Common donor misconceptions

This post has been moved to Good Intentions' new website. Click here to read the post.

Comments

[Saundra]

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

[ian beale]

"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.

[Saundra]

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.

[Maureen]

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.

[Saundra]

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

[J.]

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."