OPINION:
Every Veterans Day, Americans do their homework before donating to charities that support those who have served the nation. They look for the approval seal, check the stars rating, read the watchdog reports.
The problem? Many ratings and research begin and end with a tax return prepared by the charity itself. Read that return at face value, and you can miss nearly everything that matters.
Well-known veterans charities show how this happens.
People were interested in these podcasts
The first case is the hardest to spot because the financial picture is spread across four separate organizations. Disabled American Veterans is a familiar name to veterans. It does important work advising and helping veterans claim the benefits that they have earned.
Yet DAV is not a single charity. It is broken into four: DAV itself, the DAV National Service Foundation, the DAV Charitable Service Trust and the DAV Auxiliary. They share leaders, staff and money, but they report separately.
Reviewing one DAV entity’s financial statements does not provide the complete picture. That is a serious transparency problem. Separate filings make it difficult for donors to trace money moving among affiliates and assess their combined finances.
The second case presents a more direct problem: fundraising costs that leave little for programs. The Purple Heart Foundation carries one of the most honored names in American military life. Yet its 2025 tax return indicates that it spent just 18.8% of its budget on veteran programs.
The foundation raises money in part by selling donated cars and household goods. According to its recent tax return, donated vehicles generated $2.25 million. Towing and selling them cost $955,000 — about 42 cents of every dollar raised from the vehicles. Purple Heart’s audit lists another $1.82 million in advertising for vehicle donation campaigns.
The foundation says these expenses are simply the cost of operating a vehicle donation program. That may be so, but donors deserve to understand how much of their donation ultimately supports the veterans they want to help.
The third concern is the accumulation of enormous liquid reserves while charities continue asking the public for donations. Consider the Air & Space Forces Aid Society. It reported $17 million in expenses in 2024 alongside about $242 million in cash and investments, enough to cover roughly 14 years of operations. Its investment returns alone exceeded its entire budget, and its reserves grew by nearly three times what it raised in donations.
Yet its website tells donors, “The more you are able to donate, the more we are able to help.”
Army Emergency Relief holds about $309 million in cash and investments — roughly nine years of spending — and investment returns cover most of its budget. Still, its donation page describes it as based “100 percent on the generous donations from Soldiers and American citizens.”
These examples are not limited to veterans charities. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital reportedly holds more than $9.25 billion in liquid assets, equivalent to approximately 4.9 years of spending. Shriners Children’s reportedly holds $9.58 billion, enough to cover approximately eight years.
Large reserves can serve legitimate purposes, including meeting future obligations and ensuring that a charity can continue operating during a crisis. Still, donors should be able to understand why so much money is being held, how much is readily available and how those reserves fit with the organization’s current fundraising appeals.
A large reserve alone does not prove wrongdoing, but it does raise a reasonable question: How much additional money does the charity need and why? Could the money be put to better use with a different organization?
Returning to DAV, the scale of its combined finances makes that last question especially relevant. The DAV National Service Foundation alone holds reserves equivalent to nearly 29 years of spending. At the end of 2025, the four entities reported net assets of $964.6 million.
That is nearly $1 billion across four affiliated organizations, even as DAV relies mostly on volunteers for its work in the field. Meanwhile, its appeals for additional donations continue.
A high rating from one watchdog group may not tell donors everything they need to know, because evaluators use different standards and measure different things. A rating is a starting point, not a substitute for asking questions.
Too many donations are made in response to emotional direct-mail appeals or television ads without a closer look at the finances. Donors cannot assume that a charity’s tax filings have been independently verified or that every questionable practice will be caught.
This Veterans Day, look beyond the stars, seals and stories. Compare ratings, read the financial disclosures and ask how much money actually reaches veterans as intended.
• Rick Berman is president of RBB Strategies and a board member of the RAM Veterans Foundation.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.