Methodists apparently still sitting on $53 million of international relief for some unknown reason
Foreign Policy: Money for Nothing — This is an amazing story to read in its entirety. It sounds as if we are Ethiopia. And it looks like the tale will NEVER end. Cripes.
The donated cash met a different fate. By late October, the State Department had allocated $66 million of the $126 million in international assistance to FEMA, which then granted it to the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), the nonprofit aid arm of the United Methodist Church. With the funds, UMCOR established Katrina Aid Today, a consortium of nine national aid agencies dedicated to case-management work for Katrina evacuees. But to date, only $13 million has actually been disbursed, and it has been allocated almost exclusively to salaries and training for case workers, not to evacuees.
As for the rest of the funds, some $60 million languished for more than six months in a non-interest-bearing account at the U.S. Treasury. Had the money been placed in Treasury securities, the GAO report notes, their value would have increased by nearly $1 million by the end of February. Instead, inflation meant the funds actually decreased in value as the government stalled.
found by twelvetwo
Best quote of the article!
” A smarter approach, perhaps, would have been to bypass the federal government altogether”
Govt. run amuk Ted Stevens (Alaska) needs to take over, he loves money!
By late October, the State Department had allocated $66 million of the $126 million in international assistance to FEMA, which then granted it to the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), the nonprofit aid arm of the United Methodist Church. With the funds, UMCOR established Katrina Aid Today, a consortium of nine national aid agencies dedicated to case-management work for Katrina evacuees. But to date, only $13 million has actually been disbursed, and it has been allocated almost exclusively to salaries and training for case workers, not to evacuees.
Having worked up close and personal with a number of religious orgs, I have seen this phenomenon over and over again. Spending over half of what’s brought in on staff compensation is not unusual. It’s disgusting.
A serious redefinition of the term non-profit is long overdue.
I have my doubts the organization had nefarious motives. They probably weren’t equipped to deal with the dispersal of that much cash. If you hand it out too quickly you get a lot of fraud. If you wait to make a judgement call or establish worthiness criteria it may be seriously delayed. This much money really didn’t need to be funneled to any Faith based organization. FEMA probably just wanted to dump the funds and not be bothered with them.
Spending over half of what’s brought in on staff compensation is not unusual.
Spending UNDER half on “expenses” is highly unusual with most charities. Spending 95% isn’t unheard of.
Do you ever get calls from some “law-enforcement” benevolent association? Ask them how much of that money actually goes to the organization who’s name they’re using. The group placing those calls is usually a for-profit company that passes on less than 10% of the collected funds to the sponsoring “charity”.
#4,
Yep. It’s very common for 1-10% of the donation actually ends up in the recipient. The rest is administrative. It’s so hard to find reputable orgs to donate. I usually give clothes and if any extra money to the Salvation Army. I actually see them driving the streets with emergency foods and blankets during the winter months. And I’ve lived near one of their hostels so there was never a mystery about them.
I haven’t been able to find the video clip; but, one of the best interviews I’ve seen with local officials — a year on after Katrina — was a sheriff in Mississippi or Louisiana [I switched on the channel with the interview in progress].
He ended by listing small towns in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana — and asking “why aren’t these towns worth spending money on — instead of Baghdad?”
Cripes, Dvorak! Stop using the word cripes. It makes you sound like a doddering old fool.
Oh brother! Another outdated, trite cliche from 1973.
“Cripes, Dvorak! Stop using the word cripes. It makes you sound like a doddering old fool”
..and your point is?
🙂
“Another outdated, trite cliche from 1973.”
Actually, “cripes” dates back to the very early 1900s.
“Cripes, Dvorak! Stop using the word cripes. It makes you sound like a doddering old fool”
Oh Balls!!!
The 9/11 aftermath, Iraq, and Katrina, are the defining moments of Bushes legacy. Each has gone from uniting this country to further catastrophe. It is less the exact things Bush did, but the people he hired to do them.
People don’t realize how much you can earn on the “float” or the money that sits around for a few days or weeks. The interest alone on that money over a few weeks could build them a new church.
My guess is thats the plan here.
Somehow Mississippi’s recovery has gone much better than Louisiana. They must have a different Federal Government administering aid with a different President, since this guy Bush is obviously messing everything up.
Just another example of Bush’s misguided thought processes to believe that this country’s problems can all be fixed through religion and it’s organizations. Religious organizations couldn’t possibly be corrupt and/or have any selfish agenda could they? I’d like to know what experience this organization had to justify them to be given that kind of money without having to show any results. Contractors for any service are given money to start and supplied additional as they progress with results so who in their right mind felt it was justified to just hand over half the money without any decisive plan on how it was to be spent? Who is monitoring and accounting for the balance? Do they just get to keep what they don’t spend for relief on expanding their church presence? This government funding of certain religious organizations under the guise of “Aid” is just wrong. How can this limited amount of money being spent be justified this long after the disaster? This organization seems about as charitable as the Gates Foundation seeing these numbers.
> to justify them to be given that kind of money without having to show any >results.
The same could be said for all sorts of government spending, including regular teachers.