Better Days

[ladysprite]

Behold the power of the internet, and righteous ire - Susan G. Komen has reversed their decision to withhold funding from Planned Parenthood, and apologized for their decision.

I am still saddened that the decision was made in the first place, and hope that the person responsible will be removed, but I am so, so very glad to hear that they changed their policy, and did so this quickly. Thank you to everyone who spread the word, signed petitions, donated, and wrote letters; and I hope that word of the reversal spreads as quickly.

More details here....

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I agree with every word, brighteyes!

[curmudgn]

I am now waiting to hear Komen proceed to place blame on some mid-level fonctionnaire scapegoat, at which point I will call bullshit. That kind of decision must have been taken at the highest levels of the organization.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Daily Kos has been covering this story with some quite disturbing information (and links from those two to more).

Raising money to fight against breast cancer is a heroic and noble act, ladysprite. But there may be more effective ways you could go about it.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

With respect, those Daily Kos articles are not disturbing information. "My theory (and mine alone)," is not an indication of information, but of an opinion piece. It is an opinion piece with little or no factual support, at that. Not what I'd call a good or solid piece of journalism.

And no, if the goal is raising money for dealing with breast cancer, there is no more effective organization. Komen manages to put 80% of its $300+ million income into research, education, screening, and treatment. There is no organization on the planet that is more effective or efficient at getting money to this cause.

Yes, Komen slipped up here. But they've publicly apologized and amended their policy. As long as they follow through, that should be the end of it. If someone's done so much good, has one slip up, and makes amends, you don't just give up on them, or drop them like a hot potato.

[citabria]

I was relieved to hear this, too!

Komen's been criticized for a lot over the past couple of years (most notably the same things a lot of very large humanitarian organizations are criticized for -- putting too small a percentage of money raised towards research and/or things like PP's grants) and I've nodded and gone on. I know that the larger an organization is, the more money has to go towards keeping it afloat; that sucks but it's not uncommon. It hadn't kept me away from Komen-related things, though (including the myriad pink items) because 1) I like pink in general and 2) adding to awareness is always a good thing.

The idea of intentionally boycotting Komen felt rather daunting -- and frustrating, given the awareness angle -- but their decisions (both the new PP and research-related policies) irked me that much. (It rather reminds me of when I discovered that Snapple was a Coors company, back in law school. Man that boycott was challenging!) I think it's still going to be an interesting few months for them, but I'm relieved.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

most notably the same things a lot of very large humanitarian organizations are criticized for -- putting too small a percentage of money raised towards research and/or things like PP's grants

You realize that's nonsense, though, right?

Komen spends about 12% of it's money on administration. 8% of their budget goes into the fundraising effort (spending money to make money). The other 80% goes to the mission - research, education, screening, and treatment.

Komen had a revenue on the order of $300 million on 2010. So, they spent something like $240 million on research, education, screening, and treatment. This is well-documented, public record stuff - it has to be for a non-profit.

Komen can be fairly criticized for the principle behind the decision - on that score, this was pretty bad on several levels. Their financial record, however, is beyond reproach.

[oakleaf-mirror.livejournal.com]

First, I think what Becky is doing is awesome. She absolutely should continue with her plans for this year's Komen walk, and a lot of good will come of that. None of any ire at Komen should spill over into the people raising money for them, as most are clearly acting in good faith, and working toward a net good result.

That said, I still have a number of concerns about Komen that make me wonder if they're the best conduit for this, in future years. I read their 2010 financial report, and from that I have one big concern. (I'm not an accountant, so this is a lay person's reading of an accounting document.) As noted, their Administration and Fundraising numbers come out to about 19.7% of their income. Their spending on "research, treatment, education and screening" comes to 72.7% rather than 80%, with the difference seemingly being retained for future years. The thing that worries me about those numbers is that the education component is about the size of the other three combined. That is, they spend 19.3% on research, 5.2% on treatment, 12% on screening, and 36.2% on "education." So, the combined amount spent on research, treatment and screening is only 36.5%. How worrying that is depends on how the education money was actually spent. Looking at the education breakdown, some of the big costs are marketing, professional fees, and 5k race production. Some of those costs, I think, seem more like fundraising and admin, rather than meaningful public health education. Personally, I would wish an organization that is reportedly so aggressive about defending the trademark "For the cure" would spend more than 24.5% of income on research and treatment, or even 36.5% including screening, too. All that said, as low as those percentages seem to me, they may still be better than other organizations, who's numbers I haven't looked into.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Their spending on "research, treatment, education and screening" comes to 72.7% rather than 80%, with the difference seemingly being retained for future years.

I stated things roughly, because there is variance from year to year. Komen's 5-year average spending "on the mission" is reported as about 84%.

Some of those costs, I think, seem more like fundraising and admin, rather than meaningful public health education.

It might, but I think we have to keep in mind what's actually happening in some of these activities.

Take the Race for the Cure, for example. Yes, it raises funds. But, more importantly, last year it got 1.6 million participants within earshot. Those participants are each a venue for distributing awareness and education. They are present, open and ready to receive information - and they are given it during the event. Then they go home to their husbands, children, coworkers, and friends, and it isn't like they keep their mouths shut about their experience. The Race and Walk propagate information, grass-roots style.

"Education" is not sitting in a classroom. It is distributing information to people by whatever means is effective. If it gets some of the facts of the matter into your skull, it is education. Sometimes that means indoctrinating volunteers (like the Race), sometimes it means radio spots and billboards (marketing).

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

I'm less sanguine about this. I can't help but note that the apology was carefully worded in such a way that it doesn't rule out them finding a different way to do the same thing next year, when the furor has died down. Particularly worrisome are the comments made in this article about Planned Parenthood providing only "pass-through" treatment because they refer patients for screening... just as every other doctor does.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I seriously expect them to pull the exact same stunt again as soon as they find something "less controversial" to hang it on. They have board members from the crowd that wants to shut down Planned Parenthood permanently.