Fact check: How does the Tunnel to Towers Foundation use donations to support its mission in 2025?

1. What the Foundation says it does with donations—and why it emphasizes housing

The Tunnel to Towers Foundation publicly frames donations around providing mortgage-free homes to surviving spouses and children of fallen first responders, and building specially adapted smart homes for catastrophically injured veterans and first responders, positioning housing as the central vehicle to deliver financial stability and eradicate veteran homelessness ^{[5] [6]}. The foundation’s FAQs and donation pages describe recurring programs—Fallen First Responder Home Program and smart home builds—that transform individual donations into completed properties, while also offering donor options like monthly gifts, matching and planned giving to create sustainable funding streams ^{[7] [1]}. These program descriptions emphasize tangible outcomes—homes delivered—making housing a clear narrative anchor for fundraising.

2. Financial efficiency claims: near-unanimous praise with small numerical differences

Multiple documents assert that about 93% of donations are funneled into program services, a figure the foundation repeats on financials pages and FAQs and that independent reviewers reference when rating the charity ^{[1] [2]}. CharityWatch’s analysis echoes strong program spending and low overhead, contributing to a favorable assessment of the organization’s fiscal stewardship ^[4]. The foundation’s 2022 annual report presents a similar message—stating that 95 cents of every dollar supports programs—introducing a marginally different metric that likely stems from alternative accounting periods or expense categorizations; these small divergences are common in nonprofit reporting and should be read alongside filing dates ^[3].

3. Evidence on scale: how many homes and units are in play

The foundation’s 2022 annual report documents more than 200 homes delivered in 2022 and asserts a broader commitment that included delivering 500 housing units for veterans in need, positioning the organization as a substantial actor in veteran housing efforts ^[3]. The public-facing content and press releases reinforce program activity—examples include delivering mortgage-free homes on symbolic dates like Independence Day to spotlight impact—showing the foundation converts donations into headline-ready outcomes ^[5]. These program tallies provide concrete indicators of scale, but verifying longitudinal impact requires cross-referencing up-to-date reports and independent audits to reconcile annual fluctuations.

4. Outside evaluation: CharityWatch and Charity Navigator perspectives

Independent evaluators have repeatedly rated the foundation highly, with CharityWatch highlighting that 93% of cash expenses go to programs and Charity Navigator awarding multi-year 4-star ratings for financial health and transparency ^{[4] [8]}. These endorsements support the claim that the organization maintains low overhead relative to program spending, an important criterion for donors prioritizing efficiency. However, ratings agencies use different methodologies—some focus on cash expenses, others on multi-year averages—so consistent high marks signal overall sound stewardship but do not eliminate the need to check the specific metric behind any quoted percentage.

5. Donation channels and donor-facing incentives that support revenue stability

The foundation describes multiple giving pathways—monthly and one-time donations, planned giving, matching gifts, in-kind donations like vehicles, and donor tributes—designed to diversify revenue and stabilize funding for multi-year home builds ^[7]. Emphasizing recurring gifts and matching programs appears intended to smooth the capital-intensive timeline of purchasing, renovating, or building homes, aligning donor incentives with the organization’s program cadence. These mechanisms also reflect fundraising strategy: promoting emotional linkages to “honoring heroes” while steering revenue into predictable streams for long-term projects.

6. Points of caution: accounting definitions, timing, and promotional framing

Reported percentages vary slightly—93% vs. “95 cents on the dollar”—and program totals are often presented in annual or campaign snapshots; these differences likely arise from accounting choices, reporting windows, and promotional framing used in fundraising materials ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Evaluators’ methodologies and the foundation’s internal classifications (cash expenses vs. all expenses, program versus administrative allocations) can shift headline percentages. Additionally, organizational messaging emphasizing emotionally resonant home deliveries can serve dual goals of impact reporting and donor acquisition; readers should compare audited financial statements and recent Form 990 filings to confirm year-to-year trends.

7. Bottom line for donors seeking clarity in 2025

As of the most recent reports cited, donations to Tunnel to Towers predominantly fund direct housing and related services, with independent reviewers confirming high program-spending ratios and multi-year strong ratings, though small numerical discrepancies exist across reports ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Donors who want the clearest snapshot should review the foundation’s latest audited financial statements and charity evaluator pages for the most recent fiscal year and note whether metrics reflect cash-only expenses or multi-year averages; these documents provide the definitive accounting context behind the program-spending claims.