test blog

Look at Matt!

testing for Nancy

It was good enough for my grand-daddy.

-- The development of charitable organizations

From my childhood, my parents and grandparents taught me to know and practice the golden rule. In fact, I learned a lot about how to be a ‘good person’. When I was a young adult, I dreamed about going to a “poor country” and “helping” people there. In my mind this involved giving people clothes and food, helping out at a clinic – the obvious.

As I grew and matured, I learned the meaning of “naïve.” I realized I couldn’t go to a country already having decided what would be helpful to the people who lived there. I did the kind of travelling and research that exposed me to practical cultural differences. The realization was alien and obvious at the same time. Any help given without first learning a common language and gaining insight into the lives of local people would be as effective as giving a computer to someone without electricity.

This trip to Guatemala has showed me that I’m not alone.

The charitable agencies (or NGO’s - Non-governmental Organizations) in Guatemala are going through a similar metamorphasis. Starting in 1984, numerous agencies flocked to Guatemala to aid the plight of the war-affected indigenous peoples.

Initially, the common practice of agencies was to send personnel to the target village for a RRA (rapid rural assessment). This was a five-day period where village needs would be assessed. After the RRA, funds would be raised, materials would be collected (e.g. a water pump) and then the agency would return to the village. The pump would be installed, two or three local people would be trained on its operation and then the agency ‘team’ would leave.

There were two problems with this approach. One was sustainability. Often thought did not extend past the initial offering of “would you like a pump or a school building?” There was no discussion of the impact on the village or the future sustainability of the offering. For example, might village ‘B’ down the river resent the fact that village ‘A’ had a pump? Once the school was built, did the villagers have the knowledge necessary to apply for a government teacher or the resources to provide supplies for the school?

The number two problem was giving. Things are valued more if they are earned. We all know this. The lack of “ownership” among the villagers often meant that things were not maintained, not repaired or were taken and used for other purposes. Many agencies lacked the resources to return to a project so often they were not aware that their ‘success’ was short-lived.

That’s definitely how I would have done it, when I was 22.

So, it’s 2007 now. What’s changed?

There’s a body of scholarly work on third world development. Masters degrees in several developmental programs are available in many countries. The actual reality of what happens in the field is crawling its way into the tree-shaded campuses of academia. There are students who graduate and go to the field and then say “does this actually work?” Taco and I have seen some of those methods in place in the Agros projects in Mexico.

With all this new knowledge, why isn’t Guatemala better off?

It’s all because of grand-daddy. It worked for him didn’t it?

Many NGO’s are so well-established that they have lost their flexibility. They are slow to adapt themselves to more effective means of program implementation. The corporate structure is a top-down structure, slow to listen to field staff, even when concerns of misapropriations of funds are raised. Due to what they perceive as public demand, they assess success in terms of results per year without auditing their long-term progress.

Real progress means that something different has to happen. Have you ever tried to introduce a difference into your life, change a habit? Have you tried to exercise regularly, or change your diet? It’s hard, even with all the gyms, exercise videos, and personal trainers available to us. Imagine how hard it is for a remote village of subsistence farmers to make a fundamental change in their way of life without ongoing support.

In poor villages in Guatemala, the knowledge that things can be done differently often does not exist. When the knowledge does exist, resources and support are hard to find. When the resources and support are there, most people have difficulty thinking beyond the problems of the moment. With the help of NGO’s, villagers can choose to change their lives. The question is, will that change last?

As you could probably guess, most of the help is needed initially, with that need tapering off as community members assume responsibility for the changes they want. The trouble is, much of the “help” that is needed is simply time spent educating and mentoring people as they negotiate obstacles to achieving the future they want. Unfortunately, for them, most donors do not want to know that “an agricultural technician spent six months on followup visits to 30 villages.” Donors would prefer to read that “80 percent of cattle have been inoculated for foot and mouth disease.” Do you see the problem? That’s 80% for this year - and that happened because the inoculations were likely done by the NGO. What about next year? Have the farmers been trained to assess their own animals? When they do, are they trained to give adequate care? When they need medicine, do they know how to apply to the appropriate government programs for assistance? If the government is slow to respond – do they know how and who to talk to in their local municipality? Do they understand the kind of beneficial financial implications that an organized animal husbandry program could have for them? If the farmers do not have legal proof of land titles, do they know how to get it?

Finding answers to these questions won’t require a continuous NGO presence. But regular contact will be needed over a period of years. NGO workers are willing to do this work, but the program goals set by their funders in the US and Canada won’t allow them to.

It is because of this fact that many foreign workers in NGO’s have reluctantly changed their expectations. Because the programs they conduct are shorter than they would like, they watch over and over as a change occurs for a brief period of time before old conditions re-assert themselves. When I asked one program coordinator what kind of effect she thought her organization was having, she said she feels that there is an impact on children. “I hope that they will remember a time of change in their lives as they were growing up. When they start to make their own choices, they will have had the benefit of knowing different roads. Because the programs have limited impact, any lasting change will take many generations.”

So NGOs what is your answer? Are you going to stop stumbling over the same ground over and over again? What’s more important – providing easy answers to make donors feel comfy or doing what is best for the people you are purportedly trying to help? Can the world afford to wait a few more generations?

So donors, what’s your answer? Are you going to demand some real facts before you spend your money? Or will you select an NGO based on last year’s performance? Few NGO’s are all bad – but do you want to accomplish 30% of what needs to be done – or 90%?

I loved Grand-daddy. But he’s dead now. It’s time to move on.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Bornstein, David. How to Change the World: Social Entrepeneurs and the Power of New Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Using Eggs to Make Electricity

Where's the refrigerator?


Not necessary.

Yes, yes, those ARE eggs.

But apparently eggs DO NOT NEED refrigeration!

Why don´t we eggstrapolate for a minute... Heh Heh Heh

In Canada and other eggstremely germ-o-phobic countries, we could save tens of thousands of of kilowatt-hours of energy if we didn´t store eggs in refrigerators. Imagine that! Talk to your grocery store!

-----

P.S. Wal-Mart... oh Waaal-Mart... This is a subsidiary of yours in Coban, Guatemala called Pais. Since you´re being all nice and green these days, why don´t you do this in Canada and the USA too?