What are the key differences in administrative and fundraising expense ratios between Tunnel to Towers, Wounded Warrior Project, and Fisher House?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tunnel to Towers reports a program-service share around 90–93% (overhead 7–10%), with CharityWatch giving an A+ and citing 93% of cash expenses to programs [1]. Wounded Warrior Project reports spending about 24% of expenses on fundraising in 2024 (a $90 million fundraising spend) and says that delivered more than $4 in revenue per $1 spent [2]. Fisher House materials and public pages describe their mission and note that charities categorize expenses on IRS Form 990, but the collected sources do not provide a clear single program/fundraising ratio comparable to the other two [3] [4].
1. Tunnel to Towers: Low overhead, high program ratio — what the watchdogs say
Tunnel to Towers publicly and independently is represented as spending a large majority of its cash expenses on programs: the foundation claims a program-service percentage near 93% on its financial page [5], CharityWatch reports the foundation spends 93% of cash expenses on programs and keeps overhead to about 7% [1], and other third‑party summaries calculate roughly 90.4% program spending on a $272 million budget in 2023 [6]. These multiple sources converge on a narrative that Tunnel to Towers dedicates roughly nine of every ten dollars to programs rather than fundraising or administration [1] [5] [6].
2. Wounded Warrior Project: larger fundraising line and its defense
Wounded Warrior Project reports a far larger absolute fundraising spend — $90 million in 2024 — which the organization says represented about 24% of expenses and produced more than $4 in contributions for every $1 spent on fundraising [2]. That places WWP’s fundraising ratio materially higher than Tunnel to Towers’ reported fundraising share, and WWP emphasizes return on investment and third‑party endorsements (Platinum Seal from Candid and BBB accreditation) to justify the level of fundraising [2]. Public discussion threads and forum posts criticize WWP’s past and perceived administrative spending, but those posts are anecdotal and inconsistent with WWP’s own reported figures [7] [8] [9].
3. Fisher House: mission clear, overhead figures not centralized in provided sources
Fisher House Foundation’s provided pages repeatedly explain how nonprofits classify expenses on Form 990 and promote transparency and seals of approval [3] [4] [10]. Fisher House describes delivering “home away from home” lodging and notes programmatic impact (estimated savings to families), but the search results here do not include a single, consolidated program-versus-overhead percentage or a dollar figure for fundraising or administrative spending comparable to the Tunnel to Towers and WWP numbers [3] [4] [11]. Available sources do not mention a consolidated Fisher House fundraising or administrative expense ratio for direct comparison.
4. Apples-to-oranges: why direct comparisons can mislead
Comparing ratios hides context: organizational size, mission delivery model, capital projects, and accounting choices all affect percentages. Tunnel to Towers is credited with high program-percent metrics on cash‑expense bases by CharityWatch and its own filings [1] [5]. WWP reports substantial fundraising investment with claimed high returns and third‑party endorsements, which can be consistent with a large outreach and service platform that requires more fundraising to sustain scale [2]. Fisher House builds and donates physical houses and partners with government medical facilities; these capital and gift‑in‑kind activities can shift how program and overhead are reported, and the current search results do not supply a single program/fundraising ratio for Fisher House [12] [11].
5. Conflicting narratives and the role of watchdogs
Independent watchdogs appear in the results with differing emphases: CharityWatch ranks Tunnel to Towers top‑rated and cites a 93% program ratio [1]; Charity Navigator and other services are referenced for WWP and Tunnel to Towers but specific, comparable metric snapshots in the provided sources are limited [13] [14]. WWP highlights Candid, BBB and its own ROI claims to counter earlier scandals referenced in public discourse [2]. Forum posts and op-eds allege mismanagement or high executive pay at WWP, but those are anecdotal and not substantiated in the official figures supplied here [7] [15].
6. What donors should check next
The supplied sources show reliable figures for Tunnel to Towers (around 90–93% to programs) and WWP’s 2024 fundraising spend (~$90 million or ~24% of expenses) but do not provide Fisher House’s single comparable overhead ratio [1] [2] [3]. Donors seeking a final decision should review each charity’s most recent IRS Form 990, the independent analyst write‑ups on CharityWatch/Charity Navigator/Candid, and audited annual reports to see how each organization classifies capital gifts, program services, and one‑time items [1] [13] [4]. Available sources do not mention Fisher House’s consolidated fundraising/administration percentage, so donors should request that figure directly from Fisher House or inspect its Form 990 [3] [4].