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

[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).