Exclusive: For UN's Syria Death Toll Report, There "Was No Contract," Funding From Anonymous US-Based Donor

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- With media worldwide reporting that "the UN" today reported 93,000 killed in Syria, Inner City Press has inquired further into the authorship of the new report.

  Not only is it not a UN report -- the UN didn't even pay for it. 

  The California-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group tells Inner City Press there was no contract... we did the work pro bono because doing analysis of this kind is the mission for which we receive support from our donors."

  So HRDAG's donors paid for the report. But who are they? Inner City Press asked, and Patrick Ball of HRDAG, previously (January 2013) of Benetech, replied that "Regarding our anonymous donor: I cannot tell you who they are. I can tell you that they're US-based."

  Well that's re-assuring. An anonymous US-based donor paid for HRDAG's report on the Syria death toll, which the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released and many media called a "UN report."

From Patrick Ball's response:

From: Patrick Ball
Subject: your queries
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:41 AM

dear Matthew,

-- HRDAG was not paid for this report. There was no contract, no RFP. We did the work pro bono because doing analysis of this kind is the mission for which we receive support from our donors.

-- In terms of spinning off from Benetech, here are the announcements: https://hrdag.org/welcome/

http://benetech.blogspot.com/2013/02/benetechs-human-rights-spin-off.html

(I'm not sure why the date on Benetech's announcement is 15 Feb, I think we posted it on 18 Jan, but it might have been edited in Feb)

-- Regarding our anonymous donor: I cannot tell you who they are. I can tell you that they're US-based

If there was "no contract," can say a Russia-based or funded NGO hand in its report to Navi Pillay and get it released on the OHCHR's website? Who decided to do it this way? We have asked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and will publishing their response upon receipt. 

  The last report issued in January 2013 by the OHCHR used San Francisco based Benetech. Inner City Press looked into it and found Benetech was funded in part by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  Ball is one of the four authors of the new report, along with Megan Price, Jeff Klingner and Anas Qtiesh. (The last of these was not listed on the January 2013 report; we have asked.)

Watch this site.

UN's New Syria Fatality Report Is By SF-Based HRDAG, Spun Out of Benetech, Still with Anonymous US-based Funder

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- Amid the slaughter in Syria, how does the UN count the dead? 

  Today's announcement of at least 93,000 dead, ascribed tothe Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva but compiled by an California-based outside contractor (re) named the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, is worth looking at in terms of authorship.

  The last report issued in January 2013 by the OHCHR used San Francisco based Benetech. Inner City Press looked into it and found Benetech was funded in part by the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  A Patrick Ball of Benetech told Inner City Press there had been a Request for Proposals: that is, competition. But soon it emerged that there was no RFP"as such." Two other organizations were approached, but OHCHR would not name them. A strange procurement, to say the least.

  Now, the day before the vote at the Human Rights Council on a Syria resolution sponsored by the US, UK, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey, OHCHR released a new report -- this time, not "formally" by Benetech.

  But even a cursory check based off the first page of the new report finds that the same Patrick Ball who replied to Inner City Press in January for Benetech is the executive director of the "new" contractor Human Rights Data Analysis Group or HRDAG. He is one of the four authors of the new report, along with Megan Price, Jeff Klingner and Anas Qtiesh.

  At the bottom of the report is the new disclosure: "Formally, HRDAG is a fiscally sponsored project of Community Partners."

  It's a generic name, Community Partners -- but a quick visits finds it to be a sort of conduit which lends its non-profit status to start up. HRDAG is not so much a start up as a spin off -- it is being spun off from Benetech. 

  The report says "In February 2013, HRDAG became an independent organization." Is that because of the exposure of Benetech's funding by the US National Endowment for Democracy? But what has changed?

  HRDAG has as one of three advisers an official from Human Rights Watch. Under Funding it portrays Western government's funding to Benetech as a thing of the past. But even in its present re-incarnation, HRDAG lists as a funder an "anonymous U.S.-based private foundation."

   On Community Partners' board of directors are people from Ameriprise Financial, Mattel and NBC, among others. So did the renamed HRDAG, spun out of US-funded Benetech, get another essentially sole source contract? Why is the UN so sloppy? Why can it not issue its own reports, given its budget? Watch this site.

On UN Syria Study, No Request for Proposals As Benetech Told ICP

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- Among the questions that have arisen about Benetech's study of deaths in Syria for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has been one raised by Inner City Press (and some Security Council diplomats) since the day of the launch.

  How did OHCHR selected Benetech, which lists funding from the US State Department and National Endowment for Democracy? And was there a Request for Proposals or RFP, as Benetech has claimed?

 The answer to the latter, if there was an RFP, turns out to be "no."

While understandably busy fielding questions from broadcasters, OHCHR spokesman Rupert Colville did answer Inner City Press' question on how much Benetech was paid: $25,000.

But Patrick Ball of Benetech had told Inner City Press that"yes there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details." 

  So Inner City Press did ask OHCHR, respectfully but repeatedly.

   And today Colville has responded to Inner City Press' questions about the selection / Request for Proposals process with this:

From: Rupert Colville [OHCHR spokesperson]
Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: Q re Syria study, Benetech & its funders, how chosen, update on Minova / HRDDP
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Dear Matthew,

Because of the need for confidentiality and the highly specialized nature of this contract -- there are only a very few organizations qualified (and properly equipped) to do this type of work -- we did not issue an RFP as such. Instead, as permitted by the rules in exceptional cases such as this, we approached three organizations working in this field. Of the three, only one -- the Benetech Human Rights Program -- was both available in the required time-frame and able to demonstrate the necessary experience and expertise.

The criteria were experience, expertise and credibility -- and, of course, availability. The individuals working in the Benetech Program have considerable experience and expertise in this type of work, and are well known to the UN, having worked on several important projects in the past. As I stated in an earlier email, we agreed a sum of 25,000 US dollars (which is a modest sum given the quantity of work that Benetech undertook during the five months it took to complete a study of considerable complexity, and which continued to evolve as it went along -- e.g. because of additional lists becoming available late on in the process). We have no concerns about their independence. Nor do we have concerns about the fact that Benetech has other sources of funding: that is quite normal for most non-profit organizations and NGOs with whom we, and many other UN organizations, work on a regular basis.

I hope this puts to rest your concerns.

Best regards,

Rupert [Colville, Spokesperson / Head of Media, OHCHR]

  We appreciate the answer, but must note that Patrick Ball's response that there was an RFP is no longer consistent. 

  Nor do we understand why, given that public money was used, the name of the other two organizations OHCHR decided to approach is not being made public.

  How can the public assess the use of money, and the price arrived at, without this information? 

  How can the comparative credibility / independence of the three firms be assessed by the public? Particularly when Benetech cites an "anonmyous" funder? Click here for that.

   While polite and more elaborated, the answer may still smack too much of "just trust us" for a public institution. It is appreciated, but watch this site.