What percentage of Tunnel to Towers' donations go to program services versus administration?
Executive summary
CharityWatch reports that the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation spends 93% of its cash expenses on program services and 7% on overhead (fundraising and management), a rating that underpins its A+ grade from that watchdog [1]. Tunnel to Towers’ own web pages and recent press items describe program activity and fundraising channels but the organization’s official financial breakdown on its site is not shown in the provided results [2] [3].
1. CharityWatch’s headline figure: 93% to programs
The clearest quantitative answer in the available material comes from CharityWatch, which says Tunnel to Towers “spends 93% of its cash expenses on its programs,” leaving 7% for overhead—this is the basis for CharityWatch’s A+ rating of the charity [1]. That single-source figure is the only explicit program-versus-administration percentage included in the supplied search results [1].
2. What that 93% figure means and where it comes from
CharityWatch measures “the percentage of Tunnel to Towers Foundation’s cash budget it spends on programs relative to overhead (fundraising, management, and general expenses)” and reports the 93% program ratio on its profile page [1]. The available snippet does not include the charity’s fiscal year, line‑item details, or how CharityWatch adjusted for grants, in‑kind contributions, or one-time expenditures—readers should note the metric reflects CharityWatch’s accounting choices as summarized in their profile [1].
3. Tunnel to Towers’ public materials emphasize mission activity, not itemized ratios
Tunnel to Towers’ own pages in the results promote donation channels and program initiatives—donate pages, recurring giving efforts, and program descriptions such as Veterans Villages and mortgage‑free homes—yet the snippets do not display an explicit, line‑by‑line financial breakdown on the donation page itself [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a full audited statement or IRS Form 990 presented in these results.
4. Recent press and partner coverage highlights spending on programs but lacks ratios
A 2025 press item about donations to Tunnel to Towers Veterans Villages outlines program scale—such as projected reach to tens of thousands of veterans by end of 2025—but the press release excerpt does not quote program-versus-overhead percentages [3]. Corporate partner and local news items in the results describe fundraising outcomes and campaign activity but do not provide independent verification of the CharityWatch percentage [4] [5].
5. Multiple viewpoints and limits of the available reporting
The reporting in hand presents two perspectives: an independent evaluator (CharityWatch) giving a high-efficiency score and the charity’s own promotional material emphasizing impact and fundraising avenues [1] [2]. Missing from the provided results are the charity’s audited financial statements or the IRS Form 990 text that would allow readers to confirm CharityWatch’s calculation directly; available sources do not mention those documents in these snippets [2] [1].
6. How donors should interpret the 93% claim
If you rely on CharityWatch’s analysis, Tunnel to Towers appears to direct the vast majority of cash expenses to program services (93%)—a strong efficiency signal in charity rating terms [1]. But without the underlying filings in the provided material, this remains an expert summary rather than a primary‑document verification; for full due diligence, the next step is to review the foundation’s audited financial statements or Form 990, which are not shown in the current search results [1] [2].
7. Practical next steps for someone evaluating the charity
Confirm the CharityWatch figure by locating the Tunnel to Towers audited financials or IRS Form 990 (not found in current reporting). Compare CharityWatch’s methodology and fiscal year with the foundation’s filings to ensure apples‑to‑apples comparison; CharityWatch’s profile page is the only source here giving the 93% number [1]. Also consider program descriptions and recent third‑party press [3] [4] to match spending claims with observable activity.
Limitations: This analysis uses only the documents and snippets provided. The 93% program-spending figure is reported by CharityWatch in these results [1]; the charity’s own site and press materials describe programs and fundraising but do not include the detailed financial breakdown in the supplied excerpts [2] [3].