Where Are the Millions Going? Uncomfortable Questions for the “My Step” Foundation

Representatives of the Armenian government usually speak about the “My Step” charitable foundation in an emotional tone — the first lady, children, festivals, humanitarian initiatives. However, if we set aside all this “sweetness,” what remains is the dry residue: money, reports, and everything that is absent from them. And what is missing there is the most important thing — the answer to the question of exactly where the millions went and on what basis.

Let us start with the simple things. 2019. The foundation spends approximately $5.4 million. Of that, $4.7 million went toward programs, and around $700,000 toward administrative expenses. It seems that everything is in order. But only until you start asking elementary questions — who are the contractors, under what contracts, what tenders were held, where is the breakdown of salaries? There is no answer. There is only the final figure. And a final figure without a breakdown is not a report, but concealment.

Let us move on. Of these millions, only two programs went to Artsakh — a kindergarten in Sanasar (an area that later came under Azerbaijan’s control) and a one-time festival in Stepanakert. That’s it. This is where the “support for Artsakh” ends. The rest of the money disappears into projects that either have no long-term existence or are not subject to verification at all.

2020. 2.083 billion drams in program expenses, plus 129 million drams in administrative expenses. The figures seem to be there, but the structure is once again vague. Who received this money, which companies, are there related parties among them? There is no answer. And this is no longer a coincidence, but a system.
2021. And this is where the most interesting part begins. Only 4 programs, 455 million drams. And, attention, not a single word about administrative expenses. What, did they disappear? Did people stop receiving salaries? Did the office close? Were paper and electricity canceled? No. That line simply disappeared from the report. And along with it disappeared the possibility of understanding how much money was spent on maintaining the organization.

“Small projects” are additionally mentioned — musical instruments, sports equipment. Without the amounts. At all. In other words, the money was spent, but how much — we will not say. Convenient.

2022. The same picture. 4 programs. 118 million drams. Administrative expenses are absent once again.
2023. 4 programs (essentially, continuations of the old ones), 210 million drams, plus another 7 million for “other initiatives.” Exactly which initiatives is not specified. Where the money went — likewise.

Now let us compare this with the law. Article 12 of the Law “On Charity” clearly states that up to 20% of income may be spent on administrative needs. The key word is “may.” But in order to understand how much was spent, it must be stated in the report. And if it is not stated, it means either they are hiding it, or they do not consider themselves obliged to be accountable to the public.

And this is precisely where what is usually called corruption begins, but in our case it would be more accurate to call it a habit of living without being accountable to society.

The next point is the sources of the funds. According to the reports, a significant portion of the donations is made anonymously. This is an entirely separate story. Anonymous donors are an ideal tool for legitimizing any money. If you want, present it as a donation; if you want, as a “kickback”; if you want, simply as a transfer of money from one pocket to another. It is impossible to verify.

And now — the “cherry on top.” The story related to a media inquiry about Anna Hakobyan’s visit to Italy. Journalists asked entirely normal questions — how much did the tickets, hotel, and museums cost, from which sources was it paid, and was the state treasury involved? In response, they received not figures, but advice to go and learn communication skills.

This demonstrates that no one intends to provide an account. Neither regarding the foundation, nor the trips, nor the expenses.

After this, the Union of Journalists of Armenia directly stated that the government is hiding the sources financing its lifestyle. And, judging by everything, not without grounds. Because when a simple question about money is answered with a lecture about media literacy, it means there is nothing to answer.

The absence of a state response deserves particular emphasis. No oversight body raised the question: where are the administrative expenses, why is there no breakdown, who are the donors? This is despite the fact that the foundation is headed by the prime minister’s wife. In any other situation, such a lack of accountability would have led to at least a series of inspections.