What percentage of donations does Tunnel to Towers spend on fundraising and administration each year?

1. What the headline numbers say — Tunnel to Towers’ published efficiency

CharityWatch’s analysis of Tunnel to Towers shows the foundation spent 93% of cash expenses on programs and 7% on overhead (fundraising plus management/general), and it reports a cost-to-raise-$100 figure of about $5 in the fiscal year reviewed ^{[1] [2]}. The foundation itself highlights repeated high ratings from Charity Navigator — including multiple consecutive four‑star ratings — which reinforces the message that most donor dollars go to programmatic work ^{[3] [4]}.

2. How watchdogs measure “fundraising and administration”

CharityWatch’s 93%/7% split is a cash‑expense analysis that groups fundraising and general/administrative costs as “overhead,” and separately reports the dollars required to raise $100 (CharityWatch: $5) ^[2]. Charity Navigator’s four‑star rating signals broad financial health and transparency, but its score is not a single overhead percentage and uses multiple metrics, including governance and accountability, to reach a star rating ^{[5] [3]}.

3. The reporting year behind the numbers

CharityWatch’s detailed write‑up cites its analysis of the foundation’s IRS Form 990 and audited statements and explicitly references fiscal 2022 figures — e.g., roughly $292 million raised and $284 million in cash expenses that year, from which CharityWatch derived the 93%/7% split and $5 cost-to-raise-$100 metric ^[2]. Tunnel to Towers’ own financials page highlights multi‑year four‑star ratings but does not replace the watchdog’s year‑specific expense breakdown ^[3].

4. What these percentages mean in practice — scale matters

A 7% overhead on a large cash budget (CharityWatch cites ~$284 million in cash expenses for 2022) still represents millions of dollars in fundraising and administrative spending, even while the percentage is low ^[2]. CharityWatch presents both the percentage and the cost‑to‑raise metric ($5 per $100) to give donors context about fundraising efficiency, not just a single ratio ^[2].

5. Alternative perspectives and caveats from the sources

CharityWatch and Charity Navigator both rate Tunnel to Towers highly, but they use different methods: CharityWatch produces a program-vs-overhead percentage and cost-to-raise figures based on cash flows and tax/audit documents ^{[1] [2]}; Charity Navigator issues a multi‑factor star rating that includes, but is not limited to, overhead ratios ^{[5] [3]}. Give.org’s profile notes a “Did Not Disclose” status in its charity accountability report summary, indicating some variation/limitations in public disclosure channels and suggesting donors may want to consult the charity’s tax forms directly ^[6].

6. What the foundation emphasizes and where reporting stops

Tunnel to Towers’ financial page and press materials emphasize sustained four‑star Charity Navigator ratings and program efficiency, which aligns with CharityWatch’s topline percentage ^{[3] [4]}. Available sources do not mention detailed year‑by‑year breakdowns beyond the 2022 snapshot presented by CharityWatch; donors wanting the latest fiscal-year split should consult Tunnel to Towers’ most recent audited financial statements or Form 990, which CharityWatch used for its analysis ^[2]. Not found in current reporting: a multi‑year trend table from the foundation in these sources showing whether the 93%/7% ratio has moved materially up or down each year.

7. Bottom line for donors

Independent reviewers agree that Tunnel to Towers spends a high percentage of reported cash expenses on programs (93%) and a low percentage (7%) on fundraising and administration for the fiscal period analyzed, with an efficient cost to raise funds ($5 per $100) ^{[1] [2]}. For donors who want to verify current-year figures or examine line‑item administrative and fundraising costs, the sources point to the foundation’s audited financials and IRS filings used by CharityWatch and Charity Navigator ^{[3] [2]}.