Donations To Cancer Society Support Worthy Efforts

To the editors:



Re “Corrupt Charities,” op-ed, May 15:

Volunteers and workers at non-profit charities do not consider themselves immune to criticism; in fact, those of us who volunteer our time at non-profits are eager to critically examine our own practices and to learn how to do our work more efficiently, quickly, and effectively.

There are times, however, when this criticism crosses the line. Case in point: the unfounded claim in this op-ed that large non-profit charities are “shoddy,” “nearly-fraudulent,” and “out of control.” The writer, Lucy M. Caldwell, begins by arguing that the American Cancer Society (ACS) spends “only 26 percent of its national multibillion-dollar budget on actual medical research.” The rest, she claims, is waste. Caldwell seems to be unaware that the cancer society does much more than fund research. For every dollar collected by ACS:

Thirty-six cents are devoted to medical research and other national programs, including a 24-hour call center for cancer victims and their families.

Thirty-one cents are devoted to prevention, detection, and advocacy programs.

Fourteen cents are devoted to Hope Lodges, which provide cancer victims and their families free shelter while they receive treatment away from home.

Seventeen cents are devoted to fundraising events like Relay for Life and Daffodil Days.

Two cents are devoted to management operations.

Caldwell calls everything besides medical research “overhead costs.” ACS is paying employees, she argues, instead of funding scientists. If these employees are providing recently diagnosed patients with vital information over the phone, then we say keep it up.

ACS is spending money on the maintenance of buildings, Caldwell argues, instead of supporting research. If these buildings house sick cancer patients and their supportive but struggling families, then we say keep it up.

Caldwell makes the spurious assumption that any ACS activity not directly devoted to research is wasteful. The author neglects to mention that ACS received the Better Business Bureau’s “Wise Giving Seal” for the efficiency of its activities. Even if ACS could be more efficient—and we are always striving to make it so—the claims of corruption and fraudulence are completely unsupported and fraudulent themselves.

Perhaps the most hurtful claim that the writer levels, though, is that of insincerity. There are literally millions of volunteers like us that form the heart of ACS, all of whom have been touched by cancer in one way or another. Ask any one of the 1,100 students that gathered a couple weeks ago for the Relay for Life at Gordon Track to raise over $150,000. They will tell you their own stories about how they were motivated by the tragic illnesses of their parents, siblings, and friends.

Caldwell’s op-ed is an outrage because it uses misinformation and disingenuous innuendo to discourage people from donating to a worthwhile cause. We invite Caldwell to participate in Relay for Life next April so that she can cheer the dozens of cancer survivors that take the first lap of our Relay and so that she can join in the luminaria ceremony in which participants decorate glowing bags in memory of loved ones lost to cancer. Caldwell calls this “razzle dazzle” and needless “fun.” We call it a community of support and a celebration of hope.



JOSEPH M. HANZICH ’06

NATASIA A. DESILVA ’08

DAVID S. ROSENTHAL ’59

Cambridge, Mass.

May 16, 2006



Hanzich is co-director of Harvard Relay for Life. DeSilva is president of the Harvard Cancer Society. Rosenthal is director of University Health Services and Oliver professor of hygiene.