I would guess that recent publicity about the 60% and the parties,etc had a really negative effect on their contributions. IMO, they do great work, but apparently not as much as the COULD do. Hope they get their donors back, but once burned, twice shy.

Saw one of their biggest donors and supporters (along with his wife) interviewed on CBS News tonight. They have organized and funded most of the WW fund raising golf tournaments all over the country.

They basically said the same thing you just posted and finished the interview saying (paraphrasing) "it's a step in the right direction, there are still a lot of changes that need to be made, and we are not convinced yet that the organization will get where it needs to be".

I can tell you first hand that if you are trying to get something done for somebody who needs it, WWP would do ZERO if it doesn't benefit them personally.

My company (a homebuilder) has given away multiple homes through a charitable foundation here in TX to combat veterans (usually multiple amputees from IEDs), and I've seen what good organizations do, how they work, and the 180 degree contrast of WWP. Not a good model to follow.

The dark underbelly of most "charitable" organizations is that the larger they grow, the more they become self-licking ice-cream cones -- existing to raise money, sustain their own bureaucracy, and pay senior executives.

They become giant lobbying organizations -- not doers of good works.

It isn't just WWP. But they are a case in point.

The Red Cross and the United Way are 2 shining examples of this.....

You would be stunned (or not stunned) to find out what the money making industry of the nation-wide blood donation/distribution network is to the Red Cross's bottom line.

Some would also argue the same can be said for the USO, although they have appeared to clean up their act from a few years ago. The CEO of the USO is very well compensated.

The United Way became a joke many years ago. They have allowed WAY too many "non - charities" to join the party. Many of the "charities" listed under United Way now are lib advocacy groups, not charities at all. And don't be fooled by the ruse that you can "designate" who your contribution is going to. I used to believe that, but it is not really true. Any money you designate is just taken out of whatever money they would have normally received.

Yeah, the United Way and CFC do some good. - but just like WWP and the Red Cross, not NEAR as much good as they should be doing.

quote:

---

The United Way became a joke many years ago. They have allowed WAY too many "non - charities" to join the party. Many of the "charities" listed under United Way now are lib advocacy groups, not charities at all. And don't be fooled by the ruse that you can "designate" who your contribution is going to. I used to believe that, but it is not really true. Any money you designate is just taken out of whatever money they would have normally received.

Yeah, the United Way and CFC do some good. - but just like WWP and the Red Cross, not NEAR as much good as they should be doing.

---

When I was in grad school, I recall a prof using the March of Dimes as an example of the immortality of bureaucracy once created.

Roosevelt started "March of Dimes" as a fundraising organization for Polio research. After Salk developed the vaccine in 58, and polio became less and less relevant, the March of Dimes rebranded itself as a charity support infant health overall -- not just infantile paralysis (polio).

Some charities are better than others -- and spent 90% of their revenue on works. Others -- like WWP are less efficient, spending under 60%.

Not trying to dog charitable organizations. Frankly, they often do better than the government -- at least they are subject to public scrutiny and auditing.