Originally Posted by
Iride01
@
sipjacks -- I don't know specifically about WWP. But would 26 million dollars been raised for wounded vets that year if they hadn't taken out a lot of expensive TV advertising? In the grands scheme, I doubt that lavish trips and dinners for the board members comprised much of the 360 million compared to the cost of earning the 26 million from an overwhelming population that didn't realize there is a need.
Advertising is expensive. Some donors need some pomp as well as some wining and dining to get them to loosen their wallet.
Yes.
Veterans charities are some of the most commonly given to charities in America. The $360 million would have been donated to other charities. Hell even if half of that was donated to other charities that put 90% towards the cause it would have sent $162 million to vets instead of $26.
19:1 spend ratios are not okay for a charity. It's unethical. It's immoral. And unless you're REALLY good with your tax filings and disclosures it's probably illegal.
The executives were blowing that much cash. One whistleblower said it was like being in Brewster's Millions. (I am trying to source that quote but I can't find it. I know I heard a vet who worked for the charity say that when he was being interviewed after exposing the waste and fraud but I can't find the transcript)
They were taking a good deal of that home with them because again, they were paid based on how much they raised. They had huge staffs making really good salaries that weren't needed because the charity wasn't doing much work. It sounds like it's hard to blow through $300 million but you can do it pretty quickly with a large staff and conferences and executives taking a large percentage off the top and giving away a $10 trinket with every $20 donation, etc etc etc
I know some people get upset when they find out that the director of a charity makes half a million bucks a year. I don't have a problem with that in general. If that guy makes $500k and he brings in $20 million that can be used towards the cause, fine. The $500k is money well spent. But there's 'spending money to make money' and then there's just false advertising about what your charity does.
Just don't pay executives a percentage of income. Pay them a percentage of money spent on the cause. Then you'll have people motivated to bring in more money AND spend it the right way.