Have any watchdogs or charity evaluators rated Tunnel to Towers and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Watchdogs have rated the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation highly: CharityWatch gives it an “A+” (reporting 93% of cash expenses on programs and $5 to raise $100 in 2022) [1] [2]. Charity Navigator has awarded Tunnel to Towers four stars (its top score) for multiple consecutive years and a perfect accountability/transparency score in some reports [3] [4] [5].
1. What the ratings say — top grades for fiscal efficiency
Independent evaluators emphasize Tunnel to Towers’ financial efficiency. CharityWatch assigns an “A+” and reports the foundation spent 93% of cash expenses on programs and $5 to raise every $100 in cash contributions for fiscal 2022 [1] [2]. Charity Navigator has given the foundation its four‑star rating repeatedly — described in the foundation’s own financials page as a decade of four‑star designations — and has in some releases highlighted perfect scores for accountability and transparency [3] [4] [5].
2. Why evaluators rewarded Tunnel to Towers — metrics and consistency
Both watchdogs base ratings on standard, quantifiable measures: program‑service percentage (share of cash spent on mission work versus overhead), fundraising efficiency (cost to raise $100), and transparency/accountability practices [1] [3]. CharityWatch explicitly cites the 93% program percent and the $5 fundraising cost as the basis for its Top‑Rated/A+ judgment [2]. Charity Navigator’s multi‑year four‑star record, repeated in the foundation’s reports, reflects sustained financial health and reporting standards [4] [6].
3. What these ratings do not evaluate — program impact and constituent feedback
Evaluators’ high grades reflect fiscal management and transparency; they do not fully measure programmatic impact or client outcomes. Charity Navigator notes Tunnel to Towers “cannot currently be evaluated by our Impact & Measurement methodology” and lacks data for certain constituent‑feedback assessments in their public profile [3]. Available sources do not mention independent impact studies measuring the long‑term outcomes of the foundation’s programs.
4. Sources of the numbers — where the watchdogs got their data
CharityWatch’s analysis is drawn from the foundation’s IRS Form 990 and audited financial statements, which CharityWatch used to calculate the 93% program percentage and fundraising cost figures [2]. Charity Navigator relies on publicly filed finance and governance data and reports its ratings on the foundation’s profile pages; the foundation itself publicizes the repeated four‑star designations on its financials page [3] [4].
5. Potential motives and framing — what to watch for in the messaging
The foundation highlights the ratings in press releases and its website, which is standard practice for nonprofits to signal trustworthiness to donors [4] [5]. This messaging emphasizes fiscal efficiency and repeat recognition; donors should understand that watchdog praise can be part of a broader fundraising narrative that focuses attention on dollars‑in vs. dollars‑out rather than on measured client outcomes [4] [5].
6. Other evaluator entries and transparency notes
Give.org (Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance) lists a complete charity accountability report for Tunnel to Towers but marks the status as “Did Not Disclose” in the snippet provided, indicating either incomplete public reporting to that reviewer or a difference in disclosure standards [7]. GreatNonprofits and consumer review sites host testimonials and local listings but are not formal audited evaluators [8] [9].
7. What donors should consider next — questions to ask
Ask the charity for recent audited financials and impact data beyond spending ratios; request program outcome metrics and independent evaluations if available (available sources do not mention independent impact studies). Compare multiple watchdog methodologies: CharityWatch emphasizes cost‑efficiency calculations while Charity Navigator adds governance and transparency scoring — both matter but neither alone proves programmatic effectiveness [1] [3] [2].
8. Bottom line — high marks for finance, unknowns for outcomes
Independent ratings uniformly recognize Tunnel to Towers for high program spending ratios, low fundraising costs, and repeated four‑star/accountability scores [1] [3] [2]. Those facts establish fiscal stewardship; however, current reporting from these evaluators does not provide a full picture of program impact or constituent outcomes, and donors seeking that evidence should request it directly from the foundation [3] [2].