Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.
Sorry for the slight delay in posting this, had a death in the family, so I didn't have time to follow up on this as quickly as I wanted with all the other more important deadlines coming up.
After our discussion thread, two things were clear:
1. If given the choice, people would want a charity with international effect, like charity:water.
2. The main issue with PCF was not in the charity itself, but communicating what it does, increasing research funding, and expanding international support.
First, I went ahead and first pitched our event to charity:water. They were receptive to the idea, and we worked for several weeks to figure out an arrangement that would allow us to run the event. In the end though, they were unable to come up with a way to cover event costs, because of their public donation promise. 100% of their public donations go to the cause, which drastically limits the funds they have available for fundraisers. The funds available would not cover the bare minimum cost of running the event, even without staff pay. However, a solution for this may open up down the line based on our shared research, via sponsor support. I don't expect this to happen in the next few years, but with enough growth, it's possible.
I immediately approached BBRF after charity:water fell through, but I was not optimistic, since BBRF has a similar donation setup to charity:water. Indeed, they spend almost nothing on fundraising, and were not really interested in working out a sponsorship arrangement. I consider them off the table for the foreseeable future.
I decided to skip NAMI, as their international impact is minimal. Unlike BBRF, they don't cover as much research, which could have international impact even if it's in the USA. This did not seem to meet people's interests in the discussion thread.
Given those results, I had to give PCF another hard look. Admittedly, time is now a factor, as we only have about 2-3 months to decide a charity, but it wasn't the only factor. I talked to PCF about the issues that had come up. They have been working on expanding international involvement, and we would expand that again for 2017. Furthermore, we will dramatically increase the communication about the charity, the grants, and the cause during the event, both on stream and in person. We'll be using our work with DWB as inspiration for how to improve that communication.
In order to make a serious commitment to international support, in 2017 we are working with PCF to commit to funding:
UICC (Union for International Cancer Control)
PCF has committed in 2016 to funding six (6) international technology transfer fellowship which provide rapid transfer of cancer research knowledge and clinical technology through person-to-person training. We would be looking to meet or expand this for 2017.
The aim of the fellowships is to facilitate rapid international transfer of cancer research – in prevention, early detection, treatment and cure – and clinical technology, exchange knowledge and enhance skills in basic, clinical, behavioral and epidemiological areas of cancer research, cancer control and prevention to acquire appropriate clinical management, diagnostic and therapeutic expertise for effective application and use in home organizations upon return. Since its inception, the fellowships have contributed to the development of the professional capacity of over 2,500 fellows from over 110 countries.
Also, to meet the demand for additional cancer research, in 2017 we are also working with PCF to commit to funding:
AACR (American Association for Cancer Research)
The Prevent Cancer Foundation has a long history of issuing partnership research grants to AACR, ranging from $100K to $150K for one research project.
The mission of the American Association for Cancer Research is to prevent and cure cancer through research, education, communication, and collaboration. Through its programs and services, the AACR fosters research in cancer and related biomedical science; accelerates the dissemination of new research findings among scientists and others dedicated to the conquest of cancer; promotes science education and training; and advances the understanding of cancer etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment throughout the world.
As an aside, if anyone has questions about PCF, even about the past events and their grants from those, feel free to ask. PCF is more than eager to get the information out there, and their latest donor letter for 2016 covered a lot of it. And of course, if you have any questions about our process, or AGDQ2017, I'd be happy to answer them.
I've closed the old discussion thread to keep discussion to a single thread, but discussions can continue here.
After our discussion thread, two things were clear:
1. If given the choice, people would want a charity with international effect, like charity:water.
2. The main issue with PCF was not in the charity itself, but communicating what it does, increasing research funding, and expanding international support.
First, I went ahead and first pitched our event to charity:water. They were receptive to the idea, and we worked for several weeks to figure out an arrangement that would allow us to run the event. In the end though, they were unable to come up with a way to cover event costs, because of their public donation promise. 100% of their public donations go to the cause, which drastically limits the funds they have available for fundraisers. The funds available would not cover the bare minimum cost of running the event, even without staff pay. However, a solution for this may open up down the line based on our shared research, via sponsor support. I don't expect this to happen in the next few years, but with enough growth, it's possible.
I immediately approached BBRF after charity:water fell through, but I was not optimistic, since BBRF has a similar donation setup to charity:water. Indeed, they spend almost nothing on fundraising, and were not really interested in working out a sponsorship arrangement. I consider them off the table for the foreseeable future.
I decided to skip NAMI, as their international impact is minimal. Unlike BBRF, they don't cover as much research, which could have international impact even if it's in the USA. This did not seem to meet people's interests in the discussion thread.
Given those results, I had to give PCF another hard look. Admittedly, time is now a factor, as we only have about 2-3 months to decide a charity, but it wasn't the only factor. I talked to PCF about the issues that had come up. They have been working on expanding international involvement, and we would expand that again for 2017. Furthermore, we will dramatically increase the communication about the charity, the grants, and the cause during the event, both on stream and in person. We'll be using our work with DWB as inspiration for how to improve that communication.
In order to make a serious commitment to international support, in 2017 we are working with PCF to commit to funding:
UICC (Union for International Cancer Control)
PCF has committed in 2016 to funding six (6) international technology transfer fellowship which provide rapid transfer of cancer research knowledge and clinical technology through person-to-person training. We would be looking to meet or expand this for 2017.
The aim of the fellowships is to facilitate rapid international transfer of cancer research – in prevention, early detection, treatment and cure – and clinical technology, exchange knowledge and enhance skills in basic, clinical, behavioral and epidemiological areas of cancer research, cancer control and prevention to acquire appropriate clinical management, diagnostic and therapeutic expertise for effective application and use in home organizations upon return. Since its inception, the fellowships have contributed to the development of the professional capacity of over 2,500 fellows from over 110 countries.
Also, to meet the demand for additional cancer research, in 2017 we are also working with PCF to commit to funding:
AACR (American Association for Cancer Research)
The Prevent Cancer Foundation has a long history of issuing partnership research grants to AACR, ranging from $100K to $150K for one research project.
The mission of the American Association for Cancer Research is to prevent and cure cancer through research, education, communication, and collaboration. Through its programs and services, the AACR fosters research in cancer and related biomedical science; accelerates the dissemination of new research findings among scientists and others dedicated to the conquest of cancer; promotes science education and training; and advances the understanding of cancer etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment throughout the world.
As an aside, if anyone has questions about PCF, even about the past events and their grants from those, feel free to ask. PCF is more than eager to get the information out there, and their latest donor letter for 2016 covered a lot of it. And of course, if you have any questions about our process, or AGDQ2017, I'd be happy to answer them.
I've closed the old discussion thread to keep discussion to a single thread, but discussions can continue here.
Thread title: