NOT TRUE: Als foundation admits that 73% of donations are not used for als research

[JEDIYoda]

This article is posted on a satire site and has been debunked by the ALS foundation and Snopes.
admin allisolm

Who would have believed.....robbery by charity??


http://politicalears.com/blog/ice-b...3-of-donations-are-not-used-for-als-research/

We've been duped. America is filled with fun-loving and caring people. The viral ice bucket challenge has combined both our sense of responsibility to our fellow human with fun. And it has been fun! Who didn't love seeing Sarah Palin doused?

But wait? Ice Bucket Challenge donations are nearing $100 MILLION. Where is that money going?
According to the ALS Foundation, not towards ALS.

Over 73% of all donations raised are going to fundraising, overhead, executive salaries, and external donations. Less than 27% is actually used for the purpose we donated for.

According to the ECFA, a charitable watchdog, 27% of donations actually making it to the cause they are donated to is unacceptable. In fact, the ECFA won't deem a non-profit as a reliable charity unless at least 80% of donations make it to their intended projects.

Here's the breakdown of the ALS Foundation's Financials:

14% -- fundraising
7% -- administration
27% -- research
32% -- public & professional education
19% -- Patient & community services

Employee salaries at the ALS Foundation are out-of-this-WORLD!

Jane H. Gilbert – President and CEO –$339,475.00
Daniel M. Reznikov – Chief Financial Officer – $201,260.00
Steve Gibson – Chief Public Policy Officer – $182,862.00
Kimberly Maginnis -Chief of Care Services Officer – $160,646.00
Lance Slaughter -Chief Chapter Relations and Development Officer – $152,692.00
Michelle Keegan – Chief Development Officer – $178,744.00
John Applegate – Association Finance Officer – $118.726.00
David Moses – Director of Planned Giving – $112,509.00
Carrie Munk – Chief Communications and Marketing Officer – $142,875.00
Patrick Wildman – Director of Public Policy – $112,358.00
Kathi Kromer – Director of State Advocacy – $110,661.00

 

[Exophase]

This assessment doesn't seem very fair. Just because 27% of the money is being used to pay for research doesn't mean that the entirety of the other 73% is being wasted on non-charitable purposes. In fact, almost all of that 73% would fall under either providing services or increasing exposure and therefore donations. And I know everyone likes to think organizations would be better off without any administration at all but that's not usually how it works. Yes some of those people could stand to make less money, but it's altogether that's not a huge piece of the funding.

As an extreme example, let's say that 50% of donations are being spent on raising awareness in some way or another.. and that it results in 10 times as many donations. Are you really going to tell me this is worse off for the cause?

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3296#.VAeUC9m9LCQ

I'm skeptical of all charities and their ability to provide anything of substance.

 

[Exophase]

I'm skeptical of all charities and their ability to provide anything of substance.

Medical research is always a crapshoot. A cause could get billions and it could all be wasted going nowhere despite earnestly trying to find something.

(granted, that's just one kind of charity - the "give people stuff other people have" charities have a more predictable return)

 

[BoberFett]

Those salaries don't seem out of line.

 

[Thebobo]

F them

Should be 80%

http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/hottopics.html

 

[sandorski]

This wasn't a secret. I agree with exophase, to think that the 73% is being wasted is disingenuous.

 

[bradly1101]

Greed outweighs charity every time.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Who would have believed.....robbery by charity??


http://politicalears.com/blog/ice-b...3-of-donations-are-not-used-for-als-research/

We've been duped. America is filled with fun-loving and caring people. The viral ice bucket challenge has combined both our sense of responsibility to our fellow human with fun. And it has been fun! Who didn't love seeing Sarah Palin doused?

But wait? Ice Bucket Challenge donations are nearing $100 MILLION. Where is that money going?
According to the ALS Foundation, not towards ALS.

Over 73% of all donations raised are going to fundraising, overhead, executive salaries, and external donations. Less than 27% is actually used for the purpose we donated for.

According to the ECFA, a charitable watchdog, 27% of donations actually making it to the cause they are donated to is unacceptable. In fact, the ECFA won't deem a non-profit as a reliable charity unless at least 80% of donations make it to their intended projects.

Here's the breakdown of the ALS Foundation's Financials:

14% -- fundraising
7% -- administration
27% -- research
32% -- public & professional education
19% -- Patient & community services

Employee salaries at the ALS Foundation are out-of-this-WORLD!

Jane H. Gilbert – President and CEO –$339,475.00
Daniel M. Reznikov – Chief Financial Officer – $201,260.00
Steve Gibson – Chief Public Policy Officer – $182,862.00
Kimberly Maginnis -Chief of Care Services Officer – $160,646.00
Lance Slaughter -Chief Chapter Relations and Development Officer – $152,692.00
Michelle Keegan – Chief Development Officer – $178,744.00
John Applegate – Association Finance Officer – $118.726.00
David Moses – Director of Planned Giving – $112,509.00
Carrie Munk – Chief Communications and Marketing Officer – $142,875.00
Patrick Wildman – Director of Public Policy – $112,358.00
Kathi Kromer – Director of State Advocacy – $110,661.00

First off, research, patient and community services and public and professional education are all valid uses of money donated to a charitable cause dedicated to finding a cure for a disease, so I call bullshit on the "only 23% is going to the cause" argument. By their numbers, 78% is going to the cause.

Second, even though I personally think 21% for overhead (administration and fundraising) costs is too high, it's hard to argue with their results. My organization would gladly pay our executives $340,000 if we could run a $100 million campaign in two months. But you also have to consider that the 21% overhead is based around their fundraising last year; unless their compensation structure is vastly different than the standards of other non-profits, their salaries don't scale with how much they bring in in a given year. If an organization raises $1 million and pays $500,000 in salaries, they're paying out 50% towards salaries. If that same organization raises $10 million the next year, salaries don't all get increased tenfold; employees might see a nice bonus, but there's still going to be a significant decrease in the percentage of fundraising dollars earmarked for salary. It's actually an ethical violation of professional non-profit organizations to tie employee salaries to organization performance, and bonus structures have to be part of a salary agreement in advance.

Third, if a corporate executive launched a campaign that increased company sales by an unprecedented factor, no one would bat an eye if they took home an 8-figure salary. If a non-profit executive spearheads a campaign that raises $100 million in a couple months, they are CRUCIFIED if they have a mid-6-figure salary. I can guarantee you that the people who are benefiting from the ALS research and care that this organization is helping to support are absolutely thrilled that this "overpaid" bunch of fundraisers have generated such success. It's ludicrous to complain about these people's salaries when it's likely that a cheaper group of fundraisers would probably never have generated the buzz that these people did. What's better, an organization that raises $100 million and spends 20% on salaries or an organization that raises $20 million but only 5% of it goes to salaries?

 

[RandomWords]

This assessment doesn't seem very fair. Just because 27% of the money is being used to pay for research doesn't mean that the entirety of the other 73% is being wasted on non-charitable purposes. In fact, almost all of that 73% would fall under either providing services or increasing exposure and therefore donations. And I know everyone likes to think organizations would be better off without any administration at all but that's not usually how it works. Yes some of those people could stand to make less money, but it's altogether that's not a huge piece of the funding.

This - it doesn't seem robbery by charity -at least not to a large degree - - the employees could make a little less I agree (even though their pay isn't too extreme) and perhaps they COULD reduce public and professional education (they may be educating the doctors and people researching it BTW) - but the 19% to patients and community services is just as important as the research itself. If the fundraising leads to profits above what is spent on the fundraising - it was well spent as well.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This why I make charitable donations at the lower levels. Like donating some of my rice harvest (2 to 3 times a year depending on rainfall) to the local mosque and church for them to give out to poor widows in the area. Or giving money to the local schools so those students who can't afford to take the advancement test can do so.

 

[ivwshane]

The link I provided shows that's it's 73% that went to the cause.

First off, research, patient and community services and public and professional education are all valid uses of money donated to a charitable cause dedicated to finding a cure for a disease, so I call bullshit on the "only 23% is going to the cause" argument. By their numbers, 78% is going to the cause.

Second, even though I personally think 21% for overhead (administration and fundraising) costs is too high, it's hard to argue with their results. My organization would gladly pay our executives $340,000 if we could run a $100 million campaign in two months. But you also have to consider that the 21% overhead is based around their fundraising last year; unless their compensation structure is vastly different than the standards of other non-profits, their salaries don't scale with how much they bring in in a given year. If an organization raises $1 million and pays $500,000 in salaries, they're paying out 50% towards salaries. If that same organization raises $10 million the next year, salaries don't all get increased tenfold; employees might see a nice bonus, but there's still going to be a significant decrease in the percentage of fundraising dollars earmarked for salary. It's actually an ethical violation of professional non-profit organizations to tie employee salaries to organization performance, and bonus structures have to be part of a salary agreement in advance.

Third, if a corporate executive launched a campaign that increased company sales by an unprecedented factor, no one would bat an eye if they took home an 8-figure salary. If a non-profit executive spearheads a campaign that raises $100 million in a couple months, they are CRUCIFIED if they have a mid-6-figure salary. I can guarantee you that the people who are benefiting from the ALS research and care that this organization is helping to support are absolutely thrilled that this "overpaid" bunch of fundraisers have generated such success. It's ludicrous to complain about these people's salaries when it's likely that a cheaper group of fundraisers would probably never have generated the buzz that these people did. What's better, an organization that raises $100 million and spends 20% on salaries or an organization that raises $20 million but only 5% of it goes to salaries?

 

[zinfamous]

14% -- fundraising
7% -- administration
27% -- research
32% -- public & professional education
19% -- Patient & community services

Bolded is certainly appropriate. I only see ~21% being "wasted;" though certainly understandable.

why outrage?

 

[Thebobo]

Most of the charitable donations for the governments combined federal campaign less then 20% for administrative fees and 80% to actual research. 27% is a joke imo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Percentage_of_Donations_Go_to_Charity

Great Charities That Spend Their Money Well
While these might not be the most popular nonprofits, the following list of charities knows how to get the most bang for their bucks. With less than 10% overhead, these charities will spend 90% or more of the money that you donate on actual goods and services that support their missions.

Greater Chicago Food Depository
Oregon Food Bank
The Conservation Fund
Give Kids the World
Save the Children
UNICEF

Charities with Lots of Overhead
To be considered a charity that spends its money well, at least 66.6% of all donations should go directly towards programs that support the charity's mission. While these charities fall well within this guideline, they do tend to accrue more overhead and administrative expenses than some other charities. The following popular charities spend 20 to 30 cents on the donated dollar for overhead and administrative expenses.

The Nature Conservancy
World Wildlife Federation
CARE
Oxfam America
Natural Resources Defense Council
Charities that Spend 30% or More on Overhead

If you care deeply that the bulk of your money goes to benefit the cause directly, these are charities you may want to investigate further before making your donation. The following charities spend at least 30 cents or more for every donated dollar on things like overhead, administrative costs, and fundraising.

George Bush Presidential Library Foundation <---- HAHA
Alzheimer's Foundation of America
The Cable Center
Jewish Guild for the Blind
American Printing House for the Blind

 

[Genx87]

Article looks weak. Nothing seems out of line.

Which category does the OP believe should be disbanded and folded into research funding?

 

[werepossum]

This why I make charitable donations at the lower levels. Like donating some of my rice harvest (2 to 3 times a year depending on rainfall) to the local mosque and church for them to give out to poor widows in the area. Or giving money to the local schools so those students who can't afford to take the advancement test can do so.

This I think is the very best giving, as the people spending your money are actually looking the needy in the eye.

Bolded is certainly appropriate. I only see ~21% being "wasted;" though certainly understandable.

why outrage?

You have a point, although some or all of "professional and public education" may well be fundraising as well. Often the "fundraising" costs only refer to the actual money paid to the fundraisers - in which case the organization basically exists to exist and it's charitable work is a sideline.

 

[master_shake_]

Jane H. Gilbert – President and CEO –$339,475.00
Daniel M. Reznikov – Chief Financial Officer – $201,260.00
Steve Gibson – Chief Public Policy Officer – $182,862.00
Kimberly Maginnis -Chief of Care Services Officer – $160,646.00
Lance Slaughter -Chief Chapter Relations and Development Officer – $152,692.00
Michelle Keegan – Chief Development Officer – $178,744.00
John Applegate – Association Finance Officer – $118.726.00
David Moses – Director of Planned Giving – $112,509.00
Carrie Munk – Chief Communications and Marketing Officer – $142,875.00
Patrick Wildman – Director of Public Policy – $112,358.00
Kathi Kromer – Director of State Advocacy – $110,661.00

looks like too many chiefs and not enough indians.

for srs 400g's as a wage for a charity? fuck you

 

[Ns1]

looks like too many chiefs and not enough indians.

for srs 400g's as a wage for a charity? fuck you

http://issuu.com/alsassociation/docs/annual_report_fy2014?e=2279079/8917546

400k salary on 29mm in revenue for 2013. Total of 7% in admin costs.

In the grand scheme of things, not bad.

 

[ElFenix]

meh, charities have to pay competitive wages too.

and what was ALS foundation's giving last year? like $100,000? seems they've earned their pay this year.

 

[chowderhead]

Carrie Munk – Chief Communications and Marketing Officer – $142,875.00

This person deserves a raise. Who knows how the ice bucket thing went viral but it did and they are raising millions.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This wasn't a secret. I agree with exophase, to think that the 73% is being wasted is disingenuous.

Yup

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/als.asp

And their last fiscal year had funding from all sources totalling 29M. That went to research, education, services for ALS patients...

Man people just want to crap on everything it seems.

 

[BoberFett]

looks like too many chiefs and not enough indians.

for srs 400g's as a wage for a charity? fuck you

LOL, the president and CEO of a large organization makes $339K (not $400K you fool, learn your numbers) and that's apparently way too much.

But a dumbass who works the fry machine part time needs $30K/yr.

 

[Linux23]

Eff that bull. I'm not try to make anyone rich donating to a Charity. This is the number one reason I don't feel compelled to donate. What are they doing that deserves 340K?

 

[Victorian Gray]

If anybody cares, here are their financials and annual report

http://issuu.com/alsassociation/docs/annual_report_fy2014?e=2279079/8917546

and a pie chart

http://www.alsa.org/about-us/financial-information.html

 

[Genx87]

Eff that bull. I'm not try to make anyone rich donating to a Charity. This is the number one reason I don't feel compelled to donate. What are they doing that deserves 340K?

Running a multi-million dollar non-profit????????