Facebook
Twitter
Email Sign-Up
RSS FeedAre You Racing for a CURE? Think again….
Just read on Komen Watch that only 15% of the money YOU give to/raise for the Komen Foundation goes to research. That’s a REDUCTION of $17 million since 2010. It’s also 4% less than the amount going to their administrative expenses. And the bulk? Goes to “education,” which, guess what–nice but won’t move that needle even a tiny bit closer to a cure. I think they might need to hear from us…..
Here’s a pie chart of last year’s funding, thanks to The Cancer Culture Chronicles
It’s odd and disheartening that the research allocation actually went down when the organization’s revenues continue to climb every year. I’m afraid that the festive fund raising has taken priority over the ultimate mission.
This boggles my mind. How can research not be their priority? I feel for the thousands of people beliving their donations are going for research, when sadly that may not be the case. I can understand the allocations in other areas, but not their education and research allocations. They should stop using “for the cure” if it’s not truly their mission. Which is it, Komen?
Well as they keep saying, they don’t believe the cures can come from research alone. Mmm I’m confused too but if a cure is forthcoming from somewhere other than research I’d sure like to know about it and sooner rather than later!
[THE ONION}
6,000 Runners Fail To Discover Cure For Breast Cancer
November 14, 2001 | ISSUE 37•41
ATLANTA—Despite their diligent, dedicated running, the 6,000-plus participants in Sunday's 5K Race For The Cure did not find a cure for breast cancer.
"We were particularly hopeful of locating the cure somewhere around the two-and-a-half-mile mark," race organizer Jill Broadbent said. "At that point, the route goes right past Northside Hospital and within a block of several Emory University oncology facilities. That seemed the most promising place to perhaps spot a breast-cancer cure. Regrettably, the runners were unable to do more than momentarily glimpse in researchers' windows as they passed by."
At 10 a.m., participants gathered outside the Georgia Dome and proceeded to search through much of downtown Atlanta, including a one-mile stretch of Peachtree Road, before finishing cureless at the state capitol.
The race was the latest disappointment in a dismal two-week stretch for athletic-based medical research. On Nov. 1 in Dallas, an estimated 3,000 cyclists were unable to isolate the portion of the human genome responsible for Alzheimer's disease. Three days later in Boston, some 200 rowers from 27 different colleges gathered on the Charles River in an unsuccessful attempt to eliminate AIDS. And a pair of Nov. 9 regattas in San Diego and Miami failed to cure cystic fibrosis and heart disease, respectively.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/6000-runners-fail-to-discover-cure-for-breast-canc,176/
Does anyone know what the comparable statistics are for the Avon 2 Day walk?
Joan – any charity worth their salt should have their IRS Form 990 or financials listed on their website so check there first. Otherwise try Guidestar which is a very comprehensive database of nonprofit financials. http://www2.guidestar.org/home.aspx
This is all such a good reminder of the questions we should be asking of any of the charities we contribute too.
Hi, Peggy,
I’m a fellow Obie and also a critic of much of the breast cancer movement. I’ve thrown my hat into the environment/breast cancer ring, and I’m working with the Mass. Breast Cancer Coalition (MBCC) http://www.mbcc.org to help PREVENT breast cancer by (hopefully) finding it’s CAUSE. MBCC, Silent Spring, Breast Cancer Action and Breast Cancer Fund are some of the orgs that actually care about the cause. Am enjoying your blog…and all your writing.
–Adena
Hi Adena–Yes, I know Mass Breast Cancer Coalition–they’re very much like Breast Cancer Action on the West Coast. I’m a big fan! Thank you for posting a useful, targeted place where people can donate.
Interesting. I wonder if this has affected their ratings on Charity Navigator?
Anjali – actually I wrote about my view of the Charity Navigator rating as part of the above pie chart analysis at my blog. Essentially CNs current ratings system says nothing about a charities program effectiveness which leaves me wondering what the point is. Please see my blog post. http://cancerculturenow.blogspot.com/2011/03/komen-by-numbers-2010-and-still-no.html
Peggy thanks for including my blog post on this piece. Certainly Komen contributing $58m to research is a wonderful achievement by anyone’s standards, but I have to wonder how much more could be achieved and how much faster if only they would increase their allocation. The numbers to education are simply astounding and one wonders how much longer this position can be sustained. I have written several pieces on k omens financials including research and education, in a series on my blog called “Komen By The Numbers” as well as a piece called “My View of Breast Cancer According to Brinker”. I’d encourage your readers to take a look and judge for themselves. http://Www.cancerculturenow.blogspot.com. It’s also evident from the KomenWatch website that I’m not the only one asking questions of this organization.
Also just one slight clarification on the $. In F/Y 2010, Komen allocated $75.4M (19%) to their Research Program budget. Out of this budget they made ACTUAL research awards and grants of $63M (about 16%). The remaining $12M was spent on Research Program overhead.
Similarly in 2011, although they have made $58M ACTUAL research awards and grants of $58M, there will also be Research Program Overhead expenses on top of the $58M. However I think it’s still fair to say that the overall trend of the Research Program % allocations relative to Total Resources is on a definite downward trend and around 15% for actual research awards and grants seems like a fair approximation using 2010 as a basis for the %estimate.
P.S. Can you tell I used to be a CPA in my former life????
Disappointing but not shocking (especially after reading Gayle Sulik’s excellent book, Pink Ribbon Blues). The challenge now is do we still run and put pressure on Komen or do we look for alternatives?
Well, I think we continue to put pressure on Komen, Avon etc. Personally, I don’t run/walk etc for Komen. My choice is to support groups that I feel are doing targeted, meaningful work. I like Breast Cancer Action because they provide such excellent information. Also their money is clean, or at least cleaner–no donations accepted from Pharmaceutical companies, chemical manufacturers, oil companies, tobacco, health insurance companies or cancer treatment centers. Mass Breast Cancer Coalition’s mission and point of view is similar–interested in environmental exposure, less toxic treatment, social justice etc.
I’m also a big fan of National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC). Susan Love was one of its founders, ad it is headed by the amazing Fran Visco. Its goals are to increase research funding, increase access to screening & treatment for all women and increase the role of women in health policy decisions. Through NBCC’s grass roots lobbying efforts the govnt designated $1 billion to breast cancer research through the Dept of Defense. So, though it’s a little audacious, when someone asks me to sponsor them on a Komen walk I tend to say that while I appreciate what they’re doing and their interest in breast cancer I prefer to donate in their name to a breast cancer organization that I am more comfortable supporting and I give to one of those……
Peggy, Thank you for bringing this up once again. Steven brings up an important question. What do we do here, keep supporting Komen while demanding more for research? Or not support them at all? It puts us in a dilemma of sorts. I have people I know participating in this stuff thinking they are doing something really great, which they are, but… Komen is at fault, not these people; Komen needs to distribute the dollars in a better way. It makes me feel ungrateful when I complain…
As someone who was treated for ovarian cancer, I always envied all the pinkness of
Komen and $$$$$$, and wished that ovarian cancer could get that kind of $$ and attention. It’s sad to think that such a small portion of the money goes to research for breast cancer.
I think there’s a lot of that weird cancer-envy, Ianthe. I have friends who have died of lung cancer at a young age, who have had colon cancer, prostate cancer and feel resentful of the specific attention to breast cancer. The question of “why breast cancer” is complicated, and one that Gayle Sulik could probably answer better than I. But what I feel responsible for–as a woman, as a person, as someone who had breast cancer–is making sure the money that is raised is going to where it does the most good. The breast cancer movement is so big now and there is a risk that if it’s not well-focused people will get angry, fatigued, bored. And yet, the number of women dying of breast cancer HAS NOT CHANGED. That’s right. It’s been right around 40,000 for decades.
That said, I also feel a deep personal stake in further research into ovarian cancer–as flawed as mammography is, it’s something. With ovarian cancer, the testing is practically useless…..
I do not give to Komen because one of their affiliates promotes and helps fund abortion which statistically raises a womans chances of breast cancer. This was reported on my local Christian radio station which I trust their reporting and information. How can a cancer researcher fund something that raises your cancer risk?
Hi Lori, Well, that theory has actually been proven to have no merit, according to the National Cancer Institute and hundreds of scientific studies. I was very concerned about it myself because after having had cancer I had three miscarriages. Yet, the groups (largely conservative anti-choice) that were reporting that supposed link only talked about ABORTION and never MISCARRIAGE? If the idea was that certain development starts and then stops in the breast that is linked to cancer, both should have that impact. The only reason I could come up with that miscarriage was not reported as linked with cancer was political.
But even if you disagree with that conclusion, the science supporting the abortion-cancer link is simply not there. Here is what the National Cancer Institute says on its fact sheet titled “Abortion, Miscarriage and Breast Cancer”:
“In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings can be found at Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop
NCI regularly reviews and analyzes the scientific literature on many topics, including various risk factors for breast cancer. Considering the body of literature that has been published since 2003, when NCI held this extensive workshop on early reproductive events and cancer, the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer. The NCI regularly publishes updates on this topic.”
Thank you, Peggy. I thought about racing for my niece and sister but how have decided against it.
I posted a link to the most common household products that cause cancer to a bulletin board only to be told that I was fear-mongering. The problem with today’s society is that no one cares until it affects THEM.
But there ARE really good groups to support if you look through these threads. I wouldn’t want you to replace an action with inaction….Breast Cancer Action (both the one in Montreal and San Francisco), National Breast Cancer Coalition and others are actively pushing for more investigation into environmental links to cancer including those in cleaning products, cosmetics etc…
I continually pray that breast cancer be cured, that we find something to stop this problem. And stop it soon. I pray for better life, I am still hopeful, wish everyone is still.
I have to respectfully disagree with you here Peggy. I can understand your frustration that only 19% goes to research, however, this post is only going to discourage people from participating, as evidenced by above posts. This organization is still doing good work. Maybe its only 19% but that is still over 75 million dollars. That is a lot of money! It does take some money to make some money. I work in the medical field, and probably the most important part of my job is to educate my patients. I educate them so they will be enabled to make better health choices and to prevent a disease in the first place. This organization is probably raising more for a cure than any other at this point. Of all the things there are to get angry about, this is hardly one of them.
This is a big debate within the activist community. Here is a quote from the Breast Cancer Action “Think Before You Pink” tool kit:
“
I’d be curious, too, to know how you’re suggesting women prevent breast cancer, because to my knowledge we don’t have that information yet. You MAY be able to reduce risk by limiting alcohol, breast feeding, possibly exercising, but the large-scale studies have not born out any real data on prevention. I’m not in any way saying that taking care of yourself is futile. It’s important for all kinds of reasons and for the prevention of all kinds of diseases, but I’m not sure we’ve found any real keys to breast cancer prevention yet.
Also, check out this post on pinkribbonblues
Meanwhile, according to Sulik $233 million was spent on Administrative Expenses in 2010 (about 18% for General Overhead and Increases to Assets, and about 42% attributable to Program Expenses). Is that reasonable? How many people who donate to the organization are aware that the amount spent on administrative costs is three times what is used to fund research? Yes, a lot of money goes to research (and we could have another discussion about the choice of research). But is that good enough?
[...] is absolutely right. I have written this and written this over and over. Those of you interested in more effective breast cancer advocacy might want to check out Breast [...]