How do St. Jude's administrative and fundraising costs compare to other major charities?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
St. Jude and its fundraising arm ALSAC publicly report that roughly 81–82 cents of every dollar goes to research, treatment and hospital operations while the remaining 18 cents cover fundraising and administrative expenses, with the hospital specifying that just five cents of each dollar pays administration [1] [2] [3]. Independent reporting and academic analyses paint a more complicated picture—investigations by ProPublica and a PubMed-cited review found much larger shares going to fundraising and reserves in recent years, and raise questions about how “program” dollars are counted compared with other large nonprofits [4] [5].
1. St. Jude’s official accounting: low administration, modest fundraising
St. Jude’s own disclosures and public-facing materials consistently emphasize that the bulk of donations fund patient care and research: their site and ALSAC statements say 81–82 cents per dollar supports those core activities, that five cents covers administration specifically, and that the remaining funds support fundraising initiatives such as the St. Jude Walk/Run [1] [2] [3]. Financial and annual reports, prepared under GAAP and audited externally, are cited to back those percentages and to explain that large-charity operations — facility costs and personnel — are part of routine administrative spending [6] [7].
2. Contrasting analyses: fundraising and reserves that complicate the headline ratio
Investigative reporting and academic summaries challenge the headline figures by disaggregating ALSAC and hospital flows and by tracking long-term spending patterns; ProPublica reported that a substantial portion of contributions in recent years had been directed toward fundraising and reserve accumulation rather than immediate patient care, and a PubMed summary noted that since 2017 only about half of $7.3 billion in contributions went to patient care and research, with roughly 30% to fundraising and 20% to reserves [5] [4]. Those findings don’t deny St. Jude’s clinical work but they do indicate that different accounting choices — how ALSAC transfers to the hospital are booked, what counts as “program” versus fundraising — materially affect the apparent efficiency metric.
3. How St. Jude’s measures compare — and where the reporting stops
Direct apples‑to‑apples comparisons with “other major charities” are not possible from the documents provided: the sources give specific percentages for St. Jude/ALSAC and independent critiques of those numbers, but none supply contemporaneous, standardized benchmarks for peer organizations in the same time frame [1] [4]. Charity evaluators, however, rate ALSAC/St. Jude highly for transparency and governance — Charity Navigator assigns a four‑star rating and Give.org accredits ALSAC — indicating that mainstream charity screens view its disclosures as meeting key standards even as journalists question the substance of reserve accumulation and fundraising intensity [2] [8] [9].
4. Where federal grants and “indirect costs” blur program vs. overhead
Another angle that separates St. Jude from simple ratios is the role of federal research funding and indirect cost recovery: news reporting on NIH policy changes highlights that St. Jude received tens of millions of dollars earmarked for facilities and administration as part of grant overhead (for example, $94.8 million in indirect costs in 2024), and proposed NIH limits would have sharply cut that stream — a reminder that administrative line items can be funded outside donor dollars and that grant accounting changes tilt how overhead shows up on public statements [10]. This complexity makes comparing raw “percent to program” figures across charities that rely more or less on government grants, insurance recoveries, or investment income inherently fraught.
5. Two narratives, both supported by the record
There are two defensible narratives in the reporting: St. Jude and ALSAC present themselves as efficient stewards with low administration costs and high program allocation [1] [2] [3], and independent investigations show materially higher spending on fundraising and large reserve growth that invite scrutiny about priorities and donor expectations [5] [4]. Evaluators like Charity Navigator and Give.org still accord high ratings for governance and transparency even as journalists and some experts question whether large reserves and aggressive fundraising are the best use of donor dollars at a wealthy institution [8] [9].
6. Bottom line and limits of available evidence
On the question asked — how St. Jude’s administrative and fundraising costs compare to other major charities — the available sources establish St. Jude’s own low‑overhead claims (5¢ administration; ~18¢ combined admin/fundraising; ~81–82¢ program) and surface strong independent counters that report much higher fundraising ratios and reserve builds, but they do not include standardized, contemporary comparative metrics for a set of peer charities to make a definitive ranked comparison [1] [2] [4] [5]. To resolve that comparative question rigorously would require equivalent, audited breakdowns from peers or a third‑party dataset applying the same accounting rules across multiple large charities — material not present in the cited sources.