CBC Marketplace has just reported that in 2000, the Canadian Cancer Society spent 40.3% of its budget on research. That proportion has declined over the years to less than 22% in 2011, though the amount has increased in absolute terms.

The account appears to be inspired by a cancer research scientist who doesn't think the society spends enough on research. So far, it's "dog bites man."

But Marketplace, and the major newspapers who parroted the report, didn't stop there. "Cancer society spends more on fundraising than on research" proclaimed the headlines. True, but incomplete. The Canadian Cancer Society also spends money on

• advocacy (recently challenging our government's refusal to join the rest of the world in declaring asbestos a dangerous substance),
• patient and family support services (everything from support groups to driving patients to appointments),
• education, and
• prevention.

And like research, the absolute amount spent on those efforts has grown.

Society needs more media savvy

Now the Canadian Cancer Society did itself no favours with its reaction to the Markplace scrutiny. It declined to take part in the Marketplace segment, thereby missing a chance to spotlight the full range of its programs. Though a spokesperson made a brief case by email, the portion quoted in the segment was pretty formulaic. And by noon on the day after it aired, the Society still hadn't posted a full response in its online media room.

But even without that participation, Marketplace might have asked other questions - for example:

• What is the impact, the outcome, of research dollars spent over the years? It's not hard to find stories as critical of the "cancer research establishment" as this story is of the Canadian Cancer Society.
• What are researchers doing to eliminate duplication and competition so that available funds can be spent most effectively?
• How much money is being spent overall on cancer research? Of Canada's 190 cancer-named charities, 133 have been registered in the last 15 years. It's reasonable to assume that at least some of them have helped to grow the overall pool of funds available for research in the past decade.

As is often the case with media comment on charity expenses, Marketplace did not challenge the researcher's perception that if the Society spent less on fundraising, there would inevitably be more available for research.

More thought, better analysis

For a much better-informed perspective on the controversial issues of charity impact and efficiency, you might want to check out "The Charity 100" in the summer issue of MoneySense magazine.

That article recognizes that impact matters entirely apart from cost. And it includes governance and transparency among its must-haves. Its writers have even listened to Dan Pallotta and others, and added a new section this year that allows charities to describe their impact (though only if they've already made the cut).

By the MoneySense measures, the Canadian Cancer Society looks pretty good. Though the national society isn't listed among the top health charities, its percentage of spending on programs (57%) almost matches the 57.2% average achieved by those on the 2011 list.

That average proves what health sector leaders have known all along - that fundraising for health care, once you reach out beyond the core of people devastated by the disease or healed at the institution, is expensive and competitive.

Should there be 190 charities in Canada dealing with cancer research, support, advocacy, and education? That's a question for donors to decide. And ultimately, they will.


Contact Janet; follow her on Twitter, @CFPed.Check out the MoneySense evaluation criteria.