2B
L awrence J ournal -W orld - USA TODAY SUNDAY, MAY 8, 2016
Livestrong plans to continue fighting cancer v CONTINUED FROM 1B
inspirational global brand that distributed 2.2 million of its iconic yellow wristbands in 2010 alone. That year, the charity served more than 608,000 people with help and information in the fight against cancer, according to the foundation. In 2011, it had $47 million in revenue, according to its tax records, and about 90 fulltime employees. It was flying high until 2012, when its fortunes started to freefall — along with Armstrong’s — after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency exposed his history of doping and deceit in professional cycling. Since then, Livestrong has endured three consecutive years of annual revenue declines, down to $16.6 million in 2014 and with even less expected this year. With about half as many full-time employees as five years ago, the charity served 471,000 people in 2015. Wristband distribution also dipped to about 673,000 last year. Livestrong officials have had to “redesign their revenue generation based on what their programs are rather than Lance’s celebrity,” said Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch, a watchdog group. “They go back to being more of a traditional charity in how they generate their revenue. Hopefully, they’ll be able to do that, but it’s a different challenge.” To shelter itself from the fallout
KRISTIAN DOWLING, GETTY IMAGES
Lance Armstrong launched Livestrong in 1997 and still has supporters within the organization. surrounding its founder, the foundation tried to make a clean break — removing his Tour de France jerseys from an office wall and returning the artwork he had provided for decoration. Yet many Livestrong constituents still hail him as a hero, separating his sins in cycling from the lives that are touched by charity. “I’d give the man a kidney if he needed it,” said Genny Dalton, a cancer survivor. ‘WE DON’T NEED A CELEBRITY’
Cancer ranks as the second-leading cause of death in the USA, creating as much of a demand as ever
for Livestrong’s services — a portfolio of programs that helps people survive after the life-changing trauma of cancer diagnosis. The list includes navigating the health insurance maze, financial aid, preserving fertility and getting counseling for children. Armstrong’s controversies won’t lessen the need for the foundation’s programs, said Travis Kinney, 41, who was diagnosed with colorectal cancer last year and was scheduled for major surgery in early May. Kinney went to Livestrong to help him get counseling for his 11-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter.
“What Lance did had no bearing on the situation,” Kinney told USA TODAY Sports. “He started a great thing. … It continues to be a great resource. I don’t think he’s diminished the quality or the compassion. It’s not Lance here. It’s a bunch of awesome people trying to help survivors. I see it as two distinct things.” The people in charge of the foundation see it the same way but often are asked about their strategy: Should a new celebrity take Armstrong’s place as the face of the foundation? Wouldn’t that help boost donations? “We’re an organization that made a decision to stand on our own two feet, and it’s not about one person and it’s not about that person’s celebrity,” Livestrong Chairwoman Candice Aaron said. “It’s about all the people we serve. … We feel like we don’t need a celebrity, because the heroes of Livestrong are those people you encounter every day who are fighting cancer.” Armstrong declined to comment for this story. He resigned from the board in 2012. Aaron and Lee said they admired what Armstrong did for the foundation but said there had been no discussions or plans to bring him back. They also said the foundation wasn’t interested in giving the Lance Armstrong Foundation name to Armstrong because it’s a valued asset that would
be costly to transfer. If he got it, Armstrong could use it to start a charity that might compete with his old one. MORE WITH LESS
That leaves the foundation where it is now, highly protective of its assets, including about $70 million in reserves. It also is seeking stability at the top after two chief executives left in the past two years. Lee, Livestrong’s former chief financial officer, became Livestrong president in January, replacing Chandini Portteus, the CEO who resigned for personal reasons 10 months after being hired. Before her, Armstrong’s friend Doug Ulman stepped down as CEO in 2014. The foundation has scored several wins in the post-Armstrong era. uApril 14, the foundation announced a $1 million gift from Jeff and Jeri Mulder through their Shine Foundation in Michigan. uIn 2014, the foundation announced it would invest $50 million over 10 years to launch the Livestrong Cancer Institutes, partnering with the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas. uIt has expanded its partnership with YMCAs, where survivors can take a program to regain strength and health. Livestrong offers a grant to help fund it and now has it in 460 communities.
Sadly saddled with college debt v CONTINUED FROM 1B
four years at the private Georgian Court University — two for her bachelor’s degree and two for her master’s. “I do well,” said Iampaglia, who graduated in 2009 with her master’s in business administration. “But I think most people without student loan debt — if they made what I made — would have two Corrections & Clarifications USA TODAY is committed to accuracy. To reach us, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones at 800-8727073 or e-mail accuracy@usatoday.com. Please indicate whether you’re responding to content online or in the newspaper.
PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHER
John Zidich
EDITOR IN CHIEF
David Callaway CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER
Kevin Gentzel
7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, Va. 22108, 703-854-3400 Published by Gannett The local edition of USA TODAY is published daily in partnership with Gannett Newspapers Advertising: All advertising published in USA TODAY is subject to the current rate card; copies available from the advertising department. USA TODAY may in its sole discretion edit, classify, reject or cancel at any time any advertising submitted. National, Regional: 703-854-3400 Reprint permission, copies of articles, glossy reprints: www.GannettReprints.com or call 212-221-9595 USA TODAY is a member of The Associated Press and subscribes to other news services. USA TODAY, its logo and associated graphics are registered trademarks. All rights reserved.
cars, a house, a dog and a child. I have an old car and I live with my mom.” A variety of factors impact the cost of college and a student’s ability to pay back debt, said Mark Kantrowitz, a national student loan debt expert who has published several books, papers and editorials on the topic. The amount of debt an average college student has is affordable — but then there are the outliers, he said. Nationally, about a quarter of students graduate with excessive debt, but those who hurt the most are low-income students and students who take out loans but don’t graduate. As a general rule, if a student’s annual income is more than their student debt total, they shouldn’t have trouble paying the loans back in 10 years or less, he said. Those who do take on heavy debt struggle, even with a “good” job, he said. Christyn Gionfriddo, a Neptune, N.J., native and 2009 Centenary College graduate, is saddled with about $92,000 in student loan debt. At 29 years old, she still lives in her childhood bedroom, walls plastered with the same Dirty Dancing, 98 Degrees and Justin Timberlake posters from her tween years. “Who wants to live at home at 29?” she said. “I don’t. But luckily, I can. I have to be careful. I have to watch everything I spend. I shouldn’t be living paycheck to paycheck.” The communications major didn’t find a job in her field, but she is working in office administration with the opportunity for upward mobility. She also works on Saturdays when she can to help pay for her car and cell phone bills. Gionfriddo said she got an academic scholarship for part of her first year, but her parents made too much money for her to qualify for any state or school grants. The rising cost of tuition and fees is partly because of a decrease in state funding for higher educa-
PETER ACKERMAN, ASBURY PARK (N.J.) PRESS
Jamie Bradley of Brick, N.J., owes $145,734 in college loans so she is living with her father to help speed up her repayment.
“(College is) a pretty expensive business model. The biggest thing is personnel costs.” Will Doyle, a professor of higher education at Vanderbilt University
tion, experts say. There’s less money going to the colleges to offset tuition hikes and provide financial aid for low-income students. But state funding isn’t the only factor. Colleges and universities have a different set of costs to consider when it comes to charging tuition — health care, facility costs, energy costs — which makes the price go up faster than consumer inflation, Kantrowitz said. “It’s a pretty expensive business model,” said Will Doyle, a professor of higher education at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “The biggest thing is personnel costs. Every year, (colleges) are part of an economy
where it’s really difficult to become more efficient. It’s labor-intensive and it’s assumed that it takes a certain number of people and a certain amount of time to run a college.” Public colleges make up that shortfall by increasing tuition, shifting enrollment by admitting more out-of-state and international students, switching from full-time faculty to adjuncts because they’re cheaper, increasing class sizes and offering certain classes less often. Those changes can also affect the quality of education, he said. “During an economic downturn, states have to balance budgets,” Kantrowitz said. “Sales tax and income tax revenue are down — and higher education is not a priority.” The national average cost for tuition and fees is $9,142. A study by Vanderbilt University and the Pennsylvania State University Graduate School of Education found that New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire’s public, four-year tuition costs are the highest when compared as a percent of the state’s average family income: 36%. The lowest was Rhode Island at 19%. California, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Florida followed closely behind at 20%.
The trend over the past few decades has been to shift the cost from the government to families, Kantrowitz said. But that’s a problem when family incomes have been flat for over 10 years. The median family income rose by 0.8% from 1995 to 2005, but declined by 0.2% (adjusted for inflation) from 2005 to 2014, according to U.S. Census data. Data show that the average income for college graduates is significantly higher than non-grads. Doyle said each year of education yields a 10% bump in income. Both Democratic presidential candidates have included proposals for some kind of subsidized tuition for public colleges and lower student loan interest rates. But is it feasible? u Bernie Sanders’ $75 billion a year plan includes: eliminating tuition at public schools, cutting student loan interest rates to 2.37%, requiring higher-income students to pay for fees, room and board. The plan would be funded by taxing all Wall Street transactions a fraction of a percent. u Hillary Clinton’s $350 billion, 10-year plan includes: free tuition by funneling money to states based on enrollment, requiring families to make a “realistic” contribution, requiring students to contribute wages from a 10-hourper-week job, cutting interest loan rates in half, allowing graduates to refinance their debt at the lowest rates. The plan would be funded by “closing tax loopholes and expenditures for the most fortunate.” u Likely Republican nominee Donald Trump has offered few ideas for easing student debt aside from stating that the federal government shouldn’t profit from such loans. But Doyle said it’s unclear to him how either of the Democrats’ proposals would work in practice. Setting aside politics and taxes, states have widely different subsidy patterns, and there would be “immediate” concerns about how it would work from state to state.