You may want to check that story out by talking to
the local AER guy or gal at your posts. You can also look at this LINK and see what AER does with the money they loan and why there are not more grants.
Chronic tales like that crop up in every war and most have some fact but also some misstatements. I recall one tale during Viet Nam that said AER charged 50% interest. At the time it was .5 percent. and it wasn't interest it was the recoupment fee. This one seems balanced but it really only produces one side of the story and very regrettably, I've come to distrust AP. Their ex-Gannet leader has messed up their objectivity pretty badly IMO.
The rules may have changed but it used to be that Soldier requests for financial assistance went first to the Red Cross and then AER. That was true because the ARC donated $1M to help the AER get started during WW II and asked that they be given first option at loans. AER was thus, effectively, the lender of last resort
I have had my disagreements with AER over treatment of troops -- but more often I have seen AER do some good things for Troops. A lot depends on the personality of the local rep and his attitude. The good new is in my experience if you get stiffed by one, you can raise a ruckus and get him or her replaced. All things considered, I've seen troops with good and bad experiences with AER (and the Red Cross) and I've never been anywhere that forced troops to give in the way the article contends is common. AER does great with their lending closet and their volunteers, they are very tight with grants because the Army wants them to be that way. With loans, they are reasonably liberal but they get sticky about repayment -- because the Army wants them to be that way.
Can't speak to today but not long before I retired, I told a slew of folks that they were better off raping the CG's daughter than they would be ahving an overdue book from the Post Library and far better off than if they owed an overdue car payment. Hopefully, that's gotten better. Of course, the standard punishment for indebtedness was a fine or a reduction in rank... :rolleyes:
Hopefully that has changed and indebtedness is fixed and not punished.
I'd also suggest you check CFC out and see where your money goes. Ostensibly, you can direct it but I discovered that direction is not always followed. After many years of watching, I ended up giving directly to the Red Cross and to AER in about equal amounts. Neither is perfect but both do a fair job and the Red Cross does good with the notification and military hospital volunteers
I sort of tiptoed around all that because
I've been retired a long time and things change -- but, based on the Schmedlap response, it is apparent that in the case of AER, not much has changed.
I'll add one point from the article. This is the first paragraph:
Quote:
"As soldiers stream home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the biggest charity inside the U.S. military has been stockpiling tens of millions of dollars meant to help put returning fighters back on their feet, an Associated Press investigation shows."
That is not only an incorrect statement, it's stupid -- and it's designed to inflame. That 'stockpiling' has been going on since 1942. AER is not "meant to help put returning fighters back on their feet" -- it is designed to help Soldiers and their families in adverse circumstances. Grants and loans are just part of what they do.
That particularly egregious initial paragraph sets the tone for the rest of the article. Sad. The play on the 'returning warrior' shtick is particularly disgraceful IMO. The bulk of the Army is routinely not deployed and the folks here in the states are the ones who need AER help. One returning with all the tax free bennies from a deployment should not have a problem -- if he or she does, it's highly probabler it's self inflicted
This is one paragraph of saving grace and relative honesty:
Quote:
"Make no mistake: AER, a normally uncontroversial fixture of Army life, has helped millions of soldiers and families cope with emergencies, as well as college costs. Last year alone, AER handed out about $5.5 million in emergency grants, $65 million in loans, and $12 million in scholarships."
All the benefits for contributing or 'punishments' for not doing so are chain of command issues and while I can't speak for today, I can say that in 42 years in and with the Army, I never saw such foolishness. What I did see was a quite a few guys try to take advantage of the system by getting a loan under flaky circumstances and a few more who tried to renege on paying their loan back -- the same guys who were also behind on other payments who were trying to live beyond their means.
That's a sorry article and it's an example of why I said I do not trust anything from AP nowadays. They have truly lost the bubble.
How to make headlines of a non-story
I'm with Ken (as usual).
The alleged malfeasance is not lining the pockets of administrators, or losing millions of dollars, but simply hedging bets by financing a substantial reserve. The money's still there; it's still available. The story is simply an attempt to sell newspapers through sensationalism.
Current commander chime in
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
b. Unless there's been a change, soldiers are required to first approach the American Red Cross if financial help is required. If the ARC declines and if the the solider demonstrates potential hardship for which he essentially is not totally responsible as opposed to merely needing or wanting some money, the AER will then generally lend him the minimum amount to get by.
Today, the Red Cross has a fund set up for each major command (Division level or equivalent) that they can produce fund sites and grants from. This is usually only used for OCONUS situations – either at a forward deployed location or if the emergency is on foreign soil. It's essentially a "free plane ticket" program for Soldiers who receive Red Cross messages. I've also seen it used for your more "civilian" Red Cross situations – a house burns down, flooding, etc. but obviously only required when there isn't insurance paying out immediatly.
Quote:
Been my observation that about a third of troops get money from the ARC, another third get if from AER and the remaining third could not satisfy either the chain of command, the ARC or AER there was a need and they were not at fault.
…
Note also that the relative number of such operations has declined over the last 20 years or so due to the fact that Citibank (and others) would give a PFC a $10K or even more credit limit on his credit card (also with usurious rates) even if he already had a car he couldn't afford.
The primary reason why there aren't more AER grants, like Ken suggested, its because of credit cards. Your typical AER Grant scenarios where you need an expensive car part, the baby needs formula, a dingo stole your refrigerator, etc are easily mitigated by Mastercard. The Soldiers who come to AER come there either because they have exhausted all other means of payment or it’s a situation where credit isn't accepted.
Another big reason why there aren't many AER Grants is because that "at fault" is such a difficult term to dissect. The overwhelming majority of AER assistance requests I see are because of past-due bills. So why are the bills past due? Mostly because of poor money management skills or Soldiers getting into financial obligations they can't support long term. Most of our Soldiers are one big power bill away from insolvency. It's sad, but it's true. In these cases, AER will not give a grant; only a loan and only to cover the amount required.
As the article highlights, this causes the percentage of loans to grants to appear out of balance. However, it’s a direct response to the needs of the people they serve as outlined by the rules they set for how they distribute their own money.
