The article fumes that over 73% of the Ice Bucket Challenge donations (we're all familiar with that) go to fundraising, overhead, executive salaries, and external donations. They cite an organization called the ECFA. It's a Christian nonprofit watchdog group that bases their standards of charity on the bible. They write that only 27% of the funds will go to research. That's true. They even provide this handy pie chart.
Notice that, yes, 27% goes to Research, but 51% goes to Public and Professional Education and Patient Community Services. That's 78% that goes directly to the services the ALSA says they provide in their mission statement on the homepage of their website:
Leading 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.Those monsters.
My real gripe with that article was how much the author despised administrative fees. Admin is one of the most difficult areas to fund for any nonprofit. Normally, the rule is to keep them below 20% of the total budget. I think that's a rule created by the infinite network of trustees who have limited experience in nonprofit. Across the board, no one thinks their money should be used to pay people fair salaries. This is why nonprofits have difficulty finding qualified employees. While the industry, as a whole, doesn't compete with for-profit businesses that provide a tangible product, they compete with every industry for employees. An MBA graduate is less likely to work for the ALSA because they can make exponentially more money on Wall Street.
A real nonprofit watchdog, Charity Navigator, says Jane H. Gilbert, executive director of the ALSA, received $297,288 in the 2013 fiscal year. According to the ALSA website, she has a masters degree and has been in her position for five years. Before that, she was the Senior Vice President for the American Red Cross in DC for 3 years, and the development director at the Boys and Girls Club in Omaha.
To put that in perspective, the average entry level salary for an MBA graduate in Washington DC is $109,000. The average. This doesn't include bonuses (the ALS gave $12,000 in bonuses in 2013).
What this shows is that someone who has extensive experience in nonprofit and has made it to one of the highest positions in their field, will only ever make three times as much as someone with a shiny new MBA, just starting their career.
Why do the public feel people who choose noble career paths in nonprofits deserve to be paid less than those who give their skills to capitalism? Imagine what we could do for social services if the innovators who work at Google and the financial analysts who work at Bloomberg were tasked with running a nonprofit.
By not nitpicking where their money is spent, we could help nonprofits compete with for-profit businesses for qualified employees by offering higher salaries without the inevitable guilt trip that comes with a large paycheck.
Note: Admin spending isn't only executive salaries. It's also things like new computers, copy toner, and office rent. None of those things sound as sexy to donors as petry dishes.
