Ghost Sites: This Page is No Longer in Service
NetSlaves: Horror Stories of Working the Web
| the mission
| the media kit | advertising
| submit your story | steve_baldwin@hotmail.com
combat manual | interviews | between the lies | open source | shut up! award
Sorting Though The Mess at Hale House
Posted Tue Apr 24 03:34:31 2001 by sbaldwin

By Steve Gilliard

In the end, journalists serve a public function, which is to make sure someone looks at the failures and successes of a society and places them in order. The job is not to be liked or make sure that only the lucky, rich and popular have their say.

Whether you run a charity or a public company, leadership is important. Following not only the law, but accepted practices are critical. It isn't only the IT companies we're looking at which fail to do this.

Recently, Hale House, a NY charity founded by Clara "Mother" Hale in 1970, has come under withering scruitiny from the Daily News and NY Times. Now run by Lorraine Hale, Clara's daughter, and a physician, the charity has been found to have engaged in a series of questionable practices. Which include a money losing thrift shop, a 100K loan to Hale to buy a home, and renting properties designed for drug addicted mothers and their children to the public. Then, there are questions about how many kids the home has and whether they're being educated properly.

Records examined by The (Daily) News show that since 1992, Hale House has spent nearly $20 million on outside fund-raisers, which have raked in $43 million for the institution founded 31 years ago by Hale's mother, Clara, known to all as Mother Hale

Whenever a black-run organization comes under scrutiny, charges of racism abound. But thankfully, on WRKS's Open Line show, the panelists called for Hale to step aside and hire a director and a proper board. Which is refreshing. The two weekend shows on Kiss FM, as the station is known, are the best barometers of local black opinion in the tri-state area. One can routinely hear denuciations of Rudy Giuliani and his management of the police. For them to openly question Hale's actions is a healthy sign that people won't be hiding behind their usual alliances to protect their own.

Of course, earlier in the week, Hale held a press conference, claiming she wasn't a crook. But no one is questioning her honesty. They are questioning her managerial skills. Which is not the same thing. One can be a bad manager and not a crook.

Hale even sent out a fundraising letter alluding to her charity's current problems. A fundraising letter while prominent fund raisers including Rosie O'Donnell and Mia Farrow, withdrew their support.

Why is this important? Well, Hale House exploded in the late 80's crack boom. People would have crack addicted kids and abandon them. Hale House grew to serve both parents and kids and truly captured the heart of the city. It would have been impossible to find a bad word about the charity...until someone looked.

For the past 10 years, Hale House, where 21 children were living as recently as last week, has been licensed by the state for only six, the Daily News has learned.

"I can't say for years past why it didn't get on our radar screen," said William Van Slyke, spokesman for the state Office of Children and Family Services. "When we became aware that they had more than six children, we began to work with them to bring them into compliance."


Someone complained about a building that the the charity had bought for a dollar from the city. It was supposed to be used for drug addicted women and their children. Unfortunately, those people usually don't have the jobs which can pay for Harlem apartments, which run around $800. So instead of going to the city for help, the Daily News reported that they just rented the apartments out, embarassing the hell out of two mayors, Koch, who made the deal and Giuliani, for poor oversight.

The more the state and reporters examined the records and talked to former staffers, the less they liked what they found.

The problems at Hale House, a charity which has $10 million in reserves, have been around for years, but there no one looked because it was such a noble cause, despite pedagogical theory which suggest small kids belong in foster homes with the attention of parents. An orphanage or group home, as they call them these days, doesn't work and the lack of educational services, for kids as old as three or four, is especially bad. Current theory suggests that kids should begin education as soon as possible, and delays of years is especially bad.

They described a place where outings are limited to a pleasant but small backyard behind the brownstone and walks around the Harlem block. Most of children's time is spent inside the house, their days marked by eating three meals, getting bathed and going to sleep.

And contrary to what Hale has said in public interviews and to her donors, the older children are rarely, if ever, exposed to the riches of New York museums, parks, zoos or concerts. The only special trip anyone could remember was to Radio City Music Hall one year.

No certified educational professionals are brought in to teach the basics the alphabet, colors, shapes or to assess where the children are developmentally. Staffers described a group of toddlers so unaccustomed to structured activities that many can't sit still long enough to have a story read.

"She should be offering them the best, and she isn't," said Lori Bower, 30, who was hired as a child staff supervisor at Hale House but quit in disgust in February 2000 after four months. "All of the kids are completely unstimulated. She is just warehousing them. They will be so behind when they eventually start kindergarten."

Bower, who has a degree in university studies and child development from the University of New Mexico, said the child care workers try to make life better for the children. But they are often spread so thin or are so fearful of Hale's wrath if they speak up that they just soldier on quietly.


The allegations are that the kids didn't even go outside for weeks at a time, contrary to every educational standard practiced by every licensed day care in the US.

The lack of education for these kids is a serious problem. My sister has been a day care professional for 20 years, and over that time, it is clear that by a child gets to kindergarten they should have basic knowledge of shapes, colors, numbers and the alphabet at a minimum. My five year old nephew can read and write and his four year old sister can count to 100, write her name and knows the alphabet. Early childhood education is critical, just as Hale House's failure to provide it.

Doesn't this sound like an achingly familiar story? The CEO paints a pleasing picture for the investors, while the workers have real and substantial grievences about the work going on. This is the worst kind of management. The clients, in this case, the kids, are suffering. The charity is sitting on a significant cash reserve and could easily raise a million a year if they had to, clearly enough to help the charity do whatever work they needed to.

The foundation also amassed an art collection valued at some $440,133, tax records show. Much of it is said to adorn Hale's private, wood-paneled office, which takes up a full floor in the Harlem brownstone and is filled with antiques, Persian rugs and marble tables, visitors say.

Part of the problem is that the charity is run by Hale and her family without a real outside board of directors. Yet the charity only spent 60K on the 18 children in the home over the last year, while collecting $8m.

Three of the charity's six board members told The News they were unaware of any board meetings being held. State law requires that members uphold their fiduciary duty with "diligence, care and skill."... "It appears what we have here is a one-person organization," said Korman, referring to Hale. "So there is no checks and balances."

Cash reserves. Despite annual cries for financial help, Hale House ended last year with more than $10 million in reserves, which the charity calls an endowment. Last year alone, Hale House took in $3.6 million more than it spent. Experts on nonprofits said it is unusual for charities of Hale House's size to hold so much in reserve.


Why am I writing about this? In the real world, in a charity or a for-profit business, due dilligence for public insitituions is critical. They have to look at the records and check to see if these things make sense. Hale House is abusing the public trust and not serving their clients. When people give to a charity for children, they expect the kids to be cared for, not to spend millions on fundraising and art. They aren't supposed to have $10m in reserve or have the CEO borrow from the charity for her home, when she
makes 200K a year in salary.

This just sounded so familiar. The kind of excuses given by apologists like Jason McCabe Calacanis, who suggested that:

"It's a circular conversation in which the press is blamed for over-covering newly wealthy technology executives and their firms.... So, don't refresh your NASDAQ page. Instead delete FuckedCompany.com and Layoff Trackers from your bookmark list..."

Huh? Why not ask how they got that "wealth". If three days of digging reveals inside deals and bounses controlled by the CEO, well, I'd argue they need more of a spotlight on them, not less. Fucked Company is around because employees need someone on their side.

People often make the mistake of assuming that people complaining about working conditions are whiners who aren't tough enough. Are the Hale House workers whiners or concerned about the care and education of their clients, who happen to be small children? Are they overpaid and lucky? Or fufilling their professional responsibility by trying to improve the lot of these children?

People need to understand that these kind of abuses are not limited to any one kind of company. Any company without due dillence will eventually fall into these traps. Contributors, like share holders, are nameless and faceless. As long as the money comes in, few questions will be asked. The problem is that when they do finally get asked, problems usually get uncovered.


 
Posted Comments:post a comment!
Name: Email:

Comment:



Name:
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:50:22 2001
Comment:

Name: iamdubious
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:29:19 2001
Comment: *exposed*

That is indeed something to consider.

Name:
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 15:44:26 2001
Comment: call in the grammar lady. . .

actually the "exposed" children, as they were called, were in some cases hurt more by the stigma of having been born to crack addicted mothers and by unintentional overcompensatory zeal on the part of the "providers" and social services people than by exposure to cocaine.

The ensuing and the supposedly "theraputic" coddling and doting were hindering their ability to develop early coping skills necessary for the development of autonomous decision making and reasoning ability.

Name:
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 15:39:50 2001
Comment: dubious. . .

actually the "exposed" children, as they were called, were in some cases hurt more by the stigma of having been born to crack addicted mothers and by unintentional overcompensatory zeal on the part of the "providers" and social services people.

The ensuing and the supposedly "theraputic" coddling and doting was hindering their ability to develop early coping skills necessary for the development of autonomous decision making and reasoning.

Name: anon
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 16:39:18 2001
Comment: The best example of "hiding behind minority status" was the incredable lack of scrutiny paid to DEN (digital entertainment network) by the media. Just because the management was gay.

Can you imagine an editor turing a blind-eye to a company where 20 and 30 something execs were banging 15 year old bimbos in their valley mansion?

Well, I can tell you ... pretty much everyone KNEW about the DEN Houseboys and didn't report a damn thing ... until the company went under.

I think the execs are still hiding out in the Caribbean or someplace.

Name: ralf
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 14:21:25 2001
Comment: Children care, medical and psychological assistance, integration of handicapped people, vocational education programmes and leisure time activities for adolescents etc. must not necessarily be outsourced to the mercy of private well-doers which want more often than not to be publicly rewarded for their Victorian behavior. Fortunately Thatcherite thinking never really got a sturdy grip on the EU continent. I suppose we are partly back to the earlier discussed tax question once again. Over here town councils run all sorts of above mentioned programmes. To a lesser degree they grant money to associations, churches, unions and (working men) clubs etc. on an annual bases to promote their social and other activities. Decisions on how to spend the money are made in council meetings which are open to the public. The managment of our money is assigned to professionals. The use of it is monitored by skilled public servants. To participate in programmes is not left to the benevolent, charitable ad hoc decision of a more or less social minded group of people but is your citizen?s right. You don?t have to subscribe to a ideological, political or religious Weltanschauung to be accepted. The main advantage of a publicly owned programme is that your individuality remains intact because you are not at the mercy of complying to a private "mission statement" of the executors of the programme. This goes so far that catholic kindergartens will accept protestant or muslim kids without any objection. (and the other way round) It?s seems sorta absurd to me that a country which can run a professionaly managed and publicly funded Marines corps cannot run a likewise executed state of the art kindergarten programme. What tf have Marines to get involved in serious donor activities for? Would it not be sufficient if they had their barracks opened once in a while to have kids coming to spend a day of fun and adventure with them?

Name: iamdubious
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 13:06:28 2001
Comment:
My sense is that the Mother Hale scandal is really about the deconstruction of myth.

Though I am a native son, I wasn't in New York during the height of the crack attack years when Mother Hale started her work with these kids. But, the most recent research among children born to crack-addicted mothers is showing that there is no longterm neurological damage. These kids recover and fare as well in school as other children in their communities.


Name: steve gilliard
Email: sgilliard@netslaves.com
Date: Tue Apr 24 13:03:16 2001
Comment: Actually, the Corps runs all the Toys for Tots programs and they like the fact that it gets into the hands of kids. Marines "considerable clout" makes me smile. They take their traditions seriously.

Of course most Marines would be considered poor by normal standards.

Also, while people try to hide behind race, Hale House was well liked across the city. I don't think anyone would have refused them anything, regardless of color. They were widely supported in the community because of the crack explosion in the late 1980's. People thought there would be a rash of crack-created monogloid criminals. recent studies show that crack didn't have any long term effect on kids.

When they city decided to shift to placing kids in foster homes, Hale House lost city backing, BUT, had kept much of the social support they had earned in the 1980's. But that doesn't mean that people will not have questions, nor want them answered.

Name: iamdubious
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 12:42:10 2001
Comment: MasterPo

I can assure you that race is no "shield "in New York City, nor aywhere else that I have ever lived. Sure, some culprits might try, but I have never seen it work. Never.

Name: Charity Is Good
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 12:24:15 2001
Comment: Everyone who has ever studied charitable giving has found that poor (not middle-class) people give the highest percentage of their income to charity. And I should know, I'm middle-class and part of the problem.

Name: Joe Sixpack
Email: ordaj@planetcable.net
Date: Tue Apr 24 12:06:12 2001
Comment: Which is why I don't give to charities. You don't EVER know where your money is going (more than likely to line someone's pocket). If you want to help someone, do it directly and locally. Every community has enough rich people that they should be stepping up to the plate more often and getting involved; yet most of the "giving" is done by avergae people. For instance, in my small town (8,000-10,000 people, incluind surrounding areas), there are numerous schools and children's sports leagues. Invariable, the schools and the leagues plead for money to buy the basics for these kids. Yet, there are numerous wealthy individuals in this area that could buy all of the supplies and equipment to support these entities, but don't. Of course, they don't have to, but it would sure be "nice."

Name: MasterPo
Email:
Date: Tue Apr 24 08:53:04 2001
Comment:
If I could setup a non-taxable organization, draw a $200k salary, get millions in tax-free gifts and hide behind the shield of Race (easily done in a place like NYC) then I would too!

Name: sbdwestpac
Email: sbdwestpac@aol.com
Date: Tue Apr 24 08:26:32 2001
Comment: a few years ago our local Toys for Tots program, which is sponsored locally by the Marine Corps Reserves, spent so much on fund-raising "black-tie" dinners and charity balls that when the dust settled they had spent more than they had made. And they had spent several million dollars statewide. The only "Toys for Tots" handed out that year were the ones that were donated in lieu of cash (new toys only, in the original package) and what could be purchased by the Marines themselves. The charity management seemed surprised at the criticism that they had wildly overspent on fundraising events targeted at the local upper crust. (This isn't NYC here. This isn't even Atlanta) The only reason that the charity management was ousted was because the Marines used their considerable clout and threatened to remove their support. The new management focuses on grass-roots level support, coordinating with stores like Wal Mart to set up collection points for new toys. Because of this, things have improved considerably over the last several years.

Name: Brian Davey
Email: Brian@bdavey.freeserve.co.uk
Date: Tue Apr 24 04:53:42 2001
Comment: I think we have to assume that there is an inherent tendency in any organisation set up for the common good to degenerate into something less inspiring. The very existence of the not for profit sector where people work for the good of the community gives the lie to the idea that all people are always intrinsically personal gain orientated - but organisations, like fruit, must be recognised as going bad too.

In all social organisation there is an inevitable inequality in what people contribute and what they take. Children, the sick and the frail elderly inevitably take out more than they put in and it is the hallmark of a healthy society that the community does not begrudge them but upholds this as their right. This is the basis for a generalised feeling of social and personal security and quality of life. The rationale for a social economy lies in the recognition that one needs to give support to "losers" when they are down or, like children, too vulnerable to help themselves, to give them a chance for a sustaining life. This requires commitment, it requires people acting as"moving spirits" who will be prepared to give more than they take to people who will take more than they give as they learn, grow and become independent.

This is all very idealistic however. In the UK and, I suppose, in the US, there is an increasing tendency for the management of not for profits to think and organise just like profit making corporations, pay themselves just the same way and act the same way. The original idealism then gets lost.

This has particularly happened as governments, certainly in the UK, have become keener on what has been called the so called "Third Sector". The Third Sector brings down necessary public expenditure on social welfare. It is a place where dedicated people, motivated to do something by human misery, set up organisations to do something and therefore find themselves removing the need for the public authorities to do anything and spend anything - so they are keeping tax rates down. They are helping the rich to stay rich and avoid their wider social responsibilities. After a time workers in the not for profits may begin to be aware that they are being taken for a ride - more and more social problems and human misery makes their job stressful and miserable. At this point the original idealism can burn out, management gets slack, people's interest and idealism wains. Perhaps this happened in the case you mentioned.

In the "not for profit sector" you can also be ripped off in more direct and immediate senses. Stated values may not match up to realities. Of course it is inevitable that people lose interest in their jobs over time - they grow, their circumstances change and, if they are healthy, they then move on, making space for a new person to rejuvenate and bring in new approaches. However things are often not like this. There are people who work in the social and community economy and related groups who have lost interest in their jobs but not in their income. They may be reluctant or unable to move on and they become cynical. They may never have been interested in their jobs in the first place but were going through a rough time and got sucked into the self help process which started the project - landing the paid post before people really knew what they were like. They may be out of their depth, find that their volunteer managers are soft touches who are unable to monitor them closely and discover that they can get away with more and more. If you create a sector which is about supporting vulnerable people you create opportunities for people whose own way of coping with poverty has been lying, cheating and stealing. (As you say this case is about management I am making a more general point here).There is a sense in which you want to create opportunities for these people - to start again, of course, not to be Judases - but it would be naive not to recognise that the social economy, just like a garden, has its pests, diseases and parasites. What is more they can come to dominate organisations and when they do they can be extraordinarily difficult to dislodge. That is when whistle blowing becomes necessary - but, if an organisation is far gone in the processes of degeneration, then whistle blowing is not an easy course of action to take. Indeed it can be a ticket to hell. Then, as you say, you need all the outside help you can get.