Patriotic missions, Congressional charters, and favorable ratings from nonprofit trade associations can give veterans nonprofits an air of credibility, inspiring donors to give to organizations that may not be worthy of their generosity. CharityWatch’s investigations into nearly two dozen veterans and military nonprofits have uncovered questionable insider transactions, significant reserves, and financial structures that show some organizations prioritizing profit over programs.

Wreaths Across America

Do you think it would be ethical to set up a public charity and a family business, fill the charity’s key staff and board positions with multiple family members, then over only a 4-year period arrange for the charity to pay your family business $99.8 million? Would you then be surprised to learn that a charity that did exactly this receives an 88% and 3-out-of-4-star overall score from Charity Navigator (a charity rating organization), and a Platinum seal of transparency from the nonprofit trade association Candid (guidestar.org)?

Wreaths Across America presents itself as a patriotic nonprofit dedicated to placing wreaths on the graves of fallen U.S. service members each December. However, according to CharityWatch’s analysis of the organization’s recent tax filings and audited financial statements, the charity relies on a single, family-connected for-profit company as its sole supplier of wreaths and other balsam products. This results in substantial payments of donor funds to a business owned by the organization’s leadership and individuals closely connected to them.

According to CharityWatch’s analysis of Wreaths Across America’s (WAA) tax filings for financial reporting years 7/1/2021 to 12/31/2024 (and calendar years 1/1/2021 – 12/31/2024), the charity paid approximately $99.8 million to the family business, Worcester Resources, also known as Worcester Wreath. The company is owned and staffed by members of the Worcester family.

The charity’s 2024 IRS tax Form 990 reports the following overlapping staff members, owners, officers, and/or directors:

Renee Worcester — Director, Officer (“Secretary”) of WAA; Employee of Worcester Wreath

Sarah Worcester — Director of WAA; Employee of Worcester Wreath

Rob (Morrill Worcester II) and Michael Worcester — Husbands of Renee and Sarah; owners of the majority interest in Worcester Wreath

Karen Worcester — Executive Director of WAA, mother of Rob and Michael

Pamela Slaven-Lee — WAA Director; daughter of Karen Worcester

Renee Worcester and Sarah Worcester — Sisters-in-law

The charity’s disclosure of its conflicts of interest does not somehow eliminate the conflicts. Any transactions structured in ways that primarily benefit related for-profit interests, particularly when board independence is weak or compromised, raise serious concerns about whether the organization is being operated for its stated charitable purpose or, instead, as a vehicle for private gain.

Although arrangements like this are not inherently illegal, they raise concerns under IRS rules governing private inurement and excess benefit transactions, which prohibit charity insiders—such as officers, board members, or their family members—from receiving benefits exceeding the fair market value of the goods or services they provide. Whether an excess benefit has occurred is ultimately for the IRS to determine, but the absence of enforcement action does not necessarily indicate that the arrangement reflects sound nonprofit governance or best practices.

In her interview with the Washington D.C. ABC news affiliate, WJLA, which aired in February 2026, CharityWatch CEO and executive director, Laurie Styron, described the arrangement as “highly unusual, especially at this scale.”

In discussing the governance concerns raised by the charity’s longstanding relationship with its family-owned wreath supplier, Styron emphasized the fundamental accountability question at the heart of the structure: whether a nonprofit can truly negotiate in the public’s best interest when it is purchasing goods from a company controlled by insiders. Styron noted that independent oversight is critical when significant charitable funds are flowing to a related for-profit entity.

“You can’t be a tough negotiator and drive a hard bargain with yourself,” Styron said.

As highlighted in the investigation by WJLA’s I-Team, a central concern is the lack of transparency surrounding the profits earned by the charity’s for-profit supplier. While Wreaths Across America discloses the total amount it pays to its family-owned wreath vendor, when asked by WJLA to disclose its production costs and profit margins, the insiders declined to do so, calling such information “proprietary.”

As a result, donors, watchdogs, and veterans have no way to determine whether the charity is paying fair market value for wreaths or whether excess profits are being generated for a company owned by family members of the charity’s leadership. Experts interviewed by WJLA noted that this lack of visibility can obscure inefficiencies or private benefit, effectively embedding unknown margins within the charity’s program expenses and limiting donors’ ability to make fully informed giving decisions.

In a December 2024 interview with The Des Moines Register, Styron offered two potential solutions for addressing the inherent conflict of interest present in this business arrangement:

“‘The loss of the charity’s business would likely present an existential threat to the for-profit company, and for this reason, there are no amount of controls that could be put in place to inspire confidence that decisions are being made in the charity’s best interest,’ she said.”

“Styron has said she believes the family should either divest from its wreath business or members should resign from the charity to eliminate ‘this very significant, inherent conflict.'”

Congressionally Chartered Nonprofits: A Largely Meaningless Designation

A congressionally chartered veterans service organization (VSO) is a nonprofit recognized by the United States Congress under Title 36 of the U.S. Code for its historical or national significance. However, this designation is largely symbolic and does not involve any meaningful oversight or accountability.

While some VSOs are required to submit annual convention proceedings and financial summaries to Congress, there is no uniform requirement for all VSOs. Even when required, these materials are largely self-reported and often read more like organizational or promotional documents than rigorous, independent disclosures of financial performance or accountability. In addition, these nonprofits’ related organizations, with which they sometimes share staff, board members, revenue, and expenses, are typically not included in the charter, making any accountability that does exist incomplete and fragmented.

For donors, the charter offers no assurance that an organization spends its donations efficiently, is responsibly and independently governed, or meets basic standards of financial stewardship. Many Congressionally chartered veterans organizations maintain high overhead and low program spending, earning “F” ratings on CharityWatch’s “A+” to “F” rating scale.

The ratings, program spending percentages, Cost to Raise $100 fundraising ratios, ranges of top 3 salaries, privacy policy & transparency data, and more information for the the below listed Congressionally Chartered nonprofits’ can be viewed on their respective CharityWatch rating profile pages.

Disabled American Veterans

Are you or a loved one a disabled U.S. veteran struggling to find financial assistance for combat-related injuries or other hardships resulting from your military service? CharityWatch analyzed the audited financial statements and IRS tax Forms 990 of Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and its affiliated organizations, noting that they are collectively sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in reserves that could be spent on direct aid or other support to veterans. The use of charitable resources by veterans organizations like DAV takes on added urgency as the United States is now engaged in a conflict in the Middle East, which may result in additional veterans requiring care.

Although separately governed, these various legal entities exchange funds with DAV through grants and/or shared expenses. Their financial reporting is fragmented, however, and this limits transparency into how resources across the network are used.

Note 13 of DAV’s 2024 audit illustrates just how closely intertwined these separate entities are given that DAV “provides services to” and is “in the position to influence the operating policies of” its related organizations. In addition, DAV provides personnel, facilities, equipment, and/or other support services to each of these related organizations. The nonprofits’ 2024 tax filings, along with staff profiles on DAV’s website, show a substantial overlap in leadership among DAV, DAV NSF, and DAV CST, especially around current and former national officers and past national commanders. For example, Barry A. Jesinoski is reported as DAV’s National Adjutant, and as the Vice President of both DAV NSF and DAV CST. Dennis R. Nixon, a Past National Commander for DAV, is reported as DAV CST’s Secretary / Treasurer. In addition, many of DAV’s current or past National Commanders are also on the board of directors of DAV NSF and/or DAV CST.

Barry A. Jesinoski is reported as DAV’s National Adjutant, and as the Vice President of both DAV NSF and DAV CST.

Daniel Contreras is reported as a National Commander for DAV for part of 2024 and as a director for both DAV NSF and DAV CST.

Nancy G. Espinosa is reported as, for portions of 2024, a National Commander for DAV, a director then ex-officio member for DAV NSF, and as a director for DAV CST.

Andrew H. Marshall is reported as DAV’s Past National Commander and as DAV NSF’s President.

Joseph W. Johnston is reported as DAV’s Past National Commander and as DAV NSF’s Secretary / Treasurer.

Joseph Parsetich is reported as DAV’s former Chairman of the Board and as DAV NSF’s Ex-Officio member during part of 2024.

Delphine Metcalf-Foster is reported as a Past National Commander for DAV and as a Director for DAV NSF.

Stephen E. Whitehead is reported as a Past National Commander for DAV and as a Director for DAV NSF.

Dennis R. Nixon is reported as a Past National Commander for DAV and as DAV CST’s Secretary / Treasurer.

Richard E. Marbes is reported as a Past National Commander for DAV and as President of DAV CST for part of 2024.

In 2024 alone, DAV charged the Foundation $116,856 and the Trust $168,030 for staff support related to administration, fundraising, and program activities, while also providing in-kind support such as office space and media access at no cost. At the same time, funds flow back to DAV through grants, including $5,023,200 from the Foundation to support DAV’s programs, and $4,726,967 in grants from the Trust.

Despite overlapping board members, shared personnel, and ongoing financial exchanges, the Foundation’s $188.6 million, the Trust’s $71.9 million, and the Auxiliary’s $10.7 million in net assets are excluded from DAV’s audited financial statements, underscoring how the fragmented reporting structure can obscure the full scope of resources operating within this interconnected system.

Taken together, these four closely related DAV entities hold approximately $759.6 million in combined adjusted net assets, equivalent to about 4.4 years of their total annual cash expenses when viewed on a combined basis. However, the range of available assets varies dramatically depending on how related-party transactions are treated. For example, the DAV National Service Foundation holds between approximately 29 and 126 years of available assets depending on whether its grants to DAV are included as expenses, while the DAV Charitable Service Trust holds between approximately 6 and just over 10 years on the same basis. Because these entities routinely transfer funds among themselves, these wide ranges underscore how the structure can obscure the true level of resources available, raising concerns that substantial funds may be sitting idle while donors are led to believe their contributions are more urgently needed to support veterans.

CharityWatch computes a nonprofit’s “Years of Available Assets” by estimating how long it could continue operating at its current spending levels without raising any additional contributions or other revenue. To do this we review the charity’s audited financial statements and IRS Form 990 and adjust its reported net assets by subtracting items not readily available for use. In the case of DAV, we subtracted $22.4 million of fixed assets and $15 million in permanently restricted funds, then divided its adjusted net assets by its total 2024 cash expenses to arrive at 3.2 years of available assets. 

Rodney Deflumeri, a veteran, contacted CharityWatch in March 2026 to blow the whistle on DAV. Deflumeri formerly served in volunteer positions as chapter commander, senior vice commander, and certified service officer (at DAV); former appointed committee member (at DAV NSF); and former appointed national deputy chief of staff (Florida chapter). Deflumeri communicated to CharityWatch that he resigned from the organization after reviewing its audits and tax filings.

“Once I understood what the financials revealed, I did not feel I could in good conscience continue to promote the organization as I had been,” he wrote in his email exchange with CharityWatch. Deflumeri, who described himself as one of Florida’s top DAV recruiters prior to his resignation, said stepping away was “personally difficult,” but necessary in light of what he characterized as a disconnect between the charity’s messaging and its underlying financial reality.

Drawing on his own review of the DAV organizations’ IRS tax filings and audits, Deflumeri expressed concern about what he described as their collective “accumulated reserves,” and the presentation of fundraising claims that may “mask the true economic picture reflected” in these financial documents. He also questioned the financial efficiency metrics DAV promotes in its fundraising and marketing materials, stating that “it is one thing to fundraise using the image and sacrifices of disabled veterans; it is another…to materially benefit from that image while donors, policymakers, and many volunteers remain unaware of what the underlying financials actually show.” Deflumeri emphasized that the local, volunteer-run chapters are, in his opinion, “largely healthy,” but warned that “the larger tree shows serious signs of rot at higher levels of the organization,” underscoring the need for independent scrutiny of DAV’s structure and financial practices.

DAV’s decision to continue fundraising while sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in reserves, equivalent to many years’ worth its operating expenses, is not its only critical issue. Another concern is how DAV uses its cash once it eventually spends it. CharityWatch’s analysis of Disabled American Veterans’ 2024 financial activities resulted in an overall “D” rating for the nonprofit on our “A+” to “F” rating scale. We found that DAV spent $48 to raise each $100 in cash donations that year, and spent 49% of its total cash expenses on overhead, leaving only 51% for programs. This poor financial performance is nothing new. DAV has earned a “D” rating from CharityWatch every year we have rated the organization since 2011.

Veterans Nonprofits With Low or Failing Grades Receive High Marks From Others

Large-scale charity rating platforms often rely on self-reported “impact” results and automated data extraction from unaudited tax filings without examining the accuracy, consistency, comparability, or completeness of this information. CharityWatch takes a different approach. Our degreed accountants “follow the cash” by conducting manual reviews of charity audited financial statements (consolidated if applicable); the tax filings of the legal entities included in those statements; and other documents to adjust for reporting issues and provide unbiased letter grade ratings. The chart below illustrates how our in-depth evaluations can produce results that differ starkly from those of data aggregators like Charity Navigator (CN) and nonprofit trade associations like Candid (guidestar.org). 

The chart above contains select examples of nonprofits to which CharityWatch (CW) has assigned “D” or “F” ratings as of April 24th, 2026 based on our criteria. Charity Navigator’s (CN) ratings and Candid’s (Guidestar’s) seals were retrieved from those websites in March 2026 and reflect each charity’s current rating or transparency seal as of the date retrieved. Visit charitywatch.org, charitynavigator.org, and (Candid) guidestar.org to view the most currently published ratings and profiles. NOTE: Candid’s seals are based on charities’ self-assessments and do not include a financial measurement of how efficiently a charity uses the donations it receives. Charity Navigator’s ratings are automated using data pulled from unaudited charity tax Forms 990.

*When more than one rating is listed in the above chart, it means that the organization’s rating was downgraded due to high asset reserves. The first listed grade reflects the organization’s financial efficiency rating. The second listed grade reflects the organization’s final rating once downgraded for high assets.

**Paws For Purple Hearts recently changed its financial reporting year. As a result, the charity’s 2024 IRS Form 990 is for a 6-month period beginning in January 1st, 2024 and ending in June 30th, 2024. CharityWatch will complete our updated financial analysis of Paws For Purple Hearts once its fiscal 2025 audited financial statements and IRS tax Form 990 become available.

“?” Ratings

When CharityWatch issues a “?” rating to an organization rather than a letter grade, it indicates that we lack the information necessary to compute a meaningful review of its financial activities or have specific concerns about its operations. For example, a nonprofit’s auditors may have issued an adverse audit opinion, or its books may not have been audited at all. It may be obscuring its expenses in ways that make it difficult to suss out its fundraising costs from its program spending, or conflicts of interest at the charity may be so pervasive that we cannot confidently rely on the financial reporting being reflective of how efficiently or effectively it is operating.

In most cases we attempt to reach out to a nonprofit with questions prior to ultimately assigning the “?” rating. If a nonprofit fails to respond to our inquiry after at least two weeks, provides inadequate responses, or if we otherwise are unable to obtain the information we need to complete our analysis, we issue it a “?” rating. CharityWatch periodically reassesses our “?” ratings as new information becomes available. View the Analysts’ Notes section of each nonprofit’s CharityWatch rating profile to view the specific reason for our “?” rating of that organization.

CharityWatch

Will you help CharityWatch continue our important work?

As the only independent charity watchdog organization in the United States, CharityWatch relies on your support to fund our in-depth research and analysis in order to bring you the unbiased charity ratings and other information you rely on to help you make more informed giving decisions. We are not directly or indirectly funded by nonprofit industry interests.

We hope you will consider making a donation today so that we can continue to speak openly and critically and call out wrongdoing when we see it without concern for special interests cutting our funding. CharityWatch is a small organization and your donations are noticed, needed, and greatly appreciated. Thank you for giving wisely!