Race Radio, anti-RR, Polish and Twitter Campaigns

[Benotti69]

81%????

How does "over $400 million in revenues since inception in 1997", and "more than $245 million has been invested directly in cancer programs, initiatives, and advocacy efforts to change the way the world fights cancer." = 81%

I've taken out this part of the above sentence, "81% of each dollar spent".

Ok follow my math here

245 Million/400 million = 61%

Where does 81% factor into this? And this is using the number 400 million, even though they note it's actually over that.

Cancer programs, initiatives and advocacy could mean anything!

 

[thehog]

Cancer programs, initiatives and advocacy could mean anything!

At LIVESTRONG we pride ourselves in financial transparency. We will be posting more of these blogs throughout the year. More information about our financials can be found on our 990s and annual reports on our website. If you have any specific questions about LIVESTRONG’s finances, please leave them in the comments section below. We will answer them as soon as possible.

- go get 'em Race!

 

[MacRoadie]

I've taken out this part of the above sentence, "81% of each dollar spent".

Ok follow my math here

245 Million/400 million = 61%

Because they only "spent" $300 million on cancer, the other $100 million was "spent" on "other stuff"?

 

[Benotti69]

Because they only "spent" $300 million on cancer, the other $100 million was "spent" on "other stuff"?

bet the hookers and blow dealers in Texas are doing well out of it...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

You cynical b*stards must REALLY love cancer. Shame on you!

I'm off to take my hope-powered Unicorn on a romp through rainbow-lit meadows of beautiful flowers...

Enjoy your smelly caves of derision, infidels!

 

[D-Queued]

Livestrong fight back: http://livestrongblog.org/2011/05/02/where-the-money-goes/

... Mortenson... Lance Armstrong’s history will harm the Lance Armstrong Foundation. ...

Looks like the LAF & Lance had no problem making the connection. Thanks for validating that Mortenson has a lot in common with Armstrong.

In some ways, though, it is refreshing to know that they are aware of the criticism and concern even if they continue the obfuscation campaign.

(Wasn't I the first to note the legal action being commenced against Mortenson?)

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

$78 million (32%) has been spent on Research, Community Program, Centers of Excellence Grants and Awards.

Mary- LIVESTRONG is not a site-specific organization and we are not a traditional funding source for research.

Python says:
LIVESTRONG thanks a million for the great information. I spend most of my time telling people or directing people to your organization for help. Now that you have made it clear to the haters out there that you spend all the money on the Livestrong foundation this should stop some of the nonsense. I love you guys and LA. I love what you do for everyone around the world.

This can't be our Python??

Because they only "spent" $300 million on cancer, the other $100 million was "spent" on "other stuff"?

In the linked auditor's report for 2009, total income is listed as about $49 million, while expenses are about $35 million. A similar difference occurs in 2008. From other info there, I gather that such differences are invested in various securities. I don't know enough about charities to know if it is normal to invest such "profits".

In any case, of the $35 million listed for expenses, about $28 million is listed for program services. This is the source of the 81% figure.

 

[D-Queued]

This can't be our Python??

Reads more like anti-RR has been joined by anti-Python.

I will know I am important when there is an anti D-Queued.

Congrats Python, you have just reached official recognition status. You matter.

Dave.

 

[MacRoadie]

Congrats Python, you have just reached official recognition status. You matter.

He's not allowed to matter here for about a week...

Member Suspensions

 

[D-Queued]

He's not allowed to matter here for about a week...

Ah. Then he can bask in his newfound glory until then.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

81%????

How does "over $400 million in revenues since inception in 1997", and "more than $245 million has been invested directly in cancer programs, initiatives, and advocacy efforts to change the way the world fights cancer." = 81%

I've taken out this part of the above sentence, "81% of each dollar spent".

Ok follow my math here

245 Million/400 million = 61%

Where does 81% factor into this? And this is using the number 400 million, even though they note it's actually over that.

Exactly - and the figures of "$135 million on specific Cancer programs and initiatives(55%), $78 million (32%) on Research, Community Program, Centers of Excellence Grants and Awards and $32 million (13%) on Advocacy and Engagement activities and initiatives" is from that $245 million.


This line was also interesting......

A good example of this is our current Community Impact Projects where we are selecting 90 community based non-profits all over the country that will receive LAF funding to provide specific programs right in their local communities. We are planning to award over $700,000 to these groups.

....why give an example of what you will do and not just give examples of what they have done?

 

[Merckx index]

Exactly - and the figures of "$135 million on specific Cancer programs and initiatives(55%), $78 million (32%) on Research, Community Program, Centers of Excellence Grants and Awards and $32 million (13%) on Advocacy and Engagement activities and initiatives" is from that $245 million.


This line was also interesting......
....why give an example of what you will do and not just give examples of what they have done?

See my edited post just above. The auditor's report explains the 81% figure. Basically, whenever income outstrips expenses, the difference goes in unrestricted net assets, which accumulate over time. I will let someone who knows more about non-profit organizations than I do comment on this practice.

 

[Race Radio]

The foundation has been around for 15 years and they are just now getting around to telling people how they spend the money their followers give them?

(55%) has been spent on specific Cancer programs and initiatives.

55% is much different then 81%. This means that for each $1 you give to Livestrong .55 goes to cancer and the rest goes to ????

In is good to see they gave a list of "programs" the money goes to. Lets see

"Livestrong at school" "Livestrong at the YMCA" those sound cool.....and are a great way to sell Nike's.

The "Cancer Navigation Services" Really? This is just a link dump and some reskined tools designed by other groups. No way that cost more then $100,000

If anything this weak attempt at "Transparency" has raised more questions then it has answered. perhaps I am missing something. Does anyone see $40 million in programs?

 

[Polish]

Will not suprise me at all if Livestrong comes through the Witch Hunt with INCREASED donations.

They are dedicated and smart. Good combo.
Top notch charity.

Donate Today
.
.
.
.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Math problems

I posted a comment asking about their math-challenged post and it was moderated away. I asked nicely too.

That's so sad it has to come to this. Fortunately, when one has no expectations, there are no surprises.

 

[Merckx index]

55% is much different then 81%. This means that for each $1 you give to Livestrong .55 goes to cancer and the rest goes to ????

I posted a comment asking about their math-challenged post and it was moderated away. I asked nicely too.

That's so sad it has to come to this. Fortunately, when one has no expectations, there are no surprises.

Again, if you missed my posts, it's explained in the auditor's report. There may be other problems with LAF, but the 81% figure is correct.

"Livestrong at school" "Livestrong at the YMCA" those sound cool.....and are a great way to sell Nike's.

The "Cancer Navigation Services" Really? This is just a link dump and some reskined tools designed by other groups. No way that cost more then $100,000

If anything this weak attempt at "Transparency" has raised more questions then it has answered. perhaps I am missing something. Does anyone see $40 million in programs?

I tend to agree here. And smoke-free education? A lot of this stuff does seem questionable.

 

[Race Radio]

(32%) on Research, Community Program, Centers of Excellence Grants and Awards

Funny how they lump in research with the other programs. All the groupies think that their money goes to finding a cure. Smart to not let them know that less then 4% has gone to research

 

[D-Queued]

See my edited post just above. The auditor's report explains the 81% figure. Basically, whenever income outstrips expenses, the difference goes in unrestricted net assets, which accumulate over time. I will let someone who knows more about non-profit organizations than I do comment on this practice.

Even with very little data provided, there appears to be lots of questionable accounting. In this case, though, we need more information.

Not-for-profits cannot earn profits and do not have retained earnings. But they can and do plenty of 'fund' management. On the surface, there is nothing particularly wrong with putting excess funds into unrestricted net assets (for future endowment or programs).

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Funny how they lump in research with the other programs. All the groupies think that their money goes to finding a cure. Smart to not let them know that less then 4% has gone to research

Silly. Everyone knows it only takes a miracle to cure cancer.

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

Even with very little data provided, there appears to be lots of questionable accounting. In this case, though, we need more information.

Not-for-profits cannot earn profits and do not have retained earnings. But they can and do plenty of 'fund' management. On the surface, there is nothing particularly wrong with putting excess funds into unrestricted net assets (for future endowment or programs).

Dave.

So I think criticism of LAF has to focus on the actual value of the programs it funds. The money flow, as far as I can see from the auditor's report, is transparent. It all adds up. Total income - total expenses plus unrestricted net expenses.

In the auditor’s report, “functional expenses” lists these numbers, among others:

Salaries, wages and benefits to management: $222,000
Salaries, wages and benefits to fundraisers: $1,348,000
Travel expenses of management: $83,000
Travel expenses for fundraising: $187,000
Entertainment for management: $330
Entertainment for fundraisers: $321

Funny how they lump in research with the other programs. All the groupies think that their money goes to finding a cure. Smart to not let them know that less then 4% has gone to research.

Of course it goes back to the point that cancer is not a new cause, there are many other charities involved, some of which heavily support research. LA decided to find a niche elsewhere. Whether that niche is a good use of all this money is certainly a question that can be debated.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The foundation has been around for 15 years and they are just now getting around to telling people how they spend the money their followers give them?

C'mon now, be fair. Under the best conditions getting information that far back is problematic. Given my low expectations of the organization, they obviously picked that number for effect.

55% is much different then 81%. This means that for each $1 you give to Livestrong .55 goes to cancer and the rest goes to ????

No RR, 61% goes to 'raising awareness' because no one has ever heard of it before. It's 39% that is unaccounted. Hater.

In is good to see they gave a list of "programs" the money goes to. Lets see

"Livestrong at school" "Livestrong at the YMCA" those sound cool.....and are a great way to sell Nike's.

The information varies wildly depending on the YMCA site one visits. This one was pretty good: http://www.ymcahealthylivingcenter.com/index.cfm?nodeID=17803&audienceID=1

Basically, first 12 weeks are free with a medical referral. This probably varies, so don't generalize. But, what happens after the 12th week? Who gets paid what? It's a multi-level-marketing scheme on steroids. To be fair, they seem to do informational things for free. But, that page in particular is the perfect example of the .com/.org mystery.

The "Cancer Navigation Services" Really? This is just a link dump and some reskined tools designed by other groups. No way that cost more then $100,000

You are forgetting an important detail, their programs supply enough 'stuff' to have two classes. What happens after that? That's an honest question because they make it clear the resources are finite.

 

[MacRoadie]

Not-for-profits cannot earn profits and do not have retained earnings.

That's not quite true. While a non-profit can't earn profits (hence the clever name), there are a few circumstances where a not-for-profit can carry retained earnings, most often as a result of earmarking of assets (multi-year fund raising for large-tickets purchases), donations restricted by donors for specific uses that can't be utilized in a timely fashion, and assets retained to ensure the ability to meet uncertain future output demands (as buffers against economic conditions that might lead to decreased donations and increased demand for services).

It's typically reported in the "Statement of Activities" and isn't to be confused with an "Income Statement", and the "retained earnings" are treated as assets (net or restricted) and not as income not yet paid out to shareholders.

Having sat on several non-profit boards, it's not an unfamiliar dilemna.

 

[happychappy]

All hail lord Xenu and the Church of Scientology! No, wait.. what I meant to say was: All Hail lord Armstrong and the Church of Livestrong!

 

[D-Queued]

That's not quite true. There are a few circumstances where a not-for-profit can carry retained earnings, most often as a result of earmarking of assets (multi-year fund raising for large-tickets purchases), donations restricted by donors for specific uses that can't be utilized in a timely fashion, and assets retained to ensure the ability to meet uncertain future output demands (as buffers against economic conditions that might lead to decreased donations and increased demand for services).

It's typically reported in the "Statement of Activities" and isn't to be confused with an "Income Statement".

Having sat on several non-profit boards, it's not an unfamiliar dilemna.

If looked at from a 'for-profit' perspective, this is true. And, the for-profit would report Retained Earnings.

NFP's can functionally have a similar scenario (donations and receipts > program expenses) but these are not reported as Retained Earnings per se, nor as Shareholders Equity.

NFPs use Fund Accounting, and not a Statement of Earnings/Revenues/Turnover/Profit and Loss.

Dave.

 

[MacRoadie]

NFP's can functionally have a similar scenario (donations and receipts > program expenses) but these are not reported as Retained Earnings per se, nor as Shareholders Equity.

As I said:

It's typically reported in the "Statement of Activities" and isn't to be confused with an "Income Statement", and the "retained earnings" are treated as assets (net or restricted) and not as income not yet paid out to shareholders.

Theories of Nonprofit Retained Earnings Accumulation

I suppose that, semantically, you could refer to them as "retained assets", but I have heard the term "retained earnings" utilized many times with regard to not-for-profits, with the caveat that the speaker is aware that the assets relate to a not-for-profit and cannot be confused with the earnings of a for-profit entity.

Regardless, FASB 117 very clearly states that a not-for-profit can carry assets and in several cases can carry them without time limitations.

I'm no fan of the LAF, but the fact that they raise more money than they expend and carry a positive donation balance from year to year isn't really an "a-ha!" moment. I think there are far more legitimate criticisms of the LAF that would be a better use of our time.