Congratulations to MJFF for being listed as the clear Number 1 Grant-Giving Disease Foundation. Many thanks to Michael J. Fox, Debi Brooks, Todd Sherer and the rest of the team for all they do!

"A notable beacon of efficiency is the Michael J. Fox Foundation, which gives no less than 82.6% of its total revenues as research grants and awards. Significantly, only two other disease foundations listed spent more than half of the money they took in on research."

It really is concerning when you look at some of these foundations and how little $ they devote to research grants. You also wonder why we need so many foundations for the same diseases. The overlap seems very wasteful. The National Parkinson Foundations and the American Parkinson Disease Foundation were way down on the list while the Parkinson Disease Foundation was #5. Four of the 20 devoted to PD makes you wonder if consolidation would be helpful.

http://bit.ly/16qezmw

I too applaud the work of MJFF, but I wouldn't judge a charity purely by its percentage of revenues used to fund research.

In addition to research, a PD charity can usefully spend money on support.

As a first step, I would look at the percentage of revenue spent on expenses. But this only looks at inputs: not all pounds spent on PwP are equal.

Regarding the number of PD charities, there probably are too many, but I see diversity as useful. For instance, one charity for research and another for support gives donors a choice as to where their money goes.

John