What do Tunnel to Towers’ audited financial statements and IRS Form 990 for 2023 show in detail about program vs. overhead expenses?
Executive summary
The audited financial statements and the IRS Form 990 available for the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation show a high share of cash spending reported as program services — CharityWatch and the Foundation’s own disclosures put that figure at roughly 93% of cash expenses, leaving about 7% for fundraising and administrative overhead in the year analyzed — and the filings break program expenses into named program segments such as “In the Line of Duty” and “Never Forget” [1] [2] [3]. Public databases and the charity’s website provide the underlying Form 990 and audited statements for independent review, while third‑party watchdogs note both the efficiency metrics and the specific cash‑based methodology used to compute the 93/7 split [4] [5] [1].
1. What the numbers in the filings actually report
The Foundation’s audited statements and its Form 990 disclose program service expenses grouped into at least two major categories — “In the Line of Duty” and “Never Forget” — with CharityWatch citing total program service expenses of roughly $267.7 million in the year reviewed (program totals of about $239.8M and $27.9M respectively) and reporting that Tunnel to Towers spent $284 million in cash expenses against roughly $292 million in cash contributions in fiscal 2022, yielding the 93% program / 7% overhead ratio on a cash‑expense basis [2] [1].
2. How CharityWatch, the Foundation, and data portals frame efficiency
CharityWatch’s headline efficiency metric — 93% to programs and 7% to overhead — derives from an analysis that prioritizes cash expenses and excludes certain non‑cash items; CharityWatch explicitly states it compares audited financial statements with IRS Form 990 reporting to calculate that ratio, and it gives Tunnel to Towers an “A+” rating on that basis [1] [2]. The Foundation’s own financial page echoes the message that fundraising and administrative costs are “kept at a minimum” and points visitors to published audited statements [3]. Independent repositories such as ProPublica and Nonprofit Explorer host the Form 990 and audit PDFs for verification [4] [5].
3. What “program vs. overhead” really means in these documents
Form 990 and audited financial statements separate expenses by function (program services vs. management and general vs. fundraising); Tunnel to Towers’ filings show detailed program line items and grant/award distributions, which feed into program totals cited by watchdogs [2] [6]. However, methodological choices matter: CharityWatch’s cash‑expense focus can elevate the program percentage compared with other methods that capitalize or amortize certain costs differently, and the Form 990’s Statement of Functional Expenses provides the granular breakout that auditors and analysts use to reconcile those figures [1] [5].
4. Areas where the filings leave open questions or require careful reading
Public filings are available, but readers must inspect the Statement of Functional Expenses and audit notes to reconcile items such as non‑cash contributions, in‑kind expenses, or timing differences; Instrumentl and other aggregators report grant totals (one dataset indicates $137.6M in grants in 2023) but those summaries may rely on different fiscal periods or classifications than CharityWatch’s cash‑based analysis [6]. Charity Navigator and other evaluators also flag whether audited statements are published on the charity site and whether executive compensation and governance disclosures are clearly presented — factors that affect transparency judgments even when program ratios look strong [7].
5. Competing interpretations and what they reveal about agendas
Advocates and the Foundation emphasize the high program share and low cost to raise $100, which reinforces a donor‑centric narrative of efficiency used to attract contributions [2] [3]. Watchdog summaries like CharityWatch’s are influential but rest on interpretive choices about cash vs. accrual accounting; critics or alternative analysts could compute a different overhead percentage if they treated certain fundraising investments, capital projects, or multi‑year obligations differently — a nuance rarely visible in headline figures [1] [5]. Finally, public portals exist for verification: the Form 990 and audited financials are publicly accessible for those who wish to audit the auditors’ math themselves [4].