Comments for BRT: Army Emergency Relief

BRT: Army Emergency Relief

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:27:39 -0600

Most of you have by now either read, or heard about, the Jeff Donn's AP article about Army Emergency Relief "hoarding millions". So.. are they?Donn alleges that between 2003-2007, the AER "packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid." He says the fund "allows superiors to squeeze soldiers for contributions" and that the AER "reaches out only to troops and veterans in annual campaigns." The article also says that neither the Army nor Sgt. Major of the Army Kenneth Preston chose to comment on the article. Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? The AER was...

Comment from AFSister on 2009-02-26

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:58:03 -0600

EXACTLY, Cricket.
Helping hand... not a handout... but in this day and age of entitlement, that's all gone to the wayside.
We have corporations being bailed out by the government who still paid out millions in bonuses and hosted extravagant parties- all because it was "expected of them".

Newsflash!!
The only thing that is "expected" is that you act responsibly, especially with other people's money, and ensure your future existence by following written guidelines and acting as a prudent man would.

Comment from Cricket on 2009-02-26

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:28:42 -0600

You have to keep a fund self-perpetuting which means assets in reserve. I wish banks could do as well. We have always donated to AER because they were there for us when we needed them to be. The first time, it was a loan that was repaid in thirty days. The next time it was a grant...but we repaid it and still continued to donate. When I did my FRG time, I had to get reacquainted with AER policies and procedures. When we had families who were in need, there was a protocol to follow, and confidentiality was part of it. While I don't see the stigma of paying back a loan, I do see a stigma in assuming that AER is welfare when it is more along the lines of a charity. It is meant to be a helping hand, not a handout.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-02-25

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:21:39 -0600

I find it really, truly, honestly amazing at how many, otherwise intelligent folk, still drop to their knees and open their mouths to suck down and swallow whatever gets pumped out by the msm.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-02-25

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:57:15 -0600

A pernicious thought from my conspiracy-minded brain: AER's prime fund-raising drive season starts 1 March, running through May. That would be Sunday.

Did Mr Dunn (or his editors) time the story with that knowledge?

I will add that, in 12 years as an Army officer, I've seen several soldiers apply for AER aid. It was usually for emergency leave travel due to the death or severe illness of a family member. I don't recall any being turned down.

Comment from Thankful Soldier on 2009-02-25

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:34:19 -0600

I am a retired soldier. The AER provided scholarship money for 4 years for my daughter to be able to go to college and graduate. I am, and will be, eternally thankful for the service that the AER provided. I am grateful that the AER was able to provide this assistance. Each year my daughter went to school, the AER gradually increased the money she needed to continue her schooling. They did not provide a full scholarship by any means, but what they did help with was substantial. This is a great organization and needs to be supported. Thanks to them again for all of their help.

Comment from BohicaTwentyTwo on 2009-02-25

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:31:58 -0600

Getting out of a PT session for giving a donation to AER is not coersion, its bribery. There's a difference.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-02-25

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:09:08 -0600

Great piece of sleuth - WK

Comment from AFSister on 2009-02-25

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:30:17 -0600

Thanks!

Argent- to answer a couple of your questions:
Valid need is arguable and they need to clarify what is and is not a valid need.
AER's guidelines on valid needs are listed in the post. They include prevention of forclosure/eviction, car repairs, unreimbursed medical bills, money for utilities and groceries, funeral expenses, emergency travel, scholarships, and coverage for lost, stolen or delayed paychecks. On occassion they will use the "other qualified need" category, but for the most part, they stick to the items above.

If the income is too low for the loan repayments an interest free loan is actually a strong negative burden which will cause flow on financial and other problems.
Which is why most aid is in the form of a loan, but not all- and the Soldier can request to have an outstanding loan balance turned into a grant should their financial situation deteriorate. This morning I found out that the average check is $1075 and is typically paid back over a 1-3 year period, so we're not talking about huge amounts to be paid back. Keep in mind though that there is no limit to the amount the Soldier can request, but the average is just over $1000.

AW1Tim-
I'm afraid your right about both strong-arm techniques and the real motivation behind this story. It would be so easy for the Congress Critters to use this as a way to cut military funding, even though AER aid has nothing to do with the Army's budget. The only thing that the Army does pay for is the salary for the Army-paid civilians who staff AER offices around the world.

Comment from AW1 Tim on 2009-02-25

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:03:25 -0600

I will not speak directly to the AER's situation, as I have no experience with it, being a Navy guy. What i WILL say is that, during the period I served, you were expected to donate to both Navy Relief and United Way each year, and if you didn't, you'd be tap dancing in front of the Command master Chief to explain yourself. Certainly you would not be denied a promotion for refusing to donate. However, come time for the sh!t details, your name would be at the top of the list. Needed a weekend off for something? Sorry about that. Command having a kegger at the beach? Guess who'd get the duty that day, etc. So.. I can certainly believe the "strong-arm" donation comments regardless of the official response about such tactics being unacceptable.

However, having said that, I firmly believe that this article was written from the premise first and the story and facts adjusted to fit the desired narrative. I am convinced that this was a hit piece from the atart, and that it didn't come directly from the author (although i have no doubt he wrote it), but was likely "suggested" by someone in the current administration.

Let's face it, the folks currently in charge in Washington have no love for the military, and would like nothing more than to see them take a few hits here and there in the PR realm. Being seen as "not helping their own" when the entire country is in need, would work for them, and also help those who make the laws and the budgets feel better about "cutting the fat" from the military budget by tossing out examples like this report/story as a means of saying "See? They have money hoarded away", etc.

Now, I and you and everyone here knows that that isn't what's going on with AER, but Joe public doesn't, and it makes great kindling for the leftists stoking the "anti-military" fires. It gets the dogs scrapping over a few tossed bones, and that also helps dostract the media from other things going on. Like new, muli-billion dollar spending bills IN ADDITION to what's already been passed.

Other's mileage may vary, of course, but I am convinced some one in the administration set this article up for publication, and Mr. Dunn is the useful idiot running with it.

Respects,

Comment from Argent on 2009-02-24

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:41:24 -0600

Good work AFSis. Cohen has gone the strong defense road so lots of stuff to talk about but what's really needed is for Dunn to produce the goods now. If he fails to do so I see no reason to believe his claims and the entire matter against the AER should then drop.

reaches out only to troops and veterans in annual campaigns.

Finally something that can be answered by someone else than Cohen or Dunn. Most troops and veterans should be able to cover this so then are you personally aware of AER reaching out to you more than once a year or not?

I'm not at all satisfied with the conflict of interest issue and the whistleblower protection. Such schemes rarely work and that being well-known means it's a poor defence. Why has the charity's business been setup with such an inherent risk? It lets people like Dunn make such claims very easily. If it isn't dealt with this will boil up the the surface again later.

I don't understand the disconnect between AER's claims they aren't hoarding any money and at the same time the claim they are investing $190-200M. This is not the money owed by interest free loans. How much of this invested money is needed in reserve for a valid reason?

No Soldier or Family member has ever been denied financial assistance for a valid need due to a lack of funds.

This is quoted from AER's response. Apart from my doubt in perfect outcomes as suggested by such wording there are the qualifiers 'valid need' and 'lack of funds' Valid need is arguable and they need to clarify what is and is not a valid need. The other qualifier is the one that concerns me. Not rejected via lack of funds is obvious if they are well funded then what is the criteria for these other rejections, the ones not caused by a lack of funds. That qualifier makes their statement a misleading one.

Can any troop or veteran reading here tell us if they have had problems with funding from AER along these lines or also related to embarassment suggested by AFSis' article?

There is also a "arbitrary criteria" argument in the AER response which is an obvious attempt to dismiss an F rating, but chances are the criteria is neither arbitary, nor without basis. Instead of such rubbish they should have made it clear why it is artibrary if they wish to argue such.

The interest free loans versus grants issue is more complex. Interest free loans works well for those with the intelligence, knowledge and will to manage money and the income to reasonably cover repayments. There would be an awful lot of unemployed veterans by now with the economy hiding in the sewers. These are the most likely to need assistance. If the income is too low for the loan repayments an interest free loan is actually a strong negative burden which will cause flow on financial and other problems.

Keep in mind I am aggressive here because this is about protecting the interests of those that most probably badly need help. Overall AER's defence was strong and effective in many areas despite my holepunching. This issue must be cleared up asap. A lot rests on Dunn now who also has to be picked apart. If he messes this up his professional standing will be joining the economy.

Comment from Barb on 2009-02-24

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:26:50 -0600

Great job, AFSis - I'm glad that you were able to attend and share this update!

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-24

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0600

And thank you, AFSis, for covering this one for us!