What do charity watchdogs say about Tunnel to Towers Foundation ratings?

1. What the major watchdogs say — high ratings and program spending

Charity Navigator lists the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation with a four‑star rating and an overall score reported around 97%, noting strong finance and accountability metrics on its profile ^[1]. CharityWatch independently gives the foundation an “A+” (Top‑Rated) grade, stating the charity spent 93% of its cash expenses on programs and only $5 to raise each $100 of cash support in 2022 — figures CharityWatch derived from the foundation’s Form 990 and audited statements ^{[2] [3]}. The foundation highlights receiving consecutive four‑star Charity Navigator ratings as evidence of sustained fiscal health and transparency ^{[4] [5]}.

2. How watchdogs calculate these grades — spending ratios and transparency

CharityWatch’s “A+” is rooted in program vs. overhead calculations and fundraiser efficiency; it emphasizes that the foundation reported spending 93% of cash expenses on programs and low fundraising cost per $100 raised, which qualifies it as a CharityWatch Top‑Rated charity ^{[2] [3]}. Charity Navigator’s four‑star designation reflects its internal scoring across financial health and accountability/transparency factors; the foundation’s public materials and press releases cite consecutive perfect or high scores in Charity Navigator’s accountability/transparency category ^{[1] [7]}.

3. Foundation’s own presentation — promotes the ratings

The Tunnel to Towers Foundation prominently cites the four‑star Charity Navigator rating on its Financials page and in press materials, claiming a multi‑year streak of highest ratings to bolster donor trust and to distinguish itself from peers ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Foundation statements tie those ratings to “sound fiscal management, organizational efficiency, and program integrity” ^[4].

4. Where watchdog coverage is absent or limited

The Better Business Bureau’s Give.org notes that the organization either did not respond to BBB requests or declined voluntary evaluation under BBB Standards for Charity Accountability, meaning the BBB review is not available for this charity in the provided reporting ^[8]. Available sources do not mention other charity evaluators’ detailed findings (for example, no Charity Navigator methodology breakdown beyond the profile page is included here), and some third‑party summaries repeat the watchdog claims without adding independent analysis ^{[9] [10]}.

5. Numbers to watch — scale and recent financials

CharityWatch reports that Tunnel to Towers raised approximately $292 million in cash contributions and spent about $284 million in cash expenses in 2022, figures it used to compute program‑spending ratios ^[3]. Another independent site’s calculation based on the 2023 tax return found the foundation spent roughly 90.4% of a $272 million budget on programs and 9.6% on overhead, which aligns broadly with CharityWatch’s narrative of high program spending ^[11].

6. Competing perspectives and limitations in reporting

The watchdogs represented here agree on strong program‑spending metrics and high ratings ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Limitations are clear in the source set: Charity Navigator notes it cannot currently evaluate the charity under some newer methodologies (Culture & Community; Impact & Measurement) because the charity hasn’t submitted certain data or those methodologies aren’t applied to this organization ^[1]. The BBB report is incomplete because the foundation did not participate in that voluntary review ^[8]. Where sources simply repeat ratings without independent critique (press releases, partner sites), that can amplify positive claims without adding scrutiny ^{[4] [5] [9]}.

7. What a donor should consider beyond headline grades

High program‑spending percentages and top grades indicate efficient use of cash donations in the years reported, per CharityWatch and Charity Navigator summaries ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Donors seeking deeper due diligence should review the underlying IRS Form 990s and audited financial statements cited by CharityWatch, examine what the foundation counts as “program” expenses, and note non‑participation in voluntary BBB accountability evaluation — all factors that affect the completeness of independent evaluation in the available reporting ^{[3] [8]}.

8. Bottom line

Independent evaluators included in the available reporting — CharityWatch and Charity Navigator — rate Tunnel to Towers highly and point to very large shares of cash spending on programs and repeated top marks from Charity Navigator, which the foundation itself publicizes ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. At the same time, gaps in voluntary BBB participation and limits in some Charity Navigator methodologies mean donors who want full visibility should review the charity’s filings and the watchdogs’ underlying documents directly ^{[8] [1] [3]}.