Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Do you think giving money to organizations like the Red Cross, Oxfam, UNICEF, etc, is the best way to make charitable donations when there are natural disasters?

Poll May. 16, 2011 - 03:00AM JST ( 11 )

Order by Time Order by Popularity

11 Comments

0

cleoMay. 16, 2011 - 11:24AM JST

I voted Yes because I think giving is better than not giving, but it depends on the circumstances. In a local disaster, there may be more immediate ways to help. It isn't a question of which to trust, it's a question of the best way to get the necessary help to the people that need it as efficiently and effectively as possible.
0

ZybsterMay. 16, 2011 - 11:56AM JST

Isn't the answer "I'm not sure" just an excuse? No, you DON'T need to donate if you don't feel like it, but saying "I'm not sure" is just a convenient way out.
0

porterMay. 16, 2011 - 12:54PM JST

I used to think Yes. Then I learned these organizations have to give the money to the local government then work with them to allocate.
0

tajMay. 17, 2011 - 10:49AM JST

When I read all these people claiming they just give directly as they don't trust the organizations and their need for administative costs, I assume that the people actually are just not giving anything. Reaching for the handy excuse. And then trying to spread distrust. Quite dispicable.

That said, I didn't give much to the Red Cross this time round. I did put some in a pot here and in a pot there. At least two pots were going to the JRC. One went to paying gasoline for a relief truck. I was in the fortunate position of being able to give directly, to a kitty set up for a colleague whose family lost their home. And I was fortunate enough to be able to give a lot of my time.

IF there are people here who genuinely want to give directly, or prefer giving goods to giving cash, you can check out Amazon Japan's wish lists. Local relief organizations list what they need and how may. (4 pairs of size x shoes, 6 pairs of another size, etc.) You can do everything on line and get just what's needed as it's needed and it will be delivered right to them.
-1

manta60May. 17, 2011 - 03:13PM JST

The only one i trust is doctors without borders, most of the others just waste your money with red tape and wages to the ever present burocracy.
0

j4p4nFTWMay. 17, 2011 - 10:12PM JST

I would say no. It's best to take a trip up yourself and hand out cash to the people you see in need so that you can feel that bond off trust.
0

noriyosan73May. 18, 2011 - 12:50PM JST

It appears that the BIG heart has overcome the logic. The major organizations listed above have tremendous administrative costs. Everyone in the USA has been encourage to send money to local relief programs. If nobody knows of one, send it to the Japanese embassy in the USA. The Japanese people now have the responsibility of asking for an accounting of the millions of yens that have been donated. Anyone listening?
0

yaneeMay. 18, 2011 - 12:51PM JST

I gave up on the Red Cross after Katrina when they held back money to "keep their coffers full". That was over $3000 per year.

I now give directly to the organizations closest to the people with the lowest overhead costs.
0

tajMay. 18, 2011 - 06:38PM JST

"to the people you see in need"

So in other words, you didn't give any to anyone. Right?

Because those people have pride (and as much suspicion of you as you have of the orgs mentioned) and they aren't just going to pocket a fistful of cash from a stranger.

Of course, a small, on-the-ground organization would be different from an individual. But still, why would you think some random daycare operator would be more efficient in dispersing money to the needy than an entity who's entire raison d'etre is just exactly that?

I'm afraid I'm sounding harsh here. I don't expect everyone to have cash they can give. And I don't mind how people give what they are able to. The only thing that really gets my goat is when people slag off charitable organizations just to make excuses for themselves not giving anything. Instead of simply not doing good, they are actively doing harm by overblowing and spreading the cynical view of established aide orgs.
0

glycol57May. 19, 2011 - 07:13AM JST

The Red Cross does good ... but it takes a pretty big "administrative costs" bite out of your donated money. It's also a bit slow to respond sometimes.

In the USA, probably the best group to give to for a disaster is the Salvation Army. They're usually on the spot even before the wind stops blowing or ground quits shaking and they take almost nothing for 'administrative costs'. As a quasi-religious group, they're kind of "on a mission from god" ... which seems to keep them honest and earnest.

For disasters elsewhere, the Red Cross is probably the better choice - and someone mentioned 'Doctors Without Borders', which is a good one, although their scope of services is more limited.

Some mention PHYSICAL help in a disaster. This isn't necessarily a good idea. There's usually no shortage of willing helpers in a disaster area ... but what those who have been affected need most is STUFF ... food, clean water, housing, some medical services ... and those cost MONEY. Going hundreds or thousands of miles to "help", you are more likely to just get in the way ... doubly so if you don't speak the local language well. 200 pounds of rice will be more useful on the scene than 200 pounds of YOU.
0

AirionMay. 20, 2011 - 10:00PM JST

Ah yes, the evil, dubious, in quotations, "administrative costs." As if a world-wide organization that enables you to donate instantly and easily would naturally spring out of the ground or grow on trees! Yes, a small part of your donation goes to keeping the Red Cross in operation (administrative costs), but if the Red Cross weren't in operation, most people in the world wouldn't be able to donate at all. You can't just put $100 in the mail addressed to "Japan, Disaster-area" and expect it to get there. The hard truth is logistics matter, and overcoming them isn't 100% free.