Misleading analysis of charity spending: Our response

well without cancer research, the drug my auntie took would not have been available. and we would have lost her three years earlier than we did, so I think your work is amazing, and the papers should get their facts right.

All this money and still no significant breakthroughs though. Cancer research fund research and development and then pass any discoveries onto pharmaceutical company’s to produce drugs which they then sell back to the NHS for silly money. And these drugs offer a few months of life extension, not years, and often with awful side effects. When you ask people to give money glibly stating ‘we’ll beat cancer!’ It makes me think what an awful charity.

We would like to know if you intend spending £1,500 for a table at the Queens birthday party. This table should be given to your organisation for free, in thanks for all the work you do. As pensioners my husband and myself are very upset about this. We only donate £5 per month, but how many months donations will be used up paying for this table. We strongly object to this money being charged to a CHARITY, all of the charities in fact. The Queen is an extremely wealthy woman, this event should be given free for charities, as a thank you, and not for her grandson Peter Phillips to make a large sum of money, out of the goodness of ordinary peoples generosity. We give to several charities, and will seriously consider withdrawing our support from the ones who pay £1,500 for this money making event.

That is a really good ratio. We have to remember that even the cost of water bills, marketing and printer paper play a role in the amazing outcomes of this organisation. I think a lot of people worry that donating $1000 and it going towards a TV ad that generates a further $100,000 is not reaching the cause but you have to understand that is probably one of the most helpful places you can invest in. I’d highly recommend: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en

I see the link to my report is not showing up

Cut and paste this link into your web browser

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/so-true-fair-my-critique-flawed-report-why-cost-ratios-pesh-framjee?trk=mp-author-card

The so called True and Fair Foundation’s Report is hopelessly flawed. I have carried out a detailed critique of this report and none of the allegations stack up. They made rudimentary and basic errors in their analysis. (if the link does not work then Google ‘Neither True nor Fair’)

In Cancer Research UK’s case they have not understood the impact of trading (See Section 5 of my critique). The charity could immediately achieve the T&F Report’s arbitrary target of charitable send of 65% simply by giving up their charity shops but this would mean that they have a lot less money for their charitable activities. In addition, this flawed report has failed to recognize that investing in a research institute is as much charitable expenditure as making research grants. The numbers used in the report wrongly exclude the many millions invested in the Francis Crick Institute. (See Section 6 of my critique).

More importantly we as donors and supporters of charities need to understand that it is not possible to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of a charity by comparing cost ratios and overhead rates. (See Section 8 of my critique). We should focus on what is being achieved in the important fight against cancer – this is shown in Cancer UK’s annual report and website.

Do not be influenced by this report, it is superficial and has been proven to be hopelessly wrong. The Telegraph that headlined the report has provided a link to my critique as an update at the bottom of their article. Unfortunately, the misleading headline is what the readers see.

“Why is it excluded ?”
“You claim that for every £1 donated 80p is available to beat cancer i.e. 80% and yet you can only account for 73% as quoted above .”

The disprepancy is because money generated through shops is not donated. It is money spent in return for goods Surely that’s simple enough to understand? I don’t work for CRUK but it’s pretty obvious to me.
People who give money (as opposed to buying cheap stuff in a charity shop) want to know where their moeny is going, and 80% of it is going to beat cancer.
If you’re getting bargains in a CRUK shop then you’re not donating money to beat cancer- you’re getting a bargain and any profit goes to cancer research. But you’re not a donor, and you can’t expect 80p in the pound to go to research.

It makes perfect sense for any chariity that runs shops to account for donations and sales seperately as it gives donors a clearer sense of where their money goes.

We generate over £20m contribution from these stores but, because the economics of these stores are very different to voluntary fundraising, where supporters give us their money, we exclude this income from the calculation of our efficiency)…So on a yearly basis should this not still be included in your balance sheet? Income £20m less rent , rates etc for each shop? Profit and Loss status? Why is it excluded ? If its income it should be included , if its a loss why bother with the shops?

Misleading analysis article
You contradict yourself. You claim that for every £1 donated 80p is available to beat cancer i.e. 80% and yet you can only account for 73% as quoted above .
“On its own this would have increased our ratio in the table you quote to 73 per cent.

Secondly, CRUK includes in its annual accounts a clear explanation that shows that for every £1 donated 80p is available to beat cancer.

The general public would understand that in trading i.e charity shops some years a profit is made and some years a loss is made so why not include the cost / income of charity shops and on-line shop (Christmas Cards) in the calculation of the amount of income going direct to charitable purposes.

I will still support you but donating goods to your shops BUT I still think that the voluntary sector has a whole needs to be investigated by the Charity commission.

I have longed believed that if the billions that must have been collected by the public alone had really gone into research and not the pockets of the administrator’s and scientists we would have the cure 30 yrs ago ,,they still use the killer Chemo because of the money the drug companies make I am old enough to remember my mother and brother in law being cured of cancer by the hospital Radio machines they both lived another 40 yrs unlike both of my daughters that are dying from Chemo Killer which was first used by the Doctor of Death Menglar in Polish concentration camp, The drug companies are committing mass genocide with the help of docs who write the prescription’s what happened to the Hippocratic oath of First do no harm ? They soon found out how to control aids ,,,,,

I have had a cold caller knock at the house this evening showing me your accreditation is this now part of your fundraising strategy ?