Another cancer charity under investigation; a summarized 2013 income statement

The Wall Street Journal reports an additional Cancer Nonprofit Investigated by Tennessee Secretary of State’s Office.

If you have been following the suit by the FTC and all 50 AGs against a group of four cancer charities, it will be worth checking out the article to learn another charity is under investigation in its home state.

The key leader of this organization has a familial link to the four in the FTC investigation. The article links this charity to those four.

Not much detail in the article about the particulars of this investigation. As to the general direction, you can get some hints from this quote in the article:

“They appear to follow a pattern similar to the groups that were part of the [FTC] claim,” said CharityWatch President Daniel Borochoff.

I cannot readily find the 990 for 2014, which the WSJ reporter cites.

The 990 and audited financials for 2013 are available at the New York AG site. You may prefer the second listing with a 2013 date. The first listing dropped the accountant’s report.

I looked at the audited 2013 statement of activity and statement of functional expenses. I have recast that information to give the following picture of the organization:


 GIK    2,869,848
 “telemarketing contributions”    1,482,221
 other income         27,580
 total revenue    4,379,649
 telemarketing fees     1,248,041
 product distribution     2,801,217
 shipping costs          42,557
 “caging”          67,383
 legal fees          43,551
 salary & benefits          55,138
 other expenses        100,108
 total expenses     4,357,995
 change in net assets          21,654


Read that as you wish. You may perform whatever percentage calculations you wish.

I am not quite sure what “caging” means. From my previous reading, I think that refers to the costs of processing the incoming contributions. If that is the case, it would be a fee charged by the telemarketers to process deposits. The telemarketing fee is shown as fundraising while the caging costs are G&A, which is the proper categorization, in my opinion.

Keep watching for more news on this organization. If the WSJ report is correct, we will likely hear more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *