ALS foundation admits that 73% of donations are not used for ALS research...
http://www.politicalears.com/blog/ic...ampaign=buffer
ALS foundation admits that 73% of donations are not used for ALS research...
http://www.politicalears.com/blog/ic...ampaign=buffer
Easy marks, it was fun, etc.
"You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole; you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
I will point out that that pie graph shows only $26.3M & this campaign is already approaching $100M.
I, personally, didn't think all this money was going strictly to research & knew a lot was going to other initiatives which looks to be 51% in this case. It looks like 21% is going to administration & fundraising & I would hope that number goes way, way down with this new grassroots campaign. If the administration & fundraising costs stayed at 21%, which be more than $21M with the numbers as they are right now, when the numbers are released next year I'd be extremely concerned but I doubt they will. Hopefully, a good portion of this new money, goes to research & that % rises & we don't see huge bonuses for these executives.
With $70M+ extra dollars this year I would hope at least $50-60M goes to research but I doubt it will & this time next year we'll be talking about the scandal @ ALS headquarters. They will probably think this campaign will just continue being this lucrative going forward & they'll just blow this unexpected new found cash infusion with more staff & dumb shit.
(_) ..
∫\ \___( _)
_∫∫ _∫∫ɯ \ \
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
fyp
:freelewfather
If they misuse the funds, there will be no scandal. Tons of charities do this and nobody seems to notice or care. Susan G Komen has been pulling this shit for years (among many other awful unethical things), and I still see pink ribbons plastered all over TV ads and NFL broadcasts.
Every time I point this stuff out to people, it falls on deaf ears. People just want to feel like they've done their part and relieved some guilt. They don't want to spend time researching charities and questioning things.
If anyone here does give a shit, I recommend spending a few minutes on http://www.charitynavigator.org/ or something similar the next time you want to make a donation.
So many people just used it as an excuse to dump a bucket of water on themselves. I see people posting videos up all the time (all recorded in vertical, ugh) of their 10 year old kids dumping a bucket of water on themselves challenging their friends like any of them at that age were ever going to donate anyways.
The gimmick got so mainstream and most people probably thought they were just doing a good thing wasting a few gallons of water for charity without knowing the financials.
Anytime you really want to donate to a charity you should always do your homework to see where the money really goes. If 70+% is going towards a different cause then what it's supposed to then as bad as it is I mean hey at least it wasn't 100% by the in Jasep we trust.
LOL, way to paint a shitty picture. Why not look into where they do spend their money, and what they say they will do with the money? 2013 numbers obv, which will be WAY less than what they get this year.
27% into research. OK, we got that part.
32% into public and professional education and info services.
19% goes to patient services
14% fundraising
7% admin
So now lets look at their motto, shall we?
"“The mission of The ALS Association is to lead the fight to treat and cure ALS through global research and nationwide advocacy, while also empowering people with Lou Gehrig’s Disease and their families to live fuller lives by providing them with compassionate care and support.”
Add up the research, patient services, and personal/professional education, and we're just a cunt-hair under 80% of their spending going towards exactly what they say it goes towards.
As far as charitynavigator.com goes, check em out.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=3296
Overall 90.73 
Financial 87.24 Accountability & Transparency 97.00 
If the ALSA claimed to be a research-only charity, there's be a good case to be made that they are in the grifting business. However, they don't say that, they do what they say they do, and the well-regarded Charity Navigator gives them an A.
Now what do you think, sd858? They seem pretty up and up to me. They say what they do, and they do what they say, and they never claimed to be a research-only organization. If you thought that (and there was no real reason to think that unless you just made that up yourself, or assumed it, or whatever), you were wrong, and you should probably rethink your OP. Do the officers of the charity make too much money? Maybe, that's an easy argument to make with the money they take home, but that's another argument entirely than the false one the OP makes.
Everyone is saying "Do your research!", then they crush the org without doing any research.
edit: article repeatedly called them the ALS Foundation. They are the ALS Association.
Last edited by Crowe Diddly; 08-30-2014 at 10:46 AM.
Yeah that 27% thing is very misleading, and was likely intentional to draw traffic to the website that "discovered" it.
However, I am still skeptical of the ALS Foundation because of the real numbers.
14% is listed as being spent on "fundraising". Fundraising sounds like a legitimate endeavor. You have to spend money to make money, right?
Except that's where a lot of charity fraud exists. Expensive flights, dinners, hotel rooms, and activities can all be labeled "fundraising" if they can loosely be tied to an attempt to raise funds. So many shady and semi-shady charities take trips and throw expensive parties on the charity's dime, in the name of "raising funds", and sadly nothing can be done if they can loosely point to how they invited people who were supposed to donate, but ended up not doing so.
"Education" is another noble-sounding expenditure, but again that money is often wasted and abused. For example, "education" can be something like taking your board members to Disneyworld, wearing shirts explaining ALS and the charity supporting the research, and claiming you're "educating" people.
The 7% for administration also sounds a bit high for a charity as large as this. The larger the charity, the smaller percentage cost should be spent on admin. I admit that the salaries seem a bit excessive, especially the CEO making $330k.
Anyway, until we understand how the "fundraising" and "education" money was spent (and get real specifics), I would't recommend that charity.
Those percentages are misleading. Check out their tax return.
http://www.alsa.org/assets/pdfs/form...06-11-2014.pdf
This was already mentioned in the article OP linked. Pretty slimey, no? The president has made herself a millionaire running this charity. Anyway, that's the 7% ($1.8 million) in administrative expenses.
But what part of the pie chart does travel expenses fall under? Because they spent $1,348,000 on that shit. And another half million on "occupancy". I guess that's hotels? Doesn't that seem excessive for 11 people?
Office expenses were $300k. Must be a pretty baller office.
$3.6 million was spent on "other salaries and wages". I don't know what this means. It doesn't include lawyers, accountants, or lobbyists, because that's accounted for elsewhere. Which is $14k, $55k, and $106k respectively.
I don't know what "professional fundraising services" are, but 467k got spent on that.
$3.4 million was spent on "other" services, which does not overlap with "other salaries". I don't know what this is either.
We're up to $11.5 million so far. That's roughly half of all revenue that year. I'm sure there's more interesting things to find in that tax return. That's just what I see at a glance.
Those percentages are misleading. Check out their tax return.
http://www.alsa.org/assets/pdfs/form...06-11-2014.pdf
This was already mentioned in the article OP linked. Pretty slimey, no? The president has made herself a millionaire running this charity. Anyway, that's the 7% ($1.8 million) in administrative expenses.
But what part of the pie chart does travel expenses fall under? Because they spent $1,348,000 on that shit. And another half million on "occupancy". I guess that's hotels? Doesn't that seem excessive for 11 people?
Office expenses were $300k. Must be a pretty baller office.
$3.6 million was spent on "other salaries and wages". I don't know what this means. It doesn't include lawyers, accountants, or lobbyists, because that's accounted for elsewhere. Which is $14k, $55k, and $106k respectively.
I don't know what "professional fundraising services" are, but 467k got spent on that.
$3.4 million was spent on "other" services, which does not overlap with "other salaries". I don't know what this is either.
We're up to $11.5 million so far. That's roughly half of all revenue that year. I'm sure there's more interesting things to find in that tax return. That's just what I see at a glance.
Welcome to the world of charities. All successful ones are like this. Fundraising is big business and its certainly worth paying a few million out to staff if they in return bring in tens of millions. As others have already pointed out this is a well respected charity. There are certain many corrupt ones out there, but ALS doesn;t fall into that.
WWDD
If were going to talk about charity fraud here guys, I think we should at least wait and let jasep chime in.
I defended the charity a bit more than I had intended to in my post, but that's my fault. What was bothering me is that the central claim of the article in the op, that they only give just over a quarter of their money to research, is a complete straw man. They never claimed to be a research-only charity, but that's what they're getting fried for, for not doing something they never intended to do, or even said they'd do.
If their tax docs show shady stuff, that's something else entirely, and as pretty much everyone agrees, the large salaries are always a problem. But if you are gonna call an organization a fraud, you need to come with the evidence, and the article in the OP had no standing at all with the "research" stuff.
That should be from "Komen for the cure" to "Komen for the kickbacks". The American Cancer Society is a much more deserving charity imo.
These ice bucket narcissists are all over my facebook -lecturing me on donating to some charity they just googled - 1 minute of mild discomfort does not warrant that amount of smugness and is certainly not a "challenge".
I had to do a sponsored half marathon with 6 weeks notice for a charity I worked for, at least that took some fucking effort.
Fuck.
Check for yourself: http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...9#.VAJtl0s1xZg
Also: How does ALS Association spend its money?
All public record; the schlock you linked to is sensationalist bullshit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
