What percentage of Tunnel to Towers donations go to administrative and fundraising costs?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tunnel to Towers reports that only a small percentage of donations go to fundraising and administrative (overhead) costs; independent charity evaluators quantify that overhead in the single digits — CharityWatch reports 7% overhead and 93% program spending, while CharitiesForVets calculates about 9.6% overhead [1] [2]. Tunnel to Towers’ own statements and promotional material repeatedly emphasize minimizing fundraising and administrative costs [3] [4].
1. What Tunnel to Towers itself says: “a small percentage”
The foundation’s public-facing financial pages and fact sheets repeatedly state that it “keeps fundraising and administrative costs at a minimum” and allocates “only a small percentage of funds” to overhead; those statements appear across its official Financials page and downloadable materials [3] [4]. The foundation highlights third‑party validation — for example noting a four‑star Charity Navigator rating — as evidence of fiscal discipline [3].
2. CharityWatch’s accounting: 93% to programs, 7% to overhead
CharityWatch, which applies its own methods to exclude certain in‑kind items when calculating cash program percentages, gives the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation an “A+” and reports that the charity spent 93% of its cash expenses on programs and 7% on overhead (fundraising, management and general) in the period analyzed [1] [5]. CharityWatch also highlights the charity’s fundraising efficiency ($5 to raise each $100 in cash support in fiscal 2022) [5].
3. Other independent calculations: ~9–10% overhead
At least one other watchdog, CharitiesForVets, using the foundation’s 2023 tax return, estimates that Tunnel to Towers spent 90.4% on programs and 9.6% on overhead — a notably higher overhead share than CharityWatch’s 7% figure but still under 10% [2]. Public reporting (e.g., Fox Business) has cited the foundation’s claim that over 94% of fundraising dollars are allocated to programs, a version of the same message framed slightly differently [6].
4. Why the numbers differ: methodology and what’s counted
Differences between 7% and ~9.6% reflect standard variations in charity accounting and evaluator methodology. CharityWatch states it computes program percentages using cash-only expenses and excludes some in‑kind entries; other groups that use IRS Form 990 totals or include different expense lines can produce higher overhead ratios [5] [1]. Available sources do not provide a single, unified reconciliation of the foundation’s audited statements versus each evaluator’s adjustments; users should consult the foundation’s audited financials for line‑by‑line detail [7].
5. What the audited financials and Form 990 offer (and limits on reporting)
The foundation’s audited financial statements and its downloadable financials are the primary documents for exact line items and totals [7] [8]. CharityWatch’s and CharitiesForVets’ summaries are derived from those filings, but the exact formulas (e.g., treatment of in‑kind gifts, allocation between program vs. administrative categories) drive the headline percentages [5] [2]. Available sources do not include a simple, single‑figure “administrative + fundraising” line presented consistently across all documents; users must compare the underlying filings to see what each evaluator excluded or reclassified [7] [5].
6. Competing perspectives and practical takeaways for donors
Multiple reputable evaluators agree that Tunnel to Towers directs the large majority of its expenses to programs, but they disagree modestly on the precise overhead share: CharityWatch reports 7% overhead (93% program), CharitiesForVets computes about 9.6% overhead (90.4% program), and media reports recapitulate the foundation’s messaging of “over 94%” of fundraising dollars to programs [1] [2] [6]. Donors seeking precision should review the foundation’s audited financial statements [7] and the specific methodology notes from CharityWatch [5] and CharitiesForVets [2] before deciding.
7. Hidden agendas and framing to watch
The foundation emphasizes low overhead as a trust signal on its site and in promotional material; independent evaluators validate that claim but apply differing accounting lenses [3] [4] [1]. Some promotional partners and secondary outlets repeat simplified percentages (e.g., “95% of fundraising dollars go to programs”) without linking to the underlying filings, which can create the impression of a single authoritative number where none exists in the sources [9] [6]. Always check whether a quoted percentage is cash‑only, includes in‑kind support, or is limited to “fundraising dollars” rather than total budget.
If you want, I can pull the specific program, management and fundraising line items from the foundation’s 2023 audited financial statements [7] and show how CharityWatch and CharitiesForVets likely derived their percentages.