Does the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance give Tunnel to Towers an accreditation or specific concerns?

1. Short answer: no clear BBB/WGA accreditation decision is published

The Give.org entry for the Tunnel to Towers Foundation states that the charity either did not respond to BBB requests or declined evaluation, and that without requested information it is not possible to determine whether the charity meets all 20 BBB Charity Standards for Charity Accountability — implying there is no published accreditation or full standards‑compliance determination on file ^[1].

2. What Give.org / BBB Wise Giving Alliance says and why it matters

Give.org is the dedicated platform for BBB Wise Giving Alliance charity evaluations and it uses a 20‑point standards framework to judge charities; these reports are the authoritative source for whether a charity has met BBB/WGA standards ^{[1] [6]}. Because Give.org reports that Tunnel to Towers did not supply the requested documentation, the BBB/WGA cannot confirm the organization’s adherence to those standards and thus cannot award or document a full accreditation determination ^{[1] [6]}.

3. Tunnel to Towers’ public activity does not equal BBB approval

Tunnel to Towers maintains active event listings and fundraising activity—its events calendar and recent public events are listed on the foundation’s website and third‑party pages, showing active operations and donor solicitations ^{[2] [3] [4]}. Those operational signals are not the same as a BBB/WGA accreditation or a determination of compliant practices; Give.org explicitly treats its evaluation as a separate, documentary process that requires charity participation ^{[1] [6]}.

4. Why some charities lack a BBB/WGA determination

Give.org notes charity participation is voluntary and that evaluations depend on charities responding to written requests and providing documentation; the platform urges donors to check Give.org for trusted evaluations ^{[1] [6]}. The absence of a determination can reflect nonresponse, a decision not to participate, or unresolved information requests — the Give.org page explicitly reports nonresponse or declined evaluation in Tunnel to Towers’ case ^[1].

5. Alternate perspectives and implicit agendas to watch

Give.org and BBB/WGA position themselves as arbiters of “wise giving” and promote their 20 standards; their reporting frames the absence of documentation as an inability to verify compliance, which can influence donor perception ^{[1] [6]}. Tunnel to Towers’ own communications and third‑party listings present active programming and beneficiary work but these do not address the specific compliance documentation BBB/WGA seeks ^{[2] [5] [3]}. Donors should weigh both independent third‑party evaluators and the charity’s own disclosures.

6. Practical guidance for donors and further verification steps

Give.org is the source for BBB/WGA evaluations; check the Tunnel to Towers entry there for any updates since the reported nonresponse ^{[1] [6]}. Also consult the charity’s own disclosures (annual reports, IRS filings) available via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer or the foundation’s site for financials and program descriptions ^{[7] [2]}. Note that current public event listings and reviews confirm activity but do not substitute for a documented standards‑compliance report ^{[2] [5] [8] [3]}.

Limitations: available sources do not mention a formal BBB/WGA accreditation having been awarded to Tunnel to Towers; they only report the Give.org notation that the charity did not provide needed information or declined evaluation ^[1].