Lsherm: All of that you just posted? Bullshiat doublespeak. They rate quite high on Charity Navigator and they handed out 82% of their donations in 2011 to outside groups. They hand out more research money in the US than anyone except the National Cancer Institute.

Okay, since we had this discussion already in the previous Komen threads, I'll recap (courtesy of a farker who was a nonprofit administrator). Charity Navigator relies on a charity's self-reported figures. If a charity defines spending a million dollars on the CEO's wardrobe as "public education," then it shows up on Charity Navigator as "public education."

What's a better way to figure out what a charity is spending its money on is to look at its tax forms, because it enumerates specifically its revenues and expenses and it's on the hook with Uncle Sam, so it's got a duty to keep it honest.

Seriously, go and look at Susan G. Komen's 990 tax forms for 2010-2011 (the most recent year available). Look at the tax forms before you call anything I say "bullshiat doublespeak."

Lsherm: The organization's 2011 financial statement reports that 43 percent of donations were spent on education, 18 percent on fund-raising and administration, 15 percent on research awards and grants, 12 percent on screening and 5 percent on treatment. (Various other items accounted for the rest.) (new window)

Once again - you're relying on Susan G. Komen to be honest with you in its publicity material?

jayhawk88: themeaningoflifeisnot: Sure, Brinker's misuse of funds is wrong. And she should pay the price. But isn't this a rather disturbingly frequent problem with many major charities? If it's generally not right to let an individual's financial malfeasance taint the whole charitable organization, why is it ok to write off Komen's charitable mission as a failure just because of Brinker's misdeeds?

This seems to be a common theme with a lot of charities that reach a certain size/level of popularity or national awareness. I kind of wonder if it's just not a Catch-22 of doing charitable work; charities tend to rely on the charitable nature of people to get things done that need doing, either for free or at a pittance salary, but eventually the work becomes to great and you have to start paying people real, competitive salaries to get them to stay. Suddenly you're bidding against other Fortune 500 companies for the employment of people who, at least you think/believe, are necessary to keep growing the charity.

I realize this isn't the case with Brinker in particular, but still, I do think that this is perhaps a problem that slowly creeps into charities.

I think what happens is that, in their developing years, charities are perfectly fine with moderately compensated executives. Once they start rolling in the money and become national charities, they feel the need to bring in these high paid shills with all of their supposed experience and connections.

USA Today reported in 2009 that the median pay for the top non-profit executives in 2008 was $418,000. And that does not mean the executives were all CEOs. It was executives generally at the top non-profits.

In my view, that's obscene. I don't buy the talent b.s. At any given time, there are plenty of very talented people with the necessary experience to be executives at charitable organizations at much lower compensation. The jobs would still be very attractive, especially considered the expense tabs these top execs enjoy.

American ingenuity turns charity into profit. What a country!

Delay: Komen for the cure awards funds on a partisan basis. Komen is a political organization, not a charitable organization.

There is nothing wrong with something being a political organization. However, because Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a political organization it must lose its charitable designation. Donations to SGK should not qualify as IRS charitable contributions. Simply obvious. Now, we can debate on whether that loss should be retroactive to previous tax years or not, but that's another issue.

They should do it the way Planned Parenthood does it: the mother organization is the charitable arm, and affiliated PP PACs do the political campaigning.

FarkinHostile: It will be a cold day in hell before I ever give a penny to a large charity. I am quite generous to the people I personally know who are in need.

Real charity begins at home. Organized charities are little more than money makers for the administration with little good for the cause.

Good news. This is the future. In this day and age, every donor should be able to target and track every single dollar they donate. You don't donate to "poor people". You donate toward a well in Namibia. You don't donate to "breast cancer". You donate toward a mobile mammogram in St. Louis.

With today's technologies donor can be a foundation, and this is why I don't give to national charities. There's zero reason to have organizations like the United Way dispense charity for us when we know exactly where we want it to go.

Komen's not a bad charity, and their expenses aren't bad compared to some other charities. But like most large charities, their method for grant-letting is unnecessarily centralized.

ani23: while charity is noble and all that would you rather

a. pay 200k to an "ok" CEO who brings in 10 million a year
b. pay 400k to someone more capable who brings in 50 million a year.

just food for thought

c. Pay 400k to a worthless coont who ends up smearing your entire namesake and nearly tearing an organization to the ground over political motivations.

Hint: It's FARK so it's always C.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Sure, Brinker's misuse of funds is wrong. And she should pay the price. But isn't this a rather disturbingly frequent problem with many major charities? If it's generally not right to let an individual's financial malfeasance taint the whole charitable organization, why is it ok to write off Komen's charitable mission as a failure just because of Brinker's misdeeds?

Because it isn't clear that the charity actually does much good. Largely they provide some funding for screening activities that are being shown to be less and less effective as time goes on. They are a front for big pharma, and won't support or fund other important things that breast cancer patients need or could use. They don't seem to be funding anything that would produce a cure for breast cancer...you know, their slogan that they are suing everyone else over.

But the reality that research in the conventional medical world is put toward, well, conventional medicine (allopathic drugs) remains. For me, this begs the question - where exactly does your research funding go, Komen?

SGK had the following to say regarding accusations that its organization funds pharmaceutical research:

"It's been reported that Susan G. Komen for the Cure provides funding to pharmaceutical companies. That is simply not true. We have never funded pharmaceutical company research - our grants, totaling $450 million, have gone to research institutions in the U.S. and abroad." - Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Ohh... okay. So you would never provide funding to pharmaceutical companies that sell disease-promoting, toxic chemical drugs to cancer patients.

But take their money? Sure!

"The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca (now AzkoNobel).

AstraZeneca has long been a Komen booster, making educational grants to Komen and having a visible presence at the Race For the Cure. At the 1998 Food and Drug Administration hearings, the Komen Foundation was the only national breast cancer group to endorse the AstraZeneca cancer treatment drug tamoxifen as a prevention device for healthy but high-risk women, despite vehement opposition by most other breast cancer groups because of its links to uterine cancer.

The organization's biggest sponsors are - surprise! - the corporations that profit from cancer through chemotherapy and radiation. To them, Komen for the Cure isn't really about finding a cure for cancer; it's about promoting cancer so that they can sell more drugs and radiotherapy that keeps more patients locked into a cycle of dependence on toxic cancer treatments." -Well put, Natural News.

(Did you catch that bit about poisoning healthy women with the carcinogenic cancer drug, Tamoxifen, as a preventative measure? Yeah. Moving on...)

Susan G. Komen does indeed provide millions of dollars to fund research - but what exactly is it researching with those grants?

Link

tricycleracer: Janusdog: Brinker IS Komen. CEO = public face. Your CEO is a degenerate, so is your organization.

Remember: CEOs are rugged industrialists without whom the modern world would not exist.

Until their company does something wrong.

Then they're just in a management position and don't actually have any control over what happens at their company.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 485x364]

QFT!

ani23: while charity is noble and all that would you rather

a. pay 200k to an "ok" CEO who brings in 10 million a year
b. pay 400k to someone more capable who brings in 50 million a year.

just food for thought

It depends on where that money goes. The more people dig, the more people see that this money is not going where it should.

Janusdog: I hate to tell you that many microloan programs and some of these African community building charities are just as bad, or are hampered severely by local corruption.

You know how I know you didn't read my post or click the link? Because my post had absolutely nothing to do with microloans, and everything to do with allowing even the smallest of donors to direct how their donation is spent and then seeing the effect of their donation.