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

[Victorian Gray]

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 what amounts to a large company.

 

[Linux23]

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.

No but why does McDonald's CEO need to make x millions? What is he doing? Reinventing the hamburger, or listening to ideas from the people who report to him making x thousands, and then agreeing on how to make their shitty food just acceptably shitty enough for the people serving the shit to afford it for themselves and the family they have to feed?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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.

I like the notion that people who work in non-profits shouldn't seek ANY compensation because that's somehow taking away from the organization's mission. Hire someone to run a charity on $40,000 a year and you are going to wind up with a charity that will have no direction or leadership, no plan to raise money and no way to guarantee proper stewardship of the money once it's donated. You need someone with business acumen, a solid understanding of accounting practices and knowledge of the laws surrounding charitable giving, and you are not going to find anyone who possesses those qualities without paying some money for it. Only a complete fool would think that an organization could take in tens of millions of dollars and a handful of minimum wage people or volunteers could steer all those resources and make sure every dime gets to the right people. You have to pay for talent and you need talent to make sure that the money is being directed correctly, because there are plenty of people who have no qualms about defrauding charitable organizations. But, no, let's piss and moan because these overpaid executives just increased donations 20-fold in the past couple months.

 

[Linux23]

Running what amounts to a large company.

bullshit. what are they selling? lies to people that think their contributions really matter. all lies and bullshit for someone else's career.

 

[brycejones]

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

why outrage?

Agreed, seems to be a fairly responsibly run charity with the vast majority of their spending going towards their mission.

The thread title while being technically accurate since it mentions "research" is extremely dishonest and designed to give an inaccurate impression.

OP should be ashamed but since this P&N and most around here take pride in their intellectual dishonesty I don't expect a retraction.

 

[Linux23]

I like the notion that people who work in non-profits shouldn't seek ANY compensation because that's somehow taking away from the organization's mission. Hire someone to run a charity on $40,000 a year and you are going to wind up with a charity that will have no direction or leadership, no plan to raise money and no way to guarantee proper stewardship of the money once it's donated. You need someone with business acumen, a solid understanding of accounting practices and knowledge of the laws surrounding charitable giving, and you are not going to find anyone who possesses those qualities without paying some money for it. Only a complete fool would think that an organization could take in tens of millions of dollars and a handful of minimum wage people or volunteers could steer all those resources and make sure every dime gets to the right people. You have to pay for talent and you need talent to make sure that the money is being directed correctly, because there are plenty of people who have no qualms about defrauding charitable organizations. But, no, let's piss and moan because these overpaid executives just increased donations 20-fold in the past couple months.

so i wonder who thought of the ice bucket challenge? the 400K CEO? if he or she did, then kudos because i never seen a CEO think of anything original in all of the fortune 500 companies i worked at. but could be just me i guess.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

bullshit. what are they selling? lies to people that think their contributions really matter. all lies and bullshit for someone else's career.

Maybe you should ask someone with ALS how they feel about that organization before you dismiss them as hucksters. I'm willing to bet you could find some people with very positive experiences with the organization; probably a lot more than you could find who have had negative experiences at any rate.

 

[Victorian Gray]

bullshit. what are they selling? lies to people that think their contributions really matter. all lies and bullshit for someone else's career.

Apparently you have no understanding of how large charities operate or what they accomplish. It might be beneficial for you to take the time to educate yourself.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

so i wonder who thought of the ice bucket challenge? the 400K CEO? if he or she did, then kudos because i never seen a CEO think of anything original in all of the fortune 500 companies i worked at. but could be just me i guess.

I'm willing to guess that the CEOs at those companies made a far sight better than $330,000 too. But the role of the CEO is not solely to come up with good marketing strategies; they're running the company. At the moment, it appears that this one is running the organization pretty well (although prior to the success of the ice bucket challenge, I would have agreed that their overhead staffing costs are a bit high).

 

[Linux23]

Apparently you have no understanding of how large charities operate or what they accomplish. It might be beneficial for you to take the time to educate yourself.

what do they accomplish directly, exactly? please do tell!

its all smoke and mirrors to people who don't understand exactly what this money is used for.

 

[Ns1]

what do they accomplish directly, exactly? please do tell!

Well, based on their 2013 financial statements at a minimum ALS directly contributed 7.2 million to research. 7.2 million that wouldn't have been funded otherwise.

Assuming the ice bucket challenge made 100m and they donate the same % this year, they'll directly donate 28mm this year to research.

I'm too lazy to look into their financials further, but now it's your turn to slam the organization.

 

[preCRT]

The Ice Bucket challenge was created by a patient, former Boston College jock Pete Frates. It went viral from his family & friends as they started challenging their friends among Boston pro athletes and news media folks.

It was not created by the ALS foundation or their 'professional' fundraisers.

 

[Victorian Gray]

what do they accomplish directly, exactly? please do tell!

its all smoke and mirrors to people who don't understand exactly what this money is used for.

Don't be so lazy. Do some research. Or don't and stay ignorant.

 

[preCRT]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...s-will-live/m2Abeu4SIGROfg0aBlCTCM/story.html

 

[Capt Caveman]

I don't see the problem either. 21% towards administrative costs is in line with most other charities. How the remainder is split will vary for each charity.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The Ice Bucket challenge was created by a patient, former Boston College jock Pete Frates. It went viral from his family & friends as they started challenging their friends among Boston pro athletes and news media folks.

It was not created by the ALS foundation or their 'professional' fundraisers.

Then clearly they should hire that guy.

 

[werepossum]

I like the notion that people who work in non-profits shouldn't seek ANY compensation because that's somehow taking away from the organization's mission. Hire someone to run a charity on $40,000 a year and you are going to wind up with a charity that will have no direction or leadership, no plan to raise money and no way to guarantee proper stewardship of the money once it's donated. You need someone with business acumen, a solid understanding of accounting practices and knowledge of the laws surrounding charitable giving, and you are not going to find anyone who possesses those qualities without paying some money for it. Only a complete fool would think that an organization could take in tens of millions of dollars and a handful of minimum wage people or volunteers could steer all those resources and make sure every dime gets to the right people. You have to pay for talent and you need talent to make sure that the money is being directed correctly, because there are plenty of people who have no qualms about defrauding charitable organizations. But, no, let's piss and moan because these overpaid executives just increased donations 20-fold in the past couple months.

Well said, and irrefutable.

There's an unfortunate and inexplicable tendency in this country to assume that anyone very well paid does little or nothing. I think it's an offshoot of the left's idea that people are interchangeable, that anyone can do any job and therefore if one does not have the "proper" ratio of each protected group then one is discriminating. Thus we have firefighters' requirement to be able to carry a person down several flights of stairs downgraded to being able to drag them by their heels. In the same way, anyone should be able to do the CxO's job - and thus these jobs should have average compensation. Combine this with our tendency on the right to believe that anyone with an advanced degree working for government is automatically Algore's priest and we're well on our way to establishing the idiocracy.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Those salaries don't seem out of line.

I thought they seemed a little low, but it is a non profit

 

[bradley]

A charity manufactures or produces nothing of intrinsic value; it basically collects and distributes money and should have a smaller overhead than a large corporation.

If asked, and they should, I bet most donors would want their money going predominately to research. Seems as though ALSA have created this additional platform to justify their hefty salaries.

Additionally before Mrs. Munk pats herself on the back too hard, there are kids creating viral Youtube videos (with millions of hits) in their parent's basement on shoestring budgets.

This isn't as bad as Michael Bolton's charity, where all donations truly went to him. Hey, Michael has a very expensive lifestyle to maintain. However I personally find their budgeting information disappointing (with only 27% going to research) and would never donate to such a charity.

 

[KeithP]

I don't see the problem either. 21% towards administrative costs is in line with most other charities. How the remainder is split will vary for each charity.

True but a charity that is looking for a cure or better treatment of a disease probably should have research take the biggest slice of the pie funding wise.

Non-profits are a joke and should be eliminated from our tax code. They are for profit businesses with the exception of employing people whose job it is to convince suckers to donate their time and money to a cause where everyone else in the organization is getting paid top dollar.

-KeithP

 

[The Merg]

I would also think that by them receiving such a huge increase in donations that a lot more than 27% of the money received could be used for research. While the percentages shown are what they did last year, that was based on the amount of money the organization received. Considering that are receiving about 4x their normal operating budget just from this campaign, there is nothing to say that the amount spent on research won't be increased percentage-wise.

- Merg

 

[waggy]

OP are you trolling or just ignorant? The numbers look fine even if they are listed weird.

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

14% for fundraising? understandable. they need people to donate.
7% for administration again understandable. they need talented people.
research? duh.
education? again duh
patient and community services? this makes sense too.

 

[Exterous]

bullshit. what are they selling? lies to people that think their contributions really matter. all lies and bullshit for someone else's career.

Please point out on the doll where the charity touched you

 

[soulcougher73]

Pretty much all charities are a scam. I avoid them and instead donate my time if i find a worthy cause. Most are in the money making business, not charity business.

 

[Brainonska511]

Couldn't they also be rolling funds into an endowment so they can have a more steady flow of money per year (eg: and also have more annual money for the activies they want to support, especially when a campaign brings in a large chunk of cash)? Wouldn't that also take away from the percentages actually spent on a yearly basis?