How do administrative and fundraising expense ratios for Tunnel to Towers compare with other top-rated veterans charities?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tunnel to Towers reports it spends about 93% of its budget on program services, leaving roughly 7% for fundraising and administrative overhead; CharityWatch gives it an A+ and Charity Navigator a 4‑star rating, which the foundation highlights as evidence of efficiency [1] [2] [3]. Available sources list many other veteran charities as “top” or “top‑rated” but do not provide consistent, side‑by‑side administrative or fundraising ratios to permit a complete numerical comparison across peer organizations in the same dataset [4] [5] [6].
1. Tunnel to Towers’ headline claim: 93% to programs — what the records show
Tunnel to Towers publicly states a program‑service ratio averaging 93 cents on the dollar and repeats that figure across its financials page, fact sheet and annual reports; independent charity evaluators also show high marks—CharityWatch lists Tunnel to Towers as spending 93% of cash expenses on programs and awards an A+ rating while Charity Navigator has given a 4‑star rating [1] [2] [3] [7] [8]. Those figures are presented by the organization and by evaluators that calculate program expense ratios from IRS Form 990 data; the Foundation emphasizes these ratings as evidence of “sound fiscal management” [1] [3].
2. What “program service percentage” actually measures
The program service ratio reported by Tunnel to Towers is the common metric used by Charity Navigator and CharityWatch to show the share of total expenses devoted to program activities versus fundraising and management. Charity Navigator calculates a Program Expense Ratio as program expenses divided by total expenses (often averaged across recent 990s), and CharityWatch evaluates cash spending on programs relative to overhead [9] [2]. These metrics do not by themselves measure program quality, outcomes, or long‑term sustainability; they measure spending allocation [9] [2].
3. Comparing to other “top‑rated” veterans charities: limited consistent public data
Several external lists and guides identify other top veteran charities—Fisher House, Wounded Warrior Project, Operation Homefront and others—but the search results do not provide a single, up‑to‑date table of their program vs. overhead ratios that would allow a direct numeric comparison with Tunnel to Towers within these sources [10] [11] [5]. Some third‑party pages claim high program percentages for specific charities (for example, one site claims 91.3% program spending for a particular charity), but these are isolated figures and not a systematic cross‑charity comparison available in the provided reporting [12] [5].
4. Different evaluators, different methodologies — why apples‑to‑apples is hard
CharityWatch focuses on cash‑based program spending and governance benchmarks; Charity Navigator computes multi‑year averages from Form 990 and also reports accountability scores—so two high ratings can reflect overlapping but not identical calculations [9] [2]. Lists of “top” veteran charities often aggregate ratings from multiple evaluators or apply editorial criteria, which can produce different rankings depending on whether the emphasis is efficiency, transparency, or program impact [6] [11].
5. What donors should look for beyond the headline percentage
High program spending is a useful signal of low overhead, but the sources make clear that donors should also consider program outcomes, scale and transparency. Tunnel to Towers documents sizeable grants and mortgage‑free home programs in its annual report, which explains where program dollars flow, but the materials provided here do not quantify outcomes relative to dollars across multiple charities [8] [13]. Evaluators’ governance and transparency scores (noted by Tunnel to Towers’ Charity Navigator and CharityWatch marks) are complementary signals; donors should consult each charity’s latest Form 990, audited financials and independent ratings for a fuller picture [9] [2] [3].
6. Competing viewpoints and hidden incentives in the messaging
Tunnel to Towers uses its 93% program figure and third‑party ratings prominently in marketing and press releases to build donor trust; evaluators like CharityWatch and Charity Navigator confer credibility but also rely on charity‑reported filings and disclosures to compute ratios [1] [2] [3]. Third‑party “best of” lists that rank veteran charities may have editorial or affiliate motives; the search results include listicles and guides whose methodology or commercial incentives are not fully detailed in the available excerpts [4] [6] [11].
7. Bottom line for readers deciding between veteran charities
Tunnel to Towers consistently reports a 93% program spending ratio and carries top ratings from CharityWatch and Charity Navigator, which supports its claim of low overhead [1] [2] [3]. However, the provided sources do not include a comprehensive, contemporaneous comparison of administrative/fundraising ratios for a set of peer veteran charities, so a numerical ranking across “top‑rated” organizations is not possible from the current reporting [5] [6]. Donors seeking a direct comparison should consult each charity’s most recent Form 990, Charity Navigator and CharityWatch profiles, and independent impact reporting before making a decision [9] [2].