VOA News UK | By Safina Khan
LONDON: The Malala Fund, the international education charity founded by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai, is facing questions about its financial management, executive compensation and the transparency of its spending after its 2024–2025 annual report recorded expenses significantly higher than its reported revenue.
According to the charity’s published annual report, the Malala Fund recorded total revenue and support of approximately $16.48 million for the financial year ending 31 March 2025, while total expenditure reached approximately $23.34 million.
The figures represent a deficit of around $6.86 million for the year. The charity reported net assets of approximately $42.97 million at the end of the financial period. Source: Malala Fund’s 2024–2025 annual report.
The figures raise questions about how the organisation manages its resources, how much funding reaches education programmes and local partners, and how the charity measures the impact of its work supporting girls’ education.
Where does the money go?
The annual report states that approximately $18.94 million was spent on programmes and services, representing the largest share of the charity’s expenditure. It also records approximately $2.44 million in management and general costs and $1.95 million in fundraising expenses. Source: Malala Fund financial report.
However, programme expenditure does not necessarily mean that the entire amount was transferred directly to girls, schools or local educational organisations. Programme costs can include grants, staff, research, advocacy and other activities connected with the charity’s mission.
This raises an important question for donors and supporters: how much of the programme budget is distributed directly to local organisations, and what measurable outcomes does that funding deliver?
Further information about grants, beneficiaries, educational access and independently verifiable results would help the public assess the impact of the charity’s work.
Executive compensation under scrutiny
Publicly available US tax filings also disclose compensation for senior executives of the organisation.
According to reported figures for the financial year ending March 2025, total compensation, including other reported benefits, was approximately:
- Chief Executive Officer Lena Alfi: $371,979
- Chief Adviser Erin Hohlfelder: $319,965
- Chief Operating Officer Humaira Wakili: $241,027
These figures are reported in the organisation’s US Form 990 tax filing and include compensation beyond base salary. Source: Form 990 compensation data.
Executive compensation is not, by itself, evidence of financial wrongdoing. However, when a charity spends millions of dollars annually, donors may reasonably ask how senior remuneration is determined, what governance safeguards apply and how the organisation balances administrative costs against its charitable objectives.
Questions over first-class and charter travel
The charity’s US tax filing also indicates that first-class or charter travel was provided to officers or key employees, with further details reported in the relevant tax schedules. Source: ProPublica’s nonprofit financial records.
The disclosure does not, on its own, establish the full cost, frequency or circumstances of such travel. Nevertheless, transparency about travel policies, expenditure and business justification would help donors understand how these costs support the charity’s mission.
Accountability beyond a famous name
Malala Yousafzai became internationally recognised for advocating girls’ education after surviving a Taliban attack in Pakistan in 2012. The Malala Fund was established to advance that cause.
For an organisation operating under a globally recognised name and relying on donations and institutional support, financial accountability is an important part of maintaining public trust.
The central questions are straightforward: How much funding reaches girls and grassroots educational organisations? What proportion is spent on staffing, consultants, advocacy and travel? What educational outcomes can donors independently verify? And how does the charity explain spending that exceeded its annual revenue?
A deficit in a single financial year does not automatically indicate mismanagement. Charities may draw on accumulated reserves to fund planned activities, and the Malala Fund reported substantial net assets at the end of the period. The reasons for the deficit should therefore be assessed in the context of its financial strategy and longer-term commitments.
Likewise, questions about a public figure’s lifestyle should be kept separate from evidence about an organisation’s finances. Personal appearances or dining choices do not establish how charitable funds are used.
The issue is not whether a prominent campaigner should enjoy professional success. It is whether donors and the public have sufficient information to understand how money raised in the name of girls’ education is spent and what it achieves.
VOA News UK sought clarification on the charity’s financial figures, executive compensation, travel expenditure and the measurable outcomes of its education programmes. The charity’s response should be included before publication if obtained.
