Offline
I'm always a bit cautious about donating to charities that seem to become too big and handle piles and piles of cash. Is this one of them? (I usually restrict my donations to small, local organizations.)
About 40 percent of the organization’s donations in 2014 were spent on its overhead, or about $124 million, according to the charity-rating group Charity Navigator. While that percentage, which includes administrative expenses and marketing costs, is not as much as for some groups, it is far more than for many veterans charities, including the Semper Fi Fund, a wounded-veterans group that spent about 8 percent of donations on overhead. As a result, some philanthropic watchdog groups have criticized the Wounded Warrior Project for spending too heavily on itself.
Last edited by Just Fred (1/28/2016 8:15 am)
Offline
The American Institute for Philanthropy rates the Wounded Warrior Project a 'D' due to the amount of contributions spent on actual benefits to veterans as opposed to the much larger amount that goes to 'overhead and operational expenses'. My preference in contributing to veterans services is the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society (rated A+).
Offline
Rongone wrote:
The American Institute for Philanthropy rates the Wounded Warrior Project a 'D' due to the amount of contributions spent on actual benefits to veterans as opposed to the much larger amount that goes to 'overhead and operational expenses'. My preference in contributing to veterans services is the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society (rated A+).
But overall contributions my wife and I tend to stay with local charities where we know people involved and see where the money goes rather than some anonymous national group. Charity Navigator is a good place to start when investigating various charities.
Offline
I don't think it's a scam but it does seem they are spending more overhead and operational expenses than they should. Time to get a handle on that spending.
I think they have done lots of good stuff for veterans.
Do you homework before giving!
Offline
I contend charities like the Wounded Warrior Project shouldn't even exist. We send our young men and women to war using our tax dollars. When some of them come back injured and/or crippled, it should also be our responsibility, using tax dollars, to take care of them. They shouldn't have to depend on charity from outside organizations.
BTW, the head of the Wounded Warriors Project is paid a salary of more than 400 thousand dollars.
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
I contend charities like the Wounded Warrior Project shouldn't even exist. We send our young men and women to war using our tax dollars. When some of them come back injured and/or crippled, it should also be our responsibility, using tax dollars, to take care of them. They shouldn't have to depend on charity from outside organizations.
BTW, the head of the Wounded Warriors Project is paid a salary of more than 400 thousand dollars.
I agree Fred. That was the charge and responsibility of the VA. Unfortunately, the VA got bogged down in the usual government bureaucracy, lousy management, and lack of needed funding. That was the impetus for all these so-called veteran's charities. One has to question why there are so many different ones. Why wouldn't they consolidate? It would simplify fund raising efforts and streamline the disposition of funds to needed veterans services. My gut tells me that many veterans charities are ringer organizations that can collect tax free money, distribute a small portion to actual veterans groups and keep the rest for the executive staff for their selfish benefit. Kind of like soliciting people as a wealthy ex-Prince of some African country. If you contribute, you won't get any windfall, but you'll feel good about helping out some wounded veteran.
Offline
We might be on to something here, rongone.
How about this: If any charitable organization has an overhead cost of more than 10%, they can no longer be classified as charitable for the purposes of taxation. There's absolutely no reason why the head of any charitable organization should be pulling in a salary of several hundred grand/year.
Offline
Nonprofit Chief Executives Who Earned $1-Million or More
For the full list:
Peter Marzio, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston
John Seffrin, American Cancer Society
Mark Wrighton, Washington University in St. Louis
Reynold Levy, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts
Placido Domingo, Los Angeles Opera
James Cuno, Art Institute of Chicago
Last edited by Common Sense (1/28/2016 3:40 pm)
Offline
If you thought charitable work wasn't lucrative, think again.
Top executives of some of the largest and most prestigious charities in the U.S. receive salaries exceeding $1 million, according to a study of 2011 pay by Charity Navigator.
The rankings also include other nonprofit organizations, such as museums.
In its analysis of 3,929 charities, the charity research group found that 11 nonprofits paid their CEOs more than $1 million in annual salary and bonuses in 2011.
CEOs at 78 of the charities were paid between $500,000 and $1 million.The CEO of the Boys and Girls Club of America earned the highest pay in the group of $1.85 million, according to the survey. The Metropolitan Museum of Art CEO earned nearly $1.5 million, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children paid its CEO nearly $1.2 million, while the National Jewish Health's head got over $1 million.
Last edited by Common Sense (1/28/2016 3:42 pm)
Offline
Good work, Common. I stand by what I said, and you did some investigative reporting to show what I was talking about.
Last edited by Just Fred (1/28/2016 6:25 pm)