Fact check: What is the administrative cost percentage of Tunnel to Towers Foundation?

1. Why the 93%/7% Number Keeps Appearing — The Repeated Claim Driving the Narrative

Across the provided analyses, the dominant quantitative claim is that 93 cents of every dollar are spent on programs and 7 cents on overhead, a framing used to convey high financial efficiency and low administrative burden. Multiple entries attribute this split to CharityWatch’s evaluation and to summary financial statements or rating announcements, reinforcing the same metric in slightly different wording: “program percentage of 93%,” “administrative cost of 7%,” and “cost to raise $100 is $5” ^{[1] [2]}. The repetition across items suggests a consistent internal and third-party messaging cycle rather than one-off measurements.

2. Which Sources Provide That Percentage — CharityWatch, Charity Navigator, and the Foundation

The analyses cite CharityWatch’s program and fundraising-efficiency statements and Charity Navigator’s four-star rating and program service percentage as the external validators for the 93% program/7% overhead claim, while the foundation’s own “Financials” content echoes the same figures ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [6]}. This triangulation of the foundation’s internal reporting with two well-known evaluators is the basis for the consensus figure in the provided material, showing alignment between self-reported financials and charity-rating organizations’ summaries.

3. Timing and Consistency — What the Publication Dates Indicate

The analyses include dated items spanning 2021 through 2025 and undated items that repeat the same statistic; CharityWatch items are dated February 1, 2024, and Charity Navigator’s four-star notice is dated April 16, 2021 in the materials, while a later analysis references 2025 charity-rating commentary ^{[2] [3] [5]}. The presence of the 93% figure across multiple years suggests a consistent multi-year pattern in reported program spending, not a single-year anomaly. The dates imply ongoing affirmation of the metric from at least 2021 through 2025 in the collected analyses.

4. Fundraising Efficiency Framing — The “$5 to Raise $100” Claim and What It Conveys

Several analyses supplement the 93%/7% split with a fundraising-efficiency statement that it costs $5 to raise $100 in cash support, a way to convey low fundraising expenses and high net proceeds to programs ^[2]. That metric is consistent with a 5% fundraising cost, which, combined with overall overhead of 7%, would imply a small additional portion allocated to administrative expenses beyond fundraising. The framing targets donors who prioritize lean fundraising and high program allocation, reinforcing a narrative of operational efficiency.

5. Ratings and Reputation — Charity Navigator and Recurrent Four-Star Claims

The materials state that Tunnel to Towers earned or maintained a four-star Charity Navigator rating for multiple consecutive years, including a specific mention of a seventh consecutive year in one analysis and a sixth in another, and a perfect Accountability and Transparency subscore ^{[3] [6]}. These repeated references bolster credibility but show slight inconsistency in the count of consecutive years across summaries. The core messaging is consistent: third-party ratings corroborate high program allocation and transparency, though the analyses differ on precise tenure of the rating.

6. Consistency Across Foundation and Evaluator Messaging — Possible Reasons to Trust the Figure

The same 93%/7% ratio appears in the foundation’s financial snapshots and in charity-evaluator summaries, creating cross-endorsement within the provided materials ^{[4] [1]}. When a charity’s internal accounting aligns with independent watchdog summaries, it increases confidence that the metric reflects the organization’s stated allocation choices. However, the analyses do not provide raw IRS Form 990 line-item data or multi-year trend tables here, so the consensus rests on summarized statements rather than detailed expense breakdowns in the provided items.

7. Missing Context and Important Omissions from the Provided Analyses

The supplied analyses omit several common context items donors and researchers often seek: annualized trend graphs showing whether the 93% figure is stable year-to-year, breakdowns separating fundraising vs. general management within the 7% overhead, and the underlying accounting methodology (cash vs. accrual, inclusion/exclusion of in-kind services). The summaries also do not show raw totals or fiscal year definitions, which matter when a single large gift or program expense can skew percentages ^{[1] [4]}.

8. Bottom Line and How to Verify Further Given These Materials

Based on the analyses provided, the administrative cost percentage is presented as 7%, with 93% program spending consistently reported and supported by CharityWatch, Charity Navigator mentions, and the foundation’s financial summaries ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. To solidify verification beyond these summaries, review the foundation’s detailed audited financial statements or IRS Form 990 filings for specific line-item totals and multi-year comparisons, since the current materials present aligned but summarized claims without the detailed accounting tables that would remove remaining uncertainties.