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