Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there any controversies, audits, or charity ratings related to the Gary Sinise Foundation?
Executive summary
The Gary Sinise Foundation has been the subject of a documented financial incident (a wire-fraud loss of just over $1.15 million discovered in March 2021) and has since undergone audits and external reviews; major charity evaluators currently give it high scores (CharityWatch reporting and Charity Navigator four-star listings) while some registries note lack of response to voluntary review requests [1] [2] [3] [4]. Available sources show forensic and annual audits were performed and that the foundation reports high program-spending ratios (about 86–89% to programs in recent filings) and repeated high ratings, but also disclose a 2024–2025 audit language about “going concern” considerations in an audit report [5] [2] [6].
1. Wire fraud surfaced, then forensic work followed
CharityWatch and the foundation’s own audited statements report that the organization discovered it had been a victim of wire fraud in March 2021, with CharityWatch citing a loss of over $1 million (CharityWatch twice reported the discovery and subsequent communications) and the foundation later saying it hired an auditing team to perform a full forensic audit covering October 1, 2020 through March 2021 and tightened IT and accounting controls [1] [2].
2. Independent auditors issued formal reports — and raised concerns that donors should watch
The foundation’s audited consolidated financial statements and later audit communications show auditors issued opinions on recent fiscal years and included language noting “conditions or events…that raise substantial doubt about [the Foundation’s] ability to continue as a going concern” in at least one audit communication cited in the foundation’s materials (reports dated November 27, 2024 and a 2025 audit referenced), meaning auditors flagged financial conditions that required disclosure even as some reports concluded the statements presented fairly in all material respects [6] [7].
3. Charity evaluators: high ratings, with some caveats
Multiple charity-rating outlets list the foundation favorably: CharityWatch reported and later restored top-rated status after the charity responded and described reforms (CharityWatch’s blog and follow-up), and Charity Navigator shows the foundation has a four-star rating and the foundation says it has maintained that rating for several years [2] [8] [9] [10]. Candid/GuideStar listings and other aggregators also report strong transparency seals [11] [12].
4. Program spending metrics reported high — different sites use slightly different calculations
Charities-for-Vets and the foundation’s own financial page report that roughly 86–89% of expenses went to programs in recent fiscal years (Charities-for-Vets calculated 86.1% based on 2024 filings and the foundation reports 89% for FY2025), a ratio often used by donors to judge efficiency [5] [13]. CharityWatch’s analysis also highlighted program-spending metrics in its evaluations [14].
5. Disclosures, responsiveness, and third-party checks matter — mixed signals
CharityWatch initially reported delays in obtaining the foundation’s audit and Form 990 in late 2021, noting the charity did not promptly provide tax filings and audited statements to CharityWatch’s requests, although the foundation later engaged and provided information that contributed to regaining a top rating [1] [2]. Separately, BBB’s Give.org shows the charity either did not respond to BBB’s voluntary review or declined evaluation in a 2025 report, which the BBB frames as a voluntary participation issue rather than an affirmative failing [3].
6. Related-party transactions and governance notes flagged by some screeners
Screeners like Charities-for-Vets flagged that the foundation’s 2024 Form 990 disclosed certain business transactions involving “interested persons” (payments to relatives or board-associated contractors were noted in that screening) — a disclosure that watchdogs watch for but which the screener did not identify as disqualifying [5].
7. How to interpret these items if you’re a donor
Available reporting shows: (a) the foundation sustained a substantial fraud event that it publicly disclosed and then commissioned further forensic work and tightened controls [1] [2]; (b) independent audits exist and have been issued, with auditors both providing unmodified opinions for some years and inserting “going concern” language in at least one communication [6] [7]; and (c) mainstream charity evaluators rate the foundation highly while some voluntary registries note limited participation in their reviews [8] [3]. Donors should review the foundation’s most recent audited financial statements, its Form 990 filings, and charity evaluator pages before donating — those documents are cited in the reporting above [7] [15] [10].
Limitations and final note: available sources do not mention any criminal convictions or regulatory rulings against the foundation beyond the disclosed wire fraud incident and subsequent internal/forensic audits; they do include both positive evaluations and procedural caveats [1] [2] [3].