the tax write off, for example RMAR is NOT we can not give you a receipt for tax reasons although all that is required is another forum to fill out for the state and be real careful with money taken in.

I'm not sure I agree with churches being the only non-profits. People just need to wake up and realize your money doe snot go to what they claim it does. The disasters just fun OTHER programs they do.

:down:

[rforsythe]

Some non-profits are scams, I believe most are not though. Modette that is correct, the ones registered as a 501c3 are charitable and donations to them can be written off. There are other kinds more related to businesses (RMAR, even the MRA) which are not for profit, but you can't write off the money you give to them.

Regarding CEO pay, this is a touchy subject. If someone does it as a full time job or even as a significant portion of their time, then they should absolutely draw a salary for their time. They have the same financial obligations as anyone else. Now I do agree that salaries should be reasonable and in line with other industries. Does the CEO of Red Cross need a $320k salary? I don't know. Red Cross is a very large international organization, and the wrong person at the helm would certainly be catastrophic for them. Higher pay may actually be justifiable in this case in order to keep the kind of management necessary to operate an org of that size. His time should NOT be "donated time and energy" just because it's for a group with charitable purposes. Sorry, but you'd end up with a homeless CEO of a $6B company if you did that.

Just because someone works for a charity as their job does not mean they must or should do it all for free. A charity can still do a lot of good in the world, but if it requires those kind of full time commitments from people, then those people need to be compensated for their time just like any other job, in order to take care of their own lives.

[laspariahs]

Some non-profits are scams, I believe most are not though. Modette that is correct, the ones registered as a 501c3 are charitable and donations to them can be written off. There are other kinds more related to businesses (RMAR, even the MRA) which are not for profit, but you can't write off the money you give to them.

Regarding CEO pay, this is a touchy subject. If someone does it as a full time job or even as a significant portion of their time, then they should absolutely draw a salary for their time. They have the same financial obligations as anyone else. Now I do agree that salaries should be reasonable and in line with other industries. Does the CEO of Red Cross need a $320k salary? I don't know. Red Cross is a very large international organization, and the wrong person at the helm would certainly be catastrophic for them. Higher pay may actually be justifiable in this case in order to keep the kind of management necessary to operate an org of that size. His time should NOT be "donated time and energy" just because it's for a group with charitable purposes. Sorry, but you'd end up with a homeless CEO of a $6B company if you did that.

Just because someone works for a charity as their job does not mean they must or should do it all for free. A charity can still do a lot of good in the world, but if it requires those kind of full time commitments from people, then those people need to be compensated for their time just like any other job, in order to take care of their own lives.

Well actually the CEO of the red cross America makes:
$501,122 0.01% Gail J. McGovern President, CEO

I assume you just pulled the 320k out of your ass, which is fine, but that's the real number.

I don't think they should work for free, but they do ask others to work for free, you know the volunteers, the people doing the work. Though in american society, if you actually do work, well that's something anyone can do, but if you TELL others how to do their job, you just struck it rich. I don't think really anyone NEEDS 500k a year, realistically a CEO probably gets other perks that will actually reduce their need for money, like probably a car, or a driver, or whatever. Plus the red cross is biased in Washington DC, he could just take the metro like everyone else.

The idea of that they should get paid the same amount as other similar industries, well other industries don't basically work from handouts, there really is no other industry that's similar. Plus that forgets the fact that other CEO's are making 26,000 times more than the people actually doing the work, probably even more if you count the people actually bolting together the product in China for 165 dollars a month.

[laspariahs]

You might want to know, there are two non-profit/s. The non-profit C I believe it is is the tax write off, for example RMAR is NOT we can not give you a receipt for tax reasons although all that is required is another forum to fill out for the state and be real careful with money taken in.

I'm not sure I agree with churches being the only non-profits. People just need to wake up and realize your money doe snot go to what they claim it does. The disasters just fun OTHER programs they do.

:down:

So let me get this straight, I should realize that they are lying to me, and still give them money.

Yeah, that's the DEFINITION of a sucker. Hey man give me some money and I'll give you a TV..... Ok here's a toaster. In the regular world if you did that, it's called a scam artist and you go to jail.

As for churches, really I'm not Pro church, I'm just pro churches staying away from the government, and I'm willing to make some concessions to make that happen.

[Filo]

There are a lot of charities out there that skim off the top. I choose my charities very carefully because of that. You can find lots of reviews and discussions about this online; for example

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/09/why-ranking-charities-by-administrative-expenses-is-a-bad-idea/

http://www.givewell.org/

Having said that, if you are running a large charity and get $300-500K salary it MAY not be a bad thing. It depends on how effective you are. Even though they are not for profit, they are still big companies that require correct direction. Besides, the CEO of my company made $15.36 million last year (2x industry norm) and $36.89 million over the last five years. Given that kind of gross overcompensation, $500K doesn't seem like that much.

The ones that always seem to do worse in all types of rankings are the Police charities. Some of those have expense ratios close to 90% (see http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/30/choosing-charity-efficient-donating-personal-finance-charities.html).

[modette99]

Well actually the CEO of the red cross America makes:
$501,122 0.01% Gail J. McGovern President, CEO

I assume you just pulled the 320k out of your ass, which is fine, but that's the real number.



He used mine and you must of failed to also read she gives back about $180,000 of her salary. At least the articles I read. So yeah she is a giver and obviously is fine being able to live an excellent like on $320K or so.

[modette99]

So let me get this straight, I should realize that they are lying to me, and still give them money.

Yeah, that's the DEFINITION of a sucker. Hey man give me some money and I'll give you a TV..... Ok here's a toaster. In the regular world if you did that, it's called a scam artist and you go to jail.

As for churches, really I'm not Pro church, I'm just pro churches staying away from the government, and I'm willing to make some concessions to make that happen.

Who are you arguing with...?????????????

everything I said you then said...so we are on the same page.

[modette99]

I don't think they should work for free, but they do ask others to work for free, you know the volunteers, the people doing the work. Though in american society, if you actually do work, well that's something anyone can do, but if you TELL others how to do their job, you just struck it rich. I don't think really anyone NEEDS 500k a year, realistically a CEO probably gets other perks that will actually reduce their need for money, like probably a car, or a driver, or whatever. Plus the red cross is biased in Washington DC, he could just take the metro like everyone else.

The idea of that they should get paid the same amount as other similar industries, well other industries don't basically work from handouts, there really is no other industry that's similar. Plus that forgets the fact that other CEO's are making 26,000 times more than the people actually doing the work, probably even more if you count the people actually bolting together the product in China for 165 dollars a month.

I agree with this and basically what I was saying.

They should be paid for their time after all its a $6 billion a year charity. Actually newer figure I think I read said $9 Billion...all money they get FREE. Only time they really spend money is TV ads during a disaster to get more MONEY.

Not sure the confusion but I'm against large charities. If you give, give direct. i wanted to give direct the firefighters but you could not, they directed you to the red cross...that is BS. I don't want to give to red cross and the fire fighter sees nothing. So hence why I gave animal food as that was something I could give direct.

[rforsythe]

They should be paid for their time after all its a $6 billion a year charity. Actually newer figure I think I read said $9 Billion...all money they get FREE. Only time they really spend money is TV ads during a disaster to get more MONEY.


:wtf: I assure you they have considerable opex and capex spending to worry about. I helped run a 501c3 that at our peak raised 0.000025% of RC's annual budget, and even we had those expenses just to exist and do what we did.

I'm certainly no expert on RC's financials, however you are grossly underestimating what it takes to keep a boat that size afloat.

[Frankie675]

Over at thechive we raised quite a bit for Farrah.

http://thechive.com/2012/08/20/farrah-soudani-thanks-the-chivers-5-hq-photos-2-videos/

[JKOL]

:wtf: I assure you they have considerable opex and capex spending to worry about. I helped run a 501c3 that at our peak raised 0.000025% of RC's annual budget, and even we had those expenses just to exist and do what we did.

I'm certainly no expert on RC's financials, however you are grossly underestimating what it takes to keep a boat that size afloat.

You are absolutely correct, they have offices all over the place, and not just 1 per state, but multiple in most states. It is safe to say those spaces and the personnel that occupy those locations are all costs they have to cover. It isn't all free buildings/land/utilities/staffing.

Take one look at the Red Cross website, and then start going to specific locations and check the Board/Staff links and you start to get an idea of just how much money the Red Cross has to take in to cover expenses before they can even start to distribute donated $$$ to those in need.

[Ghosty]

I thought I heard on the news the other night that it was only hundred and some-odd thousand dollars that went elsewhere, out of millions. What are the exact figures?

Personally I wouldn't mind if some of my donations went to cover administration/overhead, as long as the majority went to the victims. It's a little disturbing everyone bagging on the Red Cross. Let's see the figures of how much of the money goes to disaster relief. It's not like they sit around on their asses doing nothing.

[MileHighCritic]

Why are we not suprised by this? The same thing happen with 9-11 money collected by Red Cross. Same thing happens with Katrina.