What are independent assessments of nonprofit transparency for veteran-focused charities like Tunnel to Towers?
Executive summary
Independent charity evaluators give the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation high marks for traditional measures of financial transparency and stewardship—Charity Navigator has awarded consecutive 4‑star ratings and perfect scores in Accountability & Transparency, and CharityWatch assigns an “A+” citing very high program‑spending ratios [1] [2] [3]. However, gaps remain in independent impact measurement and some third‑party disclosure flags differ, meaning donors should weigh both the strong financial metrics and the evaluators’ noted limitations before concluding on overall transparency [4] [5].
1. Financial metrics and overhead: what watchdogs report
CharityWatch’s detailed review finds Tunnel to Towers spends roughly 93% of cash expenses on programs with overhead around 7%, earning an A+ for efficiency and an assertion that it raises and spends contributions efficiently based on fiscal 2022 filings [3] [6]. Charity Navigator’s multi‑year 4‑star ratings and repeated perfect Accountability & Transparency scores further reinforce the narrative that the organization meets established industry practices on governance, reporting and fiscal health [1] [7].
2. What “accountability and transparency” scores mean in practice
Charity Navigator’s high marks reflect publicly reported policies and financial disclosures that satisfy their Accountability & Transparency criteria, a category that comprises half of their overall rating, but the evaluator explicitly notes that Tunnel to Towers currently cannot be scored under its Impact & Measurement methodology for lack of submitted or available program‑outcome data [4] [1]. In short, documentation of policies and clean financial ratios are visible and favorably rated, while systematic, third‑party evidence of program outcomes remains unevaluated by that service [4].
3. Conflicting or absent disclosures to other registries
The Better Business Bureau’s Give.org lists a “Did Not Disclose” status for Tunnel to Towers’ charity accountability report, signaling that not all charity registries receive the same level of submission or that certain requested information was not provided to that evaluator [5]. Meanwhile, independent data aggregators and review sites like GiveFreely echo the positive transparency narrative—citing audited Form 990 filings and claimed governance safeguards—so public evidence exists, but evaluators differ on completeness and the data they require [8] [9].
4. Where the independent picture is incomplete or nuanced
ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer confirms the availability of IRS Form 990 filings that allow donors to inspect executive compensation, revenues and expenses, but such raw filings do not substitute for standardized impact metrics or constituent feedback that some evaluators seek [9] [4]. Charity Navigator’s note that Tunnel to Towers cannot be evaluated on Impact & Measurement and on Culture & Community (constituent feedback) is an explicit caveat: strong financial transparency does not automatically equate to independently validated program effectiveness [4].
5. How the foundation and media present the ratings—and what to watch for
Tunnel to Towers highlights its multi‑year Charity Navigator 4‑star streak and perfect accountability scores in press releases and its financials page, which is a common and legitimate use of positive evaluations but also constitutes a promotional emphasis that donors should triangulate with primary filings and third‑party outcome data [2] [1]. Given the mix—high marks on fiscal transparency and efficiency from prominent watchdogs alongside incomplete independent impact scoring and mixed disclosure status on some registries—the balanced judgment is that Tunnel to Towers is well‑documented financially but not yet fully assessed on program outcomes by every major evaluator [3] [4] [5].