Thursday, July 30, 2015

# 129 Perhaps CCF board member Lily Kanter will answer the questions Scott Neeson and Alan Lemon refuse to answer?



Lily Kanter
Director
Cambodian Children’s Fund

Dear Lily

As a member of the Cambodian Children’s Fund board, and as a financial contributor to CCF,  I wonder if you are aware that the money you are investing in the future of impoverished Cambodian children is funding the institutionalization of these children and contributing to the break up of their families?

How many children are in residential care with CCF now? Do you know? How well informed are you about CCF’s modus operandi and the impact it has on families?

700 + was the last figure that was made public by CCF. Since then a cloud of secrecy has surrounded the number of kids sleeping in dormitories – often between 2 and 4 to a bed. Indeed, the word that best describes CCF, when you look beyond the glossy brochures, the glowing hagiographic media releases (“Scott gave up his $1million Hollywood career…etc”) and happy snaps posted on Facebook, is ‘secrecy’.

Scott does not believe in transparency and feels under no obligation to be accountable to anyone – including, perhaps, the CCF board?

As you may be aware by now, I am an Australian journalist, blogger and filmmaker who has been travelling to Cambodia for 20 years now. Many of my interests and concerns are the same as yours – for the poor and the powerless in 3rd world countries. Where we differ is in what we believe to be the appropriate response to extreme poverty of the kind found in many Cambodian families. In the case of the Cambodian Children’s Fund I believe, with few exceptions, that impoverished and severely disadvantaged children should be helped within a family and community context. You, on the other hand (along with Scott and the CCF Board) believe that removing children from their families and raising them in orphanages is an appropriate way of dealing with endemic poverty.

That you should describe CCF as an ‘orphanage’ goes to the heart of the problem as I see it.

Your description of the Cambodian Children’s Fund online reads as follows:

"It's an orphanage that took the poorest of the poor off this rancid dump site. I'm investing in the person running the operation," she  (you, Lily Kanter) said. "There are 515 kids there, and he (Scott Neeson) is absolutely going to transform the lives of these human beings. They were trash pickers - you've never seen anything like it."

Your reference to CCF as an ‘orphanage’ is 5 years old now but even back in 2010, very few of the children in institutional care at CCF were actually orphans. That they were orphans was the impression that Scott wished to create. It was a great marketing ploy: “These poor kids with no parents to take care of them! Scott Neeson steps up to the plate, gives up his  million Hollywood career, and becomes a dad to the lot of them. What a wonderful man.”

Your description of CCF as an ‘orphanage’ also dates back to a time when ‘orphanage’ was not a dirty word; when people who ran ‘orphanages’ were, by definition, in the public imagination at least, ‘good people’. Then, as it became widely known and disseminated this past few years how damaging orphanages are to the children institutionalized in them, CCF began to counter any perception of it being an ‘orphanage’. Just because the word does not appear in any CCF public relations material does not mean that CCF is not, for the 700 + kids in residential care, for all intents and purposes, an orphanage.

(This 700+ figure will, no doubt, lead one of Alan Lemon’s online personas to write, “What evidence do you have to support this 700+ figure, or is it just a figure plucked out of your…” To which I will reply, “Why not simply tell us, Alan, how many children CCF has in residential care?” And Alan will respond with words to the effect of, “I am not Alan Lemon. You need psychiatric help, James.”)

As you will be aware, it is universally accepted (even by the Cambodian government) that 75% of children in Cambodian ‘orphanages’ have at least one living parent;  that close to 100% of ‘orphans’ have members of their extended family who could care for them, within the community, if they were provided with assistance. Extensive research also tells us that it costs between 5 and 9 times as much money to support a child in an orphanage as it does to support the same child within his or her family. So, quite apart from the psychological and emotional damage done to institutionalized kids, ‘orphanages’ make no sense from an economic point of view.

Rather than help children within a family and community context hundreds of fake orphanages have sprung up in Cambodia this past decade. It is unsurprising that materially poor parents, unable to adequately feed, clothe and educate their children, should welcome with open arms NGOs like CCF that say to them, essentially.

“We will take care  of your kids. We will feed them well, clothe them, see to it that get medical and dental attention and proper schooling.”

What impoverished mum and dad, loving their children and wishing the best for them, is going to knock back such as offer? And when the NGO representative (in this case CCF) presents them with a document to place their thumb print on, which mum and dad (most of whom can neither read nor write) is going to ask precisely what it is they are signing? And which mum and dad, having placed their thumb print on the ‘contract’ they have entered into with the NGO (in this case CCF) is going to feel that they can say, “Can I please have a copy of the contract?” And what happens when mums and dads ask CCF (in this instance) for their children to be returned to their family and are told:

“Sorry, but you signed a contract with us and we re going to keep your kids until they are 18.”

What do these poor illiterate mums and dads do then? Engage the services of a lawyer and take CCF to court?

The reality, in Cambodia, is that once an ‘orphanage’ obtains custody of children, those who run the orphanage, (in this case(CCF) acquire pretty much unlimited power and control over the lives of those children and can use them as bargaining chips to exert control over the parents also.  Read:

http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html

And view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w

Every now and then there is an orphanage scandal here in Cambodia, of course, and much talk at a government, NGO and media level about the need for reform, the need to close fake orphanages etc. This has been going on for years now. Before long, however, the news cycle moves on and it is back to business as usual – any and every foreigner who wishes to do so taking advantage of the poverty of Cambodians and the lack of a rule of law to essentially steal children and use them to either raise money or, in the case of evangelical Christians, save souls.

CCF is not in the business of saving souls but it is certainly in the business or making money. A lot of money. By its own admission CCF was, in 2013, generating $4,000 per child per annum in sponsorships and donations – at least according to CCF’s Tax Return, (“Organization Exempt from Income Tax”) to be found at:


In Line 4a the figure of $1,603,309 appears alongside a list of educational programs servicing 760 kids.

Simple mathematics reveals that CCF claimed, in 2013, to be spending roughly $2,000 per child per annum for education.

The following financial year, 2014, the sum spent by CCF on education was $2.47 million to educate 2,295 Cambodian children. So, the number of kids being educated by CCF tripled in 12 months. This may well be a very good thing but we cannot know whether it is or not without knowing how many of these 2,295 CCF children are, in fact, receiving free education in a Cambodian public school. I have asked this question of Alan Lemon but he, as with Scott Neeson, refuses to answer any such questions.  

Is this refusal to answer questions an official policy sanctioned by the CCF board? Would you and your fellow board members be prepared to answer the questions regarding CCF’s education programs I have put to Alan Lemon in my most recent blog entry, #128? (Perhaps Alan Lemon will answer the questions Scott Neeson refuses to answer?)

In the event that you are not familiar with the many questions I have asked of CCF this past six or so month, the following blog entries are a good place to start:


Lily, I have no reason to believe that you are anything other than a generous and kind-hearted woman wishing to help impoverished Cambodian children and their families. However, it does seem to me that perhaps you (and other board members) are not being kept well-informed by CCF management about what is actually going on behind closed doors at CCF.

As board members you have a duty to keep well-informed.

Today my blog received it’s 40,000th page view. The number of people taking an interest in what is written here, and the comments that follow, rises by the day. It is only a matter of time, I believe, before CCF’s major sponsors begin to ask of the board why none of the questions being asked here are ever addressed.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

# 128 Perhaps Alan Lemon will answer the questions Scott Neeson refuses to answer!


Alan Lemon
Manager
Legal & Compliance
Cambodian Children's Fund

Dear Alan

You write, in your latest Anonymous comment to me on my blog:

You're seriously deluded if you think Scott or any of his team would even bother reading this tripe, let alone answer it.”

The ‘tripe’ in question is, of course, the many questions I have asked of Scott Neeson over the years but which he refuses to answer. I should add here, given that this email is being copied to members of the CCF board, that its members have made it quite clear that they do not believe Scott is under any obligation to answer any questions put to him by journalists.

Let’s just pretend, for a moment more, that you are not the person who has been writing copious comments to the effect that I am deluded. If you are not Alan Lemon, or another member of Team Neeson, how do you know that no members of ‘the team’ bother to read this tripe? Have they told you so?

For a former Australian Federal Police officer you are not very careful when you write your Anonymous comments. You leave a trail littered with clues. On many occasions now, when I have made references to correspondence with Scott Neeson from the last few years, you have written back to me almost immediately as ‘Anonymous’ making reference to private correspondence between me and Scott or to policies that only the inner circle at CCF would be aware of.

So, let’s stop pretending that you do not write frequent Anonymous comments on my blog. Or, if you prefer, we could work on the presumption that someone is hacking into your computer and so has access to your emails, to my correspondence with Scott and other privileged information known only to the inner circle of Team Neeson!

In my email to Scott Neeson yesterday, sent to him in Tuscany, where he is working on his memoirs, I asked some questions relating to CCF’s claim to be spending $2.47 million to educate 2,295 Cambodian children from pre-school through to university.

These two figures, in themselves, tell us nothing. In order to know if this $2.47million is money well spent, sponsors and donors need to know how many of the 2,295 CCF students are attending free government schools and how many are attending schools run by (and funded by) CCF?

If all these 2,295 students are receiving an education paid for by sponsors and donors, CCF is spending, on average, $1,076 per child per annum on eduction. Given that the World Bank’s estimate of per capita income for Cambodia in 2014 was 1,084.4 I find it odd that it should cost $1,076 for CCF to educate one child.

Anecdotal evidence suggests most of the children CCF claims to be educating are attending free public schools! If this is so, how does CCF account for the expenditure of $2.47 million on education per year?

Of course, anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable, and certainly no substitute for statistically accurate information of the kind that you must have in a file in your computer.

Given that Scott will not, as a matter of principle, answer questions such as those I put to him yesterday, I will ask a few of them of you in your capacity as Manager, Legal & Compliance’.

- How many of the 2,295 CCF students are attending free government schools and how many are attending schools run by (and funded by) CCF?

Some more specific questions:

- How many pre-school kids, living under the CCF educational umbrella, are attending free public schools and how many are receiving their pre-school education in schools funded by CCF?

- How many secondary school students, in residential care with CCF, are attending free public schools and how many are receiving their education in schools funded by CCF?

- How many ‘satellite schools’ does CCF fully or partly fund?

- How many school teachers does CCF have in its employ?

- How much do CCF’s school teachers earn per month?

- Have CCF’s school teachers been obliged to sign non-disclosure contracts that prevent them from commenting on CCF education programs?

- How many university students is CCF currently funding?

These are not unreasonable questions, Alan. If I were a CCF sponsor or a donor I would be asking them. If I were a member of the Cambodian Children’s Fund board I would not only be asking them but demanding detailed answers. 

best wishes

James Ricketson

cc Members of the Cambodian Children’s Fund Board:

Bob Tufts
Warren Share
Kevin Schoeler
Paul Saunders
David Ryan
Seane Corn
Muffy Disabantino
Lily Kanter
Heather Graham

Monday, July 27, 2015

127 The Cambodian Children's Fund's 2014 IRS Tax Return. A few questions


Dear Scott

My CCF spies tell me that you are in Tuscany, working on your memoirs. Nice and warm there right now, I hear. Not too hot.

Lucky you to have a patron paying for your trip to Tuscany, your accommodation etc. I am not sure she is quite so lucky to have you promising, in return, to build her a multi-million dollar school in Steung Meanchey.

I get a good deal of correspondence from people who, for one reason or another, do not want to make comments on my blog. In some instances it is because they believe that it is possible to trace the comments back to their computer and they are fearful of the consequences, for themselves, of any criticisms they might make of CCF.

I am a Luddite when it comes to such things and I have no idea if it is, indeed, possible to trace where comments come from. I suspect not but would not be surprised if it were so.

One person who has written to me recently prefers to remain anonymous. I will call him ‘Rick’. He has sent me some email correspondence he has had with Alan Lemon. I will let readers of this blog make what they will of the tone of Alan Lemon’s email.

Some context is necessary here:

Rick had written several times to CCF asking to be provided with a copy of CCF’s 2014 US Tax Return. Rick was given the run-around for some months by someone at CCF who had, it seems, been instructed to do so. Understandably she got sick of receiving email after email from ‘Rick’ and the problem was handed to Alan Lemon, whose email to ‘Rick’ describes him as “Manager, Legal & Compliance, Cambodian Children's Fund”

If you persist in sending your repetitive and - since I answered your questions- irrelevant emails to XXXX, the obvious conclusion must be that you intend to harass or intimidate her and I will deal with it accordingly. I trust that I make myself clear.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Lemon”

If I were to receive such an email I would consider it to be a crude form of intimidation.

‘Rick’ responded with:

“Fuck you, Alan Lemon”.

The good news is that ‘Rick’s’ perseverance paid off.  He was able, eventually, to acquire the information he had been asking for for months – the Cambodian Children’s Fund’s 2014 Tax Return.

For anyone interested, it is to be found here:


On my first read through of the document I cannot make head or tail of how much money has been spent on what programs to help precisely whom?

How many kids does CCF have in residential care now, Scott? This document provides no clues.

Why is there nothing in the budget for the ‘Granny Program’ that now features so heavily on the CCF’s Facebook pages? Is this a real program or mere window-dressing to make CCF look good on Facebook?

For the benefit of readers who cannot be bothered to look at the actual tax return, the description of CCF is as follows:

“Cambodian Children’s Fund transforms the country’s most impoverished  kids into tomorrow’s leaders by delivering education, family support and community development programs into the heart of Cambodia’s most impoverished communities.”

This is the kind of motherhood statement made by most NGOs – long on hopes and dreams but very short on detail.

A few questions:

(1) How many “community development programs” is CCF running?

(2) What kinds of programs are they? What are their goals? Are they effective in achieving these goals?

(3) How much money is being spent on each of these programs or on all of them put together? No clues to the answers to any of these questions are to be found in the 2014 CCF Tax Return!

The amount of money CCF has taken in from donors and sponsors has not changed all that much. It still hovers around $10 million per annum.

$2.47 million of this $10 million is being spent on education. This is what you have written in the CCF 2014 Tax Return:

“CCF’s award-winning education program provides access to both formal and non-formal education to 2,295 students from pre-school to university. As well as operating education facilities and satellite schools, CCF provides  students with school uniforms, study materials and university fees, as well as transportation. CCF works closely and directly with public schools, teachers and directors to ensure high attendance rates and academic results. With the construction of satellite schools located in the heart of the community, CCF is providing a pathway to education for thousands of children once deemed “unreachable.”

This all reads very well, but $2.47 million is a not insignificant amount of money and should not be accounted for with vague generalities of the kind to be found here.

A few more questions:

(4) What awards have CCF’s educations programs won?

(5) How many of the 2,295 CCF students are attending free government schools and how many are attending schools run by (and funded by) CCF?

Clearly, in trying to determine how much CCF is spending in any one year to educate one child it is necessary to subtract from 2,295 students those who are paying no school fees at all.

For instance, if CCF were to be fully funding the education of 100 students (ie, they are not going to free public schools) your sponsors and donors would be spending $24,500 per child per annum. If CCF is fully funding the education of 1000 students the figure per child for education drops to $2,450 per annum – still a lot of money in a country in which the per capita income of an entire family is round half of this.

If CCF is fully funding the education of all 2,295 students (ie, not one of them is going to a free public school) the figure per child drops to around $1,000 per child.

How can sponsors or donors make an educated guess as to whether or not $2.47 spent on education is money well spent (or not!)  if they do not know how many students are being educated with this money?

Could you please, Scott, interrupt the writing of your memoirs for long enough to let us know:

(A) How many of CCF’s 2,295 students are having their education paid for 100% by CCF in CCF schools and
(B)   How many of these 2,295 students are receiving their education for free?

cheers

James