Isn't it strange how well anti-tea party imagery works for this post?
For a long time I resisted reading Three Cups of Tea. Now, I feel vindicated. I always feel uncomfortable with the idea of reading about someone who explains how they went to a foreign land and “saved” the people there. It’s a story we’ve all heard before… again…. and again… and again. It can feel like propaganda or poverty-porn if the story isn’t told with both honesty and tact. And it’s not the first time that it turned it there was more than a little embellishment involved. The fact that this particular book and it’s author became ridiculously famous (like house-hold name, Oprah book-club famous) was even more irritating.
Does this mean I’m happy that it turns out 90% of his story was falsifications and exaggeration? No, not quite. But I am happy if this leads to more critical assessment of stories like his. And maybe, just maybe, more attention will be given to the people and the stories that focus on the often disappointing, frustrating, and very very difficult work that real philanthropy professionals do.
Stories like his sound too good to be true… because they are. It takes more than a positive attitude, a good idea, and some capital to bring about social change. A lot more.
In the past month everyone and their mothers colleagues has written about this mess.
This is my favorite take on it so far.
Sure, it’s his fault he lied. But it’s ours too for being so quick to believe and celebrate him.
___
On a related sidenote… I am really concerned about how the public downfall of CAI and Mortenson will affect how the general public, and in turn government officials, begin to analyze nonprofit spending. One issue that many members of the media and the public were particularly outraged about was the fact that CAI spent more money on employees than on the actual work. But that is, in fact, a very simplistic and way of looking at nonprofit spending.
Paying the employees IS paying for the actual work.
Often, the people on the ground in small nonprofits burn out from the sheer dedication and stress that comes with their profession. Whether or not the percentage of salary in a nonprofit’s budget is appropriate is something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It’s very dangerous to start with the assumption that any nonprofit spending 41% of their funds on salaries is shady, is somehow fooling its donors, or is giving the shaft to its beneficiaries. That does not take into account the kind of work the nonprofit does, the expenses it accrues, and what role the staff plays in certain aspects of this work. Unfortunately, that is exactly the idea that is being perpetuated across the country to a public that doesn’t necessarily understand the philanthropy world (and let me tell you, it is most certainly a world of its own).
I don’t mean to contradict myself. I am still pro the public and media looking at nonprofits more critically, but I am also pro the public and media being more informed in their critique (that’s for you Kristof, you arrogant…).
I understand the want for some kind of standard to judge organizations by, but again, dangerous territory.
—–
UPDATE: I just read this. Which says exactly what I was thinking in a much less … nice… way.
