Canadian Cancer Society spends more on fundraising than research

[M.Dancer]

The CBC analyzed the charity’s 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 charity’s overall increasing budget, spending on fundraising and administration has been on the steady rise, according to the CBC.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/canadian-cancer-society-spends-more-on-fundraising-than-research/article2088132/

No doubt I can be argued to make money you need to spend money, and to make more money you need to spend even more...the thought that they need to spend more on fundraising than on research is appalling.

A woman I know spends a great amount of time raising funds for cancer...in the spring she has a garden sale...and solicits donations in kind from florists to sell..she canvases her neighbours for the Toronto-Niagara ride for cancer...and raises of $10,000 each time...and a couple of weeks ago she hosted a fund raiser in her back yard....and raised over $5000.00. Now I realize these grass roots events are a drop in the bucket compared to the DM drives, galas and outreaches to corporate canada.....but her efforts cost nothing so every dime she brought in went to charity.

Shame that much of what she raised will go to...fund raising.

[guyser]

Sounds like they took a page out of MADD . Not as bad mind you but still sad all the same.

Fundraising is not a charitable activity and is thus excluded from 80% rule to use funds from charitable tax receiptable donations.

Edited July 6, 2011 by guyser

[Bonam]

I thought this was well known. The majority of charities use more on fundraising and operations than they actually give to whatever cause they support.

[Oleg Bach]

All orgainization will become meaningless bureaucratic monsters who's sole purpose eventuyally is self perservation.

[msj]

Before getting all judgmental based on a newspaper story with few details I would recommend that one take the time to go to the Canadian Cancer Society's website to look at the financial statements for the past few years.

You may have to make a few adjustments since they netted out lottery revenues/expenses back in 2007 and 2006 versus 2011, for example.

So, yes, while they spent $52 million on research in 2006 and only $48 million in 2011 one should look at the statements in their entirety before making informed opinions. They do spend more on support for people living with cancer, information, prevention, and advocacy than they did in the good old days.

I know that it is probably too much to ask for informed opinions on a discussion forum but there it is.

[msj]

I thought this was well known. The majority of charities use more on fundraising and operations than they actually give to whatever cause they support.

Well, if one took the time to actual look at their statements then one could determine what the money is being spent on.

For example, in 2006 $11.5 million was for Management and General. For 2011 it was $8.5 million.

As for fund raising - 2006 cost $42 million plus $23 million for lotteries (netted against the revenue generated) versus $63.5 and $23 million in 2011.

As for other expenditures - exactly what is wrong with them spending $7 million more on Support for people living with Cancer as compared to 2006?

Or more on Information/Advocacy/Prevention.

I always thought that was part of their mandate - not every cent goes to management/fundraising/research but to these other areas as well.

But of course I would think that since I have actually looked at their financial statements in past years.

Edited July 6, 2011 by msj

[msj]

Fundraising is not a charitable activity and is thus excluded from 80% rule to use funds from charitable tax receiptable donations.

Given that not all of their revenue leads to a charitable receipt being issued and given that they file a Charity return each year, if they were offside of the rules then they would have been warned by the Canada Revenue Agency by now.

[fellowtraveller]

All orgainization will become meaningless bureaucratic monsters who's sole purpose eventuyally is self perservation.

Only applies to nonprofit organizations like government and charity, for-profit corporations go bankrupt when they get that bloated.

[Oleg Bach]

Whether it be the institutionalized and tatooed inmate just out of Kinston pen or the institutionalized bureacrat that can not survive out side the institution....they can be the same. Once thought is instutionalized all comes to a stand still and developement ends. Those that are part of the institutional word - usually parrot thoughts and statements.

[Oleg Bach]

Good example...The United Way with it's expensive and bizzare advertisments of some homeless guy reaching up with his gloved hands with the fingers cut off like Oliver Twist - or the man in the alley who comes to life and skins himself to only find a lowly janitor underneath - who then proudly walks into the office building as a third class worker. These adds have high production value - but are out of touch with reality - and are from the persective of some rich and privledged executive...who sits at the head of United Way - making decions on what ad company to hire and toss a few million bucks at...Insitutionalization of our institutions are nothing but white washed corruption boardering on white collar crime.

Having had the experience of dealing with an agent that was corrupt...and knowing that the UNITED WAY funded that agent in part - but did not know or care if the money was used well - made me lose respect for this big fish fundraiser...who had forgotten it's original purpose. I would not give 5 cents to these delluded and comforable twits.

[Moonlight Graham]

I thought this was well known. The majority of charities use more on fundraising and operations than they actually give to whatever cause they support.

Seriously? Do you have a link?

Whenever ones give any money to a charity they should check their books. Any reputable charity should have it's budget breakdowns freely available to the public. That is, if you believe what they report anyways.

[dre]

I dont find this suprising at all. My guess would have been about 1/2 and 1/2, but this doesnt seem terribly unreasonable.

[Oleg Bach]

I dont find this suprising at all. My guess would have been about 1/2 and 1/2, but this doesnt seem terribly unreasonable.

Of course it is unreasonable - it should be if it is a charitable orgainization staffed by do gooder - that the do gooders should get 10% of the income and live like benevolent monks and not high powered wine sucking executives.

[Bob]

Sometimes they have organizations that grade the efficiency of various charities on a scale, where the charities who are able to spend a larger portion of the funds they raise towards their cause are given better ratings than charities that spend larger portions of their monies on "administration" or "operating costs". Perhaps the Canadian Cancer Society is one of the poorer performers, so donor should take heed.

I sure hope this organization isn't receiving federal funds, but considering this is Canada I wouldn't be surprised if there was a certain degree of governmental overlap going on.

[msj]

I sure hope this organization isn't receiving federal funds, but considering this is Canada I wouldn't be surprised if there was a certain degree of governmental overlap going on.

Well, you could just go look it up to see that they received $9.3 million in government and other sponsored project revenue.

Federal dough is definitely in there.

As a guy who happens to audit many NFP/Charities I can tell you that the government is the one that has the "strings" attached and not only looks at the Charity Return and audited financial statements but will also want their own reports filled out and, in some cases, receipts sent in.

To associate direct government money with the fundraising costs and/or the administrative costs of the CCS is just plain stupid.

But, once again, it would help if one would actually look at the statements and try to understand them....

[Oleg Bach]

Sometimes they have organizations that grade the efficiency of various charities on a scale, where the charities who are able to spend a larger portion of the funds they raise towards their cause are given better ratings than charities that spend larger portions of their monies on "administration" or "operating costs". Perhaps the Canadian Cancer Society is one of the poorer performers, so donor should take heed.

I sure hope this organization isn't receiving federal funds, but considering this is Canada I wouldn't be surprised if there was a certain degree of governmental overlap going on.

Get rid of that parasitic UNITED WAY for starters...they fund may orgainizations that are simply in place to keep their members employed at any cost...and as for charity - Charity does not exist anymore.