VFW rating
Posted by COgrandma  |  October 26, 2009 5:52:01 AM

I'm a bit confused at this rating. It seems they way the VFW handles their money gets a 5 star rating, but the efficiency lowers it. If one were to just look at the star rating it would warrant closer look at giving. I've given to this organization for over 30 years and then took pause. I will continue my giving. Unmet needs uses their donations 100%, how can that be bad?

Comments re: Walter Reed
Posted by 3150 Past Cdr  |  June 29, 2009 12:18:28 PM

Pardon the lateness of this reply but I just read the comments of December 2008 from the individual questioning the VFW's involvement with veterans and citing the Walter Reed service scandal. Sir - who do you think brought that story to the press and to Congress? The VFW (especially the Dept of Virginia) has been involved with helping soldiers at WRAMC since 2003 and has rattled the cages about much of the support issues. I don’t have enough space to tell you all we have done but ask anyone about "Big John" or the Post 3150 breakfasts, the donations of clothing, the Financial Assistance for UnMet Needs, or the variety of other things we have done for this young men and women. Please, sir, know your facts before you slander a whole organization because you only see your own microcosm of it.

Posted by District CMDR  |  April 28, 2009 7:10:22 AM

The VFW is the largest combat veteran's organization in the world; it uses only 6.5 % of its revenue for Admin & Fundraising. Yet it gets only 3 stars and a 55.1 score while at the same time other worthwhile organizations use 12.4, 13.1 and 17.7 percent of its revenue for the same and receive higher scores and stars? 'Honoring the dead while helping the living' is our motto.

Worthwhile?
Posted by Raymonator  |  February 9, 2009 2:00:42 PM

To give or not to give to the VFW? I understand the arguments FOR and AGAINST. Usually the For is philanthropy, patriotism and familarization of the organization. The AGAINST is usually how they spend their money. My thinking is the VFW is the largest organization for combat veterans in the world and will continue to grow as our troops come home from overseas. I am a contributor and am currently working on membership as an Auxiliary member of the William F. Coon VFW Post 2674 in Watkins Glen, New York. The south Seneca Lake area, Schuyler County. I bleed Red, White and Blue and bruise Excelsior (New York). Thanx.

Responses
Posted by bswisher  |  December 8, 2008 6:49:08 AM

To the person, or any persons, thinking that this organization's programs are valuable and valid, let's ask ourselves what they've really done. The Walter Reed hospital scandal is a good example of its ( and realated organizations' ) neglect in really looking into the problems of veterans' affairs. How could this happen if this organization and others were really on the job ?

They are relentless on campaigning for money from VFW members, sending out appeals for every reason one can conoct, along with calendars, letter labels, etc., all under the "guise" of looking out for veterans' benefits. I find that joining the VFW has just put me on a mailing list for fundraising through its "hired-and-paid-by- commision" fund-raising contractor ( or maybe they've now gone independent ).

The obsession is "who is the next commander" with no "real" major accomplishments toward improving the plight of our service men and women that need prompt medical care. The whole thing is a "money scam".

How can I say that ? The VFW, the American Legion, the Amvets, and all the others cannot bring themselves to lobby and promise campaign funds to our national politicians. Thet know that ( and count on it) because members don't like political siding. The NRA has been very succesful, why can't the VFW and their similar veteran groups get together for all of us ?

Reasons is, they and other veteran organiztions, have been successful raising funds without having to do any "real work". Again, Walter Reed and a horrible host of oher, "neglectful" practices placed on our veterans from the backlogs and the understaffing of Veterans' hospitals (and the list can go on), removes any of these organizations from my donation list -- it is sad and "pathetic" !!!

Response to 'suebobw' comment on July 7, 2008
Posted by mela  |  October 16, 2008 10:46:43 AM

What a shame that you were not able to properly evaluate this charity. If you do not believe that applying 93.4% of it's revenue (over 9 1/2 MILLION dollars) toward it's programs is sufficient to warrant support of this VERY worthwhile organization, I'm not sure what would please you. Perhaps viewing the pie charts and "total revenue" would give you a better viewpoint. Even in the 'comparable programs' listed below, only ONE had a higher percentage of application. Veterans are very well benefitted by the work of this terrific organization! Additionally, like with many other Vet organizations, their focus has had to shift since the events of 9/11 to the present. They have done remarkably well as, obviously, needs have sky-rocketed- and shifted- from supporting mainly older Vets to that- in addition to- supporting younger Soldiers and Vets. Returning Vets today will be the new torch bearers for the VFW. The programs and interests that the VFW supports need to be current. OK- four stars MIGHT be better- but not necessarily. Several of THOSE spend less on their programs and less overall dollars. Hypothetically, an organization donating 100% of a hundred dollars for four years would have a four star rating.

Fear not! Your money is well spent here. -A proud VFW supporter

Response to 'suebobw' comment on July 7, 2008
Posted by Phill  |  August 13, 2008 11:38:19 AM

Just a question to 'suebobw': what has prompted your comment about the rating of the VFW? Do you understand that the VFW 3-star rating means the following? "Exceeds or meets industry standards and performs as well as or better than most charities in its Cause."

I do not see a reason not to continue to donate to a charity that is so rated.

VFW & NASCAR
Posted by District CMDR  |  August 6, 2008 7:29:49 AM

While I am not a viewer of NASCAR I would point out that NASCAR represents family and loyalty. Advertising is a premium at NASCAR events because each race sells out its venues and highly viewed on TV. To my knowledge all organizations are hurting in membership and according to statistics membership will only get worse unless organizations advertise. The US military advertises in NASCAR to recruit young physically fit people who like action, adrenalin and reaching a goal. The VFW is looking for younger members who are eligible to join us. So we went out to where they like to spend their free time. When the season is over, maybe they will remember us and join. Either way its money well spent.

NASCAR
Posted by Patriot Girls  |  July 17, 2008 5:37:43 AM

I recently heard that the VFW is getting involved with NASCAR and sponsoring a team with Greg Biffle as the driver. How will this affect their efficiency rating. This seems like a long term investment intended to attract a younger crowd. Traditionally the many VFW posts in our area are mostly frequented by vets from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. I suspect that by associating with NASCAR they're trying to draw vets from more recent conflicts and Desert Storm.

VFW
Posted by suebobw  |  July 7, 2008 5:49:55 AM

After reviewing their rating, and now after many years of donating to this organization, I will no longer donat to the VFW. I'll find an organization that actually benefits our veterans.