JDCA Report: New JDRF Logo Has Negative Implications For A Cure
Responding to the news of JDRF’s recent rebranding, where they changed their logo and tagline, we have published a new report that outlines why we think this will hurt cure research. Moreover, we are not sure how they will reconcile these changes with donor intentions and the majority of fundraising events that use cure messaging.
The old JDRF logo included a tagline that read “dedicated to finding a cure”, while the new one states “Improving Lives. Curing Type 1 Diabetes.”
We find this change to be greatly problematic because it suggests that the JDRF is going to be allocating even more resources to diabetes treatments. Although we are certainly not against new treatments that help patients living healthy and comfortable lives (I am a type 1 diabetic and certainly want to manage my diabetes and live a healthy life), this initiative simply fuels the diabetes treatment market and partnerships between non-profits and commercial enterprises, whose foremost concern is providing lucrative returns for their shareholders. Treatments will continue to fund the diabetes market instead of finding a cure.
We realize that some welcome new diabetes products and treatments, but that is not the major reason why people donate money and participate in the “Walks for a Cure”, “Fund a Cure”, “Ride for a Cure” and so on. People give money because they want to see themselves or their loved ones cured within their lifetime, not simply move on from improved pump to improved pump. The JDRF and other foundations receive millions of dollars directly from such contributions and base a majority of their campaigns exclusively on the search for a cure. We hope that this new branding is accompanied with a revision of fundraising event messaging so that donors know exactly why they are raising money and how their donations will be used.
As noted in our Partnering with Commercial Enterprise report, we believe that the diabetes non-profits are the best organizations to find a cure because they are dedicated to people with type 1 diabetes. They are run by people with personal connections to type 1 and a passionate drive to find a cure. Unlike commercial enterprises, they are not blinded by making money or returning profits to investors. This is why we are disappointed and feel that donors should be aware of changes.
We urge you to read the full reasoning behind our disapproval here: Flash Note: JDRF Rebrands and Changes Logo.
-Stoyan
Thanks for your views on this. I’ll have to disagree, saying that I don’t feel the JDRF is turning away from a cure any more now with this new messaging than they’ve ever been. The road to a cure isn’t known, and Type 1 is more complex than anyone still even understands, and by improving lives we’re learning more about this autoimmune condition and what might be necessary to finding a cure. Not only that, we’re helping people on the path to that cure. I give my energy and resources to this organization because of the hope they provide. Some agree, others disagree. The beauty is that we have the freedom to donate to whichever organization we choose. As roughly 85% of the Type 1 community is made up of adults, and many adults simply don’t believe (but do HOPE) that we’ll see a cure in our lifetime, it’s significant that the JDRF is including that segment of the population more now than ever before. While not at all abandoning the others that are largely made up of parents of those Children With Diabetes.
I’m confused by two points: First, the JDCA claims that it advocates for the concept of a “practical cure” versus an “idealized cure”, and a “practical cure” is, in my assessment, precisely what the JDRF is now helping to advance. Yet in another statement, JDCA says “We find this [the JDRF rebrand] change to be greatly problematic because it suggests that the JDRF is going to be allocating even more resources to diabetes treatments.” The second point being that there is presently no budget revealed by the JDRF how much is presently being spent on treatments, or how much the organization will be allocating in the future, so JDCA should logically be pushing the JDRF for greater financial transparency, not necessarily critiquing its evolution. Second, if the point of this report is to call attention to the fact that fundraisers are being somehow mislead, do you not agree that the JDRF’s press release addresses these points sufficiently?
Hi Scott – I am curious to see which press release you are referring to in particular. The latest one on the JDRF website on November 2nd about their collaboration with the Helmsley Trust describes the methods they will trying out “to improve the lives of every person affected by T1D by accelerating progress on the most promising opportunities for curing, better treating, and preventing T1D.” The report is missing the two very central things the JDCA advocates for in a Practical Cure – a definition of a specific cure that they are looking for, and a timeframe for finding one. Yes, identifying those things with any certainty is hard. But we need to focus our efforts in this way if we are to see real progress. Insulin was discovered 90 years ago. Since then we have been “trying out new methods” and pouring millions upon millions into research – with no big results when it comes to a cure.
As far as JDRF’s expanses go – in particular, how they use the money that is donated to them through fundraisers (which, again, focus exclusively on the search for a cure), we have published our findings on Industry Expanses here: http://www.thejdca.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Industry-Expense-Models.pdf
In short, for 2010 the JDRF allocated 57% of the donor money towards research grants. That is actually better than other foundations, such as the ADA and Joslin, but still far from good enough, considering our survey on Donor Intentions revealed that more than 90% of people who donate money towards charities do so with the purpose of a type 1 cure in mind.
My comment was directed at the JDRF’s press release on the new logo and “rebranding” (see http://goo.gl/BmxUM for details). Again, your report is cited, yet the report states “Data as provided by the organizations. The JDCA has not independently verified the accuracy
of these figures, but will continue to research and monitor allocations made to Type 1 Research Grants and Type 1 Cure Research Grants”, but the figures do not appear to match the line items fom the organization’s IRS 990 filing, so where is the data coming from?
Hi Scott,
I work with Stoyan at the JDCA and have helped with some of the reports in the past (so I may be able to answer your question). When starting a report, our Director of Research Analysis looks through all of the material that is public (Annual Reports, Form 990, etc.) and then goes to the organizations with additional questions. The numbers used in the Industry Expense Models Report were broken down by the organizations themselves (and when they couldn’t be provided, as in the case of Joslin, we reported that they were NA). What we meant by “The JDCA has not independently verified the accuracy of these figures, but will continue to research and monitor allocations made to Type 1 Research Grants and Type 1 Cure Research Grants” was that we had no way of checking these figures with anything since the information is not cited in the Form 990. So, we took their word for it.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Cara