Hello -- this is Ike, and I am a regional communicator for the Red
Cross.  I stumbled across this over the holiday break.

I understand what you are talking about, with regards to our internal
measure of "effectiveness."  Unfortunately, you're asking us the
equivalent of choosing a favorite child.

Such a metric would be arbitrary, and could be easily fashioned to
highlight whichever line of service we wished to justify.  In doing
so, number-crunchers would ask the question "Why in heck is Red Cross
involved in things that AREN'T as high-payoff as _______?"  Just look
at the numbers.  Why be involved in disaster relief when blood
provides the higher "impact?"  Or vice versa?

We're dealing with two different dynamics here.  As a large multi-
purpose humanitarian organization, we've got a tradition being
involved in a number of different activities.  Disaster, blood,
service to armed forces, preparedness, first aid/safety, and some of
the international initiatives Maura described.  Whether we like it or
not, there is a significant slice of America that expects the Red
Cross to play a role in each of those arenas.  Public expectation
drives part of our mission.  In some circumstances, we have made a
promise to be there (like immediate disaster relief).  In others, we
end up getting involved because people think that's what we're
supposed to do, and no one else is stepping up (like the Safe and Well
website partnership.)

The second dynamic is our volunteers.  Some only have an interest in
disaster.  Some only want to teach first aid classes.  Some want to
volunteer to drive needed units of blood from the storage centers to
the hospitals.  As a volunteer-led group, we'd alienate so many people
who are truly volunteering their time to make it all work.

Are you really asking us to pick the one most effective line of
service, and do that to the exclusion of the rest?  Because applying a
universal metric to all the lines of service is an invitation to
starting feeding some and starving others.  That would be akin to
comparing the costs of helping 10 families in an apartment fire versus
10 single-home families spread out on different nights.  Yes, one is
more "cost-effective."  That doesn't mean it's time to abandon the
rest.

I think the key element you are dancing around here is the way we
handle donations.  If someone wants to donate just to local fires in
their local chapter jurisdiction, we can assure that happens.  If
someone wants to donate just to Services to Armed Forces, their wishes
are respected and followed through.  We look at the business model of
each of those lines differently, asking first "Are we meeting this
mission?" and "Can we meet it more efficiently another way?"