Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ALS is an expensive, devastating disease. Research is fantastic and necessary - but doesn't do a damn thing to help people who are sick TODAY and need support as they slowly lose the ability to take care of themselves, walk, speak, and eventually eat or breathe on their own.
$40,000,000 of the 2013 revenue went to "other programs," which includes lobbying activities in Congress to help people who are sick now (like eliminating the 24 month Medicare wait time), advocating for veteran's benefits due to connection between Agent Orange and ALS, local chapters that offer on-the-ground support for families dealing with ALS, sponsoring a clinical trial database, offering support and information for the newly diagnosed, support groups, and more. I know some chapters also offer direct financial help to those dealing with this disease as it is incredibly expensive.
The ALSA also needs to pay the many talented staff they have working on this issue. I often notice this strange expectation that people working for charities either work for free or accept a pittance as a wage. That's unrealistic, especially for large nonprofits that run like a traditional business. They need to retain talented staff and can only do that by offering competitive wages (which are still typically less than standard wages).
I say all this as a cancer survivor who has defended some of the big cancer orgs in the same way. While I absolutely want a cure for Hodgkin's lymphoma to be found so no one else has to go through it, people ARE going through it today and are scared, potentially bankrupted and made homeless (I know several young adult cancer survivors who graduated from the end of chemo to living on the streets due to medical bills), and struggling to get information and support. Awareness campaigns can also be expensive, but are needed for both those who might have the illness but be unaware and also to garner public sympathy.
It doesn't all have to go towards "research" as explained in post #2.
People are narrow minded and focused on words, but don't really see the big picture. Small thinkers.
It doesn't all have to. But when only 47% does to research AND patient and community services, it bears looking at. Or not-your choice. IMO though, if people are going to give their hard earned money to charity they should now how much actually goes to the people in need. When more is spent on fundraising, lobbying and administration than goes to fight the disease or help those with it...I would want to know more before I give them my money. But heck, your money, your choice.
I believe checking out where your money goes is a good thing but I have a problem here. O.K. 27% goes to research but isn't the 19% that goes to community services important? I imagine this is going to help those with the disease. Isn't that still a good thing?
7% goes to administration costs. That doesn't seem to be too bad to me.
Seems to me that they have a pretty good rating. I am a bit tired of seeing all this ice bucket stuff myself and it would be interesting to find out that they aren't all of that but I'm not seeing it. They seem to be pretty much on the up and up.
7% goes to administration costs. That doesn't seem to be too bad to me.
Agreed. I think abusing the legitimate concern about high administrative costs by trying to get folks to think of the risk in myopic terms of how much goes to just research is indefensible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.