—

With the charitable giving season upon us, this is a good time for a series on how to make a difference.

Step 1: Learn about aid through the eyes of aid recipients, government offices, and aid workers

The average person has a lot of assumptions and misunderstandings about aid. Before planning any aid project it is important to understand good aid practices and the impact of aid from a variety of perspectives.
I always recommend reading Listening Project reports, the Listening Project conducts listening exercises in areas that have received aid in the past or are currently receiving aid. Participants talk to aid recipients, government officials, religious and secular leaders and business owners to find out how aid has affected their community in both positive and negative ways. Their findings are available online with reports by country here and by topic here.

Conduct your own listening activity

If you have the time and opportunity conduct a listening activity in your own community. Visit the local homeless shelter, food pantry, or any other area that interests you and ask permission to interview aid recipients. Ask open ended questions about the different types of aid they receive, how they feel about it, how it could be done better, and the positive and negative impacts of aid. While there ask to interview aid agency staff to find out what challenges they face, what issues are common to that type of aid, what they like or dislike about other aid agency or government programs, and how could things be done better. Next visit government offices to find out their opinion of local aid projects. This could be a government office providing similar services, providing different services in the same area, or an office related to aid such as the state office of consumer protection. Which programs do they feel have the greatest impact, what are some common problems, what is their ideal solution? Finally, visit the communities where aid recipients live and ask store owners or people in the park for their opinions. What do they feel works and what is not working, what could be improved? By interviewing a wide variety of people about the impact of aid, donors and potential aid workers not only gain knowledge of aid issues, but they also practice skills needed for conducting a needs assessment.

Become a long term volunteer or staff at a local aid agency

Regardless of whether the aid is local or international, good aid practices are the same and the problems faced delivering aid are similar. Before traveling half way around the world to solve a social problem somewhere else, learn about aid by helping in your own community. Not only is this a great opportunity to develop skills, knowledge and contacts, but it’s also a safer environment in which to learn. Trying to learn about aid while in a foreign culture speaking a foreign language is far more difficult.

Sit on a community planning board

For a different perspective sit on a community planning board. I’ve been on both a city parks and recreation planning committee as well as a county land use planning board. Because the government has to meet the needs of all it’s citizens, these boards must accommodate a variety of needs with a limited budget. Understanding this perspective is important because aid agencies very often work with government offices that have even fewer resources and greater needs.

Read about the realities of aid work

Reading this post is a great start, related posts on this blog include:

Overseas volunteering: Guideline 1, Guideline 2, Guideline 3, Guideline 4
Beggars can’t be choosers – but are they really beggars
Hamburgers for Hindus
How to determine if an aid project is a good idea

Other blogs that discuss the realities of aid include:

The Road to the Horizon – How to become and aid worker

Aid Thoughts

Tales from the Hood:
Taxonomy of aid
It only feels kinky the first few times
The things no one tells you
When not to innovate
Welcome to Machine
Regulation anyone?

Owen Abroad

Blood and Milk

—–

I’m happy to include any other posts people want to suggest.

Craving beef I stopped by a McDonald’s in Indonesia looking for a hamburger. I was surprised at the menu filled with fried chicken and only one hamburger choice. Both McDonald’s and international aid are affected by market forces. At McDonald’s local tastes of the diners affect what’s on the menu. In international aid the “menu” is often based on the taste of the donors and senior management, not the diners.

A hamburger analogy

Imagine aid as fast food. In a top down or “donor led” model, here are some things that could go wrong.

• The restaurant is paid to make hamburgers, but the local people are Hindu and don’t eat beef
• The villagers will eat hamburgers but they prefer chicken, which is cheaper
• The villagers can’t pick up their hamburgers because they are only served from 9 to 5, which would mean missing work
• The restaurant was built ten miles away from the village and it’s too far to walk every day
• To save administrative costs the restaurant is only open one day a week. Villagers are expected to pick up enough food to last a week, however, without refrigeration the meat quickly goes bad.
• An opportunistic family sends each child in separately to pick up enough food to feed a large family and sells their extra food to families not so “fortunate”.

“Donor led” vs. “Owner led”

In donor led or top down programs, donors or senior management determine what type of aid will be provided and to whom. Unfortunately, they are often unaware of the needs and limitations of each location receiving aid. If there is no feedback loop programs may waste money and even do more harm than good.

The following excerpt is from CDA’s issue paper The Cascading Effects of International Agenda and Priorities compiled from listening exercises in 13 countries.

People also resent assistance that is pre-determined and inappropriate. They say things such as, “NGOs are inflexible in the types of assistance (they provide)…it is top-driven and is simply channeled down to us.”  “Some international NGOs come with their own agendas and are driven and influenced by the priorities set by their donors.”

One Listening Team summarized what they had heard, noting “There are common complaints that NGOs take a blanket approach and arrive with pre-planned programs.” Another suggested that, “NGOs are often bound by rigid proposal submission deadlines set by donors and this hinders their ability to consult communities.”

Listening Teams have heard many people express their anger at the arrogance of outsiders who pre-determine need in categories that they feel are biased and inappropriate in their society, or when they apply programming approaches that have been developed elsewhere in quite different contexts. Some used the word “insulted” to describe how they felt when NGOs brought pre- packaged assistance such as very low microcredit loans and training programs based on employment opportunities in other countries rather than their local economy and markets.

In “owner led” projects, aid recipients pay a key role in determining what type of aid will be provided and how it will be distributed. In addition to the programs being developed to meet local needs, it also gives aid recipients ownership of the program, which increases the chance that the projects will be survive once the aid agency leaves.

MANGO (Management Accounting for Non Governmental Organizations) outlines Two Golden Rules for managing aid agency field work.

1. NGOs have to maintain a respectful dialogue with the people they aim to help.
2. NGOs depend on their field staff and have to empower them to make good judgments.

The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership – International (HAP-I) has developed a system for training and certifying aid agencies that are accountable to those they aim to serve.

“HAP certifies those members that comply with the HAP Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management, providing assurance to disaster survivors, staff, volunteers, host authorities and donors that the agency will deliver the best humanitarian service possible.”

To ensure that the aid we give does the good we intend, we have to stop giving hamburgers to Hindus. How can we break out of the common top down, donor driven, aid model to ensure that aid recipients voices are heard and aid programs are developed accordingly?

Related Posts:

Beggars can’t be choosers, but are they really beggars?

Who deserves to receive aid?

The photo is of the blog’s author at D-TRAC. The blue folders are filled with information on different aid agencies responding to the tsunami.

Choosing the right aid agency can be a daunting and frustrating task

Without adequate information or guidelines, many people choose aid agencies based on name recognition, speed of implementation, or percentage spent on administration. Unfortunately, none of these are real indicators of the quality and appropriateness of aid.

To ensure that your donation has the greatest impact, it would be far better to choose aid agencies that are actively adopting best practices developed within the aid world.

Background on common aid problems

If you’re unfamiliar with these best practice initiatives or the history behind their development I would recommend starting in one of two places.

To understand villagers’ perspective on aid visit the Listening Project website. Listening activities are field based research with multi-agency teams. They visit villages that have received aid and ask villagers, government officials and religious leaders about the positive and negative affects of aid on the area. The CDA website has 13 country reports as well as issue papers examining problems common to all locations.

For over overall evaluations of relief efforts, visit ALNAP.

ALNAP’s website includes lesson papers as well as yearly meta-evaluations.

Principles and Guidelines

The following are some of the key principles and guidelines developed to improve the quality and impact of aid. Links to more efforts to improve aid can be found on this blog’s sidebar.

• The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership – International (HAP-I) has developed principles of accountability to help aid agencies ensure that the people that receive aid are active participants in every step of the process.

• MANGO (Management Accounting for Non Governmental Organizations) has a new financial health checklist “The Health Check is a simple set of questions, specifically designed for small and medium sized NGOs. It comes complete with explanations, and can be completed by any member of staff or trustee.”

• The Principles of Partnership are guidelines endorsed by the Global Humanitarian Platform to help ensure that local aid agencies are treated as real partners in the recovery process.

• Good Humanitarian Donorship principles were developed for donor countries, but many of the guidelines can be used by foundations and corporations as well.

• People in Aid has a code of good practices to help agencies “enhance the quality of their human resources management.”

These and other best practices have been created in response to endemic problems within international aid. Unfortunately, with no regulating body overseeing aid, following best practices is purely voluntary. Donors are key to the adoption and success of these initiatives.

While it is a fact that the rate of disasters is on the rise, it has yet to be proved that increased donations from wealthy countries to international aid will improve disaster recovery.

In a recent report titled The Right to Survive: The humanitarian challenge in the twenty-first century Oxfam argues that due to the increasing rate and severity of natural disasters there is a need to increase funding for international aid to $42 billion per year. While I agree with many of the ideas in the report, I disagree that increasing donations is a good solution. At least not until fundamental changes are made to how and when that aid is provided.

Natural disasters are occurring with greater frequency and severity.

Factors contributing to this include:

• Population growth leading to more people living in marginal areas.
• Climate change changing weather patterns.
• Environmental degradation leading to the destruction of natural barriers such as mangrove forests.

Recent disasters

Without using statistics it's easy to see this increase in disasters, just look at the number of disasters that have occurred since the 2004 Southeast Asia Tsunami. There was the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, the 2008 cyclone in Burma/Myanmar, the 2008 earthquake in China, and the recent earthquake in Italy. And these are only those disasters that make it into mainstream media. Just in this month Reliefweb reported on natural disasters in Gabon, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Burundi.

Although the number of natural disasters is on the rise this does not necessarily mean that a significant increase in donations from wealthy countries is required. Just because a disaster occurred does not automatically mean that international assistance is needed. International aid should only be given if the local government and civil society are unable to adequately address the needs.

With the current problems in disaster response, it would be far better far better to change current practices and decrease waste before requesting more money. The outpouring of donations after the tsunami led to numerous incidences of duplicated projects and other common practices that wasted overall funding.

Could Thailand have recovered from the tsunami without the help of international assistance?

Yes, Thailand could have recovered on it's own. After the tsunami villagers began planning how they would rebuild their lives while huddled on mountainside waiting for the water to recede. According to the Listening Project, most villagers had never even heard of an aid agency before hundreds of them descended upon the area.

The Thai government specifically stated that they did not want international assistance. Thailand is wealthy enough that it is a donor country. It made no sense to receive international aid while at the same time donating money to assist with development and disaster recovery in other countries.

Even though the government specifically stated that it did not need international assistance, aid poured into the country anyway. This led to many instances of money wasted on unnecessary assistance provided by well meaning aid agencies.

This photo is of the blog's author along with volunteers sent to assist with medical and construction projects. They quickly discovered, to their frustration, that Thailand had a system of health clinics readily accessible to most people for a small fee. There was no need for additional medical assistance.

Problems caused by a flood of aid

Often termed "The Second Tsunami", over 200 aid agencies flooded into tsunami affected areas of Thailand. The competition for funding as well as prime locations and "sexy" projects led to hit and miss reconstruction. Some families received very little while others received far more than needed. The lack of coordination between aid organizations and the government only increased the problem. On my final trip up the coast I found people still living in temporary camps without the hope of receiving a home while other families were able to manipulate the system and
receive multiple homes. This unequal distribution created jealousy and animosity between families that had been neighbors for generations, weakening the social network relied upon in times of need.

Media and international aid agencies can create the impression that international aid is needed

All too often disasters are sensationalized by the media and the international aid world. This creates the impression that international organizations must come to the rescue. Here is a quote for the World Disasters Report 2005 on the myth that survivors are 'victims' dependent on external aid.

Before investing more money in international disaster relief we need to reevaluate when and how aid is given

The rate of disasters is rising and there will be instances where international assistance is needed. However, before beating the drum for more donations from wealthy countries, the international community would do well to reevaluate when and how to best help. Throwing more money at the current system will only perpetuate problems with waste and unnecessary aid.

Misconception #1: Aid recipients can’t be choosers

Those who say beggars can’t be choosers mistakenly assume that people that receive aid are begging for help and therefore any aid is helpful. The truth is that most aid recipients are not out begging for assistance, instead aid agencies have decided to provide assistance for a variety of reasons – which will be the topic of another post.

Misconception #2: Any aid is better than no aid

The second misconception is that all aid has either a positive impact or no impact on those that receive it, therefore there’s no harm done even if the project is not successful. In truth aid recipients invest in the aid they receive whether it is time, money, political capital or penalties paid for receiving aid. If aid is useless or, in some cases, harmful then the aid recipients are worse off than they would have been without aid.

I thought of this as I was building my garden last weekend. I had invested several hundred dollars in materials and two full days labor to build raised beds. For the fill I needed a mixture of vermiculite, peat moss, and compost. My neighbor, a “master gardener”, offered to give me compost which I happily accepted. But instead of the fine, soft, dark brown compost I’d been anticipating, a wheelbarrow full of a gray, slimy, clay-like substance was set down in front of me. I smiled and thanked them for their offering and actually debated using the foul mess. But I couldn’t bring myself to do so because using it would have done more harm than good. I’d invested far too much to destroy it in an attempt to be polite. The sayings “don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”, and “beggars can’t be choosers” floated through my mind as I worked. I realized that although the compost was given to me, I was not a beggar and therefore had the right to be a chooser. I also realized that I did not have to accept this “gift horse” just because it was given to me.

I was reminded of all the “gift horses” that had been given to Thai villagers after the tsunami. They were not out begging for assistance, and in fact were already planning to rebuild their lives as they waited for the water to retreat. Most had never even heard of aid agencies until hundreds of them descended upon the area bearing an assortment of recovery gifts. Each of these gifts required an investment from the villagers.

This photo is of Thai’s harvesting fish at an ecotourism project. Despite a substantial investment of time and effort on the part of the village the project never became financially viable. When I last visited the village all attempts at ecotourism had ended because many families were no longer willing to put the time and effort into a project that may never work. Photo by Saundra Schimmelpfennig.

Receiving aid requires time

One of the biggest investments aid recipients had to make was their time. Following the tsunami parents often spent less time with their children than before the tsunami. Although they wanted to be home with their families they felt compelled to attend every meeting called by aid agencies for fear of not missing out on assistance if they stayed home. With some villages having as many as 20 different aid agencies leading project meetings were often. In addition many projects required villager time in implementing, a furniture building project required villagers to learn how to operate tools and build their own furniture. Although villagers were interested in this project many could not do it because the aid agency only opened the shop during working hours. Villagers complained that to participate would mean missing a week’s worth of work and potentially losing their job because they are absent.

Receiving aid may require an investment of money

Another investment villagers make is in purchasing supplies needed for the aid project. One aid agency taught villagers macrame, which was not a big seller. Another organization taught villagers to weave baskets from colored strips of plastic, once trained the villagers bought all of their own supplies. The baskets sold as long as there were aid workers and disaster tourists willing to buy them. Later on the market for items made by tsunami survivors died out and villagers were left with unsold baskets and a lost investment in strips of plastic.

This photo is of a tie dye project done in the same village as the ecotourism project. This project also collapsed when there were no longer an aid workers or disaster tourists to sell too. When I last visited the building built for tie dying was abandoned and each family had many goods in plastic bags that they could not sell. Photo by Saundra Schimmelpfennig

Receiving aid may put the aid recipient at risk

There are parts of society that may not be pleased with aid projects and may punish those involved in them. In Three Cups of Tea the village had to give up cattle to appease a powerful group unhappy with a school that would educate girls.

An even greater punishment for involvement in an aid project came from the government itself. An  aid project worked covertly with locals to develop ways to bypass a government imposed block to the internet to allow free access to information. The government discovered this and, according to one of the project staff I spoke with recently, every local person involved in the project was now either dead or imprisoned.

The potential price aid recipients pay to receive aid should be factored into all aid decisions

Aid recipients do pay a price for receiving aid. They are not passive recipients of foreign largess, nor do they want to be. We would do well to evaluate the potential cost to villagers against the potential benefits before beginning any aid project. Villagers are not beggars, therefore they have the right to be informed choosers.