Nonprofit Scandal
November 9, 2007 8:25 PM Subscribe
A nonprofit that I donated to falsifies the data they use in their marketing materials and grant applications. They know it, but justify it. The donors haven't a clue. Who can I report them to?
I found out that a nonprofit I work for lies in their grant applications by using data that has no integrity. They also know that the data is false. They are continuing to use false data (how many people they are helping, etc. -- all made up and off the cuff) in their grant applications and are being given large sums of money by foundations and even private donors for it. I also found out through that they make up programs that don't exist and are never implemented in order to get funding, then use that funding to support salaries and general operating costs when it ought to be for a program or project. They are also receiving federal help which is being misappropriated.
This must be illegal or, at the least, extremely unethical. Can they be held accountable? Can donors report them? Can it be done anonymously? I'm going to resign, but I don't want them to find out it was me that blew their cover.
I found out that a nonprofit I work for lies in their grant applications by using data that has no integrity. They also know that the data is false. They are continuing to use false data (how many people they are helping, etc. -- all made up and off the cuff) in their grant applications and are being given large sums of money by foundations and even private donors for it. I also found out through that they make up programs that don't exist and are never implemented in order to get funding, then use that funding to support salaries and general operating costs when it ought to be for a program or project. They are also receiving federal help which is being misappropriated.
This must be illegal or, at the least, extremely unethical. Can they be held accountable? Can donors report them? Can it be done anonymously? I'm going to resign, but I don't want them to find out it was me that blew their cover.
Start with http://www.give.org/, the National Charities Information Bureau. Somewhere on their site, if nothing else, they'll probably tell you what legal action is available, and, in the private sphere, they're basically like the BBB for nonprofits.
posted by electric_counterpoint at 8:38 PM on November 9, 2007
posted by electric_counterpoint at 8:38 PM on November 9, 2007
Who can I report them to?
The FBI and the IRS, for starters.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:03 PM on November 9, 2007
The FBI and the IRS, for starters.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:03 PM on November 9, 2007
Without knowing how you obtained this information and your background in grant applications, it's hard to give specific advice. If they are receiving federal funding, they likely must have an annual audit, and are probably monitored annually by other individual funders as well. It's hard to imagine a) there not being multiple audits every year, and b) no one catching on to what was happening.
On made-up numbers in grant applications: most contain descriptions both of what the organization currently does and what it expects to do with funds. In essence, the service numbers are projections for the future. So, they may look different from anything the organization has actually done. Still, they should be very carefully projected, based on past data, feasibility studies, etc.
If you are concerned, and are confident that your concerns are justified, call the funders for the programs in question. You don't need to identify yourself, but you can easily say that you have reason to believe that funding is being mismanaged, give some illustrations to support your claims, and let them decide what to do. Any smart funder will have a contract in place that they can enforce (to the extent possible) if they need to recover mismanaged funds. The kind of mismanagement you are talking about would likely be evident to any decent auditor who looked at their books.
Good luck. The position you are in is a hard one.
posted by bloggerwench at 9:03 PM on November 9, 2007
On made-up numbers in grant applications: most contain descriptions both of what the organization currently does and what it expects to do with funds. In essence, the service numbers are projections for the future. So, they may look different from anything the organization has actually done. Still, they should be very carefully projected, based on past data, feasibility studies, etc.
If you are concerned, and are confident that your concerns are justified, call the funders for the programs in question. You don't need to identify yourself, but you can easily say that you have reason to believe that funding is being mismanaged, give some illustrations to support your claims, and let them decide what to do. Any smart funder will have a contract in place that they can enforce (to the extent possible) if they need to recover mismanaged funds. The kind of mismanagement you are talking about would likely be evident to any decent auditor who looked at their books.
Good luck. The position you are in is a hard one.
posted by bloggerwench at 9:03 PM on November 9, 2007
You can report them to each funding entity in the old fashioned way, by mailing a letter.
If they are using fraud to obtain government funds you can report them to the FBI tipline for corporate fraud: 888-622-0117 or the general tipline, tips.fbi.gov. If they are in violation of their nonprofit status you might be able to report them to the IRS. You may be able to report them to your state's Attorney General.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:10 PM on November 9, 2007
If they are using fraud to obtain government funds you can report them to the FBI tipline for corporate fraud: 888-622-0117 or the general tipline, tips.fbi.gov. If they are in violation of their nonprofit status you might be able to report them to the IRS. You may be able to report them to your state's Attorney General.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:10 PM on November 9, 2007
Newspapers!
posted by croutonsupafreak at 9:30 PM on November 9, 2007
posted by croutonsupafreak at 9:30 PM on November 9, 2007
This seems to be pretty common, from my own experiences and things I've heard from friends and colleagues. Depending on where you live, and depending what kind of protection there is for whistle blowers, I would be very cautious about how you approach. Even if there is "whistle blower" protection in place in your state, I assume your job is a contract or other form of 'at-will' employment. In which case, you can be fired for any reason. Have you signed a NDA or other form of confidentiality agreement? You could be setting yourself up for legal troubles. People in nonprofit circles catch wind of more than you think. At one agency I freelanced for, I recall an employee leaving in a huff because they had complained to a funder, and a board member caught wind that the staff member was responsible. Not only was that person out of a job, but no action was taken against the nonprofit because there was a lot of buddy-buddy, see-no-evil things going on in the background. Needless to say I didn't do any further work for them.
Your best hope, in my opinion, is that the system will work itself out. Granting agencies, both public and private, have their own auditing processes that are generally very stringent - after all, who wants to give a lump of money without checking into where it's going? Certain types of data - for example, a soup kitchen claims to feed 50 people per day when really the average is more like 20 - are more easily tweaked than others. In my experience, numbers like that, without a solid paper trail, tend to be taken with a little less seriousness. They assume that the numbers are inflated and take that into account in the granting process. I know people who process grants and by their accounts, EVERY organization out there is saving souls by the thousands.
Granters and funders also generally have a set percentage point that can go towards administrative/overhead costs beyond the scope of the particular program being funded. Nonprofit groups are required to be audited every year, and while a good accountant can shuffle the numbers to keep them on the level, it's going to be obvious if the group in question has a spiraling deficit. The problem is, you can report to as many federal agencies as you want - if the nonprofit can "prove", even on paper, that they are in the black, your word isn't going to hold up. And if the funder in question finds sufficient proof that the nonprofit is in good standing, you again may be in a pot of hot water. Lay low, keep your eyes peeled, and refuse to do anything you deem to be unethical. If the agency/group you work for isn't on the level, it will be noted and their funding will begin to dry up.
It sucks that this happens, but like I said, it is sadly common. Look for a new place of employment, because when the shit hits the fan there you really don't want to be stuck with the stink on you. When you look for work in the future, do a search and check out a group's public records before you take a position there. Ask a lot of questions and don't get involved with any group you don't think is totally on the level.
posted by SassHat at 9:55 PM on November 9, 2007
Your best hope, in my opinion, is that the system will work itself out. Granting agencies, both public and private, have their own auditing processes that are generally very stringent - after all, who wants to give a lump of money without checking into where it's going? Certain types of data - for example, a soup kitchen claims to feed 50 people per day when really the average is more like 20 - are more easily tweaked than others. In my experience, numbers like that, without a solid paper trail, tend to be taken with a little less seriousness. They assume that the numbers are inflated and take that into account in the granting process. I know people who process grants and by their accounts, EVERY organization out there is saving souls by the thousands.
Granters and funders also generally have a set percentage point that can go towards administrative/overhead costs beyond the scope of the particular program being funded. Nonprofit groups are required to be audited every year, and while a good accountant can shuffle the numbers to keep them on the level, it's going to be obvious if the group in question has a spiraling deficit. The problem is, you can report to as many federal agencies as you want - if the nonprofit can "prove", even on paper, that they are in the black, your word isn't going to hold up. And if the funder in question finds sufficient proof that the nonprofit is in good standing, you again may be in a pot of hot water. Lay low, keep your eyes peeled, and refuse to do anything you deem to be unethical. If the agency/group you work for isn't on the level, it will be noted and their funding will begin to dry up.
It sucks that this happens, but like I said, it is sadly common. Look for a new place of employment, because when the shit hits the fan there you really don't want to be stuck with the stink on you. When you look for work in the future, do a search and check out a group's public records before you take a position there. Ask a lot of questions and don't get involved with any group you don't think is totally on the level.
posted by SassHat at 9:55 PM on November 9, 2007
In the first sentence you say it's a nonprofit you donate to, in the next that it's a nonprofit you work for. Which is it? Or do you donate to your employer?
I have worked for both grantmakers and grant recipients and think we don't have enough information here to go on. How did you find this out? Do you have evidence that figures are being falsified? What do you mean by "misappropriated" - is the money being embezzled, and if so, do you have proof? Or is it just being shuffled around within the organisation to pay the bills - but ultimately the work does get done?
It's hard to work out, from what you're saying, how illegal/unethical the behaviour is. There's a lot of misunderstandings about how nonprofit finances work. Funding ebbs and flows and is not evenly distributed throughout the year. Sometimes they have to shift money away from one project, when donations dry up or they have a lot of pending grant applications in, to pay the bills - and then they shift it back again later. It's extremely difficult to accurately estimate the number of people you'll be helping when writing an application for new, untested work, and most foundations (certainly those I've worked for) understand that.
And salaries and operating costs are often part of an application - you need people, equipment and premises to get the project done, and it's often factored in. Again, many foundations, at least, understand that.
On the other hand, some nonprofits do fudge the figures just so they can keep going (I think the charitable sector has done itself a HUGE injustice by holding up "100% of your donation goes direct to the people in need!" as a desirable outcome - some donors expect people to work for free, with substandard equipment and with no resources to research whether the work they're doing actually has the desired effect). And some may invent exciting new projects which are really old projects repackaged, again because funders often favour the new and exciting rather than the boring but effective. But whether that's actually unethical or not is in the eye of the beholder. The invention of false "pilot programs" is an open secret in the nonprofit sector.
Not that I'm necessarily doubting your facts, but wondering if you are misinterpreting some of them.
If the funders are doing their due diligence they'll be asking for grant acquittal reports and proof that the work is actually being done and the money spent appropriately. In that case, any illegal behaviour won't last long. Foundations have long memories and the organisation will be unlikely to get much future funding if they're behavnig badly.
If you really do feel that the organisation is behaving unethically, what action you take will depend on where you live - I could tell you what to do if you're in Australia, but from the terminology you use I don't think you are. The simplest thing to do, without putting yourself in too much danger of exposure, might be to talk to some of the funders for the program - even anonymously. If you work for the nonprofit in question, you might want to start looking for another job - both so that you can be gone before it all blows up, and because you definitely won't want to work somewhere you think is unethical. I know I wouldn't!
posted by andraste at 10:30 PM on November 9, 2007
I have worked for both grantmakers and grant recipients and think we don't have enough information here to go on. How did you find this out? Do you have evidence that figures are being falsified? What do you mean by "misappropriated" - is the money being embezzled, and if so, do you have proof? Or is it just being shuffled around within the organisation to pay the bills - but ultimately the work does get done?
It's hard to work out, from what you're saying, how illegal/unethical the behaviour is. There's a lot of misunderstandings about how nonprofit finances work. Funding ebbs and flows and is not evenly distributed throughout the year. Sometimes they have to shift money away from one project, when donations dry up or they have a lot of pending grant applications in, to pay the bills - and then they shift it back again later. It's extremely difficult to accurately estimate the number of people you'll be helping when writing an application for new, untested work, and most foundations (certainly those I've worked for) understand that.
And salaries and operating costs are often part of an application - you need people, equipment and premises to get the project done, and it's often factored in. Again, many foundations, at least, understand that.
On the other hand, some nonprofits do fudge the figures just so they can keep going (I think the charitable sector has done itself a HUGE injustice by holding up "100% of your donation goes direct to the people in need!" as a desirable outcome - some donors expect people to work for free, with substandard equipment and with no resources to research whether the work they're doing actually has the desired effect). And some may invent exciting new projects which are really old projects repackaged, again because funders often favour the new and exciting rather than the boring but effective. But whether that's actually unethical or not is in the eye of the beholder. The invention of false "pilot programs" is an open secret in the nonprofit sector.
Not that I'm necessarily doubting your facts, but wondering if you are misinterpreting some of them.
If the funders are doing their due diligence they'll be asking for grant acquittal reports and proof that the work is actually being done and the money spent appropriately. In that case, any illegal behaviour won't last long. Foundations have long memories and the organisation will be unlikely to get much future funding if they're behavnig badly.
If you really do feel that the organisation is behaving unethically, what action you take will depend on where you live - I could tell you what to do if you're in Australia, but from the terminology you use I don't think you are. The simplest thing to do, without putting yourself in too much danger of exposure, might be to talk to some of the funders for the program - even anonymously. If you work for the nonprofit in question, you might want to start looking for another job - both so that you can be gone before it all blows up, and because you definitely won't want to work somewhere you think is unethical. I know I wouldn't!
posted by andraste at 10:30 PM on November 9, 2007
Another non-profit veteran here.
First, fudging is something that happens all the time. The numbers aren't available yet? Make up something plausible. We don't actually know? Take a wild-ass guess. It happens.
Second, though, programs that don't exist and are never implemented is a pretty clear accusation of fraud, if you can back it up. But if the money is given with no strings attached, it may still be entirely legal. It depends on whose money it is and what process they use to get it.
Third, when you say federal help is being "misappropriated", again, there may still be room for legality here given our lack of information. Given to whom, for what? Received from the feds, but for what, and with what strings attached?
Generally fraud should be harder in a non-profit setting with proper oversight from a board of directors (or as my dad always recommended they be called to emphasize their role, trustees) and so on. Does it happen, though? Sure, it's a system and people can cynically game it like any other.
If you have facts and figures that you can present to the interested parties, and that includes the state attorney general as well as the IRS, gather them as surreptitiously as you can. I would just be aware that there's probably a high likelihood that the quality of information could give you away and there may even be a legal discovery that could expose your whistleblowing depending on what happens down the line. Prepare yourself for that day.
posted by dhartung at 11:14 PM on November 9, 2007
First, fudging is something that happens all the time. The numbers aren't available yet? Make up something plausible. We don't actually know? Take a wild-ass guess. It happens.
Second, though, programs that don't exist and are never implemented is a pretty clear accusation of fraud, if you can back it up. But if the money is given with no strings attached, it may still be entirely legal. It depends on whose money it is and what process they use to get it.
Third, when you say federal help is being "misappropriated", again, there may still be room for legality here given our lack of information. Given to whom, for what? Received from the feds, but for what, and with what strings attached?
Generally fraud should be harder in a non-profit setting with proper oversight from a board of directors (or as my dad always recommended they be called to emphasize their role, trustees) and so on. Does it happen, though? Sure, it's a system and people can cynically game it like any other.
If you have facts and figures that you can present to the interested parties, and that includes the state attorney general as well as the IRS, gather them as surreptitiously as you can. I would just be aware that there's probably a high likelihood that the quality of information could give you away and there may even be a legal discovery that could expose your whistleblowing depending on what happens down the line. Prepare yourself for that day.
posted by dhartung at 11:14 PM on November 9, 2007
State AG has jurisdiction over charitable trusts.
IRS this year has instituted a new program of "good governance audits".
Both groups can be very mean.
posted by Mr_Crazyhorse at 11:34 PM on November 9, 2007
IRS this year has instituted a new program of "good governance audits".
Both groups can be very mean.
posted by Mr_Crazyhorse at 11:34 PM on November 9, 2007
It's only fraud if the methodology they describe in their grant applications and outward-facing communications is false.
In my experience, 99.9% of non-profits leverage the funding they receive to support operational costs, rather than for what they actually received the grant or donation for in the first place. It's pretty common.
As well, once a government funder signs a cheque, they typically can be extremely flexible in terms of how they determine if outcomes are met or not. After the cheque is signed, it's more problematic to kill a project than to figure out ways to make it work.
That's why non-profits can adopt a flexible, and even creative approach to explaining how they meet their numbers.
Unless the ledgers contain information about phantom programs (like Enron did), there's not much you can do. Really what needs to happen is an audit, but I doubt any significant changes would come out of it. No one is going to get fired, and life will continue as normal for the organization, with a few changes.
Haven't the donors and funders done their due diligence? How can the fact that there is non-existent programs remain unnoticed?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:46 PM on November 9, 2007
In my experience, 99.9% of non-profits leverage the funding they receive to support operational costs, rather than for what they actually received the grant or donation for in the first place. It's pretty common.
As well, once a government funder signs a cheque, they typically can be extremely flexible in terms of how they determine if outcomes are met or not. After the cheque is signed, it's more problematic to kill a project than to figure out ways to make it work.
That's why non-profits can adopt a flexible, and even creative approach to explaining how they meet their numbers.
Unless the ledgers contain information about phantom programs (like Enron did), there's not much you can do. Really what needs to happen is an audit, but I doubt any significant changes would come out of it. No one is going to get fired, and life will continue as normal for the organization, with a few changes.
Haven't the donors and funders done their due diligence? How can the fact that there is non-existent programs remain unnoticed?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:46 PM on November 9, 2007
i would drop a dime to your state's attorney general office. (assuming you're in the US).
posted by rmd1023 at 5:27 AM on November 10, 2007
posted by rmd1023 at 5:27 AM on November 10, 2007
Sen Charles Grassley likes to be known for his investigations of nonprofit organizations, and his protection of whistleblowers. Setup a throwaway yahoo account and email his staffers.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:21 AM on November 10, 2007
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:21 AM on November 10, 2007
Thirding (or fourthing or fifthing) contacting the Attorney General.
posted by chundo at 8:50 AM on November 10, 2007
posted by chundo at 8:50 AM on November 10, 2007
Response by poster: Unfortunately, this is very common. The same thing happened with the non-profit I worked for. From talking with others it happens with other non-profits as well. It is a failing of the system--part "Everyone does it, so to get the money I have to do it too", part the issues tied to non-profits (like difficulty collecting data on the target population served). It is sickening, but pretty unavoidable.
posted by Anonymous at 10:40 AM on November 10, 2007
posted by Anonymous at 10:40 AM on November 10, 2007
Hydrophonic's girlfriend here. I'm a professional fundraiser.
First off, what do you want to accomplish? Do you want the non-profit to go out of business or do you want it to start being square with its funders and stakeholders? If you want to shut to the non-profit down, then go to the Attorney General, FBI, IRS, or foundations (since if your non-profit loses all of its grants, it will be forced to close). However, if you want your nonprofit to start acting ethically in its fundraising approaches there are some other avenues to take. How informed is the organization's Board of Directors? Do they know what's going on? The Board should hold a lot of sway over the Executive Director. As long as all the members of the Board are not in cahoots with the Executive Director and Development Director, they could force the organization to change its ways. The names of the Board members should be public--if your organization publishes an annual report, the report should have a list. If your Executive Director has an assistant, he or she will definitely have a list of board members and their contact information. See if the assistant will give you the list and reach out to some members of the Board with your concerns.
Another avenue to take which focuses specifically on ethics in fundraising is the Association of Fundraising Professional (AFP). The AFP Ethics Committee investigates ethics queries and complaints, provides counseling, holds hearings, makes rulings, and imposes sanctions. Anyone can bring a confidential ethics complaint to the Ethics Committee, but only AFP-member organizations or fundraisers may be investigated. So if the development folks in your non-profit aren't AFP members, they have not agreed to the AFP's code of ethics and thus can't be investigated. However, the AFP can be a good resource in soliciting professional advice on this matter.
I do a lot of grantwriting and grant reporting and I've learned that I need to constantly be talking to the people who operate the programs. They do not want their programs misrepresented or me to promise they'll achieve more than is possible. If you are operating a program, you have every right to see grant proposals or reports that are going to foundations on your program's behalf, so check those reports for accuracy. If they are wrong, bring it up with the head of programs or your colleagues in the program. If you're not in programs, like you did with the Executive Assistant, work through the program staff to get the grant reports and check their accuracy. By the nature of the way nonprofits operate, Development and Programs always have a somewhat strained relationship, so don't worry about getting the Development people bent out of shape. We're always worked up about something. But use your standing as a donor and/or employee of the organization to demand answers from Development. I'm sure you're not the only person at your organization with the same misgivings.
posted by hydrophonic at 10:56 AM on November 10, 2007
First off, what do you want to accomplish? Do you want the non-profit to go out of business or do you want it to start being square with its funders and stakeholders? If you want to shut to the non-profit down, then go to the Attorney General, FBI, IRS, or foundations (since if your non-profit loses all of its grants, it will be forced to close). However, if you want your nonprofit to start acting ethically in its fundraising approaches there are some other avenues to take. How informed is the organization's Board of Directors? Do they know what's going on? The Board should hold a lot of sway over the Executive Director. As long as all the members of the Board are not in cahoots with the Executive Director and Development Director, they could force the organization to change its ways. The names of the Board members should be public--if your organization publishes an annual report, the report should have a list. If your Executive Director has an assistant, he or she will definitely have a list of board members and their contact information. See if the assistant will give you the list and reach out to some members of the Board with your concerns.
Another avenue to take which focuses specifically on ethics in fundraising is the Association of Fundraising Professional (AFP). The AFP Ethics Committee investigates ethics queries and complaints, provides counseling, holds hearings, makes rulings, and imposes sanctions. Anyone can bring a confidential ethics complaint to the Ethics Committee, but only AFP-member organizations or fundraisers may be investigated. So if the development folks in your non-profit aren't AFP members, they have not agreed to the AFP's code of ethics and thus can't be investigated. However, the AFP can be a good resource in soliciting professional advice on this matter.
I do a lot of grantwriting and grant reporting and I've learned that I need to constantly be talking to the people who operate the programs. They do not want their programs misrepresented or me to promise they'll achieve more than is possible. If you are operating a program, you have every right to see grant proposals or reports that are going to foundations on your program's behalf, so check those reports for accuracy. If they are wrong, bring it up with the head of programs or your colleagues in the program. If you're not in programs, like you did with the Executive Assistant, work through the program staff to get the grant reports and check their accuracy. By the nature of the way nonprofits operate, Development and Programs always have a somewhat strained relationship, so don't worry about getting the Development people bent out of shape. We're always worked up about something. But use your standing as a donor and/or employee of the organization to demand answers from Development. I'm sure you're not the only person at your organization with the same misgivings.
posted by hydrophonic at 10:56 AM on November 10, 2007
Unethical non-profits completely deserve to get busted. But if you are new to the scene, consider the possibility that you might not know as much as you think you do. You risk looking foolish if you're just misinterpreting something. If you're relatively new to the scene, or not 100% certain, check with someone you trust who has more experience there and knows the organization's finances. You could even take your concerns directly to the executive director or fundraising director.
posted by salvia at 11:43 AM on November 10, 2007
posted by salvia at 11:43 AM on November 10, 2007
get all the paperwork you can before you blow the whistle.
do it hard and fast. send photocopies off to senators, local newspapers, radio, the IRS, the FBI, any watchdogs. The more people have it the more likely it is to blow up. try to do it simultaenously - the public tends to forget about these sorts of things, but if a lot of people are talking about it it gets a sort of momentum going.
but definately get some GOOD, SOLID evidence before you try anything. if you're not comfortable with it, and keen, you might be able to tip off a watchdog and get them to hire an investigator. the advantage, however, is in gathering as much proof of wrong doing before they are aware they are under scrutiny.
good luck fighting the good fight :)
as an aside.. i've often read that the best jobs you can get are working for a non-profit - because there is no bottom line, costs don't need to be justified, and spending on "management" and "infrastructure" escalates to the point where everyone in the fold is being treated like a king.
i guess now it makes sense.
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 11:59 PM on November 10, 2007
do it hard and fast. send photocopies off to senators, local newspapers, radio, the IRS, the FBI, any watchdogs. The more people have it the more likely it is to blow up. try to do it simultaenously - the public tends to forget about these sorts of things, but if a lot of people are talking about it it gets a sort of momentum going.
but definately get some GOOD, SOLID evidence before you try anything. if you're not comfortable with it, and keen, you might be able to tip off a watchdog and get them to hire an investigator. the advantage, however, is in gathering as much proof of wrong doing before they are aware they are under scrutiny.
good luck fighting the good fight :)
as an aside.. i've often read that the best jobs you can get are working for a non-profit - because there is no bottom line, costs don't need to be justified, and spending on "management" and "infrastructure" escalates to the point where everyone in the fold is being treated like a king.
i guess now it makes sense.
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 11:59 PM on November 10, 2007
Response by poster: I would just like to counter what Dillonlikescookies said. Overwhelmingly, the people I know who worked at non-profits, whether they were fraudulent or not, were not paid like kings and did not live like them. They could have been paid better and had better benefits in a government or private sector job and chose to work at a non-profit. Fudging grant applications did not give bonuses, it generally enabled the basic programs to run, paid the bare minimum of employee salaries, and helped with building maintenance. The money was used to support the needs program, just not in the way they wrote on the grant and not for the exact reasons written on the grant. No caviar and steak dinners there--maybe bagels and cream cheese from a chain bagel place once a month for the staff meeting.
Did the non-profits do good work? Absolutely. Was the money used for a good cause? Absolutely. Was it obtained completely non-fraudulently, without any fudging and the budget followed to the dime? No. Where the ethics of that lies is up to your own determination.
How you answer those three questions and what you decide to do after that should be based on what you know about the non-profit. But don't automatically assuming Fudging = Employee Getaways in Hawaii.
posted by Anonymous at 6:05 AM on November 11, 2007
Did the non-profits do good work? Absolutely. Was the money used for a good cause? Absolutely. Was it obtained completely non-fraudulently, without any fudging and the budget followed to the dime? No. Where the ethics of that lies is up to your own determination.
How you answer those three questions and what you decide to do after that should be based on what you know about the non-profit. But don't automatically assuming Fudging = Employee Getaways in Hawaii.
posted by Anonymous at 6:05 AM on November 11, 2007
yeah - i'd like to note that i don't believe they are the majority, just that there are certainly some non profits out there like that. of course, they all pay the collectors the same..
it would be nice if there was a charity that just supplied condoms and actual "sex education" to countries in africa stricken by aids. I'd donate to that, but all the false information spread by certain nameless charities that are aversive to condoms and sex before marriage might impede it's work.
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 4:04 PM on November 11, 2007
it would be nice if there was a charity that just supplied condoms and actual "sex education" to countries in africa stricken by aids. I'd donate to that, but all the false information spread by certain nameless charities that are aversive to condoms and sex before marriage might impede it's work.
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 4:04 PM on November 11, 2007
Everybody at the nonprofit where I worked thought they were heros and use to go on and on about how much they'd make in the for profit sector. They definitely used their martyrdom as a means to justify their unprofessional standards and screwiness with regard to standard ethics and accountability. It's weird to feel more respect for the corporations I have worked for than those people. They were huge on "self-care" but did very little work at all, as far as I could see.
I don't trust them anymore but for other reasons.
posted by onepapertiger at 5:34 PM on November 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't trust them anymore but for other reasons.
posted by onepapertiger at 5:34 PM on November 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
A qui tam suit might be an option if their actions rise to fraud against the federal government. Qui tam actions are filed under seal, which gives some cover to whistleblowers. Should the suit prevail or settle, the relator who brought the initial suit is given a certain percentage of the award/settlement amount. You could donate any money received rather than looking at it as a windfall.
Talk to an attorney before you get too far in pursuing any of your options - they can help you avoid pitfalls (such as veering off into defamatory speech), and there's always a chance you'll be the target of retaliation. You'll want to have somebody waiting in the wings to help you if that occurs.
I know you wanted to stay anonymous, but if you resign, will it matter that they know you dropped the dime?
posted by averyoldworld at 11:08 AM on November 12, 2007
Talk to an attorney before you get too far in pursuing any of your options - they can help you avoid pitfalls (such as veering off into defamatory speech), and there's always a chance you'll be the target of retaliation. You'll want to have somebody waiting in the wings to help you if that occurs.
I know you wanted to stay anonymous, but if you resign, will it matter that they know you dropped the dime?
posted by averyoldworld at 11:08 AM on November 12, 2007
I wish people would stop the "omg some nonprofits are unethical" derails. A lot are not. And a lot of nonprofits rely upon donations from the public (which will stop if many people start believing this money will go to waste).
You can find out more information about a nonprofit's finances at Charity Navigator or by downloading their 990s at Guidestar.org.
posted by salvia at 3:57 PM on November 12, 2007
You can find out more information about a nonprofit's finances at Charity Navigator or by downloading their 990s at Guidestar.org.
posted by salvia at 3:57 PM on November 12, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by 45moore45 at 8:37 PM on November 9, 2007