Think before you pink

Felicia:  Fantastic article!  Thank you!

84 cents of every dollar spent by Susan G. Komen for the Cure supports mission programs and services.

Susan G. Komen has a $207+ MILLION budget - $17 million of which is administrative overhead (including the $245,340 the INTERIM CEO is raking in a year plus the $181,645 the former president,CEO gets).

Hala Moddlemog (a survivor), the CEO of Komen, earned less than $200,000 in salary. I'll put this into perspective:

Hala was once the CEO of Church's Chicken. I don't know what she earned there (they are not a publicly traded company), but I'm sure she was earning a heck of a lot more than $200K a year then.

Compare that to the CEO's compensation at Buffalo Wild Wings (a chain 1/3 the size of Church's Chicken). The CEO there earned $1.6 million in 2006. That's a lot of chicken wings.

Someone of Hala's talent and experience commands way more than $200K a year. If there is any inequity in compensation as it relates to Komen, it's that the leadership is underpaid, not the other way around.

You can pull the tax returns from Komen and see for yourself. The members of the Board of Directors receive zero compensation for their time. Zilch. The officers of the company earn way below market compensation for an organization of Komen's size. They aren't in it for the money (they could easily earn 2 to 3 times the money in the private sector).

They spend another $15 million on fundraising efforts.

Komen raised $178M (8% fund-raising ratio). That's a damn good return, and especially when you see that the organization is led by a CEO making less than $200K a year! Compare that to American Cancer Society's $188M in fund-raising expenses (22.5% fund-raising ratio).

$156 million goes to "Program Expenses" - what the hell is that?

Program expenses are what a charity spends on the programs and services it exists to deliver. Dividing a charity's program expenses by its total functional expenses yields the expense ratio.

Komen's 82.5% program expense ratio means that 82.5% of the funds it takes in goes out to fulfill it's mission of research and education. Compare that to:

American Cancer Society - 69% expense ratio

Lance Armstrong Foundation - 74.9% expense ratio

American Breast Cancer Foundation - 61.6% expense ratio

John Wayne Cancer Institute - 74.5% expense ratio

Magic Johnson Foundation - 63.3% expense ratio

You should also note that Charity Navigator rates Komen "4 stars", their highest rating.

When you participate in your local race and donate $100 (easy math), $75 stays in your local affiliate service area.  The local affiliate should have a grants review committee who determines who get any funds and how much. The remaining $25 is sent to the National office strictly for research. The funds to pay national salaries and admin costs come from private donors that specifically give for that purpose.

On the question of research grants, for FY 2007, $58.7M went to research, $43.2M went to breast health education, $33.1M to screening services, and $18.2M for treatment services.

Whoever finds the cure will be able to get so much money for it that I don't think a cure is being "held back".  I am grateful for every drug that they have found that will  hopefully keep me alive until the cure is found.  I have great hope that it will be soon.

As much as I am conflicted about the whole pinkwashing thing, at least breast cancer is in the public eye.  You don't see walks for prostate cancer, or fundraisers for colon cancer.  There are good and bad aspects of the pink ribbon, but at least there is a huge amount of forward movement.  I just hope it is fast enough for me....

Deb C

Again, my issue isn't that they aren't giving money but where it is going. CURE is the operative word here. I don't want to

hear about all the charity programs (mammograms are wonderful, but enough about early detection and treatment already - Where

is the cure?

So what do you tell a woman that is just diagnosed with Stage IV? You were too busy finding a cure? Or you couldn't afford to

send someone years ago to educate her about early detection because you sent all the funds to research? Or maybe that you're sorry you couldn't help get her low-cost mammograms, because all the dollars were tied up in research? Besides, how are you going to keep your charity going anyway, since most of your advocates are dying?

The mission of SGK is to "save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures". You may (or may not) agree with that mission, but it is why they exist. If you prefer to give your money to another organization that funds research (and research only), you'll be hard pressed to find another charity that does more than SGK. It's your money, donate it any way you see fit, but you should have the facts.

The American Cancer Society doesn't fund research only. The ACS "is the nationwide community-based voluntary health

organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing

suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy, and service".

The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) doesn't fund research only either. It "unites people through programs and experiences to empower cancer survivors to live life on their own terms and to raise awareness and funds for the fight against cancer. The LAF focuses on cancer prevention, access to screening and care, research and quality of life for cancer survivors".

Same for The National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund. It has three primary goals: Research, access, and influence.

All these charities understand a universal truth. To save the greatest number of lives, disease must be fought before the beginning stages all the way to the advanced stages. Only funding research ignores the portion of the population that can detect and control their disease, before it's too late.

That said, SGK has granted nearly half a billion dollars since it's inception for research to find a cure, and is the largest private provider of funds for breast cancer research. And I agree that a cure needs to be found, but right now there is no cure and early detection is one of the best ways to fight breast cancer.

...and how the CEO only made $200k a year (hell, that was waaaaaay more than most survivors made last year, I'm sure). The CEO of Buffalo Wild Wings is the head of a FOR PROFIT entity, not a charitible one - MAJOR difference there. Most board members of charitible organizations are not compensated monetarily for their service. SGK is not unique in that at all.

I'm not sure what Hala's earnings have to do with any other survivor's income. At $200K, she made more than most people, period. But also, most survivors aren't qualified to run an organization like SGK (no disrespect intended).

So, what do you think is fair compensation for her? Zero? Minimum wage? Next time you need a CEO with Hala's education, experience, and vision for your company that has a $250M budget, and has over 100 "franchisees" nationwide, offer the job for $200K to the first qualified taker. Good luck.

But, let's have it your way and compare apples to apples:

ACS - They raised $370.9M (2 times what SGK raised) in 2005. John Seffrin, CEO, earned $1.1M (5.5 times what Hala earned). (2005,page 59, http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/NHOFY06.pdf ).

The Lance Armstrong Foundation - They raised $25.5M (only 14% of what SGK raised) in 2006, and paid CEO Mitch Stoller $334K (1.67 times what Hala earned). (2006, page 38,

http://www.livestrong.org/atf/cf/%7BD0794917-422C-499C-9C48-9ED3DDC42947%7D/2006LAF990.PDF ).

The National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund - They raised $4.6M (only 2.6% of what SGK raised) in 2006, and paid CEO Frances

Visko $206K (103% of what Hala earned). (2006, page 22, http://www.stopbreastcancer.org/pdf/NBCCF_990%20for%202006.pdf ).

When you look at how much money goes to the mission, and compare that to the CEO's compensation, SGK is getting a lot of bang for the buck.

If $58.7M went to research last year, what are they researching - more treatments or a cure? In the time it took them to spend that $, another 40,000+ women died from bc. Please know that it's not just SGK that ticks me off; Again, my point was if a bevvy of organizations are donating goobs of money towards research, perhaps they are researching the wrong thing. New treatments are great, but prevention and cure are necessary, too.

Researching the wrong thing? How does one know it's the wrong thing without researching it first? Research is a matter of following clues, one piece at a time. Sometimes, you don't know where the road leads next, but you do know if you don't explore it, you'll never reach an answer.

They are researching thousands of potential cures and treatments, but there is no "magic bullet" to end breast cancer, there are just too many variables and different types of breast cancers. What I can tell you about is some of the better known research projects that SGK funded, such as research that helped discover tamoxifen, helped discover the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, advanced the understanding of how TGF-beta molecules help slow tumor growth (then oddly helps the tumor grow once it advances), and changes in chemotherapy dosing for better effectiveness.

Felicia, I also liked your article.  Are you continuing with this theme?  I hope you continue.  I'm almost reluctant to learn too much about the non-profits.  As it stands right now, I figure if anyone donates anything to research, it's a good thing.  And if it takes 85 cents of overhead to generate a dime for donating, well, a few million dimes adds up to a lot of money. 

What I'm more interested in knowing is what happens to the research money AFTER it's donated to researchers??  This is what boggles my mind.  Like Felicia says, where's the CURE?  How is all that money being spent?  Who is doing the research?  What *is* the research?  

My world view is constantly evolving, but here's where I am at present -- my guess is the cure, or prevention altogether, is something that's non-invasive, readily available, and dirt cheap.  I believe this world we live in and the bodies we inhabit are wondrously and miraculously made, and that nature provides us with whatever tools we need to heal from illness and disease.

Having been through chemo, surgery, rads, and hormone therapy, I often feel more like a cash cow than a survivor.  I also wonder how much risk for other serious illnesses I incurred to survive the initial diagnosis.  Will I have a heart condition in five years from the adriamycan?  Will tamoxifen give me uteran cancer?  Manage the disease, but don't cure it, so recurrences or complications can serve for further money flowing into the pharmaceutical coffers.  What a recipe for financial pharmacuetical success. 

As far as the Komen foundation and other nonprofits are concerned, I just hope that their intentions are good and I'm thankful for whatever good comes from them.  While things could probably be done differently and better, I have no doubt, but I don't get the impression that they're rotton to the core.  Having recently read "The Truth about Drug Companies", I feel differently about the pharmaceuticals. 

Rather than hold contempt toward the nonprofits, I suggest the worthy recipient of that contempt be the pharmaceuticals!  Their greed is a bottomless pit.  They are in bed with everyone from the FDA to the NIH to the doctors themselves to the medical schools where doctors are trained.  Our entire system of information gathering is corrupt imo, and as long as greedy pharmaceutical companies are allowed to continue as they do currently, I just don't see how anyone could ever engage in the kind of research necessary to find the cure.  

whew.  ok, off my soapbox for the moment.    

I know that we all want a 100% survival rate, but the truth is, there is no magic pill to cure cancer. The good news is that the US leads the world in cancer survivability:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ALDQAFHLW3BERQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml

No one at any of the charities think they have done enough. They agree with you, that enough hasn't been done. That's why you see pink ribbons everywhere you look. That's why you see a Race For The Cure every year.

It would be impossible to list every research project that receives funds from the charities because there are literally thousands of projects and trials going on. Cancer is not just one disease, but at least 100 different diseases that share certain features. Asking for a cure right now is a very tall order, that's why so much of the resources are being put into prevention, detection, and treatment.

If you'd like to see what and where research is being done, visit these websites:

http://www.mdanderson.org/about_mda/achievements/

http://plan2008.cancer.gov/advances.shtml

http://planning.cancer.gov/pdfprgreports/2004breastcancer-pdf/allchapters.pdf#page=1

Hey Felicia

LOVED your article. Can we please add to this the glamourization of breast cancer?Just saw a picture of Elizabeth Hurley all dressed up in pink for the"Hottest Pink Party Ever" at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York.

It's maddening that the celebs can take such a serious disease as an excuse to get all dressed up and get photographed ,as if we should be so grateful that they get to go to another gala.

Not only do I believe we're not any closer to a cure, I believe we're being exploited by drug companies pushing meds that are not all proven to work and only act as a distraction from finding the real answers.

Thanks so much for your efforts.

Scorpio

To defend the celebrities...it's not our business how much they do or do not donate to charity.  Just like it's not our business how much you or your neighbor donate.  We all need to pitch in ..by all I mean celebrity and you and me alike.  Can I give as much as the celebrity could (and should)? No...but my money is just as green as theirs.  My opinion is that the more people that know about a $10 net (for example), the more people that can be helped in this world.

Bugs

roctobermom-i agree with you, i was watching the show last night and had the same thoughts. and they should be proud to say how much they have donated and it should be alot, some of them make $20million for one movie and make 3-4 movies a year, just how much money do they need?

Felicia,

I love the article and I identify with the sentiment.  But I am conflicted about the whole thing. 

I agree that we need to find a cure, but I am realistic that this isn't going to happen tomorrow.  BC is many different diseases, with many different causes.  There likely won't be a single cure that addresses all types of BC.   A cure will come in bits and pieces, with some perhaps some types of BC being cured while other types are not.  And the fact is that while there may not be a cure out there today, it doesn't mean that it isn't being worked on.  There are many scientists who are today working on trying to find a cure.  I personally know a couple of them.

While they are working, our best chance to beat this thing is early detection.  So we can't downplay the importance of this.  If all BC was detected at Stage 0 or Stage 1, think of how much we would lower the mortality rate. 

And until there is a cure, we need to continue to develop new tests and new medicines so that we can identify the specifics of each woman's BC and target the treatment so that every breast cancer patient gets the right treatment (but not unnecessary treatment) to ensure her survival.

Yes, a cure is important, but so is early detection and so are treatments.

Then there's the whole pink thing.  I think it's gotten out of hand and I hate how BC is being exploited for profit by so many companies.  On the other hand, we have to be careful not to bucket all these companies together.  Some companies have made a long term committment and are contributing significant amounts of money.  Let's take Yoplait, since they've been criticized already. 10 cents on a $1 product may not seem like a lot, but it's probably 50% of Yoplait's profit, or more.  Having worked in that industry, here's an example of how the $1 probably breaks down:

• $1.00 - Price to consumer at supermarket
• $0.30 - Supermarket's handling & distribution cost
• $0.05 - Supermarket's profit
• $0.20 - Yoplait's shipping, packaging, advertising & overhead costs
• $0.27 - Yoplait's manufacturing cost
• $0.18 - Yoplait's profit, of which $0.10 is donated to Komen

Now where I have a problem is when a company says that they donate "a portion of the profits" to breast cancer research.  What portion?  2%?  Or when a company says that $1 from every product sold will be donated, and the price of the product is $35.  Or where a company that sells high end products caps their donation at $10,000. There are many obvious cases of companies exploiting "pink".  I just don't think it's fair to paint all the companies with the same brush.

Reading this thread, the fact that we are all BC patients and yet we have so many different opinions on this shows that it's not a simple issue and there is no easy answer.  To end where I started, I'm conflicted about the whole thing.