ALS Ice Bucket Fraud

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 96Gatorcise, Aug 30, 2014.

  1. JerseyGator01
    Offline

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,194
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +628
    As I've mentioned before, there's books on this subject. The Charity Navigator rating is rather limited since it is largely based on a review of their IRS Form 990. A good fundraising event, which is a very inefficient way to raise funds, generates about a 75% profit for program. Nothing against ALS in particular, but given the size of many of these groups, they should do much better than 80%. Since so many of them don't, they essentially get a free pass from Charity Navigator. A good small nonprofit will often have a percentage in the upper 80s.
  2. JerseyGator01
    Offline

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,194
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +628
    Now, Charity Navigator's headline on their web site asks you if you have taken the challenge? Why would a so-called watchdog group do this? They're such lightweights.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,957
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +771
    To be fair (and disclosure: I have no experience in how charities are run), I think that there is some possible wisdom in my "make the pie higher" joke. If I am keeping 20% of the revenue for investment in things like expanding our revenue base, it could be that I am bringing in many more dollars for my cause at what is technically a lower percentage that is going directly to the cause. If I am interested in the cause, I'd prefer this outcome, so I don't know that the single percent number captures all the quality of the fund-raising organization.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. tjgators
    Offline

    tjgators Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +865
    The admin expenses the prior year were over 5 million according to their accounting. That's not good.
  5. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +533
    Too easy to make such a sweeping claim.Really needs to look at the specifics. The difference, between ALS and Red Cross, for example, is only about 3% less to admin for RC. But maybe the 3% more for ALS is a worthwhile expenditure. Without knowing more details, it's hard to say "it stinks" And heck, as you point out the way that some of these charities are evaluated is based only on a tax form. So you would agree with that just looking at the percentage isn't telling the whole story, right?
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2014
  6. OklahomaGator
    Offline

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,909
    Likes Received:
    1,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +2,324
    Charity A has 7% admin and overhead and raises $1,000,000 for their research. Charity B has 20% admin and overhead but raises $50,000,000 for their research. Which charity does a better job?
    • Like Like x 1
  7. JerseyGator01
    Offline

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,194
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +628
    I don't know much about ALS, but I'm quite familiar with many similar charities. They tend to operate in the cookie cutter mentality and are frankly proud of what most people in the charity world would consider inefficient operations. As long as a competitor isn't making them look bad in this regard, they really don't care much about efficiency.

    Larger charities should be more efficient than smaller ones. The excuses are lame at best.

Share This Page