Good Intentions Are Not Enough

More bad donor advice

Tales from the Hood takes on Nicholas Kristof, author of Half The Sky, for his recent article in Outside magazine titled "Nicholas Kristof's Advice for Saving the World".

I am also critical of this article. Given his audience Kristof could have provided practical advice to donors on how to see past aid agency advertising to make wise funding decisions. Instead his only advice to donors is in the final paragraph (added on later?) where he encourages them to develop their own sponsorship programs:

"...if you're trekking in the Himalayas, come back not with stories of impoverished villages but rather ones about a particular 12-year-old girl who, if she received just $10 a month, could stay in school. Come back with photos of her—or, better, video that you put on a blog or Web site. Make people feel lucky that they have the opportunity to assist her, so that they'll find helping her every bit as refreshing as, say, drinking a Pepsi."

Orphanages revisited

I've blogged on orphanages quite a bit, but it's worth revisiting one more time with the recent articles in both the BBC and New York Times.

According to an article in the BBC:

"At least four out of five children in orphanages around the world have a living parent, a leading charity says."

According to the article in the New York Times:

Experts and child advocates maintain that orphanages are expensive and often harm children’s development by separating them from their families. Most of the children living in institutions around the world have a surviving parent or close relative, and they most commonly entered orphanages because of poverty, according to new reports by Unicef and Save the Children.

In addition to the fact that most children in orphanages having living parents or contactable relatives, and orphanages being the most expensive way to care for children, there is also the issue of orphanages offering children for foreign adoption. Just because an orphanage offers foreign adoption (and often makes money from high processing fees), does not mean it's legal as two couples found out in this BBC article:

Two US couples have been jailed in Egypt for two years for trying to illegally adopt children. Iris Botros and her husband Louis Andros had been offered orphaned twins by a Coptic Christian church in Cairo. When they applied to take the children out of the country they were arrested for child trafficking.

Orphanages should only be used as a last resort, donors should seek other programs that help families care for their own children instead of institutionalizing them or adopting them away. 

-----

Related posts:

Be cautious when funding orphanages
Does funding orphanages create orphans?
Hug-an-orphan vacations

Cost efficient aid is not necessarily effective aid

There is a false belief on the part of donors that cost effective charities are the best charities. I've written about this problem in previous posts. This week a joint statement from five charity rating organizations highlighted the problems caused by judging an aid agency primarily on it's cost effectiveness. Unfortunately, it will take continued effort to change these assumptions as cost effectiveness is the focus of much that is written about aid, as can be seen in a recent Forbes feature America's Most Efficient Charities.

Just because an aid project is efficient doesn't mean it's effective or even a good idea

Rating an aid agency on efficiency means that it must minimize how much it spends on staffing, rent, mortgage, office equipment, supplies, etc... So lets apply the idea of efficiency to your own life.

To be more cost effective, build your house without a kitchen

One obvious way to decrease your own administration cost is to build your house without a kitchen. Kitchens are extremely expensive, amounting to approximately 10% of the total cost of house construction. In addition to the actual construction costs you would also save money that would otherwise be wasted on repairing or replacing broken appliances and there would be no need to throw away money purchasing dishes, silverware, or pots and pans.

Isn't it ironic

In Thailand before the influx of missionaries and other foreigners most children went around naked until puberty and after that young women wore only a sarong around their waist. In many rural villages today old women still go around with just a bra for a top. 

A Thai joke about the transition to more modest clothing goes like this; A young woman is was walking down a dirt road when a missionary yells "You're indecent, cover your breasts" frightened the young woman pulls up the bottom of her sarong to cover her bare chest, exposing her naked bottom.

Today young rural Thai women dress very modestly. If shorts are worn at all they're very long, shirts have sleeves, necklines are high. This standard of modesty meant that some of the clothing donated after the tsunami was too indecent for them to wear.

Ironic isn't it, first we import modesty standards then we import immodest clothing.

The Allure of the Quick Fix

This is an edited version of an earlier post.

"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. In six months time I was to; determine needs, develop a program, find funding and resources, implement the program, and ensure that it was sustainable. All of this had to be completed on time - there would be no extensions. 

Here is the press release:

"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.

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

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 and how long would it take for that stranger to be successful?

Kiva, Heifer International, the American Red Cross, and donor trust

In the debate over Kiva's misrepresentation of how their funding system works much of the discussion has focused around how honest aid agencies can and should be with donors. My argument has always been that we have to be honest and ethical about what we are doing and that it is the responsibility of aid agencies to educate donors on good aid practices. If you want to tie this to a fundraising campaign that creates a personal connection that's fine, but you have to be honest about the extent of that connection. Informal feedback from donors these last few days says much the same thing.

Thoughts on Kiva's information sharing practicies

One of my followers on twitter who both gives to Kiva and tweeted my post deceptive advertising had this response to the controversy:

"I knew that's how Kiva works. I also sponsor children via Children International and that monthly payment also goes into the big pot." "I hope nobody stops lending via Kiva, but they might want to be more up front about their practice."

Thoughts on Heifer International's information sharing practices

As Heifer International has also been brought up in this debate, most notably on Sasha Dichter's Blog, I contacted my brother for his thoughts. He's a  regular donor to Heifer and a few years back for Christmas he made donations of animals in all of our names. I asked him if he understood at the time that his money went into a communal pot and might not have been used to buy those exact animals. His response was similar to the previous response.

"I have always been well aware of Heifer’s disclaimer.  I always figured that the money would go into to a pool to be best used by the NGO, as individual donors probably don’t have the scope or necessary knowledge to know where to best donate the funds.  However, by being able to pick out something like a flock of ducks, two lambs, and a pig, you get a more tangible feel for what your donation is purchasing.  I guess it helps you feel more connected."

Beggars can't be choosers - but are they really beggars?

This is an edited version of an earlier post.

Common beliefs on aid are often based on misconceptions

"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth", "beggars can't be choosers", and "they had good intentions" are platitudes I often hear when I talk about inappropriate and even harmful aid projects. Those who say beggars can't be choosers mistakenly assume that all 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.

Mosquito nets, condomns and recycling

This is a repost of an edited previous post

From the Kenyan newspaper the Daily Nation:

Mosquito net manufactures are teaming up with the provincial administration and village elders in several parts of Kenya in an effort to apprehend and prosecute people who use the products for purposes other than covering beds.

According to Dr Elizabeth Juma, who is the head of malaria control under the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, there has been evidence of people turning the nets into fishing gear especially in Nyanza Province. Now a different group has discovered another lucrative business venture, and are using the nets to make wedding dresses.

Upon reading this news clip in William Easterly's blog "Aid Watch", I was reminded of the training in teaching condom use that all Peace Corps volunteers in Thailand were required to attend due to the rampant AIDS problem in Thailand. In the old days volunteers used bananas in the demonstration but switched to wooden replicas when they discovered that some participants went home and actually put condoms on bananas thinking it had some sort of power to keep them safe. Therefore, I was not surprised to learn that mosquito nets are being used for fishing nets and wedding dresses.

The importance of donating to local aid agencies after a disaster

Recently I saw an appeal on Twitter for donations to the Taiwan typhoon. The appeal was from Global Giving whose website states: "Global Giving connects donors with community based programs that need support". I have a few questions to ask Global Giving before I would be willing to endorse or donate to them (I would recommend you always consider these same questions before donating to any disaster, these questions will be the focus of my next posting), but I am all for community based programs and was happy to see that Global Giving may be able to direct funds to those local agencies.

Support local aid agencies whenever possible

Local and national aid agencies are in a great position to respond after a disaster but all too often lack the funding needed to respond adequately or to be a key player in the planning and coordination of the disaster response. Currently post-disaster funding is far more likely to go to international aid agencies with name recognition and user friendly English language websites. This funding differential leads to a myriad of problems for local aid agencies.

What to look for when evaluating an aid agency

When people hear I'm writing a book on aid I immediately get asked about specific aid agencies they gave to. Unfortunately, I cannot tell them the quality of those aid agencies without spending time to research them. What I can tell them is how they can research the aid agency themselves.

Evaluating aid agencies before donating is critical

If you don't have time to research an aid agency, then I would suggest not donating. There is no body that regulates aid and no outside entity ensuring that the aid agency is providing quality aid or working in the best interest of those you want to help. Without properly vetting an aid agency before giving, you risk your donation being used on programs that may do more harm than good. To ensure that your money is doing the good you intended you have to look past aid agency advertising, name recognition, and "happy stories", and instead look for evidence that the aid agency is following best practices and constantly improving their organization.