• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Nature of Charitable Orginizations

Chu

Banned
A thread in P&N got me thinking about this, but I thought it would be more approiate to post here since the thread was about social security and this really has nothing to do with that.

Three years ago, I worked on a project to develop software for the local homeless agencies around West Lafayette to better track the homeless around the city. Things were going pretty well, until the aftermath of our first meeting with the orginizations, and then I pretty much dropped out of the project because of what I learned . . .

I'll give some background, I show up at the meeting to discuss the software features, and at the meeting around representatives of the local homeless shelters. They all on the outside look like the 'kind grandmother' stereotype, and pretty much act the part. What exactly went on in the meeting is inconsequential, but I will comment that the result was they wanted more features *TRIMMED* and one agency dropped out entirely.

After the meating, I had a discussion with someone in our group, and I found out some interesting background . . .

1. One reason our project was so delayed was because the agencies were deliberatly being uncooperative. Essentially, our software would provide accurate tracking - and THEY DID NOT WANT THIS. Under the old system, some guy leaves to grab some food, and comes back to spend the night, he checks in both times and so the agency gets double the money. Our software would make this go away.

#1 is a little . . . dishonest . . . but I really don't have too many quams about it, since from my expirence with a charity at home I know how piddly the funing these orginzations get. #2 was a little different . . .

2. These sweet old ladies are VICIOUS. Behind the scenes, they are doing everything in their power to shut down the other homeless assist agencies so their agencies get more funding. How far do they go? Well, the shelter that was just opened was delayed for quite a while as the other agencies bombarded the building inspector with false complaints about violations. They routinly pay their own clients to 'spy' on the other agencies and try to catch them in violations that hit their funding. Not only do they do the double booking as in #1, but they make up homeless people to get more funding. They also work very hard to put an iron curtain between their operations and the city/state bookeepers so they can get away with god knows what else.

My basic question is this, are all charaties like this? The whole expirence left a really sour taste in my mouth, and every time I see a Red Cross commercial or such it brings up some ugly questions . . .
 
I'd guess many charities include at least some bad apples, possibly because of lower salaries, lower education requirements, and lack of screening of hires. And some people probably start out as good apples but get brused by the work or corrupted by wormy co-workers.

After 9/11 Red Cross was taking blood donations it had no use for, and money donations it had no intention of spending on 9-11 costs. If I recall correctly they've also been chastised several times for inadequate screening of their blood supply.

United Way has had embezzlers and legal embezzlers (inflated salaries and perks) at least at some local levels in the country.

I'm sure you can find many more examples of problems, but these people do still do work that most of us wouldn't want to, especially for the low pay.
 
Back
Top