Komen’s Crisis Came Not From Politics but From Poor Management Decisions

In the weeks since the nation witnessed a public crisis at one of the nation’s fastest-growing and most revered charities, it has become abundantly clear that the lessons from the debacle at Susan G. Komen for the Cure did not stem so much from politics or culture wars but from ill-advised management.

Regardless of one’s position on the highly emotional issue of abortion rights, Komen’s decision to end support for Planned Parenthood’s breast-cancer screening program was a textbook example of administrative decision making gone wrong. And the people who ended up getting hurt the most were those who were meant to be helped—women in need of screenings and care for breast cancer.

Now that some of the heat has subsided, it’s time to focus on the invaluable lessons the situation offers to scores of charities as they chart their course in an increasingly difficult time for nonprofits. Among them:

Mission must trump everything else. Komen lost its way when it diverted from attending to the needs of the people it serves and instead allowed itself to become wrapped up in the agenda of its leaders.

Komen for many years has proudly positioned itself in an apolitical manner as a group dedicated to financing the search for a cure for breast cancer and rallying the public to understand why such research is so important. Its ubiquitous pink ribbons stand as an admirable reminder of the focus and impact of its marketing and its mission. But the decision to pull money from Planned Parenthood appeared to stray from its apolitical agenda.

Many years ago, Komen decided to support Planned Parenthood’s breast-cancer screenings, largely because of the organization’s ability to reach a wide swath of the country’s women in need. That is where Komen’s attention originally was directed. Sadly, that is not where it stayed.

Never forget priorities of your constituents. The uproar over the decision to stop providing money to Planned Parenthood enraged Komen’s donors and volunteers not so much because they did or did not support abortion rights but because those people were loyal to a mission that focused on women with cancer and those at risk of getting the disease, many of whom could not otherwise afford life-saving care. Those supporters were not as concerned about what was happening down the hall at Planned Parenthood as they were about the women who have been saved from the ravages of breast cancer by dollars from the Komen charity.

Political figures bring good and bad baggage. Nonprofits that work closely with particularly polarizing figures in making closely watched policy decisions must recognize the risks.

That is not to say that politicians cannot make fine nonprofit leaders. President Obama, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and scores of other politicians have successfully and forthrightly used their nonprofit interests to immerse themselves in issues and causes they felt were important.

Rather, nonprofits must be cautious about ensuring that a politician so closely associated with a hot-button issue is not later perceived as exercising undue influence over the charity’s decision-making process.

When Karen Handel joined Komen as senior vice president for policy, she brought with her a promise to end support to Planned Parenthood because of the abortion services it provides. She made that well-known pledge about government money when she ran (unsuccessfully) to become the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Georgia. As a result, Komen’s decision to discontinue paying for breast-cancer medical services at Planned Parenthood was cloaked in that very public reasoning.

And that’s why Komen’s effort to explain the merits of its decision was doomed to fail, because the organization could not effectively disassociate itself from what was widely perceived as Ms. Handel’s agenda. Her resignation a few days after the scandal broke was further evidence of the problem.

A timely and forthright public response to mistakes is critical. Nonprofits are not immune from the reality that any less-than-candid response is often more troubling than the action or decision that preceded it. When Komen’s decision about Planned Parenthood became public, which was inevitable, the reactions of its leaders were swift and poorly thought out.

They denied it had anything to do with abortion politics. They claimed it was because Planned Parenthood was under “investigation” by the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. Few people believed that. Komen executives then squabbled over how the story became public, they argued about who had been involved in the decision, they did everything except be upfront about their decision making.

By offering questionable rationales, the organization succeeded only in infuriating everyone. Those who support abortion rights were angry that the issue would keep women from securing medical treatment that could help them detect cancer early. Those who oppose abortion rights were angry when the organization reversed its decision.

Where it had once so masterfully turned breast-cancer awareness into a national cause, Komen was now forced to “apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission.”

Social media’s speed and reach have changed everything. Just because nonprofits have an admirable mission does not mean they are immune to the power and reach of social media. After her departure from Komen, just a few days after the controversy erupted, Ms. Handel complained that Planned Parenthood orchestrated a social-media campaign against the organization, which “doesn’t have the strength in the area of social media.”

YouTube, Facebook, and mass e-mail contributed mightily to the uproar by quickly informing and galvanizing hundreds of thousands of concerned individuals. Cyberspace proved to be a tenuous place, even for the dedicated. The need for charities to be media savvy was never more evident, never more on display.

Despite its recent misadventures, Susan G. Komen for the Cure enjoys wide support and undoubtedly will continue to play a critical role in an important public-health issue for many years to come.

It is, however, far too tempting to marginalize the Komen foundation’s travails as an isolated occurrence in the nonprofit world.

Instead, the lessons from its problems should serve as a clarion call to nonprofit organizations to take care how they try to fulfill their public trust.