Frank Parlato
Laurie Styron had questions.
It began with an email.
A request from a self-appointed guardian of virtue, CharityWatch, through its director, Laurie Styron, for clarification.
CharityWatch calls itself “America’s most independent, assertive charity watchdog.” Styron issues “charity ratings on an “A+” to “F” scale“ so donors “can make more informed giving decisions.”
Her subject for grading was DELTA Rescue. She found a clerical error on a tax form. The phrase “missing millions“ would become central to her narrative.
No missing animals, “missing millions.”
But Styron is not an accountant. She is not a lawyer. She runs a solo operation and lives by donations made by people who want to support her watchdog work.
It was not missing millions. DELTA Rescue was not missing a dollar. The money was transferred between DELTA and two nonprofit entities, documented in tax filings, and accounted for under standard rules.
Styron did not quite understand or did not want to understand. So she sent an email and then another.
There was no dust on Styron’s hands, no calluses from feeding the hungry or tending the ill. Her labor was in judgment. And she judged with the elegance of cruelty—precise, rehearsed, designed for spectacle. From a sterile desk in Chicago, dressed in designer apparel, Styron conjured scandal about an animal sanctuary and a horse rescue, and videos made to preach no-kill.
A Watchdog With No Kennel
She never met the dog. Never held a broken animal in the desert sun. She talked about ‘accountability.’
A lady supposedly has a watchdog group. Not a real one—no kennels, no bark. It is just herself, and maybe an assistant. She picks a few good charities, waits for one of them to fat-finger a number, and then writes a story about “missing millions!“ even when they’re sitting there, accounted for.
She sells paranoia as virtue. Because who’s going to read a story called “Everything’s Fine”?
Behind the grades lies a cynical operation: Its survival depends not on giving—but on undermining those who do. It is pageantry—a theater of virtue, in digits and decimals.
Styron doesn’t rescue anything. She watches. She waits. And when a good soul stumbles over a decimal point, she pounces.
Why? Because fear gets donations. Suspicion keeps her in business. She is hunting for donations. She’s no fool.
She pays herself handsomely—most of the $500,000 in yearly donations go to her salary. Her one-woman show, “CharityWatch,“ exists to sow distrust.
Selling Suspicion, Not Solutions
She is not there to solve problems but to collect donations from people thankful that she exposed a charity to which they might otherwise have given.
She uses the cloak of independence and the assertive language of accountability to manufacture a scandal out of honest differences in accounting. In the world of Laurie Stryon and her “CharityWatch,“ petty accounting discrepancies are weaponized into accusations. Styron brands herself a guardian of the donor dollar. But real watchdogs bark when there’s danger. Styron barks for attention.
And when she asks for donations at the end of each hit piece she publishes on her website, if it happens to divert donors away from her target to her, that is the business she’s chosen.
She drew a bead on DELTA Rescue.
A Sanctuary of Last Resort, Built on Principle
In the high desert of Acton, California, exists an animal sanctuary unlike any other. Founded by Leo Grillo, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue provides lifelong care for more than 1,500 animals rescued from abandonment and abuse. Unlike traditional shelters, D.E.L.T.A. is a no-kill sanctuary that neither adopts out nor euthanizes for space. Every dog, cat, and horse remains for life.
Grillo built this place not for applause. There are no velvet ropes. Only wind, and silence, and the rustle of animals learning to trust again. It is not a story most people write, because the ending is always the same: they stay, and they die, but not alone.
In the California desert, you’ll find a strange and beautiful miracle: a place where animals who have nothing left are still worth everything. A three-legged mutt gets breakfast. A horse that saw too much is brushed by hands that have nothing to prove. The people aren’t heroes. Just folks loving something that can’t pay them back.
Out in the desert—there’s a guy named Grillo. D.E.L.T.A. Rescue. No-kill. No adoptions. No bullshit. It’s the opposite of every PR-stuffed nonprofit pretending to save the world while hosting donor galas. This place is ugly in the best way—because it’s real.
In a world where everything is disposable—cups, people, dogs—there’s a dusty hill in California where things are not so. They limp in. They shake. They hide. And then someone feeds them, someone stitches the wound, someone waits. No tricks. No adoptions. Just time, medicine, and love.
The Mountain of Mercy
They call it eccentric. They call it excessive. But Leo Grillo doesn’t play games with animal lives.They arrive with no names, no histories, no rights. And yet, they are counted. Not by breed, nor worth, but by need. D.E.L.T.A. Rescue is the world’s largest no‑kill, “care‑for‑life“ animal rescue organization, and it depends on donations, made quietly by people who want to see no-kill survive. And let the record show that Grillo is the founder of no-kill. The voice of no kill. He started DELTA 46 years ago.
Charity Watch is Laurie Stryon, muckraker and fundraiser. She sent emails announcing in advance that she would sit in judgment of DELTA. She wanted to build a scandal on a clerical error on a tax form, made by the accountant.
She would write a story. If potential donors believed her, she could take the money meant for dogs and cats and put it into her bank account. It did not matter that every transaction was comprehensively documented in DELTA’s IRS 990 filings, available to the public. What Styron claimed were “missing millions” weren’t missing at all. But the truth? She never bothered to ask.
Maybe the real question isn’t where the millions went—but why she wanted people to believe they were gone. She turned a clerical footnote into a scandal—because scandal sells.
To Be Continued…
In our next post on Styron, we will show in detail the absurdity of her actions and the self serving reasons we believe she did it.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
The Styron surname likely originated in 14th-century England as a variant of Styring, meaning “busy,” “active,” or “agile”. It may have been a nickname for a lively person, deriving from the Middle English word stiring or stiren (“to stir” or “move about energetically”). The name evolved from Styring to Styron in English records during the 18th century.
Charity Watch does not have any references such as articles in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or Rolling Stone, as Charity Watch claims. It feigns credibility by relying on reputable media outlets. It capitalizes on their credibility and trustworthiness.
What the search results do include:
Lists from Charity Navigator appear, which is a different organization than CharityWatch.
General Information on Charities:
Articles discuss how much of a donation goes to a cause and list top-rated charities, but these are not specifically from CharityWatch or the specified news outlets.
Descriptions of The New York Times and the nature of fundraising are included, but these do not mention CharityWatch.
CharityWatch is not mentioned in any of the provided search results for publications like The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, or The Rolling Stone. The results focus on lists from other charity watchdogs, articles about fundraising, or descriptions of the newspapers themselves, and do not include instances of CharityWatch being quoted, interviewed, or having its donation recommendations reported in these publications.
—Laurie has been quoted in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, MarketWatch, CBS MoneyWatch, Rolling Stone, NBC Nightly News, and by many other media outlets.
Is this true?
My alleged sources say Laurie is a liar.
Laurie is one shade off from being an albino.
She has the face only a mother could love or a cripple in need of a caretaker.
“The New York Times refers to the collaboration and coverage between The New York Times and CharityWatch, an independent nonprofit watchdog organization. The New York Times has published articles and commentary that feature CharityWatch’s expert analysis of nonprofits to help donors make informed decisions and avoid scams.
I believe that the New York Times does not meet the standards that I expect as a reader.
Incredible 🌟 work always
This is incredibly valuable sharing
Styron sees hate to live well.
I recommend that everyone find out about Charity Watch for themselves. The Frank Report is the best place to do so because it is probably the only real news source that has looked into Charity Watch and given an informed opinion. The mainstream media has shown little interest in this topic, as research requires financial investment and generates a limited return for media companies. The only ones left are committed, independent journalists who scrutinize such organizations and make a comprehensible judgment about them. So it’s no wonder that I observe the decline of traditional media.
An example from the New York Times on December 2, 2015, in which Charity Watch President Daniel Borochoff is quoted and Charity Watch is highlighted alongside another organization.
New York Times
Your Money Adviser
Before Giving, Check Out Charities and Their Policies on Privacy
By Ann Carns
Dec. 1, 2015
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/your-money/before-giving-check-out-charities-and-their-policies-on-privacy.html
Laurie has no expertise and is a conartist. Zero oversight and the damage is done as soon as she releases her grade. I thought DELTA received a “?” as a final rating?? I believe this was purposeful on Stynam’s part. She knows there’s not money missing, but there was a potential scandal and headlines were certain. A “question mark” rating absolves her of all responsibility, yet the question mark assessment would scare away any investor; suggesting questionable activity, or activites so irregular that she was unable to determine any grade at all.