Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What is the Tunnel to Towers Foundation's policy on administrative costs and fundraising expenses in 2025?
Executive Summary
The available 2025 materials do not state a formal, public policy from the Tunnel to Towers Foundation that specifies target percentages or caps for administrative costs and fundraising expenses; most sources describe programs and outcomes rather than a written expense-policy statement [1] [2] [3]. Independent financial summaries and watchdog notes provide historical expense data and ratings context but do not identify a clear 2025 policy that governs administrative or fundraising cost limits [4] [5] [6].
1. What claimants say — The missing policy on expense caps
Every analyzed source converges on the claim that the Foundation’s mission and program descriptions are prominent, while an explicit, public policy on administrative and fundraising expense limits for 2025 is absent. News and event stories spotlight the Foundation’s programmatic work — mortgage payoffs, smart homes, and the Tunnel to Towers 5K — without quoting a formal policy on overhead or fundraising percentages [1] [2] [3]. Instrumental or promotional pages likewise summarize historical financial results and giving metrics but do not publish a discrete 2025 policy statement addressing administrative or fundraising expense caps [4].
2. What the financial summaries supply — historic numbers, not a 2025 policy
Available financial sources referenced by the dataset provide historical 990-derived figures and summary statistics that illustrate how funds were spent in past years, offering snapshots rather than declarative policy documents [4]. Instrumentl-style reports and general financial overviews list program expense ratios and past distribution of dollars to mission activities, but none of the supplied excerpts contain a stand-alone 2025 policy dictating allowable overhead or fundraising expense thresholds. This creates a factual gap between reported past spending and a formal governance rule for 2025 [4].
3. Charity evaluators weigh in — good ratings, incomplete disclosures
Charity Navigator’s past engagement and a four-star mention suggest the Foundation has demonstrated financial health and accountability elements, though the material stops short of linking that rating to a specific 2025 expense policy [5]. Meanwhile, the Better Business Bureau’s charity report indicates an absence of disclosed information necessary to fully confirm adherence to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability, including standards related to finance and fundraising transparency [6]. These two viewpoints together indicate positive signals about stewardship but also document gaps in public disclosure that matter for a clear 2025 policy determination [5] [6].
4. Public messaging focuses on programs and events, not overhead rules
Event and mission-centric coverage — including recent 2025 stories about the Tunnel to Towers 5K and program commemorations — emphasize beneficiary impacts and fundraising outcomes without articulating organizational rules about how much of each dollar may be retained for administrative operations or fundraising costs [1] [2] [3]. This pattern suggests an organizational communications choice: prioritize mission narratives and programmatic outcomes over publishing detailed policy language on overhead. The practical effect is that donors and watchdogs must rely on financial statements and third-party summaries rather than a plainly stated 2025 expense-policy document [1] [3].
5. Conflicting impressions: transparency vs. nondisclosure flags
Sources present a mixed picture: promotions and third-party overviews portray strong program delivery and past financial performance, generating a perception of accountability, while regulatory- or watchdog-oriented notes point to incomplete public disclosures that prevent a definitive adjudication of a 2025 policy [4] [6]. The combination of favorable program reporting and spotty formal disclosure means there is plausible reason to believe spending is mission-focused, but no verifiable, published 2025 rule-setting document exists in the examined materials to prove a formal cap or policy on overhead and fundraising [4] [6].
6. What remains unanswered and how to close the gap
The primary factual gap is the absence of a written, publicly available 2025 policy statement specifying administrative and fundraising expense limits; existing records provide historical expense ratios and evaluator impressions but not a policy text [4] [5] [6]. To resolve this, request the Foundation’s most recent IRS Form 990, audited financial statements for 2024–2025, or a donor-facing financial policy document; check the Foundation’s official site and direct communications for a 2025 fiscal policy release. Only those documents can confirm whether Tunnel to Towers adopted a formal 2025 policy on administrative and fundraising expenses [4] [6].
7. Bottom line for donors and analysts
Based on the reviewed sources, donors should treat the Foundation as program-focused with positive third-party signals but also recognize the lack of an explicit, public 2025 policy on administrative and fundraising expense limits in the provided materials [1] [5] [6]. For definitive assurance about 2025 overhead policies, obtain the Foundation’s latest audited finances and any formal policy documents directly from Tunnel to Towers or through its IRS filings; absent those, public reporting supports mission delivery but not confirmation of a specific 2025 overhead policy [4] [6].