How do charity watchdogs rate Tunnel to Towers overall and by financial efficiency?

1. Charity Navigator: sustained top‑tier rating and what it measures

Charity Navigator has awarded Tunnel to Towers a four‑star rating — its highest — repeatedly, which the foundation and various summaries highlight as evidence of “exceptional financial health and commitment to transparency” and fiscal management ^{[1] [5] [6]}. Charity Navigator’s score reflects assessments of financial health, sustainability, and governance practices — factors that include program spending ratios, administrative and fundraising expense levels, and available audited financial statements and IRS Form 990 disclosures ^[1]. Tunnel to Towers’ own financial page emphasizes a decade of consecutive four‑star results, noting this differentiator to donors ^[5].

2. CharityWatch: high efficiency metrics and concrete numbers

CharityWatch gives Tunnel to Towers an A+ and explicitly cites the foundation’s fiscal 2022 results: spending 93% of cash expenses on programs and keeping overhead at about 7% of cash expenses, while spending roughly $5 to raise each $100 of cash support in 2022 — metrics CharityWatch uses to gauge efficiency and fundraising effectiveness ^[2]. CharityWatch’s analysis is based on audited financials and IRS Form 990 data, and it frames the charity as meeting benchmarks for governance and transparency in that review period ^{[2] [7]}.

3. Supporting documentation and third‑party availability of filings

Tax filings and historical financials for the foundation are accessible through databases such as ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer, which aggregates IRS Form 990 documents and extracted financial data for nonprofits, enabling watchdogs to perform the analyses that underlie their ratings ^[3]. The foundation publicizes its Charity Navigator standing and program ratios on its own site and in distributed materials, which echo the watchdogs’ metrics and emphasize high program‑service percentages over multiple years ^{[5] [8]}.

4. Areas of caution, differing disclosures, and what the ratings don’t automatically show

While multiple evaluators rate Tunnel to Towers very highly, not all accountability platforms present the same level of published detail: Give.org’s listing for the foundation shows a “Did Not Disclose” status for its charity accountability report, indicating a disclosure gap in that particular database even as other evaluators have published analyses ^[4]. Third‑party aggregators and promotional PDFs repeat Charity Navigator and CharityWatch claims — helpful but not substitutes for raw filings — and CharityWatch itself relies on audited statements and Form 990s to compute ratios, meaning changes in those documents alter assessments ^{[2] [7] [6]}. The watchdogs’ favorable ratings speak to financial efficiency and governance benchmarks during the reviewed periods, but these scores do not alone evaluate program impact depth beyond spending ratios, and available sources do not provide granular, independent impact audits in this set of documents ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Bottom line: consistent high marks for efficiency, with standard caveats

Across leading evaluators cited by the foundation and by charity researchers, Tunnel to Towers shows consistent top‑tier ratings: Charity Navigator’s four stars and CharityWatch’s A+ reflect sustained high program spending percentages and low fundraising costs as measured in recent filings, and public tax filings exist for independent review via ProPublica ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Donors seeking deeper assurance should consult the underlying audited financial statements and Form 990s that watchdogs used, note the Give.org disclosure flag for that platform’s records, and recognize that efficiency ratings measure fiscal stewardship rather than providing a full, independent evaluation of program outcomes ^{[4] [7] [3]}.