How do top military charities (e.g., Wounded Warrior Project, Fisher House) compare in program expense ratios?

1. Why the headline numbers diverge: different ways to count “program”

Charity evaluators calculate Program Expense Ratio differently: Charity Navigator uses program expenses divided by total expenses averaged over recent IRS Form 990s, while watchdogs like CharityWatch and media reports sometimes adjust or exclude fundraising or classify certain items differently—so a charity can claim one program percentage on its website while independent ratings produce a lower figure ^{[4] [2] [5]}. This methodological reality helps explain why Wounded Warrior Project’s internal claims (higher program percent) and external ratings (often under 60%) can both appear in reporting ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Reported comparisons: Wounded Warrior Project vs. Fisher House and DAV trust

Multiple outlets cited a striking contrast: CBS News (and follow‑on reporting) presented Wounded Warrior Project as spending roughly 60% (or less, per some watchdogs) on services compared with Fisher House at about 91% and Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust at about 96%—figures that fueled scrutiny and debate about WWP’s fundraising and overhead model ^{[1] [6] [7]}. NonProfit PRO and Nonprofit Quarterly repeated those comparative percentages while also pointing out that, in dollar terms, WWP’s total program dollars were large (e.g., WWP program expenses reported in the $148.6M range in one 2014 snapshot) even if its percent was lower ^[6].

3. Dollars vs. percentages: a key piece critics and defenders stress

Advocates for looking beyond percentages note that Wounded Warrior Project still delivered large absolute program dollars—reports pointed to tens of millions in grants and program spending (for example, $148.6M in program expenses in a cited 2014 figure) which can exceed the total program outlays of smaller veterans’ groups, even if the percentage is lower ^[6]. Critics counter that donors expect a high share of each donated dollar to go directly to beneficiaries, so fundraising‑heavy models attract criticism even when absolute program spending is large ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Fundraising model and governance questions that shaped coverage

Investigative reporting in 2015–2016 and subsequent analysis focused on WWP’s fundraising costs and executive pay as drivers of its lower program percentage; outlets reported fundraising figures in the tens of millions and noted watchdog downgrades that cited high fundraising and administrative costs ^{[2] [7]}. Nonprofit analysts labeled the approach a “fundraising factory” model—arguing that aggressive donor acquisition can be expensive and may be financed by current donors without adequate transparency ^[7].

5. What Fisher House shows and what its ratio reflects

Fisher House Foundation’s longtime public materials and profiles appear alongside the high program percentage figures cited by CBS and others (around 91%), reflecting an operational model focused on direct services (lodging and support for military families near medical centers) that allocate a high share of expenses to program delivery as recorded on public filings and reported by media ^{[1] [8] [9]}. Fisher House’s program orientation (operating houses and direct family services) helps explain a higher program‑expense share in comparative reporting ^{[8] [9]}.

6. Limits of current reporting and what’s not covered

Available sources do not provide a contemporaneous, standardized ranking of “top military charities” by program expense ratio using a single methodology; many cited figures are snapshots from investigations (2015–2016) or retrospective analyses, and some rely on differing accounting treatments ^{[6] [2] [5]}. If you need a current, apples‑to‑apples comparison, the available reporting recommends checking each charity’s most recent Form 990 and how evaluators (Charity Navigator, CharityWatch) define “program expenses” ^{[4] [5]}.

7. Practical takeaway for donors

Donors should examine both percentages and absolute program dollars, read methodology notes from charity evaluators (Charity Navigator’s program expense definition is explicit), and review recent Form 990s and annual reports from the charities themselves—because fundraising models, scale, and accounting choices materially affect program ratios and the story those ratios tell ^{[4] [10] [3]}.