Replies

To clarify:

44.8% goes to fundraising and administrative expenses.
Another, separate 55% goes to program expenses.
“Program expenses,” here, does NOT mean overhead. It means money spent on the various programs. HOWEVER, it is important to note that none (or very few) of these programs donates money directly to wounded warriors; it mostly goes to programs which are regarded by them as assisting wounded warriors. And this may include a lot of for-profit and high-overhead programs.

To put another way: Suppose we were talking about feeding Wounded Warriors. (And we are NOT) If you give $10, $4.48 would go to fundraising and administrative expenses. That leaves $5.50 to “feed” them. But what if “feeding” means taking them to a restaurant? (Again, I’m using a FICTIONAL example.) How much of the $5.50 goes to food, and how much goes to the restaurant’s profits, the restaurant’s expenses, the waitstaff and their tips, the taxis to the restaurant, etc.

The truth is that Wounded Warrior mostly buys a lot of expensive services for injured warriors. Are they worth the money? I’m not going to say injured warriors shouldn’t get those services! But given that half of the money comes straight off the top, I’ve gotta believe that there are better ways to help the lives of injured soldiers.

“Wounded Warrior mostly buys a lot of expensive services “

Including dominating advertising time on Fox News channel. That has got to be some of the most expensive advertising out there. No wonder various Fox News hosts love them.

Thanks for that breakdown. I obviously didn’t understand what program expenses meant.

In the first place, it looks to me like overhead is too high. Not fraudulently high, but ineffeciently high.

In the second place, it sounds like that same poor management carries over to how they choose to help. It makes me wonder if there is more to the relationships between WW and the “restaurants” they use.