Rethinking pink

The Komen hoopla over Planned Parenthood funding managed to put breast cancer spending under a microscope. There is a known benefit to having mammograms but more money needs to go to research which will ultimately save more lives. Mammograms only find the cancer but if you can't cure it, what's the point of the screening? Okay, that's a little harsh but I think its true.

Breast cancer charities abound. Its one of the most common cancers and that means there are lots of voices to lead the rallying cry. But what if the money spent on pink things, went to research instead of to making things pink? Who really gets the pinked money anyway?

I detest the pinkification of breast cancer. Making it pink, does not make it go away, kill fewer, or cure anyone. We have plenty of pinkification these days, primarily thanks to the Komen Foundation (for THE cure). I think they have done wonderful things to raise cancer awareness but spending all their money on races and other pinked events and things doesn't do much for me.  

'The Komen foundation allots 23 percent of its funds to research and 16 percent to screenings; 37 percent goes to education, 7 percent goes to treatment, and the rest goes to fundraising and administration.' So if I can do math this early in the day while on my first cup of coffee, 23+16+37+7=83%, leaving 17% for fundraising and administration, which isn't that great but isn't that bad either. However if they are for THE cure, why are they only spending 23% on research?  That does not do much for THE cure, does it?

Call me an early morning cynic this morning (my husband claims I woke up too early and that means I'll be crabby all day). I just think that pink does not cure breast cancer but more research just might. If you are looking for a worthy cause to donate to breast cancer research, skip the pinked, and look at some others:

National Breast Cancer Coalition - has set a deadline to end breast cancer by 2020. I admire their efforts but think a deadline is a little unrealistic. I mean if they find a cure, why do they have to wait until 2020? If they don't find a cure by 2020 are they declared a failure?

DOD's Breast Cancer Research Program - no you can't donate to this I think but an admirable effort as well. They are the ones who developed the vaccine that is in stage III clinical trials (that I didn't get into) to prevent breast cancer recurrence.

I also like Avon Foundation Breast Cancer Crusade.  "...the executive director of the Avon Foundation Breast Cancer Crusade, says his organization splits its funding for screenings and science fairly equally. The foundation allots 75.5 percent of its funds to grants, including breast-cancer research and programs that include screenings; the rest goes to fundraising and management. “Research will end the disease,” he says, “but we have to take care of women who have the disease today." I like the part about taking care of women who have the disease. Some one has to. Pink things don't take care of us.

Let's take care of those of us with cancer and do some research to find a cure so there don't have to be as many of us in the future. You can do that without being pink.

I put this in the self-inflicted category

The Komen Foundation is having problems meeting its fundraising goals at recent events. Why doesn't this surprise me?

• They shot themselves in the foot with the Planned Parenthood flap and their inability to handle the bad press.
• They shot themselves in the foot when their 990s (tax forms for non profits) showed the high salaries paid to executives and amounts that went to research vs. what goes to run events.
• They shot themselves in the foot when key employees started leaving the organization - which had very little to do with the Planned Parenthood flap. Now their board chair is leaving allegedly at the request of his employer to distance himself from the organization.
• And they completely 'opened mouth, inserted foot' with every effort to handle these issues.

Now their wallet and bank account is taking a hit. This is becoming the poster child for how not to run a non-profit.

A non-profit needs to be clear in how their funds are used, they need complete transparency on their finances, they need to stand behind what they say they do, and they should not succumb to political pressures. Not only that, they need to be very clear on all of the above. If a potential donor wants to know any of the above, it must be very easy to find the information. Any potential possibility of false pretenses will result in lack of donations. This is what has happened to Komen.

I happen to work for a local non-profit and handle fundraising, development, outreach, and marketing. I strive to be as clear as possible with what we do, what are our goals, and where our money goes. It is a very small organization so we do not have as complicated finances that Komen has but transparency is invaluable.

Following a controversy

I am always interested in controversies. Anything that is controversial makes news - which sometimes often gets over-hyped by the media and ends up boring us to death because there is too much. What I find most interesting about controversy is how the controversial behavior is handled by the two sides. There is always controversy - we can't escape it. If we do something wrong, do we apologize or do we run away? An apology or explanation is a good way to handle something, running away, avoiding the issue, or worse a bad apology is a bad way to handle it. This applies in every part of life - there is no getting around it.

The latest controversy in the news is that the Komen foundation has announced they will no longer fund Planned Parenthood. Actually what they did is decide not to renew a grant. If you read the news articles that were first made available yesterday:

"Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a leader in fundraising for breast cancer research and famous worldwide for its iconic pink ribbon, said Tuesday that it was halting all partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates because of recently adopted criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation.

In September, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) launched an inquiry to determine whether Planned Parenthood uses public money to fund abortions. Planned Parenthood receives federal money but cannot use it to provide abortions.

Komen has a long history of providing funding to various Planned Parenthood affiliates for such services as manual breast exams and referrals for mammograms and biopsies to check suspicious lumps for cancer. Although that money is not used for abortions, the Komen Foundation may have yielded to demands from antiabortion groups to sever its ties to Planned Parenthood.

"We had the sense this was coming and that they were under pressure," said Sue Dunlap, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles. "I find this really disappointing. I think when women's health is more of a political conversation than a conversation about healthcare and taking care of people, then we've gone too far."

Officials for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said they learned of Komen's new stance on funding late last year and asked the Komen board of directors for a meeting to resolve any issues or questions related to funding. The meeting did not take place, said Cecile Richards, the federation's president.

"We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure," Richards said in a statement. "Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count."

Over the last five years, Planned Parenthood has provided about 4 million breast exams and referrals for 70,000 mammograms nationwide. Funding from Komen covers about 170,000 of the breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals, Richards said. Although mammograms and biopsies are referred out, Planned Parenthood doctors manage their patients' cases."

This sparked a sense of outrage all over - this was the hot topic of the internet yesterday - it was more popular than Justin Beiber, the presidential election, and the Facebook IPO combined. The outrage centered on the potential political slant of the decision.

The Komen foundation itself was decidedly silent on the topic itself which was to its detriment. I call this poor handling. The silence allowed people to polarize and express their fury again and again.

This morning I received a link to an official video of Nancy Brinker explaining their position and why they made the decision. I call it a non-answer:

She does not address the issues of the controversy. She states they are staying true to their cause and the promise to her sister. She talks about changing their grant policies. She does not talk about the statement from the Komen foundation about not funding organizations under investigation. She could be talking about any decision, not this one.

A non profit owes it to the donors to explain their decisions. People won't donate to places which upset them. They donate to places which they feel support their beliefs. It is hard for a donor to believe in an organization which doesn't explain their decision.

And now we have reports that Planned Parenthood received a record $650,000 in donations in 24 hours - which basically replaces the Komen grant money they will no longer receive.

This is a controversy which I believe was poorly handled by Komen. The proof is in the money.

But I am sure the media will beat this to death for the next six months until we are bored.  We need a new scandal fast so this one will not be the controversy which would not go away.