How much of Tunnel to Towers' revenue funds direct beneficiary programs versus overhead?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation reports that the large majority of its spending goes to programmatic work rather than overhead; independent evaluators and watchdogs put program spending between roughly 90% and 93% of cash expenses in recent filings, leaving overhead in the single digits [1] [2]. Those headline percentages come from analysis of the foundation’s tax returns and audited statements, but they depend on definitions (cash vs. accrual accounting, what counts as a “program” expense) and therefore require context drawn from audited financials and the foundation’s own disclosures [3] [4].
1. Financial claim versus filing: what watchdogs say
CharityWatch gives Tunnel to Towers an “A+” rating and reports that 93% of the foundation’s cash expenses went to programs, keeping overhead to about 7%—a metric CharityWatch calculates from the charity’s financial statements [1]. Charities for Vets, using the foundation’s 2023 IRS filing, calculates that roughly 90.4% of a $272 million budget was spent on programs and 9.6% on overhead, a slightly lower program ratio but still within the same high-range band [2]. Those third‑party figures are the clearest, consistent public measures available in pressable form [1] [2].
2. The foundation’s own portrayal and ratings
Tunnel to Towers publicly emphasizes low fundraising and administrative costs and highlights a four‑star Charity Navigator rating as evidence of fiscal discipline, language that reinforces the watchdog numbers but does not replace raw audited data [4] [5]. The foundation also publishes audited financial statements that underpin these evaluations; the existence of an independent audit is noted in the most recent financial packet made available by the organization [3].
3. Why different sources show slightly different percentages
Differences between the 90.4% (Charities for Vets) and 93% (CharityWatch) program‑spending figures reflect methodological choices: CharityWatch typically reports cash‑basis program spending as a share of cash expenses, while other calculators may use accrual accounting or include/exclude certain line items such as in‑kind donations, capital grants, or program‑related loans [1] [2]. The foundation’s audited financial statements are the original source documents for these calculations, and analysts can produce varying ratios depending on which lines from Form 990 or the audit they classify as program versus management/fundraising [3] [6].
4. Scale and context: revenue, assets and program delivery
Publicly reported figures indicate Tunnel to Towers operates on a large scale—monitoring services report assets in the hundreds of millions and sizable annual receipts in recent years, which is consistent with large program outlays such as mortgage‑free homes and smart‑home renovations announced in press releases [7] [8]. Some commercially oriented sites produce different revenue estimates—Growjo’s $15M figure contrasts with other reports citing hundreds of millions in contributions in certain years—highlighting the importance of relying on audited statements and IRS Form 990 data rather than third‑party revenue estimates with unclear methodologies [9] [10].
5. What the numbers don’t tell and what to watch for next
The headline program‑spending percentages are strong indicators that Tunnel to Towers directs most dollars to beneficiaries, but they do not reveal program efficacy, timing of multi‑year commitments, or how much of “program spending” is grants versus services delivered directly—details that require digging into the audited financial statements and Form 990 schedules themselves [3] [6]. Independent evaluators and the foundation both provide starting points for verification: consult the foundation’s audited financials and Form 990, then compare CharityWatch and other analyses to understand classification choices [3] [1] [2].