What percentage of Tunnel to Towers' budget goes to direct program services versus administrative costs?

1. What outside evaluators report — high program percentage, low overhead

Independent charity evaluators cited in the available reporting calculate that Tunnel to Towers spends the large majority of its cash budget on program services: CharityWatch assigns an “A+” and states the Foundation spends 93% of cash expenses on programs and 7% on overhead ^[1], while CharitiesForVets reports that based on the 2023 Form 990 the Foundation spent 90.4% of a $272 million budget on programs and 9.6% on overhead ^[2]. These figures point to a consistent outside‑analyst picture: roughly nine out of every ten dollars is claimed to fund programs ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the Foundation itself says — emphasis on low overhead and audited statements

Tunnel to Towers’ own financial page emphasizes “sound fiscal management” and that it “keeps fundraising and administrative costs at a minimum, with only a small percentage of funds allocated to overhead expenses,” and highlights a four‑star Charity Navigator rating as evidence of stewardship ^[3]. The organization also makes its audited financial statements available online, which are the primary source for verifying exact numbers and methodology ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Where the precise percentages come from — tax returns and audited financials

The outside percentages quoted above are derived from the Foundation’s IRS Form 990 and audited financial statements. CharitiesForVets explicitly says its 90.4% program / 9.6% overhead figure is “based on its 2023 tax return” ^[2]. CharityWatch likewise references cash‑expense calculations when reporting the 93% program figure ^[1]. For exact line items and methodology, the audited financial statements and the full Form 990 are the authoritative documents ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Small discrepancies reflect different calculation methods

The gap between 90.4% (CharitiesForVets) and 93% (CharityWatch) likely reflects differing methods: which expenses are classified as program versus overhead, whether grants versus program delivery costs are treated the same, and whether the calculation uses cash‑basis vs. accrual figures from the Form 990 or audited statements ^{[1] [2]}. Available sources do not lay out a detailed reconciliation of those methodological differences in a single place ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Context — scale, recent activity, and transparency signals

Tunnel to Towers reports large program outlays and high cumulative spending (media note: “over $250 million” spent supporting veterans and first‑responder families is cited in coverage) which makes percentage metrics sensitive to year‑to‑year revenue and one‑time grants ^[7]. The Foundation’s published audited financials and the availability of its Form 990 in public databases (ProPublica/Nonprofit Explorer) are transparency signals; auditors’ reports and tax filings are where donors should check for specifics ^{[4] [5]}.

6. What to check if you want full confirmation

To verify exactly how much goes to direct program services versus administrative costs: consult the Foundation’s most recent audited financial statements and its IRS Form 990 line items (Program service revenue/expenses, Management & General, Fundraising). The audited statements available on the Foundation’s site are the appropriate primary source ^{[4] [6]}. CharityWatch and CharitiesForVets provide quick summaries but use slightly different calculation approaches ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Competing viewpoints and limitations in current reporting

Available sources agree that a high share of spending goes to programs, but they report slightly different percentages (90.4% vs. 93%) because of methodological choices ^{[1] [2]}. Charity Navigator’s public page notes it provides ratings but that its Impact & Measurement methodology may not evaluate certain charities the same way, and the Foundation’s own site highlights the Charity Navigator rating rather than enumerating a single canonical percentage ^{[8] [3]}. Available sources do not provide a single unified, annotated reconciliation of program vs. overhead across audited statements and tax filings; that reconciliation must be done by reviewing the primary documents ^{[4] [5]}.

Bottom line: Outside analysts and the Foundation’s public materials consistently show that about 90–93% of Tunnel to Towers’ reported spending is on programs and roughly 7–10% on overhead, but exact percentages depend on which fiscal year and which accounting method you use; consult the 2023 audited financials and Form 990 for line‑by‑line confirmation ^{[4] [5] [1] [2]}.