Wounded Warrior Project under investigation

[Anonymous]

CBS reports only 60% of donations are going to vets. Apparently part of the other 40% is going to lavish parties. I would think a lot goes to all their commercials and possibly paying celebs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-investigates-wounded-warrior-project-spending

Lot of high profile folks from entertainment, media, and politics are associated with Wounded Warrior Project.

Are there any laws governing what percent of donations must go to benefit disabled veterans? If not, why not?

[Anonymous]

Wait a minute. Before you bitch about lavish parties, how much do those parties raise? 60% is not bad. Organizations need to run and have overhead. If they went out of business, how much would go to vets?

NONE!

[Anonymous]

Most charities don't even use that much for their intended recipients.

[Anonymous]

Well according to the article the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust spends 96 percent of its budget on vets. I think most respected charities spend significantly more than 60% on their beneficiaries.

[Anonymous]

Those numbers are lousy and indefensible.

UNICEF does a better job - http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4617

90.2% goes to the intended recipient.

Even Natural Resources Defense Council does a far better job of directing resources to their intended purposes http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4207

84.3% in their case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute. Before you bitch about lavish parties, how much do those parties raise? 60% is not bad. Organizations need to run and have overhead. If they went out of business, how much would go to vets?

NONE!

You're welcome to think this way, but I work too hard for my money to give it to an organization that keeps 40% or more for overhead, parties, etc. I prefer to give to a local organization that's smaller--like a local tutoring group that works with children from a particular school in the afternoons or a local residence for children who have been removed from their homes by DFCS.

[Anonymous]

They also go after other veterans groups pretty aggressively, to protect their "turf". And have terminated and sued vets who worked for them who had PTSD. They seem to have a pretty active legal team.

[Anonymous]

CharityWatch.org gives Wounded Warrior Project a C rating - https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/wounded-warrior-project/559

[Anonymous]

The questions about how much WWP spends on programming versus fundraising are not new.
In general when I see tearjerking ads with celebrities asking for monthly commitments, I get my suspicions up.
(Or when I get solicitations from organizations that have gigantic, lavish fundraisers like walks, marathons, etc.--those things are cash cows for the organizers that put them on.)

Fisher House is an outstanding charity for vets.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7585
http://www.fisherhouse.org/

So is DAV Charitable Service Trust, as a PP noted.

Purple Heart is one of the worst. It's not even a 501(c)(3). They get an "F" from the American Institute of Philanthropy.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=390983584
http://www.military-money-matters.com/charities-ratings.html#axzz3yh6GjFBv

[Anonymous]

I always wondered about them. They seem to do what the VA is doing.

[Anonymous]

There was a big exposé in this week's NY Times. The original founder was edged out and the guy who runs it now has never served. Spending 40% on themselves is unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The questions about how much WWP spends on programming versus fundraising are not new.
In general when I see tearjerking ads with celebrities asking for monthly commitments, I get my suspicions up.
(Or when I get solicitations from organizations that have gigantic, lavish fundraisers like walks, marathons, etc.--those things are cash cows for the organizers that put them on.)

Fisher House is an outstanding charity for vets.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7585
http://www.fisherhouse.org/

So is DAV Charitable Service Trust, as a PP noted.

Purple Heart is one of the worst. It's not even a 501(c)(3). They get an "F" from the American Institute of Philanthropy.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=390983584
http://www.military-money-matters.com/charities-ratings.html#axzz3yh6GjFBv

Fisher house isn't really for vets. If you are a vet, it means you retired, left or were discharged from the military. They provide housing to those with a medical crisis so that their loved ones can be near them at an affordable price for extended periods of time. You have to be active duty (possibly retired).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always wondered about them. They seem to do what the VA is doing.

Makes no sense. They do something entirely different. The VA is mainly about medical care and mental health services.

[Anonymous]

Interesting article on them going after other charitable org's in order to "protect their brand" - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/04/wounded-warrior-charity-unleashes-hell-on-other-veteran-groups.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well according to the article the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust spends 96 percent of its budget on vets. I think most respected charities spend significantly more than 60% on their beneficiaries.

I work in the industry. Most respected charities must spend a LOT on fundraising. 96% is extremely rare. It kills me. Nonprofits have to compete for attention, yet no one wants them to spend money to actually draw attention to themselves.