Fact check: What is the Tunnel to Towers Foundation's administrative cost percentage in 2025?

1. What each source actually claims — distilled and direct

The three provided analyses state a uniform numeric claim: 7% administrative costs and 93% program spending for the Tunnel to Towers Foundation. CharityWatch’s analysis is explicitly credited with calculating the 7% administrative ratio from audited 2022 financials and IRS Form 990 data ^[1]. A separate CharityWatch-rated summary dated January 2024 reiterates the same breakdown, framing it as evidence of efficient use of donations ^[2]. A third, more recent-seeming summary emphasizes that the foundation “consistently allocates over 90%” to programs and has secured favorable evaluator ratings, restating the 93%/7% split as representative of its performance ^[3]. Each source presents the identical numeric claim as its central fact ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. How fresh and diverse are the claims — dates and provenance

The three items differ in apparent publication dates and provenance, which affects how confidently the 7% figure can be applied to 2025. CharityWatch’s underlying analysis references audited fiscal 2022 statements and a January 2024 rating summary, so its 7% figure is anchored in 2022 accounting and reiterated in early 2024 ^{[1] [2]}. The third summary is dated March 28, 2025 and repeats the >90% program allocation language, which suggests continued endorsement into 2025, though it does not specify whether it rechecked audited 2023 or 2024 financials ^[3]. The trio provides continuity but not definitive year‑to‑year verification for 2025 numbers ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Reconciling identical figures across potentially biased sources

All three analyses converge on the same numeric ratio, which strengthens internal consistency but raises questions about independent verification. CharityWatch’s calculation reportedly comes from audited statements and Form 990, while the 2025 summary appears to echo evaluator conclusions without showing separate financial reanalysis ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Because each source can rely on overlapping data sets or on prior evaluator conclusions, the agreement is persuasive but not independent: multiple citations of the same audit‑based figure is not equivalent to fresh audits across each reporting year ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. What “administrative cost percentage” means in the cited context

In the provided analyses, the administrative percentage is defined as administrative costs divided by total cash expenses, producing the 7% figure, with the remainder characterized as program expenses (93%) ^[1]. This framing is standard for charity evaluators, but it omits whether fundraising costs are grouped with administration or separated as a distinct line, and whether one‑time capital or grant expenses are included in “program” totals — important definitional choices that can materially change the reported ratio. The sources do not detail those classification rules in the excerpts supplied ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Evaluator consensus and possible agendas worth noting

The three references present a positive consensus: high program spending and low administrative overhead. CharityWatch’s endorsement signals a donor‑oriented efficiency measurement, while the March 2025 summary emphasizes favorable ratings from multiple evaluators, which serves promotional purposes ^{[2] [3]}. The evaluators’ goal is to guide donors; the foundation’s summaries aim to encourage giving. Both perspectives can align and amplify the 7% message even when based on the same underlying financials, so readers should note the potential agenda to reassure donors ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Key omissions and why they matter for a 2025 answer

None of the supplied analyses explicitly shows audited financial statements for 2023 or 2024, or a 2025 audit, nor do they disclose classification rules for administrative versus fundraising costs; those omissions limit the ability to state the 2025 administrative percentage with complete certainty. The March 2025 writeup repeats the 93% program claim but lacks granular fiscal dating, so it suggests continuity without direct new audit citation ^[3]. Without explicit, dated audited financials for the years immediately preceding 2025, the numeric claim is best treated as consistent historical performance through 2022 and affirmed by evaluators into 2024–early 2025, not an audit‑verified 2025 figure ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

7. Bottom line: Can you assert “7% in 2025”?

Based on the supplied analyses, the most defensible statement is that the Tunnel to Towers Foundation has been reported at 7% administrative costs (93% program spending) according to CharityWatch’s analysis of fiscal 2022 data and reiterated in subsequent evaluator summaries up to March 2025 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. That constitutes strong indicative evidence that administrative costs remained low into 2024 and were portrayed as such in early 2025 materials; however, a conclusive, audit‑based certification for the calendar year 2025 is not documented in the provided excerpts ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

8. Practical next steps to fully verify the 2025 number

To reach definitive confirmation, consult the foundation’s audited financial statements for fiscal years 2023–2024 and any 2025 interim financial report, and review the Form 990 filings corresponding to those years to see line‑item classifications for administrative and fundraising costs. Cross‑reference those documents against independent evaluator updates to confirm whether the 7% administrative ratio persisted in 2025 accounting. The current sources provide strong historical and evaluator‑backed evidence but stop short of an explicit 2025 audited confirmation ^{[1] [2] [3]}.