More donor dollars for fundraising than research

Proportion of cash Canadian Cancer Society spends on research drops as donations increase

The Canadian Cancer Society is spending more of its money on fundraising and administration than research, a CBC Marketplace investigation has revealed. An analysis of the organization’s financial reports over the last 12 years shows that as it raised more cash, the proportion of dollars spent on research dropped from 40.3 per cent in 2000 to less than 22 per cent in 2011. A McMaster University researcher set up a booth at a recent Relay for Life fundraiser in Ancaster, Ont. to raise awareness about the trend. He says most scientists don’t realize as the charity’s budget has increased, its research budget has shrunk.

CBC News




Browse

More donor dollars for fundraising than research

  1. I have often heard that raising money for cancer research has become a huge business. Stop and think about the economic ramifications if cancer were cured tomorrow. .. ..

    •  Yes, we would have people put back to work, contributing to the economy, paying taxes, and supporting themselves and others, instead of lying in hospitals or at home pulling support *from* the system. If cancer were cured tomorrow, there would be many more positive economic ramifications than negative ones, so don’t bother with that argument.

      • I don’t think you understood my argument at all.

        I am not saying that I don’t want cancer cured. I was saying that cancer research has become a huge and profitable industry. This industry would disappear if cancer were cured, yet they are the ones searching for the cure. I was just pointing out the fact that it is a bit odd.

        • From the article, cancer fundraising is the growth industry, whereas (charity-supported) research is on the decline.

          I’m sure any research team that finds a cure will ensure themselves both fame and future, possibly better-funded, employment. The fundraisers are the ones who will be sidelined. Which may partially explain the reduced flowthrough…

          • Thanks for the correction. I meant cancer fundraising. I don’t think anyone will suppress a cure, I just mean that the folks who focus on raising the money might not be too interested in putting that money to research. If it takes a few more years. . .

            I would submit that we agree on this one.

          • We do indeed!

  2. cures for some cancers are as close as your weed dealer and big pharma influences government

    • Yeah, smoke some grass and that cures cancer . . . . . right. Look there are loads of “sensationalized pseudo-cures” all over the place that sound good to the masses, but are absolute BS from a medical perspective. These “cures” include the use of dichloroacetate, hydrogen peroxide, marijuana, and all sorts of other debunked methods, yet years later, people keep shooting their mouths off about them.. If big pharma influenced government so much as to hide the cures, why are they spending millions keeping all these research scientists on payroll, looking for a cure that they already have? Just to keep up the charade? Pretty expensive mind game, don’t you think? Government is the only research investor larger than the CCS. Why, if they know there’s already a cure? Or are you the only one smart enough to know about this cover up? Maybe you’ve visited that weed dealer too much.

  3. I am a regular supporter of the Canadian Cancer Society but now, as a result of this revelation, until things change, I will not give a nickel more to them.

  4. Meh. Shoddy CBC journalism and sour grapes from a spurned researcher. The numbers actually add up and are above board. 

  5. “What people often don’t realize is that the dollars that health
    charities provide … is huge,” he said. “If they were to stop providing
    those dollars tomorrow to universities and to different research
    institutions, the gap would be enormous and no one would fill that.

    “Government certainly would not fill that, nor would corporations
    do it. It’s the health charities that put in a big, big, huge part of
    the funding for the research in this country. And they do that because
    they do fundraising — and without that fundraising those dollars
    wouldn’t be going into research.”

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20110706/cancer-society-defends-spending-110706/
     

    • If more money is being donated but less is making it to the researchers, then they are doing something wrong. They need to rethink their processes.

  6. There are now huge numbers of charities employing large numbers of fundraisers. I suspect a good many of them spend as much or more, percentage-wise, on fundraising as the CCS. And that’s abominable.

    Charities should be required to post where their money goes front and center on their web site. If they raise over a certain dollar amount, they should be required to get an independent auditor to verify their claims annually. And the government should think hard about setting a percentage cap on fundraising, admin and other non-core activities: exceed the percentage and lose your charitable status.

Sign in to comment.