How do administrative and fundraising costs compare across major veteran nonprofits?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Charitable veterans groups vary widely in reported overhead: some high-profile organizations advertise program-spending ratios (Gary Sinise Foundation reports 89% to programs) while sector-wide data show most veteran nonprofits are small — 66% raise $50,000 or less annually — which compresses and obscures overhead comparisons [1] [2]. Public federal spending dwarfs private charity: the Department of Veterans Affairs budget topped roughly $400 billion in 2025 with major increases for toxic-exposure care, a scale that makes nonprofit administrative shares a different conversation than government overhead [3] [4].
1. Big government vs. private charity: two incomparable scales
The single largest funder of veterans’ services is the VA, which in 2025 carried a budget above $400 billion with major line items such as the Toxic Exposures Fund that rose from $20 billion in 2024 to $30.4 billion in 2025 [3]. By contrast, the entire private giving ecosystem for veterans captured only a few billion; the Indiana University Military & Veterans Community Index reports $3.7 billion in charitable contributions to veterans organizations in 2023 — a sliver compared with VA spending [5]. That scale difference matters: administrative percentages mean something different for a $100 million national charity than they do for a federal entitlement program [4] [5].
2. Reported overhead numbers: what major charities publish
Some large veteran nonprofits publish high program ratios to reassure donors: the Gary Sinise Foundation states 89% of every dollar went to direct support [1]. Such self-reported metrics are common in fundraising materials; organizations emphasize program spending and low overhead as donor signals [1]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, independently audited ranking across the “major” veteran nonprofits in a single table, so comparisons must be drawn from individual filings and sector studies (not found in current reporting).
3. The hidden problem of small organizations and aggregation
Most veteran charities are small and many lack scale economies: research cited in sector guides finds that 66% of veteran organizations raise $50,000 or less per year, which constrains their ability to amortize administrative and fundraising costs and complicates cross-group comparisons [2]. Orr Group says six organizations raise roughly two-thirds of total veterans-sector revenue, meaning aggregate averages can hide large variation between the big, low-overhead players and many tiny groups with higher relative administrative percentages [6].
4. Fundraising itself costs money — and not all spending is waste
Fundraising expenses are inevitable and vary by strategy: peer-to-peer campaigns, events, and digital platforms each carry different cost structures [7] [8]. Guidance for veteran fundraisers emphasizes that spending on donor engagement and transparent reporting can increase long-term revenue — a tradeoff that raw overhead ratios don’t capture [6]. Available sources highlight fundraising tactics and costs but do not provide standardized cost-per-dollar-raised benchmarks across major veteran nonprofits (not found in current reporting).
5. Where to find rigorous comparisons — and their limits
Reliable comparisons require IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements, or third-party indices. The Indiana University MVCI aggregates IRS data and provides sector-level giving trends, but it does not publish a side-by-side administrative-cost ranking of named charities in the provided material [5]. Donors seeking apples-to-apples comparisons should consult each charity’s Form 990 and audited financials; available sources here do not supply those primary documents for specific organizations beyond self-reported claims (not found in current reporting; [10]0).
6. Watch for fundraising incentives and potential conflicts
Investigations show that private actors in the veterans assistance market can pursue aggressive monetization strategies; reporting on third-party firms that bill veterans tens of thousands of dollars underscores the need to scrutinize who benefits from fundraising and fee arrangements [9]. While that NPR piece concerns private claims firms rather than charities, it illustrates how intermediaries and contractors can extract significant value from veterans’ benefits ecosystems — a reminder to examine contracts and third‑party vendor arrangements when assessing nonprofit cost structures [9].
7. Practical guidance for donors and policymakers
Donors should prioritize transparent, audited financials and look beyond single-line “overhead” ratios: examine program outcomes, growth plans, and scalability [6]. Policymakers should remember that federal VA appropriations and programs — such as the PACT Act’s Toxic Exposures Fund — address needs at a scale private charities cannot, and that funding shifts in the VA budget change the context in which nonprofits operate [4] [3].
Limitations: the provided sources include VA budget documents, sector studies, fundraising guides, and a specific nonprofit’s self-reported metric; they do not contain a comprehensive, independently validated comparison of administrative and fundraising costs across a defined set of “major” veteran nonprofits, so direct numeric side‑by‑side comparisons are not possible from the material supplied (not found in current reporting).