Percentage that tunnel to tower s foundation gives to helping the people
Executive summary
Tunnel to Towers reports very high program spending: CharityWatch calculates that the foundation spent 93% of its cash expenses on programs (7% on overhead) in its most recent analysis, and CharityWatch estimated the foundation spent about $284M of ~$292M raised in 2022 on cash expenses [1]. Other reviewers find similar efficiency: Charities for Vets calculates 90.4% of a $272M budget went to programs in 2023 [2].
1. What donors usually mean by “percentage given to help people”
When people ask what percentage a charity “gives to helping people,” independent evaluators typically report the share of total expenses spent on programs (direct services and mission activities) versus overhead (fundraising, management). CharityWatch and other sites frame Tunnel to Towers’ performance using this metric — CharityWatch reports 93% program spending and 7% overhead based on its review, a key figure donors often use when judging efficiency [1].
2. Tunnel to Towers’ reported program-spending figures
CharityWatch’s July 2024 analysis states Tunnel to Towers spent 93% of its cash expenses on programs and $5 to raise each $100 of cash support in fiscal 2022; it also reports roughly $292 million raised and $284 million spent in cash expenses that year [1]. Charities for Vets’ calculation from the 2023 tax return shows 90.4% of a $272 million budget went to programs and 9.6% to overhead [2]. Tunnel to Towers’ own financial page highlights multi-year high ratings from Charity Navigator (four stars) but does not itself give a single program-percentage in the snippets provided here [3].
3. Independent ratings and what they add (or obscure)
CharityWatch gives Tunnel to Towers an “A+” (top-rated) largely because of the 93% program-spend figure and low fundraising cost [4] [1]. Charity Navigator has awarded the foundation four stars for multiple years, signaling strong financial health and transparency per its criteria [5] [3]. These endorsements corroborate the high program-spending numbers, but each evaluator uses its own methodology: CharityWatch emphasizes cash expense ratios and cost-to-raise-$100; Charity Navigator blends financial metrics with accountability and governance indicators [5] [1].
4. Numbers versus services — what “program spending” actually buys
High program-spend percentages indicate most cash outlays are classified as mission activities, but that does not directly quantify outcomes per beneficiary (e.g., how many homes fully built versus partial services). CharityWatch notes Tunnel to Towers delivered over 1,200 mortgage-free homes and committed over $500 million across programs to date, and that the foundation is delivering 200+ mortgage-free homes in its current year while helping house 3,000 homeless veterans — figures the watchdog highlights to illustrate impact [5] [1]. Available sources do not mention detailed per-recipient cost breakdowns or third-party impact evaluations beyond these aggregate outputs.
5. Areas of agreement and small divergences among reviewers
All cited sources agree Tunnel to Towers is highly rated and efficient. CharityWatch reports 93% program spending [1]. Charities for Vets reports 90.4% for 2023 based on tax returns [2]. Charity Navigator’s four-star rating and Tunnel to Towers’ own financial statements underscore fiscal strength but Charity Navigator’s snippet does not present the same single percentage figure in the provided results [5] [3]. These small differences reflect alternative calculation periods and whether reviewers use cash-only measures or broader expense categories.
6. Limitations, caveats and what’s not shown in current reporting
Evaluators’ program-percentage figures depend on how the charity classifies expenses and which fiscal year or cash measure is used; CharityWatch’s 93% is based on its analysis of the 2022 Form 990 and audited statements, while Charities for Vets calculated 90.4% from 2023 returns [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention independent third-party outcome studies measuring long-term beneficiary outcomes (not found in current reporting). Give.org’s summary lists the foundation as “Did Not Disclose” for its accountability report in the snippet, indicating gaps in publicly posted paperwork to that reviewer [6].
7. How to use these figures when deciding to give
If your primary criterion is efficiency measured by program-spend, the foundation’s numbers (90–93% to programs, per watchdog calculations) position it among highly efficient charities [1] [2]. If you also want evidence of long-term outcomes, available sources do not provide third-party impact evaluations; donors should request current Form 990s, audited financials, and program-level outcome data from the foundation or consult the full Charity Navigator and CharityWatch reports for methodology details [5] [1].
8. Bottom line
Independent reviewers consistently report that most of Tunnel to Towers’ cash expenses go to programs — CharityWatch 93% [1] and Charities for Vets ~90.4% for 2023 [2]. These figures support the foundation’s reputation for fiscal efficiency, though available reporting in these sources stops short of providing granular, third-party impact studies tracking long-term outcomes (not found in current reporting).