Wounded Warriors Project - Beware?

[+ quoththeraven]

I know many posters and viewers of this site admire and want to help those who serve or have served in the military, especially veterans who've been injured, whether mentally or physically, as a result of their service.

 

Yesterday's New York Times includes an expose of lavish spending and high administrative expenses by the Wounded Warrior Project, one of the most visible of the charities established to help injured veterans.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/wounded-warrior-project-spends-lavishly-on-itself-ex-employees-say.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

Read it and decide for yourself.

[bigvalboy]

I know many posters and viewers of this site admire and want to help those who serve or have served in the military, especially veterans who've been injured, whether mentally or physically, as a result of their service.

 

Yesterday's New York Times includes an expose of lavish spending and high administrative expenses by the Wounded Warrior Project, one of the most visible of the charities established to help injured veterans.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/wounded-warrior-project-spends-lavishly-on-itself-ex-employees-say.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

Read it and decide for yourself.

 

I posted about this once, after CNN did an expose on Wounded Warriors, and quickly got some backlash from some of the members, and a rather unsettling pm, so I quietly walked away, but I'm glad you provided a link. There is some worthwhile information in the article.

[whipped guy]

I recently had noted what seemed to be an extensive and expensive ad campaign agenda for Wounded Warriors. I am always leery of such organizations and indeed companies who advertise extensively.

 

I know that I am not the only person who refuses to consider Geico insurance due to their overly aggressive and costly ad campaigns as it's obvious who ultimately pays for all those ads. With charitable organizations the "overhead" can be mind boggling and one always wonders what percentage out of a dollar actually goes towards their stated goals. It seems that Wounded Warriors is following the Geico model. They do admit to the Starbucks model in the article. I guess one needs to decide if that is the correct approach to accomplish the good deeds to which they aspire.

[Guest]

I usually look up a charity on charitynavigator.org before donating. I usually try to give to those with 4* ratings, although sometimes to 3* if I find the charity unique and worthwhile. This organization has 3*, and, indeed, they do spend a whopping 34% on fundraising, and the executive director makes over $473,000 annually.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.Vqp9MRiAOko

 

Charity navigator uses unbiased, objective measures to inform prospective donors.

[+ quoththeraven]

I usually look up a charity on charitynavigator.org before donating. I usually try to give to those with 4* ratings, although sometimes to 3* if I find the charity unique and worthwhile. This organization has 3*, and, indeed, they do spend a whopping 34% on fundraising, and the executive director makes over $473,000 annually.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.Vqp9MRiAOko

 

Charity navigator uses unbiased, objective measures to inform prospective donors.

 

I endorse your endorsement of Charity Navigators. They're probably the best site around in terms of collecting information on various charities and ranking them based on objective criteria.

[Kuriousity]

Gentlemen, as a military member, I suggest that if you want to give to a charity that helps veterans, please consider Fisher House. In many ways, Wounded Warriors is like the ASPCA--a large chunk of what they take in goes to overhead and promotion. They do okay work, but they are better at feathering their own nest. Fisher House does not do that--they do not run tearjearker commercials or have high salaried admin....and they will take donations as low as $10 and you can donate on behalf of a designated individual.

 

https://www.fisherhouse.org/

 

http://i64.tinypic.com/2ahe35e.gif

[jawjateck]

This is why I prefer smaller charities, with a local focus, almost entirely volunteer-operated, which do not have the overhead costs of larger organizations. I have been involved in a small charity for many years. No one receives a salary. The volunteers pay their own expenses when travel is involved. When we work outside the country, we will usually employ local workers to get the job done, a win-win situation. We have an accountant on retainer for an annual audit of the finances, and we pay an outside investment advisor to manage/invest our reserve fund. 97%+ of our funds go toward our charity's goals, not to enrich the folks who "work" for the charity.

[+ FreshFluff]

*Fluffy stands up*

Everyone! We need to fight those who force charities to speak in the oppressive language of percentages! Stand up for the civil rights of charity executives who want to stay at the Four Seasons without informing donors!

 

We WILL NOT allow charity executives to be forced to talk about overhead when they'd prefer to share a nice bottle of Dom instead.

http://charitydefensecouncil.org/our-mission/

[Kenny]

Both Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and VoteVets are blasting the Dumpster for what they say (correctly) is hiding behind the military and vets as a political stunt. They are refusing any and all Dumpster donations -- if he was planning to give to them, not just the creepy Wounded Warriors, who use for-profit brand-building techniques (which the Dumpster understands) for less-than-always charitable activities. When the WW story blew up yesterday, via the front page New York Times expose, WW quickly bought ad-time on MSNBC, knowing full well that the revenue-strapped channel would tamp-down any possible coverage. They were right.

[+ glennnn]

But Lawrence ODonnell of MSNBC did a piece last night on the NY Times article about WW and their waste of donated funds and their cozy relationship with Trump. How is this tamping-down the coverage? Please explain.

[Guest]

Indeed, the Fisher House Foundation earns a strong 4* rating on Charity Navigator, and they only spend some 2% on fundraising, though their president makes a whopping $453,000!! The most highly ranked veterans' charity I found was the Navy SEAL foundation. I do give to them each Veterans' Day in honor of the service of a couple of Navy vets with whom I'm friends (both retired captains). I might give some to the Fisher House Foundation this year...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7585#.Vqr0tRiAOko

[+ purplekow]

Just ran across this thread. Saw someone with a Wound Warrior Hat and asked him to get me a hat and that I would make a donation. I will still make the donation, as I promised, but probably will not wear the hat now that I have read this.

[Kuriousity]

Indeed, the Fisher House Foundation earns a strong 4* rating on Charity Navigator, and they only spend some 2% on fundraising, though their president makes a whopping $453,000!! The most highly ranked veterans' charity I found was the Navy SEAL foundation. I do give to them each Veterans' Day in honor of the service of a couple of Navy vets with whom I'm friends (both retired captains). I might give some to the Fisher House Foundation this year...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7585#.Vqr0tRiAOko

 

One novel thing Fisher House does is that they can help you donate unused sky miles to aid families of wounded soldiers travel to a Fisher House site. I don't know if other vets charities do that.

[Guest]

The Navy SEAL Foundation has about the highest rating I've ever seen from Charity Navigator: 99%. Their most highly-paid officer, the CEO, earns only $137,000. I don't know if that's a full-time job.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=13076#.Vqr3YhiAOko

[Guy Fawkes]

Thank-you! It was interesting to see how many of the Gay oriented non-profits rated.

 

I usually look up a charity on charitynavigator.org before donating. I usually try to give to those with 4* ratings, although sometimes to 3* if I find the charity unique and worthwhile. This organization has 3*, and, indeed, they do spend a whopping 34% on fundraising, and the executive director makes over $473,000 annually.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.Vqp9MRiAOko

 

Charity navigator uses unbiased, objective measures to inform prospective donors.

[Frequentflier]

Fisher House lost me at CEO compensation over $470 K and at the end of 2014 it had just over $49 Million in cash/investments. I respect what the organization does but that's crazy. I know President Obama has been a big contributor to Fisher House (I think in fact $500,000 in a single year) and its CEO makes more than he does!

 

I'm sticking to animal charities that have low compensation costs, low fundraising costs and spend most of the hard earned money people donate. To these organizations I know my money makes a real and near immediate impact.

 

This one helps animals and soldiers for those that want to help both:

 

http://www.puppyrescuemission.com/

 

We also donate to a few local no kill shelters that closely interview those that want to adopt and require a commitment that if the family adopting an animal every needs to give it up that the animal is returned to the shelter. The shelter our most recent addition came from was new to our list. She is yet another amazing dog that knows exactly how to work us.

 

I wish more people would use Charity Navigator or similar sites. People are doing the right thing by donating some of their hard earned money, they should ensure it does the most it can.

[rvwnsd]

*Fluffy stands up*

Everyone! We need to fight those who force charities to speak in the oppressive language of percentages! Stand up for the civil rights of charity executives who want to stay at the Four Seasons without informing donors!

 

We WILL NOT allow charity executives to be forced to talk about overhead when they'd prefer to share a nice bottle of Dom instead.

http://charitydefensecouncil.org/our-mission/

They are a freaking 501©3!

[jackjackjack]

I usually look up a charity on charitynavigator.org before donating. I usually try to give to those with 4* ratings, although sometimes to 3* if I find the charity unique and worthwhile. This organization has 3*, and, indeed, they do spend a whopping 34% on fundraising, and the executive director makes over $473,000 annually.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.Vqp9MRiAOko

 

Charity navigator uses unbiased, objective measures to inform prospective donors.

 

Thanks for posting this website. I always heard there were websites that rate charities but never used one.

[Kuriousity]

Well, FF, I am going to take that as you just do not like us military people or our families, and leave it at that....I have had friends who have been helped by Fisher, and I am passionate about the organization because I have seen the work in action. If you are going to let ceo compensation blind you to the work, then that is a flaw in you.

[Kenny]

But Lawrence ODonnell of MSNBC did a piece last night on the NY Times article about WW and their waste of donated funds and their cozy relationship with Trump. How is this tamping-down the coverage? Please explain.

The story should have been much bigger, I think, given the Dumpster connection. Maybe it still will be. There was some discussion last nite on where the Dumpster is really depositing the donations, with one report being that it will go to his own foundation, not WW.

[+ WilliamM]

The story should have been much bigger, I think, given the Dumpster connection. Maybe it still will be. There was some discussion last nite on where the Dumpster is really depositing the donations, with one report being that it will go to his own foundation, not WW

 

+1

[+ glennnn]

The story should have been much bigger, I think, given the Dumpster connection. Maybe it still will be. There was some discussion last nite on where the Dumpster is really depositing the donations, with one report being that it will go to his own foundation, not WW.

 

Understood and agreed.

[Kenny]

The Dumpster using vets as campaign props is despicable. Typical, too.

 

Between 2009 and 2013, the billionaire's foundation gave just $57,000 to veterans groups. Last night he bellowed that he would be donating more than $1 million (to his own foundation) for vets, now that the cameras are on and he's in the spotlight. Maybe this douche should ask John McCain to oversee the expenditures, to kiss and make up, or PTSD Palin, who is similarly disgusting.

[+ WilliamM]

Well, FF, I am going to take that as you just do not like us military people or our families, and leave it at that....I have had friends who have been helped by Fisher, and I am passionate about the organization because I have seen the work in action. If you are going to let ceo compensation blind you to the work, then that is a

 

I have military experience too. FreshFluff has over 2,400 posts on this site since 2009. I have had a number of exchanges of views with FF by PMs. There has not been one second when I doubted her sincere support for those in the military and their families.

 

Your support for Fisher is wonderful and you are right to defend the organization. As you read more and more of FF's post, I am certain you will change your mind about her. She is a particularly wise and kind person.

[jawjateck]

I have military experience too. FreshFluff has over 2,400 posts on this site since 2009. I have had a number of exchanges of views with FF by PMs. There has not been one second when I doubted her sincere support for those in the military and their families.

 

Your support for Fisher is wonderful and you are right to defend the organization. As you read more and more of FF's post, I am certain you will change your mind about her. She is a particularly wise and kind person.

 

William....Go back and sort through the posts. There are two FFs posting in this thread. But yes, I agree with you about Fluffy. She's a true southern belle, just a bit misplaced in the big city up north.