Last Monday's Business Matters program was a look back at the UGI gas explosion that killed five people and wiped out a city block. LV United Way President Susan Gilmore talked about raising money for victims of this disaster, but several people displaced by the explosion stated they were left out in the cold. Literally. The United Way, and its partner agency CACLV, were basically accused of being ineffective.CACLV's Alan Jennings, not one to shy away from criticism, frankly admits on his blog, "We have no background in disaster relief but were willing to step up." He acknowledged a need to set up an "infrastructure" for this kind of assistance. "We were, as is the United Way, in a thankless position, surely setting ourselves up for attack, as viewers witnessed tonight. But I am confident this was done right."
Persons dispossessed by that explosion claim to have received nothing between February 9, the date of the explosion, and March 23, when this show aired. I would not characterize their complaints as attacks. It is inevitable that some would feel left out.
At a news conference yesterday (I was copied on the news release, but was not personally present), Susan Gilmore reported that the Allentown Family Fund raised a total of $185,549.11, which included $57,000 in donations from UGI and their workforce.
After personal interviews with each of the 35 families directly affected, and the use of a four-tier damage assessment system, payments were made to every family in amounts between $500 and $23,787.
Because volunteers coordinated the effort, and CACLV and the United Way did not charge any of their costs to the project, all of the money donated for direct assistance to the families was used exclusively for that purpose. Some of the original UGI corporate donation was set aside for services to the families. In order to cover the cost of counseling, $16,668 was directed to Family Answers, a private non-profit family counseling organization. There is considerable concern for the longer-term effects of the trauma on the families, so Family Answers has been contracted to conduct follow-up assessments after six and twelve months. The assessments will ensure that every individual who could benefit from counseling services will have access to the help they need, according to William Vogler, Executive Director of Family Answers.
Alan Jennings, Executive Director of the Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley, expressed his frustration that an infrastructure was not in place to adequately respond to this type and size of disaster. Jennings, along with the United Way and the American Red Cross of the Greater Lehigh Valley, promises to create a task force to develop that infrastructure so that this region is better prepared for the longer-term services and assistance needed after the immediate emergency responses.
Cordelia Miller, Director of Emergency Services for the American Red Cross of the Greater Lehigh Valley, provided a report on the agency’s services beginning on the night of the incident. The Red Cross, in accordance with their policy, was on the scene of the incident within one hour of being notified. The agency provided immediate emergency needs including food, shelter and medical attention for the affected residents. Ongoing services, such as program referrals and rental assistance, are still being provided to the survivors.
The Reverend Tony Sundermeier, Senior Pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Allentown, praised the agencies for their efforts. He said, "When a tragedy occurs, such as the one that took place at 13th and Allen streets, and you have a significant outpouring of generosity, people want to know that the money they donated is going to the people who need it the most. They also want to know that it is being distributed in a fair and just way. CACLV did just that. Stewardship of these resources was the number one priority of Alan Jennings and his organization. Through a ton of volunteer hours, patience, and integrity, CACLV was able to accomplish what I and my congregation hoped for when we donated $10,000.00 to assist in these efforts.”
At the close of the conference, blast survivors William Epler and Jill Arroyo offered comments on their experience and their thanks to the community for the outpouring of support during this difficult time.
Bernie -
ReplyDeletePlease explain to me why $16,668 of money that was supposed to go to the families is being "skimmed" off the top by a non-profit organization? If UGI had wanted any of the money it donated to go to counseling, why was it donated first to this fund? Was UGI "urged" (i.e. "shaken down") by anyone to have this money used for counseling or to use Family Answers?
If the families want counseling, they should be able to choose who they want to provide that service. To pay for it, they could use the proceeds of the cash payments to pay for it. Or they might already have such coverage under their own health insurance plans. Or such counseling could be part of the final settlement with UGI, which I'm sure will be paying a hefty legal award to the victims.
The way this was done smacks of favoritism among those administering the funds. Please clarify and give us more info.
That money went to a counseling service to help people suffering emotionally. Why was Family Answers chosen over others? I will try to find out.
ReplyDelete17k to provide grief counseling to 35 families is a freakin' steal. Grief counseling is expensive. You could drop 17k on just one family. I call this a tremendously good use of resources and probably another non-profit taking the obligation at a greatly reduced cost.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how long UGI's settlement process is likely to take, I wouldn't expect money becoming available for individuals to choose their own provider for a couple of years. In the mean time, the trauma persists. The final settlements will include these kinds of expenses, no doubt, but people are going to have to wait a long time to get the money for those services.
My guess is that what Bernie discovers is that the Family Answers is providing a service identified as critical for the families and is doing so at a cost that reflects their desire to fulfill their mission.
And i have to say, it's getting to be quite disgusting that people here automatically assume the absolute worst intentions on charitable work. To assume "shake downs" and "favoritism" is sad.
Thanks for covering Bernie. Hopefully future disaster responses will be unnecessary, but at least we have a better idea of what it takes and that other volunteers will step forward when called upon even as people question their motives and their final decisions.
Anon 12:12 -
ReplyDeleteThey will also need legal services, housing, clothing, and a myriad of other things. But there was no attempt to use a portion of the funds for a single provider of any of those other needs. Nor should there be.
I have no doubt that many will require counseling, some more than others. However, I place a strong value on allowing people to make their own choices about what they need most and where to get what they need.
Your point about the UGI settlement taking some time is valid. However, I have already identified other sources of funding (the cash they are now receiving, private insurance) that the individual families could use to pay for their own counseling needs.
In addition, some families might have had a greater need for the extra cash they would have received for something other than counseling. That is, and should be, their choice.
Overall, I think a much better decision would have been for Family Answers to have offered X-amount of hours of their services at a reduced rate for those who want it. That would have been infinitely preferable to a one-size-fits-all approach that takes the decision on how to spend the cash away from the families.
and for 17k, the families may decide they don't need the services. For all you know, the 17k may have been allocated the way you described. Since you are so smart, perhaps you already know the answer. You also make a number of assumptions: that the money they already received didn't go to other needs, that they have private insurance that will cover grief counseling (news flash: not a given)... no matter. You have the solution: tell other people how to spend the money they have already collected. So much for your value of personal choice.
ReplyDeleteThis is a case in which there was a limited pool of resources and somebody had to make difficult decisions on how to spend the limited resources. Could they have done 185k/35 and been done with it? Sure, but it would have negated the need that some families had that others didn't have.
You seem to be the smartest person on the board. Perhaps next time there is a disaster, you should volunteer your time and energy to figure out the best way to allocate the money raised.
If this was money people had earned and had not been raised for a purely charitable purpose (disaster recover), your concerns would have some merit. But as it is, the allocation will be scrutinized by the IRS, political hacks, lay people and the press. The volunteers set out a course that seems to ensure compliance with the charitable intent.
Now, when UGI settles and insurance companies cut their checks, the individuals can do with the money as they wish and you and I can be their defenders in that freedom. As for the 185k just allocated, there is a greater level of responsibility and accountability to ensure charitable use... something that no donor, receipient or independant bystander should take lightly or confuse with traditions of free markets and freedom.
Anon 4:16 -
ReplyDeleteThe whole point is that the money was raised to go to the families.
It certainly wasn't raised with the caveat that almost 10% would go to the provider of counseling services for the victims. People donated believing that the money would go directly to the families, for whatever the families thought was in their best interests.
Instead, part of it is being siphoned off. I'd like to know who made that decision and what their motivation was. I'd also like to see it not happen again in the future.
The people who are handling the money have a fiduciary responsibility to handle the money properly. It should not be their decision to dole it out to anyone other than the victims, no matter how they might justify it.
By the way, I don't claim to be the smartest person or have all the answers. I read Bernie's story just like anyone else. Something didn't seem right so I asked Bernie for clarification and more details, and I have explained the reasons why I am concerned.