Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does Tunnel to Towers Foundation spend its donations?
Executive summary
Tunnel to Towers (Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation) reports that a high share of donations funds programs — independent charity graders show program-service ratios around 90–93% and Charity Navigator gives the group a four‑star score (accountability & finance emphasized) [1][2][3]. The foundation’s public materials and filings (Form 990s, audited financials) support these figures and describe core uses: mortgage‑free homes, smart homes for wounded veterans, disaster relief, runs/stair climbs and education programs [4][5][6].
1. What the charity itself says: “Most dollars go to programs”
Tunnel to Towers’ financial page and press materials repeatedly state the foundation keeps fundraising and administrative costs low so a large percentage of dollars go to programs, and touts multi‑year four‑star ratings from Charity Navigator as evidence of fiscal stewardship [7][6]. Their audited financials are published on their site for donors to review [4].
2. Independent ratings: 90–93% to programs is how third parties measure it
CharityWatch gives Tunnel to Towers an “A+” rating and reports the foundation spent 93% of its cash expenses on program services, leaving about 7% for overhead; Charities for Veterans computed 90.4% program spending on a $272 million budget based on the 2023 tax return and 9.6% overhead [2][3]. Charity Navigator’s profile emphasizes accountability & finance in its overall 4‑star score and flags the organization’s strong numbers in those categories [1].
3. What “programs” actually include — charity descriptions and examples
Guidestar/Candid and the foundation’s own materials list the foundation’s main program areas: the Tunnel to Towers and Memorial runs/stair climbs and education (Never Forget programs), mortgage‑free homes and Smart Home builds for catastrophically injured veterans and Gold Star families, disaster relief, and immediate financial assistance programs such as Legacy Awards and Wings of a Hero for children who lost a parent [5][4][6]. Recent press releases highlight mortgage‑free homes given to Gold Star families as concrete program outputs [8].
4. Financial documentation available to donors and researchers
ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer indexes the foundation’s filings and makes Form 990s available for download; the organization also posts audited financial statements on its site [9][4][10]. These are the source documents that CharityWatch, Charity Navigator and others use to compute program vs. overhead ratios and to assess governance benchmarks [2][1].
5. Areas of scrutiny and controversy reported by the press
Reporting from The New York Times raised questions about the foundation’s financial relationships when it disclosed payments or sponsorships tied to former mayor Rudy Giuliani and the charity’s sponsorship of events and media linked to him; the foundation confirmed some sponsorship activities but declined to disclose total amounts, and the paper described creditors’ interest in related revenues amid Giuliani’s bankruptcy filings [11]. Wikipedia’s entry (built from reporting) also flags controversy about funds connected to Giuliani, though Wikipedia is a secondary compilation [12].
6. How donors can verify claims themselves
Donors seeking verification should review the foundation’s audited financial statements and Form 990 filings (available on the foundation site and via ProPublica/Nonprofit Explorer), compare program‑service expenses to total expenses, and consult ratings from CharityWatch and Charity Navigator, which compute program percentages and governance benchmarks from those filings [4][10][2][1].
7. Tradeoffs and alternative viewpoints to consider
High program‑service ratios (90–93%) are widely presented as evidence of efficient use of funds by both the foundation and raters [2][6]. Critics or watchdogs sometimes argue that numbers alone don’t capture program impact, fundraising practices, or the optics of sponsorship decisions; reporting about sponsorships with public figures shows why donors may want to probe beyond percentages — available sources report the Giuliani connection and the foundation’s limited disclosure about amounts [11][12]. Contemporary charity evaluation balances finance metrics with transparency about partnerships and demonstrated outcomes [1][2].
Limitations: this summary relies on the provided documents, ratings pages and news reporting; for granular line‑item breakdowns, specific program budgets or the most recent Form 990 details, consult the foundation’s posted audited financials and the full 990 filings [4][10].