How does Tunnel to Towers compare to similar veterans and first responders charities in program spending percentage?

1. Tunnel to Towers’ headline numbers — what evaluators report

CharityWatch gives the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation an “A+” and reports that the charity spent 93% of its cash expenses on programs (7% on overhead) and raised $100 at a cost of about $5 to fundraise in its cited fiscal period ^{[1] [5]}. An independent charity watcher focused on veterans, CharitiesForVets, calculates 90.4% program spending and 9.6% overhead based on the foundation’s 2023 tax return and a $272 million budget, illustrating small but material differences in methodology and year selection ^[2].

2. Tunnel to Towers’ own filings and audits — how the charity presents its finances

Tunnel to Towers posts audited financial statements and a financials page that emphasize “keeping fundraising and administrative costs at a minimum,” and cite Charity Navigator four‑star status; the audited statements provide the raw figures that outside analysts use to compute program versus overhead ratios ^{[3] [4]}. The audited financial statements show large program expense line items and note that a significant portion of program spending can include in‑kind goods and services — a detail that affects cash‑based versus total‑expense calculations ^{[5] [4]}.

3. Why different sources give different percentages — methodology matters

Differences between 90.4% and 93% stem from evaluator choices: which year are used, whether percentages are calculated on cash expenses only or total expenses (including in‑kind), and how joint costs are allocated. CharityWatch explicitly frames its 93% figure as a share of cash expenses, while CharitiesForVets used the 2023 tax return to compute its 90.4% figure for that fiscal year — a reminder that “program percentage” is not a single immutable metric ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

4. How that compares to peers — what available sources say (and don’t say)

Available sources do not provide a compiled, comparable table of Tunnel to Towers versus a set list of other veterans or first‑responder charities in these search results. Some consumer comparisons cited by forum posts and secondary pieces reference other organizations (for example, Wounded Warrior Project) and suggest overhead ratios vary widely by charity and accounting choices, but the current reporting set does not include authoritative, side‑by‑side percentages for peers ^[6]. Therefore, a definitive ranking against similar charities is not found in current reporting.

5. What program spending percentage does — and what it hides

High program‑spending percentages indicate funds designated for programmatic work, but they do not by themselves measure program effectiveness, scale, or mission fit; nor do they fully capture investments in governance, impact measurement, or essential infrastructure. Tunnel to Towers’ reported high program share is consistent across auditors and watchdogs, yet evaluators differ on cash versus in‑kind treatment — an implicit agenda that favors donors who prioritize low overhead in simple metrics ^{[1] [5] [4]}.

6. How donors and researchers should read these numbers

Donors should read CharityWatch’s cash‑based 93% claim and CharitiesForVets’ 90.4% fiscal‑year calculation as complementary: both indicate Tunnel to Towers directs the large majority of its resources to programs, but neither replaces looking at audited statements, program descriptions, and impact reporting. Tunnel to Towers’ financial page and audited statements are the primary documents to review for deeper questions about specific program spending and in‑kind valuations ^{[3] [4]}.

Limitations: This analysis uses only the provided sources and cannot assert comparisons for charities not covered here; side‑by‑side peer metrics and independent program‑effectiveness evaluations were not available in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).