Breast cancer is a well documented symptom that will never be "cured" by an organization passing through the absolute legal minimum of dollars required, 20%, to be called a non-profit. I mostly feel for the great people in this organization who are misled. In just the past year, it has become known that lack of vitamin D, determined by a serum test, is a better marker for breast cancer than a mammogram. An uncomfortable parallel here might be the person who hits their thumb with a hammer, and then looks for a cure for a broken thumb...they get one star because your system won't allow a negative rating.
This organization provides excellent cover for the real question, which is, "Why do women GET breast cancer?". With sympathy for those who have gotten it, I must say that this question has largely been answered; the mammary glands are especially susceptible repositories for all those ingredients on that package of 'food' that you can't pronouce, and don't exist in nature. Add to this the removal of one of your greatest defenses against breast cancer, Vitamin D (which we are now discovering), or more generally speaking, a healthy diet. What Susan's sister, bless her heart, is doing amounts to asking the foxes for help to determine why all the chickens are dying. Read "The Metabolic Typing Diet".
Review from Guidestar
I am confused by the reporting here. Perhaps one of you can enlighten me when you say that only 20% is going to "a cure". The definition of the terms i read on this site are as follows:
Program Expenses: This measure reflects what percent of its total budget a charity spends on the programs and services it exists to deliver. Dividing a charity's program expenses by its total functional expenses yields this percentage.
Score = Raw Score x 10
Rationale behind score adjustments:
Program Expenses < 33.3%:
Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero points for their overall organizational efficiency score.
As I read this, it means that over 80% of the funds raised by SGK are going to the "programs and services it exists to deliver". Not all of that is for research, as some is for providing mammograms for those unable to pay for them, etc.
Please help me understand your position.
Review from CharityNavigator
Unfortunately a lot of people are buying into the press being generated by SGK in regards to their trademarking. As someone who is a part of an organization that has been affected by their "cease and desist" letters for having the words "a cure" in their slogan, I can attest that SGK is in fact man handling smaller organizations and costing them quite a bit of money. While they may not have gone to court over this - because the smaller organizations cannot afford the legal fees and would rather put their money to use in finding a cure - they have threatened these other organizations.
I know many breast cancer survivors who are also against SGK and their actions.
Review from CharityNavigator
I will say it again. There are several breast cancer research foundations who put over 70% of your donations towards research.
If you can tell me of a way that is not research that will allow us all to find a cure, please enlighten us all.
Komen foundation puts only 20.22% of revenue into "Research For A Cure"
A foundation that has re-aligned every aspect of their business to portrait that they are "For the cure" should put a LOT more than 20.22% of your donation into the only way we will ever find a cure, don't you think?
They spend more money on "other expenses" like office supplies and new leather chairs for fancy offices than they do on Research - that in itself is sickening for a foundation who claims their mission is so unique and so critical that they have to sue other foundations for using the phrase "for the cure".
Review from Guidestar
There are a lot of negative press out there against Susan G. Komen. For my breast cancer fighting advocates, and possible future donors out there, I want to provide some facts about the Susan G. Komen organization as provided by 3rd party non-profit charity site, Charity Navigator. This comes on the heels of the news that SGK is spending fundraising money on lawsuits to defend their trademark, "For the cure" and the color pink. At first, I was appalled at the thought that SGK was spending my hard earned fundraising money on preventing other charities from using their phrase (we're assuming these are legitimate charities of course). I really just want to provide some facts and a couple of articles that were shared to me.
1) Charity Navigator site for SGK
Without registering for an account you can at least see the current year's analysis. They receive a 4-star rating. The highest CN assigns. I signed up for a free account with CN and that 4-star rating goes back as far as I am able to see with their site which is to 2007. If you're considering donating to another charity, look them up first.
A noteworthy snippet follows:
"Other charities say they must aggressively pursue look-alikes because brand confusion costs them sizable donations. A pair of charities dedicated to helping injured veterans has been locked in a three-year court battle over $2.2 million in donations to the website woundedwarriors.org.
Wounded Warriors Inc., an Omaha charity, owned the site. But the Wounded Warrior Project of Jacksonville, Fla., a larger group, contends that scores of its supporters donated money to the site thinking it was going to the Florida charity. In court filings, the Wounded Warrior Project says celebrity endorsements for its group created publicity that prompted donors to mistakenly contribute to the other charity's website."
If you subscribe to that school of thought, is Komen really wasting that money? I ask for the sake of debate.
Post your comments. You don't have to agree, but don't jump to conclusion before you have all the facts.