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.

I'm not explaining you because why would you listen to me anyway. I am telling to go to Charity Navigator, they provide the financial data on charities. As you said, they put 60% towards the charity program, this is identical to what Charity Navigator said. There are other charities you'll find there, some also big like ACS, which, for example, give 80% to the charity program. as I said in this thread, their CEO is paid 300k-500k. if you think 2.2 million dollars is an OK salary for a charity when other very successfull charity CEOs do it for 1/4 of that, then I bow to you, as you managed to remain trusting and naive in a world of corporate greed and you don't think for a minute that maybe that CEO was spending more overhead on publicizing their charity at the expense of other charities who put more money towards the charity program and less towards branding and ads, for the sole reason of racking up more money and increasing his own salary.

PS: I can't edit the title.

I'm sorry if some people took offence with what I wrote.

I just want to try explain my outrage simply:

USA workers give 100 to charity, and there are 2 charities. A takes 50, B takes 50. Each spends 10 on their own organization. the people in need get a total of 80.

the CEO of charity A decides to spend more money on branding charity A. Results: of the 100, A takes 60, B takes 40. Now B still takes 10 on their own expenses, but A has increases expenses so A takes 15. Result: B contributes 30, A contributes 45 to the people in need. Total: 75. the CEO says "look! I'm so good I increased our donations from 50 to 60! I deserve a big salary!"

So you see, in my example above, a charity can expand their share but the overall effect is negative to the people in need.

That is why I am outraged with charities like ACS and greedy CEOs and I don't think they should be supported. They prey on the desire to help others. And while I would change the title of this thread if I could, since so many took offence, it would not change my outrage.

Now you may disagree with my example above and all that, but I'm just asking you to pick a more efficient charity, and as you can see, people close to the organization of CAC, from the guy above to the president of Twin Sun who answered my email, don't think there's a big problem with ACS. Feel free to continue as you wish. I only posted this thread to raise awareness to the issue, and I saw that several people agreed with me. Thank you

ONLY 60% gets through admin and wages?

That's bloody disgusting! I would have thought the tournament organisers would be keen to find a recipient who can manage the funds more efficiently, rather than make excuses for them....

RoV

the CEO of charity A decides to spend more money on branding charity A. Results: of the 100, A takes 60, B takes 40. Now B still takes 10 on their own expenses, but A has increases expenses so A takes 15. Result: B contributes 30, A contributes 45 to the people in need. Total: 75. the CEO says "look! I'm so good I increased our donations from 50 to 60! I deserve a big salary!"

So you see, in my example above, a charity can expand their share but the overall effect is negative to the people in need.

But what if the CEO's efforts actually increased donations from 6.5 to 75? Would he be worth his pay, then?

Point is that you have no point - you are arguing with no data besides a plea to emotion that 'ZOMG, THAT GUYS IS MAKING SO TOO MUCH MONEY, HE SURLY DOES NOT DESERVE IT, TO THE GUILLOTINE WITH HIM!!'

The entire premise of your argument is that the ACS is not worth supporting because (you feel with no data to back you up) that their CEO and/or administrative expenses are higher than you feel they should be for the cause. Fine - prove it. Find another charity for us (not a vague - 'go look and see other charities that do things'...provide a specific link) that:

• Is donating to cancer research
• Provides more than $500 million annually to programs

...and I'm sure everyone on the thread will be happy to evaluate your data.

"Preying on people's emotions" rather than providing such specific data, though, doesn't seem like the type of thing people here are okay with.

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

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.

You are talking about "all of [Twin Suns] funds", but it is more than legit to ask what % of the funds that actually represents.

It's clear that any charity also has running costs and need to come up for logistics, personnel, advertising and so on. This costs money that will not directly go to the people in need. This is just normal and necessary.

But let's make some things clear!

Do people working full time for charitable organisations need to get paid to make a living? Of course!

Does a CEO need to get rich (and making 2,2 million a year sounds like that) pretending that it's all for the kids with cancer? Hell no!

Imho this should not be just an industry like any other. I would rather give to a charity personally that raises less funds but does not pay this much to its top staff. Even if they are doing a great job!

What to do? Donate for other charitable organizations that don't work this way!

After all we are only people that like to play with plastic ships, and unless the OP is on some personal vendetta against said CEO or is just misinforming us intentionally or not, it's very good that he informs the players of this so next year they can maybe find another charity to donate to!

the CEO of charity A decides to spend more money on branding charity A. Results: of the 100, A takes 60, B takes 40. Now B still takes 10 on their own expenses, but A has increases expenses so A takes 15. Result: B contributes 30, A contributes 45 to the people in need. Total: 75. the CEO says "look! I'm so good I increased our donations from 50 to 60! I deserve a big salary!"

So you see, in my example above, a charity can expand their share but the overall effect is negative to the people in need.

But what if the CEO's efforts actually increased donations from 6.5 to 75? Would he be worth his pay, then?

Point is that you have no point - you are arguing with no data besides a plea to emotion that 'ZOMG, THAT GUYS IS MAKING SO TOO MUCH MONEY, HE SURLY DOES NOT DESERVE IT, TO THE GUILLOTINE WITH HIM!!'

The entire premise of your argument is that the ACS is not worth supporting because (you feel with no data to back you up) that their CEO and/or administrative expenses are higher than you feel they should be for the cause. Fine - prove it. Find another charity for us (not a vague - 'go look and see other charities that do things'...provide a specific link) that:

• Is donating to cancer research
• Provides more than $500 million annually to programs

...and I'm sure everyone on the thread will be happy to evaluate your data.

"Preying on people's emotions" rather than providing such specific data, though, doesn't seem like the type of thing people here are okay with.

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Skipping the mudslinging - aka the 'is this the right place or way to address this'.

I appreciate that the OP understands that just because 'something' is done in the name of good... that the way it is being done or the un-intended consequences of the action(s) may make the something not so good or plain awful.

Selecting charities can be hard as a result. As a rule of thumb I don't contribute if more than 12% of donations are used for things other than the intended purpose (sorry, fundraising is a line item that a lot of fraud can hide in and a truly good cause should not need to spend much here - see wounded warriors). And yes, this means taking the extra step to see if the intended purpose is being achieved.

Examples of fake or abused charities that are easy to research include the Clinton Foundation and Wounded Warriors.

By the way, the former ACS CEO with multimillion dollar salaries, his name is Gary Reedy, G.Reedy - greedy, get it? You can't make this stuff up! I wonder if he has an evil mustache.

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers ACS isn't giving the most money to cancer. (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

The original post does have a point that when you donate to a charity that you should look at how much of their actual revenue goes to the people they are trying to help. That being said 50% is a pretty standard for most charities. I would say that a charity that give 50% of its money is fair. So Campaign Against Cancer is a little better than fair, when compared to other charities. I'm not saying that this is the way charities should be run or not I am just saying it is the way most of them work. And looking into their ratio before you give them money is a really good idea.

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers isn't ACS giving the most money to cancer, by a huge margin? (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

91.9% of $58,517,517 is $53,777,598

86.7% of $46,760, 046 is $40,540,959

59.5% of $840,201,383 is $499,919,822

the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center revenue above was $687,663,239. 92% is their efficiency, so $632,650,179 was given to charity which is higher than ACS. in your numbers you totally skipped over the Memorial Sloan Kettering Memorial, I guess it did not fit with your point of proving me wrong?

are you trolling or did you just not understand the whole point? The point is that ACS takes a lot more out of your donations and spends it on other things. If ACS dropped out of existence, the corresponding donations would not disappear, they would be given to the other charities which have a much higher efficiency (less expenses) and the end result would be millions of dollars more money spent to the people in need. ACS does not produce revenue out of thin air, they just accept donations from people.

That is a very, very large assumption.

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers isn't ACS giving the most money to cancer, by a huge margin? (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

91.9% of $58,517,517 is $53,777,598

86.7% of $46,760, 046 is $40,540,959

59.5% of $840,201,383 is $499,919,822

are you trolling or did you just not understand the whole point? The point is that ACS takes a lot more out of your donations and spends it on other things. If ACS dropped out of existence, the corresponding donations would not disappear, they would be given to the other charities which have a much higher efficiency (less expenses) and the end result would be millions of dollars more money spent to the people in need. ACS does not produce revenue out of thin air, they just accept donations from people.

plus in your numbers you totally skipped over the Memorial Sloan Kettering Memorial which has 81% the revenue of ACS but spends 92%, not 60% like ACS, on actual charity. I guess the MSKM did not fit with your point?

Nope, not trolling. I also fixed the omission before your post.

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers isn't ACS giving the most money to cancer, by a huge margin? (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

91.9% of $58,517,517 is $53,777,598

86.7% of $46,760, 046 is $40,540,959

59.5% of $840,201,383 is $499,919,822

97% of $687,663,239 is $667,033,341

[Edit] Ooops. Missed Sloan-Kettering. Fixed that. My math is right I was just missing all the data points.

so your math is right because ACS $499,919,822 is higher than the Memorial $667,033,341?

The original post does have a point that when you donate to a charity that you should look at how much of their actual revenue goes to the people they are trying to help. That being said 50% is a pretty standard for most charities. I would say that a charity that give 50% of its money is fair. So Campaign Against Cancer is a little better than fair, when compared to other charities. I'm not saying that this is the way charities should be run or not I am just saying it is the way most of them work. And looking into their ratio before you give them money is a really good idea.

did you read my post above you where most other cancer charities are well above 60%, with one being 97% and another 92%?

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers isn't ACS giving the most money to cancer, by a huge margin? (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

91.9% of $58,517,517 is $53,777,598

86.7% of $46,760, 046 is $40,540,959

59.5% of $840,201,383 is $499,919,822

the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center revenue above was $687,663,239. 92% is their efficiency, so $632,650,179 was given to charity which is higher than ACS. in your numbers you totally skipped over the Memorial Sloan Kettering Memorial, I guess it did not fit with your point of proving me wrong?

are you trolling or did you just not understand the whole point? The point is that ACS takes a lot more out of your donations and spends it on other things. If ACS dropped out of existence, the corresponding donations would not disappear, they would be given to the other charities which have a much higher efficiency (less expenses) and the end result would be millions of dollars more money spent to the people in need. ACS does not produce revenue out of thin air, they just accept donations from people.

You should also stop being so combative. All I was attempting to do was put some number to your percentages. I acknowledged my mistake.

If you weren't such a jerk I'm sure you could've got some traction with this because it is worth a discussion. But your holier-than-thou attitude and telling everyone, very loudly, that you are smarter than everyone else is not going to win people over.

Gawd I wish I had stuck to my guns and stayed out of this. Lesson learned.

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers isn't ACS giving the most money to cancer, by a huge margin? (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

91.9% of $58,517,517 is $53,777,598

86.7% of $46,760, 046 is $40,540,959

59.5% of $840,201,383 is $499,919,822

97% of $687,663,239 is $667,033,341

[Edit] Ooops. Missed Sloan-Kettering. Fixed that. My math is right I was just missing all the data points.

so your math is right because ACS $499,919,822 is higher than the Memorial $667,033,341?

No, my math is correct. But ACS is clearly not the leader.

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers isn't ACS giving the most money to cancer, by a huge margin? (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

91.9% of $58,517,517 is $53,777,598

86.7% of $46,760, 046 is $40,540,959

59.5% of $840,201,383 is $499,919,822

97% of $687,663,239 is $667,033,341

[Edit] Ooops. Missed Sloan-Kettering. Fixed that. My math is right I was just missing all the data points.

so your math is right because ACS $499,919,822 is higher than the Memorial $667,033,341?

No, my math is correct. But ACS is clearly not the leader.

OK thank you. I lose my patience because the millions of dollars misspent by ACS equal someone, in a hospital somewhere, not getting financial support for their cancer, and that money goes misspent and part of that misspent money goes to people like G.Reedy, to buy themselves a Ferrari. And people defend G.Reedy.

So I'm outraged. I honestly thought you were trolling because you missed the data point that proved my point and you did not go back to edit your post to correct your statement that ACS was the leader.

Thank you for posting again confirming your conclusions were wrong. I mean no offence to you

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers isn't ACS giving the most money to cancer, by a huge margin? (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

91.9% of $58,517,517 is $53,777,598

86.7% of $46,760, 046 is $40,540,959

59.5% of $840,201,383 is $499,919,822

97% of $687,663,239 is $667,033,341

[Edit] Ooops. Missed Sloan-Kettering. Fixed that. My math is right I was just missing all the data points.

so your math is right because ACS $499,919,822 is higher than the Memorial $667,033,341?

No, my math is correct. But ACS is clearly not the leader.

OK thank you. I lose my patience because several people try to prove me wrong when I provide facts supporting my point. Also, the millions of dollars misspent by ACS equal someone, in a hospital somewhere, not getting financial support for their cancer, and that money goes misspent and part of that misspent money goes to people like G.Reedy, to buy themselves a Ferrari. And people defend G.Reedy.

So I'm outraged. I honestly thought you were trolling because your math was so wrong and you did not go back to edit your post to correct your statement that ACS was the leader.

Thank you for posting again confirming your math was wrong. I mean no offence to you

Again, the math wasn't wrong. I did not include all the data points. I missed SK and went back and fixed it.

I think the assumption that if ACS disappeared that all other charities would increase is incorrect. I'm sure they would increase, but not by the amount that ACS decreases. Unfortunately, convincing others to give money is a big part of being a charity. Hell, if it was easy enough that people just sent the money we wouldn't have had to have the tournament or the ridiculous prize support that went with it.

Note: I'm not saying this in favor of the ACS, just stating a point that cannot go without consideration.

Example: The ALS foundation, whatever it was, had its moment in the sun because of the ice bucket challenge. Their donations skyrocketed. Before and after that viral moment, their donations were significantly less.

Personally I think any employee of a charity making more than enough to be called upper class needs some massive justification. While I think the ACS is justified in much of its branding/outreach/marketing funds, that salary for the CEO is definitely something that makes me go "hmm...."

40% of donations is NOT going to the CEO's salary. According to your own charity navigator link, 6% of the donation goes to administrative expenses, which is pretty closely in line with what I see from other charities in a quick look. The other 34% you're so worried about goes to fundraising expenses. You know what they get as a result of those fundraisers? More money. Again, according to your own link, in 2014 ACS spent $289 million on fundraising expenses. You know how much they raised from fundraising events? $441 million. 441-289 means that the 34% spent on fundraiser raised an additional $152 million they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So if you spend $10 on ACS, going by the numbers from your link, *only* 6 of it goes directly to programs, but another $3.44 goes to fundraising which generates $5.25 as a result, which means your $10 actually resulted in *more* money raised.

With $338 million raised form contributions and donations in 2014, they actually spent $500 million on programs.

hey look, in 5 minutes I found a cancer charity with 81% of ACS revenue, that spends 97% of the donations on the actual people in need, while ACS spends 60%

and its CEO has a salary of $626,926. I present you the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center. pick that one for CAC next year.

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, money to program 97%, revenue $687,663,239

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=131924236#.VwvYM6QrJaQ

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratingsandmetrics.php?charity_id=137

Breast Cancer Research Foundation, money to program 91.9%, $58,517,517

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5001

Cancer Research Institute, money to program 86.7%, total revenue $46,760,046:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3417#.VwvXuaQrJaQ

ACS, money to program 59.5%, total revenue $840,201,383:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.VwvXt6QrJaQ

Using these numbers isn't ACS giving the most money to cancer, by a huge margin? (Unless my math is wrong. Which could be the case.)

91.9% of $58,517,517 is $53,777,598

86.7% of $46,760, 046 is $40,540,959

59.5% of $840,201,383 is $499,919,822

97% of $687,663,239 is $667,033,341

[Edit] Ooops. Missed Sloan-Kettering. Fixed that. My math is right I was just missing all the data points.

so your math is right because ACS $499,919,822 is higher than the Memorial $667,033,341?

No, my math is correct. But ACS is clearly not the leader.

OK thank you. I lose my patience because several people try to prove me wrong when I provide facts supporting my point. Also, the millions of dollars misspent by ACS equal someone, in a hospital somewhere, not getting financial support for their cancer, and that money goes misspent and part of that misspent money goes to people like G.Reedy, to buy themselves a Ferrari. And people defend G.Reedy.

So I'm outraged. I honestly thought you were trolling because your math was so wrong and you did not go back to edit your post to correct your statement that ACS was the leader.

Thank you for posting again confirming your math was wrong. I mean no offence to you

Again, the math wasn't wrong. I did not include all the data points. I missed SK and went back and fixed it.

yes sorry, that's what I meant

Title pretty much makes your post not worth reading, the CAC hasn't done anything wrong. And making accusations like that does more harm than good. Chad and the CAC has done some amazing work and does deserve anyone thinking that he is preying on anyone - he isn't.

Yeah, yeah, the ACS could spend less on the admin side. That one figure doesn't tell you much about the effectiveness of the organization or the money they do put into research orgs, etc. So if you want to smear people based on one set of numbers then whatever. The CAC isn't the problem here like you are saying in your title. I hope you donated your $15 to your preferred organization then, because otherwise the non-admin portion of my entry is still doing more good than your $0 and accusations.

You could have done this a better and in a more positive way but your contrarian impulse won out I suppose.

Can we discuss what percentage of these posts are going to quoting the immediately preceding comment? That is outraging me!