[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Canadian Cancer Society spends more on fundraising than research: report If youve been making steady donations to the Canadian Cancer Society over the past ten years, less and less of your donation has been going toward research, according to a new report from the CBC show Marketplace. The CBC analyzed the charitys financial reports and found that each year, as the society raised more dollars, the proportion of money it spent on research dropped dramatically from 40.3 per cent in 2000 to under 22 per cent in 2011. While the amount of money channelled toward research has increased slightly, as part of the charitys overall increasing budget, spending on fundraising and administration has been on the steady rise, according to the CBC. One Ontario cancer researcher said this should be a concern for those in the field: "Most scientists dont realize that the budget has been going up and up, and donations have been growing, but the budget for research has been shrinking," Brian Lichty, a researcher at McMaster University who is looking into treating cancer with viruses that kill tumours, told the CBC. "So they are surprised and disappointed when they find out that this is the case, and the trend." These findings are the most recent to shine an uncomfortable spotlight on cancer fundraising. In April, another study pointed out that fundraising for breast cancer may be eclipsing fundraising for the most deadly cancers. A group called Charity Intelligence Canada found that many of the cancers that take the most years of life from Canadians - pancreatic, stomach, lung and colorectal cancers - account for less than two per cent of cancer charity funding, while breast cancer charities attract almost half of those funds. There have also been controversy recently about the methods some cancer charities use to raise funds, including the booby bracelet movement - especially among children and teens. And then, this month saw the debut of Julyna, an eyebrow-raising charity effort linking bikini waxes with cervical cancer awareness. Is it time for the cancer fundraising community to sit down and rethink a few of its priorities? Do any of these reports make you consider shifting your giving plans in any way? trampled1 It burns me up to know what a waste of resources the Cancer Society has become. It's quite obvious to anyone that been throught the loss of a loved one that there is NO intention by anyone related to the "Cancer Industry" to EVER find a cure. There are too many people making their living from this "industry" - just like any other business. I'm disgusted with these "charities" and when my mother was dying of cancer last year, we chose to give all our support to thwe front line people - hospice and palliative care workers, and nothing to pay for the big shiny cars and offices and god knows what else that the Cancer Society pays for for these "consultants" and well paid bureacrats that only care about spending more on themselves. It's disgusting and it should be illegal to call this a charity. Trampled, you are absolutely correct. There are more people working in the Cancer Industry at any given time, then people who actually have cancer. Chartered Wombat Unbelieveable. In the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011: The Canadian Cancer Society LOTTERY had revenues of $23.9m and expenses of $23.0m All that effort, and all they could raise was $881K?? Bobsays This is typical across the charity sector: rattling a cup has become more lucrative and in turn become an industry (especially as other sectors of the economy die). Decisions about where medical research dollars go should be made by scientists, not by schmaltzy charity fundraisers pushing the latest emotional pitch. Why can't there just be one single fundraising body - call it 'I Care' - which receives all donations and then a panel of scientists and researchers discuss where the funding should go based on evidence and need? This panel should be public, should meet in public and be broadcast on the web, and should then publish their conclusions on funding priorities for the year. And I am sorry, no more life-long jobs for the chicks who used to run the car wash fundraiser: they can go back to school and learn something more socially useful. an_individual This is a problem for many foundations and charities. These organizations have boards and professional fundraisers who are compensated based on the amount of money they bring in, not the amount of money that is spent on research or the cause. For example, if I'm a director looking at the available funds, it is in my interest to invest those funds in getting more funds, not to spend them on the charity's cause Sardonic.Tears If I get tons of money one day, I'm donating it to NASA. They are bound to discover the cure for cancer some day- probably by mistake- as they've pretty much invented everything else. 3 replies Report Abuse CQuil 10:57 AM on July 6, 2011 Completely off-topic, but did you know that the US has a larger budget for its military bands that its NASA budget? "Looking for places to pare back, the panel agreed to limit spending on military bands to no more than $200 million next year, compared with $320 million currently. in.reuters.com/article/20.../idINIndia-57697220110615 Raising Kane About a year ago, The Cancer Society opened a new facility in St. Johns, The Daffodil Place, where out-of-town cancer patients and a family member can stay during treatment. However, The Cancer Society never mentioned during its long, aggressive fundraising campaign that half of this facility was new office space for the society. I dont think the public would have been so generous if they were fully aware they were funding new offices for the employees of the society. Lying by omission is just as dishonest as outright lying and fundraisers and charitable organizations that engage in it should be held accountable. I know that the front-end people who treat cancer patients in St. Johns: Doctors, nurses, technicians, etc dont hold The Cancer Society in very high regard. Altaboy8 Excessive sugar consumption has not only been linked to obesity but also to cancer. While perusing a newletter from the Alberta Cancer Society, I found a recipe for muffins which were loaded with...sugar. David Gibson There should be a database of research facilities/projects to which one can donate directly. HooBoy Hey, great idea. I could build that database for you free of charge, but we'll need servers, a disk array, backup facilities, a secure data centre, programmers, administrators, managers, data entry personnel, phone systems, email, Internet access, a lunch room, ... Jim Jazz If you want to support cancer research, give to the Cancer Research Society. They are based in Quebec but fund research throughout the country without bias. Most of their dollars go to research. There is nothing that the CCS is doing moving forward that is worth a penny of donations. Mr Webb This is unfortunate news for those who wish to support cancer research. However one can bypass these agencies and give more directly. Here is a link to an example some important cancer research being done at Queen's University here in Canada: www.queensu.ca/news/artic...elp-prevent-spread-cancer and here is how you can donate directly to help fund such research and direct your donation to support cancer research or some other type of research: www.queensu.ca/giving/index.html Tiredofpoliticians Cynical in Toronto said "give to the Terry Fox Foundation". Agreed, the Foundation has a low admin/expense ratio but the bulk of unds araised are given directly to the Canadian Cancer Society (Google: "Terry Fox Foundation financial statements") Maybe the answer is the CRA should only grant charitable status to any not-for profit that has an admin/expense ratio of less than 25% of total revenue. Best thing is to check out the financial statement of any charity you wish to give to. Don't donate through telemarket fundraising - give directly to the charity. Let the facts speak 5:27 PM on July 6, 2011 I write as an individual who has both a parent and a sister die of cancer, a physician who has cared for many cancer patients and as a researcher who truly hopes to make a difference in this disease. I wish to offer a contrary view to so many who have responded. I believe the Canadian Cancer Society has done an outstanding job in the "fight against cancer" in the decades since it was created. New treatments for patients that improve survival derived from research it has funded are used in all our cancer centres, publication of annual cancer statistics, holding politicians toes to fire over tobacco control and other policies (including asbestos), countless "free" rides for thousands of cancer patients to get them to their appointments, increasing prevention and support programs...and much more. There are important facts for readers that were not conveyed in the article that has sparked these many comments. Firstly, the Cancer Society has posted its annual reports on its website for several years, including audited financial statements. (www.cancer.ca). It is found under "About Us-- Financial Statements". I found data going back to 2004 easily. Secondly, it was not evident from the CBC report, where the focus was on proportions of dollars spent, not on absolute dollars spent that: - There has been substantial increase in NET revenue for the Cancer Society to spend on ALL aspects of its work over the last 6-7 years ---including research -This has led to a substantial INCREASE in ABSOLUTE dollars spent in cancer research as well as increases in prevention, support, information and advocacy programs such as those noted above. This increase in spending across all these very important domains has happened, one presumes, because of a vigorous fundraising effort. Bottom line: more funds are being raised (and it costs more to do that), and more absolute dollars are being spent in activities that CCS has said it raised money to do (research, support, prevention). A change in proportions is not reflective of the whole picture. Finally: "management" costs for the CCS in 2010 were < 5% of gross revenue in audited financials Let us not assume that the presentation of a selected amount of data tells the entire story. I hope other reporters will investigate the full picture and present the public with a balanced view of facts. expatdude QUACK, QUACK..QUACK..
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: Tatarewicz, Katniss (#0)
deleted
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|