How does Tunnel to Towers' program spending and overhead compare to similar veterans' charities?

1. Tunnel to Towers’ headline financial picture: efficiency and big program dollars

Independent charity evaluators have repeatedly highlighted Tunnel to Towers’ high program‑spending ratios: CharityWatch assigned an A+ and reported that 93% of the foundation’s cash expenses went to programs and 7% to overhead, and CharityWatch calculated a cost of $5 to raise each $100 in fiscal 2022 ^{[1] [2]}. Other compilations put program spending in the 90–94% range depending on the accounting dataset used, and the foundation’s audited financial statements document large program outlays tied to housing and “Season of Hope” home deliveries ^{[3] [7] [8]}.

2. What the ratings mean — and what they don’t

Charity Navigator’s four‑star rating and CharityWatch’s A+ both focus on financial ratios, governance and transparency; Tunnel to Towers has earned repeated high marks including a perfect Accountability & Transparency score from Charity Navigator ^{[4] [5]}. Those ratings indicate the charity reports spending in ways that evaluators consider efficient and transparent, but ratings do not by themselves measure long‑term program impact or how every dollar influences beneficiary outcomes — available sources do not mention independent evaluations of long‑term program effectiveness beyond the foundation’s own reporting ^{[4] [5]}.

3. How Tunnel to Towers compares to common peers on overhead

By the metrics cited in the available sources, Tunnel to Towers’ overhead (7–10% depending on the calculation) is lower than many large veterans or veterans‑related nonprofits as reported in public discussions; for example, forum summaries contrast Tunnel to Towers’ ~7% overhead with other veterans charities cited there at higher overhead levels ^[9]. CharityWatch and Charity Navigator place Tunnel to Towers in the top tier by these financial measures ^{[1] [4]}.

4. Accounting nuance: “program spending” can be measured differently

Different watchdogs use different inputs: CharityWatch emphasized cash‑based program spending and calculated cost‑to‑raise metrics, while other sites calculated program percentages from Form 990 or audited totals and got slightly different percentages ^{[2] [3]}. These methodological differences explain why program percentages appear as 90.4% in one calculation and 93% in another ^{[3] [1]}. Donors should note that allocation rules, one‑time large program payments (like mortgage payoffs), and timing of grants can shift ratios year‑to‑year ^[7].

5. Program scale and publicity: mortgage‑free homes and Season of Hope

Tunnel to Towers public communications and press releases emphasize high‑visibility program work such as delivering mortgage‑free homes in multi‑state “Season of Hope” campaigns and paying off individual veterans’ mortgages; these program outputs are cited in recent press releases that document dozens of home deliveries ^{[8] [6] [10]}. Such tangible, high‑cost interventions inflate program dollar totals, which contributes to high program‑spending percentages when compared to charities with many small direct services.

6. Counterviews, concerns and what’s not in the record

There are discussion‑board comparisons and media pieces that contrast Tunnel to Towers favorably against charities criticized for higher overhead, but the provided sources do not include systematic head‑to‑head peer benchmarking beyond those selective comparisons ^{[9] [11]}. Available sources do not mention independent longitudinal outcome studies proving that Tunnel to Towers’ program dollars deliver superior long‑term veteran outcomes versus peers; they also do not provide comprehensive comparisons against a defined set of “similar veterans’ charities” using identical metrics (available sources do not mention independent peer‑comparison studies).

7. What donors should watch for next

Watch the foundation’s next audited financials and Form 990 for year‑to‑year changes in cash flows, note how large capital programs (home builds, mortgage payoffs) affect program ratios, and read evaluator methodology notes (CharityWatch and Charity Navigator) to understand how each group calculates program spending and fundraising efficiency ^{[7] [1] [4]}. If your priority is strict overhead minimization, Tunnel to Towers’ reported 7–10% overhead puts it among the low‑overhead charities cited in available reporting; if you prioritize demonstrated long‑term outcomes, the record in these sources lacks independent impact studies and donors should request or look for such evaluations (p1_s3; ^[3]; available sources do not mention independent impact evaluations).

Sources cited: CharityWatch analysis and rating ^{[1] [2]}, Charity Navigator ratings ^{[4] [5]}, audited financials and filings ^{[7] [12]}, press releases about program activity ^{[8] [6] [10]}, third‑party summaries and forum comparisons ^{[9] [3]}.