Wide harm of sham charities
Those living farther from radiation centers more likely to receive mastectomy, study finds Credit: HealthDay
How bad is it to raise $9.1 million to battle breast cancer and then blow nearly all the money on other things?
That's the grim question raised by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is suing the nonprofit Coalition Against Breast Cancer on just these grounds.
Charities are supposed to use their money for the public good, which is why donations are tax-exempt, and it's the attorney general's job to see that they do. His case against the Coalition, based in St. James, hasn't been proved. But if these serious allegations are true, the organization's behavior was shameful.
A good nonprofit should spend at least three-quarters of its income on its stated purpose -- in this case, fighting breast cancer. Mammograms are one way to do that; a recent study from Sweden found that between 1,000 and 1,500 women must be screened in this way to save a single life. In the United States, mammograms cost around $150.
The bottom line? If the Coalition Against Breast Cancer had spent 75 percent of the $9.1 million it raised during the last five years on mammography for poor women here on Long Island, it might have saved 36 lives.
But the effect of the alleged wrongdoing goes beyond this, because it could deter other donors whose funds might have saved lives, and could even sour people on other charities.
That's why policing not-for-profit organizations isn't just important. It's a matter of life and death. hN
