The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada is calling a recent Toronto Star investigation about spending at the charity “sensationalist” and a “very unfair and undeserved attack.”

In a response posted on the charity’s website, President Shelagh Tippet-Fagyas said the “attack” will “do nothing to deflect us from our commitment to our mandate, our donors and the families and researchers whom we support.”

The Star’s investigation, published Monday, found serious issues with how donor dollars were being spent at the charity. Among them, what the charity was counting as charitable works in their “public education programs” and patient support; as well as the relatively few Canadian dollars devoted to research.

Concerns were echoed by Star readers, including Richmond Hill’s Bill Nicholov, a three-time blood cancer survivor who said he has raised $20,000 for the charity.

“We started to have suspicions about the (charity’s) wasteful spending, which was a big reason that we stopped fundraising,” said the 40-year-old, noting he received a lot of mail asking for donations and questioned why the charity would need two separate offices in Toronto.

On the issue of research, the charity boasts that $6 million is given annually to Canadian researchers working to find a cure.

The Star found this is misleading because about $4 million of that comes from the charity’s U.S. affiliate. The Canadian charity gave $1.7 million of the $15 million it raised in both 2012 and 2013 to research (11 cents of each dollar).

In its responses to Star questions, the charity said its reporting method for research is an “industry standard” endorsed by watchdog organizations like Charity Intelligence.

The Star asked Charity Intelligence about this before publishing Monday’s investigation, and the organization said it would not endorse such reporting unless the charity made it clear that money came from the U.S.

“Unless this is clear, and it currently is not on their research spending page on their (website), it is misleading to donors,” said Greg Thomson, research director at Charity Intelligence.

An internal breakdown of the charity’s finances, obtained by the Star, shows much of the donor money raised through walks, runs and bottle drives in Canada is spent on fundraising and administrative costs — for example, high rents for offices (including two in Toronto and two in Montreal), on travel budgets and “professional fees” that include a “design and brand” consulting contract at over $18,000 per month.

One internal document labeled “Cost of Raising Money” states the price of the charity’s fundraising events in 2013, revealing an average cost of 72 cents per dollar raised.

The Star spent three months researching the charity and spoke with several insiders who raised concerns about spending.

Charity president Tippet-Fagyas said Monday she was “unhappy” about the Star’s “misrepresentations and selective use of information leaked to them by a critic of the (leukemia society).”

She went on to say the charity was doing “invaluable work” across Canada and that in 2013 the society spent 57 per cent of total revenue on its mission areas of research, education programs and patient support.

The leukemia charity claims it spent $7 million on education and patient support in 2013, and that some costs in the “Cost of Raising Money” document should have been placed in these categories.

Insiders called the numbers “creative accounting.”

A central question for the Star has been: “What value are donors receiving from the education programs and patient support?”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

In response, the charity provided a list of examples, including information about 200 parents and educators who benefited in 2013 from a program that helps children with leukemia transition back to school. It also said it participated in about 50 health fairs, and that a remembrance ceremony and recognition of survivors is held at the 11 Light the Night walks across the country each year.

The Star could not find the value with the information given. Nor could a “frustrated” Thompson, of Charity Intelligence. “On the issue of what the charity actually does, there is not enough information provided for a donor to feel comfortable that they know what happens with their donations,” he said.