By Collin Lessing, JVA Consulting

The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has been inescapable for the past month. The trajectory of its story in the news and on social media has been particularly interesting to me—especially those that have criticized it. Early on, there was commentary that this fundraiser was inherently flawed and doomed to fail because people were given a choice between donating or bathing in ice water. $100 million later, it’s safe to assume that that theory was flawed.

The latest stories meant to melt the challenge are attention-grabbing headlines screaming that the ALS Association only allocates a fraction (less than 30%) of its budget to research. These stories are shared on social media, and usually followed up with commentary like, “I guess I’ll be donating to a different to charity!” I’ve also seen the response of those overcome with buyer’s remorse: “That’s all my donation is paying for?!”

We live in a newsfeed society—quickly scrolling through our smart phones and tablets, and not always taking the time to read the whole story. Headlines like this play on our assumptions and our growing appetites as media consumers for small, easy bites of information.

A quick look at the ALS Association’s website shows that 28% of their 2014 fiscal year expenses went towards research. Are you shocked? I’m not. Research isn’t all they do. Just take a look at their mission statement:

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.

Within that mission statement you’ll find more than just research, and it’s reflected in their financials too. The ALS Association spent 19% of its expense on Patient and Community Services and 32% public and professional education. The remaining 21% of the budget is split between administration (7%) and fundraising (14%).

Now we have a more illustrative picture of how the ALS Association spent their money last year. It would appear that nearly 80% of their expenses were spent on mission-related work. Not surprisingly, I’ve yet to see that headline pop up.

Some may look at 21% of expenses towards administrative and fundraising costs and cry foul. Here, we have another debate that has been growing in the nonprofit sector: What is too much nonprofit overhead? Should overhead be considered a performance metric (many funders and donors treat it as such)?

At JVA, we rally for nonprofits to get the support they need. If organizations are expected to achieve meaningful, profound impact—like leading the way in finding a cure for a disease—they need infrastructure. If the sector is going to attract and retain talented employees and leaders, there needs to be adequate funding and proper employee compensation. What those at the top make (i.e. the nonprofit sector’s) receive is a whole different debate for a future blog post…

It might not feel as heart-warming to find out some of your donation went towards keeping the lights on, or fundraising expenses. But the ALS Association needs to pay its bills and they need to continue to raise several millions of dollars each year to effectively continue their work. Is the ALS Association spending too much on overhead? Do their executives get paid too much? I didn’t write this blog to make that assertion. You should decide for yourself. Nonprofit organization’s tax forms are public information. You can access them at GuideStar. Some organizations even post these documents on their websites. Charity Navigator also offers ratings and robust information on nonprofit performance.

Newsfeed headlines are powerful in shaping our perceptions, but a few minutes spent perusing reliable resources can help strengthen our understanding.