Wounded Warrior Project a Scam?

The big problem is that while it started off as a truly honorable service, with time it has become more of a commercial thing. The things you buy that say "a proceed of sales goes to the wounded warrior project", usually only like 1-2% of the money you spend goes to the project, and of the money that they take in, I would say probably 50% goes to the troops (there are resources online to give exact numbers, but I am way too tired to look them up).

Looked up WWP at charitywatch.org and yup I was proven wrong. They moved up from D to a C+. 54% goes to programs 46% to over head. Steven Nardizzi $397,490; Albino Giordano $365,405; Jeremy Chwat $240,364.

They help Veterans, but don't make them out to be saints, they are there to make money of off Veterans and that's that. Scouts Out.

When WWP started, there was an outline of the money that that they would hold back for personal use and overhead. Well we all know what percentages are. 50% of $1000 is $500 which is split 3 ways, (three top people); but now that the money coming in exceeds a million, they still haven't adjusted the percentage. I recently sent back their information they sent me saying I will support them when they start adding more to the actual cause rather than living high on the hog.
I was pretty supportive of this organization while my two son's were in Iraq at the same time; you know, just in case. However, one is now out of the military, and currently my son is stateside.
I am from the Vietnam era, and retired, on disability and a pittance of income because of a liberal judge 15 years ago gave my ex spouse 50% of my retirements, both military and civilian. She gets over $25K a year for putting up with me for 24 years. I kinda need to keep money closer to home. If I support any organization, it will be ones that support my era.

When the CEO of a charity gets over $350,000, I am disinclined to donate to them. When a Charity spends this much money "Aggressively defending their brand" I am disinclined to donate to them
When a charity doesn't spend much money on what the are formed for, I am disinclined to donate.

Now, having had plenty of experience with WWP, and what they actually do (in my case, what they don't do) I for one do not want anything to do with them anymore. Period.

Do what you want. I am done with them.

I believe in what WWP does, but they are clearly morphing from their core mission to a corporate brand. Browbeating small groups that are doing good work is pretty dark territory for a charity that professes loadly from the rooftops what great work they do. I for one don't want my donations being spent on litigation.

People seem to be running a lot of math without providing a lot of context to the math.

It looks like 57.7% of the moneys earned go towards vets. How does that compare to similarly sized organizations? As an organization gets bigger, the logistics of said organization get bigger with it, and things like advertising, payroll, and technology are just going to start eating away at that 100% number. What is an acceptable %? 100% is unreasonable. But there has to be a number that actually makes sense below that that is based on logic and the needs of the veterans as well.

That brings us to payroll. We have to staff the organization. There has to be a CEO, and other key positions, and they must be compensated adequately. Using a SIMPLE comparison, a CEO, and any of the C level positions are generally equivilant to those of General level officers, and should probably be compensated at a similar level. Let's say there are 3 of those. The remaining 12 would be at the O6~ level for a nationwide organization. I believe that is a fair assumption for a $300M company.

Again using very simple math, an O7 (@30 years) makes $12500/month +BAH (call it $3k) for about $186k a year. A O6 makes $11k/month which brings them to 168k using similar math. So payroll, isn't necessarily outside norms.

As for whether or not the CEO has served. Does it matter? If he is actually taking care of veterans, increasing the funding available to veterans (which according to the the data appears to be the case), is this an actual issue? We're constantly surrounded by people who didn't actively serve. Many of us are married to those who weren't in the military. Would we have a problem with him if his wife was in? That said, I think this point of argument just needs to go away. He's either qualified or he's not.

Now, as for the litigious parts. I'm split on this. If another organization is reaping the benefits of their advertising, by essentially "trademark infringing" I can understand where they are coming from, however... there's a point where you just become a bully as well. And it sounds like the complaints "may" be valid. However when you use common words as your name, things like this are going to happen.

I was disturbed to hear their stand on the 2nd amendment and gun control. We were disappointed when the Leslie Coleman, PR director for WWP, said they couldn’t come on the show, but that happens. Schedules don’t mesh, things happen, but that’s not uncommon. No big deal. Except that Ms. Coleman said they were declining because we “are related to firearms.”

“While we appreciate the interest in having a WWP representative on your show on Veterans Day we are not able to participate in interviews or activities with media/organizations that are related to firearms,” said Ms. Coleman in her email. The wwp made a statement concerning this but it leaves one wondering

When any organization threatens the profit margins (or maybe, the payroll) of the WWP, there will be consequences! Do your homework, folks: There are better ways to route your time, talent, and resource$.

I think the original good that WWP did has been overshadowed by their behavior of late. From the high paid executives, to the lack of funding reaching Veterans, and now this. It seems that the organization has grown too large and, as often happens with these things, they have become greedy. I have always donated to the little guy in town because I feel that you can actually see the results but my opinion of WWP is certainly changing....

During my second deployment, I had approximately 30 soldiers sent home from combat wounded. The wounded warrior Project played a huge role in encouraging them through some very difficult times. Like any organization, they have their flaws. I appreciate the fact that there are improvements needed, but let's be careful about throwing stones.