As many of you have pointed out, Mike "Surplus" Yon has been attacking me and Mark Seavey (quite possibly the best guy I have ever known) because he hates Soldiers' Angels and Mark and I are on the board. Go here for the real reason why Mike "Surplus" Yon hates Soldiers' Angels: Mudville Gazette: REVEALED So, Soldiers' Angels has responded to the allegations of impropriety by Surplus. It is long, but it spells out why the Charity Navigator rating can be difficult to grasp sometimes - especially for "Surplus." SA gets 70/70 on transparency, but where it is rated lower is in the financial section, and that is because it chooses to hire veterans (which counts as overhead) rather than pay an outside firm which would be a "program cost." In terms of units sent overseas and veterans helped with jobs, Soldiers' Angels way is significantly better, but Charity Navigator assigns a lower rating. And Soldiers' Angels does not hold on to donations meant to go to programs and packages for the troops. Other organizations may keep millions on hand, but SA believes that your donations should go to the troops as soon as possible. Anyway, please read and repost/send/share as much as possible. The angels that I volunteer with are among the best people on this planet. Here is the response from the Chairman of the Audit Committee for Soldiers' Angels: It has come to the attention of Soldiers' Angels Board of Trustees that allegations have been raised by Michael Yon regarding the stability of our organization. We understand that some of our volunteers and supporters are disheartened by these charges, and we would like to take the opportunity to respond to them. We would also like to take this time to explain the ratings that were given to Soldiers' Angels by Gloria Wise/Better Business Bureau (BBB) and Charity Navigator, two independent rating organizations. First, let me address organizational stability. Mr. Yon’s allegations are baseless at best. Soldiers' Angels has worked with over 400,000 highly-motivated volunteers since in its inception. In any organization of this size there will always be interpersonal conflicts and hard feelings between some of the volunteers; that is only normal. As our charity evolves in its mission to support service members and their families, organizational priorities change and some individuals may feel that their particular program isn’t being given the proper amount of attention. Rest assured, the Board weighs every issue and does its level best to make sure that everyone is accommodated, but our focus is on delivering the maximum benefit to those who are serving or have served in harm’s way. While most of our volunteers understand and support this concept, a handful of them have opted to air their grievances publicly, which has created fodder for Mr. Yon, who in turn has elevated concern among our other volunteers... ...We assure you that the organization is in good standing and we sincerely hope that the actions of a few people who have placed personal agendas above service do not tarnish the feelings you have for all the amazing work you do. We want to once again thank all of our volunteers for giving so much of themselves to our men and women in uniform. Regarding the ratings that we have received, the BBB rates organizations every two years for their charity accountability. Our first rating by the BBB was in 2008 and we received passing grades on 14 of the 20 criteria. In 2010 we were re-rated and received a grade of 18 out of 20. The next rating will take place this fall, and we have taken steps to correct the two deficiencies that were present the last time BBB rated Soldiers' Angels. We fully expect to receive a 20 out of 20 when the review has been completed. The second independent agency is Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator has the following on their web site: "Charity Navigator's evaluations of a charity's Financial Health --- which examines how a charity manages its finances day to day and how financially well-positioned it is in order to sustain its programs over time --- have helped millions of donors make better giving decisions impacting billions of dollars of donations each year. By adding this new Accountability & Transparency dimension to its rating system --- which tracks metrics such as whether the charity used an objective process to determine their CEO's salary, whether it has an effective governance structure, and whether it has a whistleblower policy --- Charity Navigator will help donors have even greater confidence in their charitable choices. 30% of the charities' star rating improved 19% of the charities' star ratings decreased With the bar set higher, the total number of 4-star charities decreased by 20%. At the same time, charities with ratings of 3 stars (good) or better increased by 8%. As you can tell by the statement, the original concept was strictly a financial rating service. In 2007, Soldiers' Angels received a two star rating. In 2008 and 2009, we received a three star rating. In 2010 and 2011, we received a two star rating in each year. While this may seem to be below average, we would note that SA has consistently received high ratings for Fund Efficiency with a score of 7.5 out of 10 for 2008 through 2010. In 2007, we received a 5, so we have improved and held steady since the initial rating period. Fund expenses were high in 2008, and we received a low score of 2.5 out of 10 that year. Since then SA has gotten a firm grip on its cost structure, and fund expenses have been below 15% since then, giving us 7.5 out of 10. Soldiers' Angels has consistently scored well with Program Expenses, consistently scoring above 7 out of 10 points since Charity Navigator has rated us. We have scored a perfect 10 out of 10 in administrative expenses in every year, as we pride ourselves on running a lean ship. Where...
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/wLWXb_OGN4w/soldierss-angels-responds-to-mike-surplus-yon.html
Posted
Jul 25 2012, 11:39 AM
by
BLACKFIVE