From the December 2007 Watchdog Report
Soldiers
Angels Lose Their Halos
When potential donors receive direct
mail solicitations from Soldiers Angels (SA), a Pasadena,
CA-based charity, they are likely to notice the name Patti Patton
Bader and her status as founder of SA and great-niece of Gen. George
S. Patton. On SA solicitation letterhead her name takes precedence,
appearing larger and bolder than even the name of the charity. Some
donors may assume that the claims made in the solicitation of a
charity associated with a famous name, such as the relative of a
well-known military general, may be more reliable. A closer look
at one of SA’s programs could dash such hopes about this AIP D-rated
charity. (The major reason for this rating is that SA spent only
36% of its total 2006 cash expenses on program services.)
A primary program of SA is its online
store. Donors can shop for and purchase products that SA will then
ship to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under each item the charity
describes how soldiers will use these gifts. For instance, on the
web page where donors can buy boots for soldiers, SA claims that
“[t]he military issues each soldier 2 pair of boots and no more.”
Furthermore, the charity explains that the conditions the soldiers
are working in tend to “eat up” the boots, stating that “[t]he sand
and heat just destroy them.” SA goes on to say, “So as you can imagine,
our soldiers go through boots pretty fast. [S]ometimes our soldiers
simply do not have the money or opportunity to purchase these boots
for themselves.” This may alarm some donors into thinking U.S. soldiers
may be left nearly barefoot if it were not for this program. However,
an e-mail AIP received from U.S. Army Public Affairs spokesperson
Monica Miller seems to contradict what SA claims on its web site:
“Soldiers receiv[e] two pairs of summer boots and one pair of winter
boots. If the boots become damaged, enlisted soldiers can turn the
damaged items in and they are replaced at no charge to the soldier.”
When AIP asked SA for its source for
the “2 pair of boots and no more” figure, Ms. Bader claimed she
“didn’t write that,” but that the charity bases its needs on e-mails
and conversations with soldiers. She also offered to change the
web site. When AIP pointed out that the description may not only
mislead the reader, but may also seem disparaging to the U.S. Army,
Ms. Bader said, “We love the Army. [We are] only here to enhance
the Army.”
As of press time, SA took out the words
“no more” from the “2 pair of boots and no more” statement. AIP
does not believe this corrects the error. Not only does the statement
still suggest that soldiers receive only two pairs of boots, but
it implies that soldiers need to purchase additional pairs of boots
unless donors purchase them on their behalf.
Another item SA sends to deployed soldiers
is the First Response Backpack. These backpacks are filled with
such items as t-shirts, shorts, toothpaste, mouthwash, disposable
razors and shampoo and are given to injured soldiers as they are
admitted to Combat Support Hospitals (CSHs) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
SA’s web site claims these backpacks are necessary because when
the soldiers arrive “they have only what they were wearing… and
that is usually not in very good condition. It can take up to a
couple of days before they receive replacement supplies and it is
often weeks before their belongings catch up to them.” A Sgt. Cary
is quoted on SA’s web site about his hospital experience after being
wounded in Iraq: “I woke up the next day and had nothing to wear
or any hygiene stuff.” In an e-mail from Margaret Tippy, a Media
Relations Officer with the U.S. Army Medical Command, Ms. Tippy
told AIP, “The Army provides a large quantity of personal supplies
and clothing to injured soldiers at every step of care. Numerous
community-spirited private groups also send items.” She acknowledged
that the Army appreciates the desire of private organizations to
support wounded soldiers.
AIP is skeptical that if it were not
for SA or other charities, soldiers would not have their basic needs,
such as boots, clothing, and hygienic products provided for them.
We find it disturbing that SA continues to solicit donations with
these claims. Soldiers are professionals, not charity cases, and
ought to be treated with respect. It is fine for a charity to send
tokens of appreciation to soldiers, but it is wrong to mislead donors
by implying that the basic needs of soldiers are not already being
met by the military.
After publication of AIP's article
"Soldiers Angels Lose Their Halos," Soldiers Angels (SA) improved
the portions of its website mentioned in our article. These changes
better reflect the additional goods, comfort, and conveniences SA
offers to soldiers beyond what the military already provides in
fulfilling soldiers' basic needs.
|