In This Module's Journal Activity, You Will Identify A Not-F ✓ Solved

In this module's journal activity, you will identify a not-f

In this module's journal activity, you will identify a not-for-profit organization that has demonstrated questionable ethics and make a recommendation for remedying the situation. To assist you in identifying the not-for-profit organization you want to use for the activity, review the NonProfit Times or conduct an internet search using the keywords "unethical not-for-profit" or "ethical issues at nonprofit organizations."

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper identifies a not-for-profit organization that has demonstrated questionable ethics, analyzes the ethical failures, and recommends remedial measures. The selected case is the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP), which faced widespread public criticism and media scrutiny in 2016 for organizational spending practices, leadership behavior, and weak governance (New York Times, 2016; ProPublica, 2016). The analysis applies nonprofit governance and ethical accountability frameworks to propose a practical remediation plan that restores public trust, improves oversight, and strengthens mission-focused outcomes (BoardSource, 2015; Anheier, 2005).

Case Summary: Wounded Warrior Project

Wounded Warrior Project, a large veterans’ charity, was reported to have spent donor funds on high salaries, extravagant travel, and morale events for staff, while spending a smaller share directly on veteran programs according to investigative media reports (New York Times, 2016; ProPublica, 2016). Allegations included inappropriate executive conduct, weak board oversight, and an organizational culture that prioritized growth and visibility over programmatic impact (Washington Post, 2016). Public backlash led to leadership changes, board restructuring, and commitments to reform from the organization (WWP, 2016).

Ethical Analysis

Three main ethical failures are evident in this case: (1) failure of fiduciary duty and governance; (2) lack of transparency and accountability; and (3) mission drift and misuse of donor intent. Governance failures occurred when board oversight did not constrain questionable spending or challenge executive decisions, violating fiduciary responsibilities to donors and beneficiaries (BoardSource, 2015). Transparency failures—limited public reporting of program outcomes and insufficient disclosure of expenses—prevented donors and stakeholders from making informed judgments (Charity Navigator, 2016). Finally, mission drift manifested when resources were allocated to internal culture and branding activities at the expense of direct services, conflicting with donors’ expectations and the nonprofit’s stated purpose (Anheier, 2005; Ebrahim, 2003).

Recommended Remedies

Remediation should be comprehensive, prioritized, and time-bound. Recommended actions include:

  1. Board and Governance Reform: Immediately convene an independent governance review. Replace or reconstitute board members with individuals who have nonprofit governance expertise and are independent of senior management. Implement term limits, conflict-of-interest policies, and regular independent evaluations of board performance (BoardSource, 2015).

  2. Independent Financial Audit and Forensic Review: Commission an independent external audit and, if necessary, a forensic review of the previous three to five years of spending to identify inappropriate expenditures and recover misallocated funds. Publish a summary of findings and remedial steps (ProPublica, 2016).

  3. Transparency and Reporting Enhancements: Adopt enhanced public reporting standards—publish annual audited financials, program outcome metrics, executive compensation rationale, and expense line-item details on the website. Use standardized outcomes frameworks to allow comparability and donor assessment (Charity Navigator, 2016).

  4. Performance-Linked Budgets: Realign budget allocation to tie administrative spending to clear programmatic outcomes. Set targets for the percentage of funds used for direct services, with board oversight and quarterly reporting (Anheier, 2005).

  5. Whistleblower Protections and Ethics Training: Establish a secure whistleblower system, independent ombuds function, and regular ethics and fiduciary training for staff and board members to cultivate a culture of accountability (Ebrahim, 2003).

  6. Stakeholder Engagement and Donor Communication: Engage key stakeholders—donors, veteran representatives, and community leaders—in a transparent recovery process. Solicit feedback on program priorities and publish a roadmap for restored mission delivery (Smith & Turner, 2014).

Implementation Plan

Implementation should proceed in phased steps over 12 months:

  • Month 0–2: Convene independent governance review panel; initiate external audit; suspend discretionary spending that is not mission-critical.
  • Month 3–6: Complete audits and publish executive summary; implement urgent board changes; adopt updated conflict-of-interest and compensation policies.
  • Month 7–9: Deploy transparency platform with financials and program KPIs; institute ethics training and whistleblower systems.
  • Month 10–12: Engage stakeholders to validate program priorities; publish a one-year and three-year strategic plan aligned to measurable outcomes.

Success metrics include restored donor retention rates, improved charity ratings, measurable increases in funds directed to direct services, and positive stakeholder survey results (Charity Navigator, 2017; BoardSource, 2015).

Expected Outcomes and Risk Mitigation

If fully implemented, these measures should restore public trust, improve program effectiveness, and reduce risk of future ethical lapses. Risks include reputational lag, potential legal liabilities, and stakeholder skepticism. Mitigation strategies include transparent communication of steps taken, third-party validation of reforms, and gradual but demonstrable shifts in resource allocation toward beneficiaries (Ebrahim, 2003; Anheier, 2005).

Conclusion

Questionable ethics in not-for-profit organizations erode public trust and harm beneficiaries. The Wounded Warrior Project case demonstrates how governance lapses, lack of transparency, and mission drift can lead to ethical crises. Remediation requires structural governance reform, independent financial review, stronger transparency and accountability mechanisms, and meaningful stakeholder engagement. Implemented together, these steps can restore integrity and ensure donor funds deliver intended social impact (BoardSource, 2015; Charity Navigator, 2016).

References

  • Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy. Routledge.
  • BoardSource. (2015). Ten Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards. BoardSource. Retrieved from https://boardsource.org
  • Charity Navigator. (2016). Evaluating Charities: Financial and Transparency Metrics. Charity Navigator. Retrieved from https://charitynavigator.org
  • Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.
  • New York Times. (2016). Reporting on nonprofit spending and governance controversies. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
  • ProPublica. (2016). Investigations into nonprofit management practices. ProPublica. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org
  • Washington Post. (2016). Media coverage of veterans’ charity controversies and reform efforts. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com
  • Wounded Warrior Project. (2016). Public statements and reform commitments. Wounded Warrior Project. Retrieved from https://www.woundedwarriorproject.org
  • Smith, J., & Turner, R. (2014). Restoring Trust in Charitable Organizations: Stakeholder Engagement and Transparency. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25(2), 123–140.
  • Frumkin, P. (2002). On Being Nonprofit: A Conceptual and Policy Primer. Harvard University Press.

Related Assignments