Tunnel of Towers overhead cost?
Executive summary
The most direct answer: independent charity evaluators and the Foundation’s own filings place Tunnel to Towers’ overhead in the single digits, but the exact figure varies by methodology and year — CharityWatch reports 7% overhead (93% program spend) based on cash expenses, while a charity-rating snapshot and third‑party calculations put recent overhead closer to 9–10% (e.g., 9.6% based on the 2023 tax return) [1] [2]. The Foundation itself emphasizes “a small percentage” of funds on overhead and highlights high ratings from evaluators as evidence of fiscal restraint [3] [4].
1. What the headline numbers mean: program vs. overhead accounting
CharityWatch’s headline — that 93% of cash expenses went to programs and 7% to overhead — is calculated on a cash‑expense basis that excludes certain noncash items and treats program payments and fundraising timing in a specific way; that metric is what yields the Foundation’s widely quoted “7% overhead” figure [1]. Other organizations and independent calculations that look at the 2023 Form 990 and audited statements arrive at somewhat higher overhead shares (for example, 9.6% of a $272 million budget in 2023), illustrating how different accounting conventions change the ratio without necessarily indicating waste or mismanagement [2].
2. How Tunnel to Towers presents the story
The Foundation repeatedly frames overhead as a “small percentage” and points to external endorsements — including a four‑star Charity Navigator rating and its program outputs, like mortgage‑free homes and large program commitments — as proof that donations predominantly fund mission work [3] [5]. The organization’s public materials and fact sheets emphasize fiscal management and low fundraising/administrative costs, language that steers donors toward the takeaway that overhead is minimal [6] [7].
3. Independent verification and nuance from audited filings
Audited financial statements and nonprofit databases corroborate that the Foundation has large program expenditures and major liabilities disclosed in its audits (for example, lease liabilities and going‑concern qualifications noted in the 2023 audited financials), but those same documents require readers to dig into line items to reconcile “program” versus “supporting” costs and to understand multi‑year commitments such as pledged home builds and lease obligations [8]. ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer provides access to tax filings for deeper scrutiny, but it does not itself issue a single “overhead” verdict — that depends on which expenses a reviewer classifies as programmatic vs. administrative [9].
4. Differences in evaluations and their implicit agendas
Ratings that place Tunnel to Towers in the top tier (CharityWatch A+/“Top‑Rated” and high Charity Navigator marks) reflect governance and transparency benchmarks and concentrate on program‑spending ratios favorable to the Foundation; these evaluators use criteria that tend to reward charities that allocate a large share of cash outlays directly to programs [1] [5]. Conversely, some aggregator sites that compute overhead strictly from Form 990 line items may show slightly higher overhead percentages; neither approach is inherently “right,” but each carries an implicit agenda: donors and watchdogs prioritize different tradeoffs between program intensity, reserve levels, and long‑term obligations [2] [8].
5. Practical takeaway and limits of available reporting
For donors seeking a crisp number, the defensible statement is that Tunnel to Towers’ overhead has been reported in the single digits — commonly cited as 7% by CharityWatch and calculated near 9.6% by other reviewers for 2023 — and the Foundation and independent auditors provide documentation to support those figures, though methodology matters and multi‑year commitments complicate year‑to‑year comparisons [1] [2] [8]. This account relies on published evaluator summaries, the Foundation’s financial pages and audited statements; if a more granular, transaction‑level audit is desired, the public materials available do not resolve every classificatory choice and further review of raw Form 990 schedules and audit notes would be required [3] [8].