They bought a lot of copyrights for every permutation of [BLANK] FOR THE CURE. Not money well spent. They are a pretty useless organization. They spend less than 15% of income on actual research related activities and a lot on overhead, advertising, and dinner parties for very rich people. You are a fool if you donate to this organization. Do yourself a favor and donate elsewhere.
You got to love how $15 million of a $20 million dollar TV advertising budget (Form 990 FY 2010-2011 Part IX Line 12) & $5.5 million of a $7.3 million dollar Event Production budget (Line 24d) is classified as a 'Program Expense'. If you were to move these line items from a program to a fundraising expense (because events and the advertising to get people to do those events are...if I'm not mistaken...fundraising, right?) that moves a total of $20.5 million that, in my opinion, have been classified incorrectly. In FY 2010-2011 charity navigator lists the following percentages for each dollar that comes in: 75% programs, 7.6% admin, and 17.2% fundraising. I propose that these numbers should be updated to reflect what is actually being done: 70.4% programs, 7.6% admin, and 22.4% fundraising. I'm steering clear of all other topics but for all the people who leave comments scolding the people who are upset about how this organization operates...here are some actual facts based on their own tax information.
I would give this a NO-Star rarting of possible! I tried to put an honest personal experience I've had with Lomen, and it was rejected as Spam. I guess this is your way of dealing with criticism of your pet charities! They are not honest, and money donated is diverted to totally unconnected entities, who have no relationship with breast cancer.
Hi Edie, we don't know why your review did not post a first time. There are many ways in which reviews might not get posted, including if you tried to post it from an office with a firewall. We do not have a spam filter for reviews, nor do we have "pet charities." We do not control a nonprofit's ratings -- users do. We're glad you were able to post a second time.
The organization is biased and not a good steward of its funds.
Review from Guidestar
I have been an oncology nurse for 20 years. I have been very uncomfortable with the Komen Foundation for a long time. I believe the pink ribbon campaign blurs the line between corporate sponsorship and using breast cancer to sell products. Komen completely marginalizes male breast cancer patients treating breast cancer as only a women's disease. 2000 men a year are diagnosed with breast cancer. They are not only having to cope with cancer but also the stigma of having a "women's disease".The most egregious thing that they do is promote the 3 Day Walk which this year is requiring each walker(even cancer survivors) to raise $2300.
The Susan G Komen foundation's size has made it insular in policy making and understanding its constituents - the beneficiaries of its services, its donors, and the general public. By hiring strongly politically aligned executives such as Karen Handel, SVP of Public Policy, the organization has lost its way and demonstrated it is unable to be objective and stand true to its mission of breast cancer cure and care. The low rating assigned reflects my current observation and not an indicator of its past performance or future potential. The foundation continues to handle the situation in a bad way by retaining executives that were responsible for a series of missteps and has not shown potential for cleaning up its corporate governance.
I've donated, bought shirts, run, and worked with some sponsored agencies. The foundation has now betrayed the women it purports to serve, and for political reasons. I will never support them again.
Review from Guidestar
Politically motivated organization that should lose its 501c3 status. Extremely low percentage of earnings actually devoted to research. Bullies smaller organizations seeking to provide care to women.
Review from CharityNavigator
Political agenda exposed and hints of more to come under closer scrutiny. One needs to look at 2011 annual report. Does not seem as favorable as 2010. This site seems to include PR under expenditures directly for the cause. No charity is doing a good job that isn't spending 80-85% on the true mission.
Review from CharityNavigator
This is outrageous. Here we have a major non-profit, taking on the political agenda of a few, destroying the ability to advance what they say is the main goal. We want to know. Who on the board or in the executive wing is connected to the anti-abortion folks? And using that influence? Have they been dismissed? How was this connection not disclosed? I urge all to discontinue contributions to this organization, and choose another, or show your disapproval by giving to Planned Parenthood instead--they are the ones on the front line providing health care to the millions of women who otherwise get no care.