Are Vet Charitues Legit?

We may see someone soliciting for a charity for what seems like a good cause, such as wounded vets, or homeless, etc.
Sometimes on further inspection the "charity" doesn't measure up.

I got a mailing from "Paralyzed Veterans of American" which says is a 65 year old charity and shows the executive director in a wheelchair.
Several things about the mailing just didn't seem right, so I looked it up on Google, etc. In short I don't think this is where I want to send any money.
Forbes business magazine rates 200 charities, it lists the top 10 and also the bottom 10. This organization is listed in the bottom 10.
It it rated 40 on a scale of 70 or 57%. Only 33 % of revenue in actually goes out to benficiaries, 62% of revenue is consumed by fundraising. So is essence, 2/3 of every dollar you donate is spent only on asking for more dollars. Often this fundraising is done under contract by professional and for profit companies. The Ex Dir has a salary of $251,000.
So, just in my opinion, while probably not a scam , this charity is at best ineffecient and most of the money donated does not go to vets.
Sadly, of the 10 bottom charities in this survey, 3 related to Vets. It is easy to play on our sympathies, especially these days when so many have been injured by wars.

A really good charity should spend no more than about 15% on admin costs and the majority of the money coming in should actually go out to the subject.
We can be generous while also being careful.

I have a good friend who works for the PVA, and can at least confirm that the organization is legitimate. Their headquarters is a few blocks from the White House, but not lush in any sense. They do sponsor sports programs for handicapped vets and do a lot of lobbying for veteran's affairs. Many of their staff are paralyzed veterans; in fact, its a prerequisite for many positions in the organization.

Won't comment on the intake vs. outlay; calling them a "scam" would depend on your level of what constitutes a scam. But the PVA is about not one or two people getting rich.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron, first of all I didn't call them a scam, so let's be straight on that.
You can also look them up on the Forbes report and tell me how I or Forbes is incorrect. Or look them up on others sources besides Forbes that rate charities. Personally I think a salary for the director of $251,000 is high, but there are others in legitimate charities like The Red Cross which are higher, hundreds of thousands of dollars going to the chairman is not unusual, but it is not what I'd like to see.
It may be that this organization is more of a lobby for vets with Congress than a traditional charity.
And perhaps we are not talking about the same group as the address on the return envelope sent to me is not Washington, but Wilton, N. H.

My mom did legal work for PVA for a while. They are doing decent stuff but admittedly there is a high level of overhead here compared to other organizations.

Not quite as bad as the XENTEL based operations that I tell the "paid solicitors" to go take a hike (despite having supported the alleged recipients for a decade).

Guys,

I know nothing about PVA. If they have high overhead rate in your opinion call and discuss it with them. One charity I know had a really high overhead rate, the reason was because they practiced what they preached. They hired a lot of mentally disabled, trained them and eventually helped them be on their own. As a result, through what I think of as poor accounting, they showed a very high overhead rate for all the disabled employees where were getting on the job training.

Tim

Tim, you write that you "know nothing about PVA". Then why not research them on any of the many sites that evaluate charities? If you don't like or believe the Forbes survey, after all they are a business group, then find one you prefer and tell us the result.
And their rating was not "in your opinion" at all it came from my search on Goggle. As for calling and discussing it with them, I don't think they are going to be very responsive or interested in my view and either way I am not going to be donating to them. Anyone else certainly may.
What is the name of the group that you know about? I'd like to see how they are rated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

Ron, first of all I didn't call them a scam, so let's be straight on that.

---

I don't believe you intended to, but your choice of words was ambiguous.

If I said, 'Joe Smith is probably not a sloppy drunk...", most people would assume the word "sloppy" modifies "drunk."

In the same way, you referred to PVA as "...probably not a fraudulent scam..." which implies is *is* a scam, but not, apparently fraudulent. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt, mostly because I couldn't figure out what a "non-fradulent scam" would be. But since you raised the scam issue, I addressed it without directly contradicting or accusing you.

By the way, what does this topic have to do with Warbird Island ("For those who fly, restore or simply love ex-military aircraft"?

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

Tim, you write that you "know nothing about PVA". Then why not research them on any of the many sites that evaluate charities? If you don't like or believe the Forbes survey, after all they are a business group, then find one you prefer and tell us the result.
And their rating was not "in your opinion" at all it came from my search on Goggle. As for calling and discussing it with them, I don't think they are going to be very responsive or interested in my view and either way I am not going to be donating to them. Anyone else certainly may.
What is the name of the group that you know about? I'd like to see how they are rated.

---

Bill,

Since I am not doing the donation, I was not going to research PVA. I will leave that to those whose expressed a concern with PVA.
I was also pointing out an issue with a cursory examination. That is all.

The one I know, used to be called "Ability One". I have not donated to them in a few years.

Tim

Well, I did the research. I looked up information on the Combined Federal Campaign's website and read the PVA's financial statement which is available through its website. They even address the high amount of money they spend on fundraising on their FAQ page. By the way, there are 13 organizations with the name Paralyzed Veterans of America on the CFC list, so one still has to be careful about making sure who you are talking about. The CFC national level organizations show administrative and fundraising expenses between .5% and 6.4%. The PVA website, which is probably the one you are talking about, has admin and fund raising costs of 28% according to the financial statement sent to the IRS. Is it too much? Maybe. Maybe they can manage that expense better. Look at the other costs and what they do with their money, however, and it seems…at least to me, to be reasonable. Monies they spend on spinal cord research and rehabilitaion seem like good things to spend money on. Am I going to donate to them? Probably not, but not because I doubt their sincerity or legitmacy -- there are just so many groups doing good and I wish I had the disposable income to help more of them.

That said, I really think they should look at more efficient fundraising strategies. They will not get on the CFC list until that drops below 20%, and won't remain on the list unless they improve from there.

Are there scams out there seeking to exploit our concern for our vets? Undoubtedly. I recommend that anyone who wants to give to causes which support our vets do the research before they give. Given what I have learned, I think PVA is legit.

I have just looked up PVA again, this time using the rating site, "Charity Navigator" and the graph at the bottom the page shows only 33% of revenues going to programs. 66% is fundraising and admin costs.
This is for the group that sent me the mailing which names Homer Townsend Jr. as Executive Director. This is far different than your figure of only I/2 of 1 percent to 6 percent as expenses, by a factor of about 10 times.
The word "legitimate might describe them , but personally I would want more than 1/3 of any money I gave to actually go to the cause claimed.

I donate a small amount of money each year by attending an event for children's cancer research and I feel it is a good cause and good organization. They raise about $one million and are mostly volunteers. The have only 3 full time employees, their director salary is $80,000, and they do their own fundraising, they do not use donations and assets to pay an outside, for profit, company to fundraise for them.
They use warbirds as well as vintage planes, cars, and motorcycles to draw to an event.

PVA actually looks not too bad compared to the worst of the worst. An article in the TAMPA TIMES, says about "only a fraction went to anyone other than the operators and professioanal solicitors". and less than 4% of the money raised actually got to the needy. There are at least 50 like this maybe more often with names that mirror a good charity, ie Kid's Wish Network which sounds a lot like Make A Wish, but isn't.