Zee I don't know where you got your numbers from, I got them
from their site. Their financial statements are audited independently by
these guys, so if the ALS folks bribed their auditor, which of course is not unheard of (Enron did it, plenty of financial institutions did it before the 2008 crash) I presume they did a good job massaging the numbers.
I made a table based on those numbers (the hash signs are my attempt to line up the table because phpBB eats the extra spaces)
The statements used were for the fiscal years ending on January 31
2012,
2013 and
2014. the 2012 statement has a comparison with the 2011 statement. This gives us an idea of their expenses from the year 2010 till December 2013.
#########################2010 2011 2012 2013
########Research#########21.50 25.30 25.70 27.40
########Patient Care######27.80 30.00 19.60 19.40
########Education########13.80 12.00 34.50 32.30
Total Operations############63.10 67.30 79.80 79.10
########Fundraising#######23.80 21.20 11.70 13.60
########Administration####13.10 11.50 8.50 7.30
Total Support#############36.90 32.70 20.20 20.90
Grand Total##############100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
As you can see, Research Grants alone range from 21.5% in 2010 to 27.4% in 2013, I don't think they cleaned up their act, simply that ALS (aka Lou Gherig's disease) research was stagnant before 2011. if you check up the
history of the disease the only major breakthrough in the 160 years since that disease was identified came in
2011 and for better or worse, the ALS Association (along with plenty of other institutions) has bragging rights on it because they contributed to the funding of that piece of research.
Now that's less than 30% of their assets, where do the rest of those go?
According to their
Wikipedia Entry they not only fund research, they also provide tons of seminars for researchers and run a nation wide network of clinics and support groups for the patients and their families (do remember that this disease is a chronic disease with no cure, so the people who suffer from it need to be taken care of for life).
The "Support" part of their expenses are Fund-raising and Administration. Now, the support part of their expenses has been steadily shrinking since 2010, although it had a slight increase in 2013 because their fund-raising expenses rose, the Administration section (which I presume that it includes the salaries of those 8 people) has been steadily decreasing since 2010.
Now those 8 people not only hold fund raisers, they have to manage a nation wide network of centers and I presume, coordinate lots of seminars. Are their worth their salt? NO IDEA (I have very little sympathy for upper management in general, so I am trying NOT to let that influence my opinion). But up till now, the only thing I can blame them for, is having a "narrow" mission statement.
