Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 96Gatorcise, Aug 30, 2014.
Not sure I get your point.
Many of the costs only need to be covered once, like salaries, and the ice bucket funds won't likely be used for them at all.
And patient and professional services for those already suffering is as important to research for those who prevention still matters.
These organizations don't run on their own and 7% for administrative cost is not unreasonable, especially in the much smaller numbers these proportions relate to.
...and the research being targeted for the funds is heavy on primate use.
but....a bunch of dumbass sheeple feel great about themselves by getting basically shamed into contributing to the 'cause'.
forgot to post link
I mean, let's be real - this whole thing is just a fad/trend anyway. Half the people doing this couldn't care less about ALS and probably don't even know what it is.
Theres a sucker born every day. Millions in fact.
You, and this blogger, may very well be right but his source appears to be from before the ice bucket challenge started so I don't think it's fair to accuse them of mishandling funds, just yet. Having said that, I doubt that they were prepared for this kind of influx and it wouldn't surprise me if they have difficulty allocating the funds correctly.
Yeah, I mean - it's not their fault that this thing blew up into a social media hurricane. No one could have guessed this thing would take off the way it has.
Charity Navigator gives the ALS Association, Jane Gilbert President & CEO, a four star rating, their highest. They state that 72.4% of the money goes to the intended sources with 11.1% spent on administrative salaries and 16.5% spent on fundraising. They got a 3 star rating for their financials with an overall rating of 4 stars.
BTW, I agree that administrative salaries appear to be very high. Seems like alot of people doing "service work" are mainly serving themselves a nice fat paycheck.
I encourage everyone who wants to donate to a charity to check it out on Charity Navigator first.
The high salary players are not "service".. They are fundraisers.
Voluntary healthcare organizations are HORRIBLY inefficient. They get a good rating from Charity Navigator because they are the ACC in the charity world (i.e. all of them are inefficient). When I worked as a fundraiser for a charity in Philly almost ten years ago, the federal government employee giving program refused to give employees the option of giving any money to groups who didn't spend at least 80% on programs.
This group actually spends 79%, which is rather pathetic given their size but still slightly above average for similar organizations. I wouldn't mind seeing a breakdown of the "educational" expenses since they likely include training at fancy hotels/resorts etc.
Okay, so what I get out of this thread is:
* there is no "fraud" in that the budget figures were taken before the ice-bucket challenge went viral
* the charity seems to be one of the better, but not the best, in terms of its financials and intended use
* certainly - when a lot of money goes somewhere (think 9/11 charities) - that money/power can corrupt and it's incumbent on that organization to be forthcoming.
* time to watch the Gator game...oh, crap...another week.
Actually, it's not one of the better ones. Most of the research ones are horrible. Books have been written about this that journalists obviously haven't read.
OK, then it appears that several of them receive nice, fat paychecks to fundraise for a good cause. What a way to profit off of others misery. Sorry, but I think that is wrong. There are many charities out there with leaders and fundraisers who are paid reasonable salaries. Check out the Tim Tebow Foundation, for example, that pledges to use 100% of ALL donations in programs that serve the foundation's objectives. Just one example of many (although few can match that standard).
It does sound odd on the surface. I mean, who wants to give knowing how much of it will go to huge salaries. Yet the principle remains - if these executives can deliver the donations then they will command a high salary. Otherwise, they will go somewhere else to raise money or make sales.
Make the pie higher.
79% still stinks, but you can get away with it when you're politically connected.
What are they actually "getting away with" Jersey? It's not much worse than the Red Cross or Salvation Army. Big difference between "being able to improve" and "stinking" (or being corrupt).