What Veteran Charity Ratings Don't Tell You (And What Actually Matters)
Equipped to Thrive.
You want to support veterans. You've done your homework—checked the star ratings, looked up the overhead percentages, maybe even scrolled through a few "top veteran charities" lists. The organization you're considering has four stars, low administrative costs, and a compelling mission statement.
By every traditional measure, it looks like a safe bet.
But here's the uncomfortable truth: those ratings might tell you very little about whether your donation will actually change a veteran's life.
Traditional charity evaluation systems were designed to protect donors from fraud and financial mismanagement. They do that job reasonably well. What they don't do—what they were never designed to do—is measure whether a program actually works.
For donors who want their giving to create real, lasting impact for veterans, that's a significant gap. Understanding what charity ratings miss is the first step toward becoming a more effective giver.
What Traditional Ratings Actually Measure
Let's start with what charity rating systems get right. Platforms like Charity Navigator, GuideStar (now Candid), and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance provide valuable services. They verify that organizations are legitimate, that financial statements are filed properly, and that basic governance structures are in place.
Most rating systems evaluate charities on some combination of the following:
Financial Health: Does the organization have adequate reserves? Are they managing their finances responsibly? Is there evidence of fraud or mismanagement? These metrics examine balance sheets, revenue trends, and working capital to assess whether an organization is fiscally sustainable.
Accountability and Transparency: Does the organization file required documents? Is leadership information publicly available? Do they have a functional board of directors with independent oversight? These factors help ensure basic governance standards are met.
Overhead Ratios: What percentage of funds goes to programs versus administration and fundraising? This metric attempts to show how much of each donated dollar reaches the intended beneficiaries.
These metrics matter. An organization that can't manage its finances or refuses to disclose basic information raises legitimate red flags. Rating systems help donors avoid the worst actors—the outright scams, the grossly mismanaged, the organizations that exist primarily to enrich their founders.
But notice what's missing from that list: any measure of whether the organization's programs actually achieve their stated goals. A charity can score perfectly on financial health, transparency, and overhead ratios while running programs that don't help anyone.
The Overhead Myth
Perhaps no metric has done more damage to donor understanding than the overhead ratio. The logic seems intuitive: if you're donating $100, you want as much of that money as possible going directly to veterans, not to office space and salaries.
The problem is that this logic fundamentally misunderstands how effective organizations work.
Consider two veteran service organizations. Organization A spends 95% of its budget on "programs"—but those programs consist of one-time events with no follow-up, no evaluation, and no evidence of lasting impact. They keep overhead low by using untrained volunteers, skipping outcome measurement, and avoiding the investment in systems that would allow them to improve over time.
Organization B spends 75% on programs, but invests the remaining 25% in trained clinical staff, rigorous outcome measurement, ongoing program development, technology infrastructure, and the administrative capacity needed to support veterans over months rather than days.
Which organization is using donor dollars more effectively?
The overhead ratio can't answer that question. In fact, it might point you toward the less effective option.
The nonprofit sector has recognized this problem. In 2013, the leaders of GuideStar, Charity Navigator, and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance took the unusual step of jointly publishing an open letter urging donors to abandon their focus on overhead ratios. They called it "The Overhead Myth" and warned that the obsession with low overhead was actually undermining nonprofit effectiveness.
As they wrote: "The percent of charity expenses that go to administrative and fundraising costs—commonly referred to as 'overhead'—is a poor measure of a charity's performance." They urged donors to focus instead on what organizations actually accomplish.
The organizations that truly help veterans thrive need to invest in qualified staff, evidence-based program design, thorough evaluation, and yes—the administrative infrastructure that makes quality programming possible. Starving these functions in pursuit of low overhead often means starving the very capabilities that make programs effective.
Outputs vs. Outcomes: The Critical Distinction
Here's where things get interesting—and where most charity evaluation falls short.
There's a fundamental difference between what an organization does (outputs) and what actually changes as a result (outcomes). This distinction is crucial for understanding whether a program truly works.
What Are Outputs?
Outputs are the activities an organization conducts and the immediate products of those activities. For veteran service organizations, outputs might include:
Number of veterans served
Number of programs delivered
Number of therapy sessions provided
Number of retreats conducted
Number of meals served or care packages shipped
Dollars spent on veteran programs
Outputs are easy to count and easy to report. That's why most organizations focus on them. "We served 10,000 veterans last year" sounds impressive and is simple to verify.
But outputs tell you nothing about whether those 10,000 veterans are better off as a result. A veteran can be "served" by attending an event, receiving a brochure, or spending an hour with a counselor—without experiencing any meaningful change in their life.
What Are Outcomes?
Outcomes are the actual changes that occur in people's lives as a result of a program. For veteran service organizations, outcomes might include:
Measurable improvement in sense of purpose
Increased resilience and ability to cope with challenges
Stronger social connections and reduced isolation
Improved mental health indicators
Greater overall wellbeing and life satisfaction
Sustained change that persists months or years after program completion
Outcomes are harder to measure. They require tracking veterans over time, using validated assessment instruments, establishing baselines before the program begins, and honestly evaluating whether meaningful change has occurred. Many organizations don't have the capacity, resources, or frankly the courage to measure outcomes rigorously.
Why courage? Because outcome measurement creates accountability. When you measure outcomes, you might discover that your programs don't work as well as you thought. You might have to make changes, admit shortcomings, or confront uncomfortable truths. It's much safer to count outputs and declare success.
But outcomes are what actually matter. A veteran doesn't benefit from being "served"—they benefit from being transformed.
At Warriors & Quiet Waters, we measure outcomes—not just outputs. Our partnership with Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families provides independent, third-party verification that our programs create real change: 4x improvement in sense of purpose, 4x improvement in resilience, and 2x increase in overall thriving. View our verified impact data.
The Feel-Good Giving Trap
There's a reason most charitable giving doesn't focus on outcomes: outcomes are inconvenient.
Donors want to feel good about their giving. Organizations want to report success. The easiest way to satisfy both desires is to focus on activities and outputs rather than grappling with the messier question of whether those activities actually work.
This creates what we might call "feel-good giving"—donations that generate positive emotions for the donor and positive stories for the organization, but may or may not create lasting change for the people being served.
Feel-good giving often gravitates toward:
Dramatic one-time experiences: Skydiving trips, celebrity meet-and-greets, bucket-list adventures, fishing trips with no follow-up. These make great photos and heartwarming videos. The veteran smiles, the donor feels wonderful, everyone goes home happy.
But research consistently shows that one-time experiences—however emotionally powerful in the moment—rarely create lasting change. Researchers call it the "vacation effect." The high fades, old patterns return, and within weeks or months, the veteran is often back where they started. The experience was real, but the transformation wasn't.
Simple, tangible goods: Care packages, meals, equipment, gift cards. These items serve real needs and can be part of effective programming. There's nothing wrong with providing tangible support to veterans in need.
The issue arises when counting boxes shipped becomes a substitute for measuring lives changed. Sending a thousand care packages feels productive and is easy to quantify. But did those packages actually improve veterans' wellbeing in any lasting way? That's a much harder question to answer.
High-volume, low-depth services: Some organizations maximize the number of veterans they can claim to have "served" by offering brief, surface-level interactions. A veteran who attends a one-hour information session gets counted the same as one who completes a year-long intensive program.
The numbers look impressive in annual reports, but individual veterans receive too little support to experience meaningful change. It's the nonprofit equivalent of fast food—high volume, low nutrition.
None of these approaches are inherently wrong. But donors should understand that feel-good metrics don't necessarily translate to feel-good outcomes for veterans.
What Effective Giving Actually Looks Like
If traditional ratings don't tell the whole story, what should donors look for instead? Here's a framework for evaluating veteran service organizations beyond the star ratings.
Ask About Outcomes, Not Just Activities
When an organization tells you how many veterans they served, follow up: "What changed for those veterans as a result?" Look for organizations that can answer this question with specific, measurable outcomes—not just testimonials or anecdotes.
Strong outcome measurement typically includes baseline assessments before the program, follow-up measurement after completion, and ideally, longer-term tracking to see if changes persist. Be wary of organizations that can only tell you what they did, not what difference it made.
Look for Third-Party Verification
Self-reported outcomes are better than no outcome measurement at all. But there's an inherent conflict of interest when organizations evaluate their own effectiveness. The most credible evidence comes from independent, third-party evaluation.
This doesn't require a massive research study. Some organizations partner with university researchers. Others hire external evaluators. The key is that someone outside the organization—with no stake in the results—has verified that the program works.
At Warriors & Quiet Waters, our outcomes are independently assessed by Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families. We chose this approach precisely because we wanted donors to trust that our reported results reflect reality, not wishful thinking.
Evaluate Program Design
Does the organization's approach align with what research shows actually works? For veteran mental health and wellbeing, effective programs typically share certain characteristics:
Sustained engagement: Change takes time. Programs that span months rather than days are more likely to create lasting transformation. The neural pathways formed through years of military service don't rewire in a weekend.
Peer connection: Veterans often benefit most from connecting with others who understand their experiences. Programs that build cohorts and foster ongoing community tend to show stronger results than individual-only interventions.
Evidence-based methods: Is the program grounded in research on what helps people thrive? Or is it based primarily on good intentions and assumptions?
Strength-based approach: Programs that treat veterans as capable adults with agency—rather than broken victims to be fixed—tend to produce better outcomes.
Examine Transparency Beyond Financials
Yes, financial transparency matters. But true transparency goes further. Does the organization openly share:
Their theory of change—why they believe their approach works?
Their outcome data—including areas where results fell short of goals?
How have they evolved their programs based on what they've learned?
Honest assessments of their limitations and areas for growth?
Organizations confident in their effectiveness welcome scrutiny. Those that deflect questions or respond with vague generalities may have something to hide—or may simply not be measuring their impact at all.
Consider Cost Per Outcome
Instead of asking "what percentage goes to overhead," try asking "what does it cost to achieve a meaningful outcome?" This reframes the question from one about organizational efficiency to one about effectiveness.
An organization that spends $5,000 per veteran but produces lasting transformation is a better investment than one that spends $500 per veteran with no measurable impact. The absolute cost matters less than the return on that investment in terms of changed lives.
Warriors & Quiet Waters is committed to transparency that goes beyond what rating systems require. We publish our annual report, share our independently verified outcomes, and invite donors to understand exactly how their contributions create change. Review our financials and impact data.
The Questions Rating Systems Can't Answer
As you evaluate where to direct your charitable giving, consider these questions that traditional ratings simply can't address:
Does this organization measure whether veterans' lives actually improve? Not just whether they completed a program or expressed satisfaction—but whether they experienced measurable change in purpose, resilience, relationships, or wellbeing.
Has anyone outside the organization verified these results? Self-reported outcomes are a start, but independent verification is the gold standard.
Is the program designed based on evidence of what works? Or is it based on assumptions, traditions, or what's easiest to deliver?
Does the organization provide sustained support or one-time interventions? Research consistently shows that lasting change requires ongoing engagement over months, not just days.
How does the organization talk about the veterans it serves? Does it emphasize brokenness and victimhood, or capacity and potential? Language reflects philosophy.
These questions require more work than checking a star rating. But they're the questions that separate truly effective organizations from those that simply look good on paper.
Why This Matters
We're not writing this to disparage charity rating systems or the organizations that use them. Rating systems serve a valuable purpose, and most veteran service organizations—regardless of their rating—are led by people who genuinely want to help.
But good intentions aren't enough. Veterans deserve programs that actually work.
Every dollar donated to an ineffective program is a dollar that could have gone to one that creates real change. Every veteran who participates in a program that doesn't work is a veteran who might have thrived with better support. The stakes are too high to settle for feel-good metrics that don't translate to feel-good lives.
As donors, we have the power to change this dynamic. By asking better questions, demanding evidence of outcomes, and directing our giving toward organizations that demonstrate real effectiveness, we can raise the bar for the entire sector.
How Warriors & Quiet Waters Approaches Accountability
At Warriors & Quiet Waters, we've made a deliberate choice to hold ourselves to a higher standard than rating systems require.
We measure outcomes, not just outputs. We track changes in purpose, resilience, community connection, and overall thriving—the dimensions that actually matter for veteran wellbeing.
We submit to independent evaluation. Our partnership with Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families means our results are verified by researchers with no stake in making us look good.
We design programs based on evidence. Our Built for More program spans six to twelve months because research shows that sustained engagement produces lasting change. Our approach leverages best practices from empirically rigorous research on human thriving.
We embrace transparency. Our annual reports, financial statements, and impact data are publicly available. We believe donors deserve the full picture—not just the highlights.
We report with integrity. Our financial reporting reflects the actual costs of fundraising, program delivery, and administration. While others might massage their metrics, we disclose with integrity—because accountability earns donor trust and honors the mission we serve.
We take this approach not because it makes us look good (it's actually harder than reporting simple outputs), but because it's the right way to serve veterans and the donors who support them.
Making Your Giving Count
You don't need to become an expert in nonprofit evaluation to be an effective donor. But you can move beyond star ratings by keeping a few principles in mind:
Ask about outcomes, not just activities. When organizations tell you what they do, ask what actually changes as a result.
Look for evidence, not just stories. Testimonials are powerful, but they're not proof that a program works for most participants.
Value depth over breadth. An organization that transforms 100 veterans' lives is doing more good than one that superficially touches 10,000.
Don't fear overhead. Investment in staff, evaluation, and infrastructure often separates effective organizations from ineffective ones.
Seek transparency that goes beyond compliance. The best organizations welcome scrutiny and share openly—including their challenges and areas for growth.
Your giving matters. The veterans you want to help deserve organizations that are not just well-intentioned but genuinely effective. By looking beyond traditional ratings and asking better questions, you can ensure your generosity creates the change you hope to see.
Because helping veterans thrive isn't just about giving. It's about giving wisely.
Because our veterans were built for more.