Dysfunctional Do-Gooders

“The nonprofit sector, which roots for the underdog, supports tax breaks to the wealthy because charitable deductions help us.”

--Jan Masaoka, CEO of the California Association of Nonprofits (quoted in the Bay Citizen)

Corruption or Rational Response to an Irrational Premise

Non-profit organizations are often the strongest advocates for the neediest Americans, yet they also tend to be strong advocates for tax breaks for the nation’s millionaires. From their perspective, this is not a corruption, but an expedient: they desperately need money and the wealthy are the ones most able to provide it. Not only do the rich have more disposable income to give away, but the tax system provides incentives for them to give to charities by allowing them to write-off their donations.

This may seem paradoxical, but only because charities and non-profits start with an irrational premise. Some believe they can solve a social problem by giving money or services to its victims, while others accept the social problem as a natural or unsolvable reality and hope only to lessen the suffering through assistance to the victims. In either case, donations become the primary goal since the rest of their goals are unachievable without money, while the actual causes of the problem are either ignored or tolerated as a normal or acceptable part of reality.

Charities are Big Business

The issue of dwindling charitable donations came to the fore in this year’s presidential campaign when Mitt Romney insisted he could lower the deficit while maintaining low tax rates for the rich by slashing their deductions. Obama’s 2013 tax plan also included a cap on charitable deductions for those in the highest tax bracket. Both plans would reduce incentives for the wealthy to donate and likely result in reduced revenues for non-profits.

Charities received almost $300 billion in donations last year, according to a recent study by Bank of America. 0ver70% of this came from individual donors and half of that came from the wealthiest 3% of U.S. families. Therefore, any threat to the charitable donations tax deduction could significantly affect revenues for nonprofits. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economics professor believes that ending this deduction would result in a 40-65% drop in donations to nonprofits.

While most charities are non-profits, they often have large payrolls and sometimes even have officials who earn six-figure salaries. This is particularly true for hospitals and other large non-profits. However, even smaller non-profits have employees who are dependent on the donations for their modest incomes. Furthermore, many people choose to work for non-profits rather than the private sector in order to help people in need and thus they are very invested in keeping the donations rolling in, regardless of where they come from.

Charity Perpetuates Need

Charities exist to help people in need. Helping the needy is compassionate and good. However, charities seldom ask why their clients are in need, nor do much to end that need. On the contrary—if they ended the need, they would end their entire reason for being and put themselves out of business. Instead, most use their donations to feed their bureaucracies (e.g., employee salaries, lawyers, lobbyists, rent), provide handouts and services to clients, and do public outreach and education (to encourage a constant influx of donations).

If the goal is ending poverty or hunger, then the charity’s goals should also include ending income and wealth inequality. This cannot happen by taking money from the wealthy, which only perpetuates the wealth gap and the illusion that they are doing good for society. Similarly, if the goal of a non-profit hospital is to provide quality healthcare for everyone, then they should fight for a single payer healthcare system that provides access for everyone while keeping costs low, rather than charging exorbitant fees to those with insurance and begging for handouts from donors for the indigent and poor.

Supporting tax breaks for the wealthy has the opposite effect. It increases the wealth gap by reducing wealthy individuals’ tax liability and it discourages social investment in solving social problems by ensuring that charities stay in business to provide handouts. Thus, people can continue to rationalize not providing free or subsidized housing for everyone who needs it so long as there are homeless shelters and soup lines.

Majority of New Grads Embrace Vow of Poverty

The majority of new grads say they would gladly take a pay cut if that meant they could do something that “made a difference,” according to a recent survey by Net Impact. The survey found that 72% of graduating seniors felt that making a “positive societal impact” was essential to their happiness, while 45% said they would take a 15% pay cut to work at an organization they believed was making such an impact, according to Good Education.

Of course similar secular vows of poverty have been embraced for generations by teachers, nurses, social workers and others in the “helping” and care industries. People do not go into these professions to get rich—that’s not possible on a teacher’s, nurse’s or social worker’s salary—but because they want to do something positive for society. Indeed, this altruism is exploited by managers, administrators, politicians and pundits who know the do-gooders will continue to line up for jobs, even when wages and working conditions are declining.

However, there is something particularly twisted and irrational when framed as a willingness to take a pay cut in exchange for the belief that one was “making a difference.”

Considering that material insecurity and social inequality are probably the social issues most immediately threatening to the majority of people’s health and wellbeing (second only to climate change in terms of the long-term threat to global peace and security), it seems bizarre that a comfortable and secure income for all, including recent graduates and those in the “helping” fields, would not be considered a pressing social issue.

Yet even for those who see this as a pressing social need, there are very few jobs out there with this focus and it is questionable whether they are actually doing anything to improve people’s material wellbeing. Most paid union positions, for example, are bureaucratic, while the real power of a union lies in its members and their willingness to take job actions, something union bureaucracies have been increasingly discouraging (see here, here and here). There are also numerous jobs in social work, advocacy and services for the poor and the homeless, but these mostly provide temporary relief and do little or nothing to actually end homelessness and poverty.

Another way to parse the “vow of poverty” statistic is that large numbers of recent college grads accept social inequity, poverty, hunger, homelessness and suffering as normal and unalterable aspects of life, so they might as well get paid to provide some assistance to those who are suffering. By accepting low pay for this work, however, they are also accepting the notion that jobs in the “helping” fields are worth less than those in tech, finance, law or business, thus helping to keep these professions undervalued. And by taking jobs that depend on the continuation of social inequity, rather than fighting to end the causes, they help perpetuate the same problems they seek to remedy, by making it easier for the rest of society to ignore the problems.

It is even questionable whether recent grads truly prefer the belief they are doing good in society over having a decent salary. Consider that the study found that 24% of ”Millennials” are dissatisfied with their current job, compared with 14% of Gen Xers and 18% of Boomers. While this might be due to innately different values between the generations, it is likely influenced by the fact Gen Xers, and especially Boomers are more likely to have job stability, higher income, better benefits, better chances to live a comfortable, middle class American Dream lifestyle compared with the Millenials, who are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in college debt, a protracted recession, decimated union movement, and a job market dominated by low income service sector jobs.

Doing It For Money—The Trafficked & Exploited Teen Fantasy

Activists and law enforcement officials often claim that hundreds of thousands or even millions of children are trafficked and forced into prostitution in the U.S., conjuring up images of innocent young girls being snatched from their loving families and coerced into a lifetime of drugs, STDs and perversion by greedy and heartless pimps.

This appalling scenario is so universally upsetting to Americans that Congress has easily raised millions of dollars to fight the problem, while a cottage industry of nonprofits has arisen to assist in the efforts.

The problem is that almost none of this scenario is true.

Ric Curtis and Meredith Dank, from the anthropology department at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, spent two years carefully interviewing prostitutes in the Bronx, in the first accurate survey of youth prostitution. They completed interviews with 249 underage prostitutes and used that data to extrapolate a total population of 3,946 teen sex workers in New York. Their study was covered last week in the San Francisco Weekly.

If New York has less than 4,000 underage hookers, it is very unlikely that there is anywhere close to a million teen prostitutes nationwide. However, it is not just the total numbers that advocates and law enforcement have wrong. Virtually every assumption they have about youth prostitution is false, rooted in bias and stereotypes rather than evidence.

Here are Some of the Study’s findings:

Approximately 45% of teen prostitutes were boys

Only 10% of all teen prostitutes had pimps

45% got into the “business” through friends

Over 90% were native born

Most started hooking at age 15

Most serviced men

Nearly every one of them (95%) did it because it was the surest way to earn a living

Who are the Pimps?

In the 60s, the term Poverty Pimp arose to describe people and groups that benefited unduly by acting as the “voice” for poor people or other disadvantaged groups. Poverty Pimps typically are beneficiaries of government funding and charitable donations, and maintain their funding as long as it looks like they are doing something to help the poor. Contrary to their stated goals, however, they tend to be more invested in the maintenance of the status quo than in actually ending poverty, since ending poverty would make their jobs obsolete.

A similar industry has arisen around advocating for exploited youth. It likewise benefits from the maintenance of the status quo. We can think of these organizations and individuals as Exploited-Youth Advocacy Pimps.

The federal government spends roughly $20 million per year on public awareness, victims' services and police work on human trafficking, with much of that focusing on the pimping of children. Another $186 million is spent annually to provide street outreach to kids who may be at risk of commercial sexual exploitation. Much of this money goes directly to nonprofit advocacy groups. Yet, according to FBI records (see the S.F. Weekly article) only 200 kids are rescued from pimps annually, a roughly $1 million per year investment per rescued child.

While it might be argued that these prevention efforts also help keep some children from getting trafficked into prostitution in the first place, it is still an extraordinarily large sum of money to be spending if it is ignoring 90% of the children working the streets.

Puritanism, Homophobia and Sexism Feed the Teen Prostitution Hysteria

Though only a small subset of teen hookers (10%) are exploited by actual pimps, the Exploited-Youth Advocacy Pimps benefit most by perpetuating the fantasy that they all are. This stereotype suits Americans’ puritanism, homophobia and paternalism quite well, and helps maintain a steady funding stream from donors horrified by the image of naïve tween girls being enslaved and raped by sleazy men.

So long as the children are initiated into the profession and manipulated by child traffickers, they can be seen as innocent victims, deserving of adult guidance and support. So long as they are exploited girls, people can feel smug and proud that they are protecting their honor and innocence, and not inadvertently supporting trollops and homosexuals. If girls were doing it “voluntarily,” even to support themselves, they must be enjoying it and would therefore be incorrigible sluts, whereas boys voluntarily turning tricks must be queer. After all, a boy who didn’t want it wouldn’t do it, right? He would fight back, even against an adult pimp twice his size.

Curtis and Dank’s results, not surprisingly, were denied and challenged by many teen advocates and law enforcement officials.

A Purely New York Phenomenon?

Roughly one year after Curtis began his Bronx study, according to the Weekly, he partnered up with Mary Finn, a professor of criminal justice at Georgia State University, to examine teen prostitution in the Atlanta area and to evaluate the work of a coalition nonprofits working to combat child prostitution, including the Juvenile Justice Fund, a child-advocacy agency allied with the Atlanta Women's Foundation and the Harold and Kayrita Anderson Family Foundation.

The coalition objected to Finn’s methodology because it looked at all possible motives for prostitution, not just coercion and trafficking. One Juvenile Justice Fund board member insisted to Finn that no child would engage in prostitution by choice. They suggested that maybe kids hooked by choice in New York, but never in Atlanta.

In a similar denial of reality, an Atlanta juvenile-court judge instituted a screening process in her courtroom back in the 1990s that was aimed at identifying teen prostitutes. However, only girls were questioned about sex work, never boys.

When Finn tried to find documentation of teen prostitution in the Atlanta area, she found virtually no data by any of the agencies that were supposedly combating the problem. It was as if no one wanted any real data because it might undermine their hypotheses and assumptions (or they were all just plain incompetent). The only data she could find by any agency were 31 juvenile prostitution arrests recorded by the police over a four-year period, suggesting that teen prostitution was not actually that common in Atlanta.

If the Facts Don’t Fit, Fabricate New Facts

In 2008, the Juvenile Justice Fund launched a statewide study based on "scientific probability methods," which showed "a significant number of adolescent girls being commercially sexually exploited in Georgia, likely ranging from 200 to 300 girls. However, even these trumped up numbers were insufficient to meet the prurient demands of their funders, so they fluffed up the numbers more, publishing a report in 2010 claiming that 7,200 men were paying underage girls for 8,700 sex acts monthly in Georgia, "with an average of 300 acts a day."

The local papers aped back the bogus statistics, bolstering them with the equally bogus claim that they were based on a scientific study. In reality, the data were produced by the Shapiro Group, a public relations firm hired by the Justice Fund, using scientifically dubious methods (see here for details). Of course, PR firms have the goal of shaping public opinion for their clients, not illuminating reality. However, the papers did not mention any of this.

Why Are Teens “Voluntarily” Selling Themselves?

Perhaps the saddest and most intractable part of this story is that almost all teen prostitutes are doing it out of financial necessity. Many are straight boys, turning tricks with men not because they are latent homosexuals, but because men are the ones paying for sex, and getting paid is the objective. However, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, 90% of teen prostitutes “choose” this line of work because it is the only way to survive on the streets. To feed and house themselves, they need an income, and there are few decent jobs out there for teenagers, especially homeless teens.

This begs the question of why youth are living on the streets in the first place. This is the bigger story.

Kids live on the streets primarily because they have been kicked out of their homes or because their homes are so dangerous and unbearable that living on the streets is preferable. Some kids are there because they were being raped or abused at home, in foster care, or in group homes. Others are there because their families refused to (or were incapable of) caring for them. Some may actually be gay youth who were kicked out by homophobic parents.

Certainly youth homelessness could be mitigated by opening more group homes and shelters for teenagers. However, many of those living on the streets were being abused in group homes and shelters, so we also need much better screening, training and monitoring for the adults working there.

However, the bigger problem is the child abuse that goes on routinely in so many homes. For every teen who escapes such a life to live on the streets or become a prostitute, there are many more who suffer the abuse for years, sometimes even dying from it.

The fact is that children are far more likely to be murdered, maimed or sexually abused by a family member than by a stranger or another teenager. More than 6,000 children were murdered by adults in the last decade, according FBI statistics quoted in Mike Males’  “Let Our Kids Shoot Back.” Males also references The Administration for Children and Families’ Child Maltreatment 2008 report which documented 70,000 cases of violent and sexual abuses of youths age 12-17, and 1,344 killings of children under 18, inflicted by parents and caretakers in 2008 alone.

Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber: UK Turns To U.S. To Solve Unrest

Several news media reported yesterday that British Prime Minister David Cameron wants Britain to look to the United States for solutions to gang violence after nights of riots and looting.

The first problem with this, of course, is that the rioting was not caused by gangs and the destruction bore no similarity to gang violence. There are substantial differences in both quality and quantity between drive by shootings, assassinations of competitors and street brawls on the one hand, and looting, arson and vandalism on the other. There are also significant differences in motive.

But let’s ignore all that, since the politicians have and they will do what they wish anyway. What they want is class harmony or, more accurately, class servility. Workers and their children must accept graciously the conditions imposed by the ruling class and be grateful they are permitted any luxuries or freedoms at all. Anyone who threatens private property, regardless of their motivations, is a dangerous thug and must be dealt with harshly.

Britain has already labeled large portions of its immigrant and minority underclasses terrorists or potential terrorists, justifying a sharp curtailing of civil liberties and protection from search and seizures. By now calling them gangsters and equating them with Crips, Bloods, Mara Salvatrucha, Nortenos and Surenos, and calling for  a U.S.-style response, they must surely also be calling for the massive buildup of new prisons, three- (and two-) strikes laws, and mass incarceration of youth of color. In the U.S., this policy has led to incarceration rates higher than any other country in the world and a society in which nearly 12% of young black men are incarcerated.

Perhaps they are also calling for the imposition of youth curfews and injunctions that would allow the police to round up any juveniles who are dressed in inappropriate colors or styles or who happen to be hanging out publicly with more than two friends.

It might also include giving the police greater fire power and the green light to use it against unarmed people of color who talk back to police on the tube and do not shuffle and bow to them on the streets.

We do know that Cameron is considering allowing police to evict troublemakers from subsidized housing and temporarily disabling cell phone instant messaging services, Twitter and Facebook, as the SF Chronicle reported today.

The use of the term “troublemakers” rather than “convicts” implies that innocent people could lose their homes merely for being suspects, or that they might evict people for thought crimes or even free speech. It is entirely possible to make heaps of trouble for the authorities and the bosses of the world without breaking any laws at all. Going on strike, advocating strikes, picketing corporations or even private homes, writing scathing articles, boycotts, even nasty letters could all be considered troublemaking, particularly by those affected by the tactics. If fully enforced, England could be creating a homeless problem far worse than in the U.S.

The disabling of cell phone instant messaging services and social networking sounds eerily like Iran or China. Even so, they are pretty naïve if they think that will stop future riots, protests or even insurrections. For large masses of unemployed, frustrated and angry people, world of mouth can go a long way. People still have access to printed pamphlets, fliers and posters. There is also the ever useful tactic of one-on-one organizing, which is far more powerful than any digital communication as it allows face to face interaction, feedback, give and take. And for every person that gets organized in this way, there are potentially many others who they will reach.

Kids May Not Know Democracy, But They Know A Bum Deal When They See It

(Expanded version of the Letter to the Editor that I submitted to the San Francisco Chronicle this week):

In the Sunday Insight, (San Francisco Chronicle, 6/12/11), California State Supreme Court Justice Ming W. Chin expressed alarm that 75% of U.S. students lack a basic understanding of democracy. While disturbing, this is not surprising considering that reality is quite different from the idealized system we are taught in school. For example, the one person-one vote rule is violated each election, when the wealthy are able to disproportionately influence the outcome. The fairness of our legal system is called into question by the fact that affluent defendants can afford better attorneys and are more likely to be acquitted. The separation of powers is routinely undermined when Congress defers its power to declare war to the President, as they have for every war since WWII. Even when civics is well-taught, the take-home message is muddled by propaganda like “America is the freest country in the world,” repeated ad nauseam, leading many to believe we have complete and unfettered personal freedom, a delusion that can cause confusion, frustration and hostility when the Legislature or Court limits personal freedom. And why should children believe their textbooks when they themselves are denied the right to vote, yet are subject to laws created by adults?

One might also question why one should care that children lack a “basic understanding of democracy,” or, for that matter, what a basic understanding of democracy means? Being able to recite the responsibilities of the three branches of government may help students pass an exam, but will it make them better people? Will it help poor children earn a living or grow into affluent adults? Or is it really all about getting everyone to agree that we really do live in the world’s greatest country so that we all remain docile and accepting of our lot in life?

Contrary to the propaganda, democracy does not mean freedom or equality or justice. Rather, it means rule by the people, rule that can and does include injustice, inequality, imprisonment and slavery. Furthermore, while “rule by the people” implies that everyone gets to participate, even this is inaccurate, as juveniles, foreigners, prisoners and even some “rehabilitated” convicts are denied the right to vote. Ironically, while “the people” love Democracy and their right to vote, they have great disdain for politicians and elections, complaining about the greed, dishonesty and sleaze, and the fact that their elected officials do whatever they like once in office, often contradicting their own campaign promises.

Part of the problem lies in the paradoxical definition of Democracy. “Rule by the People” implies that the people have power, a very appealing concept, especially when contrasted with autocratic forms of government. Yet, the existence of a ruler (the people) implies there must also be a subject (the people, again?) As Ruthless Criticism points out, “rule” loses its meaning when the subject and ruler are one and the same.

Fortunately for the English language, everyday experience shows us that despite the vote, the “people” are not really the rulers. Rather, we elect representatives who, in effect, rule over us.  The structure of the state, the political and economic system, the existence of inequality and fact that we must be governed are never up for vote or even debate. The “peoples’ rule” is thus reduced to yearly ritual of voting for those who will make the real decisions and wield the power. Most importantly for the rulers, this yearly ritual also serves to reaffirm the people’s consent to be ruled, thus justifying their claims to have a mandate from the people to impose their profit motivated agenda.

What about Judge Chin’s concern that we’re raising a bunch of barbarians who do not appreciate the independence of the judiciary? For the poor who make up the vast majority of the nation’s death rows, the judiciary’s independence was irrelevant—it was their inability to afford good legal counsel that was the problem. Yet prejudice (if not dependency) does occur, too. Consider Judge Sabo, who presided over Mumia Abu-Jamal’s capital case, who said he wanted to “fry the nigger.”

Regardless of judges’ independence and objectivity, the judicial system is designed to protect private property and the power and privilege of the capitalist class, not for the betterment of the rabble. Thus, even independent judges would uphold everyone’s right to sleep under a bridge (if such a law actually existed), but they would never deny Larry Ellison’s right to own multimillion dollar homes up and down California, or entrepreneurs’ right to develop a decommissioned army base rather than leaving it as housing for the homeless.

They also enforce the stipulations of a contract, even if that contract is inherently unfair. (A deal is a deal, after all). Working people, for example, have no choice but to enter into contracts with their employers in order to secure employment and earn wages necessary for their survival, thus placing them in a weaker position during contract negotiations. (A hungry person will accept a lot in order to fill their belly). While unions increase workers’ power in these negotiations, the labor contract always favor the interests of the employers, who simply refuse to sign if the profits are not considered high enough (even at the risk of closing shop and moving out of town).

Judge Chin may be correct that American children (and adults) lack a basic understanding of the American political system and Democracy, but I do not see this as a crisis. In fact, it might actually be a positive sign that they have not completely bought the fantasy that the U.S. political system is the epitome of perfection and that they find it troubling that so much want, misery and oppression could occur under it.

Homeless Woman Arrested For Sending Her 5-Year-Old To School & Embezzled By the School District

Tanya McDowell, who is homeless, faces 20 years in jail and a $15,000 fine for first-degree larceny, Change.Org reported yesterday. Her crime: “stealing her son’s education.” McDowell either sleeps in a minivan or shelter with her son A.J. Without a permanent address of her own, she used her babysitter’s address to sign him up for kindergarten. Norwalk authorities have said that because A.J. doesn’t live in their district it is illegal for him to attend their schools. However, this argument is specious as he sleeps in a Norwalk Emergency Shelter.

McDowell’s son attended Brookside Elementary for four months before being kicked out. In that time he did not miss a day of class and, according to his mother, loved his school. The school system wants McDowell to pay $15,686 for the educational services she “stole.” However, this figure is what Norwalk spends per student for an entire school year (see The Daily Norwalk), whereas A.J. was only enrolled for half of a school year, suggesting that Norwalk is trying to embezzle $7,843 from McDowell.

This is now the second case in the past six months of a poor mother facing jail time simply for trying to enroll her child in public school. Kelley Williams-Bolar had a similar experience in Ohio. (See Modern School: Black Mom Jailed for Sending Kids to White School—Grandpa Guilty of Stealing White Kids’ Education). Ohio Governor John Kasich was asked by activists to pardon Williams-Bolar, but he punted, sending the case to the Parole Board. Their decision is expected this summer, according to Change.Org.

As with Williams-Bolar, Change.Org has taken on McDowell’s cause and has organized a petition to get her exonerated. They say that Norwalk Mayor Richard Moccia has received emails in support of McDowell from across the country. However, Moccia has not shown much empathy for her. On the contrary, he told FOX News that she "not a poor, picked-upon homeless person. . . [she] is an ex con, and somehow the city of Norwalk is made into the ogre in this. She has a checkered past at best."

McDowells’ past is irrelevant to the case. She has no history of trying to take advantage of the school system and her past convictions do not justify denying her son the right to a decent education. Rather than attacking her character, McDowell should be commended for her extraordinary resolve and courage in trying to get her son enrolled in school despite the incredible challenges of being homeless and single. Dealing with educational bureaucracies is no walk in the park even for two-parent families with homes and steady incomes. Furthermore, she had every right to enroll her child at Brookside. Not only were she and her son sleeping at a Norwalk shelter, which would make them Norwalk residents, but the McKinney-Vento Act gives the parents or guardians of a homeless child the right to attend the school in the district where they currently reside, according to the Connecticut Post. Connecticut currently has $230,780 in McKinney-Vento funds to offset the cost of educating homeless kids. Furthermore, the law requires that schools continue to keep children enrolled until disputes have been resolved.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

(Page 1 of 2)

McDowell enrolled A.J. at Brookside Elementary in Norwalk, using the address of a friend who babysat for them at the Roodner Court public housing complex. The Stamford Advocate reported that the friend was evicted from her apartment as a result of the investigation, even though McDowell claims she never lived there.

The Bigger Picture

There are over 1.35 million children who experience homelessness each year in the U.S., according to the Department of Education. Homeless people have a difficult time providing stability for their children, moving as many as 12 times as often as people who have permanent housing. This puts their children at a huge disadvantage academically. According to the Educational Testing Service, 41% of students who changed schools frequently were below grade level in reading and 33% were below grade level in math, compared to 26% and 17%, respectively, for those who remained at the same schools (See 8 Delusions About Education).  They miss out on the benefit of establishing relationships with teachers. They are less likely to have a quiet, organized place to do homework. They suffer stress from financial and housing insecurity and from elevated levels of violence. According to the DOE, domestic violence affects as many as 63% of homeless parents. Prior to the passing of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, up to 50% of homeless children were not attending school regularly.

To see the details of The McKinney-Vento Act, please click here.