Obama Administration, Gates Foundation Must Audit Food Banks
The Gates foundation announced grants to relieve family distress. This is admirable. Attached with those grants must include conditions granting the foundation audit rights to randomly sample client feedback.
The purpose of this note is to outline for the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, and the Gates Foundation various performance indicators warranting government and private review.
We encourage the Obama Administration to work through the Department of Justice with the Gates Foundation to appropriately bring criminal prosecutions against entities which are violating Federal law, or engaging in illegal discrimination.
"Clients" refers to someone receiving assistance.
The faster distressed families are treated with respect, and given the appropriate service they deserve, the sooner they can get back on their feet, and become productive workers able to fill the gaps in the food banks.
The cause for concern is the people claiming to have problems meeting their food-supply-goals are, in some cases, making the situation worse by abusing clients. The industry, because of poor management and a failed system of internal controls is undermining the confidence of clients who might otherwise find stable employment and no longer require assistance.
The food-supply industry is related to other social services. Sometimes an entity getting a grant for food also provides housing assistance. This creates a potential for a conflict.
Where there are credible complaints about staff abuse against clients, the staff may retaliate by refusing to provide housing, or ajust their position on the waiting list. It is not unheard of for clients who report abuses to be blacklisted, and be removed from all housing lists in the commercial rental business.
We encourage authorities to explore the information flows between the service providers and the housing managers to understand whether information has been inappropriately disclosed; and whether housing access has been illegally denied to retaliate for reporting misconduct.
Some of the allegations related to blacklisting may require the Department of Justice to review allegations of housing discrimination. Sometimes service providers would rather not interact with clients, but they still receive funds despite not using those funds for the clients.
For example, despite getting funding to assist the public, housing remains vacant. When law enforcement learns of this potential misappropriation, housing personnel might quickly troll the streets looking for homeless to fill the housing. No-notice audits are recommended to thwart this practice. The goal should be to provide assistance, not to create a pretext for cashflows to ineffectual managers and staff.
Those providing services to the public have various rules. These are standards of performance that apply to employees and clients. These rules are sometimes formal and written.
There can be disputes between clients and the service provider. One core problem is the incorrect belief that the "problem" is the client, and that the management accusations about the client activity are above question.
We hope the public applies the lessons from the law enforcement community and criminal justice system, and considers the possibility that those in positions of authority can and do abuse that position, and unfairly impose consequences on those most in need. This is done, in part, to retaliate and isolate people. It is blatant intimidation designed to assert power against those most vulnerable and perceived to be incapable of holding staff accountable.
Claiming to be in the service industry cannot create a special immunity to oversight. There are reports of harassment. Managers are alleged to have harassed clients and physically assaulted volunteers. The excuses for inaction must end. The public deserves respectful support, not excuses to tolerate abuses against clients.
Outside Leadership Is Needed
The Gates Foundation properly recognizes the economic challenges. Familes are unable to fully meet their household needs. The foodbanks are below their goals.
However, this challenge should not be an excuse to quickly give funds without monitoring whether there are adequate reforms. Families in distress do not need the added burden of harassment from people supposedly helping them.
We encourage the foundation to assign staff to privately monitor the distribution system, and interview clients to determine whether families getting assistance are or are not getting harassed.
Those in the service industry should be on notice: They may have had personal problems in the past, but this should not be an excuse for them to abuse others. These personal issues should be identified, managed, and appropriately dealt without without adding to the burden on the distressed families.
One model to review this matter is the "secret shopper" model private industry uses. This model relies on paid undercover "shoppers" who are given specific criteria to observe, and paid to complete extensive critique sheets of commercial retail outlets. Once management receives a statistically significant number of surveys, they develop a profile and outline a management plan to address these issues.
We encourage the Gates Foundation to include within its grants a similar program to ensure the Gates Foundations' objectives are being met; and that problems are timely resolved. Once the Gates Foundation receives this information, it can discuss adjustments to the grants.
Of concern are allegations that staff have sadly learned that regulators can be unresponsive to claims. Rather than respectfully fill the gap, some in the service industry appear to have exploited these lessons for personal gain. This is not appropriate.
It is inappropriate for those in the service industry to:
There is also cause for concern that volunteers are also harassed. Those in the service industry should not:
The Gates foundation is encouraged to attach to the grants specific training requirements. Some personnel in the service industry may have come from the pool of distressed families. However, they psychological pain is sometimes not adequately dealt with before they take on more responsibilities as providing assistance to their former peers.
There should be a training program. That training program should be audited by the board of directors to ensure there is a reasonable relationship between:
The foundation is encouraged to compel reasonable training requirements, and ensure that staff directly contacting the public are adequately trained and given psychological assistance. This will help restore the dignity that the service providers claim they are assisting. It is not appropriate for service providers to:
The Gates Foundation is encouraged to review the following types of records and information:
Recommendations: Whether there is or is not a reasonable relationship between the information staff personally observe about peer actions; or whether employment performance is misconstrued to leave, as retaliation, misperceptions with future employers.
Meeting Minutes: If there are supposed management actions based on infromation, then this adverse information should be documented. However, where the supposed information proves to be illusory, management should be providing the board of directors an explanation for the reqal reasons for staff changes. The foundation should review whether the employees, clients, staff, and volunteers do or do not have equal footing with management to raise their concerns; or whether the board of directors given in appropriate deference to management they have not adequately audited.
There should be a logical connection between the supposed staff-client misconduct, and the timeing of the mangment plans and decisions. It is reckless for management, as a ruse, to pretend dissatisifed staff have been fired; or that client, unwilling to tolerate the mangement abuse, have been directed to leave. This smokscreen will not work. The proper attention is on management:
There are some opportunities for private business to enter the service provider auditing industry. Websites could be developed to independently rate the industries, service, and employee conduct, similar to a model of "Rate My Teacher". This will provide a forum for the public to observe whether there are patterns in the complaints; and ensure clients and volunteers understand the scope of concerns before agreeing to receive services or enter into a volunteer arrangement.
The information related to ongoing disciplinary problems and sanctions must be publicly available. the last thing the public needs to learn is that a problem employee in one service has been transferred and continues their abuse elsewhere.
Local media are encouraged to be challenged to discuss why they have not adequately reviewed the claims of harassment, blacklisting, and other alleged corruption. This information appears to have been so pervasive that the media appears to view any reports of this misconduct might interfere with donations.
As with the Catholic Church abuse scandals, silence does not solve the problem. Indeed, donations did drop, but this was a consequence of disguest with the hyporcrisy of inaction. Had there been timely reviews of the religous sector and timely reforms and discipline, there might not have been a backlash. Indeed, the problem would have been solved early, not allowed to spiral out of control. However, the silence fed the religous community with the incorrect perception that this was an isolated problem, that the problem was with the community, and that the problem could be hidden.
This arrogance needs to end. Problems will only get addressed when they are responsibly managed. However, the silence that has infected the service industry means the abuses continue, and the most vulnerable are induced to receive services from those who might not have their best interests at heart.
Those receiving services must be informed of this possibility. The public should be given adequate notice that there might be problems when they receive services. Those who are clients should be encouraged to come forward, air their concerns, and have confidence that the public will be on their side: Indeed, the public is standing with the clients to assist them, not create the impression of charity, but, in practice, compounding their distress.
The Gates foundation should also create a clearing house for complaints that are not necessarily of a criminal matter, but relate to poor service. The public and potential clients should have access to this information so they can make informed decisions about which services and providers they would like to associate. The sad lessons should be disseminated so that others can make timely decisions, not slowly have their souls chipped away as the months pass by. The goal here is to help people, not create confusion so those in need are not able to quickly understand inappropriate conduct.
These should be goals which the foundation attaches to the grantee, and establish benchmarks for the public to openly monitor the service provided. Some of the benchmarks might include:
We recommend the Gates Foundation glean the lessons of the US Government IG system. Specifically, where there are reporting systems which lead to investigations, the question becomes harassment and retaliation. This is not a speculative, future problem; it is an ongoing problem. We argue that the "possible retaliation" is a pretext management would use to thwart a meaningful complaint system.
We recommend the Gates Foundation review the backgrounds of select service providers to establish whether the reported responses to this audit plan do or not meet the intent of the Gates Foundation: To ensure families in distressed are assisted. Conversely, when the Gates Foundation learns of misconduct, or situations where the boards of directors have not timely responded to pervasive patterns of misconduct, the Gates Foundation should report to the community options to replace the board.
During the confrontation with problematic providers, the Gates Foundation should remind the community that the funds provided will not be used as leverage to interfere with daily operations. Moreover, the public and clients should be confident that the public will not be used as leverage to impose unreasonable performance standards. Even if there is an unresolved issue, the Gates Foundation should leave the imperssion with the communities that funds will not be cut. Rather, the core message should be that during this time of increased oversight, examination, and scrutiy, the funding distressed families need will continue.
The current economic situation is one that touches all Americans. Sadly, some Americans who were recently well off and in leadership positions find themselves at a new end of the economic pipeline. Some of the clients were wealthy, but now find themselves in shock, unable to coherently take care of personal needs. The last thing they need, on top of this economic distress, is to learn that those supposedly providing assistance are using their proxomity to abuse the distressed.
This situation needs to be monitored. The public when it asks for assistance should not be exposed to additional hardship, especially by those who would have the Gates Foundation believe that they are worthy of funds. Yes, the foodbanks to provide a needed bridge between what familes can do on their own, and others services available.
We hope the Gates Foundation will realize the public appreciates its timely action. Their attention and care is important. The public appreciates the generous supports. We hope the Foundation will continue to provide the needed leadership during this difficult period.
Here is a sample audit checklist you may find useful:
What appears to be happening:
The public should know the following:
Reforms Are Needed
Local government budgets are under stress, prompting the Gates Foundation Action. However, local governments also require the public to publicly identify themselves when raising issues. This is a serious challenge to open dialog about abuses directed at those receiving services.
Local government staff should work with legal counsel to ensure that they can receive information and that the identities of clients will be protected. Just as there are protections afforded to informants to ensure their identiifes are protected when making reports about terrorism, the same should be done with reports about abuse and staff misconduct.
The same excuses thwarting effective implementation of local law enforcement oversight is similarly slowrolling independent reviews of the service providers. The same type of union arrogance behind the law enforcement unresponsiveness is similarly entrenched within the service industry oppoing reforms, creating barriers to oversight, and retaliating against clients.
Detailed Explanations Required
The hypocrisy is telling. It is arrogant for people connected with religous institutions to pubilcly trump their religous mandate -- of supposeldy helping the poor -- while, in private, abusing them. Those who are thumping the Bible should be reminded they bring discredit upon God's plan when they violate a position of trust, and use information gleaned from their relious training to oppose what Jesus Christ would have the fortunate do: Do unto others.
We encourage the public to review the backgrounds of the staff providing this assistance. Where there are gaps in their resumees, you should review their explanations for leaving. The alst thing the public and Gates Foundation needs to learn is that, as with the Catholic Church and law enforcement community, the service providers are (in secret) passing along the bad actors.
Management needs to demand certified statements from staff related to the following issues:
Where appropriate and there are issues of 501 c3, federal authories should be brought into the nexus to rview whether the allegatiosn of staff harassment violate not just state bud federal statutes.
The pbulic is encouraged to review hether local governments have or have not been responsive to increating oversight to ensure improvement of the quality
The public and legal counsel are encouragee to openly discuss using 42 USC 1983 or other legal tools to review patterns of official government activity designed to abuse the public, or otherwise create a harassing environemtn
Some people like to parade themselves as being above question. However, the public is encouraged to carefully review what the staff is saying; and compare this with what the staff is really doing.
The public needs to see the employeees and staff embrace the standards expected of clients. Clients face the possible (arbitrary) loss of services.
The public should be given a specific list of disciplinary actions and rules the clients are expected to meet. Similarly, employee standars of conduct should be publicly available.
The clients and employees should not be held to a different standard than those who are in "leadership" positions. Employees and clients are sometimes required to provide detailed background information to justify access. It is a serious issue when the public learns that the staff have not been honest with their personal information to thwart public oversight of their problematic work history and previous abuses. If the staff demands infromation from the clients, then the clients should have access to similar information about the staff; and where that information publicly disclosed proves to be misleading, the boards of directors should review why they are holding the clients to a different standard than the employees.
Those who have credibility and command respect should be able to speak with authority. Rather, those who must rely on physical coercion to compel compliance show a weak spirit, and require special board scrutiny.
Someone who is in the service industry, and "familiar" with certain challenges should have a credible risk mitigation plan. They cannot credible demand special consideration or credit based on their "personal or familiary experience," but then fail to use that experience and not properly manage the foreseeable management challenges.
Expectations For the Board of Directors
There is an intermediate position between the Gates Foundation and the local service providers. These are the boards of directors. They have a fiduciary duty to act. Failure to act could result in civil lawsuits.
Boards of directors have liability insurance. The threat of a lawsuit should not be a concern, nor the possible economic damages. The public should know that despite the possible loss of finances, the boards of directors still refused to act. Hence, outside oversight is required to challenge this arrogance.
In some cases, the boards have not adequately created a safe environment for clients share their concerns. In other case, they've negligent in meeting their fiduciary duty to oversee and, where needed, fire staff who are abusing clients.
Of concern are the inappropriate relationships between boards of directors and the problematic staff. There may be partisan-political objectives and calculations to not investigate or challenge a problematic staff. The boards are encouraged to take a skeptical view of employee claims and plans.
The question the boards of directors should ask: To what extent are they exposing thesmselves to a civil lawsuit for failing to meet their fiduciary duties expected? It is unforatuen that it might require litigation to compel the boards of directors to take this situation seriously.
Sadly, the boards of directors are adequately staffed with people familiar with the legal community, and are well positioned to make excuses for inaction. this arrogance needs to end. A pbulic accounting is needed. Lawyers on the boards of directors should be held at a minium to the peformance standards in the attorney standards of conduct. Where they do receive information of misconduct, the American Bar Association should promulgate requirements that would compel a timely report and action of the ABA-connected legal counsel.
The public should have the confidence that the legal counsel connected with the boards of directors will take their obligations seriously; and that they will timely act to investigate and discipline problematic employees providing less than stellar service to the public.
Suggestions For Clients and Employees
Remind your friends that there are some powerful people concerned with your wellbeing, and aware those providing assistance may not necessarily put you first.This problem is understood and subject to national level debate, scrutiny, and examination.
Avoid going to problem service areas by yourself. This will ensure management does not create a false timeline or make baseless accusations.
Monitor which services have a high turn over rate of staff, and exercising caution when discussing personal matters.
take time to explore whether you want to work with a particular service provider. You may hear glowing reports because they have suppressed adverse information. Talk to people who have received services or used to work there.
Be mindful that some people in the service industry were formerly needy and disadvantaged. They may not have the social or professional skills or professionally interact with others. Do not be surprised if they use abusive language or physical intimidation to achieve their objectives.
Should you decide to depart, consider documenting in a letter your reasons for departure. This will ensure staff and management do not fabricate "later information" and pretend that you were the problem, or that they asked you to leave.
Know which staff and management you should require information in writing.
Understand which staff have a favorable position with the service board of directors, which may thwart effective oversight or impede your ability to get board support for your concerns.
Remember you are not alone. Share your lessons. Encourage others to remain strong while you face a challenging economic situation. How you are treated is not about you, but about what others (incorrectly) believe they can get away with.
Help is on the way.
The purpose of this note is to outline for the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, and the Gates Foundation various performance indicators warranting government and private review.
We encourage the Obama Administration to work through the Department of Justice with the Gates Foundation to appropriately bring criminal prosecutions against entities which are violating Federal law, or engaging in illegal discrimination.
"Clients" refers to someone receiving assistance.
The faster distressed families are treated with respect, and given the appropriate service they deserve, the sooner they can get back on their feet, and become productive workers able to fill the gaps in the food banks.
The cause for concern is the people claiming to have problems meeting their food-supply-goals are, in some cases, making the situation worse by abusing clients. The industry, because of poor management and a failed system of internal controls is undermining the confidence of clients who might otherwise find stable employment and no longer require assistance.
The food-supply industry is related to other social services. Sometimes an entity getting a grant for food also provides housing assistance. This creates a potential for a conflict.
Where there are credible complaints about staff abuse against clients, the staff may retaliate by refusing to provide housing, or ajust their position on the waiting list. It is not unheard of for clients who report abuses to be blacklisted, and be removed from all housing lists in the commercial rental business.
We encourage authorities to explore the information flows between the service providers and the housing managers to understand whether information has been inappropriately disclosed; and whether housing access has been illegally denied to retaliate for reporting misconduct.
Some of the allegations related to blacklisting may require the Department of Justice to review allegations of housing discrimination. Sometimes service providers would rather not interact with clients, but they still receive funds despite not using those funds for the clients.
For example, despite getting funding to assist the public, housing remains vacant. When law enforcement learns of this potential misappropriation, housing personnel might quickly troll the streets looking for homeless to fill the housing. No-notice audits are recommended to thwart this practice. The goal should be to provide assistance, not to create a pretext for cashflows to ineffectual managers and staff.
Those providing services to the public have various rules. These are standards of performance that apply to employees and clients. These rules are sometimes formal and written.
There can be disputes between clients and the service provider. One core problem is the incorrect belief that the "problem" is the client, and that the management accusations about the client activity are above question.
We hope the public applies the lessons from the law enforcement community and criminal justice system, and considers the possibility that those in positions of authority can and do abuse that position, and unfairly impose consequences on those most in need. This is done, in part, to retaliate and isolate people. It is blatant intimidation designed to assert power against those most vulnerable and perceived to be incapable of holding staff accountable.
Claiming to be in the service industry cannot create a special immunity to oversight. There are reports of harassment. Managers are alleged to have harassed clients and physically assaulted volunteers. The excuses for inaction must end. The public deserves respectful support, not excuses to tolerate abuses against clients.
Outside Leadership Is Needed
The Gates Foundation properly recognizes the economic challenges. Familes are unable to fully meet their household needs. The foodbanks are below their goals.
However, this challenge should not be an excuse to quickly give funds without monitoring whether there are adequate reforms. Families in distress do not need the added burden of harassment from people supposedly helping them.
We encourage the foundation to assign staff to privately monitor the distribution system, and interview clients to determine whether families getting assistance are or are not getting harassed.
Those in the service industry should be on notice: They may have had personal problems in the past, but this should not be an excuse for them to abuse others. These personal issues should be identified, managed, and appropriately dealt without without adding to the burden on the distressed families.
One model to review this matter is the "secret shopper" model private industry uses. This model relies on paid undercover "shoppers" who are given specific criteria to observe, and paid to complete extensive critique sheets of commercial retail outlets. Once management receives a statistically significant number of surveys, they develop a profile and outline a management plan to address these issues.
We encourage the Gates Foundation to include within its grants a similar program to ensure the Gates Foundations' objectives are being met; and that problems are timely resolved. Once the Gates Foundation receives this information, it can discuss adjustments to the grants.
Of concern are allegations that staff have sadly learned that regulators can be unresponsive to claims. Rather than respectfully fill the gap, some in the service industry appear to have exploited these lessons for personal gain. This is not appropriate.
It is inappropriate for those in the service industry to:
- Blacklist clients who have raised concerns about misconduct, inappropriate favoritism, or improper use of grant funds
- To deny services to clients who have raised concerns about agency or service misconduct
- Threaten clients with loss of service if they communicate their concerns about inappropriate conduct
- Spread false rumors about clients to intimidate them or induce silence about misconduct
- Disseminate private information about clients to personnel not clearned to access that information
- Gather personal information to conduct private, non-official investigations of clients to harass them
- Target clients because they show marginal competence which exceeds that of misplaced staff
There is also cause for concern that volunteers are also harassed. Those in the service industry should not:
- Physically assault staff, volunteers, and clients
- Violate personal boundaries without regard to the dignity of others
- Expose clients to media monitoring with subsequent retaliation for expressing unfavorable (but truthful) information
- Use client decisions to "not participate in intrusive interviews" as a pretext to forward this refusal to law enforcement under the pretext of "suspicious conduct"
- Pretend that law enforcement is conducting searches of the facilities or persons to scare clients
The Gates foundation is encouraged to attach to the grants specific training requirements. Some personnel in the service industry may have come from the pool of distressed families. However, they psychological pain is sometimes not adequately dealt with before they take on more responsibilities as providing assistance to their former peers.
There should be a training program. That training program should be audited by the board of directors to ensure there is a reasonable relationship between:
- Identified problemsThese training plans must be tailored to the individual staff. They cannot be pencil whipped. Staff who directly interact with the clients must be given special attention. They must meet reasonable performance standards. After probationary periods, but unable to meet their performance goals, these staff must be removed and replaced with more competent staff.
- Working conditions
- Clients complaints
- The challenges facing the staff
- Board of director goals
The foundation is encouraged to compel reasonable training requirements, and ensure that staff directly contacting the public are adequately trained and given psychological assistance. This will help restore the dignity that the service providers claim they are assisting. It is not appropriate for service providers to:
- Demean the publicwe encourage the Department of Justice to explore the relationship between those who write grants and interact with private donors; with those who are receiving those funds.
- Use personal information to intimidate clients
- Eaves drop on private cell phone conversations
- Use information gleaned from their proximity to clients to engage in harassment, stalk, or intimidate clients
Look for the following indicators:
- Family connections to multiple sides of the assistance industry.
One family member in the grant writing area; another in the service side; a third in the social work and clinical psychology; a fourth in the religious community; and a fifth in the disabilities area. These overlapping areas create an opportunity for associates to disseminate false information through one channel and create demands in another; or exploit lessons from one area to their advantage in another. There is the possibility of kickbacks, and has nothing to do with assisting the public.
- Unusual claims of "family emergencies" happening around dates of key grant writing or industry conferences; yet these emergencies are not supported by appropriate news releases or other obituaries;
- Claims of "family experience" working with the disadvantaged, but using that experience to thwart detection of management abuses;
- Unexplained changes in spelling of names to thwart internet searches to conduct independent reviews and interviews of problematic employees
- Staff claims to superior access to "law enforcement databases" despite law enforcement having no record of specific meetings or investigations
- Relying on a religious affiliation to induce others to gain confidence in management, but management practices do not adequately meet the spirit of the religious doctrine
- Reports of physical assault against staff, clients and volunteers
- Heavy staff self-promotion in the media using associates not given full information about practices
- Sweeping positive claims by management in the media without independent interviews to provide different views of those management claims
The Gates Foundation is encouraged to review the following types of records and information:
Recommendations: Whether there is or is not a reasonable relationship between the information staff personally observe about peer actions; or whether employment performance is misconstrued to leave, as retaliation, misperceptions with future employers.
- Is the staff claiming volunteers and employees were "problems", but their day-to-day feedback was never critical?
- Do peer reports about the clients, volunteers, and staff reconcile with management written states to the board?
- is there a reason management cannot provide documentation related to their allegations of "outside concerns" in the investigation area?
Meeting Minutes: If there are supposed management actions based on infromation, then this adverse information should be documented. However, where the supposed information proves to be illusory, management should be providing the board of directors an explanation for the reqal reasons for staff changes. The foundation should review whether the employees, clients, staff, and volunteers do or do not have equal footing with management to raise their concerns; or whether the board of directors given in appropriate deference to management they have not adequately audited.
There should be a logical connection between the supposed staff-client misconduct, and the timeing of the mangment plans and decisions. It is reckless for management, as a ruse, to pretend dissatisifed staff have been fired; or that client, unwilling to tolerate the mangement abuse, have been directed to leave. This smokscreen will not work. The proper attention is on management:
- Why are they creating "management decision time lines on personnel actions" that do not reconcile with independent audits of client and staff activity?Staff Comments: Once staff leave the service industry, they should be encouraged to provide comment forms. This will ensure the staff's concerns are raised, and that the public and clients are not unduly burdened with "reports of misconduct" without any ability to resolve these. The worst situation is for staff to spread rumors about their peers after employment, and leave the clients in the uncomfortable position of attempting to navigate the services while dealing with the added burden of management inaction to reasonable concerns.
- Why should the public take seriously these management claims about firing/release decisions, when the weight of evidence supports the opposite conclusion: That staff have left to remove themselves from questionable, illegal, or abusive conduct?
- Is there a reason the management feels complled to shift teh attention from the unsatisfactory conditions -- prompting client-staff departure -- to create an illusory timeline pretending that mangement said they were not welcome?
- Does the management staff have an explanation why the post-employment reports are negative?Private Models
- Why is the management not developing a system to in-house, while still employed, responsibly handle these employee concerns, and use this feedback to improve operations, thereby reducing turnover and training costs?
- Is management so incompetent that they take any suggestion as a personal attack, and find it appropriate to intimidate those who have marginally more competence in the service area?
- How does management explain the recurring problems that nbody else has observed; but the management refuses to be responsive to concerns about management concern?
There are some opportunities for private business to enter the service provider auditing industry. Websites could be developed to independently rate the industries, service, and employee conduct, similar to a model of "Rate My Teacher". This will provide a forum for the public to observe whether there are patterns in the complaints; and ensure clients and volunteers understand the scope of concerns before agreeing to receive services or enter into a volunteer arrangement.
The information related to ongoing disciplinary problems and sanctions must be publicly available. the last thing the public needs to learn is that a problem employee in one service has been transferred and continues their abuse elsewhere.
Local media are encouraged to be challenged to discuss why they have not adequately reviewed the claims of harassment, blacklisting, and other alleged corruption. This information appears to have been so pervasive that the media appears to view any reports of this misconduct might interfere with donations.
As with the Catholic Church abuse scandals, silence does not solve the problem. Indeed, donations did drop, but this was a consequence of disguest with the hyporcrisy of inaction. Had there been timely reviews of the religous sector and timely reforms and discipline, there might not have been a backlash. Indeed, the problem would have been solved early, not allowed to spiral out of control. However, the silence fed the religous community with the incorrect perception that this was an isolated problem, that the problem was with the community, and that the problem could be hidden.
This arrogance needs to end. Problems will only get addressed when they are responsibly managed. However, the silence that has infected the service industry means the abuses continue, and the most vulnerable are induced to receive services from those who might not have their best interests at heart.
Those receiving services must be informed of this possibility. The public should be given adequate notice that there might be problems when they receive services. Those who are clients should be encouraged to come forward, air their concerns, and have confidence that the public will be on their side: Indeed, the public is standing with the clients to assist them, not create the impression of charity, but, in practice, compounding their distress.
The Gates foundation should also create a clearing house for complaints that are not necessarily of a criminal matter, but relate to poor service. The public and potential clients should have access to this information so they can make informed decisions about which services and providers they would like to associate. The sad lessons should be disseminated so that others can make timely decisions, not slowly have their souls chipped away as the months pass by. The goal here is to help people, not create confusion so those in need are not able to quickly understand inappropriate conduct.
These should be goals which the foundation attaches to the grantee, and establish benchmarks for the public to openly monitor the service provided. Some of the benchmarks might include:
- Establishing an independent list of service indicators
- Creating a platform for the public, clients, volunteers and staff to report and disseminate adverse information about management and staff conduct
- Create a clearing house for the clients and donors to understand the quality of service provided, and share with clients the types of problems they might be confronted with, with a list of suggested options they use -- in the moment -- when confronted with inappropriate behavior
- Create a dialog with boards of directors to ensure they are aware of client, volunteer, and staff concerns about service provided
- Ensure boards of directors and their legal counsel understand that the public is willing to bring private lawsuits to compel board action, and that insurance claims (litigation losses related to board negligence, malfeasance, failure to meet fiduciary duties) cannot dip into private donations for the public to settle these civil suits
- Ensure the clients, volunteers, and formerly assigned staff are adequately interviewed to identify specific concerns they have with the agency treatment of clients
- Developing a prioritized list of concerns at the foodbanks, and impose reasonable deadlines on the boards of directors to meet service goals
- Set a deadline to complete the investigations and publish a draft report for client, employee, and board of director comment
- Maintain a post-report auditing plan that will monitor whether the identified abuses are adequately addressed
- Implement a training program for the service providers to ensure they meet a reasonable annual training goal to ensure they are reminded of their mission, samples of professional training, and that this training is documented
- Forward evidence of harassment, intimidation, and criminal activity to law enforcement
- Remind boards of directors that if they refuse to remove problematic staff that the Gates Foundation will use its public profile to encourage appropriate management and staff changes
- Ensure the facilities, rooms, and warehouses used to provide this assistance are safe for clients, volunteers, staff, and mangement
- There remains a board of director-supported complaint system to ensure that clients, volunteers, and staff have a safe mechanism to provide information
We recommend the Gates Foundation glean the lessons of the US Government IG system. Specifically, where there are reporting systems which lead to investigations, the question becomes harassment and retaliation. This is not a speculative, future problem; it is an ongoing problem. We argue that the "possible retaliation" is a pretext management would use to thwart a meaningful complaint system.
We recommend the Gates Foundation review the backgrounds of select service providers to establish whether the reported responses to this audit plan do or not meet the intent of the Gates Foundation: To ensure families in distressed are assisted. Conversely, when the Gates Foundation learns of misconduct, or situations where the boards of directors have not timely responded to pervasive patterns of misconduct, the Gates Foundation should report to the community options to replace the board.
During the confrontation with problematic providers, the Gates Foundation should remind the community that the funds provided will not be used as leverage to interfere with daily operations. Moreover, the public and clients should be confident that the public will not be used as leverage to impose unreasonable performance standards. Even if there is an unresolved issue, the Gates Foundation should leave the imperssion with the communities that funds will not be cut. Rather, the core message should be that during this time of increased oversight, examination, and scrutiy, the funding distressed families need will continue.
The current economic situation is one that touches all Americans. Sadly, some Americans who were recently well off and in leadership positions find themselves at a new end of the economic pipeline. Some of the clients were wealthy, but now find themselves in shock, unable to coherently take care of personal needs. The last thing they need, on top of this economic distress, is to learn that those supposedly providing assistance are using their proxomity to abuse the distressed.
This situation needs to be monitored. The public when it asks for assistance should not be exposed to additional hardship, especially by those who would have the Gates Foundation believe that they are worthy of funds. Yes, the foodbanks to provide a needed bridge between what familes can do on their own, and others services available.
We hope the Gates Foundation will realize the public appreciates its timely action. Their attention and care is important. The public appreciates the generous supports. We hope the Foundation will continue to provide the needed leadership during this difficult period.
Here is a sample audit checklist you may find useful:
Do we have a mechanism to independently screen client comments and responsibly investigate complaints to meet our service objectives?
Have we established performance and auditing goals for the boards of directors to establish with management; is there ongoing, no-notice audits done on the client-staff interactions to monitor foundation goals?
When staff are engaged in misconduct, do we timely ensure there is appropriate training, or that the staff are timely removed?
Are the staff making consistent statements about supposed "concerns" raised by outsiders?
Is there an adequate training plan to meet anual refresher objectives?
Is the qulaity of service leaving clients in a better position; or is the promise of economic assistance used as the pretext to force clients to tolerate unreasble abuse, intrusion, intimidation, and harassment?
Have we independently reviewed the quality of service provided to the clients, and verified independently the management claims about clients satisfaction?
Do we have an appropriate forum to raise issues where clients, staff, and management feel safe to seriously review their concerns?
Has the staff created an intimidating environment where adverse information about unsafe conditions or inappropriate staff conduct are not timely brought to management decision?
To what extent does the staff attempt to rely on "secret" information to intimidate others?
What appears to be happening:
- Some are using the "prospect of loss of donations" to induce silence about the abuses.The police abuses are compounding the problem. Some service providers know which issues police and local government will not audit. these are the areas that service providers are engaging with apparent disregard for accountability or consequences.
- Staff have learned the roadblocks in the investigation, law enforcement, and criminal justice system. They are aware of which specific types of complaints will go nowhere. They are familiar with the abuses in the Catholic Church, and are pretending they have information about clients who have supposedly engaged in the same misconduct. Using this information gleaned from unsuccessful complaints, they've tailored information and interactions to match what has not been adequately addressed in other situations. Because they've had the misfortune of not having a complaint adequately processed, they're exploiting this information to create similar problems for those they're supposedly helping.
- Some service providers have had the unfortunate history of seeing first hand a family member who was abused, or their concerns about employment mistreatment were not adequately addressed. They have grown bitter because of a perceived unresponsive legal system. Rather than privately resolve this issue, they've applied these lessons and are abusing others in the same way.
- Staff have learned of the shield of silence surrounding the Catholic Church, and are applying the lessons. They're spreading false information about clients, pretending to provide access to "inside" information, and encouraging the clients and staff to "keep quiet" about this "inside" information. This is a ruse to create a relationship between the staff and the client based on deception. The inforemation has been fabricated not to share bonafide information, but to make the clients, staff, and volunteers believe there is a large investigation. The investigation proves to be illusory, designed as a smokescreen to put the client or volunteer on the defensive and not notice management's questionable conduct.
The public should know the following:
- You have the reasonable expectation of being treated with respect, regardless your economic status, housing conditions, or ability to meet your budget.
- You have the right to be treated with respect
- You have the right to have confidence that your donations are going to responsible staff who are professionally interacting with others
- You have the right to communicating your concerns about staff misconduct without fear of additional retaliation
- You have the right to be free of stalking, harassment, or other abuse from those in the service industry who are inappropriate retaliating for their concern that their misconduct has been detected, observed, or discussed
- You have the right to raise your concerns, freely share your observations, and learn from others the real conditions you are going to face should you interact with a specific service provider
- You have the right to see that your donations are responsibility managed by a professional staff who take seriously client concerns about misconduct
- You have the right to work with others to have your concerns raised, and develop open forums and discussion boards to raise your concerns about misconduct; and have the confidence that these issues will be effectively managed, and not swept under the rug
- You have the right to question law enforcement and the media when they refuse to investigate or report on information of harassment, staff misconduct, or inappropriate interactions with clients
- You have the right to know that the nation will not let a "financial crisis" be a smokescreen to compel your silence about misconduct, abuse, and inappropriate activity
- You have the right to be reasonably provide service without harassment, and that you are treated with respect, and that your concerns are timely handled by a staff dedicated and trained to professional conduct invernal investigations
- You have the right to provide confidential information to firms providing grants without fear of retalation
Reforms Are Needed
Local government budgets are under stress, prompting the Gates Foundation Action. However, local governments also require the public to publicly identify themselves when raising issues. This is a serious challenge to open dialog about abuses directed at those receiving services.
Local government staff should work with legal counsel to ensure that they can receive information and that the identities of clients will be protected. Just as there are protections afforded to informants to ensure their identiifes are protected when making reports about terrorism, the same should be done with reports about abuse and staff misconduct.
The same excuses thwarting effective implementation of local law enforcement oversight is similarly slowrolling independent reviews of the service providers. The same type of union arrogance behind the law enforcement unresponsiveness is similarly entrenched within the service industry oppoing reforms, creating barriers to oversight, and retaliating against clients.
Detailed Explanations Required
The hypocrisy is telling. It is arrogant for people connected with religous institutions to pubilcly trump their religous mandate -- of supposeldy helping the poor -- while, in private, abusing them. Those who are thumping the Bible should be reminded they bring discredit upon God's plan when they violate a position of trust, and use information gleaned from their relious training to oppose what Jesus Christ would have the fortunate do: Do unto others.
- Why are those who have family members who have suffered abuse at the hands of service providers turning around and doing the same to others?
- Why are those who have raised concerns about misconduct -- only to have those concerns rebuffed -- applying these lessons to abuse others similarly situated?
- Why are those whose family members are in the mental health industry apparently not using these resources to ensure their personal issues are appropriately handled before they interact with the public?
- What is the reason that service providers feel the need to falsely report to clients incorrect information about whether there are or are not local "investigations"?
- Why should anyone believe that the service providers have a "special" relationship with law enforcement?
- Whose idea is it that "helping" someone means communicating to them false information designed to alarm, annoy, or harass?
- Are there specific reasons staff feel compelled to stay in a job where they are stressed, and unable to respectfully interact with clients?
- Why is personal information being used to the advantage of others who cannot compete on the basis of merit, quality of service, or competence?
- What is the specific reason staff feel compelled to use trivial reasons to harass clients with irrelevant information, useless advice?
- Does the staff have a specific reason why they continue to permit their peers to lecture clients about "how to live" or "what they should have done"? This is not service, but second guessing. Congress is unresponsive, why should the clients respond to this useless information?
We encourage the public to review the backgrounds of the staff providing this assistance. Where there are gaps in their resumees, you should review their explanations for leaving. The alst thing the public and Gates Foundation needs to learn is that, as with the Catholic Church and law enforcement community, the service providers are (in secret) passing along the bad actors.
Management needs to demand certified statements from staff related to the following issues:
- Their reasons for leaving their previous employment
- How reports of misconduct were handled at their previous position
- Whether the staff is or is not being truthful in responding to foundation requests for information related to staff misconduct, client concerns, or patterns of harassment
- Knowledge of retaliation and blacklisting plans against clients who raise concerns
about inappropriate transfers of funds or favoritims
Where appropriate and there are issues of 501 c3, federal authories should be brought into the nexus to rview whether the allegatiosn of staff harassment violate not just state bud federal statutes.
The pbulic is encouraged to review hether local governments have or have not been responsive to increating oversight to ensure improvement of the quality
The public and legal counsel are encouragee to openly discuss using 42 USC 1983 or other legal tools to review patterns of official government activity designed to abuse the public, or otherwise create a harassing environemtn
Some people like to parade themselves as being above question. However, the public is encouraged to carefully review what the staff is saying; and compare this with what the staff is really doing.
- Are the staff talking about helping the poor, but working with others to target specific people?
- Has the staff presented to the board of directors a glowing plan to provide service, but the plan does not adequately demonstrate a coherent internal performance audit to ensure abuses in analogous industries are not repeated?
- Does the staff claim to have personal knowledge or experience with a "segment of society" but their conduct shows their using this information not to help, but to exploit those in need?
- Does the staff claim to have a special relationship with the religious community, but their actions fail to demonstrate their true respect for those religious principles and doctrines?
The public needs to see the employeees and staff embrace the standards expected of clients. Clients face the possible (arbitrary) loss of services.
The public should be given a specific list of disciplinary actions and rules the clients are expected to meet. Similarly, employee standars of conduct should be publicly available.
- Is there a particular reason the staff is using different names in one location; and different spellings in another?
- To what extent are the staff using "new names" to thwart investigations into other misconduct at another facility?
The clients and employees should not be held to a different standard than those who are in "leadership" positions. Employees and clients are sometimes required to provide detailed background information to justify access. It is a serious issue when the public learns that the staff have not been honest with their personal information to thwart public oversight of their problematic work history and previous abuses. If the staff demands infromation from the clients, then the clients should have access to similar information about the staff; and where that information publicly disclosed proves to be misleading, the boards of directors should review why they are holding the clients to a different standard than the employees.
- Does the staff have an explanation why they are treating people who want to assist with disdain, physically assaulting them, and using physical intimidation?
Those who have credibility and command respect should be able to speak with authority. Rather, those who must rely on physical coercion to compel compliance show a weak spirit, and require special board scrutiny.
- Does the staff have an explation why they are familiar with a specific service model, but they are not able to discuss or respond to questions about failures to include appropriate risk management methods within the model they are supposedly an expert?
Someone who is in the service industry, and "familiar" with certain challenges should have a credible risk mitigation plan. They cannot credible demand special consideration or credit based on their "personal or familiary experience," but then fail to use that experience and not properly manage the foreseeable management challenges.
Expectations For the Board of Directors
There is an intermediate position between the Gates Foundation and the local service providers. These are the boards of directors. They have a fiduciary duty to act. Failure to act could result in civil lawsuits.
Boards of directors have liability insurance. The threat of a lawsuit should not be a concern, nor the possible economic damages. The public should know that despite the possible loss of finances, the boards of directors still refused to act. Hence, outside oversight is required to challenge this arrogance.
In some cases, the boards have not adequately created a safe environment for clients share their concerns. In other case, they've negligent in meeting their fiduciary duty to oversee and, where needed, fire staff who are abusing clients.
Of concern are the inappropriate relationships between boards of directors and the problematic staff. There may be partisan-political objectives and calculations to not investigate or challenge a problematic staff. The boards are encouraged to take a skeptical view of employee claims and plans.
The question the boards of directors should ask: To what extent are they exposing thesmselves to a civil lawsuit for failing to meet their fiduciary duties expected? It is unforatuen that it might require litigation to compel the boards of directors to take this situation seriously.
Sadly, the boards of directors are adequately staffed with people familiar with the legal community, and are well positioned to make excuses for inaction. this arrogance needs to end. A pbulic accounting is needed. Lawyers on the boards of directors should be held at a minium to the peformance standards in the attorney standards of conduct. Where they do receive information of misconduct, the American Bar Association should promulgate requirements that would compel a timely report and action of the ABA-connected legal counsel.
The public should have the confidence that the legal counsel connected with the boards of directors will take their obligations seriously; and that they will timely act to investigate and discipline problematic employees providing less than stellar service to the public.
Suggestions For Clients and Employees
Remind your friends that there are some powerful people concerned with your wellbeing, and aware those providing assistance may not necessarily put you first.This problem is understood and subject to national level debate, scrutiny, and examination.
Avoid going to problem service areas by yourself. This will ensure management does not create a false timeline or make baseless accusations.
Monitor which services have a high turn over rate of staff, and exercising caution when discussing personal matters.
take time to explore whether you want to work with a particular service provider. You may hear glowing reports because they have suppressed adverse information. Talk to people who have received services or used to work there.
Be mindful that some people in the service industry were formerly needy and disadvantaged. They may not have the social or professional skills or professionally interact with others. Do not be surprised if they use abusive language or physical intimidation to achieve their objectives.
Should you decide to depart, consider documenting in a letter your reasons for departure. This will ensure staff and management do not fabricate "later information" and pretend that you were the problem, or that they asked you to leave.
Know which staff and management you should require information in writing.
Understand which staff have a favorable position with the service board of directors, which may thwart effective oversight or impede your ability to get board support for your concerns.
Remember you are not alone. Share your lessons. Encourage others to remain strong while you face a challenging economic situation. How you are treated is not about you, but about what others (incorrectly) believe they can get away with.
Help is on the way.
Advertisement
Leave a comment