Locks of love=???

[Ella Menneau P.]

I have noticed that locks of love is not a well-liked organization on this board. I went to their website to see if I could figure out why, and I/m mystified. Please excuse my ignorance (and poor search skills--I did try) but would someone please enlighten me?

Thanks!

[Ursula]

It has to do with the proportion of hair received to hair used for wigs - a number they work very hard to keep obscure.

I dug through their website a few years back, and was able to find numbers for the number of donations they received (over 2000 per week), the number of donations needed to make a wig (6-10) and the number of wigs they made (they said "over 1000".)

2000 donations per week is 104,000 donations per year.

Ten donations per wig would allow them to make 10,400 wigs per year.

It wasn't clear of the "over 1000" number for wigs was through their existence, or per year. But giving them the benefit of the doubt and taking it as per year, that's still 9000 wigs per year worth of hair unaccounted for.

And less than 10% chance that your hair winds up in a wig.

If you donated money to an organization, you'd consider it a scam if they only used 10% for charitable purposes. Likewise, if you donated canned goods to a food bank, and found that they only gave away 10% to the poor.

People expect fair and open accounting of how a charity uses donated money. Locks of Love does not give a fair and open accounting of how it uses donated hair, and the best accounting I could figure (some of the numbers are no longer on their website the last time I looked) shows a shamefully low use of donated hair for its intended charitable purpose.

I would expect a wig-making charity to do to things, to be considered a good place to donate to:

1. Use at least 90% of the donated hair for wigs - or give a very good explanation why less is used (that would be consistant with the proportion of money that a good charity is expected to use for charitable purposes, versus things like administrative costs)

2. Give an open and clear accounting of the amount of hair recieved, the condition of the hair recieved, the number of wigs made, and the proportion of hair recieved that went into wigs. (I had to dig all over their site to get the numbers together to figure out the amount of hair used - it should be all on one page, clearly labeled.)

[nowxisxforever]

Ursula beat me!

Also, another thought: A lot of caucasian hair is unsuitable for wig-making. A lot of their donations are too short, processed in some way, grey, etc. and people don't follow the instructions for donating well. That could easily account for a large chunk of the hair not used-- but they sell a very large amount of hair, which ends up as extensions or "real-hair ____" later.

I don't know about you, but unless I knew 100% that my hair was going to be used for a wig and I was inclined towards donating, I would not donate. I don't want my hair to be used as a cheater's way to long hair rather than for a genuine reason.

Also, I have my own opinions on things like "show them how to love themselves as they are rather than covering up what makes them different". When I was in 5th grade there was a girl with not a hair on her body, and hadn't for some time. She was the most beautiful, confident, intelligent girl any of us knew, and didn't take jack from anyone. Someone did right by helping her love *herself* as she *is*. I value that over covering up perceived faults any day.

[BroknRechord]

Ella,

As a newbie to the forums and someone not entirely familiar with the Locks of Love procedure, I'm unsure as well. I can share, however, some of the reactions I have to the suggestion that make me bristle:

There is an implication keeping your hair is somehow selfish. (That's like going through a pregnancy and then having it suggested you give your baby to an infertile couple. The person who suggests it has their own body with which they could be a surrogate - why are you the selfish one?)

Children (and adults for that matter) have a much easier time caring for synthetic wigs - why use real hair anyway?

No one ever told me what to do with my hair when it was above my shoulders, suddenly now my hair is public domain due to its length?

There is a complete lack of understanding of how much time, effort, energy and patience it takes to protect and maintain long hair. That lack of empathy rubs me the wrong way.


Anyway, those are just some of the things that cross my mind when I hear someone jump in to suggest I hack off all my hair and give it away. The thought is nice, but I think I'd rather give in more effective and impactful ways, and of my own free will.

-Chels

[Delila]

Here's a link to an article written by the New York Times a couple of years ago:

Lather, Rinse, Donate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/fashion/06locks.html

In my view, the basic problem is that the organization doesn't do what most people think they do. They don't 'make wigs for kids with cancer, which are then donated to the sick and needy.' This is a huge misperception that the organization does not work hard enough to dispel.

They make wigs for kids with alopecia, and sell the wigs to the children on a price scale that takes their family's financial situation into account.

I think it's fundamentally wrong to mislead people into donating anything, not money, not the hair on their heads.

The other big problem I have is that most people simply don't realize that very little human hair is actually suitable for wigmaking. As I understand it, it's a matter of genetics where things like the health and thickness of the strands, the amount of gray, the quantity of strands available, etc., are the only important considerations, nothing more. Each hair in a wig needs to be fairly sturdy, it's just a simple fact.

For example, my own hair is perfectly adequate to meet my own needs while it's still attached to my head. However, the quantity of strands wouldn't be useful to a wigmaker, and the quality of strands is inadequate.

Sorry to ramble, but this subject comes up far more often than it should, precisely because LOL allows the faulty beliefs to continue.

[Ella Menneau P.]

Thanks for the speedy replies!

For those who are in the know, do they sell the "excess" hair to fund the making of the wigs? I can't imagine the wig makers work for free....How much of the hair that is donated is unsuitable? Would they publish those numbers?

I'm in agreement about teaching kids to love themselves based on what's inside, but even with a kid who "looks normal" that can be challenging.

I guess I'll do some more research.:confused:

[demitasse]

I chose Pantene's Beautiful Lengths over Locks of Love. They make free wigs which are distributed by the American Cancer Society. They're funded by monetary donations and corporate partnerships.

Personally, I loved donating my hair. Not a popular decision around here for obvious reasons, but it felt great to give something I could easily grow back. It seemed like there were just too many people who needed it more than I did.

[fae]

Ella,

As a newbie to the forums and someone not entirely familiar with the Locks of Love procedure, I'm unsure as well. I can share, however, some of the reactions I have to the suggestion that make me bristle:

There is an implication keeping your hair is somehow selfish. (That's like going through a pregnancy and then having it suggested you give your baby to an infertile couple. The person who suggests it has their own body with which they could be a surrogate - why are you the selfish one?)

Children (and adults for that matter) have a much easier time caring for synthetic wigs - why use real hair anyway?

No one ever told me what to do with my hair when it was above my shoulders, suddenly now my hair is public domain due to its length?

There is a complete lack of understanding of how much time, effort, energy and patience it takes to protect and maintain long hair. That lack of empathy rubs me the wrong way.


Anyway, those are just some of the things that cross my mind when I hear someone jump in to suggest I hack off all my hair and give it away. The thought is nice, but I think I'd rather give in more effective and impactful ways, and of my own free will.

-Chels
You brought up some wonderful points.

[longhairedfairy]

Personally, I loved donating my hair. Not a popular decision around here for obvious reasons, but it felt great to give something I could easily grow back. It seemed like there were just too many people who needed it more than I did.
I'm all for it (as I think most of us are) if you do it because you wish to do so and after proper research. That's an entirely different matter.

[BroknRechord]

Thanks fae.

After reading that article shared by Delila, I also can add another one I had felt but was unable to name - The label of "good" for donating their well scraggly unusable (read: well loved) ends. There is definitely a theme in society with charity and environmentalism in which people allow themselves to do their "good deed" and forget that being "good" is a lifestyle, not one single action. Also, taking "good" at face value, never questioning the value judgments society holds- such as ignoring Prius battery production and disposal harm to the environment, the effects of donated baby formula and clothing on the milk production and local clothes makers in other countries... I like to try to keep a big picture.

Besides, our strong joyful self-loving energy IS good for everyone else.

-Chels

[nowxisxforever]

Thanks for the speedy replies!

For those who are in the know, do they sell the "excess" hair to fund the making of the wigs? I can't imagine the wig makers work for free....How much of the hair that is donated is unsuitable? Would they publish those numbers?

I'm in agreement about teaching kids to love themselves based on what's inside, but even with a kid who "looks normal" that can be challenging.

I guess I'll do some more research.:confused:

Edit: I still think that teaching them to love themselves is the best way to go, or at the very least, get them a synthetic wig-- I hear those are SO much more comfortable and low-maintenance than human hair wigs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/fashion/06locks.html?_r=1


Mr. Taylor sells the wigs wholesale to Locks of Love for less than $1,000.


In fact, all three of the children’s charities sell excess hair — in particular, the short and the gray — to commercial wig makers to defray costs. According to its tax returns, Locks of Love made $1.9 million from hair sales from 2001 to 2006, and took in another $3.4 million in donations. Besides paying for wigs, the money goes for overhead and other costs, including grants for alopecia research.


The idea that donated hair can benefit a gravely ill woman or child is so pervasive that some long-haired people even report being harassed for not chopping off their locks. Heidi Woeller, 47, an administrative assistant at a hardware company in DeKalb, Ill., whose hair reaches the back of her calves when worn loose, recalled that at an antiques fair last summer two women asked if she intended to donate. When she said no, they berated her, insisting she set an example. “They’re basically asking, ‘What are your charitable intentions this year?’ ” Ms. Woeller said.

Perhaps they would be less adamant if they could visit Ms. Coffman in the Locks of Love office in Florida. Every day the hanks of hair arrive, filling some 10 postal bins, representing the best intentions of donors, but so much of it destined for the trash.

“A check would be easier for me,” Ms. Coffman said. “But would the donors get out of it what they do? No.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locks_of_love


According to a 2003 report by the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance, in 2002 alone Locks of Love had raised over $150,000 by selling donated hair and had received another $213,000 in charitable contributions and grants, but provided only 113 human-hair wigs.


The Better Business Bureau reports that Locks of Love made $352,401 from "unusable material sales."[4]

[BroknRechord]

demitasse,

I think that is wonderful. You sound like your decision was well thought out and had a positive impact. I don't think any of us are against that.

-Chels

[nowxisxforever]

If you have hair to donate and you don't want to sell it, take a look at this program, which will take pet clippings, shed hairs from your brush-- WHATEVER you have lying around, not necessarily what's in perfect condition taken directly from your head... so long as it's clean:

http://www.matteroftrust.org/programs/hairmatsinfo.html


Matter of Trust is collaborating with thousands of salons throughout the US and abroad, that donate their hair clippings to soak up oil spills. Last year over 2,600 oil spills occurred in the world. They weren't all are high profile, but most had an impact on the environment. Phil McCrory, a hair stylist from Alabama, first discovered how hair can help. He was watching CNN coverage on the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. He noticed the fur on the Alaskan otters completely soaked with oil. He began testing how much oil he could collect with the hair clipping from his salon. Phil then invented the hairmat which has other uses as well. Hair also provides a slow protein release which is excellent for flower growers. For more information on hair as a natural fertilizer, please see Phil and our friends at SmartGrow.


ONE TIME HAIR DONORS - How YOU Can Participate:

- Please, wash hair first

- any length is fine

- every type of hair is fine (straight, curly, all colors, dyed, permed, straightened...) but only HEAD hair, please! ((LOL!))

- use mailing address above

Individuals: Please tell your hair stylist / barber about our program and website. We love personal hair donations, but for practical reasons, hair in bulk from salons saves processing time.

Teachers and classrooms: We love getting hair from schools! Please collect and mail all the hair in one bag, rather than lots of little envelopes, saves processing time. Also, you may want to check out our Teacher's Demo Page

Pet owners: Fur, horse hair and waste wool is fine. It does seem that human hair is more efficient in certain studies, but we are grateful for all the donations. Pet hair doesn't have to be shampooed - but we ask that it not be filthy, please.

[demitasse]

I think I somehow came off accusatory. I simply meant that because this is a community about growing long hair, it's not a popular decision to want to cut it off. :) Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.

[BroknRechord]

Quite the opposite! I realized my tangent against the suggestion also could been seen as condemning a donation which was not my intention, and wanted to clarify. That's all :)

[embee]

In my area there is lots of pressure to donate to Locks of Love. If a person does so their picture - with the hank of cut hair - is in the paper, with a story about how good they are and how God loves them for what they did, that we are "supposed to do this" if we have long hair.

Sometimes the schools run a Locks of Love program and push the kids to get their hair cut whether they wish to or not. It's always Locks of Love, never any other hair program.

sigh...

[lacereza]

...................

[BroknRechord]

lacereza -

You're absolutely right. LoL isn't really the culprit here - I think it is society's pressure and the common lack of divergent thinking that trigger me about hair donation. It's not that they're being sneaky... it's that so many people remain uninformed, and all that hair that could be kept and loved is wasted, while we're being told by strangers we should let go of hair that will be thrown away.

-Chels

[longhairedfairy]

I think I somehow came off accusatory. I simply meant that because this is a community about growing long hair, it's not a popular decision to want to cut it off. :) Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.
Nono, I think it was great that you chose to do it.:)

[Delila]

... I don't know why so many people think they're being sneaky about any of this.

I think so because I think they're far less straightforward than they ought to be. The kids with the right kind of long term hair loss are the only ones eligible for their wigs. That's a much smaller group than I think the general public realizes.

The faulty assumption that they 'give wigs to kids with cancer' still lingers in the public perception, and they let it continue. They could change that perception if they really wanted to, but they don't.

Children are frequently the ones donating their hair, sometimes under considerable pressure and undue influence from others, and I think that's fundamentally wrong. Quoting from their own website:
It is estimated that 80% of all donations come from children who wish to help other children. Should children just be philosophical about the fact that their donation might wind up in the trash? I don't think so.

I think their website is actually a lot less clear than it ought to be, and find the whole 'get some recognition for your good deed' aspect of things rather disturbing. You can print out your own 'Certificate of Appreciation' right from their website. (If it's truly a charitable donation, do you really need so much ego stroking? Why would you need to work that hard to encourage someone else to donate? Seems to be rather manipulative to me.)

Re-read the New York Times article. Here's a telling bit, right from the end:


... Every day the hanks of hair arrive, filling some 10 postal bins, representing the best intentions of donors, but so much of it destined for the trash.

“A check would be easier for me,” Ms. Coffman said. “But would the donors get out of it what they do? No.”


Would so many children donate at all if they knew their hair would probably wind up in the trash? Probably not.

There's nothing wrong with donating to a good cause, but kids are being targeted, and I think that's unethical on many levels.

The organization seems to be extremely well versed in the art of getting publicity for their company, and in creating flashy websites that specialize in avoiding specific numbers. Shouldn't they have higher standards than that? I think so.

Search this forum, and in the archived old forum, and elsewhere online. Locks of Love's activities have been discussed many times, frequently with specific numbers being discussed. It's worth a look, if you want to have a clearer picture of what they're up to, because you won't find the information on their website anymore.

[lacereza]

...............

[Delila]

Do you really think that they shoudl be weighing and measuring all the sacks of mouldy hair that they get in the post, though? ....

Yes. If their collection process is flawed, they need to take steps to correct it.

If they need more volunteers to help in the office, then they have a responsibility to manage the situation and find more volunteers.

It's a charitable business, not a whim. Accountability is necessary, to prevent fraud and mismanagement.

Public perceptions are faulty because LOL let it happen. Reread their site, and examine their exact choice of words. They're VERY careful in what they say. IMO, transparency is not one of their goals, and I believe it ought to be.

Organizations focus a lot of energy on keeping themselves going; just managing things is a huge undertaking. When the organization claims to be charitable? They have a larger responsibility, to work for the good of those they claim to benefit even as they work to keep the organization going.

Since you see this situation, sort of from the inside, surely you can understand the importance of maximizing the amount of value gained from each donation, whether the donation is cash, hair, or any other thing of value.

In my view, it's not enough that donors feel good about making a donation. Their donations should actually be of benefit to those the charity serves.

Lots of charities spend a great deal of money and energy just keeping their own doors open, and actually contribute a relatively paltry amount of support to those they claim to serve.

I think it's wrong, and I shouldn't have to apologize for saying so.

[Flynn]

Yes. If their collection process is flawed, they need to take steps to correct it.

If they need more volunteers to help in the office, then they have a responsibility to manage the situation and find more volunteers.

It's a charitable business, not a whim. Accountability is necessary, to prevent fraud and mismanagement.



Seconded .

[lacereza]

...............

[nowxisxforever]

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/toc/locks-of-love-in-lake-worth-fl-1839

Current BBB Info:


DOES NOT MEET ONE OR MORE STANDARDS
This charity does not meet one or more of the 20 standards for Charity Accountability


For the fiscal year ended November 30, 2007, LoL's program expenses were:


Program services 960,681
Total Program Expenses: $960,681


Chief Executive : Linda Borum, General Manager
Compensation*: $55,000

Chair of the Board: Madonna W. Coffman
Chair's Profession / Business Affiliation: Registered Nurse

Board Size: 5

Paid Staff Size: 6


*December 1, 2006 - November 30, 2007 compensation includes annual salary and, if applicable, benefit plans, expense accounts, and other allowances.


Source of Funds
Contributions 1,380,582
Materials 695,821
Interest income 89,281
In-kind 15,000
Unrealized gain on investments 1,866
Total Income $2,182,550


Total income $2,182,550
Program expenses $960,681
Fund raising expenses 6,343
Administrative expenses 131,075


Total expenses $1,098,099

Income in Excess of Expenses 1,084,451
Beginning net assets 2,326,297

Ending net assets 3,410,748
Total liabilities 16,835

Total assets $3,427,583
Note: In the above financial summary LoL reports receiving in-kind donations in the amount of $15,000. Included in this are $10,000 (legal services) and $5,000 (web design services).


The BBB Wise Giving Alliance requested but did not receive complete information on the organization’s finances and is unable to verify the organization's compliance with the following Standard for Charity Accountability: 13.

[lacereza]

...............

[RancheroTheBee]

I don't know what the point of this post is. Many organisations haven't given all of their info to the BBB; many Habitat for Humanity branches, for example (mentioned because I brought it up before), haven't given over all their info either. The Gates Foundation isn't listed at all.

BBB isn't a state-run agency. It's like a chamber of commerce, it's up to each organisation to decide how much info to share with it, if any at all. No-one's under any obligation to do so.

Not that I have all the information that a lot of people do, but I think it was posted simply as information to the OP. Also, I think a lot of people would prefer to have as much information about an organization before donating money, or in this case, hair.

[nowxisxforever]

Not that I have all the information that a lot of people do, but I think it was posted simply as information to the OP. Also, I think a lot of people would prefer to have as much information about an organization before donating money, or in this case, hair.

Pretty much. Most of the info I have (and a lot of us have) about LoL is sadly out of date.

[lacereza]

...............

[freznow]

:gobblecheese: <-Prefacing my post with cheese, so as to mitigate any possible misunderstandings before they have even a chance to arise. Such a topic can get a little heavy sometimes. But cheese solves everything.

I just wonder where all the extra money goes. Their income is 2 mil, their expenses are 1 mil. From one statement I'd guess that it goes to alopecia research, but which one, and how much? "Research" doesn't automatically mean something worthwhile and productive.

My parents wouldn't donate wily nilly to an organization they don't know and support - they have specific ones they know about and such, not the random charity that calls us up to save the dolphins.

And I think the LHC anti-LoL sentiment comes as much from what American society does in the name of LoL as it does from the cloudy issue of the charity itself. I think it's a valid reason not to donate because you see all these gatherings pressuring youths into something they don't want to do in the name of LoL, or because they don't think kids really need a human hair wig, or whatever else their experience with it may be, even if it's not the charity's fault itself.

[Ursula]

Do you really think that they shoudl be weighing and measuring all the sacks of mouldy hair that they get in the post, though?

Yes, they should.

Accountability is a basic necessity for any charity. It might be easier for a charity to collect money and hand it out again without paying an accountant to carefully keep their books - but we demand that a reputable charity keep careful accounts, and make those accounts public, so that the people who give to charities can choose wisely which ones to donate to, and know that the money isn't being mismanaged.

If 90% of the hair that is coming in to Locks of Love is unsuitable, that represents a huge amount of pure waste - not just waste of the hair, but waste of the effort of collecting it, waste of the cost of mailing it, waste of the effort sorting it and disposing of it. It is incumbent on Locks of Love to identify the nature of the waste, and take measures to stop it, such as by making greater efforts to publicize the qualities they need for the hair.

In the same way in which any charity would be responsible for correcting a problem that led to waste of 90% of the donations they received.

But we don't know that 90% of the hair is unsuitable. They haven't given us a clear accounting of their use of donated hair. We only know the 90% number because people here at LHC took the time to dig all over the Locks of Love website to try to assemble the information needed to calculate this. We know 90% doesn't go into their wigs, we don't know that all of that 90% is unusable, or if they lack other sorts of resources (money, access to skilled wigmakers) that would allow them to put more of the hair to its intended donation purpose.

The fact that they sell "unusable" hair to wig makers suggests that the hair is actually quite usable for making wigs. They just aren't using it to make wigs for kids with alopicia, as the donors intend.

And we don't know in what ways the hair is unsuitable - is 90% of it grey? too short? too processed? Is there anything a donor can do to increase the odds that their hair is part of the 10% used, or recognize that it is part of the 90% unusable so as not to waste everyones time and money by sending it? Do they only have the resources to make 1000 wigs a year, so that the rest is "unusable" not in quality, but because they lack the capacity to use it? Is the sale of 90% necessary to fund the making of the remaining 10% into wigs, and subsidize the sale price for low income families?

If they can't give a clear accounting of what sort of hair they get, and what sort of needs they have for hair, then the presumption has to be that they don't really know what their income donations are, or their needs are, or if they are functioning in a thrifty or wasteful manner.

[Beatnik Guy]

LoL has very good reasons for doing things the way they do. They help many young people through difficult circumstances, and lots of people feel really good about being a part of that.

Ah, but why don't they ask for money?


“A check would be easier for me,” Ms. Coffman said. “But would the donors get out of it what they do? No.”

[Fifty-Five]

I just laugh at the whole thing. Even if LOL wasn't such a scam, I still can't find myself supporting ponytail donations the way it's shown and displayed and pressured. I say, sure, it's different if someone had decided to chop off their hair anyway, but... there are so many people who donate their hair thinking they've just made a life-altering change in a child's life and feeling great, meanwhile, that $10 in their pocket that they're planning to use to see the new Brad Pitt flick this weekend would have been a much smaller sacrifice with a much larger affect on that same child's life, ya know? If everyone who donated a ponytail instead donated the same amount of dollars as inches, cancer would be cured. ((In my own optimistic opinion. I have no proof to back that up, but just think about it. 100 000+ donations a year with LoL alone, even at a minimum 8 inches, that's over $800 000))

[GlennaGirl]

Another point worthy of note (or maybe someone already mentioned this...I hope not...I did read the whole thread but am not sure about this) is that they're not "giving" those wigs to those needy kids.

They're selling them to those needy kids. Or rather, to those needy kids' parents.

So besides selling "unusable" (apparently it's usable to somebody!) hair, they're also making money off the hair that goes into making the wigs.

And no. LoL is not clear...at all...about this part of the equation. They always talk about "giving" wigs to needy children when they do their little publicity stunts. Always.

Compared to other charitable organizations, this one is indeed extremely, deliberately shady as far as I can see. And they do it primarily through guilt ("look--you're so healthy and you have such long hair; meanwhile, a little girl/boy just your age is suffering and dying! How could you want to keep that hair when it could make a dying child happy?")--mythology that is not worked on at all to be dispelled by LoL. At all. Sorry. But facts are facts.

Where would they get the money to run an ad campaign that dispelled the myths? I don't know. Maybe the same place they get the money to plaster their name here, there and everywhere. Or maybe they could appear on a talk show or the news and actually mention these things...rather than appearing on a talk show or the news and not mentioning them. Dunno, seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

LoL is looked down on, I feel, mostly for its obvious manipulation of people and the sacrifice of a body part that's "expected"; other charities don't necessarily do this, or even come close. I don't blame people for being angry about LoL. Guilting someone into chopping off something he or she has loved for years and years and has literally been a part of him- or herself for years and years...in order to make money that somehow slips past accountability? That's obscene.

[embee]

Nicely said, Glenna Girl! :)