Give give give until you can give no more.

[lieu]

You raise some valid concerns, jarbaby. Yesterday, 9/25, on NPR they quoted a figure of around 300 Million that been collected in the US so far. I too would be curious as to how that will be distributed.

They did caution people to stick with the well known agencies, such as the Red Cross and the United Way. Apparently there have been a lot of questionable relief funds that have sprung up recently. One was the NYC Fireman’s Fund. NYC firemen DON’T have an official fund. I think it’s common nature to want to open up our wallets and help now but we’ve got to make sure that our efforts are funneled toward a resource that really will help the victims in a pragmatic way. Good thread, j.

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by jarbabyj *
**and then give again.
And really, wouldn’t the whole country be better off if at this point we saved our money and either:

a) put it back into the economy via the stock market or big ticket purchases
**

It makes no difference. It will come back into the economy via the stock market or purchases. The only difference is that you won’t spend it, someone else will…

[tevya]

If you can find a good resource for the cost of living in NYC, you can probably get a good estimate of the costs involved in helping the victims. Keep in mind that there are over 6000 dead AND over 6000 injured. These numbers don’t include those who were nearby and who have also lost homes, jobs, etc.

Here is a list of some things I think would be real costs. Multiply each by 13,000. Many people will need assistance until other benifits (pensions, insurance claims, etc.) kick in. Some people (custodial and restaurant workers) may not have any of this type of coverage. They are also now out of a job. I give at least a 3 month estimate on this. Some costs (like Medical) will likely be much longer.
[list=]
[li]Housing: Rent or Mortgage payments. Relocation for those whose homes were destroyed.[/li][li]Utilities: Gas and Electric, phone bills, etc.[/li][li]Groceries: Food for the rescue / recovery effort. Food right now for people left homeless or without an income.[/li][li]Basic Necessities:** Beds, clothes, etc. lost when homes were destroyed.[/li][li]Funeral Costs: Self-explanatory.[/li][li]Job Placment: Help for those who have lost jobs. Perhaps training for those families who have lost the breadwinner.[/li][li]Medical bills: For physical and physcological injuries. PTSD will likely need to be treated fairly long term for a number of victims.[/li][li]College tuition: You will likely see scholarship funds for the children of the victims.[/li][/list]
I have probably forgotten many things. You can see from this partial list, though, that a very large amount of money is truly needed. The number of victims is staggering (which I’m sure you already knew). I would imagine that much of this money will be immediately spent and will have the same effect as you speding it would (as Mr. Why pointed out).

[Treason]

I know this will piss alot of people off but hear it goes.
Most “charities” are really scams. Every charity has overhead. For every dollar you give to a charity only a small portion of that goes to actually helping someone, sometimes as little as ten cents on the dollar. Also some charities, probably most of the ones poping up now, give nothing to the victims and are only there to make a quick buck. The red cross does not give the blood you donate to the victims. It is sold to the hospitals. If you want to donate blood go directly to the hospital. The best way to help someone is to do it directly and personally.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

But charities help to bring national focus to a cause. I hear this all the time with regard to the AIDS Rides and how 40% (or whatever atrocious figure) goes to overhead costs. True, but when the charity brings national focus, it can raise millions upon millions of dollars.

So 60% of $100 million is highly preferrable to 100% of a few hundred thousand (which is what local small potatoes charities can scrape together since they lack the costly overhead to get national attention).

Now, if not more than between 0-20% of donations goes toward the cause, I would agree with the point that these “charities” are better off not existing in the first place.

As to the OP: I get calls all day long from insurance companies in NY who say that they are unable to process any claims at all because their data lines have been cut (we lost the central office at 140 West Street & thousands of data circuits have to be moved to the Pearl Street CO, which will take months to finish). So many people that have valid insurance claims simply can not be helped by their insurance companies.

These are people with an immediate need for cash money.

[Spritle]

from here.

   The families of the victims at the Trade Center and the Pentagon were informed Tuesday that the American Red Cross would be giving $100 million in grants to help them with burial, mortgage and other expenses. Families are eligible for grants of up to $30,000.
   Families may also use the tax-free grants for transportation, food, clothing and other living costs.
   “We have never faced a disaster of this size, scope or intensity. The effort will go on a long time as our relief work ... continues around the clock,” Bernadine Healy, president of the American Red Cross, said in a statement.
   The grants will not be given to families of those who died aboard United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, because the airline has already provided assistance, the Red Cross said.
   New York authorities have also made it easier for families to collect death benefits without having to produce a body.
   Relatives will be able to claim insurance benefits and workers’ compensation, and get access to victims’ bank accounts without needing a death certificate. Lawyers will be available at a Manhattan center on Wednesday to provide free assistance to those seeking death certificates.
   The Red Cross is contacting the families of those missing or dead and coordinating with employers for verification. Family members are required to fill out a one-page form available through local Red Cross chapters. Once the application is processed, a check will be issued overnight.
   “We need to pay rent and for baby formula and lots of credit card bills,” said Cindy Gomes, 33, of New York, who lost her husband, a banker, in the attack.
   With her daughter, McKenzie, in a stroller beside her, Gomes said: “Our life was normal before, but now it’s all on me. I work part time, but I can’t work that much with a 6-month-old baby.”

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

*Originally posted by Treason *
**I know this will piss alot of people off but hear it goes.
Most “charities” are really scams. Every charity has overhead. For every dollar you give to a charity only a small portion of that goes to actually helping someone, sometimes as little as ten cents on the dollar. **

No. This is grossly irresponsibly overgeneralized. There are several watchdog organizations that track how much $$ goes to overhead. Anyone who is interested in this can find out. If a charity refuses to provide that information, then indeed one should not give to it. The American Institute for Philanthropy and charityguide.org gives their highest grade to those who give 75% of proceeds towards their cause and spend less than 25% on administration and fundraising. A 90% overhead rate is horrible and reputable charities don’t operate that way. I’m not sure, of course, what you mean by “most.” I have to ask you for a cite on that.

National, established charities which have a high grade from watchdogs which are currently soliciting for 9/11 funds include American Red Cross, Americares, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Mennonite Central Committee, Mercy Corps International, Salvation Army and World Vision. http://www.give.org also has a list of New-York area charities. http://www.guidestar.org has a long list of disaster relief organizations, too, with links to their information.

*More from by Treason *
** Also some charities, probably most of the ones poping up now, give nothing to the victims and are only there to make a quick buck. The red cross does not give the blood you donate to the victims. It is sold to the hospitals. If you want to donate blood go directly to the hospital. The best way to help someone is to do it directly and personally. **

Of course the freaking Red Cross doesn’t give it to the hospitals free. It charges hospitals so it can recover the cost of collection and testing, for one thing. Hospitals and the Red Cross have a long and established relationship in terms of blood collection and supply. Hospitals allow agencies like the Red Cross to collect blood so they can focus their mission on providing health care. Also, it means that a single organization (well, there are others, but let’s make this a short lecture) can be in charge of overall distribution, so that blood is where it needs to be. Demand at individual hospitals varies, and a central blood bank can best meet all needs. Believe me, the Red Cross isn’t sneaking around to make a fast buck. Perhaps it bothers you to know the Red Cross “sells” something you donated without payment, but it works this way. Some hospitals, indeed, have blood collection centers, but not all do. The Red Cross is a perfectly respectable means for giving blood.

[Mtgman]

I don’t think nearly enough money has/will be raised.

MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

Red Cross to give $100 million to help victims’ families

NEW YORK, Sept. 25 — The American Red Cross launched a $100 million gift program Tuesday to help the families of almost 7,000 people dead or missing following the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.

THE ORGANIZATION will give grants of up to $30,000 to families of those who died or are reported missing in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The first batch of the tax-free payments was sent to families Friday. The money is meant to help people with short-term expenses such as mortgage or rent and and funeral costs. Families could also use the grants for transportation, food, clothing and other living costs.

The size of the payments is based on the number of dependents of a victim, and could reach $30,000.

Anyone who has lost a relative knows that funerals, even when they are expected and things like burial plots are arranged in advance, are horribly expensive. If 30,000 is the MAX, there will be a lot of families struggling. What about the janitorial staff of the buildings? You think they had great pension/insurance plans? Worst of all might be the families who did NOT lose a member in the tragedy, but lost their livelyhood nontheless. Say I wasn’t in the building because I’m part of the night crew. I didn’t die, and I can still work to help my family, but I’m paid hourly, have high debt rates and no one, I mean NO ONE, is hiring.

Here is another thought.

MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

IN A PRIVATE SESSION with the Senate Finance Committee that included former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Greenspan said 1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, or up to $100 billion, would be a proper benchmark for an economic stimulus plan.

A Fed spokesman said Greenspan told lawmakers any possible package should be “of significant size in order to have the intended economic effect.”

Rubin and Greenspan intended that figure to encompass actions already taken by Congress since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which include a $40 billion emergency spending plan and $15 billion in airline aid.

All the figures I’ve seen in terms of fundraisers and everything is talking in terms of Millions. The Federal Govt has already taken us 55% of the way there, and I would estimate that private donations/drives and corporate sponsorship(my company donated half a mill and my department has raised another four thousand on our own, if similar grants were done by all the Fortune 500, this would have a significant effect) have donated another 25 to 30% of the 100 Billion, but that still leaves a very large amount of money needed.

Sure, I’m cynical enough to believe there are some bastards skimming off the top, there always are. But even that skimming comes back into the economy somewhere. They might invest it in the market, or buy a big house, or something. It’s not cut and dried in any aspect. And I second Cranky’s assertion that the skimming is fairly minimal and won’t affect the gov’t loans at all because they’ll have strings tied to them(I’ve heard the Airline bailout money already does, there is a wage increase freeze on executives of Airlines which receive aid) and the beaurocracy can track these things.

Steven

[HelloKitty]

I realize of course that the loss of life, business and property in DC is very small compared to NYC, but there are also massive costs there as well. 180 people were killed, many others injured. Compare that to 168 killed in OKC, even. When I called in my donation to the telethon this weekend, they asked where I wanted the $$ to go, the choices were

1. where the need was greatest
2. NYC
3. Wash, DC

I chose #3 since I had already given to the NYC funds. I too, feel that even though there will be massive amounts raised for all concerned, it will not be enough. Plus, it’s not like by next month there will be no money needed. This will last a LONG time. I trust organizations like the Red Cross, United Way and the firefighters union (that is who is administering the true FF funds) will put the $ where it needs to go.

[MandaJo]

This is a horrible, cynical, related question: Will those corperations that are soliciting funds on the behalf of the Red Cross get tax breaks?

I don’t mean direct donations–that’s different, and of course normal deductions should apply. However, if I contribute to the SoandSo’s company relief fund, and that fund is donated by the company to the Red Cross, can SoandSo company write off that $5 million, even though it was actually donated by individuals? I find that notion extremely distasteful.

[tomndebb]

Manda Jo, I will not tell you that no corporation will try it. However, most corporations operate under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and, if they are publicly traded, they will have external auditors that will hold them to the GAAP standards. Since funds collected off a non-business situation do not have an easily identified role in the corporate accounting structure, most companies will establish a separate fund to which those monies are given, directly, so that they will not appear on the corporate books, making the overall accounting difficult. If they do not appear on the corporate books, the company cannot declare them as a charitable donation.
(Mind you, I am talking most companies. I will not be at all surprised to discover that some companies (particularly privately held companies) will do just what you suggested. It is not that privately held companies are more inherently evil–they may, actually, have more freedom to donate quite liberally from their own pockets–but they will have more opportunity to ignore the auditors.)

[tomndebb]

GAAP - Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, (not Principles).

[wring]

thanks** Cranky** as the director of a non profit, I am intimately acquainted with that sort of stuff. Intimately I say.

Most of my operating funds limit me to no more than 20% administrative costs, and some require even less.