How do Tunnel to Towers' fundraising costs and payout ratios compare to similar veterans and first-responder charities?

1. Tunnel to Towers’ headline efficiency numbers

Tunnel to Towers markets low fundraising and administrative costs and high program spending; CharityWatch assigns an “A+” and reports 93% of cash expenses to programs and a $5 cost to raise each $100 in fiscal 2022, while Charities for Vets reported 90.4% program spending on a $272 million budget in 2023 ^{[1] [2]}. The foundation also publishes audited financial statements and a financials page asserting minimal overhead; those filings are available through its public pages and ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer ^{[4] [3] [5]}.

2. What those metrics mean and their methodological caveats

Program percentage and “cost to raise $100” are useful but depend on accounting choices—CharityWatch explicitly calculates program % using cash expenses and excludes certain in‑kind items, which can raise the reported program share ^[6]. Tunnel to Towers’ own materials repeat the low‑overhead claim but do not substitute for external audit methodology; the audited financials are the concrete source documents that underlie ratings and summaries ^{[5] [4]}.

3. How ratings and third‑party profiles reinforce the picture

CharityWatch’s analysis (A+, 93% program) and prior Charity Navigator 4‑star publicity indicate consistent third‑party recognition of Tunnel to Towers’ financial stewardship ^{[1] [7]}. Charity Navigator and CharityWatch use different criteria: CharityWatch emphasizes program vs. overhead cash flows and cost‑to‑raise metrics ^[6], while Charity Navigator’s public profile documents mission and accountability scores ^{[8] [5]}.

4. Comparing to “similar” veterans/first‑responder charities — limits of the record

Available sources in this search set do not include systematic, contemporaneous financial ratios for other named veterans or first‑responder charities, so a direct, sourced ranking or numeric comparison is not possible from the materials provided. Forum posts and informal comparisons (e.g., claims about Wounded Warrior Project having higher overhead) appear in discussion threads but are not authoritative financial analyses and are methodologically inconsistent ^[9]. Therefore, specific peer‑to‑peer numbers are not found in current reporting supplied here.

5. What a fair comparison would require

To compare Tunnel to Towers to peers fairly, you need the same metrics computed the same way (program % on a cash basis vs. GAAP; cost‑to‑raise $100 using identical inclusions/exclusions; multi‑year trends). That requires pulling each charity’s audited financials or CharityWatch/Charity Navigator analyses and noting one‑time program grants or in‑kind contributions that can skew single‑year percentages—documents like Tunnel to Towers’ audited statements exist and would be the starting point ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Readers’ takeaway and recommended next steps

Tunnel to Towers shows strong efficiency metrics in third‑party summaries (93% program spend; $5 cost to raise $100 per CharityWatch; 90.4% program share per Charities for Vets) and publishes audited financials to back its claims ^{[1] [2] [4]}. For donors seeking apples‑to‑apples comparisons, gather the same metrics from several charities’ recent audited statements or CharityWatch/Charity Navigator profiles, and watch for differences in methodology—available sources here do not provide that cross‑charity dataset ^{[1] [2] [4] [9]}.

Limitations: this piece uses only the documents and citations returned in your search; it does not invent peer ratios not present in those sources and flags when comparative data are not found ^{[3] [9]}.