A respected journalist, Stephen Long, has questioned the extent of fundraising and marketing costs incurred by the McGrath Foundation.
The article in the New Daily coincided with the foundation’s annual fundraiser at the Sydney Cricket Ground, where tens of thousands of cricket fans wear pink and donate to the charity.
Long says the McGrath Foundation spends more on fundraising, marketing and administration than on funding breast care nurses. A look at the annual report for 2022/23 lodged with the ACNC actually shows laudable transparency about the charity’s spending.
The report confirms $8.8 million was spent on “foundation-funded” (I.e. non government) breast care nurses, compared to $9.1 million on fundraising and marketing and $2.2 million on administration. Long adds this, “seems like an expensive way to fund an essential public service”.
The annual report also claims 68 cents in every dollar spent “went directly to our nursing program”. Long rightly notes that this figure includes government funds.
It appears to be a powerful point … if you don’t understand how charities work. The McGrath Foundation outsources service delivery, so it is essentially a fundraising and marketing organisation whose goal is to generate as much money as possible for a terrific cause.
And the charity is good at it. Annual revenue has grown from $13m to $38m since 2014. Donations grew from $1.3m to $10.4m (excluding fundraising events) over the same period, however growth has stagnated in recent years.
In 2017, Chairman John Conde said, “an important part of our efforts to add to our funding sources has been our investment in a programme of direct giving to encourage regular donations.” Donor acquisition, such as through tele-marketing and face-to-face fundraising, is people intensive and costly but delivers strong and consistent returns down the track.
Also, fundraising and marketing to the general public through public events (i.e. the pink test, high teas, stump days and community events) is not cheap – event kits, venue hire, travel, and catering costs etc. But those events reach many thousands of people who would not otherwise give to charity.
The commentary on social media is worth a look, with Stephen’s post attracting over 400,000 views so far.
One response to “Seeing red over pink fundraising costs?”
The comments do not look at what the charity achieves on the ground. It’s only looking at the balance sheet. It’s a quick way for a journalist to get some attention