Wax on, Wax off.

A conversation with a Councilman

I recently received a note from Wade Kach, the Councilman for Baltimore County Council District 3 (District 3 is a massive district comprised of the northern half of Baltimore County). The email was in regard to a recent action taken by the County Executive to “effectively” designate Baltimore County as a sanctuary county. Wade’s email requested that readers reach out to the County Executive to express discordance. I responded that I would reach out to the County Executive, but not to express dismay, but rather to express my support.  To his credit, Wade (someone on his staff), sent a response. To which, I again responded.

In the book I am reading, it states that it is the duty of the privileged, whether that be privileged from race, gender, money, to educate those who are like them. Here’s my first stab. See below for the entire exchange starting with Wade’s initial statement.

——————————————————————————–

It is unacceptable and offensive that the Baltimore County Executive has bypassed the Baltimore County Council and issued an executive order which effectively declares Baltimore County to be a sanctuary county. And to do so, so soon after the brutal rapes of two Maryland teenage girls, at the hands of illegal immigrants demonstrates a lack of concern for their suffering, while disregarding the increased risks of similar actions taking place here in our County.

I have been outspoken on this issue before. In no uncertain terms, Baltimore County should not be a safe haven for those that would come to this country illegally, especially for those who have committed additional crimes.

As the councilman of a district that represents some of the most significant and beautiful spans agriculturally productive land in Maryland, I understand the importance of legal immigration, and I recognize the need for meaningful reforms to that system, but this order is not the way. Beyond being unfair to those that have taken the long and arduous path of becoming a legal US citizen, it threatens to make Baltimore County less safe as it becomes more attractive to for those that do not have legal status in America. As Baltimore County residents, tax payers, and voters, we all deserve far better than what this Executive Order threatens to do.

The Executive Order does essentially three things:

1.       It prevents the detention of a convicted criminal who is also a suspected illegal immigrant beyond a court ordered release date, even if the federal government requests that they be detained while their immigration status is investigated.

2.       It prevents Baltimore County Police from inquiring as to the immigration status of those they have already legally detained on suspicion of a crime, unless they have a court order.

3.       It provides at the great expense of taxpayers all County services and benefits to any illegal immigrant who requests it.

To his credit, the County Executive has expressed his deep concern for the protection of children and families. Regrettably, in no way does his executive order achieve any additional security. It brings with it greater risk instead.

Under this unilateral directive, someone can enter this country illegally, move to Baltimore Country, commit a crime, serve time in prison, and then be released into the Baltimore County population as a free individual. This is absurd.  Statistics show that criminal recidivism rates are on the rise.  Because Baltimore County is now a sanctuary jurisdiction, the fear of deportation will no longer act as an additional deterrent for this population.

Furthermore, the fact that the executive order prevents Baltimore County Police from inquiring the status of individuals suspected by the federal government to be here illegally does nothing to protect children and families. One need only to look at the brutal crimes that have taken place in Montgomery County involving known illegal immigrants (by the federal government) to see how short sighted a policy this is.

Not only does this order sew confusion at the federal level, but it also affects Baltimore County’s ability to cooperate with State Police. Governor Hogan has made it clear that he will veto any legislation that makes Maryland a sanctuary state, a position I support. If Maryland State Police forces are are seeking to apprehend a reported illegal immigrant within Baltimore County, it is ambiguous at the very least, the role that Baltimore County can play in order to secure Baltimore County residents. However well intentioned, it is clear to me that this executive order will make us all less safe.

In the Montgomery County High School case, the federal government knew that the suspects were in the United States illegally, and informed Montgomery County of this. In turn, because the County is a Sanctuary jurisdiction, they did nothing.  These two undocumented immigrants have been charged with a brutal sexual assault on a fourteen year old child.

A second tragic rape and kidnapping, of a twelve-year-old girl, took place just a week later in Montgomery County under similar circumstances. This risk of these scenarios becomes more possible in Baltimore County because of this order.

Lastly, the executive order allows for illegal immigrants to have the right to County services and benefits at the expense of law abiding taxpayers. This has the effect of incentivizing the migration of illegal immigrants to Baltimore County. In these times of very tight budgets and high taxes, Baltimore County simply cannot afford to have this happen.  Advocates for undocumented immigrants state that many of these individuals pay taxes.  However, study after study show that the taxes paid are far less than what governments spends on providing services to illegal immigrants.

Simply put, this order cannot stand. Going forward, I am actively looking into the possibility of legislation that will reverse the effect of this order. In the meantime, I encourage you to

contact the County Executive

to express your concerns about this issue.

~Wade

——————————————————————————–

Wade,

I completely disagree.  I will contact the County Executive, but I will do so to extend my support for their courage to stand up to injustice.

Sincerely,

Wes

———————————————————————————

Wes,

Thank you for letting me know of your deep concern regarding my statement on County Executive Kamenetz’s order related to immigration. It is always helpful for me to hear feedback, even on matters in which there is disagreement.

We may not always agree on every issue, but I hope that you know me enough to know that the positions I take are motivated solely by what I think is right. And I have not been afraid to take positions that have alienated me from my own party and my own colleagues on the Council. I have been told by a colleague of mine on another contentious issue that I am an absolutist concerning issues of right and wrong. While it was meant to be pejorative, I could not agree more.

I have been the deciding vote on some of the most crucial advances in human rights in the state of Maryland. My motivation throughout all of this is a deep sense of what is right and wrong, rather than what is popular or what will get me more votes.

My position on the executive order is simply motivated by my concern for the security of the citizens of Baltimore County. The primary purpose of government is to keep people safe. What most concerns me about the executive order is that it allows convicted criminals who are here illegally to in effect remain here once they are released from prison. In saying this, I do not mean that all undocumented individuals are criminals. I never have held this view, and I do not agree with people who do. My sole motivation is ensuring public safety.

As a public official, I believe it is my responsibility to speak up when I believe a proposed policy is wrong. With all honesty, I believe that the County Executive’s order does not consider the unintended consequences.

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns. We may still disagree, but I hope you can understand what my motives are with this, and on what basis I make the decisions that I do.

Take care,

Wade

———————————————————————————

Wade,

Thank you for a thoughtful response.  While I disagree, I do appreciate it.

In response, I would say that Study after Study shows that the perception that immigrants cause disproportionate levels of crime are FALSE, driven by the media, and perpetuated by political rhetoric and policy.

If you prefer not to dig in to the studies, here’s the gist: “immigrants have much lower institutionalization (incarceration) rates than the native born - on the order of one-fifth the rate of natives”, and “newly arrived immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s seem to be particularly unlikely to be involved in criminal activity, consistent with increasingly positive selection along this dimension.”

Now back to the political rhetoric - I saw no sign in the second incident you reported “under similar circumstances” was committed by illegal immigrants. If that is the case, I can only say that you would be guilty of fear-mongering. In fact, regardless of whether they were illegal or not, sending out a mass email to thousands of people listing two instances of girls raped by Latino men is still fear-mongering, and promotes the fear and racism which threatens those of all colors across the country. Further to your point of being an absolutist concerned for safety, I would think you could generate the most safety for the most people by not eliciting unnecessary fear towards immigrants from the predominantly white district who elected you.

I believe you create safety through kindness and inclusiveness, not exclusion and fear. But that’s just me.

Thanks again for the response,

Wes

State of Affairs: GRS SA

Now that all that light hearted family fluff is over with, we can get down to business.  While I cherished my time with my family, I’ve found it a little less rewarding writing about those experiences than about some of the grittier topics we’ve covered previously. I am sure it will be fun to look back on our trip together, but I’ve found less room for the depth of cultural experience and analysis while on a safari than while inserted into Khayelitsha and the lives of it’s inhabitants. And certainly less room for valuable criticism whilst having every need catered to in a luxury chalet than the very real struggles that Grassroot Soccer is currently experiencing.  And that’s what I want to talk to you about today.

First I want recognize that I have been offered a very unique perspective and line of site into the business of Grassroot Soccer. On the one hand, I am a lowly intern without knowledge or experience of nonprofits, South Africa, or adolescent health with which to offer valuable contributions at the highest levels.  On the other, and I will go into this more later, GRS is so utterly understaffed and in some regards malfunctioning that I have been not only privy to, but participated in discussions and decisions that determine the future of the organization.  Those facts combined with the fact that I am unpaid so while I am personally very dedicated to the organization and its constituents,  at the same time, I don’t really have any skin in the game.  I love many of the people I work with (although it seems like there are fewer and fewer), and absolutely adore the Coaches I work with, the fact remains that in the absolute worst case scenario if the organization completely folded, I would probably shed a tear, pack up and go on my way.  In those regards, I am really able to straddle the line (I’m basically a mole, aren’t I?).  And the fact that there is no money involved, I think, makes it much easier to be critical of the organization, and shift the analysis inwards onto my own allegiance and lens without having my perspective clouded by a salary.

So, all that being said, let me paint some context for you.  And just to be clear, I certainly don’t have all of the information.  But then again, it seems like nobody does.

I’m not an expert, I just play one on the blogosphere.

The issue at hand, not surprisingly, involves money.  It is a complex issue with a number of layers and players.  I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible (but knowing myself, I will almost certainly fail).  Grassroot Soccer recently – early October or so – won a grant that it had been working on and negotiating for years.  When GRS first proposed the grant, we said we would need 40 million rand to do the work.  Over the course of those years, the scope of work in the grant changed as national attention and focus areas within the battle against HIV have shifted.  In its final draft offered to GRS, half of the work was prevention with young girls - right in our wheelhouse - but half of it was to work with out of school, adult men - well outside our mission. Furthermore, they offered us only 10 million rand to do the work.

Another issue, as I understand it, is that the work with the adult men does not incorporate soccer.  This lumps in with the ‘off mission’ issue.  We are a ‘Sport For Development’ organization.  And this portion has no sport.  In my personal opinion, the name “Grassroot Soccer” is incredibly limiting.  I understand it from an initial creation standpoint – a couple of guys chatting about how their friends are dying from HIV, and something needs to be done., But now, firstly, there’s the fact that Grassroot isn’t even a word, but more than that, labeling ourselves as a Soccer organization, traps us and gives many people an initial perspective that we teach and coach soccer.  Which really isn’t the case. Many funders will not fund sports projects so they are immediately under a false first impression, and one that leaves then feeling negatively towards the organizations.  Soccer also  has it’s own limitations in the fact that half the world calls it football. So all that is to say, we use sport as a tool to start tough conversations about health issues.  This portion of the contract was more about testing, and didn’t involve sport.

With me so far?  GRS has been offered ¼ of the money needed to do a job.  Half of which is work within our mission, half is not.  That grant is called Communities Response, or CCI.

Now, along with that grant is another grant through DREAMS, which is a foundation set up in conjunction with USAID with the specific function of decreasing HIV in young women and girls - again, right in our wheelhouse.  They have an award which they verbally said that they would like to offer to GRS to contribute 10 million rand to do the same work with girls (meaning two funders combined for the same job), thus helping to fund the ‘good’, on mission, portion of the CCI grant.  It doesn’t get us all the way to the 40 needed, but it helps.  Unfortunately though, it’s not in writing.

Similarly, another organization, has committed to match the funding from DREAMS.  They love the work GRS does, but their mandate only allows them to provide matching funds to another organization.  Thus, if we get DREAMS for 10 million, we get an additional 10 million on top of that.  But we need one to get the other. And again, this commitment isn’t solidified in writing.

So at this point, if all goes right, we are at 30 million to fulfill on the initial grant.  While it’s not everything necessary, it is a multi year gig, and we assume that it wouldn’t be a huge issue to garner that extra 10 million over the next three years to cover that gap.

So really we have two issues: 1) half of the proposed work is off mission 2) 2/3 of the money (which isn’t even all of the money necessary) isn’t in writing.

It should be mentioned that while technically our mission does not include working with adult men, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile work.  It just isn’t within our proposed scope.  We’re not experts in that area.  BUT, stopping the spread of HIV is the ultimate goal, right?  And that’s a large part of the debate.  Do you take money that allows you to do really great work that is within the mission but also drives you into areas that are off mission?  It’s easy to say 'no’, stick to the mission, but the reality is that there’s no perfect money.  Every grant comes with stipulations that make it hard to fulfill, and nudges you slightly off target.  So there in lies problem number one.

Problem number two exposes a separate but related internal issue at GRS.  Technically, Grassroot Soccer South Africa is its own entity. GRS SA can make its own decisions.  It has it’s own senior management, it has it’s own board, and technically it could branch off from GRS Global and go forward in any route it wants.  Technically.  However, GRS Global exists essentially as a fundraising arm of GRS.  They raise massive amounts of money, and every year they cut a check to GRS SA which allows SA to stay operational.  GRS SA has great funders, but the grants from those funders leave significant operational gaps.  Funders don’t want to pay for gas for the intern car, air conditioning for the office, fixes to the Internet, paper for printing, salary gaps for the finance team, and other things that you can imagine aren’t 'sexy’ items that an individual donor or funder might want to fund. Even individual donors who write checks to the organization want to fund something tangible like shoes for our participants. Thus, the money that Global gives us, “Unrestricted Funding”, really is the glue that holds everything together.  Thus, GRS SA is beholden to them.  And aside the financial reasons, we are all fighting for the same team, so we want to maintain a good relationship.

All that is to say that Global, and specifically the new Africa CEO (who is one of the initial founders, but has almost no requisite experience that would qualify him for that position except for the mere fact that he’s been there since day one) said ‘no’ to taking this opportunity.  His main reason, as I understand it, is that it is too great of a risk.  He wants to see all three awards offered in writing before he signs on for the first grant – it is too risky to sign on to a contract to do 40 million rand worth of work with only 10 million guaranteed.  That combined with the fact that it is off mission.  Reasonable enough.

Regardless of whether I agree with that decision, it follows enough logic that I understand it, and don’t think it’s an outrageous conclusion.  Whether or not he’s even qualified to make that decision….is a struggle that GRS is going to have to cope with.  This sort of situation where the founders of the organization – in GRS’s case, there are four – start an organization based on passion and recognition of an issue, and then are still in charge of the organization a decade later but lack the technical capacity and skills to lead the organization is not unique.  It’s a well documented phenomenon that is both awkward and debilitating. How do you tell the top level management that they are no longer necessary, that the organization, which they founded and have helped grow, not only doesn’t need them anymore, but that their involvement is actually hurting the organization?  

I don’t know the right answer, but I’m pretty sure that message won’t be carried up the ranks by an intern. Thus, I cleanse my hands of any responsibility (attached, but no skin in the game, remember?)

Aside from that decision and its quality, the decision is made, and it has left the organization in an unenviable situation.  Senior Management had essentially assumed that we would take those three awards, and would have thus been in a very good standing financially for 2016.  Staff salary coverage was good – probably better than it had ever been before.  But now, after removing that funding from the pipeline, coverage dropped to less than 50%.  Senior Management, and specifically the Managing Director, had thought that Global would agree to take the award, and had thus not prepared for the possibility that they wouldn’t.  This slashed our budget and left GRS without solid footing for 2016.  We were then left in the unfortunate position about having to ‘restructure’ and begin a process of retrenchments – aka layoffs.  This already unfavorable situation was made even worse by the fact that it had taken so long to make this decision (it was now December, and management had been sitting on this decision for months), and it was assumed by the general staff that our financial status was quite strong. Management did such a bad job communicating the issues, that staff went into these meetings in which they would eventually be retrenched, thinking that the meetings were to discuss an end of year bonus. So they walked into those meetings expecting to walk out with some extra cash for the holidays, and came out jobless, right before the end of the year, without a chance to make a plan for 2016.  Not great.  

To say that morale is low – especially at site – would totally undermine the gravity and anger of the situation.  Furthered by even more poor communication, site staff felt as though they were disproportionally selected to be laid off.  And while there were more staff from site that were affected, Senior Management lost three members as well.  But perception was that management was just doing away with Coaches and site staff and keeping their jobs to cover up for a mistake that Senior Management had made.  This has created even more of a divide between management at HQ and staff out at site.  A relationship which was already strained.  

Within HQ, we lost the Finance and Operations Director, the HR Director (who was partially responsible for me coming to South Africa), and the newly hired Programs Director.  So now when it comes time to apply for grant funding, there is no one in house that can compile a budget.  Furthermore, now that there is no HR person. If an employee (or an intern!) had an issue with another employee, who would they go to?  And I realize that the interns aren’t their biggest concern, but when you ask 12 people, many of whom are kids right out college, to donate a year of their life to the cause, leave their family, and travel across the world to do so, how do you then pull their local support system out from under them?  The HR director was the only person with whom the intern class had a relationship with before coming to SA.  He’s the only person who had a real mandate to support and maintain the intern experience.  Fortunately for me, this isn’t my first rodeo, but if I were the parent of a 22 year old young lady who put life on hold to come here, I would be mighty displeased.  And it certainly doesn’t make this intern want to sign on for an extended stay.

While these misfortunes having certainly caused pain and strife, they have also afforded me some very real opportunities to have a seat at the table in discussions that would normally be reserved for those with some relevant experience, or at least those whose salary doesn’t start and end with a 0.  I have found myself in meetings with what’s left of Senior Management, with a very real opportunity to contribute.  I can see that my contributions hold real weight, are respected, and have the potential to really affect the status of the organization. So while I hate what has happened, and the process by which it was managed, I have benefited professionally via the somewhat detached perspective I mentioned earlier, and have garnered amazingly valuable experiences in non profit management (and mismanagement)..  

So that’s the current state of affairs at GRS.  The office, which used to be chaotic and loud, is quiet and spread pretty thin.  For example, I am the only one in the organization that is exclusively focused on Business Development and I have approximately zero experience with non profits, South Africa, HIV, Adolescent Health or business development.  My manager is actually the strategic communications director, and even she has very little experience in BD.

They have also announced that they slashing the intern program as it currently exists.  I understand that even free labor isn’t completely free, but it certainly seems a little bit shortsighted to do away with the program.  Maybe I’m just sentimental though, but it will change the face of the organization without a doubt.

So it’s a fairly sorry situation for the organization.  Unfavorable to say the least.  And in previous conversations, I may have employed the phrase “sinking ship” to describe GRS’s future.  And while it’s not actually that dire, it definitely doesn’t build much confidence.  Then again though, I’m learning, and that’s why I’m here.  So I’ll keep learning and watching from the inside and the outside (mole, eh?) with the hope that we can right the ship before I leave.

State of Affairs: Grassroot Soccer

Now that all that light hearted family fluff is over with, we can get down to business. While I cherished my time with my family, I’ve found it a little less rewarding writing about those experiences than about some of the grittier topics we’ve covered previously. I am sure it will be fun to look back on our trip together, but I’ve found less room for the depth of cultural experience and analysis while on a safari than while inserted into Khayelitsha and the lives of it’s inhabitants. And certainly less room for valuable criticism whilst having every need catered to in a luxury chalet than the very real struggles that Grassroot Soccer is currently experiencing. And that’s what I want to talk to you about today.

First I want recognize that I have been offered a very unique perspective and line of site into the business of Grassroot Soccer. On the one hand, I am a lowly intern without knowledge or experience of nonprofits, South Africa, or adolescent health with which to offer valuable contributions at the highest levels. On the other, and I will go into this more later, GRS is so utterly understaffed and in some regards malfunctioning that I have been not only privy to, but participated in discussions and decisions that determine the future of the organization. Those facts combined with the fact that I am unpaid so while I am personally very dedicated to the organization and its constituents, at the same time, I don’t really have any skin in the game. I love many of the people I work with (although it seems like there are fewer and fewer), and absolutely adore the Coaches I work with, the fact remains that in the absolute worst case scenario if the organization completely folded, I would probably shed a tear, pack up and go on my way. In those regards, I am really able to straddle the line (I’m basically a mole, aren’t I?). And the fact that there is no money involved, I think, makes it much easier to be critical of the organization, and shift the analysis inwards onto my own allegiance and lens without having my perspective clouded by a salary.

So, all that being said, let me paint some context for you. And just to be clear, I certainly don’t have all of the information. But then again, it seems like nobody does.

I’m not an expert, I just play one on the blogosphere.

The issue at hand, not surprisingly, involves money. It is a complex issue with a number of layers and players. I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible (but knowing myself, I will almost certainly fail). Grassroot Soccer recently – early October or so – won a grant that it had been working on and negotiating for years. When GRS first proposed the grant, we said we would need 40 million rand to do the work. Over the course of those years, the scope of work in the grant changed as national attention and focus areas within the battle against HIV have shifted. In its final draft offered to GRS, half of the work was prevention with young girls - right in our wheelhouse - but half of it was to work with out of school, adult men - well outside our mission. Furthermore, they offered us only 10 million rand to do the work.

Another issue, as I understand it, is that the work with the adult men does not incorporate soccer. This lumps in with the ‘off mission’ issue. We are a ‘Sport For Development’ organization. And this portion has no sport. In my personal opinion, the name “Grassroot Soccer” is incredibly limiting. I understand it from an initial creation standpoint – a couple of guys chatting about how their friends are dying from HIV, and something needs to be done., But now, firstly, there’s the fact that Grassroot isn’t even a word, but more than that, labeling ourselves as a Soccer organization, traps us and gives many people an initial perspective that we teach and coach soccer. Which really isn’t the case. Many funders will not fund sports projects so they are immediately under a false first impression, and one that leaves then feeling negatively towards the organizations. Soccer also has it’s own limitations in the fact that half the world calls it football. So all that is to say, we use sport as a tool to start tough conversations about health issues. This portion of the contract was more about testing, and didn’t involve sport.

With me so far? GRS has been offered ¼ of the money needed to do a job. Half of which is work within our mission, half is not. That grant is called Communities Response, or CCI.

Now, along with that grant is another grant through DREAMS, which is a foundation set up in conjunction with USAID with the specific function of decreasing HIV in young women and girls - again, right in our wheelhouse. They have an award which they verbally said that they would like to offer to GRS to contribute 10 million rand to do the same work with girls (meaning two funders combined for the same job), thus helping to fund the ‘good’, on mission, portion of the CCI grant. It doesn’t get us all the way to the 40 needed, but it helps. Unfortunately though, it’s not in writing.

Similarly, another organization, has committed to match the funding from DREAMS. They love the work GRS does, but their mandate only allows them to provide matching funds to another organization. Thus, if we get DREAMS for 10 million, we get an additional 10 million on top of that. But we need one to get the other. And again, this commitment isn’t solidified in writing.

So at this point, if all goes right, we are at 30 million to fulfill on the initial grant. While it’s not everything necessary, it is a multi year gig, and we assume that it wouldn’t be a huge issue to garner that extra 10 million over the next three years to cover that gap.

So really we have two issues: 1) half of the proposed work is off mission 2) 2/3 of the money (which isn’t even all of the money necessary) isn’t in writing.

It should be mentioned that while technically our mission does not include working with adult men, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile work. It just isn’t within our proposed scope. We’re not experts in that area. BUT, stopping the spread of HIV is the ultimate goal, right? And that’s a large part of the debate. Do you take money that allows you to do really great work that is within the mission but also drives you into areas that are off mission? It’s easy to say 'no’, stick to the mission, but the reality is that there’s no perfect money. Every grant comes with stipulations that make it hard to fulfill, and nudges you slightly off target. So there in lies problem number one.

Problem number two exposes a separate but related internal issue at GRS. Technically, Grassroot Soccer South Africa is its own entity. GRS SA can make its own decisions. It has it’s own senior management, it has it’s own board, and technically it could branch off from GRS Global and go forward in any route it wants. Technically. However, GRS Global exists essentially as a fundraising arm of GRS. They raise massive amounts of money, and every year they cut a check to GRS SA which allows SA to stay operational. GRS SA has great funders, but the grants from those funders leave significant operational gaps. Funders don’t want to pay for gas for the intern car, air conditioning for the office, fixes to the Internet, paper for printing, salary gaps for the finance team, and other things that you can imagine aren’t 'sexy’ items that an individual donor or funder might want to fund. Even individual donors who write checks to the organization want to fund something tangible like shoes for our participants. Thus, the money that Global gives us, “Unrestricted Funding”, really is the glue that holds everything together. Thus, GRS SA is beholden to them. And aside the financial reasons, we are all fighting for the same team, so we want to maintain a good relationship.

All that is to say that Global, and specifically the new Africa CEO (who is one of the initial founders, but has almost no requisite experience that would qualify him for that position except for the mere fact that he’s been there since day one) said ‘no’ to taking this opportunity. His main reason, as I understand it, is that it is too great of a risk. He wants to see all three awards offered in writing before he signs on for the first grant – it is too risky to sign on to a contract to do 40 million rand worth of work with only 10 million guaranteed. That combined with the fact that it is off mission. Reasonable enough.

Regardless of whether I agree with that decision, it follows enough logic that I understand it, and don’t think it’s an outrageous conclusion. Whether or not he’s even qualified to make that decision….is a struggle that GRS is going to have to cope with. This sort of situation where the founders of the organization – in GRS’s case, there are four – start an organization based on passion and recognition of an issue, and then are still in charge of the organization a decade later but lack the technical capacity and skills to lead the organization is not unique. It’s a well documented phenomenon that is both awkward and debilitating. How do you tell the top level management that they are no longer necessary, that the organization, which they founded and have helped grow, not only doesn’t need them anymore, but that their involvement is actually hurting the organization?

I don’t know the right answer, but I’m pretty sure that message won’t be carried up the ranks by an intern. Thus, I cleanse my hands of any responsibility (attached, but no skin in the game, remember?)

Aside from that decision and its quality, the decision is made, and it has left the organization in an unenviable situation. Senior Management had essentially assumed that we would take those three awards, and would have thus been in a very good standing financially for 2016. Staff salary coverage was good – probably better than it had ever been before. But now, after removing that funding from the pipeline, coverage dropped to less than 50%. Senior Management, and specifically the Managing Director, had thought that Global would agree to take the award, and had thus not prepared for the possibility that they wouldn’t. This slashed our budget and left GRS without solid footing for 2016. We were then left in the unfortunate position about having to ‘restructure’ and begin a process of retrenchments – aka layoffs. This already unfavorable situation was made even worse by the fact that it had taken so long to make this decision (it was now December, and management had been sitting on this decision for months), and it was assumed by the general staff that our financial status was quite strong. Management did such a bad job communicating the issues, that staff went into these meetings in which they would eventually be retrenched, thinking that the meetings were to discuss an end of year bonus. So they walked into those meetings expecting to walk out with some extra cash for the holidays, and came out jobless, right before the end of the year, without a chance to make a plan for 2016. Not great.

To say that morale is low – especially at site – would totally undermine the gravity and anger of the situation. Furthered by even more poor communication, site staff felt as though they were disproportionally selected to be laid off. And while there were more staff from site that were affected, Senior Management lost three members as well. But perception was that management was just doing away with Coaches and site staff and keeping their jobs to cover up for a mistake that Senior Management had made. This has created even more of a divide between management at HQ and staff out at site. A relationship which was already strained.

Within HQ, we lost the Finance and Operations Director, the HR Director (who was partially responsible for me coming to South Africa), and the newly hired Programs Director. So now when it comes time to apply for grant funding, there is no one in house that can compile a budget. Furthermore, now that there is no HR person. If an employee (or an intern!) had an issue with another employee, who would they go to? And I realize that the interns aren’t their biggest concern, but when you ask 12 people, many of whom are kids right out college, to donate a year of their life to the cause, leave their family, and travel across the world to do so, how do you then pull their local support system out from under them? The HR director was the only person with whom the intern class had a relationship with before coming to SA. He’s the only person who had a real mandate to support and maintain the intern experience. Fortunately for me, this isn’t my first rodeo, but if I were the parent of a 22 year old young lady who put life on hold to come here, I would be mighty displeased. And it certainly doesn’t make this intern want to sign on for an extended stay.

While these misfortunes having certainly caused pain and strife, they have also afforded me some very real opportunities to have a seat at the table in discussions that would normally be reserved for those with some relevant experience, or at least those whose salary doesn’t start and end with a 0. I have found myself in meetings with what’s left of Senior Management, with a very real opportunity to contribute. I can see that my contributions hold real weight, are respected, and have the potential to really affect the status of the organization. So while I hate what has happened, and the process by which it was managed, I have benefited professionally via the somewhat detached perspective I mentioned earlier, and have garnered amazingly valuable experiences in non profit management (and mismanagement)..

So that’s the current state of affairs at GRS. The office, which used to be chaotic and loud, is quiet and spread pretty thin. For example, I am the only one in the organization that is exclusively focused on Business Development and I have approximately zero experience with non profits, South Africa, HIV, Adolescent Health or business development. My manager is actually the strategic communications director, and even she has very little experience in BD.

They have also announced that they slashing the intern program as it currently exists. I understand that even free labor isn’t completely free, but it certainly seems a little bit shortsighted to do away with the program. Maybe I’m just sentimental though, but it will change the face of the organization without a doubt.

So it’s a fairly sorry situation for the organization. Unfavorable to say the least. And in previous conversations, I may have employed the phrase “sinking ship” to describe GRS’s future. And while it’s not actually that dire, it definitely doesn’t build much confidence. Then again though, I’m learning, and that’s why I’m here. So I’ll keep learning and watching from the inside and the outside (mole, eh?) with the hope that we can right the ship before I leave.

State of Affairs: Grassroot Soccer

So now that all that light hearted family fluff is over with, we can get down to business. I cherished my time with my family, but I’ve found it a little less rewarding writing about those experiences than about some of the grittier topics we’ve covered previously. I am sure it will be fun to look back on our trip together, but I’ve found less room for the depth of cultural experience and analysis while on a safari than while inserted into Khayelitsha and the lives of it’s inhabitants. And certainly less room for valuable criticism whilst having every need catered to in a luxury chalet than the very real struggles that Grassroot Soccer is currently experiencing. And that’s what I want to talk to you about today.

First I want recognize that I have been offered a very unique perspective and line of site into the business of Grassroot Soccer. On the one hand, I am a lowly intern without knowledge or experience of nonprofits, South Africa, or adolescent health with which to offer valuable contributions at the highest levels. On the other, and I will go into this more later, GRS is so utterly understaffed and in some regards malfunctioning that I have been not only privy to, but participated in discussions and decisions that determine the future of the organization. Those facts combined with the fact that I am unpaid so while I am personally very dedicated to the organization and its constituents, at the same time, I don’t really have any skin in the game. I love many of the people I work with (although it seems like there are fewer and fewer), and absolutely adore the Coaches I work with, the fact remains that in the absolute worst case scenario if the organization completely folded, I would probably shed a tear, pack up and go on my way. In those regards, I am really able to straddle the line (I’m basically a mole, aren’t I?). And the fact that there is no money involved, I think, makes it much easier to be critical of the organization, and shift the analysis inwards onto my own allegiance and lens without having my perspective clouded by a salary.

So, all that being said, let me paint some context for you. And just to be clear, I certainly don’t have all of the information. But then again, it seems like nobody does.

I’m not an expert, I just play one on the blogosphere.

The issue at hand, not surprisingly, involves money. It is a complex issue with a number of layers and players. I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible (but knowing myself, I will almost certainly fail). Grassroot Soccer recently – early October or so – won a grant that it had been working on and negotiating for years. When GRS first proposed the grant, we said we would need 40 million rand to do the work. Over the course of those years, the scope of work in the grant changed as national attention and focus areas within the battle against HIV have shifted. In its final draft offered to GRS, half of the work was prevention with young girls - right in our wheelhouse - but half of it was to work with out of school, adult men - well outside our mission. Furthermore, they offered us only 10 million rand to do the work.

Another issue, as I understand it, is that the work with the adult men does not incorporate soccer. This lumps in with the ‘off mission’ issue. We are a ‘Sport For Development’ organization. And this portion has no sport. In my personal opinion, the name “Grassroot Soccer” is incredibly limiting. I understand it from an initial creation standpoint – a couple of guys chatting about how their friends are dying from HIV, and something needs to be done., But now, firstly, there’s the fact that Grassroot isn’t even a word, but more than that, labeling ourselves as a Soccer organization, traps us and gives many people an initial perspective that we teach and coach soccer. Which really isn’t the case. Many funders will not fund sports projects so they are immediately under a false first impression, and one that leaves then feeling negatively towards the organizations. Soccer also has it’s own limitations in the fact that half the world calls it football. So all that is to say, we use sport as a tool to start tough conversations about health issues. This portion of the contract was more about testing, and didn’t involve sport.

With me so far? GRS has been offered ¼ of the money needed to do a job. Half of which is work within our mission, half is not. That grant is called Communities Response, or CCI.

Now, along with that grant is another grant through DREAMS, which is a foundation set up in conjunction with USAID with the specific function of decreasing HIV in young women and girls - again, right in our wheelhouse. They have an award which they verbally said that they would like to offer to GRS to contribute 10 million rand to do the same work with girls (meaning two funders combined for the same job), thus helping to fund the ‘good’, on mission, portion of the CCI grant. It doesn’t get us all the way to the 40 needed, but it helps. Unfortunately though, it’s not in writing.

Similarly, another organization, has committed to match the funding from DREAMS. They love the work GRS does, but their mandate only allows them to provide matching funds to another organization. Thus, if we get DREAMS for 10 million, we get an additional 10 million on top of that. But we need one to get the other. And again, this commitment isn’t solidified in writing.

So at this point, if all goes right, we are at 30 million to fulfill on the initial grant. While it’s not everything necessary, it is a multi year gig, and we assume that it wouldn’t be a huge issue to garner that extra 10 million over the next three years to cover that gap.

So really we have two issues: 1) half of the proposed work is off mission 2) 2/3 of the money (which isn’t even all of the money necessary) isn’t in writing.

It should be mentioned that while technically our mission does not include working with adult men, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile work. It just isn’t within our proposed scope. We’re not experts in that area. BUT, stopping the spread of HIV is the ultimate goal, right? And that’s a large part of the debate. Do you take money that allows you to do really great work that is within the mission but also drives you into areas that are off mission? It’s easy to say 'no’, stick to the mission, but the reality is that there’s no perfect money. Every grant comes with stipulations that make it hard to fulfill, and nudges you slightly off target. So there in lies problem number one.

Problem number two exposes a separate but related internal issue at GRS. Technically, Grassroot Soccer South Africa is its own entity. GRS SA can make its own decisions. It has it’s own senior management, it has it’s own board, and technically it could branch off from GRS Global and go forward in any route it wants. Technically. However, GRS Global exists essentially as a fundraising arm of GRS. They raise massive amounts of money, and every year they cut a check to GRS SA which allows SA to stay operational. GRS SA has great funders, but the grants from those funders leave significant operational gaps. Funders don’t want to pay for gas for the intern car, air conditioning for the office, fixes to the Internet, paper for printing, salary gaps for the finance team, and other things that you can imagine aren’t 'sexy’ items that an individual donor or funder might want to fund. Even individual donors who write checks to the organization want to fund something tangible like shoes for our participants. Thus, the money that Global gives us, “Unrestricted Funding”, really is the glue that holds everything together. Thus, GRS SA is beholden to them. And aside the financial reasons, we are all fighting for the same team, so we want to maintain a good relationship.

All that is to say that Global, and specifically the new Africa CEO (who is one of the initial founders, but has almost no requisite experience that would qualify him for that position except for the mere fact that he’s been there since day one) said ‘no’ to taking this opportunity. His main reason, as I understand it, is that it is too great of a risk. He wants to see all three awards offered in writing before he signs on for the first grant – it is too risky to sign on to a contract to do 40 million rand worth of work with only 10 million guaranteed. That combined with the fact that it is off mission. Reasonable enough.

Regardless of whether I agree with that decision, it follows enough logic that I understand it, and don’t think it’s an outrageous conclusion. Whether or not he’s even qualified to make that decision….is a struggle that GRS is going to have to cope with. This sort of situation where the founders of the organization – in GRS’s case, there are four – start an organization based on passion and recognition of an issue, and then are still in charge of the organization a decade later but lack the technical capacity and skills to lead the organization is not unique. It’s a well documented phenomenon that is both awkward and debilitating. How do you tell the top level management that they are no longer necessary, that the organization, which they founded and have helped grow, not only doesn’t need them anymore, but that their involvement is actually hurting the organization?

I don’t know the right answer, but I’m pretty sure that message won’t be carried up the ranks by an intern. Thus, I cleanse my hands of any responsibility (attached, but no skin in the game, remember?)

Aside from that decision and its quality, the decision is made, and it has left the organization in an unenviable situation. Senior Management had essentially assumed that we would take those three awards, and would have thus been in a very good standing financially for 2016. Staff salary coverage was good – probably better than it had ever been before. But now, after removing that funding from the pipeline, coverage dropped to less than 50%. Senior Management, and specifically the Managing Director, had thought that Global would agree to take the award, and had thus not prepared for the possibility that they wouldn’t. This slashed our budget and left GRS without solid footing for 2016. We were then left in the unfortunate position about having to ‘restructure’ and begin a process of retrenchments – aka layoffs. This already unfavorable situation was made even worse by the fact that it had taken so long to make this decision (it was now December, and management had been sitting on this decision for months), and it was assumed by the general staff that our financial status was quite strong. Management did such a bad job communicating the issues, that staff went into these meetings in which they would eventually be retrenched, thinking that the meetings were to discuss an end of year bonus. So they walked into those meetings expecting to walk out with some extra cash for the holidays, and came out jobless, right before the end of the year, without a chance to make a plan for 2016. Not great.

To say that morale is low – especially at site – would totally undermine the gravity and anger of the situation. Furthered by even more poor communication, site staff felt as though they were disproportionally selected to be laid off. And while there were more staff from site that were affected, Senior Management lost three members as well. But perception was that management was just doing away with Coaches and site staff and keeping their jobs to cover up for a mistake that Senior Management had made. This has created even more of a divide between management at HQ and staff out at site. A relationship which was already strained.

Within HQ, we lost the Finance and Operations Director, the HR Director (who was partially responsible for me coming to South Africa), and the newly hired Programs Director. So now when it comes time to apply for grant funding, there is no one in house that can compile a budget. Furthermore, now that there is no HR person. If an employee (or an intern!) had an issue with another employee, who would they go to? And I realize that the interns aren’t their biggest concern, but when you ask 12 people, many of whom are kids right out college, to donate a year of their life to the cause, leave their family, and travel across the world to do so, how do you then pull their local support system out from under them? The HR director was the only person with whom the intern class had a relationship with before coming to SA. He’s the only person who had a real mandate to support and maintain the intern experience. Fortunately for me, this isn’t my first rodeo, but if I were the parent of a 22 year old young lady who put life on hold to come here, I would be mighty displeased. And it certainly doesn’t make this intern want to sign on for an extended stay.

While these misfortunes having certainly caused pain and strife, they have also afforded me some very real opportunities to have a seat at the table in discussions that would normally be reserved for those with some relevant experience, or at least those whose salary doesn’t start and end with a 0. I have found myself in meetings with what’s left of Senior Management, with a very real opportunity to contribute. I can see that my contributions hold real weight, are respected, and have the potential to really affect the status of the organization. So while I hate what has happened, and the process by which it was managed, I have benefited professionally via the somewhat detached perspective I mentioned earlier, and have garnered amazingly valuable experiences in non profit management (and mismanagement)..

So that’s the current state of affairs at GRS. The office, which used to be chaotic and loud, is quiet and spread pretty thin. For example, I am the only one in the organization that is exclusively focused on Business Development and I have approximately zero experience with non profits, South Africa, HIV, Adolescent Health or business development. My manager is actually the strategic communications director, and even she has very little experience in BD.

They have also announced that they slashing the intern program as it currently exists. I understand that even free labor isn’t completely free, but it certainly seems a little bit shortsighted to do away with the program. Maybe I’m just sentimental though, but it will change the face of the organization without a doubt.

So it’s a fairly sorry situation for the organization. Unfavorable to say the least. And in previous conversations, I may have employed the phrase “sinking ship” to describe GRS’s future. And while it’s not actually that dire, it definitely doesn’t build much confidence. Then again though, I’m learning, and that’s why I’m here. So I’ll keep learning and watching from the inside and the outside (dammit, I really am a mole, eh?) with the hope that we can right the ship before I leave.