How does Tunnel to Towers' overhead ratio compare to other veteran-focused charities?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tunnel to Towers reports a program-service ratio of about 90–93% (meaning 7–10% overhead) depending on the source and year: CharityWatch and Tunnel to Towers state 93% program spending / 7% overhead (fiscal 2022) [1] [2], while Charities for Veterans’ calculation from the 2023 return shows 90.4% programs / 9.6% overhead [3]. By comparison, leading veteran charities show a range: some top-rated groups report program ratios in the high 80s to low 90s (Gary Sinise Foundation 89% program) or similar 88–92% figures for other well-regarded groups [4] [5] [6].
1. Tunnel to Towers’ headline overhead numbers — which figure is correct?
Tunnel to Towers and watchdog CharityWatch both highlight a 93% program-service percentage (7% overhead) based on their analysis of cash expenses in the 2022 filing [1] [7]. The foundation’s own financial communications repeat that 93 cents of every dollar goes to programs [2] [8]. Independent trackers that reanalyze later returns calculate slightly lower program shares: Charities for Veterans used Tunnel to Towers’ 2023 tax return to derive a 90.4% program / 9.6% overhead split [3]. The discrepancy illustrates how a single charity’s ratio can shift year to year and depend on whether analyses include or exclude in-kind revenues and different expense categories [7] [9].
2. How Tunnel to Towers compares with other large veteran charities
Available sources show top-rated veteran charities often report program percentages in roughly the same band as Tunnel to Towers. Gary Sinise Foundation advertises 89% of dollars applied directly to mission work [4]. Charities for Veterans’ “highly recommended” examples include organizations reporting 90–92% program spending [5]. CharityWatch’s profiles show peers such as Homes For Our Troops and Veterans Community Project scoring program percentages in the high 80s to low 90s [10] [6]. In short, Tunnel to Towers’ 90–93% program share places it among efficient veteran-focused charities rather than an outlier [1] [4] [5].
3. Why different watchdogs report different numbers
Analysts use different accounting rules. CharityWatch calculates program% based on “cash expenses” and excludes certain in-kind figures and special accounting treatments, producing the 93% figure for Tunnel to Towers [7]. Charities for Veterans derives its 90.4% figure from the 2023 IRS return and its own methodology [3] [5]. Charity Navigator and other raters apply distinct formulas (payroll benefits, fundraising efficiency, transparency metrics), which can change an overall rating even when program% looks strong [11] [12]. Thus, comparing charities requires checking which methodology underlies each percentage [7] [11].
4. What program percentage actually tells donors — and what it does not
Program percentage measures how much money is spent on stated programs versus fundraising and administration; Tunnel to Towers’ reported 90–93% means most cash goes to programs [1] [3]. But program% does not measure impact, cost-effectiveness of individual programs, or whether the programs meet recipients’ needs (not found in current reporting). CharityWatch and other outlets caution donors to combine financial ratios with program outcomes and governance checks before deciding [13] [14]. The Center for Public Integrity and News21 reporting have documented veteran charities that look legitimate on paper but performed poorly in delivering services, showing that low overhead alone is not a sufficient proxy for effectiveness [15] [14].
5. Variation across the veteran-charity sector — wide disparities exist
While many well-known veteran charities report program percentages in the high 80s or low 90s [4] [5], watchdog lists of problem organizations show the opposite extreme — groups that spend large shares on fundraising/overhead or have “F” ratings [16] [17] [13]. CharityWatch’s “worst to avoid” lists and News21 investigations highlight that donors face a wide spectrum: from highly efficient, mission-focused groups to charities that divert much of their revenue to solicitors and administrative costs [16] [15].
6. Practical advice for donors comparing overhead across veteran charities
Check multiple, up-to-date sources: the charity’s audited financial statements, CharityWatch analyses, Charity Navigator scores and independent aggregators like Charities for Veterans; note the fiscal year used and whether figures include in-kind gifts [9] [7] [11] [3]. Compare “cost to raise $100” and governance/transparency notes as well as program outcomes—CharityWatch lists those alongside program% when available [7] [6]. Remember that Tunnel to Towers’ program% sits comfortably with top peers (about 90–93% by available analyses), but methods and years matter when making direct comparisons [1] [3] [4].
Limitations: this summary relies only on the provided materials; available sources do not mention more granular impact metrics or beneficiary-level outcomes for Tunnel to Towers or peer charities.