Sevadar Foundation logo

Blog

  • Monitoring Is the Alternative to Abandonment

    This is an argument about funding, written by an organization that is not a medical provider and makes no clinical claims. Read it as economics.

    The framing problem

    Public argument about long-term opioid therapy has largely reduced to one variable: how much is prescribed. More or less. Up or down. Fifteen years of policy has been organized around moving that number in one direction.

    There is a second variable, and it is the one that actually distinguishes safe therapy from unsafe therapy: whether anybody is watching. Structured assessment, at intervals, recorded so that this time can be compared with last time.

    Why nobody watches

    Not because it is controversial. Nobody has seriously argued that monitoring is a bad idea in twenty years.

    It is because monitoring is time, and time is not a billable procedure. A practice that monitors well is absorbing a cost. A practice that does not is not penalized for the omission. Two rational actors, opposite behavior, and the difference is a line item that does not exist.

    That is a textbook description of work a market will not do and an agency has not taken on — which is exactly the shape of gap a charitable organization is for. Our second test.

    The population this leaves stranded

    There is a group for whom opioid therapy is appropriate, for whom it is working, and for whom the practical alternative offered has often been abrupt discontinuation. Treating quantity as the only lever produces a second harmed population alongside the first.

    This foundation does not litigate that clinically — it is not a medical provider, holds no clinical license, and makes no treatment claims. What it can say is that a program built on measurement gives a clinician something other than a blunt instrument, and that building the measurement is the part nobody pays for. Opioid safety as a foundation problem.

    What measurement means concretely

    • Delivery that is reliable, so variation in a patient’s course is not just them running out.
    • Remote monitoring, so the interval between assessments is a decision rather than whatever it happened to be.
    • Psychometrics — structured instruments, so what is recorded today can be compared to what was recorded before. If the only measure is how a visit felt, nothing can be compared and nothing can be shown to have improved.

    intellarx.org

    The connection to the other two programs

    All three of this foundation’s programs are the same bet in different settings: that attention paid on a schedule, by someone competent, to something nobody is watching, is the highest-yield intervention available.

    A building nobody walks. A patient nobody can find. A therapy nobody measures. One foundation, three programs

  • You Cannot Treat Someone You Cannot Find

    Nobody wrote a rule excluding people without an address from health care. The exclusion is assembled from a dozen reasonable-looking requirements, none of which was designed to do it.

    The assumptions, listed

    • An address. To register, to receive results, to receive a bill, to be reached about anything.
    • A working phone that keeps its number. Appointment confirmations, callbacks, results, the pharmacy.
    • Transport at a scheduled time. Two hours out of a day, on a specific date, to a specific building.
    • Somewhere to keep medication. Refrigeration, security, and a place it will still be tomorrow.
    • Continuity of identity. An ID that has not been lost or stolen.

    Each requirement is defensible on its own. Together they form a filter, and the filter selects against precisely the people with the most to lose.

    How many people

    HUD’s point-in-time count found 745,652 people experiencing homelessness in the United States on a single night in January 2025 — 479,332 sheltered and 266,320 unsheltered.

    The unsheltered number is the operationally important one. A person in a shelter has an address of a kind, a place to be reached, and someone who notices if they stop appearing. A person who is unsheltered has none of the three.

    Of the total, 32,495 were veterans — 18,977 sheltered and 13,518 unsheltered, roughly four in ten unsheltered. HUD reports the veteran figure has fallen 56 percent since 2009.

    Why the answer is logistics, not motivation

    The framing that gets applied to this population is about compliance — missed appointments, non-adherence, disengagement. Those are descriptions of the filter working, restated as facts about the person.

    The alternative is to move the delivery rather than the patient. That is what street medicine is: basic first aid taken into camps and under bridges, interceptive care that stops small problems becoming emergencies. It is not a mobile clinic and this foundation does not describe it as one. Valor Medica.

    The situation is singular

    A veteran with untreated PTSD, a back injury and no fixed address does not have three problems. They have one situation, and dividing it among three agencies that each solve a third of it produces three partial solutions and no result.

    The VA National Center for PTSD reports that about 7 in every 100 veterans will have PTSD at some point in their life, against about 6 in 100 US adults in the general population, and that the rate is higher among female veterans — 13 in 100 — than male veterans, at 6 in 100. Among veterans using VA care, one study cited by VA found 23 in 100 had PTSD at some point in their lives.

    Who Valor Medica serves

    What this foundation can and cannot say

    Sevadar Foundation delivers no clinical care and this post is not medical advice. What a foundation can usefully say about this is structural: the exclusion is built out of process assumptions rather than intent, which means it is fixable by changing the process. Why a foundation should not practice medicine

    If you need care, the program is the door: valormedica.org/get-help. In an emergency call 911; if you are in crisis call or text 988, and veterans can press 1 after dialing 988 for the Veterans Crisis Line.

    Sources

    Every figure on this page is traceable. Where a source is a government report, the year the data describe is named alongside it, because it is usually not the year of publication.

    • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. The 2025 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, Part 1: Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness. Figures describe a single night in January 2025. huduser.gov
    • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “Veteran homelessness continues downward trend,” VA News, June 25, 2026. news.va.gov
    • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD. How Common is PTSD in Veterans? Page last updated March 26, 2025. ptsd.va.gov

  • Why Veterans Read Buildings Well

    Ask someone to walk a building and tell you what is wrong with it, and you will find out quickly whether they have ever done it under consequences.

    The trained habit

    Reading a physical space for how it will fail is a discipline with recognizable components. You walk the whole route, not the representative sample. You notice what changes by time and by shift. You treat the tidy front entrance as evidence about the front entrance and nothing else. And you finish — including the corridor that leads to storage, because the place nobody goes is where the assumption lives.

    None of that is mysterious and all of it is learnable. What is not automatic is the habit of doing it every time, including the twentieth time, when the building looks like the last nineteen. People who trained where shortcuts were punished have that habit already.

    The second reason, which is usually left out

    A great deal of what gets offered to veterans is either symbolic or structured so that the veteran is the beneficiary of the arrangement rather than the person doing something necessary. It is meant kindly and it is transparent from a mile away.

    A facility safety review is not that. A finding here means a person does not fall. The facility wants the review; the ownership wants the report; the resident’s family would want it if they knew it existed. Nobody is doing anyone a favor by asking.

    The full argument

    Keeping the two relationships apart

    Veterans appear twice in this foundation’s work — conducting CareGuard reviews, and among the people Valor Medica serves. Those are separate relationships with separate programs and neither is conditional on the other. Nobody is asked to work in exchange for care, and nobody’s care depends on working.

    How the programs relate

    Context, stated carefully

    HUD’s point-in-time count found 32,495 veterans experiencing homelessness in the United States on a single night in January 2025 — 18,977 sheltered and 13,518 unsheltered — and reports a 56 percent decline since the figure was first published in 2009, more than 40,870 fewer people over sixteen years.

    That is here for context about a population, not as an implication about the people conducting these reviews. Both things are true at once: sixteen years of sustained public effort produced one of the better outcomes in American social policy, and thirty-two thousand people on a given night is still thirty-two thousand people. You cannot treat someone you cannot find

    Sources

    Every figure on this page is traceable. Where a source is a government report, the year the data describe is named alongside it, because it is usually not the year of publication.

    • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. The 2025 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, Part 1: Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness. Figures describe a single night in January 2025. huduser.gov
    • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “Veteran homelessness continues downward trend,” VA News, June 25, 2026. news.va.gov

  • The Things a Building Does to People

    A handrail that ends six feet short of a door is not a cosmetic defect. It is a decision that somebody will fall there, made in advance and left in place.

    The numbers, with their years attached

    The CDC reports that more than one in four adults aged 65 and older — over 14 million people — report falling each year. It also reports that the age-adjusted fall death rate among adults 65 and older rose 21 percent between 2018 and 2024, from 64.7 to 78.4 per 100,000.

    Inside skilled nursing facilities specifically, the most recent national incidence study is the HHS Office of Inspector General’s review of Medicare SNF stays sampled in August 2011: an estimated 22 percent of beneficiaries experienced adverse events during their stays, a further 11 percent experienced temporary harm, and physician reviewers judged 59 percent of those events clearly or likely preventable.

    Two honest caveats. The OIG figures describe 2011 stays — they are the most recent national estimates of their kind, and their age is itself worth noticing. And the CDC fall-death figures quoted here are age-adjusted rates; they are not interchangeable with crude rates published elsewhere, and mixing the two produces a trend that does not exist.

    What a physical-plant review is actually asking

    Not “does this building meet code.” The question is: how does this building hurt someone, given who lives here and how the day runs? Those produce different lists.

    • Continuity, not presence. A handrail exists. Does it run the whole corridor, including past the alcove and around the corner? The gap is where the fall happens.
    • Reach, not installation. A call button is mounted. Can the person reach it from the bed, from the chair, and from the floor?
    • Time of day. A floor that is wet at 6 a.m. every morning because that is when the ice machine runs is a scheduled hazard, not an incident.
    • The corridor nobody walks. The one that leads to storage. Nobody on staff has a reason to go there, so nobody has looked at it in months.
    • Shift-dependent behavior. An exit that is clear on first shift and blocked on third is not an exit.

    The review program

    Why the building is the tractable part

    Clinical practice is hard to change and slow to verify. A building is neither. A handrail can be extended in an afternoon and the fix can be confirmed by walking back to it.

    That is the whole argument for treating the physical plant as a first-class safety category rather than a maintenance item: it is the part of the harm chain where intervention is cheapest and confirmation is easiest.

    What one person can do

    If you have a relative in a facility, visit at unpredictable hours and walk somewhere other than their room. Look at the corridor, the bathroom, the floor and the call cord. A resident with a visitor who notices things is materially safer than one without.

    If you see something, CareGuard runs a confidential channel for families, staff and visitors: report a concern. If someone is in immediate danger, call 911; if you need a regulator, that is your state survey agency, your long-term care ombudsman, or Adult Protective Services.

    Sources

    Every figure on this page is traceable. Where a source is a government report, the year the data describe is named alongside it, because it is usually not the year of publication.

    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Facts About Falls and Older Adult Falls Data, Older Adult Fall Prevention, pages dated January 27, 2026 and February 26, 2026. cdc.gov
    • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Adverse Events in Skilled Nursing Facilities: National Incidence Among Medicare Beneficiaries. Report OEI-06-11-00370, February 27, 2014. Data describe a sample of Medicare SNF stays in August 2011. oig.hhs.gov

  • What a Patient Safety Organization Actually Does

    People hear “Patient Safety Organization” and picture an inspector. It is closer to the opposite: a PSO is a place where information can be told the truth to.

    The problem the statute solves

    Suppose a nursing home nearly loses a resident and investigates properly. Somebody writes down what actually happened, including the parts that reflect badly on the organization, and identifies what has to change.

    That document is now evidence. It can be subpoenaed, discovered, introduced in a civil or administrative proceeding, or used in a professional disciplinary action. The more candid the analysis, the more valuable it is to someone suing.

    The rational response is not to write it, or to write something careful instead. The information most likely to prevent the next harm is the information most dangerous to record. That is a structural trap, and no amount of exhorting people to be honest gets out of it.

    What Congress did

    The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 — Public Law 109–41, enacted July 29, 2005 — created a voluntary system. Providers may report to a listed Patient Safety Organization, and information meeting the statutory definition of patient safety work product gets federal privilege and confidentiality. It is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 299b–21 to 299b–26, and implemented by the Patient Safety Rule at 42 C.F.R. Part 3, published as a final rule on November 21, 2008.

    The operative language at 42 U.S.C. § 299b–22(b) is short: patient safety work product “shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed,” subject to statutory exceptions.

    So the product is the protection

    It is tempting to read the privilege as legal housekeeping attached to a safety program. It is the reverse. The privilege is the program — it is what changes whether a person is willing to say the true thing — and everything downstream is built on that change.

    The statute in more detail.

    What it is not

    • Not a regulator. A PSO cannot cite, fine, sanction or license. It does not conduct state survey.
    • Not a substitute for mandatory reporting. Reporting obligations are unaffected, and information a provider must separately keep or report does not become protected by copying it to a PSO.
    • Not government. A PSO is a private organization listed by the Secretary of HHS through AHRQ. Listed is not endorsed. PSO P0268.
    • Not a publisher. This is the uncomfortable one.

    The cost of the protection

    The same rule that lets a nurse describe what really happened means the public cannot read it. A PSO cannot publish findings about a named facility. Its parent organization cannot see them either — the protection is federal, not discretionary, and a parent is not an exception.

    That is why this foundation’s site can tell you that CareGuard reviews facilities and cannot tell you a single thing it found. It is a real cost, borne on purpose, and any honest description of a PSO has to include it. The walls.

    Why a scale of harm justifies the trade

    The HHS Office of Inspector General’s national study of Medicare skilled nursing facility stays, sampled in August 2011, estimated that 22 percent of beneficiaries experienced adverse events during their stays and a further 11 percent experienced temporary harm — and that physician reviewers judged 59 percent of those events clearly or likely preventable.

    The word doing the work there is preventable. It means the information existed somewhere before the harm did. A protection that makes that information sayable is not a technicality.

    Sources

    Every figure on this page is traceable. Where a source is a government report, the year the data describe is named alongside it, because it is usually not the year of publication.

    • U.S. Congress. Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, Public Law 109–41, enacted July 29, 2005; 119 Stat. 424. Codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 299b–21 to 299b–26. govinfo.gov
    • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Patient Safety and Quality Improvement; Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 70732 (November 21, 2008). Codified at 42 C.F.R. Part 3, “Patient Safety Organizations and Patient Safety Work Product.” govinfo.gov
    • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Adverse Events in Skilled Nursing Facilities: National Incidence Among Medicare Beneficiaries. Report OEI-06-11-00370, February 27, 2014. Data describe a sample of Medicare SNF stays in August 2011. oig.hhs.gov
    • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Listed PSO directory entry for CareGuard, PSO P0268. pso.ahrq.gov/pso/careguard

  • A Nonprofit With No Donate Button

    There is no giving form on sevadar.org. No processor, no suggested amounts, no year-end appeal, no urgency. This is the argument for that, offered as an argument rather than a boast.

    The fact it rests on

    As of August 2026, Sevadar Foundation has been funded entirely by its founder. It runs no fundraising campaign, employs no fundraisers and pays no one a commission on a gift.

    That sentence carries a date because it is the kind of fact that changes, and because an undated claim about money is worth very little. How we are funded.

    Why not put a button up anyway

    The usual reasoning is that a button costs nothing and might catch something. That is true of the button and false of everything behind it.

    A giving apparatus is not a form. It is an appeals calendar, a donor database, an acknowledgment workflow, a lapsed-donor sequence, a year-end push, and eventually somebody whose job is to keep all of it performing. Each piece creates a small pressure to write the next page slightly differently — a little more urgent, a little more emotive, a little more focused on the stories that raise money rather than the work that matters.

    An organization that does not need the money and builds the apparatus anyway has acquired all of that pressure and none of the necessity.

    The specific pressure we would rather avoid

    The most fundable material this organization has is exactly the material it is not allowed to publish. CareGuard’s findings are privileged and confidential under federal law. Valor Medica’s patients are patients.

    So a fundraising operation here would be structurally starved of the thing fundraising runs on, and the way that starvation usually resolves is by getting closer to the line than an organization should. Not building the machine removes the temptation rather than resisting it. What a Patient Safety Organization actually does

    What is here instead

    The status, the EIN, the deductibility statement, and a phone number. Legal name Sevadar Foundation Inc., EIN 93-2840861, exemption effective August 10, 2023, public charity under Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), contributions deductible. Everything a person needs in order to decide, and nobody pushing. Support this work.

    The counterargument, which is real

    Founder funding concentrates authority. It caps capacity at one household. And it means there is no independent constituency with standing to object to anything. A donor base is not only a revenue source; it is a form of accountability, and this organization does not have that form.

    This site names that rather than pretending founder funding is an unmixed virtue. If the foundation ever takes outside support, the structure has to change and the pages change with it, dated. How decisions get made.

    Sources

    Every figure on this page is traceable. Where a source is a government report, the year the data describe is named alongside it, because it is usually not the year of publication.

    • Internal Revenue Service. Determination letter to Sevadar Foundation Inc., August 29, 2023 — EIN 93-2840861; exemption under IRC § 501(c)(3) effective August 10, 2023; public charity under IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(vi); contributions deductible; Form 990/990-EZ/990-N required; accounting period ending December 31. Document on file with Sevadar Foundation. Verify by EIN at IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search.

  • Restricted Gifts, and Why We Ask First

    A restricted gift is a gift given for a stated purpose, and the restriction is binding on the organization that accepts it. That is the part people are surprised by.

    It is not a preference. Once accepted, a restriction is an obligation, and money that cannot be used as restricted cannot simply be used for something else.

    The three ways this goes wrong

    1. The restriction is narrower than the work. A gift restricted to one activity inside a program that does six is a gift the program has to account for separately and may not be able to spend at the rate it arrives.
    2. The restriction names something that does not exist. A donor restricts to a program element they read about somewhere, or to a version of the work that has moved on. Now there is money that must be held.
    3. The restriction is to the wrong organization. This one is specific here: people conflate Valor Medica with Valor Villages Inc.. They are separate corporations with separate EINs, and a gift to one is not a gift to the other. The distinction.

    The ask-first rule

    So the rule is simple: tell us what you want the money to do before you send it, and we will tell you honestly whether it can do that. If it cannot, you find out while it is still your decision rather than after it has become our problem.

    This is not a way of discouraging restrictions. Restrictions are often exactly right — a donor who cares about one specific thing and says so is easier to serve well than a donor who gives generally and is quietly disappointed. The problem is never the restriction; it is the restriction nobody discussed.

    This is easier here than at most nonprofits

    As of August 2026, the foundation is funded entirely by its founder. There is no giving form, no processing pipeline and no volume. Every conversation about a gift is a conversation with a person, which is the condition under which the ask-first rule actually works. Support this work.

    What a restriction never buys

    No restriction, at any level, obtains access to protected information or influences a CareGuard finding. Those are not negotiable and not the foundation’s to negotiate — the protections are federal. Independence and boundaries.

    Questions about giving

  • Why a Foundation Should Not Practice Medicine

    Sevadar Foundation Inc. holds no clinical license, employs no clinicians in that capacity, and treats nobody. Every clinical act in this organization happens inside a program, under the licensure of the person performing it.

    That is not a limitation the foundation is working around. It is the design.

    A parent that treats cannot hold a standard

    The foundation’s only real job over its programs is to ask one question: is this program doing what it says it does? That question requires distance. An organization that is also delivering care is asking about its own work, and the answer is structurally compromised in a way no amount of good intent repairs.

    It is the same reason auditors do not keep the books. How decisions get made.

    Licensure sits with people, not with parents

    Clinical accountability attaches to a licensed individual and to the entity delivering the service. Interposing a parent organization into that chain does not add oversight; it adds a layer that can be pointed at when something goes wrong. Keeping the foundation out of the clinical chain keeps the accountability where it can actually be exercised.

    It keeps the website honest

    This is a smaller reason and a real one. A foundation that delivers care would need this site to carry clinical content, and clinical content on a nonprofit’s site drifts. It starts as explanation, becomes reassurance, and ends as an implied promise about outcomes.

    Because the foundation delivers no care, sevadar.org can say plainly that nothing on it is medical advice and mean it without qualification. Everything clinical lives on the program’s own site, where the people who wrote it are accountable for it. What we are not.

    What the foundation does instead

    • Holds the 501(c)(3) status and the obligations that come with it. Status.
    • Holds the funding, and allocates it. Funding.
    • Holds the boundaries — the walls between programs, and between a supporter and protected information. Boundaries.
    • Decides what work the organization takes on, against three tests. The tests.

    The one thing it cannot do, which is a cost

    Because the foundation does not deliver care and cannot see protected work product, it cannot tell you the stories that would make its case best. No named facility, no patient, no before and after. Every nonprofit’s most persuasive material is exactly the material this structure withholds. What a Patient Safety Organization actually does

  • One Foundation, Three Programs, and Why We Did Not Incorporate Them Separately

    Sevadar Foundation Inc. holds three programs. It would have been perfectly ordinary to incorporate them separately. Here is why it did not.

    What three corporations would have cost

    Three boards. Three sets of articles and bylaws. Three annual returns. Three exemption applications, each with its own timeline. Three registered agents, three sets of state filings, three renewal calendars, and three separate chances for something administrative to go quietly wrong while everyone is busy doing the actual work.

    For a large organization that overhead buys real things: liability separation, independent governance, the ability to wind one thing down without touching the others. For a small one it mostly buys the overhead.

    The binding constraint is attention

    Everything about how this foundation is organized follows from one observation: in an organization this size, the scarce resource is not money and it is not people. It is how many things can be watched carefully at once.

    That is also, not coincidentally, the thesis of all three programs. Each of them exists because something goes unwatched: a building, a patient without an address, a therapy nobody is measuring. An organizational structure that spends its attention budget on its own paperwork is contradicting its own argument. How we choose our work.

    What actually stays separate anyway

    The thing people usually assume separate incorporation would protect is already protected, and by something stronger than a corporate boundary.

    CareGuard’s patient safety work product is privileged and confidential under 42 U.S.C. § 299b–22. Valor Medica holds protected health information. Neither flows to the foundation, and neither flows sideways to another program. Those walls do not depend on corporate form — they are federal, and the parent cannot waive them. How the programs relate.

    The honest trade-off

    One corporation means one point of failure. A serious problem at the foundation level reaches all three programs, and there is no firewall between them at the entity level. That is a real cost and it is the correct one to name.

    The mitigations are the ones that exist anyway: the asset lock in the articles, the external obligations attached to CareGuard’s federal listing, and the annual return. Governing documents.

    One thing that is a separate corporation

    Valor Villages Inc. is its own 501(c)(3), EIN 93-2266407, with its own leadership. Valor Medica is described as its medical arm and the two work together, but they are legally distinct and neither controls the other. That is a genuine separation, and it is the one people most often collapse. The distinction.

    Sources

    Every figure on this page is traceable. Where a source is a government report, the year the data describe is named alongside it, because it is usually not the year of publication.

    • U.S. Congress. Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, Public Law 109–41, enacted July 29, 2005; 119 Stat. 424. Codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 299b–21 to 299b–26. govinfo.gov

  • Service Is Not the Same as Volunteering

    People offer to help. The honest answer is more complicated than yes, and it is worth explaining rather than deflecting.

    A volunteer program is a program

    It is easy to think of volunteers as free capacity. They are not. A volunteer program needs screening, onboarding, supervision, scheduling, insurance, a way to handle it when something goes wrong, and somebody whose actual job is to run all of that well.

    Stood up badly, it produces two bad outcomes at once: volunteers whose time is wasted and who leave feeling used, and risk transferred onto the people the organization exists to protect. In settings involving vulnerable adults, the second one is not a small consideration.

    Sevadar Foundation does not currently run one, and saying so is more useful than a form that goes nowhere. Getting involved.

    Where the useful doors actually are

    1. Report what you see. If you visit or work in a care facility, CareGuard runs a confidential channel and it takes about ten minutes. Report a concern.
    2. Volunteer with the program that runs a program. Valor Medica operates its own volunteer page: valormedica.org/volunteer.
    3. Offer a professional skill. Facility operations, geriatric care, nonprofit governance, accounting. That is a phone call, not a form.
    4. Visit somebody. The single most protective thing in a nursing home resident’s life is a person who shows up at unpredictable hours and pays attention. The things a building does to people

    The distinction that matters

    “Volunteering” describes an employment relationship — unpaid, structured, managed. Seva describes a posture toward the work, and it applies equally to paid staff. The two get conflated because both involve doing something for someone else, but they answer different questions.

    This matters practically in one place. The veterans who conduct CareGuard’s physical-plant reviews are doing necessary work with a real consequence attached. Structuring that as volunteering-as-therapy would change what it is, and it would be legible as charity from a mile away — which is exactly what most of the opportunities offered to veterans already are. Why veterans do this work.

    In-kind gifts, while we are being honest

    The same logic applies to donated goods. In-kind gifts are frequently more expensive to accept than they are worth once you count storage, transport, disposal and the staff time to manage all three. Ask first and expect a real answer rather than an automatic yes. Questions about giving.