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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-02-04 07:41 am (UTC)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.