Editorials
Relay for Life not the most worthwhile charity
On April 20, a crowd of 1,732 students, staff, and cancer survivors gathered on Multi-Sport Field to celebrate Georgetown’s 2012 Relay for Life, the primary fundraising arm for the American Cancer Society. For this year’s festivities, Georgetown students raised $205,093 for cancer research. That number, along with the overall turnout at the event, is a disappointment for a program that earned a peak donation of $402,000 in 2009 and attracted over 3,000 participants in 2011. Despite the drop, Relay for Life is still one of the most enthusiastic and widely attended charity events on campus. While such strong turnout for a charity event is laudable, it is disappointing that students dedicate such a small amount of time to causes that are equally pressing, though less visible in our community of privilege.
Cancer kills over half a million Americans each year; it certainly warrants our attention, and its survivors our respect. But Relay for Life is a woefully inefficient charity. Upon examining the American CancerS ociety’s financial records, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that the funds raised by Relay for Life are not utilized to their full potential. According to Charity Navigator, an Internet watchdog for charitable organizations, in 2009—the the most recent year available—the ACS spent a middling 71.6 percent of its revenue on cancer research, wasting away 6.1 percent on staff salaries and another 22.2 percent on fundraising expenses. Such percentages are mediocre; many charitable organizations with far fewer resources are better stewards of donations. In 2009, CEO John Seffrin earned a chilling annual salary of $914,906. For an organization dedicated to funding research, these statistics are inexcusable.
Relay for Life spends an egregious amount of funds promoting its own brand. Relay might try to justify these expenditures by claiming that its efforts boost cancer awareness, but among the most statistically prevalent diseases, cancer is one of the most well-known.
In fact, the key to Relay for Life’s popularity is undoubtedly the ubiquity of cancer. Cancer sees no sex, class, race or sexual orientation. It takes lives indiscriminately, affecting people of every socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, diseases that predominately impact lower socioeconomic classes receive minimal attention. Take HIV/AIDS, which has reached epidemic levels in the District’s poorest wards. Given the available prevention and, albeit expensive, treatment methods available, AIDS ought to be a central focus of fundraising efforts on campus. Unfortunately, it is not.
It is no surprise that at a university whose student body is overwhelmingly upper-class, white and privileged, cancer is better able to mobilize students on an enormous scale. Of course cancer is a serious killer, but it is a shame that a disease has to hit students close to home for them to care.
The opinions expressed in this editorial are not new, but they are very misguided. By traditional standards, the percentage breakdown on spending sounds ridiculous, but this kind of mindset is exactly what chokes the non-profit industry. If the CEO and staff are not paid a high salary, how can one of the biggest and most innovative charities in America attract top business talent? In addition, since the ACS’ mission is not only to fund research but to also provide advocacy, a 22.2 percent portion on fundraising makes a great amount of sense.
Also explained here: http://www.uncharitable.net/about_book.html
Hey Voice Editorial Board, how about this:
Good job Relay on your hard work and altruism. Now let’s all get together and do something similar for HIV/AIDS.
As one of the co-chairs for Relay For Life 2012, let me first begin by saying that this year was by no means, \a disappointment\. While it may be convenient for the Voice to look at our numbers compared to previous years, I don’t only concentrate on the numbers as a gauge for our success.
I am proud of what we achieved this year. Our event was by far the best we’ve ever seen, with a completely new look compared with previous years. Our survivors were so pleased with the work we had done, and appreciated all that we did to make this event happen. More people stayed later this year. The list could go on of what I’m proud of with this event.
I am not dissapointed by what we did this year. I hold my head proud with my fellow co-chairs, my executive board, and our committee. We poured blood sweat and tears into this event and for the Voice Editorial Board to call it a failure, is unbelievably hurtful.
At Georgetown, we are told to be men and women for others. That is exactly what Relay For Life embodies. We are men and women for others, trying to find the cure for cancer before it takes another mother, father, brother, sister, husband or wife. The immense amount of support on campus comes from that fact. We have all lost someone to cancer, and we know how terrible this disease can be.
I lost my father to cancer. When I came to Georgetown, my father wasn’t there to drop me off for school. He wasn’t there to teach my how to drive. I gave the eulogy at my father’s funeral when I was 15. So am I going to do everything I can to make sure that doesn’t happen to anyone else? Hell yes I am.
While it would be nice for the Voice to appreciate our success, all the matters to me is making my father proud. I know how proud he would be of what I helped to achieve. Since 2006, Georgetown Relay For Life has raised over $2 Million in the fight against cancer. This year we broke that milestone, and I was apart of that. I was the co-chair that helped Georgetown pass $2 Million.
But it is disheartening to know that the Voice is willing to undermine that success. Even willing to undermine the fight against cancer. Our dollars are making a difference. The money we raise goes to life saving research. Some of that research is happening here at Georgetown at the Lombardi Cancer Center. Millions of dollars from the ACS have gone towards research at our Lombardi Cancer Center. Why don’t you ask them what our fundraising efforts mean to them? Why don’t you ask the people battling cancer and our survivors what our dollars mean to them?
To them, these dollars aren’t just a nice headline. To them, these dollars are about staying alive.
With Hope,
DJ Wise
I have a hunch that whoever wrote this has not lost a loved one to cancer. A lot of my experience with the RFL committee here is that it is a bunch of motivated individuals who have felt the crushing sting of losing someone they loved to cancer, or have been diagnosed with cancer themselves. So why shouldn’t they be allowed to volunteer with a cause that they are personally affected by?
The paragraph about cancer’s ubiquity is precisely why RFL gets a large turnout every year: because everybody is affected by it. It is human nature to want to join something that has touched you personally. It is extremely disappointing to see the reason why so many people come out to volunteer is the reason this editorial board (disgustingly) thinks Georgetown should not.
Though I suppose the editorial board spends its spare time volunteering for HIV/AIDS research? That must be the reason why they feel the need to condescend so many people who volunteer for a cause that has personally affected them. Otherwise, it’d just come off as hypocritical to sit back and say \This cause is more worthwhile,\ but to do nothing at all.
Obviously the Voice editorial board didn’t do its fact checking. Relay For Life (note the capital F), not Relay for Life is correct.
I was doing some internet surfing for some Relay For Life statistics and came across this grossly incorrect article. I am very disappointed that the publisher can bash college students that are wanting to make the world a better place.
The older generation is always saying that the younger generation doesn’t care for anyone but themselves. Here is a group of individuals that have taken time out of their full college life to make an impact in the world. Whether it be $200,000 or $400,000 it is still more than doing nothing! I believe that in this economy where the unemployment is at peak levels and student loans are at a gross high, $200,000 is a grand accomplishment.
22% of administrative costs. Does this include all of the patient programs that serve any income level person? How about the patient navigator that helps the patient find monetary, emotional and educational resources? THe American Cancer Society isn’t just about research it is about healing/helping the patient also! How about all those free nights of stay at the Hope Lodges all over the nation? Besides the Ronald McDonald house (which is only for children), what other Non profit does that for their 22%.
THe American Cancer Society is the largest contributor to cancer research in the entire country including our own government.
Last I checked, AIDS is preventable. Cancer is nondiscriminatory. Cancer also affects the lower class also as they can’t afford to be screen like the elitist that you are talking about. So in the long run, we are helping them too.
Shame on you for this report, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Has the editorial board actually compared the percentage used by the ACS for adminstrative costs to what other non-profit organizations are using? Because for a non-profit, the ACS is among the top organizations who allocate their costs correctly and appropriately.
Additionally, it takes months and months to run a Relay For Life event, and the volunteers who give their time and money to organize it, do so for free. Why would you write an article that undermines the success and heartfelt efforts of volunteers who have felt the struggle that comes with a cancer diagnosis-whether it be themselves or their loved ones?
Please, do your research, and check your conscience.