Frequently asked questions
FAQ regarding MCC abuse allegations by MAST
Q1. Isn’t the word “abuse” too strong for what has allegedly happened? What is coming to light?
Answer: The term “abuse” suggests both a misuse of power and a pattern of ill-treatment. Both of these aspects of abuse are present in the stories that we have heard. People who work for and people who are contracted by MCC have used institutional, financial, and spiritual power to keep workers silent. When we look at the accumulation of stories, we see that this mistreatment is indeed part of a larger pattern within MCC.
As of May 2025, MAST is aware of 61 cases of “bad endings” with MCC. The stories that people have shared with us point to the involvement of all levels of MCC leadership in bullying, covering up financial fraud, responding inappropriately to reports of sexual harassment and assault, and silencing whistleblowers.
Q2. Aren’t these allegations mainly about overseas/international staff?
Answer: Unfortunately, no. Many of them circle back to leadership in both Canada and the US.
Q3. Why are these employees sharing their concerns so antagonistically and publicly? Isn’t it more appropriate for employee grievances to be dealt with confidentially?
Answer: To the best of our knowledge, all of us who have shared our stories publicly first reached out to MCC leaders many times and invited them to meet with us for restorative dialogue.[1] They have not answered, or have told us, “You will never get an answer from MCC again.” It is painful enough to have them refuse to listen to us. But knowing that they are continuing to abuse others is what makes us determined to speak out to prevent further harm, even in this public way; nothing else has worked.
[1] For one example, see a summary by John Clarke and Anicka Fast of their attempts to resolve the complaint confidentially with MCC at https://www.mccabusesurvivors.org/blog/cnesstqa.
Q4. If what you are sharing about MCC is so serious, why have I never heard about it before?
Answer: There are many dynamics that prevent victims of abuse from speaking out. Many people stay silent because of legal intimidation through NDAs and other means. (MAST is aware of 11 cases where former MCC employees have signed NDAs, sometimes under extreme duress, and three more cases where an offer of an NDA was turned down.) Within most Mennonite communities there is significant social pressure to support Mennonite Central Committee and not to “complain” or “cause problems.” There is legitimate fear about speaking out, and most of us only made the decision to share our stories after learning that we were not alone.
Another reason you may not have heard of the abuse before–or may have the impression that allegations are false or overblown–is that MCC expends enormous effort and money to control its public image. Increasingly strict confidentiality policies prevent employees from sharing MCC emails or documents with anyone outside MCC. The MCC policy manual, which used to be available as one document, has been cut up into individual PDFs, only available to employees via MCC’s internal document system and not even shared with incoming employees until they have signed their offer letters. Communications policies have become increasingly strict so that country programs are no longer allowed their own Facebook pages, and personal blogs are increasingly discouraged.
Q5. This all sounds like MCC has an HR problem. Can’t MCC simply get new HR staff and increase training to resolve these “mistakes?”
Answer: This is not just an HR problem. We are seeing involvement by all levels of MCC: executive leadership, financial services, communications and donor relations, international program leadership (IP directors, Area Directors, and Country Representatives), and North American-based MCC management staff. We see HR getting involved in many cases, but often enabled by or in collaboration with other parts of MCC leadership. As one survivor recently described their experience, “It felt like one of those movies, where all of a sudden the whole system is trying to crush you.” We also observe a decades-long trend in consolidating HR power and taking away worker protections. Even since the open letter was published, MCC has tightened its whistleblowing policies, consolidated the power of HR, and created more levels of HR oversight. (See https://www.mccabusesurvivors.org/blog/whistleblowing-policy). We must reverse this toxic trend if MCC is going to be sustainable.
It is not enough to simply announce that MCC is revising and changing its policies. MCC must be more transparent with its donors about the actual content of those policies, and allow current and former employees to provide feedback without the threat of retaliation.
Q6. MCC says they are building in more restorative practices to their HR policies. Won’t this work, and better late than never?
Answer: While we all love the idea of “restorative practices,” too often that term is used to excuse actions that are anything but restorative. The use of mediation in abuse situations is inappropriate and often results in additional harm to the survivor. While MCC policy outlines when mediation should and should not be used, we know of situations where MCC leadership did not follow their own policy in this regard – such as forcing a worker into “mediation” with a person she had accused of sexual assault, organizing a “mediation” between workers and abusive supervisors as a step toward firing the workers, or holding a forced “mediation” on hired church premises in order to emotionally abuse an employee before firing them.
One of the core premises of restorative justice is that every person involved is treated with basic human dignity, and that the process itself cannot succeed if it reproduces the same abuses of power that were present in the original harm. MCC has a long way to go to prove that its HR department and executive leadership really understand how these processes are meant to work.
Q7. I know so many people that have had good experiences with MCC. These allegations make no sense to me.
Answer: We know it is difficult to acknowledge the complexity of a beloved institution. Yes. Many people have had good experiences with MCC, and MCC has done – and continues to do – good work around the world. It is precisely this good work that is threatened by the abusive behavior of some people in MCC leadership and the current institutional practices of excuses, denial, and secrecy. As with any situation of reported abuse, those of us fortunate enough to have not experienced such abuse are called to listen with a compassionate and open heart to those who have been harmed.
Q8. Every organization has disgruntled workers and uses NDAs, unfortunately. Why would MCC be any different?
Answer: As a Christian organization, MCC is called to operate on a basis of love, respect, being in relationship, and non-violence. This is not the foundation of “every organization.” In addition, MCC has an alarmingly high number of terminations and NDAs; they are not, in fact, “just doing what all organizations do.” Recent statements by MCC regarding the percentages of early terminations are likely misleading because they refer to a long period of time without acknowledging that the numbers are much higher in the last 15 years since MCC policies against workers were strengthened. Since the publication of the open letter by seven MCC abuse survivors, less than twenty known cases of abuse have now grown to over 60 and counting.
Q9. Our church already feels divided about this issue. We don’t want to hurt our own community and relationships. What is the way forward? What can we do that is constructive?
Answer: You are not alone! And if we want to come out of this with MCC intact, then we need to work together for accountability and truth. There’s no reason for us to have to choose sides or be divided. Several churches have decided to withhold donations to MCC until there is accountability; but simply having the hard conversations about abuse and blind loyalty are important. You can encourage dialogue by holding the space between desire to support MCC’s mission and reminding congregations of the church’s commitment to stand with victims of violence and abuse. There are many options: organize a Sunday school discussion (invite a MAST member to a Q&A), attend a MAST story-telling event, discuss your congregation’s gift to MCC in budget discussions, reach out to support survivors and hear their stories. We have posted many ideas at https://www.mccabusesurvivors.org/getinvolved. Contact MAST directly (stopmccabuse@proton.me) to be connected to a pastor who can share what they’re doing and can help brainstorm ideas with you.
Q10. Aren’t these attacks on MCC simply hurting the poor people they are trying to serve?
Answer: First, these are not “attacks on MCC.” These are extensive, detailed accounts of patterns in the way that MCC as an organizational system is treating human beings.
Second, it is difficult to know the direct effect that survivor stories are having on the work of MCC. We do know that MCC’s efforts to control the narrative and cover up abuse and fraud are costing a lot of money – money that could otherwise be invested in projects and communities around the world. We also know that some partners have stopped working with MCC as a result of their inappropriate response to abuse accusations. In the big picture, we know that if MCC continues to operate in ways that harm staff, it will weaken and eventually disappear as an institution. The health and safety of MCC workers is necessary for the health of MCC as an organization, in order to guarantee that the good and faithful work of MCC can continue for years to come.
Finally, it is naive to assume that abuse of MCC workers has no impact on the people MCC is serving. MCC is in a position of great power over impoverished people in the countries in which they serve, and people who are getting life-saving aid from MCC should not have to encounter an abusive organization in order to benefit from their services. If MCC were causing harm to the impoverished people it serves, how would we know? If MCC staff are claiming that MCC leaders are uncaring and unresponsive and that the reporting systems are retaliatory and unsafe, shouldn’t we also be curious about how those same systems are impacting more vulnerable people who are dependent on MCC for basic sustenance?
Q11. Is change within an organization this big really possible?
Answer: Yes. Because of the extreme power differentials involved, abuse is a well-known problem in the world of international humanitarian work. There are many humanitarian aid organizations that have been confronted with abuse allegations and have made substantive improvements. It is considered bad practice in the NGO world to simply deny that abuse is taking place, which MCC leaders have done repeatedly (most recently in a Feb. 5, 2025 public statement that “the claims of systemic abuse are unequivocally false.” Read MAST’s response here.)
MCC has a history of announcing initiatives for improvement and then relying on their donors not to ask too many hard questions about whether those initiatives actually work. You can see this in the timeline of the recent MCC “monograph,” which is nothing but a four-page list of the specific years in which various board votes were passed, as well as the formation of working groups, committees, memos of understanding, surveys, and trainings. There is no data about how or if these votes proved to be beneficial, or if the named initiatives have been effective. Personal narratives from workers who have had positive experiences with MCC are fine, but contrast that with the approach to transparency and data that you see from many other international NGOs that are doing a much more comprehensive job of showing their work.
For example, most recently we’ve seen significant apologies made by Mennonite Church Canada after the harms caused to relationships due to 2017 restructuring. When a school for missionary children in Nigeria (Hillcrest School) faced head-on allegations of abuse, eight mission and church organizations collaborated to fund a third-party investigation in 2024. Finally, consider the in-depth investigation and report by Oxfam for abuses in 2011, which includes a sincere apology for wrongs done.
Is it possible for MCC to change? Yes, but only if its donors ask difficult questions and demand real answers based on real standards, not just shallow reassurance that relies on Mennonite loyalty. We don’t believe that MCC will survive without this kind of accountability.
Q12. I’ve already signed the petition. What else can I do to help?
Answer: There are many ways in which you can help make a difference. These include speaking out publicly, asking for an external investigation, supporting survivors, and coordinating your efforts with others. For more, see https://www.mccabusesurvivors.org/getinvolved. Don’t underestimate the impact that small actions can have! Survivors regularly share with us what a difference it makes when even one person listens to their story, shows compassion, and speaks out in some way.