Has st. jude's charity rating or donor transparency changed in the past five years?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
St. Jude / ALSAC continues to receive top marks from major charity evaluators: Charity Navigator shows a 99% score and a four‑star rating in recent profiles [1] [2], Give.org lists ALSAC as an Accredited Charity [3], and CharityWatch still profiles St. Jude with high grades [4]. Reporting and St. Jude’s own pages highlight recent reputation awards in 2025, but critics past and present — notably a 2021 ProPublica‑linked critique mentioned on Wikipedia — raised questions about reserve levels and fundraising tactics; those critiques remain in the reporting record [5] [6].
1. Ratings stay high — independent evaluators still rate St. Jude/ALSAC at the top
Charity Navigator’s current consolidated profile for ALSAC and St. Jude shows a near‑perfect financial and accountability score (99%) and a four‑star rating, a signal that the evaluator’s metrics continue to place the organization in its top tier [1] [2]. Give.org (the BBB Wise Giving Alliance) lists ALSAC as an Accredited Charity, reaffirming charity‑accountability accreditation in available reporting [3]. CharityWatch maintains a public profile for St. Jude indicating favorable grades by its standards [4].
2. St. Jude’s public messaging emphasizes trust and recent accolades
St. Jude’s website and media releases foreground trust and brand recognition in 2025 — citing awards such as “Most Trusted Nonprofit” from Morning Consult and “America’s Favorite Charity” from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and noting strong brand ranking from YouGov — which the organization uses to argue donor confidence remains high [6] [7] [8]. Those statements are self‑reported by St. Jude and reflected in its donor communications and FAQs [6] [9].
3. What changed (and what hasn’t): transparency tools for donors
St. Jude has continued to expand donor services and online account tools — My Supporter Account features and clearer year‑end giving guidance appear in 2024–2025 materials, making individual donation histories and receipts easier to access [9] [10] [11]. These are operational transparency steps the organization highlights for donors [9] [10].
4. The long‑running reserve controversy remains in the public record
Investigative reporting cited on the Wikipedia entry recounts a 2021 ProPublica‑linked critique alleging large reserves (reported as $5.2 billion in that summary) and aggressive fundraising and litigation tactics; that critique persists in secondary summaries and is part of the public debate about St. Jude’s fundraising strategy and financial posture [5]. Available sources do not detail whether evaluators changed ratings because of that reporting; in fact, Charity Navigator’s high score and accreditation by Give.org indicate ratings remained favorable after those critiques [1] [3].
5. Conflicting narratives: efficiency vs. fundraising scale
Supporters and many evaluators point to St. Jude’s effectiveness in patient care, historic improvements in childhood cancer survival rates, and transparent financial reporting that satisfies top evaluators [6] [1]. Critics, reflected in investigative summaries, argue that an unusually large reserve and aggressive donor pursuit create ethical questions about fundraising priorities; both perspectives appear in the record and continue to shape public discussion [5] [12].
6. What the evaluators’ scores mean — and what they may not show
Charity Navigator’s four‑star, 99% score reflects accountability and finance measures on publicly filed data and internal methodologies; it does not, according to snippets, always capture program impact under its Impact & Measurement methodology or some programmatic categories where data is incomplete [1]. CharityWatch and Give.org use different metrics (efficiency ratios, accreditation standards), so converging favorable ratings represent consistent reviewer conclusions but stem from distinct criteria [4] [3].
7. Practical takeaway for donors considering change over five years
If your question is whether ratings or donor transparency materially worsened in the past five years: available evaluator profiles in these sources show St. Jude/ALSAC maintained high ratings and accreditation through 2025 [1] [3] [4]. If your concern is about fundraising scale, reserve levels, or ethical arguments about solicitation intensity, those criticisms remain in reporting and should be weighed alongside the evaluators’ continued high ratings [5] [1].
Limitations and next steps: sources here include St. Jude’s own pages, evaluator profiles, aggregation pieces, and a Wikipedia summary that references investigative reporting; available sources do not provide a single, continuous timeline of every rating change year‑by‑year, nor do they include the original ProPublica reporting full text in this set (available sources do not mention the original ProPublica article verbatim) [5] [1]. For a donor decision, consult each evaluator’s historical rating archives and St. Jude/ALSAC’s filed Form 990s for year‑by‑year financials.