Thursday, February 28, 2013

This Nonprofit Fraud Victory Took Over 3 Years

by Gary Snyder


The founders of Angel Food Ministries, the now defunct $140 million faith-nonprofit ministry have pleaded guilty. A 71-page indictment alleged that Pastors Joe and Linda Wingo used the charity bank accounts for their own use. According to the Atlantic Journal-Constitution they got kickbacks from food vendors, used a personal jet, used ministry credit cards for personal purchases and personal trips, to name a few misdeeds.

The staff of AJC deserves much credit for this outcome by investigating this fraud, particularly Christopher Quinn. I played a small role by contributing an editorial and adding some expertise. AJC shouldered the large part by evidencing an exemplary team approach.

Nonprofit Imperative has followed the incremental outcomes for more than three years and keeping its readers apprised at each step.



Nonprofit Imperative gathers its information principally from public documents...some of which are directly quoted. Virtually all cited are in some phase of criminal proceedings; some have not been charged, however. Cites in various media: Featured in print, broadcast, and online media outlets, including: Vermont Public Radio, Miami Herald, National Public Radio, Huffington Post, The Sun News, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wall Street Journal (Profile, News and Photos), FOX2, ABC Spotlight on the News, WWJ Radio, Ethics World, Aspen Philanthropy Newsletter, Harvard Business Review, Current Affairs, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, St. Petersburg Times, B, USA Today Topics, Newsweek.com, Responsive Philanthropy Magazine, New York Times...and many more Nonprofits: On the Brink (2006) Silence: The Impending Threat to the Charitable Sector (2011)

A Trusted Leader Charged With A Huge Theft

by Gary Snyder


Elba Esther Gordillo, the most powerful woman in Mexico was arrested on suspicion of embezzling $200 million in union funds for her personal use, including plastic surgery, multimillion-dollar spending sprees at luxury department stores and those seaside mansions near San Diego. She loved to flaunt luxury. Mexican prosecutors said her web of financial subterfuge, filtered through intermediaries and American and Swiss banks, was an act of organized crime. 

According to Mexican Assistant Attorney General Alfredo Castillo, Gordillo set up bank accounts in Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Castillo said that in one case they transferred $1 million to a Swiss account for a company owned by Gordillo's mother. Those funds were then used to buy a million-dollar house in the island of Coronado in San Diego.

The union has exerted so much influence so thoroughly that the government is not certain how many teachers there are — the union does the hiring, with jobs passed among family members like heirlooms — or even how many schools it has because they, too, are essentially run by the union. 

Her downfall, a shock to a nation accustomed to powerful figures untouched by the law, amounted to a bold statement by the new government that could open the way to weakening the vice grip of the 1.5 million-member teachers union, the largest in Latin America.  (NYT)




Nonprofit Imperative gathers its information principally from public documents...some of which are directly quoted. Virtually all cited are in some phase of criminal proceedings; some have not been charged, however. Cites in various media: Featured in print, broadcast, and online media outlets, including: Vermont Public Radio, Miami Herald, National Public Radio, Huffington Post, The Sun News, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wall Street Journal (Profile, News and Photos), FOX2, ABC Spotlight on the News, WWJ Radio, Ethics World, Aspen Philanthropy Newsletter, Harvard Business Review, Current Affairs, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, St. Petersburg Times, B, USA Today Topics, Newsweek.com, Responsive Philanthropy Magazine, New York Times...and many more Nonprofits: On the Brink (2006) Silence: The Impending Threat to the Charitable Sector (2011)

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Oversight Of Charities...in UK, Not USA

by Gary Snyder


Except for a few state Attorney Generals, no governmental agency has taken the lead in ending the epidemic of charity fraud. The UK has.

The Charity Commission has called on charity trustees to minimize the risk of fundraising fraud after several instances this month where charity fraudsters were convicted. The Charity Commission has called on the giving public to ask more questions and be more vigilant when donating, but has issued advice to trustees on how to reduce the risks of fraud. 

The new guidance comes as Crimestoppers is in talks to potential develop a charity-specific hotline for reports of charity fraud from the public and staff, although Crimestoppers said there was no definite timeframe for any such line going forward. 

“By stealing funds for charitable causes, criminals are not only deceiving kind-hearted supporters, but jeopardizing public trust in charitable giving” said one charity UK regulator.

In the USA there is not even the acknowledgement that there is a problem.



Nonprofit Imperative gathers its information principally from public documents...some of which are directly quoted. Virtually all cited are in some phase of criminal proceedings; some have not been charged, however. Cites in various media: Featured in print, broadcast, and online media outlets, including: Vermont Public Radio, Miami Herald, National Public Radio, Huffington Post, The Sun News, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wall Street Journal (Profile, News and Photos), FOX2, ABC Spotlight on the News, WWJ Radio, Ethics World, Aspen Philanthropy Newsletter, Harvard Business Review, Current Affairs, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, St. Petersburg Times, B, USA Today Topics, Newsweek.com, Responsive Philanthropy Magazine, New York Times...and many more Nonprofits: On the Brink (2006) Silence: The Impending Threat to the Charitable Sector (2011)

Can You Believe: Another Troubled Cancer Charity

by Gary Snyder

The website for the Miracle Match Foundation says the charity charter was approved last year, giving it tax-exempt status. Apparently that is not true.

After it filed its 2004 financial statement six years late, the IRS revoked Miracle Match's non-profit status in 2010. According to its 2004 financial statements filed with the IRS, Miracle Match was able to spend only $3,616 on "sick kids/family support" and nothing for research, while listing a negative balance of $377,000 for that year. 

Even without a favorable IRS ruling, the organization put on three events last year, featuring players including Pete Sampras, Chris Evert, Mats Wilander, Todd Martin and Andy Roddick. But Roddick allegedly didn’t get paid because the checks that were sent by the charity bounced. Roddick claims the charity continues to use his likeness on its website as of late in February.

Miracle Match was founded by in 1997 by Grand Rapids tennis pro Bill Przybysz, a former tennis player, after he was diagnosed with leukemia. He says he beat leukemia. Przybysz filed for bankruptcy in 2010. In 2010 the trustee managing his bankruptcy moved to force a debtor examination of Przybysz because he believes he "has not been forthcoming or has been inconsistent about" his financial affairs. The trustee is trying to find out where all the money went and suspects some loans were repaid "on fraudulent terms." Still his bankruptcy filings listed the foundation as a co-debtor and is listed in one of 14 lawsuits in which his petition says there are either cases pending or judgments granted against him. 

Nonprofit Imperative gathers its information principally from public documents...some of which are directly quoted. Virtually all cited are in some phase of criminal proceedings; some have not been charged, however. Cites in various media: Featured in print, broadcast, and online media outlets, including: Vermont Public Radio, Miami Herald, National Public Radio, Huffington Post, The Sun News, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wall Street Journal (Profile, News and Photos), FOX2, ABC Spotlight on the News, WWJ Radio, Ethics World, Aspen Philanthropy Newsletter, Harvard Business Review, Current Affairs, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, St. Petersburg Times, B, USA Today Topics, Newsweek.com, Responsive Philanthropy Magazine, New York Times...and many more Nonprofits: On the Brink (2006) Silence: The Impending Threat to the Charitable Sector (2011)

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Alex Rodriguez' Questionable Charity

by Gary Snyder


A foundation started by New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez gave only 1 percent of proceeds to charity during its first year of operation in 2006, then stopped submitting mandatory financial reports to the IRS and was stripped of its tax-exempt status. The group’s website still tells visitors the A-Rod Family Foundation is a nonprofit organization. (Boston Globe)

In an upcoming edition of NI, we will give readers an update on several celebrity charities…you may be surprised!


Nonprofit Imperative gathers its information principally from public documents...some of which are directly quoted. Virtually all cited are in some phase of criminal proceedings; some have not been charged, however. Cites in various media: Featured in print, broadcast, and online media outlets, including: Vermont Public Radio, Miami Herald, National Public Radio, Huffington Post, The Sun News, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wall Street Journal (Profile, News and Photos), FOX2, ABC Spotlight on the News, WWJ Radio, Ethics World, Aspen Philanthropy Newsletter, Harvard Business Review, Current Affairs, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, St. Petersburg Times, B, USA Today Topics, Newsweek.com, Responsive Philanthropy Magazine, New York Times...and many more Nonprofits: On the Brink (2006) Silence: The Impending Threat to the Charitable Sector (2011)

Monday, February 25, 2013

It Is True: Still Another Cancer Charity Caught

by Gary Snyder


Over the past year and a half, NI has identified dozens of cancer charities that have abuse their fiscal responsibilities. The Chronicle of Philanthropy has done an investigative piece on yet another one

The Children’s Cancer Recovery Foundation, its goal is to “assist children under the age of 18 and their families who are battling the hardships of a cancer diagnosis.” Greg Anderson started the charity and noted, “we take pride in the fact that our sponsors’ donations will be spent on charitable programs as opposed to fundraising or management costs,” Mr. Anderson said in a statement posted on the charity’s Web site last February. The Web site and the attorney general’s top-10 list state that the group devoted more than 81 percent of its $11.9-million budget in 2011 to program services. But as has been the case of so many of the cancer charities the claims do not match any critical analysis.

On its Web site, the children’s cancer charity says its work focuses on three main programs: camp scholarships, financial aid, and a project distributing toys to children in hospitals. 
But of the cash it raised from donors, the group spent less than 15 percent on that work, according to its tax returns from 2011, the last year available.

It spent more than five times as much, roughly $3.7-million, on businesses that perform mailings, telemarketing, and other services. Mr. Anderson told The Chronicle that much of that money paid for the companies’ efforts to educate the public about cancer and his approach to battling the disease, which he said is a key part of his groups’ missions.

The bulk of what the Children’s Cancer Recovery Foundation counted as program services in 2011 is based on the value it attributed to two shipments of medicines, totaling $7.1-million, that it says it received from other nonprofits and then sent overseas.

Critics say the group devotes little cash to what it describes as its main programs. It appears efficient, they say, thanks to loose accounting rules that govern how nonprofits record donated medicines in their financial statements and a longstanding accounting principle that allows the charity to include some of its spending on activities that involve both fundraising and education as program costs.

“These groups spend very little money providing care to cancer sufferers,” Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch, says of Mr. Anderson’s U.S. charities, to which his group gives “F” ratings. “Donors would be wasting their charitable dollars if they gave to these groups.”




Nonprofit Imperative gathers its information principally from public documents...some of which are directly quoted. Virtually all cited are in some phase of criminal proceedings; some have not been charged, however. Cites in various media: Featured in print, broadcast, and online media outlets, including: Vermont Public Radio, Miami Herald, National Public Radio, Huffington Post, The Sun News, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wall Street Journal (Profile, News and Photos), FOX2, ABC Spotlight on the News, WWJ Radio, Ethics World, Aspen Philanthropy Newsletter, Harvard Business Review, Current Affairs, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, St. Petersburg Times, B, USA Today Topics, Newsweek.com, Responsive Philanthropy Magazine, New York Times...and many more Nonprofits: On the Brink (2006) Silence: The Impending Threat to the Charitable Sector (2011)

CONTAINING NONPROFIT FRAUD: The Board Problem


CONTAINING NONPROFIT FRAUD: The Board Problem
by Gary Snyder

   I am initiating a series of articles about possible solutions for the epidemic in nonprofit fraud. It may serve as a kick-off for further discussion. This is the initial take:

   The problem: The Internal Revenue Service, academics, public officials, charity watchdogs acknowledge that nonprofit fraud is a snag in the trustworthiness of the sector. The story of malfeasance has been central to recent American charity history. With no well-defined owners or overseers there has been no interest in developing counter measures to abuse. Because of so few outside constraints, charities tend to believe that they are only accountable to themselves. This has proven to be a recipe for disaster.
 
                                    ___________________________

We are in a major crisis in philanthropic leadership and the board is at the center. Boards have the legal duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. They are required to be responsible stewards of the charitable assets. Typically by law, they have the legal duty to represent the best interests of the stakeholders. Everything is ultimately the board’s responsibility.

Boards in most instances are well- intentioned, but have done little to prevent ongoing scandals that have cost the sector of billions of dollars and considerable trust.  Because boards are typically self-perpetuating, change does not easily take place. Boards must begin to take a more active role in decision-making, ensure that the organization’s resources are used wisely, and see that the mission is fulfilled.

Lack of effective board leadership is systemic. The BBB Wise Giving, a watchdog organization, listed inadequate board activity at the top of its list of standards that charities most commonly fail.

People in leadership roles solely want consensus and to avoid making waves. It is a perfect model that makes it impossible to lead in any environment.

Nonprofit boards are moving from a minimum standard of what they should do to one in which the major criteria is the embarrassment that it can tolerate when they see an investigative reporter writing an article about their agency.

One of the primary qualifications of board members is to fit in, according to a 2002 Texas University study. The major reason for staying on a board seems to be to maintain linkages for social or economic reasons and lastly to give back.

Agencies at the local, state and national level have boards that have a certain kinship to the mission of the agency. Although some of those that are most affected by their decisions are sitting at the table making the decisions, those most affected are the beneficiaries of the mission of the agency are not.

Retention and recruitment are both significant problems and significantly problematic. In his article, Serving Time…on Foundation Boards, John Barkhamer notes that in the mid-2000s there were numerous foundations that retained board members who have been accused or convicted of committing corporate fraud. These selections point to personal relationships superseding objective decision-making and accountability.

Recruiting board members is truly a problem. An Urban Institute study showed that seventy percent of nonprofits are having difficulty recruiting and 20% are finding it very difficult. With collegiality and passivity prevailing, attempts at change and thoughtful decision-making are almost nonexistent.

Collegiality also trumps independence on boards. Those that exercise independence are often ostracized and isolated. They are the very directors that a charity needs most---they are strong, experienced and diligent and will often ask tough questions and represent the stakeholders’ interests. Unfortunately, these marginalized independent thinkers typically will resign, fail to be re-nominated or become frustrated.

Dysfunctional organizations are not helped because a quitting director leaves the problem in place. A climate has often developed where the board members that do not rock the boat have an advantage. The truth is that a board member has more to lose than gain by bucking the system. Board members are there to bring fresh, new ideas or challenge old ones, but they are embarrassed or afraid.

To exacerbate the problem of quality boards, members are exiting because of legal exposure. Many do not want to be involved with legal entanglements such as the ten directors at Enron and the members at WorldCom. The directors at Enron agreed to pay a total of $13 million and at WorldCom the directors were forced to pay $24.75 million. In the charitable sector a few federal cases (Doulgeris v. United States, Verret v. United States) held board members and executives liable for misuse of money that should have been remitted to the government.  These cases raised the antennae of some attorneys whose firms have stopped participation on charity boards.

Boards are blatantly ignorant and do not the set the ethical tone necessary for a sound organization. In a study by the Ethics Resource Center, only about 13% of nonprofit employees believe that their board of directors set an ethical tone. They are inattentive and woefully short on relevant financial background and are not up on the new nonprofit rules.

Board members know little about the charitable industry.  The deficit of knowledge is staggering: according to a Philanthropy Awareness Initiative survey, 62 percent can not even name a foundation on their first try. They lack initiative, diligence or independent thought and fail to even question the most basic elements in making a decision.

With the job of a board member increasingly unattractive to many capable people, the resulting membership is weaker, less informed and less committed. As a consequence, the board is stocked with fainthearted, acquiescent and uninvolved members.

Boards are elected to monitor, advise and direct the managers who run the agency. They have the fiduciary duty to protect the interests of stakeholders. Few do so, so as to not antagonize the executive.

Boards are asleep at the switch. Some have said that the switch has been turned off by lax enforcement as well of lack of information provided by the executive. Being on multiple boards may tire them, as well. This raises questions about whether there is a commitment to oversee the complex charities to which they were entrusted to lead.

(next: Board Solutions)





Nonprofit Imperative gathers its information principally from public documents...some of which are directly quoted. Virtually all cited are in some phase of criminal proceedings; some have not been charged, however. Cites in various media: Featured in print, broadcast, and online media outlets, including: Vermont Public Radio, Miami Herald, National Public Radio, Huffington Post, The Sun News, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wall Street Journal (Profile, News and Photos), FOX2, ABC Spotlight on the News, WWJ Radio, Ethics World, Aspen Philanthropy Newsletter, Harvard Business Review, Current Affairs, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, St. Petersburg Times, B, USA Today Topics, Newsweek.com, Responsive Philanthropy Magazine, New York Times...and many more Nonprofits: On the Brink (2006) Silence: The Impending Threat to the Charitable Sector (2011)