Community Chat

[Noel7]

---

@Lila Belle wrote:
The same with WW sending a blanket. Such a waste for what we now know is a honey pot.

---

*************************

I donated to them awhile back and got another request saying if I donated a certain amount again, they would give me a blanket.  I thought, oh no, what a waste of money.  

I used to donate to a school regularly until they started sending a request every month with a lot of "gifts," as they called them.

[Say Nay]

WWP issued a retraction demand to CBS. It's on their FB page. I'm interested to see how this will turn out. 

[kdgn]

---

@The Monkey on My Back wrote:

WWP issued a retraction demand to CBS. It's on their FB page. I'm interested to see how this will turn out. 

---

The can make the demand but after reading the NY Times article it will be very difficult for the WWP to defend themselves. Their CEO made $473,000 in compensation last year.  

The NY Times article was more in-depth than the CBS show-

[hckynutjohn]

Bill O'reilly has given tens of millions of dollars to the WWP for many years now. He said on tonights show he is going to do his own investigation to find what is, an what is not true about the WWP.

He hopes to be able to report his findings next week. I did not see the CBS show and I ain't a fan of the NY Times. I will wait till next week and see what Bill O  turns up.

hckynut(john)

[PeterDM]

I don't know much about how the government classifies various types of organizations, but I would guess that charities have to designate a certain percentage of their income to doing what they're supposed to be doing.  I understand that they have to pay employees and spend money on marketing, meetings, etc., but there has to be some kind of rule that they have to spend a certain percentage on their cause in order to legally stay operational.  So, while the NYT, CBS, or even Bill O'Reilly may be Investigating the matter, a thorough government audit of their financials is what will eventually determine if there is corruption. 

[kdgn]

---

@PeterDM wrote:

I don't know much about how the government classifies various types of organizations, but I would guess that charities have to designate a certain percentage of their income to doing what they're supposed to be doing.  I understand that they have to pay employees and spend money on marketing, meetings, etc., but there has to be some kind of rule that they have to spend a certain percentage on their cause in order to legally stay operational.  So, while the NYT, CBS, or even Bill O'Reilly may be Investigating the matter, a thorough government audit of their financials is what will eventually determine if there is corruption. 

---

I don't believe the former employees are accusing WWP of corruption but are saying too much is going for what they feel is unnecessary overhead.  From what I've been able to tell, there are no rules as to how much money has to go to 'their cause'; there is no percentage or anything else designated. That's why groups such as the Charity Navigator pour over records and give the charities their ratings. 

Former employees are saying that there is no need to hold meetings and staff events at resorts, gourmet meals for the staff, open bars, flying all over to attend meetings that can be held over the phone in conference calls. One woman stated that a last minute ticket for her was $7000-and she felt it was a waste of money. Former employees have stated that they were fired for questioning the way money was being spent, losing focus on the wounded warriors themselves. Many of these former employees are wounded warriors themselves. 

[PeterDM]

---

@kdgn wrote:

---

@PeterDM wrote:

I don't know much about how the government classifies various types of organizations, but I would guess that charities have to designate a certain percentage of their income to doing what they're supposed to be doing.  I understand that they have to pay employees and spend money on marketing, meetings, etc., but there has to be some kind of rule that they have to spend a certain percentage on their cause in order to legally stay operational.  So, while the NYT, CBS, or even Bill O'Reilly may be Investigating the matter, a thorough government audit of their financials is what will eventually determine if there is corruption. 

---

I don't believe the former employees are accusing WWP of corruption but are saying too much is going for what they feel is unnecessary overhead.  From what I've been able to tell, there are no rules as to how much money has to go to 'their cause'; there is no percentage or anything else designated. That's why groups such as the Charity Navigator pour over records and give the charities their ratings. 

Former employees are saying that there is no need to hold meetings and staff events at resorts, gourmet meals for the staff, open bars, flying all over to attend meetings that can be held over the phone in conference calls. One woman stated that a last minute ticket for her was $7000-and she felt it was a waste of money. Former employees have stated that they were fired for questioning the way money was being spent, losing focus on the wounded warriors themselves. Many of these former employees are wounded warriors themselves. 

---

If what you're saying is true, and there's no goverment inforced percentage of how much money a charity has to designate to its actual cause, then that's the government's fault for not having regulations.  If I decide to start a charity for homeless kids, decide to spend 60% of 1 million dollars I raised in the first year for the cause on the kids, then leave the other 40% for my salary, marketing, fund raising, and special events, that sounds pretty reasonable.  However, if in the following year, I raise 100 million dollars and spend 60 million dollars on the kids, but keep 40 million for my salary, marketing, special events, etc, then that seems unbalanced.  The percentages should be weighed more in favor of the cause when the money that is raised exceeds a certain number.  If not, then of course they can hold company retreats at luxurious resorts and lavish office parties.  They have the money to do so, however they should be increasing the money they are using toward helping the veterans, not blowing it all on frivolities.  I'm looking forward to seeing how all this plays out.

[kdgn]

@PeterDM  This is from the original article cited on page 1 of this thread:

For example, Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust spends 96 percent of its budget on vets. Fisher House devotes 91 percent. But according to public records reported by "Charity Navigator," the Wounded Warrior Project spends 60 percent on vets.

Assuming those numbers are correct, then WW is spending 40% on overhead, including advertising and salaries. They claim it's a high percentage but they are including some items as information vs advertising. 

[PeterDM]

---

@kdgn wrote:

@PeterDM  This is from the original article cited on page 1 of this thread:

For example, Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust spends 96 percent of its budget on vets. Fisher House devotes 91 percent. But according to public records reported by "Charity Navigator," the Wounded Warrior Project spends 60 percent on vets.

Assuming those numbers are correct, then WW is spending 40% on overhead, including advertising and salaries. They claim it's a high percentage but they are including some items as information vs advertising. 

---

@kdgn Yes, I've seen all this information and read the article. My point is that Disabled Veterans Charitable Service Trust and Fisher House are doing the right thing by spending over 90% of their income on their services.  They are proving that they can run a charity while still using the majority of funds on services, while WWP just looks like a scam based on them using only 60%.