The Problem with Having a Problem with Administration

For one reason or another, this article appeared on my newfeed today. It's called "ICE BUCKET FRAUD: ALS FOUNDATION ADMITS THAT 73% OF DONATIONS ARE NOT USED FOR ALS RESEARCH".  All caps, so the author means business.

The article fumes that over 73% of the Ice Bucket Challenge donations (we're all familiar with that) go to fundraising, overhead, executive salaries, and external donations.  They cite an organization called the ECFA.  It's a Christian nonprofit watchdog group that bases their standards of charity on the bible.  They write that only 27% of the funds will go to research.  That's true.  They even provide this handy pie chart.

Notice that, yes, 27% goes to Research, but 51% goes to Public and Professional Education and Patient Community Services.  That's 78% that goes directly to the services the ALSA says they provide in their mission statement on the homepage of their website:

Leading the fight to treat and cure ALS through global research and nationwide advocacy while also empowering people with Lou Gehrig's Disease and their families to live fuller lives by providing them with compassionate care and support.

Those monsters.

My real gripe with that article was how much the author despised administrative fees.  Admin is one of the most difficult areas to fund for any nonprofit.  Normally, the rule is to keep them below 20% of the total budget.  I think that's a rule created by the infinite network of trustees who have limited experience in nonprofit. Across the board, no one thinks their money should be used to pay people fair salaries. This is why nonprofits have difficulty finding qualified employees.  While the industry, as a whole, doesn't compete with for-profit businesses that provide a tangible product, they compete with every industry for employees.  An MBA graduate is less likely to work for the ALSA because they can make exponentially more money on Wall Street.

A real nonprofit watchdog, Charity Navigator, says Jane H. Gilbert, executive director of the ALSA, received $297,288 in the 2013 fiscal year.  According to the ALSA website, she has a masters degree and has been in her position for five years. Before that, she was the Senior Vice President for the American Red Cross in DC for 3 years, and the development director at the Boys and Girls Club in Omaha.

To put that in perspective, the average entry level salary for an MBA graduate in Washington DC is $109,000.  The average.  This doesn't include bonuses (the ALS gave $12,000 in bonuses in 2013).

What this shows is that someone who has extensive experience in nonprofit and has made it to one of the highest positions in their field, will only ever make three times as much as someone with a shiny new MBA, just starting their career.

Why do the public feel people who choose noble career paths in nonprofits deserve to be paid less than those who give their skills to capitalism?  Imagine what we could do for social services if the innovators who work at Google and the financial analysts who work at Bloomberg were tasked with running a nonprofit.

By not nitpicking where their money is spent, we could help nonprofits compete with for-profit businesses for qualified employees by offering higher salaries without the inevitable guilt trip that comes with a large paycheck.

Note: Admin spending isn't only executive salaries.  It's also things like new computers, copy toner, and office rent. None of those things sound as sexy to donors as petry dishes.

Somaly Mam: Means Justifying an End

 If you keep up with current events, you've probably seen one or two articles on Somaly Mam, the founder and former CEO of the eponymous charitable foundation.  This organization addresses women's rights in Cambodia, specifically in terms of sex trafficking and exploitation.

I've been putting off this post because, in truth, I have no idea what to make of the new revelations about the Somaly Mam Foundation.  Here's the controversy's gist:

• Mam claimed to be a survivor of child sexual exploitation, which is untrue.  She grew up with both parents and graduated high school.
• The women in Somaly Mam's videos were not trafficked and were coached to say they were forced into sex slavery for the sake of donations.
• Some of the women were "willing prostitutes" who were rounded up during a police raid of a brothel and sent to a vocational training school where they were instructed to tell foreigners they were trafficked.

The knee-jerk reaction to this is, simply, outrage.  This has provided fodder for the anti-NGO crowd to continue their crusade in convincing the world that NGOs are inherently evil and profit-driven. Those who are less-invested in tearing down all privately-funded social services simply think lying is very bad.  Mam lied.  Therefore, she is very bad.

I have a slightly different view.  

The media isn't doing any favors for survivors by pointing out a phony.  Rather, they're portraying the image of a "happy hooker";  someone who, by their own free will, decided to sell their body for sex.  Even that idea is shrouded in an apologetic misogyny that might comfort men when they're paying for sex.  But, I'm willing to admit there may be at least one prostitute on Earth who, if given every opportunity on the planet, would choose prostitution. 

I'm absolutely, 100% positive there are no "happy hookers" in Cambodia. Without realizing, news outlets are using the idea as reason for scorning Mam. Al Jazeera wrote about a prostitute, Srey Mao:

Srey Mao said she became a prostitute because she believed it was the best option to support her aging parents and young daughter. . . Seven months into her stay at the shelter, Srey Mao ran away and returned to life as a prostitute.

When I interviewed with Senhoa, who works with victims of sexual assault and exploitation, the country director told me it's really difficult to retain clients because they can't make as much money working in hospitality as they can "lying on their backs for a few hours."

This isn't just a problem about choice.  This is a problem of empowerment.  In a country where everything boils down to monetary worth, how can we expect women to leave a job that can pay a week's salary in a single night?  One could argue that I'm viewing this through a privileged gaze (which I am), and maybe women don't view their bodies as sacred in Cambodia like they do in the United States (which is false), but no one can argue with the health ramifications of prostitution.  Cambodian brothels and red light districts are not the Mustang Ranch.  Health studies rarely account for the higher prevalence of HIV and other venereal diseases among men and women who are immersed in this lifestyle.  How long will Srey Mao be around for her little girl?

Knowing what it's like to beg donors for money, I can't blame Mam for using trendy buzzwords like "sex trafficking" to solicit donations to give women better lives with vocational training.  Here's another excerpt from that Al Jazeera article:

One of these girls was Pros, who, according to Newsweek, actually lost her eye to a tumor and was sent to Afesip for vocational training. The same was reportedly true of Meas Ratha, a teenager allegedly coached by Mam to say she had been trafficked when in fact she was sent to Afesip by an impoverished farming family, desperate to give their daughter a better start in life.

In my experience, donors -- especially Americans -- don't like preventative methods as much as reactionary. Helping someone who has hit rock bottom is more impressive then making sure they never hit rock bottom in the first place.

Newsweek, who broke the story, talked to a girl who was coached by Mam to speak in front of cameras:

Late last year, Ratha finally confessed that her story was fabricated and carefully rehearsed for the cameras under Mam's instruction, and only after she was chosen from a group of girls who had been put through an audition. Now in her early 30s and living a modest life on the outskirts of Phnom Penh, Ratha says she reluctantly allowed herself to be depicted as a child prostitute: "Somaly said that…if I want to help another woman I have to do [the interview] very well."

My first thought was how damaging it would be for a survivor to be interviewed on camera about something that's traumatizing beyond imagination.  If we give Mam the benefit of the doubt and there was "another woman," then I would've acted exactly the same.  NGOs pander to donors, and donors like stories and pictures.  Rarely do they think about how difficult it is to recall horrific events.

But, don't put me on team Somaly Mam.  Little tit bits in different articles makes me think they're too big to have a proper impact.  Let's go back to Srey Mao:

Months in the Afesip shelter did not change her mind. She claims that after she arrived at the shelter, she was not given access to anti-retroviral drugs for five days or allowed to see her family. Instead, she was enrolled in a yearlong sewing course, entailing eight hours a day of study or garment work. 

"I was not happy to be there ... Very often, during our short break for lunch, Afesip staff and sometimes Mam Somaly came to us and told us to tell donors and foreigners who would come to visit shelters that we were victims of human trafficking.

For lack of a better term, there's a certain je ne sais quoi that comes with case management, especially with survivors of sexual abuse. I went to AFESIP Shelter's website and downloaded their 2012 annual report.  They received $600,000 (about half of their annual budget) from the Somaly Mam Foundation, so it's no wonder they've come under fire along with their main funder.

Among the plethora of facts that come with these reports, one is that their 100 person staff is 50% male.  Men in this country -- I'll go ahead and say it: Cambodian men -- aren't exactly the most empathetic population.  There is a strong cultural precedence of superiority that makes women second-class citizens. There are, of course, exceptions to this, but I have never seen a women's shelter have such a high number of men, because their presence could be triggers for women who have survived domestic violence, gang rape, incest, and all other violent sex crimes.

That statistic does, however, explain why AFESIP could come off as a bit "cold" to the media. Eloquence is not a strong suit of people who work in a second language.  Also, speaking from personal experience, I gave birth in a room of six male Cambodian doctors.  You will never, EVER, convince me that Cambodian men are top candidates for working with vulnerable women.  They do not have the je ne sais quoi.

Other than that, I can't find anything about this shelter that is "outrageous."  Here's one of the personal anecdotes in the report:

Champey - has worked for 6 years in the sex trade. She cannot afford to leave because her family are poor and she will always to seen as a prostitute in her community now. It would bring shame on her family if she returned home. She knows the dangers of the streets. She has been beaten, gang raped and threatened with guns many times. When you are poor your own safety comes second to the welfare of your family. Champey uses AFESIP's outreach services to stay as safe as she can.

That could easily be a continuation of Srey Mao's story. The story might be embellished (maybe she only visits them once per year), but they are openly admitting they couldn't "save" someone from prostitution.  In fact, they work with survivors of sexual abuse, which is the umbrella sex trafficking falls under.  If anyone bothered to look into the organizations the Somaly Mam Foundation fund, maybe they would've seen what a small number of women were actually trafficked.

So what about Mam? There's no doubt in my mind her foundation is, in part, a vanity project.  Who, in their right mind, would romanticize a life of sex slavery to write a book is beyond my comprehension.  She reminds me of a certain CEO of a prominent London-based charity who Let Us Create used to work with, who put aside what the children actually needed for what would appease donors and make her look like a hero.

But, alas, I don't think the problem is that she lied.  The problem is that we (the Western world) need to stop focusing on trendy charitable causes, or in this case, the lack thereof.  This Somaly Mam song and dance could cost AFESIP a fair chunk of their budget and why? Because the rhetoric around their clients' backgrounds was embellished? Because the reason they need help isn't as tragic as we thought? Outrage, I say! My money was going to the wrong type of poor person!

Donors are the bane of every NGO's existence because their money makes them believe they know what's best for people on the other side of the world.  Now, we're crucifying this woman because she chose to use the rhetoric that donors want to hear to help women they are incapable of empathizing with. They need to realize that what charity clients need may not be romantic or even ideal, but that doesn't make them less deserving.