Is Food for Thought in Forestville approaching Scam Charity territory?

[Fraudster Alert]

Food for Thought in Forestville is or has approached being a pseudo charity. Although their directive is as "a grassroots organization dedicated to meeting the nutritional needs of persons living with or affected by AIDS/HIV",. according to tax records they're spending less than 25% of their "revenue" on those nutritional needs. Meanwhile a top heavy staff grows, expensive vanity projects far from FFT's prime directive flourish, the "Director" is making $100,000.00, and almost all of the "work" is done by hundreds of volunteers. How to get them back on the right track?
https://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Form990&EIN=680181095&Year=2012.

[hari]

I have gone in, and seen people being helped....but, for the money they are given - thru grants, etc.....they have waaaaayy more resources financially than organizations that feed people with a broad spectrum of illnesses. I have no problem with their mission statement, and wanting to serve a particular population - but maybe we need to move away from AIDS being a bit of a 'cause celebre' vs. other illnesses that are just as devastating...potentially more so. I just wish, with all that frickin' money, they'd open up to those with Hep. C, lupus... basically other autoimmune conditions that are considered by western medicine to cause more deaths than HIV at this point. I know, I know, I'm going to get hate mail. I'm not saying AIDS isn't f-ing awful; I'm just saying that there are other diseases, now, that are, public health-wise, leading to more deaths.

Also, when I asked to volunteer there, the volunteer coordinator told me they had 500 volunteers already. Why, why, do they have so many volunteers when so many food banks can hardly stay open because of lack of funding and volunteers?

Once again, I love the mission statement, and I love the idea of the garden....but with the amount of money they get, their target population is very small. So yes, it's out of whack.

And wow, $100K? Really? Ummmmm. That's a lot. Are they listed/rated on: charity watch?

I apologize if I offended anyone; I know this is a touchy subject - but maybe with community accountability they will use their resources more efficiently.

Hari

[hari]

PS: given that nearly all the food is donated or grown in their gardens, it actually does make a bit of sense that they wouldn't be putting much of their budget into food.....simply because they don't have to pay for most of it. So I'm actually surprised that the percentage is even 25%. But, I haven't read all the stats. I'm just going by my experience going in and talking to people....and hearing all their fundraising drives. And the reality is that people like to give to a cause they feel good about....and AIDS is one of those causes. It really is a catch-22 for them, because opening up their client base may make them ineligible for certain AIDS-specific grants.

[Fraudster Alert]

Since you haven't read the stats provided in the link, here they are for you in a nut shell. Food for Thought buys 98% of its food from other food banks and outlets (Redwood Empire Food Bank). Perhaps 3% is "donated" meaning it is begged at grocery stores throughout the County. The Garden produces virtually NOTHING at a cost of $30,000.00 or so a year. The "Garden" is purely a Vanity project, left over from the current Directors last job at Ocean Song and his sidekick from the Occidental arts and ecology center. Bottom line Food for Thought PAYS for virtually all the food they distribute and furthermore that expenditure is only about 23% of it's budget. Hence They are no longer primarily an AIDS Food Bank but something else entirely. That something else is primarily a set of high paying jobs that have NOTHING to do with providing Food to People!
Here's even MORE disturbing information about FFT's practices!
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/rnr/2946086817.html

PS: given that nearly all the food is donated or grown in their gardens, it actually does make a bit of sense that they wouldn't be putting much of their budget into food.....simply because they don't have to pay for most of it. So I'm actually surprised that the percentage is even 25%. But, I haven't read all the stats. I'm just going by my experience going in and talking to people....and hearing all their fundraising drives. And the reality is that people like to give to a cause they feel good about....and AIDS is one of those causes. It really is a catch-22 for them, because opening up their client base may make them ineligible for certain AIDS-specific grants.

[Cornsilk]

This is heartbreaking that they've lost their way. It used to be such a wonderful organization but those tax documents don't lie! I used to volunteer there but was put off by dozens of conflicting "rules" and a general condescension towards Volunteers.

[Barry]

I can't say whether Food For Thought is well run or not (but if they've got 500 volunteers they must be doing something right! And managing an organization with 500 volunteers is a significant task!)

However what I can say is that the person who started this thread is out of integrity. They registered as "Fraudster Alert". They replied twice under that username, which is fine. However they just registered again with the same email address as "Cornsilk" and "piled on" the original post, making it seem as though there are more people who share their opinion. I also have no doubt that the same person was responsible for the Craigslist post. They clearly have an axe to grind.

This is heartbreaking that they've lost their way. It used to be such a wonderful organization but those tax documents don't lie! I used to volunteer there but was put off by dozens of conflicting "rules" and a general condescension towards Volunteers.

[Fraudster Alert]

How does presenting facts and links from two different accounts negate truth or integrity? I often agree with myself. Ok it was dumb. However the posts stand on their own concerning the truth and FACTS in the links they delineate. To accuse me of the Craigslist posting is wrong. And yes I do have an axe to grind, that is a once wonderful organization that I was a long time volunteer have devolved into a moneymaking outfit intent on it's high salaried self over it's original intent. I dare say it has a devoted (sometime cultish) following that needs to be informed and my switching accounts was an (obviously) misguided attempt to fully express myself and retain anonymity.Sorry I didn't mean to obfuscate the important message that people need to hear. Please forgive my clumsy zealousness and check out the tax information in the first link and go from there. PS: to the Moderator, lesson learned here.

However what I can say is that the person who started this thread is out of integrity. They registered as "Fraudster Alert". They replied twice under that username, which is fine. However they just registered again with the same email address as "Cornsilk" and "piled on" the original post, making it seem as though there are more people who share their opinion. I also have no doubt that the same person was responsible for the Craigslist post. They clearly have an axe to grind.

[Barry]

How does presenting facts and links from two different accounts negate truth or integrity?

Trying to appear as two different users is out of integrity. If you try to deny it, you are further out of integrity.

Ok it was dumb.

Agreed!

However the posts stand on their own concerning the truth and FACTS in the links they delineate.

The only FACT you posted was the link to their IRS Form 990. The rest was your clearly biased interpretation.

To accuse me of the Craigslist posting is wrong.

perhaps...

And yes I do have an axe to grind, that is a once wonderful organization that I was a long time volunteer

Thank you. And while we're on the topic, how about telling us the circumstances around your departure from FFT as a volunteer?

switching accounts was an (obviously) misguided attempt to fully express myself and retain anonymity.

Lame excuse. Furthermore, anonymity is not available here. Users are required to provide their real name, especially when it comes to saying anything negative. Is "Rincon Scherer" your real name? Are you man enough to stand up an be accountable for your charges? Given that your integrity has already been compromised, if you want to post further you'll need to contact me to validate your real name.

PS: to the Moderator, lesson learned here.

You're welcome.

[Barry]

...my switching accounts was an (obviously) misguided attempt to fully express myself and retain anonymity...

I now also notice that your sockpuppet user (Cornsilk) also granted gratitude to your first user's posts. I think a full confession is in order (ie: "Yes, I deliberately created a second user to appear as if another user shared my opinion. Furthermore I made an equally fraudulent excuse for my action.")

[typewriter]

At the risk of "fueling the fire" an executive director of a NPO making [not even] 100K is perfectly reasonable.

I have no association with Food For Thought. But I do know the non-profit world and paying highly skilled professionals a remotely fair and adequate wage is necessary. Reading and interpreting budget numbers without having an understanding of industry budgeting practices in general doesn't allow one to see or understand the full story.

Food for Thought in Forestville is or has approached being a pseudo charity. Although their directive is as "a grassroots organization dedicated to meeting the nutritional needs of persons living with or affected by AIDS/HIV",. according to tax records they're spending less than 25% of their "revenue" on those nutritional needs. Meanwhile a top heavy staff grows, expensive vanity projects far from FFT's prime directive flourish, the "Director" is making $100,000.00, and almost all of the "work" is done by hundreds of volunteers. How to get them back on the right track?
https://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Form990&EIN=680181095&Year=2012.

[79paul]

Thanks Barry for your diligence on this. I've been following this thread since the first posting from "Fraud Alert" and even my simple investigation showed that the user name was only registered on 4/06, the day before the first attack. I use that word purposely, because I too have volunteered at the FFT annual calabash fundraiser for years, plus belong to a gleaning group that regularly delivers food there. I'd like to see a very clear explanation of what this person has against FFT.

As an aside, in one of the postings it is alleged that the garden at the Forestville site is a "vanity project" that doesn't even produce food for the patients. You're clearly missing the point here. The garden was designed as a therapeutic garden, where patients can sit in a beautiful spot in nature and forget for a moment their health issues and just enjoy the incredible space that has been created. There is something magical about the amazing teepee of gourds and beans that is grown every year, with the sound of the gentle falling water in the pond nearby. If I never harvested a single vegetable from my own garden, I would still go to the effort every year just for the contemplative aspect, and my garden is nowhere near the magic at the FFT site.

I hope anyone who has read this and dropped their admiration for this worthwhile charity because of this thread will realize that the original poster has an undisclosed axe to grind, so much so that he's used at least three different addresses to make it look like he's not just one bitter fellow.

[hari]

Incase you're referring to me, I'm a woman...and you have my real name.
.
Yes, the organization does good work. However, 100K for a nonprofit that size is a lot. I mean, I know people who have run much larger organization (PAWS, for example)...who make half that...and they have to pay for rent in San Francisco. But we can agree to disagree?

What I tried to get across was that from my visit, and inquiring about who was served, etc. ....Well, I still think it's a huge problem that they get so much grant money - and are serving a fraction of the people served by other (much poorer) foodbanks. I'm not saying anything negative about FFT, I'm just saying the resources are concentrated there - both financially and thru volunteer-hours. And that is a problem with any organization that essentially taps the funding market dry for an entire issue: In this case, food for people with health issues in this area.

Another example of this is that for those of us involved in animal welfare/rights, it's maddening that so much money goes to PETA. There are so many local organizations, and actual shelters and sanctuaries that have no money and have to close.....partly because people have given to the most well-known and celebrated organization. Sad. :(

All I'm saying is: I wish the resources were spread according to how many people are helped. And I wish organizations with similar missions would help each other out.

Disclaimer: This is just my 2 cents, and I don't really care enough about it to start an online feud about it.

Harriet

[Dixon]

The points about the duplicity of "Fraudster Alert" are well taken. Having said that, I'll also say that I'll never give a penny to any "nonprofit" if I know that someone there makes anywhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year. If they think they need that much money, let them work in a for-profit company and get their money by selling a product or service, rather than spending donations meant for charitable causes on a bloated materialistic lifestyle. Anybody who thinks their "need" for a six-figure income trumps the need for the donations to be spent to help those in real need is suffering from a bad case of greed. There are plenty of dedicated, competent people who can run a nonprofit without pocketing that much of the money.

Does anyone know if the figure cited by Fraudster Alert--"...they're spending less than 25% of their "revenue" on those nutritional needs"--is accurate? I tried to look up Food For Thought on Charity Navigator, but they haven't assessed them yet (there are too many charities for them to cover them all). Any charity that doesn't spend the majority of its income on the stated mission instead of on "administration" etc., is not a good bet to donate to. As Charity Navigator puts it: "...in most cause areas, the most efficient charities spend 75% or more of their budget on their programs and services and less than 25% on fundraising and administrative fees." So again, does anyone besides Fraudster Alert (who has compromised his credibility) know what the percentages are for Food For Thought? Anyone from Food For Thought? Hello?

[maclifford]

Readers who don't already know this may be interested to check GuideStar.Org, where you can view the forms 990 that provide detailed financial information about non-profits. You can set up a free account there and look through the records of any local non-profit. Most of my career has been in non-profit administration and consulting, and I use this resource frequently to help me understand non-profits that I am in contact with.

Non-profits offer a wide range of salaries to directors. In general, the larger the overall budget, the higher the Executive Director's salary will be, within limits. In the North Bay there are EDs whose salaries exceed $200K, and others who work for as little as $30K. There is often a corresponding range of difference in the experience, knowledge, and skills of EDs, as well as the size and impact of the organization. It's hard to say if a wage is "fair" or if the budget is well-managed unless you know both the non-profit industry and the particular organization and people involved. However, for those who enjoy supporting worthy causes, the 990s for the organization are a good source of information.

[haolegirl52]

...

[podfish]

..., I'll also say that I'll never give a penny to any "nonprofit" if I know that someone there makes anywhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year. If they think they need that much money, let them work in a for-profit company and get their money by selling a product or service, rather than spending donations meant for charitable causes on a bloated materialistic lifestyle. ....

maybe this deserves a different thread..
I don't have any problem with the sheer dollar amount, as long as it's not obfuscated to make it look like the person receiving the salary is one of the donors him/herself. In my ideal society the companies that are run purely for profit would sell toys and useless widgets; those serving the needs of mankind wouldn't generate profits at all. Profits are essentially parasitic, and are used to motivate people to engage in activities that otherwise wouldn't be worth their time - or as a carrot, so others will share some of their current assets to help the business operate in hopes of later rewards.

The way our economy has evolved, however, salary for the workers (and managers) is tied to profits for the owners. It's a simple system so it works ok, but it's not ideal.
In this hypothetical charitable organization, society is benefiting from its actions. We want it to operate successfully. I don't see that there has to be the equivalent of a donation back to his own organization before we'd hire an employee for it. Don't bind the mouths of the kine and all that....

[peacecatman]

I was a client and a volunteer for years at Food for Thought, I worked on the office side for a number of months which I grew to call the dark side thanks to the rude, unpleasant, condescending characters, namely Ron Karp and Rachel Gardiner. They are cold hearted corporate jerks who only care about their vacations and salaries and making sure no clients get an extra banana.

They made me hate being there, I took a month off to see if I could feel better about the place, and stopped in to drop off some shirts and books for clients, alas I had to deal with Rachel who ignored for five minutes and then told me to throw in an office of someone who had quit. I left still intending to return that Saturday but the more I thought about it the more I knew I could not return, so I wrote to Elisa and told I could not come back and I would not take any food from them either.

Later that day, I ran into someone who told me about the firing of Linda, I could not believe even as evil as they are the could be that stupid to fire the only person that brought any heart and compassion to the place, the person that everyone comes to visit just because they like her so much, the person who did more work than all of them put together, the last person who actually cared about the clients, but I was wrong I think it was jut this that made them get rid of her because she made them look bad, and they are scum.

Every person I know who stopped being a volunteer there did so because of Rachel, she is the worse thing to happen to that place since Ron, two sides of the same putrid coin. All who know and love Linda should make their feelings known to the people running this place. Wayne Ryerson

[Barry]

[A wacco member who is a very reputable local business owner that I know personally asked me to post this. She does not want to join the discussion but did want to pass on her comments. - Barry]

I've been a Food for Thought volunteer for many years and expect to continue for as long as there is a need. I admire and respect the leadership, staff and volunteers for unwavering commitment, absolute integrity and amazing work on behalf of people living with HIV and AIDS. There's no doubt about it, Food for Thought is a community treasure that deserves our respect and support.

[Praksys]

My limited exposure to Food For Thought as a volunteer delivering vegetables has been positive. It seems like a very organized and active organization. It is a good thing if all of us can be remunerated well. It would uplift the whole economy. I will continue to support the Food For Thought mission in my own limited manner. Daniel O.

[A wacco member who is a very reputable local business owner that I know personally asked me to post this. She does not want to join the discussion but did want to pass on her comments. - Barry]

I've been a Food for Thought volunteer for many years and expect to continue for as long as there is a need. I admire and respect the leadership, staff and volunteers for unwavering commitment, absolute integrity and amazing work on behalf of people living with HIV and AIDS. There's no doubt about it, Food for Thought is a community treasure that deserves our respect and support.

[peacecatman]

It is a very tarnished treasure now, run by greedy, cold hearted bureaucrats, the love and compassion of the place have been replaced with avarice. Wayne

[Larry Robinson]

Attempts at character assassination and personal attacks, particularly against such well-loved and respected members of our community as Ron and Rachel, say infinitely more about the attacker than they do about the intended targets.

[oliviathunderkitty]

Thank you for posting this, Larry. I would add Doug, too, a remarkable man, so loving and so deeply loved in our community.

Attempts at character assassination and personal attacks, particularly against such well-loved and respected members of our community as Ron and Rachel, say infinitely more about the attacker than they do about the intended targets.

[haolegirl52]

...

[Praksys]

I think the Moody Blues had it right - It's a 'Question of Balance'. I can understand your love of 'free speech'. But isn't it also true that in a free society free speech goes hand in hand with 'responsibility'! Free speech does not mean one can just put someone or something down without context, facts and reasons. Usually free speech refers to ideas and expression of one's beliefs and not negative ranting without explanation and reasoning. If one needs therapy, best not to do it at someone else's expense and in the public forum. Daniel O.

we all cherish those most beloved in our communities, yet everyone is entitled to voice their opinion and experience that may differ from someone else's. often, the anger expressed translates as grief expressed at the loss or subtraction of a feeling or emotion---the magic, if you will----of what once was, or the sense of "family" or "community" that once initially brought a client or a volunteer to this particular doorstep. what is often seen from the outside can radically differ from the experience of being under a roof, day to day, or week to week....once the masks are unveiled, the truths revealed and the unsavory-ness exposed, the experience changes for some and gets to be communicated. often, looking in from the outside only reveals the prettiness and kindness that is held to surface, when in reality, those in question might just be human after all---complete with their capacity for ugliness, cruelty and the abject underhandedness that all of we humans are capable of, once our underbellies are exposed...thank god for freedoms of speech...

[haolegirl52]

...

[meherc]

I looked through the 990 quickly and it didn't look out of line to me. Ron makes about $93k, but I think most directors of anything are overpaid and it doesn't seem out of line with what directors make. Hell, school principals make at least 110,000-I think that's way overpaid too - and summers off (don't get me started). . At least 30% of the revenue goes directly to food and clients. And if we're talking program expenses as a whole, they look to be about 90% vs mgt and fundraising. I don't think they are top heavy with employees. They have 10. And I bet most of them are part time.
That said, I also must say that I am a long time volunteer. I love the organization. And with that said too, I am not going to get into any arguments so if people disagree with my interpretation of the 990, express away but I am not going there so don't expect me to reply. I hate that niggly stuff that goes on here.

The points about the duplicity of "Fraudster Alert" are well taken. Having said that, I'll also say that I'll never give a penny to any "nonprofit" if I know that someone there makes anywhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year. If they think they need that much money, let them work in a for-profit company and get their money by selling a product or service, rather than spending donations meant for charitable causes on a bloated materialistic lifestyle. Anybody who thinks their "need" for a six-figure income trumps the need for the donations to be spent to help those in real need is suffering from a bad case of greed. There are plenty of dedicated, competent people who can run a nonprofit without pocketing that much of the money.

Does anyone know if the figure cited by Fraudster Alert--"...they're spending less than 25% of their "revenue" on those nutritional needs"--is accurate? I tried to look up Food For Thought on Charity Navigator, but they haven't assessed them yet (there are too many charities for them to cover them all). Any charity that doesn't spend the majority of its income on the stated mission instead of on "administration" etc., is not a good bet to donate to. As Charity Navigator puts it: "...in most cause areas, the most efficient charities spend 75% or more of their budget on their programs and services and less than 25% on fundraising and administrative fees." So again, does anyone besides Fraudster Alert (who has compromised his credibility) know what the percentages are for Food For Thought? Anyone from Food For Thought? Hello?

["Mad" Miles]

Meherc,

Thanks for your professional opinion about the 990. Good info. I worked as top administrative staff for a local non-profit, a major one, the ARC, back in the day. For three years. Don't even get me started about top exec pay and the non-profit corporate culture!

I haven't weighed in here, since I have no direct experience with, "Food For Thought". Just a comment about your comment about High School (or any other) Principals getting, "the summer off", based on my direct experience as a public school teacher.

I would say that the idea that public school staff get the summer off, is a misunderstanding of reality. Lots of work goes on during the summer. Administrative staff (Classified as well as Certificated.)

The idea that those folks get three months, or two and a half months, off for vacation, just ain't necessarily so. Even during regular school year breaks, the work load is such, that very little of it is spent relaxing. Hardest job I've ever done. Always more to do.

I'm no fan of hierarchy, and I think District level staffing and salaries are a problem. But, that's another argument.

[podfish]

Free speech does not mean one can just put someone or something down without context, facts and reasons.

sure it does. That's what's "free" about it.

[Praksys]

Let's start calling it 'freeish speech'!
I beg to differ, so called; ‘free speech’ is not absolute. Even in law slander, inciting violence or crime, libel, and obscenity are considered exceptions to free speech. As an aside, I am also expressing my personal opinion that one should take responsibility for what one says. This is my moral opinion and not a legal one. As my grandmother used to say, “Sonny, if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it.” I admit I have had to compromise on this one by attempting to include something positive when bringing up a negative. It’s just my opinion. D. O.

(From Wikipedia)
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "… everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

[haolegirl52]

..