Wounded Warrior Project Accused of Wasting Donation Money

[nolanvt]

Sounds about right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-war ... ion-money/

[USN_Hokie]

Since when is this news? There's been articles about what a waste the WWF is for years.

[miles]

At least it's not an organized RICO enterprise like the Clinton Foundation.

[HokieFanDC]

Sounds about right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-war ... ion-money/

There's a reason that WWP has increased donations from $25M to over $300M in the last 5-6 years, while the Fisher House($60M) and the Disabled Am Vet Charitable Trust ($10M) have grown much slower or remained flat over the same time period.

Put it this way. WWP gave 60% of it's $300M, or $180M, to vets. Fisher House gave $54-55M, and DAVCT gave $9M.

Overall, who's doing more good? To me, sounds like the guys at WWP understand what it takes to really raise money.

[HokieDan95]

I was a monthly donor for a few years up until yesterday

I had been seeing too many stories like that

Sounds about right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-war ... ion-money/

[Major Kong]

WWP sent my nephew a hat and a magazine.

[VisorBoy]

Sounds about right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-war ... ion-money/

There's a reason that WWP has increased donations from $25M to over $300M in the last 5-6 years, while the Fisher House($60M) and the Disabled Am Vet Charitable Trust ($10M) have grown much slower or remained flat over the same time period.

Put it this way. WWP gave 60% of it's $300M, or $180M, to vets. Fisher House gave $54-55M, and DAVCT gave $9M.

Overall, who's doing more good? To me, sounds like the guys at WWP understand what it takes to really raise money.

Agree that it is important to get the word out, so I can kind of see the importance of spending a certain % of one's budget on marketing. WWP has done a great job in that regard - in fact, I hadn't heard of the other two groups you noted, as proof.

However, the dinners and conveniences provided for the internal teams is what is more questionable. That should be limited in order to maximize the impact of the donations accepted.

[USN_Hokie]

Sounds about right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-war ... ion-money/

There's a reason that WWP has increased donations from $25M to over $300M in the last 5-6 years, while the Fisher House($60M) and the Disabled Am Vet Charitable Trust ($10M) have grown much slower or remained flat over the same time period.

Put it this way. WWP gave 60% of it's $300M, or $180M, to vets. Fisher House gave $54-55M, and DAVCT gave $9M.

Overall, who's doing more good? To me, sounds like the guys at WWP understand what it takes to really raise money.

Fair point but the wrong way to look at it. You should be asking which charity will pass on the most of your money to the intended recipient, and which one will spend the most money on cocktail parties.

[133743Hokie]

Sounds about right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-war ... ion-money/

There's a reason that WWP has increased donations from $25M to over $300M in the last 5-6 years, while the Fisher House($60M) and the Disabled Am Vet Charitable Trust ($10M) have grown much slower or remained flat over the same time period.

Put it this way. WWP gave 60% of it's $300M, or $180M, to vets. Fisher House gave $54-55M, and DAVCT gave $9M.

Overall, who's doing more good? To me, sounds like the guys at WWP understand what it takes to really raise money.

Fair point but the wrong way to look at it. You should be asking which charity will pass on the most of your money to the intended recipient, and which one will spend the most money on cocktail parties.

Or do you ask which charity does the most good, I.e. distributes more dollars to the cause.

[HokieFanDC]

Sounds about right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-war ... ion-money/

There's a reason that WWP has increased donations from $25M to over $300M in the last 5-6 years, while the Fisher House($60M) and the Disabled Am Vet Charitable Trust ($10M) have grown much slower or remained flat over the same time period.

Put it this way. WWP gave 60% of it's $300M, or $180M, to vets. Fisher House gave $54-55M, and DAVCT gave $9M.

Overall, who's doing more good? To me, sounds like the guys at WWP understand what it takes to really raise money.

Fair point but the wrong way to look at it. You should be asking which charity will pass on the most of your money to the intended recipient, and which one will spend the most money on cocktail parties.

Or do you ask which charity does the most good, I.e. distributes more dollars to the cause.

If I'm a company that is helping vets today, and I want to approach a charitable org for monetary assistance, I'm going to WWP, because they are generating the most dollars for vets. Does it sound like they could spend less money on marketing and outreach, sure, but who knows what the results would be. The argument that their spending is lavish and outlandish, sounds like the people who bash corporations for spending money on big parties for their employees and have huge travel/leisure budgets to do busdev/lobby/build partnerships.

[USN_Hokie]

Sounds about right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-war ... ion-money/

There's a reason that WWP has increased donations from $25M to over $300M in the last 5-6 years, while the Fisher House($60M) and the Disabled Am Vet Charitable Trust ($10M) have grown much slower or remained flat over the same time period.

Put it this way. WWP gave 60% of it's $300M, or $180M, to vets. Fisher House gave $54-55M, and DAVCT gave $9M.

Overall, who's doing more good? To me, sounds like the guys at WWP understand what it takes to really raise money.

Fair point but the wrong way to look at it. You should be asking which charity will pass on the most of your money to the intended recipient, and which one will spend the most money on cocktail parties.

Or do you ask which charity does the most good, I.e. distributes more dollars to the cause.

If I'm a company that is helping vets today, and I want to approach a charitable org for monetary assistance, I'm going to WWP, because they are generating the most dollars for vets. Does it sound like they could spend less money on marketing and outreach, sure, but who knows what the results would be. The argument that their spending is lavish and outlandish, sounds like the people who bash corporations for spending money on big parties for their employees and have huge travel/leisure budgets to do busdev/lobby/build partnerships.

No, you're a company making money (if you want to stay in business very long). Of course you want to talk to the charity with the biggest exposure/checkbook. That's fine, but let's not pretend they're the best charity.