Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Wounded Warrior Project- part 2

I signed into Charity Navigator so I could look at WWP's tax filings.

Murphy was right about their staffing. They have 11 people whose pay they had to report, because they're pulling down six-figure paychecks, according to the most-recent Form 990 (Sept, `13). Steve Nardizzi, the Executive Director and founder, gets paid $375K. Of the paid employees, there is apparently only one woman, Christine Hill, who is the "EVP Congressional Affairs", who was paid $133.9K and who was the one who was paid the least of all.

They got paid $5.8 million in royalties, $225 million in fundraising and contributions, $2.5 million in investment income. The top brass were paid $2.83 million, they paid out $26 million in payroll costs (including wages, taxes, pension benefits). $16 million in office expenses, $6.3 million in travel costs, $33 million to "consulting & outside services".

Murphy is right about another point: They seem to exist mainly to give money to other groups. A quarter-mil to CT Public Broadcasting (and to no other PBS station)? $600K to the Lizzie Doyle Foundation? They had nearly $17 million in cash and $166 million in "net assets" at the end of the tax year. Seems like a hell of a lot of cash to be squirreled away. In comparison, local charitable organizations seem to run on the financial knife-edge. I'll bet if you were to look at the financials of your local animal shelter, or battered spouse shelter or food pantry, you'll find that they are not exactly flush with cash.

Maybe you can call up the forms for any other large charity and similarly pick them apart.

But it would seem to me that giving money to what essentially is a "charitable middleman" is a waste of at least part of your donation.

4 comments:

D. said...

Seriously. (Yes, I know, but I just got my inner Hulk to take a nap.) We've been getting those ads out here, too, and while I don't expect everyone running a charity to be a saint (there aren't enough saints), I do expect less nest-feathering.

Also, I am contemplating using "Reagan" as a swear word.

Anonymous said...

Long term lurker, never commented. This is not surprising yer disheartenting. The only charity you can give to is local where you know the people. Sad state of affairs, I know.

CenterPuke88 said...

More of the same. We're lucky to have an organized Charitable Foundation through our Union. They keep expenses below 2.5% and have an all volunteer board with no employees. Their spending is heavily local, based upon local collections? Seems much more the exception than the rule these days.

Old NFO said...

Yeah, they're not as squeaky clean as they claim...