Last week, a big victory was just won in the fight against breast cancer.
The thing is, it wasn’t come to in a lab or doctor’s office or even a big awareness event. No, it was arrived at in a boardroom.
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced last week the nation’s two largest breast cancer charities, the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, have both agreed to a new set of best practices that will hopefully dictate fundraisers held in the name of the fight against breast cancer in the future.
You can buy just about anything emblazoned with a pink ribbon these days, from water bottles to garbage cans to ties. Most are accompanied with a promise that part of the proceeds will go to breast cancer research.
Schneiderman’s best practices, which include making sure the donation amount and target are clear, are not law. But we hope they will make consumers more aware about their charitable giving. After all, Schneiderman’s office last year prosecuted the Coalition Against Breast Cancer, a “sham charity” whose founders grifted $9.1 million in donations.
Still, we advise our readers to go a step further. It is widely reported that every year, $6 billion is raised in the name of breast cancer, which certainly inspires hope in both the charitable nature of our fellow man and the possibility of a cure for this disease. But we would wager most who give haven’t the first idea what happens to their money.
Let us examine the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which is privy to a big slice of that $6 billion pie, collecting more than $350 million every year. That makes it easily one of the biggest players in the breast cancer charitable giving scene. And for the most part, it is reasonably responsible with its donations, putting nearly three-quarters toward programming and just 7 percent toward administrative expenses. (CEO Nancy Brinker was paid about $417,000 back in 2010 for her services, which might sound like a lot but is a great deal less than a person running a private company of that size might well garner.)
But what remains an issue with Komen (aside from the group’s newfound willingness to take political stances on women’s issues, a topic for another day) is where those programming dollars are spent. The group in 2010 spent $140 million, or roughly 40 percent of its total donations, on awareness education efforts.
This is a lot better than spending that money on lavish galas, but it might be a surprise to those who donate to Komen after reading their well-publicized stories of patient treatments funded. (They might also be shocked to know Komen spent hundred of thousands on lawyers to prevent other charities from using the trademarked phrase “for the cure.” Again, for another day.)
We would argue this was a noble cause 30 years ago, but today, what with pink football helmets all October, the battle for awareness is won. As a people, we are about as aware as we’re going to get.
So let all charities take notice and consider a shift toward eradication of this disease and all forms of cancers. To use Komen as an example again, the group in 2010 spent just over one-third the amount of money on patient care (including on subsidizing mammograms and clinical exams) as it did on awareness efforts. At this point in the fight, where was the money better spent? Education will always be a part of the fight, but we have come to a turning point in the war.
And to those who wish to do good on their own, take Schneiderman’s efforts to heart and do your part to know where your donations are going before opening your wallet. A good place to start is a resource like charitynavigator.org, where you’ll find breakdowns and ratings on well-known charities. Make your dollars count, because it really is a matter of life and death.