Wouned Warrior Project a scam?

[Stiletto11]

Check this out: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12...-a-legal-scam/

Anyone had help from WWP? Like to get your take on this.

[The Reaper]

I have seen a lot of that and the numbers track with what I have heard before.

Around 60% of what they take in supposedly goes to help vets.

The officers make huge salaries.

TR

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I wouldn't on the surface think the top officers making large salaries suspicious, because charities are just like businesses in the sense that in order to make money, you need to hire good talent, and that generally means paying the person a good salary, or else they'll go off and run a for-profit business.

How about considering that these people are running a charity for disabled veterans, and they make more than everyone in the US government except for the POTUS himself.

If that is their degree of committment and empathy, I wish they would go run a for-profit.

Their right to draw that kind of salary makes me a lot less likely to donate to their causes, particularly when there are other comparable charities with far lower overhead doing the same work.

TR

[Guymullins]

Now, take a look at my good friend Dave Barr. He lives on a few cans of beans a day raising money for servicemen.
http://www.stripes.com/news/veterans...o-n-c-1.234845

[TrapLine]

I have both given to and helped raise money for the WWP. I have also seen veterans that have been assisted by their work. However, after discovering the details of their costs I would choose another more efficient way to donate. I think the link at the bottom of this page is the place to start.

[booker]

Originally Posted by TrapLine

I have both given to and helped raise money for the WWP. I have also seen veterans that have been assisted by their work. However, after discovering the details of their costs I would choose another more efficient way to donate. I think the link at the bottom of this page is the place to start.

WWP overhead is outrageous, and I don't think that the pay is acceptable for the corporate officers, regardless of the size of the charity. The knee jerk reaction of "well it is a large charity so they deserve that pay" is absurd. Most donors expect that the majority of their donation is going to help a wounded vet.


I'll keep giving to GBF, that way I know for sure that the money is used appropriately.

[Stiletto11]

If you do some research into non-profits you will see this is common place for a lot of NP's. The CEO of UNICEF makes over a $400,000 salary which doesn't surprise me. The point is we need to do some due diligence before we contribute to charities so we know our money is being used for the maximum effect.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I wouldn't on the surface think the top officers making large salaries suspicious, because charities are just like businesses in the sense that in order to make money, you need to hire good talent, and that generally means paying the person a good salary, or else they'll go off and run a for-profit business.

Charities in many cases are actually for-profit businesses that use gimmickry to get touchy, feel good non-profit status and to lure donations.

There was a 'Charity' in our area that took in millions of dollars a year that was sold as 'for the children' and as I recall a local news investigation reported ten cents of every dollar was all that found it's way to the children. 90% of the proceeds went to the cost of doing business, a large portion of which had the hierarchy living extremely large in Mission Hills, KS and Loch Loyd.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Stiletto11

If you do some research into non-profits you will see this is common place for a lot of NP's. The CEO of UNICEF makes over a $400,000 salary which doesn't surprise me. The point is we need to do some due diligence before we contribute to charities so we know our money is being used for the maximum effect.

FYI - Not UNICEF but an organization called US Fund for UNICEF.

http://www.unicefusa.org/

Richard

[Kasik]

BLUF -

Regardless of the cause or charity the final decision to donate (time, effort, funds) is ours alone.

Thankfully the Special Ops community-at-large now has non-profits and associations linked directly to our populations.

Donations, like rounds on target, have the greatest impact.

[Golf1echo]

Charity Navigator is a good check for large charities although not all charities are listed due to size or putting donations to use rather than overheads...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...2#.UsKzf_RDtWU

[swatsurgeon]

Should only contribute to charities that give and can prove >90% to the cause otherwise it is just like this, where the controllers or 'board' make HUGE salaries.....United Way is another that pays itself huge salaries and gives ~45-50% to the needy and it's only that high because of the scandal many years ago publicizing the corruption and lifestyle of the president and board of United Way.
Suffice it to say that my charitable contributions have changed radically since learning how to be informed and only giving when >90% goes to the actual cause, ie Green Beret Foundation and a few others.
Some of the worst are Susan B Koman Foundation, American Cancer Society, American Heart Assoc, and other similiar ones in the medical world. They have to publish the exact amount of "expenses" compared to funds that go to the cause.

ss

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by swatsurgeon

Should only contribute to charities that give and can prove >90% to the cause otherwise it is just like this, where the controllers or 'board' make HUGE salaries.....United Way is another that pays itself huge salaries and gives ~45-50% to the needy and it's only that high because of the scandal many years ago publicizing the corruption and lifestyle of the president and board of United Way.
Suffice it to say that my charitable contributions have changed radically since learning how to be informed and only giving when >90% goes to the actual cause, ie Green Beret Foundation and a few others.
Some of the worst are Susan B Koman Foundation, American Cancer Society, American Heart Assoc, and other similiar ones in the medical world. They have to publish the exact amount of "expenses" compared to funds that go to the cause.

ss

I reckon that's a great metric target: 90% of donation capital deployed for purpose, 10% for internal overheads.

BUT it is a pretty aggressive target, very few could probably meet or exceed.

In the NGO world, I think 80%/20% is considered a quite good result.....but then after having seen so many of them living large and complaining instead of doing, maybe 90%/10% is a tough but achievable target.

I would GUESS that scale could play a factor in the split.

I wonder if the bigger an NGO gets, there becomes a need for bigger average donations by bringing in mercenaries to land the big corporate whale donations instead of chasing Joe 6 Pack?

Do these types of organizations suffer from inverse/reverse economies of scale?

Do they become less efficient the bigger they get as they chase big corporate sponsors?

Or is it ALL motivation/character/integrity?

[MR2]

Closing in on $10,000 in donations to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. You'd think I could get a coffee mug from them or somethin'... LOL

Rated 4-Star Charity Eight Consecutive Years
SOWF has received a four-star rating (out of four stars) for its eighth year from Charity Navigator, the nation's leading charity watchdog group. Only 1% of the charities they evaluate have earned this distinction.

[Stiletto11]

Yup

And they have some heavy hitters contributing which makes my contribution look like a grain of sand on the beach. Sometimes I wonder if they even need my paltry donation.