Common donor misconceptions
Posted on June 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Everyone has heard of aid agency waste and poorly implemented programs, but few people understand the underlying causes. Unfortunately, poor donor advice, heavy media coverage of “sexy” projects and locations, and aid agency advertisements targeting donor heartstrings, have made it so the average donor has many misconceptions about good donor practices. Donating based on these misconceptions may fund programs that are poorly implemented, unnecessary, or even do more harm than good.
Many people think that there is an international body regulating aid
Most people assume that the aid agency they are donating to is monitored and regulated.
In reality, there is generally no real oversight or regulation of aid agency work.
Two attempts to create a regulatory body under the League of Nations and the United Nations (U.N.) have both failed. It is up to the beleaguered government receiving aid to track, coordinate, evaluate, and regulate the hundreds of aid agencies pouring into their country. More often than not, countries receiving aid do not have the manpower, resources or regulations in place to do this. Once an aid agency has your donation they have the power to implement their program, whether or not it is needed or wanted.
Many people think that programs need to be implemented immediately after a disaster
Because giving is always greatest right after a disaster, aid agencies use the dramatic images and news coverage to help fund raise.
In reality, by the time your donation reaches the aid agency and the aid agency makes it to the disaster site, many of the basic requirements of food, water, and shelter have been met by neighbors, friends, family, civil society, the local government, and organizations that have stockpiled relief supplies. There is a chance that your donation will go to longer term recovery efforts. Thus, it is better to either donate on a regular basis to an aid agency with stockpiles of relief supplies, or donate part of your money now and wait until a needs assessment has been conducted and a coordinated response plan developed before donating the rest. However, for a coordinated response plan to be successful, donors must be willing and able to donate money several months after the disaster.
Many people think that low operational costs are key to choosing aid agencies
On the surface it makes sense that the less an aid agency spends on operational costs the more money goes directly to those they are trying to help. Many charity rating sites use the percentage of budget spent on operating costs as a major factor in charity ratings – although this is beginning to change.
In reality, operational costs are critical to ensuring that the right type of aid gets to those that need it the most. This requires a needs assessment that covers a wide enough area and includes the work of other aid agencies and the government. Good needs assessments help agencies avoid; duplicating the work of other agencies, undermining the work the government, or picking areas that do not have the greatest need. Experienced staff are needed to work closely with the aid recipients as well as coordinate with the government and other aid agencies. Evaluations of aid agency work are critical to ensuring that aid agencies continually improve their practices. Unfortunately, efforts to keep operational costs low may mean that aid agencies skip these critical steps.
Many people think that taking up a collection of goods to send to developing countries is a good way to help
Collecting new or used items to send overseas is appealing because it allows you to actively help out, while recycling items you no longer need. However, it is much better to buy goods locally.
In reality, most donated goods are far more expensive to ship than to buy locally. Sending donated goods can clog up the ports preventing other relief items from getting cleared in a timely manner. Donated goods often go unused because they are inappropriate to the local climate, culture, or religion. Donating goods can also undercut the local market, putting people out of business, thereby increasing the number of people in need of assistance.
Many people think that earmarking your money is a good way to ensure you donation is well spent
Common donor advice to earmark your money for specific projects seems to make sense because it allows you to pick the exact project or country you want to support. Many people feel that choosing how the money will be spent ensures that the money is well used.
In reality, earmarking funds often leads to wasted aid. Earmarking requires an aid agency to spend money even if the funds are far in excess of what is actually needed. Examples of this are mini-mansions and empty orphanages built after the tsunami. Earmarking also means that “sexy” projects are far easier to fund than non-”sexy” projects, such as helping people get the documentation needed to access government assistance.
Common donor misconceptions have accidentally perpetuated poor aid practices
In the aid world, what does not get funded does not get implemented. Activities that don not please donors may not get implemented. Without a regulatory agency, unnecessary or even detrimental activities that please donors continue to be implemented. Aid agency practices cannot improve until donors move beyond common misconceptions, and begin funding good aid practices.
« The worst in-kind donations • Interesting articles in the news »
Hey there – new to your blog. Apologies if you cover this elsewhere:
I agree with 99.9% of what you say in this post. The small space where I see it differently is in the paragraphs on operational costs. Specifically – and this is not really related to operational costs – allowing donors to believe that we always go for those “most in need” frequently turns out to be untrue. Further, if we (aid actors) make it true, then there can be a large coverage gap – those in the unfortunate “not quite so needy” space between “most needy” and “unaffected.”
When I have input on the marketing or appeal publications of my employer, I usually go for a “your donation will go where it is most needed” vibe, rather than “your donation will go to help those most in need.”
J,
Thanks for the comment, and I agree with what you’ve said. Where aid is needed the most depends on what other assistance is provided by both the government and other aid agencies. Thanks for the rewording.
Saundra
I agree completely, and feel that the part about operational costs can not be emphasized enough. Where I work, Program Coordinators and Program Officers frequently work 80-90 hour weeks with no overtime pay or compensatory time, because we do not have the operational budget to hire more of them. They are burnt out and more likely to make mistakes or leave our organization.
I also used to work in emergency response with another organization. I never once saw a true needs assessment in an emergency situation, and frequently saw inappropriate relief items being delivered to families. After the earthquake in Peru, a report I read indicated that houses had been built in such a way that they were extremely hot inside, so families barely used them. Once the families could re-build their traditional houses, which were cooler, they used the other houses as storage areas or not at all.
As to regulation and coordination, this is desperately needed. When I was in Sri Lanka after the Tsunami, the larger and more experienced aid organizations made serious attempts to coordinate with each other, the UN and the local government. However, our efforts to avoid duplication and ensure coverage were frequently undermined by smaller, less experienced or fly-by-night non-profits, frequently formed on the fly by churches or other communities in the US or Europe, who eschewed coordination meetings, ignored or were ignorant of government guidelines for reconstruction, and distributed inappropriate aid in a completely irrational manner.
Maureen,
Thanks for providing some very good examples of aid problems.
It’s interesting that Sri Lanka had issues with smaller aid agencies, in Thailand I had issues with some of the larger organizations. They felt that they had permission from the government to do what they were doing and so didn’t think it was necessary to share their information with others. The local aid agencies often felt overlooked and not included in coordination meetings. Overall, I believe that coordination and information sharing needs to be improved on all levels.
“Collecting new or used items to send overseas is appealing because it allows you to actively help out, while recycling items you no longer need. However, it is much better to buy goods locally.”
Yes, although there’s a bit more to it. If you send money with which to “buy goods locally”, you send dollars … how do you use a dollar to buy goods locally? You swap it for the local currency first. And then what does the person who took the dollar off you use it for? Buying goods from abroad. I probably won’t convince you now if you don’t already know this, but a well know ‘fact’ in economics is “a real transfer of resources (from donor to recipient) only takes place if there is a corresponding increase in imports”. [note, a "transfer real of resources" is not the only way to help; you can provide expertise, for example], so even if your intention is to fund local production, you’ll end up funding imports, just indirectly.
Certainly if you flood the locality with free donated goods that local people were previously busy producing in order to earn a living, that’s bad news, I’m not disputing your point here. And if you send money to be spent only locally produced food, and the dollars end up (after passing from hand to hand) funding the import of laptop computers, assuming there’s not local computer industry, then no harm done. But you can’t control what those dollars end up importing – it might be a good that competes with local producers.
Ian Beale,
I’ve never had a fictional character respond to a post before. It’s nice to know that I have a following on EastEnders.
While I’m happy to have comments that bring out new points, and your point is an interesting one to consider, please back up quotes with sources. And if you’re going to comment, be strong enough in your convictions to use your real name and email address.
Cheers, Saundra