What is Tunnel to Towers' overhead ratio over the last 5 years compared to other veteran charities?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Over the last several years the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation has reported a low overhead share—charity evaluators and the foundation itself report program-service percentages in the low 90s (meaning overhead of roughly 7–10%)—which places it, by those measures, well below some large veterans charities like Wounded Warrior Project that have reported substantially higher overhead ratios in recent filings and analyses (e.g., ~29.5% overhead in a cited 2023 analysis) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Differences among sources and accounting methods, however, mean those headline percentages are not apples-to-apples without careful qualification [5].
1. Tunnel to Towers’ overhead figures, year-to-year
Tunnel to Towers and prominent charity watchdogs present a consistently low overhead picture: the foundation’s own financial page states a program service percentage averaging 93% (about 7% overhead) across recent years [1], CharityWatch’s analysis similarly reports 93% of cash expenses going to programs and 7% to overhead [2], while an independent summary based on the foundation’s 2023 tax return computed 90.4% to programs and 9.6% overhead for that year [3]. Charity Navigator has repeatedly awarded Tunnel to Towers four-star ratings across multiple consecutive years, signaling that the foundation “outperforms most other charities” on financial-health metrics as measured by that evaluator [6] [7] [8].
2. How that compares to other well-known veteran charities
Publicly available comparisons in the provided reporting show a material gap between Tunnel to Towers’ overhead percentages and those of at least one large veterans organization: a community-circulated summary citing a 2023 fiscal review put Wounded Warrior Project’s overhead near 29.5% (leaving ~70.5% to programs) for that year, a percentage notably higher than Tunnel to Towers’ reported overhead [4]. The reporting in the dataset contains forum and aggregator posts contrasting Tunnel to Towers’ low overhead with other groups said to be “top heavy,” but these are not comprehensive peer-reviewed comparisons and rely on differing snapshots and accounting treatments [4] [9] [10].
3. Why different sources report different overhead figures
Evaluator methodologies and accounting choices drive variation: CharityWatch computes program percentages using cash expense analysis and excludes certain in-kind valuations, while other aggregators derive percentages from Form 990 line-items or audited statements that can treat joint costs, allocations, and non-cash items differently [2] [5]. Tunnel to Towers’ own summaries emphasize a ten-year average and Charity Navigator’s multi-year four-star history, but those presentations aggregate across years and use each organization’s chosen accounting conventions [1] [6] [7].
4. Interpretation for donors and context beyond the headline
A low overhead ratio like Tunnel to Towers’ (7–10% in the cited sources) typically signals a large share of cash spent on programs, which many donors prefer, and has earned top ratings from CharityWatch and Charity Navigator [2] [6] [7]. However, overhead alone does not measure program effectiveness, impact per dollar, or the sustainability of services; watchdogs caution that in-kind treatment, valuation rules, and program delivery models can change apparent ratios without necessarily improving or harming beneficiary outcomes [5]. The available reporting supports the conclusion that Tunnel to Towers spends a higher fraction on programs than some peers, but impact assessment requires program-level evidence beyond overhead percentages [8] [5].
5. Limitations, unanswered questions and what remains to be checked
The dataset provided is limited: it offers multiple assessments of Tunnel to Towers and a single comparative figure for Wounded Warrior Project drawn from forum and summary posts, but it lacks a systematic five-year time series for a wide set of veteran charities prepared with identical accounting rules [4] [3] [2]. CharityWatch’s and Charity Navigator’s summaries for Tunnel to Towers are authoritative within their methodologies [2] [8], yet a definitive comparative ranking over the last five years would require extracting consistent program and overhead line-items from each charity’s audited financials or Form 990s and normalizing for in-kind and joint-cost treatments—a step not present in the provided reporting [5].