Good Intentions Are Not Enough

Donors must, because nobody else can

I’m often asked if Thailand has recovered from the tsunami. This is a tricky question to answer because there is no official answer, it just depends on who you ask.

If you ask the aid agencies that built houses they’ll probably say YES. They completed their houses, had a handover ceremony, wrote a final report with photos, closed up shop, and went home.

If you ask the department of land management  they’ll probably say NO. They are currently dealing with the problems caused by the four different housing projects that were built on land without a clear title.

“First they built houses, then they asked for our permission to put people in these houses but the construction was without our permission and it was on private property. 

A contest to find the worst examples of in-kind donations

Upon posting the article 5 questions to ask before donating goods overseas it was suggested to me that we should hold a contest to find the worst examples out there. So here it is....

Reply to this post with the worst examples you know of, we'll post the winners next week. I'm looking forward to seeing what we get!
-----

Related posts:
What is an in-kind donation?
The worst in-kind donations

5 questions you should ask before donating goods overseas.

In the past month I have seen three different aid agencies request donated goods to send overseas. This is always an appealing idea because it makes you feel like you’re really helping while at the same time recycling things that are no longer of any use to you. Unfortunately, it often costs more to ship goods than to buy them locally, and inappropriate donations can do more harm than good. The following are five questions you should always ask before donating.

1. Is the donation appropriate for the local climate, culture, and religion?
2. Do they actually need the donation? 
3. Are the goods available locally?
4. Will the people receiving the goods be able to afford to fix or replace the donated item?
5. Will donating this item do more harm than good?   

Bad Donor Advice Perpetuates Bad Aid Practices

The following is a copy of the comment I posted in response to the Wall Street Journal's article Charities: Tough Times Call for Smarter Giving.

While proposing to provide information on smarter giving, your article will, unfortunately, only perpetuate poor donor practices. I’ve addressed some of the problems with the advice given in Ask Before You Give.

Question 1 – What portion of spending goes to programming (versus operational costs)?

The reason this question doesn’t work:
Although it seems to make sense that the higher percentage of money spent on programming the more money goes directly to those it is meant to help. However, this has not been proven to be true. Operational costs are needed to ensure the money gets where it is most needed. Needs assessment, which are an expensive operational cost, ensure that money is not wasted on building orphanages without any orphans, as happened more than once after the tsunami.

Hamburgers for Hindus

This is a modified repost from a previous month

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

Charity Ratings Based on Administration Costs can do More Harm Than Good

The recent posting Analyze This on Philanthrocapitalism stated

"In a speech at the conference, Ken Berger said that sometimes he cannot sleep for worrying that Charity Navigator’s ratings (of up to 4 stars) “may do more harm than good”. Its stars are awarded for “financial resilience”, which largely means the ratio of costs to money raised. This is widely recognised to be a lousy measure of effectiveness:, as anyone in business knows, it is costs (such as spending on recruiting the best talent, marketing etc) that often make success possible."

From my own experience tracking aid in Thailand after the tsunami, I saw many examples where an emphasis on low administration costs did more harm than good.

Good Intentions are Not Enough

Last week John W. Yettaw, an American, swam across a lake and into the compound of the Burmese Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. As a result of this thoughtless and illegal act the Burmese government have put Suu Kyi and two of her servants on trial for breaking the conditions of her house arrest, which bans visitors that have not received official permission. 

"Unaware of the problems his actions could trigger"

According to the Associated Press 

"Yettaw's family have described him as an as well-intentioned admirer of Suu Kyi, unaware of the problems his actions could trigger. Her supporters have expressed anger at him for getting her into trouble."

Suu Kyi and her two servants face the possibility of five years imprisonment. This comes just weeks before May 27th when, after six years of house arrest, Suu Kyi was scheduled to be freed.

The Allure of the Quick Fix

"Hit the ground running"

As a Crisis Corps Volunteer (part of the US Peace Corps) I was sent back to Thailand to help with the tsunami recovery efforts. Before my departure Peace Corps sent out a press release which stated:

"The three resource development volunteers will be working with local governments to determine where the greatest need lies and identifying resources to help the local communities. They will also put together a local staff to insure progress will continue after the Crisis Corps team departs."

So essentially we were to go into a government office, work with them to determine needs, develop a program, find funding and resources, implement the program, and ensure that it was sustainable - all of this in the span of just six months - there would be no extensions.

How long would it take to develop a program that solves a problem in your own community?

Would a six month program be successful in your own city? Imagine if a stranger were sent to your community from an aid agency boasting that they were going to solve a community problem. How would your community react?

Best practices often lose out to quick and cheap programs that please donors

Donations can be misused and ill-spent despite the best intentions of donors
Deciding whether or not to donate and which agency or project to donate to can be a daunting and frustrating task. Although donors choose aid agencies that they think will have the greatest impact, aid donations often are misused and ill-spent. This occurs both despite of and because of the best intentions of donors.

How does this happen?
Concerned about aid reaching those who need it the most, many donors give to aid agencies that work quickly and cheaply. Dependent upon donors for funding and survival, aid agencies feel pressured to develop programs that are fast and cheap. Unfortunately, projects with low administration costs and fast implementation rates often have unintended consequences.

Lessons Not Learned

A report just released by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies titled Tsunami - Global Lesson Learned, highlighted six key lessons learned.

"...facing the challenges of leadership and coordination, achieving equity in recovery, embracing people's participation, countering corruption and ensuring accountability, innovating in disaster risk management and the fundamental question of whether we will do better next time."

The fundamental question has to be whether we will do better next time. A quick review of evaluations and lessons learned from both Darfur and Rwanda show that these "lessons" are not new. An evaluation by the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) in 2006, describes many of the same problems found in ALNAP's Lessons Learned the Darfur Experience (2004) and the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (JEEAR, 1994). A quick scan of the findings in each of these reports shows that although major efforts were launched to improve the quality and professionalism of international aid many of the same problems still exist.