What are the ratings of Tunnel to Towers Foundation from charity watchdogs?

1. What the headline ratings say — top marks from two major evaluators

Two widely cited charity evaluators present Tunnel to Towers as a top performer: CharityWatch lists the foundation as Top‑Rated with an “A+” grade, citing that 93% of its cash expenses went to programs and fundraising cost was $5 to raise $100 in fiscal 2022 ^{[1] [2]}. Charity Navigator shows a 97% score and a Four‑Star rating for the organization, a designation the foundation itself highlights on its financials page ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Numbers behind the praise — scale and efficiency

CharityWatch’s analysis of the foundation’s 2022 filings reports roughly $292 million raised in cash contributions and about $284 million in cash expenses that year, which underpins its program‑spending percentage and low cost‑to‑raise ratios cited by CharityWatch ^[2]. Charity Navigator’s published profile indicates a near‑perfect finance/accountability composite yielding the Four‑Star result ^[3].

3. What each watchdog measures — different methodologies matter

These ratings reflect different emphases: CharityWatch focuses on program‑vs‑overhead cash spending, cost to raise $100, and transparency to arrive at an “A+” grade ^{[1] [2]}. Charity Navigator uses a broader set of financial health and accountability metrics to generate a numeric score (97%) and award a Four‑Star rating; the foundation’s site cites this multi‑year four‑star status ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Reported limitations and gaps in watchdog reporting

Charity Navigator’s profile notes it could not currently evaluate Tunnel to Towers under its Culture & Community or Impact & Measurement methodologies because it lacks constituent feedback or other program‑impact data in their framework ^[3]. Give.org’s entry indicates a “Did Not Disclose” status in its accountability report repository, which suggests some third‑party data points are not publicly available there ^[5].

5. The foundation’s own presentation and longevity of scores

Tunnel to Towers public materials and a third‑party PDF note that the foundation has repeatedly received Charity Navigator’s high rating (multiple consecutive four‑star years) and highlights perfect scores in accountability/transparency categories in past press releases ^{[6] [7]}. The foundation’s Financials page explicitly proclaims a four‑star rating and frames it as a differentiator for donors ^[4].

6. Where reporting diverges — what to watch next

Sources agree on strong financial metrics but diverge on the presence of program‑impact measurement and certain disclosures: CharityWatch emphasizes cash‑based program spending and fundraising efficiency ^{[1] [2]}, while Charity Navigator flags incomplete evaluation under some impact/constituent methodologies ^[3]. Give.org’s “Did Not Disclose” flag ^[5] suggests donors seeking every standard disclosure should verify which documents are available.

7. How to interpret these ratings as a donor

High grades from CharityWatch and Charity Navigator indicate efficient use of cash and robust financial/accountability practices per those services’ criteria ^{[1] [3]}. That said, available sources do not mention independent third‑party evaluations of program outcomes quantifying beneficiary impact beyond the foundation’s reported construction of mortgage‑free homes and program anecdotes cited in press material ^{[7] [6]}.

8. Practical next steps for concerned or curious donors

Confirm the latest charity filings and look for audited financial statements and IRS Form 990s (Charity Navigator links these documents in its profile) to verify current figures ^[3]. Compare the specific metrics you care about (program spend, fundraising efficiency, and direct impact measures) across the watchdog pages and the foundation’s Financials page ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

Limitations: This analysis is based only on the supplied sources. Available sources do not mention independent, quantifiable program‑impact studies beyond the watchdog metrics and the foundation’s own press releases ^{[3] [7]}.