The wrong way to be a global-south non-profit: Part 3, untruth will never set you free
By: David A. Smith
[Continued from yesterday's Part 2 and the preceding Part 1.]
[I've constructed this multi-part post from three principal sources: the Guardian (21 Jan 11, Calibri), Newsweek (3 Apr 11, Georgia), and the New York Times (24 Mar 11, Arial). I sought and failed to obtain a copy of the Global Philanthropy Group (GPG) report mentioned below, which is not a public document – and that in itself a red flag for both Ms. Ciccone's charity and for the GPG itself. We will return to this in Part 3. – Ed.]
Of the mistakes and oversights made by Raising Malawi, the charity that Madonna (Louise Ciccone) founded and to which she has given so much of her and other people’s money, the ones we’ve chronicled so far in this post are endemic to any non-profit – indeed, potentially to any business at all. The next set is much more particular to global development:
I. Acting unilaterally and hastily
Non-profits have a tendency to arrive in their chosen country like Team America, World Police:
Heck, yeah!
They rise in, assuming that no one on the ground can help them, and intending to build their monument, present it to the grateful citizenry, and then ride into the sunset.
They’d be grateful if they knew enough
So prevalent is this approach that even today, a year-plus after its earthquake, Haiti is nicknamed the Republic of NGO’s.
The tendency to act unilaterally, suddenly changing course without consulting one’s putative partners, can leave the locals angry:
The building was due to be completed in December this year. However, the earth-moving machines that had been landscaping the area have disappeared. Villagers feel betrayed and accuse Madonna of breaking her promise. Maxwell Matewere, Malawi’s leading children’s rights activist, said Madonna should not “dump” the project.
Earning his authenticity: Matewere
They will have made plans, or changed plans, in reliance on the charity’s promises:
“We’d like to know why she has changed,” said Peter Mutharika, the education minister. “Yes, we do appreciate that it is her project; she devised it and she knows best how to implement it.
But still, as government, we’d be interested to know why there is this change.” Mutharika, tipped to be the next president when his brother, Bingu wa Mutharika, ends his final term in 2014, added: “I honestly don’t know the number of schools she is going to construct, where she will build and for how long. So until we talk to her, we can’t comment much.”
Waiting in the wings: Peter Mutharika
He said the government will also review the memorandum of understanding it signed with Madonna to “see what it says before we can embrace her new approach”.
The MoU would be an interesting document, but a fast search suggests it is not in the public domain – did I mention the lack of transparency?
Mr. Neilson, [whom] Madonna recruited last November amid signs of upheaval at her charity, said he told her that building an expensive school in Malawi was an ineffective form of philanthropy, and suggested instead using resources to finance education programs though existing and proven nongovernmental organizations.
Perhaps the first bit of sound advice Ms. Ciccone has yet received.
J. Cluelessness about the ecosystem they’re entering
Not only did Raising Malawi charge into a new environment without reconnoitering the terrain, the charge elbowed aside the locals:
The news has come as a bombshell to villagers who surrendered their ancestral land to make way for the school. The Malawian government said it had not been consulted and will now summon the 52-year-old singer to explain herself.
As far as I know, despite the summoning, neither Ms. Ciccone nor her recently-engaged defender Mr. Neilson has felt the need to journey to Malawi.
I was here for the press, I don’t need to come back
The villagers are thus left with no school and in some cases none of their original land:
Chinkhota became a building site – but without a building. Construction of the academy was delayed over a dispute between the Raising Malawi charity and villagers who claimed they were not adequately compensated for land.
While the news reports are sketchy on this point, it appears that Ms. Ciccone’s charity benefited from some form of informal eminent domain, and lacking proper procedures, it would be easy for villagers to be shortchanged, or to feel shortchanged.
K. Management that was unqualified, nepotistic, and conflicted
Mr. Neilson, whom we have seen in previous posts as philanthropic advisor to Hollywood, was hired by Ms. Ciccone’s charity to provide her with a report, and while the report itself is shrouded in mystery, there’s no question its purpose: it exculpated Ms. Ciccone and her religious connection, the Kabbalah Centre, while blackening two people who could not speak back.
The second target of Neilson’s report is Philippe Van Den Bossche, the executive director of Raising Malawi, who was forced out in October. Van Den Bossche is often depicted in news reports merely as the boyfriend of Madonna’s ex-trainer.
Do I look like merely a boyfriend to you?
In fact, he started dating the trainer only after he assumed his Malawi position. He got the job through the center, where he was the development director before Madonna hired him to run her charitable activities.
‘Development director’ means ‘fundraiser.’
Most significantly, according to multiple sources, every dollar he spent was approved by the center. (Oponyo and Van Den Bossche are bound by strict confidentiality agreements that prevent them from defending themselves publicly.)
There is something unseemly about leaking a report slamming a former employee who is contractually barred from responding.
In an e-mail, Mr. van den Bossche said he, too, was prohibited from commenting; Madonna has a history of confidentiality agreements with employees.
This report smacks of smear tactics.
Don’t smear my lipstick, smear my employees
The report faulted Mr. van den Bossche for his roles both in overseeing the planning of the building and in creating the educational curriculum. “Philippe’s level of mismanagement and lack of oversight was extreme in both aspects of the project,” it said, “and the lack of success of the players on the ground is in large part a result of his inability to effectively manage project plans, people and finances.”
Strong criticism, of a kind seldom if ever seen in published reports, and all the more remarkable for its selectivity (an excerpt) and generality (no particular mistakes cited).
The report was similarly critical of Ms. Oponyo. “Her charisma masks a lack of substantive knowledge of the practical application of educational development,” it said, “and her weak management skills are a major contributor to the current financial and programmatic chaos.”
We have already seen a total lack of financial control at the corporate level, the commingling of funds between a controversial religious cult and a supposedly independent charity, and a litany of missteps that are virtually a compendium of how not to do it.
Like A Prayer (1989)
Nelson Boord, the center’s CFO until 2009, has written that its six nonprofit and three for-profit entities collectively earn annual revenues of $60 million, own a $200 million real-estate portfolio, and manage a $60 million investment fund. Where does all this money come from? Boord says the center warehouses a $10 million inventory of Berg-blessed items, including $72 candles, $63 astrology sets, and $12.99 Divine Sex CDs. For $24.95 you can also buy the Rav’s book Immortality, which explores “the origins of death and the spiritual tools necessary for its final disappearance from the world.”
And The Money Kept Rolling In (And Out)
There have also been several civil suits filed recently alleging that the Kabbalah Centre had exploited the trust of wealthy followers in order to pillage their bank accounts.
Day-to-day operations are controlled by [Mr. Philip Berg's] wife, Karen, 68, and their two sons, Michael, 37, and Yehuda, 38, all of whom share the title of codirector.
The Kabbalah Centre sounds a sweet money machine, one driven in no small part by the visibility of its most famous adherent, a certain entertainer:
For Ms. Ciccone and for the Kabbalah Centre, good press is a must, and it arrived conveniently in the form of Ms. Ciccone’s interest in helping Malawi’s poor:
In 2005 the center was hit with a torrent of bad press about marketing such items as Kabbalah miracle water and a $35 set of Kabbalah shot glasses. Soon afterward, Michael Berg and Madonna cofounded Raising Malawi. Early the next year, Michael Berg flew to Malawi aboard a private jet provided by the Kabbalist wife of an L.A. billionaire. Joining them were Madonna’s then-husband, Guy Ritchie, and actors James Van Der Beek and Heather McComb. Berg also imported a camera crew to Malawi, which shot the faces of malnourished children under a banner that read “Welcome Kabbalah.”
Now that the school is irretrievably dead, and $3.8 million or more of donors’ money has gone missing, there are emerging disturbing suggestions of pre-emptive damage control:
There are indications the center had made the decision to pull the plug on the school long before it was announced: the last check was sent to Malawi in July of last year, just three months after the bricklaying ceremony, and it was for a mere $8,659. There was no apparent plan to cover the costs of operating the school.
Writing this post has made me angry.
So much money has been wasted, so many hopes raised and dashed, and so much damage done to anti-poverty causes. The Malawians have been used as visual props. For the record, here is all Raising Malawi has had to say (5 Apr 11):
In recent days a number of wild and totally false rumors about Madonna’s philanthropy — spread by bloggers and tabloids — have begun appearing on the internet. As we have said previously, Raising Malawi is currently undergoing a series of positive changes in an effort to serve more children. Neither Madonna nor Raising Malawi is being investigated by the FBI or the IRS. It is unfortunate that people have chosen to say things about Raising Malawi and Madonna that are not true. Madonna remains committed and focused on what matters helping the children of Malawi.
Observe that all Ms. Ciccone’s publicist denies is FBI or IRS investigation, leaving unchallenged the damning evidence of millions lost, plans abandoned, reputations deliberately blackened, and people’s hopes raised and then disappointed.
Raising Malawi will not disband and will instead use its money in different ways to help the poor in a country where Madonna has sought to become a major philanthropic presence, foundation officials said.
Poorer but wiser?
Neilson said the new community-based approach by Raising Malawi “will provide the opportunity for many more girls to receive a quality education”.
Neilson says Raising Malawi will now focus on financing “proven interventions.”
Currently, Raising Malawi’s web site appears to be counting its partners’ impacts as its own.
“My original vision is now on a much bigger scale,” Madonna said in a statement after the school’s collapse. “I want to reach thousands, not hundreds, of girls. I want to do more and I want to do it better.”
It would be worthwhile if this time she is sincere, committed, and smarter.
Comments
Comment from jesus
Date: April 19, 2011, 3:05 pm
Madonna did not use her own money, all money was donated by independent donors, they collected money from the website and the Kabbalah center hired telemarketers to raise more money for the school. Madonna donated US250,000 and asked people to match her, poor Malawians were sending five dollars believing that they were helping Madonna build a school for all people in the country. This of course was just a gimick to steal from people. Madonna knew what the Bergs were doing, she did not care as long as they were not playing around with her money. There was no desire on the part of Michael Berg to build the school. He used it as a cash cow. Money raised all 18million is in Michael Bergs hands, the two people blamed did not touch money. Why blame a Malawian and destroy her career by blackening her record that she mismanaged 3.5million when she did not even receive that money to manage, the whole 3 million was spent at the Kabbalah center, only US850,000 was sent to Malawi. How could oponyo have mismanaged money that was never in her care? This is a very recist thing to do, to use a black african as a scapegoat when all the money was spent in Los Angeles. Madonna should apologise to the people of Malawi for her and her friends to have spent donor money and blame innocent people. Madonna should be ashamed of herself. This is a terrible thing to do to people who trusted her and her gang of thieves. They store from a country that was full of hope. Madonna should never go back to Malawi, she should be ashamed.
Comment from The ugly truth
Date: April 26, 2011, 8:58 am
The above is true. But the ‘match’ promise made in the video and on the RM homepage did not specify any amount. The potential donors were led to believe that Madonna would ‘match’ all donations. Madonnas initial pledge to RM was $150,000. Less than a single day of concert pay for Madonna. Around the same time, Madonna released the ‘Will you join me?’ video pleading with her fans worldwide for donations. It was in this video that she first promised to ‘match’ donor funds. The same promise was made on the RM homepage. The donors gave several hundred thousand over just a few days. Madonna did not ‘match’ these funds because there was a legal disclaimer posted on a seperate (less traveled) page of the RM website limiting Madonna total ‘match’ liability to $150,000. Less than a single day of concert pay for Madonna. Shortly after, a new page was posted on the RM website stating how “shocked” Madonna was by the outpouring of support. Remember: The legal disclaimer was posted on that separate (less traveled) page before the support poured in. Not after. So Madonna’s claim that she was “shocked” by that outpouring of support was obviously a lie. On the new page, Madonna set a new ‘goal’ of $200,000 with another promise to ‘match’ donor funds “dollar for dollar”. A new disclaimer was posted on a separate page limiting Madonna’s total ‘match’ liability to $200,000. Still, less than a single day of concert pay for Madonna. In all, Madonna ended up donating $250,000 to her RM charity. The fans gave much more. Madonna appeared on CNN in December of ’09′ with a claim that the $15,000,000 school was “about half” paid for. There were independent reports that RM assets were already in excess of $20,000,000. No indication was ever made anywhere what percentage of funding would go directly to the school or any other cause in Malawi. The country that Madonna claimed to have “fallen in love” with several years earlier. In this time frame Madonna flew in to Malawi by private jet several times. She flew in to adopt children. She flew in just before she embarked on her record-setting would tour. She flew in to plant a tree. She flew in to lay a ‘ceremonial brick’ to break ground on the $15,000,000 ‘all girls’ school. This brick was laid on the very same day that her concert DVD hit the shelves. Each time, she flew in by private jet with a photo crew and stayed for up to a week. The ‘Will you join me’ video was filmed during one of her visits. It was evident from the in that video that her acomodations were very high end and exclusive. It was around this time, that I started bashing RM and warning the potential donors that funds were being squandered on private jet fuel, super high end accommodations, and PR campaigns for the pop-star figurehead. I called the RM number (888-72-DONOR) over and over asking them to post some sort of itemized progress/expense report. On one occasion, I was transferred to another line and put on hold for 20 minutes. On another occasion, they promised to send me the report by email. The report never came. Now over a year later, we finally know that the school will not be built. We have been told that 3.8 million was squandered but we still haven’t been told in any real detail just how those funds were squandered. Some of the insiders (scapegoats) are reported to be legally bound by confidentially agreements. Madonna still refuses to accept responsibility for anything. Remember: She appeared on CNN in December of ’09′ with a claim that the $15,000,000 school was “about half” paid for. That was well over a year ago. To date, RM still hasn’t posted a single itemized progress/expense/efficiency report. Not even after a full 5 years of fundraising. I smell a rat with a blond ponytail, a fake European accent, and of course, a multi-hundred-million dollar fortune.
Comment from The ugly truth
Date: April 13, 2011, 9:11 pm
I’ve been a regular on that site for over 18 months. That shady ‘impact’ page has been deliberately misleading from day one. Not one cost is accounted for. Nothing but vague claims of ‘impact’ shared with over 20 separate entities each of which have their own sources of funding. That alone should have been a red flag to every potential donor. I tried to warn them over and over and over. Still, the pro-Madonna comments poured in. “Bless Madonna’s heart.” “Thank God for Madonna.” I’m convinced that many of those comments were planted by RM insiders posing as unbiased readers and/or donors. In June, most of my comments bashing RM and their pop-star figurehead were deleted. In their places were the words “comment removed”. Shortly after, the responses from others were deleted. Then, many of the links to those pages were removed from the site. Still searchable on the web. Then, the entire pages were deleted along with the rest of my comments. In all, dozens of mini-essays bashing RM, Madonna, Berg on occasion, and warning the potential donors were all deleted. Now, every shred of evidence that debate even took place has been deleted. This includes two comments that I made in January of this year calling for an investigation. In the last two weeks, the cashed pages on Google were finally deleted. Now, there is no option to comment at all on the site. So I have been warning others not to support RM or any other foundation with closed book policies on talk radio. Its nice to see a serious online journalist take up the cause. This 3 part article is a masterpiece. However, there is no mention of the commercial links which were plastered all over the RM website until sometime in late ’10′ (I took a few weeks off.) There was also a ‘for profit’ RM DVD which was produced by Semtek films (founded by Madonna) and sold on the website homepage. Thats right. The ‘I am because we are’ DVD has been sold ‘for profit’ from day one. I’d be willing to bet that nearly every Madonna fan fell for the vague implication that it was sold for the benefit of Malawi. It was not. Those people were exploited ‘for profit’. I can’t confirm or deny any seven figure ‘loan’ that Madonna may have made to RM. But no way did she ‘give’ or ‘donate’ seven figures. No way. It didn’t happen. There have been annual reports of the ‘most generous’ or ‘top giving’ celebrities for years. Even Rush Limbaugh made the list. The last few places have been held by celebrities who give around $1,000,000. Madonna has never made the list. Not even once. Not even by honorable mention. That along with the legal disclaimers limiting Madonnas total ‘match’ liability to a very low six figures (Less than 1/10th of one percent of her own multi-hundred-million fortune), are more than enough to cast doubt on these recent claims that Madonna has been a major donor to RM. We need to read very carefully between the lines and scrutinize everything. We live in a shady world of trickery and corruption. Nothing is what it appears to be. Not anymore. Good will has become big business.