Explaining the radio silence over World Vision
Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Within days of Mashable announcing the 1millionshirts project dozens of blog posts were written on the subject. Jason Sadler and his project were duly trounced by the aid blogosphere. Yet, with the announcement of World Vision’s equally questionable NFL shirt donation, the blogosphere is eerily silent. Thus far only six posts have been written on the topic (there are now 36 posts about the controversy, click here to read the other posts.)
Wanderlust, one of the few posts written thus far, does a great job of putting World Vision’s experience into perspective:
“You are among the world’s largest, most established and most recognized non-governmental organizations. In 2009 you were responsible for over USD 2.5 billion in donated goods, services and financial support. You work in 96 countries on 5 continents, providing a wide range of services. You have been carrying out development activities since1953. You are signatory to the Red Cross Code of Conduct and the INGO Accountability Charter. You have been a part of the creation of the Sphere Project, and involved in programs such as the Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP), the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Practice (ALNAP), People in Aid (PIA) and the Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB)”….
“Why, then, are you proposing to send 100,000 unwanted t-shirts from the losing Superbowl team to poor communities in the name of Gifts in Kind (GIK?). We all know it’s bad practice. You know it’s bad practice. Please could you come up with a more appropriate course of action.”
So why does Jason, who did not know any better, get a barrage of criticism. Yet World Vision, with decades of experience, does not? Is it because aid workers think that the World Vision gifts-in-kind is a better program? No, that’s not what I’m hearing behind the scenes. Is it because World Vision handled their initial response to the criticism better? That’s probably a small part of it, I think Jason’s original vlog stirred up people’s ire. But it’s only a small part of the silence. Is it because we are all sick to death of talking about the problems with donated goods? That’s likely a small part of it too. I, for one, am so tired of this issue that I’d love to never have to write about it again.
But in the end, the biggest reason for the silence is aid industry pressure. I’ve heard from a few aid workers that they can’t write - and some can’t even tweet – about the topic because they either work for World Vision or they work for another nonprofit that partners with World Vision. Even people that don’t work for a nonprofit are feeling pressure. One independent blogger told of receiving emails from friends that work at World Vision imploring them not to blog about the issue.
The reason for the silence is addressed by Dennis Whittle in his November, 2010 post Free the Aid Bloggers.
“In general I fully support transparency, but these people could lose their jobs.”
That is what Saundra Schimmelpfennig told me when I asked her why some of the best aid bloggers out there were anonymous. She is right, of course. But it is also a shame. If there is a common thread running through our understanding of effective aid, it is the need to experiment, learn, and adapt. This means admitting to – rather than hiding – things that don’t work, so that we can learn from them. The anonymous bloggers I was referring to talk about the reality of aid work, warts and all. They have a following because their readers know that they are speaking the truth. But their employers could not tolerate the truth, so these bloggers have to remain in the closet.
One day, aid agencies will brag about the bloggers they have on staff. This will happen when they realize the best aid agencies are platforms for conversations and learning rather than infallible oracles of aid wisdom. Until then, many bloggers will have to remain anonymous.
This suppression of criticism and severe image control is one of the reasons that the aid and development world is so slow to learn from their mistakes and improve their practices. This is why initiatives like Engineers Without Borders Canada Admitting Failure website is critically needed. This is why ALNAP was created following the Rwanda genocide. We have got to start learning from our mistakes and really improving our practices.
We need to do this to gain the trust of the donating public, many of whom already believe that the aid world is ineffective and self-serving. We need to start admitting and learning from our mistakes to increase the professionalism of the industry. And we need to do this because we owe it to the people we’re trying to help. After all, they are the ones that always pay for our mistakes.
My hope is that World Vision and other NGOs will use this as an opportunity to re-evaluate not only the NFL shirt donation, but their entire gift-in-kind portfolio. My expectation however, is that World Vision will go on the defensive with little, if any, real change.
—–
Other posts on this controversy:
To read all the other posts written on this controversy, see Tracking the World Vision / NFL Shirt Donation Controversy.
World Vision’s Response:
Response to GIK discussion – World Vision - As predicted showing little, if any, real change. But very polite. I am disappointed, but not surprised.
« World Vision, the new 100,000 shirts • Orphanage tourism in Cambodia »
Der bull elephant care not for der little twitterers tweeting in der tree.
Only worry when big game hunter come near.
Now if hunter hear der little birds…
[...] Explaining the radio silence over World Vision – Good Intentions are Not Enough – discusses industry pressure and fear of being fired that is keeping people silent on this issue. [...]
So there are people in the aid and development industry who are afraid of losing their jobs while the people who they claim to be helping are losing their dignity. What a bunch of cowards.
I’m afraid it’s like that with many jobs. You get in it for the right reasons and then find there are things you don’t believe that you still have to do. So many non-profits do gifts-in-kind or other programs simply for the money or better overhead ratios. There’s no guarantee that the next job wouldn’t have something just as bad and there is a lot of good you are doing that you would no longer be able to do if you left. It’s an industry-wide problem. Your choice might be to just leave the industry altogether, which many people have done.
Hey, World Vision isn’t perfect. None of us are. And the NFL certainly isn’t an arm of God’s grace in the world. But what, exactly, have the ones blogging about the “wrong” it is to give losing Super Bowl shirts do to help the people who have little to no clothing other than rags? They BLOGGED about it? And they’re the good guys and World Vision and the NFL are bad because they didn’t through new shirts (that might keep someone warm) in a land fill> Or maybe they should have let the shirts find their way into the dozens of for-profit bargain clothing shops in the Third World so the poor could have the privilege of PAYING for them?
I suggest people Come over here and actually do some good before they rant about what’s wrong with what others are doing.
Bill
Very few of the people criticizing donating goods overseas are “experts” sitting in ivory towers. The majority of us are aid workers who have dedicated our lives and livelihoods to “do some good.” It is through our service to others that we have seen the negative impacts of bad aid projects. I spent four years in Thailand working on the tsunami recovery and for over two of those I ran an organization that tracked all the aid coming into the country. I saw first hand the problems that can arise. It is because of all these issues that I’ve dedicated the last two years to educating donors and calling out bad aid practices.
I’ve not sacrificed as much as I have to do what I do because I enjoy spending my time complaining about people just trying to help. I’ve made these sacrifices because if I don’t, all the problems I saw on the ground will likely be endlessly repeated. And I’m not pulling my criticisms out of thin air. If you read my blog regularly you will see that I regularly link to good practices, guidelines, and industry standards. These standards were created as a result of very real problems on the ground.
The shirts were not necessary, there are shirts for sell in each country. The costs of customs, transport, and shipping often mean the donated goods cost more than buying them locally. And buying them locally puts money into the local economy, handing out donated goods does not.
The NFL chose to print up 100,000 too many shirts. Just because a company makes that type of over production does not mean it has to be fobbed off internationally. Why weren’t they donated locally? Because NFL doesn’t want them in circulation. That too is their choice.
Bill, it is MUCH better for people to PAY for the goods that they receive. It affirms their dignity, allows them to experience of joy of “exchange”, and pumps money into the local economy. It is more blessed to give than receive…if this is true, then why would we make one group the perpetual recipient of another groups giving?
I am one of the people that have blogged about this and also someone that is originally for those “Third world” countries but also someone that is actually doing something to address poverty that has nothing to do with giving/dumping clothing on the poor. America has some poor people why can’t World vision give them these T-shirts. Whether these shirts are donated or not to Africa they will still end up in those second hand markets. The point I am trying to make here is that NGOs such as world Vision are in the business of ending poverty and perpetuating. They should use their time and resources lobbying their government to stop subsidies to cotton farmers that kill off the cotton market in Africa so Africans can cloth themselves not join the queue.
Hi Saundra,
I expect there has not been the same reaction to 1million t-shirts because of the reasons you stated. Your analysis is spot on. That, or the NFL, which very protective of its brand, is also behind the scenes working PR voodoo. Or, perhaps people, outside of the online aid and development community, think this is not such a bad use of 100,000 useless t-shirts. I do not think it is, and largely agree with yourself and others on this misappropriation of GIK, the use of the word ‘benefits’ and the notion this fits a long-term development strategy.
I have tried contacting workers at World Vision Australia for their opinion, but the only reply was along the lines of ‘WV Aus has no part in this project’. Although WV may find itself under the gun from those like yourself, by and large, I think many would look favourably on this project. It is a PR win for both WV and the NFL. We are not their target audience. Although, most comments on their blog regarding the 100,000 reasons to love the superbowl (what Fergie is not reason enough?), are critical. The WV response, comment 11, is underwhelming. I just don’t believe there are enough reasons for them, as an organisation, to admit this was a mistake. What would they have to gain? It might draw more unwanted attention to the project.
When I forwarded your previous post to a former colleague now at WVI, they (off the record of course) reminded me that “Goods in kind come in handy when USAID requires cost share on a grant and cash is tight.” It’s important to also acknowledge the restrictive rules and regulations under which INGOs must operate to receive public funding and how, perceived or real, this may restrict their ability to operate more effectively.
Jennifer,
Thanks for that extra bit of information. Good addition to the debate.
This is so true, Jennifer. Cost share requirements can be the bane of a program manager’s existence, and are frequently met with questionable things like GIK, “valuing” local labor (usually “volunteer” labor), etc. The original purpose, of course, was to get NGOs to look for complementary resources, but in reality, it is comes down to a fancy shell game.
Isn’t this instance different because the shirts were already made? The only other option is throwing them away. The NFL is not allowed to re-sell them. Would you prefer they be destroyed?
Francisco,
With 1millionshirts, those shirts were already made as well. They weren’t producing new ones for donations. In fact I’d say all international clothing donations are already made clothing.
Why isn’t the NFL allowed to resell them? Is this a Federal law? No, it’s their own policy. Why can’t they be donated or sold locally? Who’s preventing that from happening? The NFL is, again with their own policies. They could change their policies or stop printing so many shirts. The business decisions they make in their own self-interest do not justify this whole thing.
Francisco, as Sandra explained in the original post, the system of donating the unsold goods to World Vision effectively results in a subsidy from US taxpayers for the production of Super Bowl merchandize. So much of it would not have been produced at all if this system were not in place.
Jason Sadler was just starting out with his project, was new to development work, and was willing to engage with his critics. There was good reason to think that he would respond to criticism – as finally proved to be the case. World Vision, on the other hand, is a huge organization, with (I assume) a lot of institutional inertia, has already been running this project for 15 years, and has a huge base of loyal supporters. It just seems extremely unlikely that World Vision would listen to criticism or change their ways… I suspect that intelligent people are saving their breath for causes which have a higher chance of success.
That may be part of it, but then what does that mean. Any startup organization doing questionable work is fair game, but the larger, more established organizations doing the same thing get a pass. The nonprofit world already has a credibility issue with large parts of the public – especially the facebook generation who are out there being social entrepreneurs. This feeds the perception that the aid world is self-serving. We’ll criticize them but not the big guys who are having far greater overall impact than Jason Sadler ever could. There is a real danger in that – and it’s hypocritical.
The sense I’m getting is that people are concerned about their livelihoods. Just as “Anon for this” said, if they speak up they’ll be known for someone that airs dirty laundry in public and might not get another job in the field. This is an issue I’ve seen over and over again.
When I started this blog, I knew writing what I do could mean that I’ll never get a job in the industry again. It was a risk I was willing to take. But I understand if other’s cannot take the same risk.
I agree completely. It’s terrible, but I was wanting to be realistic: I doubt World Vision have much incentive to react to criticism like this.
Of course, I’m also posting anonymously. I’m not even an aid worker, but I do work in the international NGO world, and I’m sure my employer would be very unhappy if my name were publicly linked to criticism of World Vision.
I just want to go on record and say that all of you people that are complaining about world vision accepting a donation of 100,000 articles of clothing need to get off your soapbox and see that the real need of the people receiving the donations is clothing…not historically accurate sports memrobelia!
I’m sick to my stomach because of what I have read!
Thanks to the NFL and World Vision for putting clean shirts on peoples’ backs who may not have had it otherwise!
Darryl,
We know the real needs. We’re out there in the field all the time. This is a decision based on business needs not on real needs.
I’ve lived and worked in West Africa for many, many years. I’ve also lived in the Middle East and worked for several years in part of central Africa and South America. I have NEVER encountered a true NEED for clothing in any of the populations I worked with. It is usually quite cheap locally to buy clothing, though money is often used for other things as there are far more pressing issues that could and should be addressed or often beer that “needs” to be drunk instead. I’ve never had people, even those living on the streets and without jobs, recount to me that they needed clothing. Food, yes. Medicine, yes. Clothing, not so much. This move is purely from the standpoint of donor needs and organizational needs and business needs.
Also, as Saundra has pointed out numerous times before, donations of clothing can actually cause economic problems that will result in more people going without jobs, more people going hungry, more people that would supposedly need clothing… If what you are doing is making the situation worse in the long run, how is it possibly a positive? If they had used the money that it cost for these donations to buy clothing locally, if that is truly what is needed (and somehow I HIGHLY doubt that)– they would not only be able to buy a significantly greater amount of clothing, but they would also be stimulating the local economy, creating or retaining jobs for locals and being far more sustainable.
If non-profits are beyond criticism, then they have essentially lost all use and are really not serving the populations they supposed intend to help.
Darryl,
I would love to know which specific communities you refer to when you say people who would have otherwise not had clothing. I’ve been an aid worker for the past 10 years and have spent time in some pretty impoverished environments and I have yet to come across a community where no one had clothing.
Moreover even if that community does exist it would be a lot cheaper to buy clothing for those people locally than to ship it halfway around the world (believe it or not, shipping isn’t free, nor is it easy to avoid paying customs fees when you import thousands of t-shirts into a country).
Michael Kirkpatrick – some of us have families and children to support. And no, we’re not willing to speak against a giant like world vision for fear of losing those jobs or not having a job in the future. You might call it cowardly. I call it keeping my kids fed.
I don’t work for WV, and I’m unlikely to ever do so. But if I speak out publicly against them, then I get to be known as someone who airs dirty laundry in public, and I don’t get my next job. Which I need, to feed the aforementioned kids. That’s also why I don’t blog.
[...] the article here: Explaining the radio silence over World Vision AKPC_IDS += [...]
Well maybe the NFL could give them to poor people in the US who need T-shirts? (LOL)
Very interesting read. I once had a guy who wanted to spend 5,000 Euro getting a container of school books from Ireland up the Himalayas. He felt sending money to buy them locally was ‘check-book charity’ and didn’t show we care enough.
So the next step is, how do we go about raising the profile of this issue among non-aid bloggers? It’s very common still to send these kinds of items, and I don’t see it dying down any time soon. ‘Check-book charity’ needs a good PR manager.
“Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.”
Robert F. Kennedy
And it goes on and on and on….
“School collects 1,000 pairs of shoes for Liberia” http://www.ocregister.com/news/shoes-287636-school-san.html
Why would they want our old shoes anyway? Shoes, books, T-shirts. We need to find a way to get ordinary Americans to understand that sending unwanted and used items abroad is not a good idea and usually does more harm than good –as Claire noted above. How do we bring more attention to this issue without hurting people’s feelings so that they will listen and think about it instead of becoming defensive and even go on the attack, a la 1 million-shirts-guy’s “hatorade” response (although to his credit he did eventually listen). How can we flip ordinary people’s good intentions into smart aid — whether they want to donate materials overseas or participate in a volunteer tourism project? How about campaigns promoting stay-at-home community service?
A few weeks back, news stories in America showcased outrage over stores like H&M and Polo Ralph Lauren and other stores destroying unsold goods in dumpsters. Employees would cut up perfectly good shirts and polos to “protect the brand name” and prevent the items from going to charity. There was genuine outrage at the destruction of these items. Here, with World Vision and the NFL, you have the NFL taking the anti-Polo Ralph Lauren approach and receiving great publicity (“We donated thousands of shirts!”) as opposed to “thousands of shirts were destroyed today!” It’s really not hard to decipher the motives here. Great publicity and the chance for people to see that the NFL “cares” enough to send otherwise useless items abroad. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense.
Now, am I defending the actions of the NFL and World Vision? No. We all understand how it hurts local textile markets and is generally unhelpful. But the question is how to change the system from the top. Because frankly, if World Vision stops accepting misprinted t-shirts, the NFL will simply find another organization to do the exact same work. I see the criticism of World Vision here and understand the context, but I believe the root problem is the practice of donating goods for tax benefits and positive publicity. Work with the organizations behind these 100,000 shirt drives (in this case, the NFL) to change the policy.
I don’t think you are going to be able to stop these kinds of donations from either large corporations or local level community projects. Everyone has seen the commercials begging for money and sponsorship of children living in absolute poverty, filth; surrounded by slums and death. The image presented is that those communities need ALL the help they can get as soon as they can get it. The average person can’t envision someone that poor, who hasn’t had any new clothes in months, turn down a brand new free t-shirt because they would rather buy it with the extremely small amount of money they might have to save their dignity. It’s a strange paradox that anyone would claim these “individuals” would rather buy it and save face, but the “nations” in poor regions are more that happy to accept Millions if not Billions of dollars in aid and support for development or emergency relief. So the people donating t-shirts are bad and stupid blah blah for not knowing how to fix the problem. You are absolutely right, lets email the NFL and tell them they are the worst development organization ever, that is exactly what they need to change their ways and solve world hunger. Oh wait, they are a business, and they are making business decisions and donating GIK; if you don’t want them, don’t take them.
And don’t you dare accuse people of being cowards for trying to keep their jobs. On this page you are a blogger, not a do-er. People need jobs, jobs are the reason people have money, stay out of poverty, and economies develop. Jobs are the exact thing people in these poor communities wish they had as well. Individuals combine their efforts into more efficient and streamlined processes by being part of organizations. Individuals can effect change, but that pretty much only happens when they get more support from other individuals, not being purely by themselves. So don’t condemn people that don’t immidiately don’t come out and trash their organization on some online blog conversation. Those same individuals could be bringing up these criticisms and processes to their bosses in the correct forum, AT WORK. The organzations are not “bad” and just trying to ruin all the hard work of the field workers, they made a mistake, everyone does. And I don’t think that ANYONE would rather have a day when there is too LITTLE donations to poor communities rather that too MUCH.
I just read a blog post on GlassFrog.org citing this conversation and I thought I would check it out. Honestly, it is obvious to me that this is irresponsible giving. It has no long term benefit to the recipients and reduces demand for local goods (goods that would have had a positive, sustainable impact on the local economy). It’s a bad move by WV, but everyone makes mistakes. It’s hard to snub donors and expect them to continue to support you. The thing that bothers me the most though is how unwilling WV is to talk about it. They don’t want to hear criticism or listen to creative alternatives. They’re snubbing the values of transparency and accountability that should be the guiding principles of any NGO.
http://glassfrogforum.blogspot.com/2011/02/anti-accountability-world-vision.html has a good take on this.
Honestly, I think part of the real reason there hasn’t been more noise over this is that all of the people who normally WOULD be blogging about it have been glued to Al Jazeera English for the last 18 days!
Vanessa,
That may be a part of the reason as well. But I’ve been specifically told by a couple of people that they can’t blog about this because of their jobs. Absolutely no mention of Egypt.
If you notice, the posts we have thus far. Three are from anonymous bloggers, four are from people that don’t work for large NGO’s and the rest are from business people. Not a single person that openly works for a large NGO or INGO has written a post.
[...] It was framed as a ‘charitable’ donation. Several opinions on this have already been offered on other blogs, and I’m told that World Vision has since changed their plans, but my shock at the very [...]
Couple of points. There ARE standards – AERDO/Accord and InterAction – on GIK. Where is the line of inquiry to WV on whether they have had themselves HELD to the standard via peer review or external audit since they were created. Or plans to do so. If they have, great! Ask for a copy of the audit Saundra. Otherwise standards aren’t worth the PDF that they’re not even printed on.
Secondly, even the AERDO/Accord and Interaction standards are primarily accounting standards, not program standards. Where they are about program appropriateness, they are very strongly focused on drugs and pharmaceuticals. The issue of distribution of shirts, well you could drive a truck full of shirts through these standards they are so loose on that.
Now, standards come about through a context and a historical evolution. They don’t just appear immaculately. We might infer from the content of these standards that the GIK sector in the US had to set these up with the focus they have, because historically or currently there are/were much more horrific issues of destructive programming, malfeasance and creative accounting than the distribtuion of a few shirts.
Finally, why haven’t aid bloggers responded? I’d say a good many saw the response “reactive line” pulled down off the shelf and cut and paste in by Amy Parodi, rolled their eyes, and saw NOT polite and genuine engagement but the well oiled machine of corporate communications, people who through no fault of their own don’t actually know a damn thing about how the shirts are really used and whether there’s ever been an assessment of their benefit or impact in the last 10 years. And knowing from the inside how impenetrable that posture can be, even from the inside, instantly gave up.