How do charity watchdogs rate Tunnel to Towers compared to Wounded Warrior Project and Fisher House?
Executive summary
Charity watchdogs rank all three organizations highly: Tunnel to Towers earns an A+ from CharityWatch and a 4‑star score from Charity Navigator, with CharityWatch saying it spent 93% of cash expenses on programs in 2022 (CharityWatch) and Charity Navigator listing a 4/4 rating [1] [2]. Fisher House similarly holds long‑running perfect/4‑star scores from Charity Navigator and an A+ from CharityWatch [3] [4]. Wounded Warrior Project is represented in the sources as a major veterans charity that Charity Navigator rates 4 stars and that the organization itself defends against past criticism [5].
1. Ratings snapshot: Tunnel to Towers shines on program spending
CharityWatch gives the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation an A+ and reports the foundation spent 93% of its cash expenses on programs and only 7% on overhead in its cited analysis of fiscal 2022 [1]. Charity Navigator also lists Tunnel to Towers with a 4‑star rating, and the foundation publicizes multiple consecutive four‑star awards from Charity Navigator [2] [6].
2. Fisher House: consistently top‑ranked and long‑running
Fisher House Foundation has earned four stars from Charity Navigator for decades (described as 18–22 consecutive years in different items) and is listed as having an A+ from CharityWatch; Fisher House highlights that record in its financial disclosures and press materials [7] [3] [4]. Independent summaries and WalletHub research have also scored Fisher House near the top [8] [7].
3. Wounded Warrior Project: large scale, defended against past controversy
Wounded Warrior Project is described in these materials as a leading veterans service organization with a Charity Navigator four‑star rating according to WWP’s own statements; the organization emphasizes its program reach — more than 272,000 beneficiaries and partnerships such as Warrior Care Network — and rejects allegations of misconduct as distractions from its mission [5]. Community forum posts and opinion threads in the collected search results show lingering public skepticism about WWP’s past spending and governance controversies, but those are user posts, not formal watchdog verdicts [9] [10].
4. How watchdogs differ in what they measure
CharityWatch focuses on program‑spending metrics and efficiency (for example calculating Tunnel to Towers’ 93% program expense and $5 to raise $100), which produced Tunnel to Towers’ A+ designation [1]. Charity Navigator evaluates financial health and accountability/transparency to produce star ratings; both Tunnel to Towers and Fisher House report multi‑year four‑star records there [2] [6] [3]. Wounded Warrior Project’s 4‑star status is cited on WWP’s own site, which frames that rating in the context of its services and recovery from past criticism [5].
5. Scale and mission matter — donors should look beyond a single score
The sources show differences in scale and mission: WWP operates broad national programs serving hundreds of thousands of veterans [5], Tunnel to Towers emphasizes mortgage‑free homes and targeted assistance and reported roughly $292 million in cash contributions in 2022 with $284 million in cash expenses that year per CharityWatch’s analysis [1], and Fisher House runs a network of lodging facilities serving military families with long‑term high ratings [11]. A single star or letter grade does not capture program scope, geographic reach, or the type of services donors may prefer [1] [5] [11].
6. Public controversies and community perceptions are separate from current watchdog ratings
Forum posts and community threads in the collected results show strong, mixed public sentiment—some forum users accuse WWP of past mismanagement while others continue to support it; those posts reflect perceptions but are not formal evaluations [9] [12]. Watchdog ratings cited here show WWP represented as 4‑star by Charity Navigator (per WWP’s site), and watchdogs have cleared or re‑rated organizations over time; the materials do not provide a contemporaneous, independent CharityWatch score for WWP in these search results (p2_s5; available sources do not mention a CharityWatch grade for WWP in the provided reporting).
7. Practical takeaway for donors
If your priority is a high percentage of donations going to program expense, Tunnel to Towers is documented by CharityWatch as spending 93% of cash expenses on programs in the cited analysis [1]. If you prefer long‑standing, networked relief for military families with decades of top Charity Navigator stars, Fisher House is repeatedly presented as top‑ranked [11] [4]. If you want broad, programmatic veteran services at scale, Wounded Warrior Project claims extensive reach and a four‑star Charity Navigator rating while rebutting prior allegations [5]. Donors should review the latest watchdog pages and each charity’s audited financials before deciding [2] [1] [3].
Limitations: This analysis uses only the provided search results; available sources do not mention CharityWatch’s current score for Wounded Warrior Project in these items and do not include full, up‑to‑date Form 990 details for each charity (available sources do not mention those specifics).