I was reluctant to post this, but I want to raise awareness of an important issue with the Campaign Against Cancer (CAC), the X-wing tournaments for charity, which I hope will continue to improve and become even more successful. I think if I don't raise this issue nobody will.

Slight hyperbole incoming: would you be happy to participate in a charity even where you write a $25 check to a kid with cancer, and a $25 check to a millionaire so he can be a second Ferrari?

This is the thing:

not all charities are the same, some are just a scam, others are golden, many are somewhere in between. If you go to Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/) they look at their financial information.

CAC gave to American Cancer Society (ACS). They give 60% of your donation to people in need (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwqhsKQrJaQ). The rest is spent, among other things, on paying their CEO a very high salary. a few years ago, the CEO was paid $2.2 millions (https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/eye-popping-pay/37).

CAC is a great event, why are we giving to ACS, where there are other charities that don't pay their CEO so much, and give much more than 60% of your donations to the actual people who need them?

I asked this question to the CAC organizer, who is also the president of Twin Sun Charities, and his answer was a whole lot of responsibility-skirting: he said ACS is not perfect, and that X-wing players can suggest a different charity. But how many X-wing players thought about charity efficiency? I guess most just want to play X-wing and donate to people in need. It is the organizer's responsibility to exercise good judgement and put forth an efficient charity.

But Twin Sun Charities needs to do their homework: they speak positively on their website of Wounded Warriors, a charity that gives only about 50% of your donations to help veterans, while using the rest, among things, in widely criticized lavish expenses:

Navigator rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.Vwqmk6QrJaQ

Lavish expenses: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/wounded-warrior-project-spends-lavishly-on-itself-ex-employees-say.html

executives finally fired: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-warrior-project-ceo-and-coo-fired/

my last point is, what is the cut Twin Sun Charities is taking for their expenses? 1%, 60%? this is something that should be known.

so if you want to join CAC next time, think about contacting the organizer and let them know to pick an efficient charity. thanks!

[DELETED]

Edit: Ya know what? It ain't worth getting involved in this one. Have fun y'all.

Firstly, this is not the forum to get any change for this. I am sorry you are unhappy but CAC is a great event. Twin Suns Charities is about getting groups the resources to hold events. CAC donates all of its funds to Relay for Life, and you find some way to find a problem with that.

It is a volunteer event where people dontate time, money, and prizes so we can go and play xwing and have a good time.

So STOP, there are better ways and places to do this. Do not trash an awesome event for some political issue you have.

What the average salary for the CEO of an organization the same size as ACS?

That's the beauty of nonprofits you can inflate salaries as high as you want the only rule you have to follow is you can't make a profit.

When a charity needs 40% for administrative fees is just a tax shelter and clearly has a management issue

What the average salary for the CEO of an organization the same size as ACS?

A charity is not a business.

The efficiency issue is important to me and I give help directly to people near me who need it and never through a organisation that wants a cut.

There would be more to give if 40% of my income wasn't directly stolen from me every year and wasted on funding things I object to.(whole 'nother topic,try not to focus on that comment).

Still....that's just how I do it. You guys want to raise money however you like, gofor it. I support the cause .I want all the options.

The CAC is a fantastic choice to raise money and donate it however you think it will do the most good. And the best part is ...its voluntary.

I know I said I was out...but everyone arguing against a non-profit running like a public sector business I urge you to watch this talk by Dan Pallotta.

Activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta calls out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities. Too many nonprofits, he says, are rewarded for how little they spend — not for what they get done. Instead of equating frugality with morality, he asks us to start rewarding charities for their big goals and big accomplishments (even if that comes with big expenses). In this bold talk, he says: Let's change the way we think about changing the world.

Yeah, the title of the thread isn't inflammatory at all.

I was reluctant to post this, but I want to raise awareness of an important issue with the Campaign Against Cancer (CAC), the X-wing tournaments for charity, which I hope will continue to improve and become even more successful. I think if I don't raise this issue nobody will.

Slight hyperbole incoming: would you be happy to participate in a charity even where you write a $25 check to a kid with cancer, and a $25 check to a millionaire so he can be a second Ferrari?

This is the thing:

not all charities are the same, some are just a scam, others are golden, many are somewhere in between. If you go to Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/) they look at their financial information.

CAC gave to American Cancer Society (ACS). They give 60% of your donation to people in need (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwqhsKQrJaQ). The rest is spent, among other things, on paying their CEO a very high salary. a few years ago, the CEO was paid $2.2 millions (https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/eye-popping-pay/37).

CAC is a great event, why are we giving to ACS, where there are other charities that don't pay their CEO so much, and give much more than 60% of your donations to the actual people who need them?

I asked this question to the CAC organizer, who is also the president of Twin Sun Charities, and his answer was a whole lot of responsibility-skirting: he said ACS is not perfect, and that X-wing players can suggest a different charity. But how many X-wing players thought about charity efficiency? I guess most just want to play X-wing and donate to people in need. It is the organizer's responsibility to exercise good judgement and put forth an efficient charity.

But Twin Sun Charities needs to do their homework: they speak positively on their website of Wounded Warriors, a charity that gives only about 50% of your donations to help veterans, while using the rest, among things, in widely criticized lavish expenses:

Navigator rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.Vwqmk6QrJaQ

Lavish expenses: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/wounded-warrior-project-spends-lavishly-on-itself-ex-employees-say.html

executives finally fired: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wounded-warrior-project-ceo-and-coo-fired/

my last point is, what is the cut Twin Sun Charities is taking for their expenses? 1%, 60%? this is something that should be known.

so if you want to join CAC next time, think about contacting the organizer and let them know to pick an efficient charity. thanks!

How much does that 60% equal in real money and what would it be without that CEO? I don't care enough to find out tbh, I just want to fly plastic space ships.

Like everything in life: Caveat Emptor. or You pay your price, roll your dice and take your chances.

Sure there are a lot of charity promotional campaigns that can be considered odd like watching the Star Wars Holiday Special for cancer or playing Call of Duty for cancer or the run for cancer. It is apparent that none of those activities actually help with the fight against cancer other than becoming a researcher or surgeon. But the thing is cancer treatment is expensive and many people simply can't afford it, so if some people get to do a frivolous activity while others get to donate money to a charity if it helps out that much, then why not?

If your personal convictions get in the way of you participating in such activities maybe because of too high of an overhead then why not simply donate your money directly to a charity that you know to be good with their financial management. Seriously how else are you going to help unless you become a doctor or something along those lines?

The bigger a charity gets, the more operational expenses it is going to have. Now, there probably is corruption involved in some of these areas, but unless we actually have a detailed breakdown of spending, I'd hesitate to point fingers at anyone in particular.

Edit: checked out the articles the OP linked. Definitely interesting, but I'd like to see a breakdown of the fundraising spending. Of course, not being an economist, I'm not qualified to make sense of such a thing, but still.

This is an event associated with X-wing so this is the right forum for it. Today another post about CAC was well received. I'm just giving some well deserved criticism and suggestions on how to improve. If you don't have a problem with ACS, then don't tell me to not post this information. If even just one person becomes of aware of this issue then my thread was worth it.

ACS is basically saying, give me $100 I'll give $60 to that kid in the hospital, and $40 I'll keep for my salary and to keep up my brand so that more donations are given to me than to other cancer charities.

Just as an example, I easily found another very big charity that gives $80 of your $100 to the kid in the hospital, because they don't spend as much in branding themselves and paying their CEO millions of dollars. Their CEO get a more reasonable salary of about $300-500k.

The bigger a charity gets, the more operational expenses it is going to have. Now, there probably is corruption involved in some of these areas, but unless we actually have a detailed breakdown of spending, I'd hesitate to point fingers at anyone in particular.

Edit: checked out the articles the OP linked. Definitely interesting, but I'd like to see a breakdown of the fundraising spending. Of course, not being an economist, I'm not qualified to make sense of such a thing, but still.

just go to Charity Navigator and the links I posted, all the info is there for a more detailed financial breakdown. I don't go around pointing fingers just to get a kick out of it. there are charities almost as big that have much lower operating expenses.

This is an event associated with X-wing so this is the right forum for it. Today another post about CAC was well received. I'm just giving some well deserved criticism and suggestions on how to improve. If you don't have a problem with ACS, then don't tell me to not post this information. If even just one person becomes of aware of this issue then my thread was worth it.

ACS is basically saying, give me $100 I'll give $60 to that kid in the hospital, and $40 I'll keep for my salary and to keep up my brand so that more donations are given to me than to other cancer charities.

Just as an example, I easily found another very big charity that gives $80 of your $100 to the kid in the hospital, because they don't spend as much in branding themselves and paying their CEO millions of dollars. Their CEO get a more reasonable salary of about $300-500k.

The big problem is that you are equating CAC (a super fun tournament with great prize support) to ACS, which is what seems to have your knickers in a bunch. If it bothers you that much, just think that you are spending $15 for a 6 round tournament.

Additionally Twin Suns Charities doesnt take anything. The organizer of Twin Suns actually put in HIS money to run the event. How do I know this? Because I drove back to fort wayne with one of the board members who said as much.

I agree with the OP and this is why I only paid my entry fee and no more. CAC is a fantastic event Im very thankful for the people who donate and work to put it on. I just don't see the need for non profit to have CEO salaries like that. I had originally planned to donate a couple hundred.

This is an event associated with X-wing so this is the right forum for it. Today another post about CAC was well received. I'm just giving some well deserved criticism and suggestions on how to improve. If you don't have a problem with ACS, then don't tell me to not post this information. If even just one person becomes of aware of this issue then my thread was worth it.

ACS is basically saying, give me $100 I'll give $60 to that kid in the hospital, and $40 I'll keep for my salary and to keep up my brand so that more donations are given to me than to other cancer charities.

Just as an example, I easily found another very big charity that gives $80 of your $100 to the kid in the hospital, because they don't spend as much in branding themselves and paying their CEO millions of dollars. Their CEO get a more reasonable salary of about $300-500k.

The big problem is that you are equating CAC (a super fun tournament with great prize support) to ACS, which is what seems to have your knickers in a bunch. If it bothers you that much, just think that you are spending $15 for a 6 round tournament.

Additionally Twin Suns Charities doesnt take anything. The organizer of Twin Suns actually put in HIS money to run the event. How do I know this? Because I drove back to fort wayne with one of the board members who said as much.

awesome if Twin Charity did this for free for charity. I think this info should be out there and asking is perfectly reasonable.

Also, I am not equating CAC to ACS, but CAC gave the money to ACS (Twin Charity choice). All I'm saying is there are better cancer charities than ACS and CAC should give to those. And this means more money going to people with cancer.

It is the fear of criticizing a charity that lets ACS and others to take advantage of the desire to help.

This is an event associated with X-wing so this is the right forum for it. Today another post about CAC was well received. I'm just giving some well deserved criticism and suggestions on how to improve. If you don't have a problem with ACS, then don't tell me to not post this information. If even just one person becomes of aware of this issue then my thread was worth it.

ACS is basically saying, give me $100 I'll give $60 to that kid in the hospital, and $40 I'll keep for my salary and to keep up my brand so that more donations are given to me than to other cancer charities.

Just as an example, I easily found another very big charity that gives $80 of your $100 to the kid in the hospital, because they don't spend as much in branding themselves and paying their CEO millions of dollars. Their CEO get a more reasonable salary of about $300-500k.

The big problem is that you are equating CAC (a super fun tournament with great prize support) to ACS, which is what seems to have your knickers in a bunch. If it bothers you that much, just think that you are spending $15 for a 6 round tournament.

Additionally Twin Suns Charities doesnt take anything. The organizer of Twin Suns actually put in HIS money to run the event. How do I know this? Because I drove back to fort wayne with one of the board members who said as much.

awesome if Twin Charity did this for free for charity. I think this info should be out there and asking is perfectly reasonable.

Also, I am not equating CAC to ACS, but CAC gave the money to ACS (Twin Charity choice). All I'm saying is there are better cancer charities than ACS and CAC should give to those. And this means more money going to people with cancer.

It is the fear of criticizing a charity that lets ACS and others to take advantage of the desire to help.

Your topic title is inflammatory and is not about ACS or criticizing ACS, it is indirectly saying that CAC is taking advantage of people.

40% administration fee is absurd I could see them taking 10% but that's it.

I think the only way you could have picked a worse title is if you made it "Top 10 things wrong with the CAC. You won't believe number 4!!!"

I understand you have a concern about the charity that the raised funds are given to.

First of all, not a single penny of the raised funds go to the tournament organizer or the Twin Suns charity. In fact i can't imagine how much overhead he lost out of his own donations in time and money.

With that out of the way i feel like your whole issue is with the relay for life and the choice of the CAC to use it.

Well we have a whole year until the next CAC so we can have that discussion and determine the best use of our time and funds. There are arguments for and against large charities, so i can't say I'm instantly agreeing with you. It's worth doing an analysis. I don't think this is something to get all bent out of shape for. It was all given to a charity right? Hopefully they did some good with it.

I think the only way you could have picked a worse title is if you made it "Top 10 things wrong with the CAC. You won't believe number 4!!!"

I understand you have a concern about the charity that the raised funds are given to.

First of all, not a single penny of the raised funds go to the tournament organizer or the Twin Suns charity. In fact i can't imagine how much overhead he lost out of his own donations in time and money.

With that out of the way i feel like your whole issue is with the relay for life and the choice of the CAC to use it.

Well we have a whole year until the next CAC so we can have that discussion and determine the best use of our time and funds. There are arguments for and against large charities, so i can't say I'm instantly agreeing with you. It's worth doing an analysis. I don't think this is something to get all bent out of shape for. It was all given to a charity right? Hopefully they did some good with it.

so many ppl complaining about the title. the title is not as important as a millionaire CEO taking half of your donations and paying himself a high salary. this is not my opinion, it's in the articles I linked and on Charity Navigator, a site whose only purpose is to analyze charities so that you can choose the most efficient ones.

If you go past the title and read what I wrote in this thread, you'll see that the only criticism I made of CAC is to pick a better charity.

I know a lot of people give to charity and they hardly have money themselves. with all due respect, I think the attitude of saying "hopefully they did some good with it" is a bit cavalier towards the hard working people who donate.

I just hope that people remember next year and pick a better charity for CAC, then I can hopefully participate and donate.

First impressions buddy. Your title sets the tone and detracts from your message. Pretty sure you can change the title. Till you do that you're going to be met with the same hostility you open this discussion with.

If you started this conversation as a call for discussion about the charity it may have been productive.

Your message has been heard. I'll be looking into the relay for life and making my own judgement on the matter. Though i will be going into it skeptical, yes, completely because of your bad title.

Why can't people get past the bad title? ... yes, it's a really bad one... and inflammatory, but if you're here berating the OP for it, then it means that it got you here.

Aside from that... the message is pretty simple, "Encourage the organizer to select an efficient charity for the next CAC". How is that idea problematic? I imagine that everybody wants the money from this charity event to go to a good cause, right?

I refuse to go past the title and say "oh well it got me here" when it's **** near libelous.

I am however admitting that the conversation is worth having. The goal is to provide funds for cancer research. If there is a better organization to achieve that goal than i would think it irrational to not hear another option and the reasoning for such a suggestion. Then it should be weighed against the current charity. Seems reasonable to me.

I ran the Minnesota CAC Event. I put a lot of time and some money into the event. I received a challenge coin (in the interest of total transparency).

If the goal is to provide funding to Cancer research and treatment, how to you measure "success"? ACA's administrative overhead is 6%. Not 40% as you imply. The majority of their overhead is on further fundraising, not administrative overhead. Overall they put 60% (or close) towards program spending. Which was over $500 million in FY2014. That fundraising overhead may be worth the overhead if it generates more overall program spending.

It seems like you think the cancer charity is a zero sum situation. I don't think that's going to be true. ACS spends money on fundraising because it generates significant revenue for cancer research, with some overhead.

A competent CEO costs money. A fundraising program costs money. A web site costs money. Processing grants costs money. Auditing programs costs monty. Employing people costs money. Other charities do this with less overhead, but usually with a lot less overall program spending as well. Please, if I'm missing some comparable cancer benefiting charity that has minimal overhead, identify it.

We raised a bit over $3,000 in Minnesota. Or 0.000838% of the ACS donations for FY2014. I'm 100% comfortable with $1800 of what we generated going towards Programs and $1050 going towards further fundraising and $150 going towards administrative overhead.

A single statistic does not give the whole story.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/06/09/why-ranking-charities-by-administrative-expenses-is-a-bad-idea/

Just because other organizations may redirect a larger part of your donation to another entity does not mean that it is being used effectively. When you donate to a large charity you expect them to go through the due diligence to ensure that hospitals/doctors/Universities/scientists they partner with are using the money effectively which is an overhead cost to do that review.

I'm reminded of a story about people raising money and building a school in Haiti. Most of the money was spent to build a school and in the end it was all wasted.

Don't rely on a single metric of overhead.