Posted on 02/23/2009 4:50:11 AM PST by PurpleMan
Between 2003 and 2007 -- as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures -- Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid...
Superior officers come calling when AER loans aren't repaid on time. Soldiers can be fined or demoted for missing loan payments. They must clear their loans before transferring or leaving the service.
-- Promotions can be delayed or canceled if loans are not repaid.
-- Despite strict rules against coercion, the Army uses pushy tactics to extract supposedly voluntary contributions, with superiors using language like: "How much can we count on from you?"
-- The Army sometimes offers rewards for contributions, though incentives are banned by program rules. It sometimes excuses contributors from physical training -- another clear violation.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
AER has always prided themselves on taking money in, NOT handing it out.
Soldier: My apartment was destroyed by fire and I need a loan to get clothes and used furniture for my family.
Helpfull AER associate: Sorry to hear about that. The Red Cross is next door.
I don't understand how a statement by someone on a charity fundraising drive saying "how much can we depend on from you this year" is "coercion" and "pushy".
while there may be propblems with this fund, those two things aren't them.
It sounds like something a leftwing moonbat would say, not someone who understands that charities need to build a "fund" that generates an annual income independent of yearly donations. otherwise, if charities spend all their funds yearly, many would be out of business when donations dried up during bad years.
This isn’t new, nor are these coercive techniques unique to the Army. As an Air Force commander, I was ordered to meet with every person under my command who hadn’t contributed to United Way. How intimidating.
In 5 years in the Army, I have seen no evidence of heavy-handed soliciting for donations for the AER; the fund-raising has been no different than that for CFC (Combined Federal Campaign).
Some of the tactics mentioned in that excerpt are clearly addressed in the annual ethics training that all soldiers must attend. If things like that can be proven, those are career-enders.
I can’t say anything about how AER distributes/loans funds. However, I suspect the author of this article has an agenda, and I’d like to see every claim corroborated by some more trustworthy sources.
From an MSNBC article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29331853
“Most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent, with more than that considered hoarding. Yet the American Institute of Philanthropy says AER holds enough reserves to last about 12 years at its current level of aid. Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said that AER collects money ‘very efficiently. What the shame is, is they’re not doing more with it.’ “
The ORGANIZATION is using practices that are surely unethical by it’s own associational group standards.
THE ARMY is asking “how much can we depend on from you this year.” I’m sure the the Joint Ethics Regulations says that that is wrong.
If you don’t see it or understand it, I’m sorry for you.
On the next step, ... with superiors using language like: "How much can we count on from you?" I have received the exact same language from my direct civilian employment chain-of-command in 3 levels. The desire to have 100% participation in United Way or Community Chest has been extreme for many years. When the scandals about the United Way President, William Aramony, broke in 1992, a lot of this pressure diminished but for many companies it has since resurfaced in full.
It is a fine line that a charity walks when it uses 3rd party solicitors, especially those who may have job control over the 'contributor'.
Hmmmm...aticle from MSM that army charity sucks because it retains enough reserves to stay fit for 12 years....
Even though they doled out around 70 million bucks last year...
And how many charities are going belly up because they didnt keep enough in reserve?
Is the MSM complaining about that?
Nope.
“I have received the exact same language from my direct civilian employment chain-of-command in 3 levels. The desire to have 100% participation in United Way or Community Chest has been extreme for many years.”
Wait for the memo or make a tape recording of the “suggestion.” Then send it to the AP writer (and an employment attorney). The solicitations will stop soon thereafter.
I was a LT at Fort Riley in 1996...when I was put in charge of the entire AER drive on post....so I know a little about it.
First, I did my job. I went all over post and set up a ‘chain of command’ for the drive, talked to alot of people, and even went on a local radio station. The tactics are ‘silently coercive’. Everybody was expected to fill out a card, and the amount could have been zero...but it was usually at least a dollar a month taken out of one’s pay. The higher the rank, though, and one dollar would be considered not meeting the expectation. We met our goal.
I did alot of ‘data transcription’, putting donation cards into the computer...I was fairly sure that I was doing the AER rep’s job; but, I did it anyway.
I had several soldiers complain that AER had in fact not been helpful to them. They do look over finances very closely, before handing over a loan or grant (usually a loan). I attribute some of these complaints to very young soldiers who were indignant that somebody had the audacity to tell them not to waste their money, etc. The most common reason for needing AER help is loss of meal rations due to deployment. The soldiers were cutting finances so close that the loss of meal rations for a 4 week deployment would get them behind in bills. These rations were supposed to be paying for food.
Some of the complaints were surely justified, though. The process was always long winded...so it was more slow relief than emergency relief.
I think AER is a well intentioned organization. I think they may be over-concerned about their own financials. The collection tactics really aren’t any more strong arm than the United Way drive we have at my present workplace (charity solicitations are going to happen, you are not going to be able to avoid them). I don’t think it would be a bad thing if they got ‘shook up’ a little. It wouldn’t be bad if they spent some of their cash reserves on grants instead of loans, especially for soldiers who are in combat.
Why don’t they go after the Harvard Endowment or any number of “liberal” charities that are far bigger “hoarders”?
The fact that this article exists tells you how prejudiced “journalists” and editors are.
AER serves a good purpose, Army soldiers donate to THEIR OWN Relief Agency, and it is considered taking care of your own.
Regarding the 100% participation, as a matter of principle, I stopped giving long ago.
Charities doesn't normally experience a steady level of aid. It can be 1/10 of what it was the year before, and 20 times what it was last year.
"“Most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent"
Not true. Many "charities" start off with a huge endowment, (either a charity created by a celebrity, or a philanthropist making a large contribution for a cause) which is never spend regardless of the level of aid handed out in any given year. This is considered "seed" money, some of which is used to pay the CEO and other staff, for the first year of operations, paying expenses of fund raising events etc. After that, the endowment is kept strictly as a fund generating investment fund, often added too as demand for that charity grows.
That is not to say there aren't a lot of scam charities out there, but I don't think this one is one of them.
It may have strict guidelines as to when and under what circumstances aid is given out- which may tick some people off-, which seems to be the case here.
There may be something going on, but I don't see anything specified in this article that sounds unusual.
Well, I don't know what your military background is (if any, and I don't particularly care one way or the other), but if the statement in question is coming from the mouth of a grizzled old Sergeant Major with umpteen years of service, with a fruit salad melange of medals draped on his chest, to the person of a young Private First Class or even a newly promoted Staff Sergeant, you can damn well assume it is "coercive" and "pushy".
How do I know?
I've been there, done that.
From both the top and the bottom.
AER is the pet of the senior ranks of the services.
They collect much and give little.
Again, I know from experience.
” ‘Most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent’ Not true.”
Huh? Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy is basically agreeing with the assertion.
And no it's not "pushy". I've herd that line from many a "civilian charity campaign worker knocking on my door, and especially from charities you regularly donate to.
If "young people" entering the real work world think that's "pushy", it's no wonder this country is becoming so 'politically correct' insane.
"Pushy" to me is when I grab your arm and twist it behind your back until I hear an amount that pleases me.
Some, like local food banks can because they can always depend on government hand outs every year to replenish their coffers, many others however, can not, and therefore must rely on sound investment practices using their initial endowment plus anything added to it to maintain a min. level of income and to continue to be a useful charity with aid to hand out.
“’Pushy’ to me is when I grab your arm and twist it behind your back until I hear an amount that pleases me.’ “
“Pushy” to a new employee, especially in an “at will employment” situation, is a simple as the inference that you must contribute.
For a servicemember straight out of basic, if the CSM/CMC says “Contribute!” they’ll do it without question. Thus starts and continues the culture of “Must contribute.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.