Which independent charity evaluators rate Tunnel to Towers and what scores do they give for financial efficiency?

1. Who the major independent raters are — and what they say

Charity Navigator, the largest U.S. charity evaluator, lists the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation with a four‑star overall rating and flags strong accountability/transparency results in past announcements ^{[1] [2]}. CharityWatch, which uses its own spending and fundraising metrics, rates the foundation A+ (their highest grade) and highlights that the group reported 93% of cash expenses on programs and $5 fundraising cost per $100 raised for fiscal 2022 ^{[3] [4]}.

2. What “financial efficiency” means in these ratings

CharityWatch’s headline financial efficiency figures are explicit: it calculated Tunnel to Towers’ program‑service percentage at roughly 93% of cash expenses and a cost‑to‑raise‑$100 of $5 in the year analyzed, which underpins its A+ Top‑Rated designation ^[4]. Charity Navigator’s score aggregates financial health and accountability/transparency metrics into a four‑star rating; their published materials and the foundation’s financial page emphasize consecutive high ratings and strong fiscal management, but Charity Navigator’s site presents a composite star score rather than a single program‑percentage figure in these excerpts ^{[1] [5]}.

3. Numbers cited by the charity itself and corroboration

Tunnel to Towers’ own financial page references its four‑star Charity Navigator standing and stresses long‑running fiscal discipline and high program percentages ^[5]. CharityWatch’s independent calculation of $292 million raised and $284 million in cash expenses for 2022 (with the derived 93% program percentage) provides numerical backing beyond the foundation’s own claims ^[4].

4. Areas where sources diverge or leave questions open

The two evaluators use different methods: CharityWatch reports explicit program‑spend and fundraising‑cost ratios, while Charity Navigator issues a multi‑factor star rating that combines financial health and transparency—readers should not assume the same metrics are being reported in identical ways ^{[1] [4]}. Available sources do not mention Charity Navigator’s precise program‑service percentage for Tunnel to Towers in the excerpts provided; Charity Navigator’s public pages cited give the star rating and commentary on accountability but not the same 93% figure shown by CharityWatch ^{[1] [6]}.

5. How recent the data are and why that matters

CharityWatch’s analysis explicitly references fiscal 2022 figures and a detailed audit of the 2022 Form 990 and audited statements, which produced the 93% and $5 metrics ^[4]. Charity Navigator’s multi‑year four‑star streak is cited in releases dating back to 2021 and reiterated on the foundation site as continuing through at least 2025 materials ^{[2] [5]}. Donors should note that charity finances can change year to year; the specific program‑spend percentages reported apply to the fiscal years analyzed by each evaluator ^{[4] [5]}.

6. Context: what those efficiency numbers practically imply

A 93% program‑service share and $5 cost to raise $100 indicate, per CharityWatch’s methodology, that the bulk of cash outlays went to program activities rather than overhead or fundraising in the year analyzed ^[4]. Charity Navigator’s four‑star rating signals broad financial strength and transparency under its scoring system, which is intended to give donors a quick comparative signal rather than an itemized spend breakdown ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Limitations, transparency and additional verification steps for donors

Limitations are clear in the sources: Charity Navigator notes it couldn’t evaluate some impact/constituent‑feedback measures for the charity in some sections, and Give.org’s entry shows a “Did Not Disclose” status for its accountability report in its summary listing ^{[1] [7]}. Donors seeking deeper verification should review the foundation’s audited financial statements and IRS Form 990 (CharityWatch used those documents for its 2022 figures) and compare the specific years each evaluator analyzed ^{[4] [8]}.

8. Bottom line for prospective donors

Independent evaluators cited here consistently rate Tunnel to Towers as financially efficient and transparent: CharityWatch gives an A+ with 93% program spending and $5 cost per $100 raised (fiscal 2022) ^[4], and Charity Navigator assigns a four‑star rating and has repeatedly recognized the foundation’s accountability and transparency ^{[1] [2]}. Those metrics come from different methodologies; donors should consult the original evaluator pages and the charity’s audited filings to match the timeframes and figures before deciding.