Just months after the Three Cups of Tea debacle that besmirched the name of Greg Mortenson and his charity, the Central Asia Institute, we confront another, and much worse, situation with a small nonprofit associated with the child abuse scandal at Penn State.
Heads have rolled, a supposed pillar of the community is under arrest, and The Second Mile, founded by Jerry Sandusky, is fighting for its life.
The Second Mile, started in 1977 by Sandusky, runs programs for troubled youth. Sandusky, according to news reports, only retired from his involvement with the charity in 2010, although a statement on the organization's website says he was removed from programs involving children earlier. Sandusky was, apparently up to the time of his retirement, the organization's primary fundraiser.
The Second Mile is inextricably entwined with the Penn State community. Its CEO is an alum, and the organization was started by Sandusky when he was Defensive Coordinator for the Penn State Football Team.
The charity also might have known something about the incident that was reported to University officials in 2002 regarding Sandusky's inappropriate behavior when he was seen in a shower at the athletic facility with a young boy. It is believed that the boys he is alleged to have sexually abused over a period of years were in the programs at Second Mile.
Can the charity survive such a grave scandal? It's doubtful. Already small, it will have a difficult time distancing itself from Penn State and convincing supporters and donors that it is a trustworthy advocate for and protector of children.
The Second Mile is a victim, and perhaps a participant in, the big sports protectionism that shielded Sandusky and allowed his abuse to continue. Whatever good the organization managed to do has been overwhelmed by the harm that Sandusky, its founder, did.
Bad things happen at nonprofits just as they do anywhere else, but this situation is particularly awful. I am less concerned about whether this particular charity survives than about the children who suffered abuse, and the damage the scandal will cause to the nonprofit community itself. Donors and the public will be more suspicious and cynical about people and organizations that claim they are doing good.
What is a donor to do to avoid supporting questionable nonprofits? Any of us can be taken in and deceived. What we can do is diligently compare charities, research them through the means that we have, and be especially wary of organizations that become overly identified with any one personality.
A charity should be a group project, where many people participate in running the organization and making decisions about it. Charities should have strong, independent boards that can cut even a founder loose when necessary. Good charities should be able to survive without any one person.
We'll be shaking our heads over this tragic situation for a long time, wondering how such egregious and criminal behavior could have been shoved under the rug for so long and by so many people who should have known better.
For more about making wise charitable decisions, see the Safe Giving Guide for Donors and How Should Donors Evaluate a Charity?.
Other News Coverage:
Photo: Patrick Smith/Getty Images Sport
Comments
Thanks for this article Joanne – the more information that is revealed about this case seems to add to its complexity and tragedy. I’m curious about the Second Mile board of directors and what policies the organization had, if any, regarding abuse reporting and/or dealing with criminal charges brought against an individual associated with the organization. It was my understanding that a board has a financial, legal, and ethical responsibility to its organization – and as such should have policies to address these kinds of issues. Perhaps if an individual is interested in donating to an organization that works with kids – part of a donor’s evaluation could be to verify the child protection policies that they have in place …
Thanks for commenting, Liz. The CEO of The Second Mile has now resigned. It will be interesting to see what the board does. I think you’re right that a donor might want to check the policies of organizations that serve children, although I think that those that are well known and have long histories of commendable service are in good shape when it comes to these kinds of policies. One of the problems here is that the founder of the charity is the one accused…and it is likely that he held considerable sway with board members. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Joanne,
While you correctly state that the ‘Sandusky situation’ is far worse than the ‘Mortenson situation,’ you are NOT correct when you imply that:
1. The two men are accused of similar misdeeds,
2. The two men and their charities have been accused in similar ways by similar sources, and
3. The name of Greg Mortenson and of the Central Asia Institute have actually been besmirched.
To set the record straight:
1. GM was accused of misusing CAI donations for his own purposes. CAI was accused of using less than half its incoming donations for programming (rather than admin) and having far less program success than it said.
2. GM and CAI were accused by a single person, Jon Krakauer, whose “information” was broadcast by CBS News. Immediately following that April 17 show, contradictions began arising all over the Web. I believe the first significant one was GM’s K2 climbing partner, Scott Darsney, via Outside magazine, protesting that JK had misunderstood and/or misquoted him.
3. JK and CBS News TRIED to besmirch GM and CAI’s reputations but with little success, because his allegations were inaccurate. See http://www.ikat.org for CAI’s “Master List” of every one of their projects, costs, dates, beneficiaries. Also for AUDITED FYs ‘09 & ‘10 financial statements. (As well as many eye-witness descriptions of past and current work.)
I am genuinely sorry to see you refer to Mr. Mortenson and the Institute in the context of Jerry Sandusky, Second Mile, and Penn State football.
Thank you for your comment, Susan. I see your point about positioning the Mortenson situation within the context of the Sandusky one. I guess I was more concerned about the fact that there have been crises involving two charities in a short period of time, which might lead many to feel cynical about the entire sector. Certainly the situation with The Second Mile is in a completely different league, not to mention the information that subsequently came to bear on the Cup of Tea situation.
Joanne, your piece on this horrific situation was thoughtful, thorough and helpful in that it gave advice to donors in selecting which charities to financially support. I agree with you in that I don’t know how Second Mile can survive this scandal. While I feel confident that many children have been helped, who knows exactly how many children have had their lives ruined? Furthermore, I also feel confident that “covering up” has been going on for a long time on their behalf and shame on them for that. How can future donors ever feel confidence in supporting them?
Thank you, Betsy. I think that “cover up” is a very important point here. Who, for how long, damage done? I hope we eventually know the scope of this tragedy so we can understand what to do and what not to do.
Thanks for this, Joanne.
As I’ve tried processing this, I keep wondering WHERE IS THE BOARD?!
In addition to the moral and legal failures, this is an incredible governance failure. Boards need to trust their leaders but also hold them accountable and drastically cut them off when needed. None of that seemed to have happened with The Second Mile.
Oddly, I hear no mention of their board in the reports. Just Sandusky and TSM staff.
Thanks, Marc, for commenting. I did see a news report about board members starting to resign. They seem dismayed that the staff did not inform them of these events. What a kick the can down the road kind of response! Massive lack of accountability for all parties involved in this. Such a problem when a founder is treated like a hero to the extent that no one asks the hard questions.