W.Va. charity spent little on veterans, newspaper says
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A small Bluefield charity intended to benefit Vietnam veterans spent just a fraction last year on veterans, instead devoting most of its dollars to professional fees and fundraising.
The Charleston Daily Mail reports that of every dollar spent last year by the West Virginia Vietnam Veterans Foundation, a little more than a penny actually went to veterans-related activities. The spending totaled $37,700.
National charity watchdog group Charity Navigator says no more than 25 percent of total expenses should be for fundraising and administrative costs combined.
Representatives of the foundation founded in 1997 defended its operations, arguing that many organizations give large percentages of the money they receive to professional solicitors.
The foundation's mission is to provide West Virginia veterans with “emergency funds” for housing, food, utilities, clothing and medical expenses, according to tax forms.
The tax forms show it received more than $630,000 from 2002 to 2012.
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer David Simmons said the foundation gives veterans wheelchairs and drives them to the hospital, among other charitable activities.
Simmons and President C.E. Ball said the foundation doesn't pay salaries.
“Yeah, everything we spend goes toward the veterans, except for our basic office fees.” Ball said.
Those fees account for more than 86 percent of the money the foundation spent during the same 11-year time frame. More than two-thirds — $423,000 — covered fees that included the cost of a professional fundraiser.
From 2002 to 2006, the foundation spent an average of 43 percent of its money on veteran-related activities. The rest went to fees, rent or other expenses. At no point during that period did the organization raise more than $22,000 or spend more than $10,000 on programming.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Mining for tourists? A dubious economic savior in Appalachia
- Despite high gas costs, Northeast resistant to pipelines
- Christie rails against high N.J. estate tax
- Global warming is slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences
- American crash victims: U.S. government contractor, daughter
- Attorneys: Sterilizations were part of plea deal talks
- Baby cut from Colorado mom-to-be didn’t live outside womb, autopsy finds
- Report: Prepare to drill for oil in Arctic
- Natural gas royalties lawsuit hinges on transaction date
- Fla. debates buy-America bill for U.S. flag purchases
- Mysteries of dark matter come to light in Science study