Local people are the experts on whether they are being well-served by a development project or organization.
This observation, simple on the face of it but downright revolutionary in its implications, is at the heart of the story presented by Dennis Whittle of GlobalGiving at last week’s NYU conference on the privatization of aid.
Local people may be the experts, but for outsiders deciding where their donations can do the most good, getting access to local knowledge and acting on it appropriately requires real-time feedback loops that most aid projects lack.
Over a little more than a year, GlobalGiving combined staff visits, formal evaluation, third-party observer reports called visitor postcards, and internet feedback from local community members to create a nuanced, evolving picture of a community-based youth organization in Western Kenya that had received $8,019 from 193 individual donors through the GlobalGiving website.
Initially, youth in Kisumu were happy with the organization. Among other things, the founder used the money to fund travel and equipment for the local youth soccer team. But the first tip-off that something was going wrong came when a former soccer player complained through GlobalGiving’s online feedback form that “currently the co-ordinator is evil minded and corrupt.” The view that the founder had begun stealing donations and was stifling dissent among his members was expanded upon by other community members, visitors to the project, and a professional evaluator.
In the end, a splinter group broke off and started a new sports organization, and the community shifted their support to the new group. Reflecting the local consensus, GlobalGiving removed the discredited organization from its website. Marc Maxson and Joshua Goldstein, the authors of the case study, write:
We consider this story a seminal case because it illustrates that true community building is neither tidy nor predictable, but is nevertheless possible when feedback facilitates a dialogue….Rapidly spreading new technologies, particularly mobile phones, and SMS-to-web interfaces (e.g. twitter), now allow villagers to report continuously on project progress, and ultimately to guide implementers.
Just having the technology to create the feedback loop isn’t enough to make it happen, though. GlobalGiving first had to explicitly tell beneficiaries that they wanted to hear from them, and then spread the word effectively (through bumper stickers in this case).
In this story, the community consensus seemed clear. Of course, you could easily imagine another scenario in which the real-time feedback loop elicited wildly contrasting opinions, or provoked concerns about who was telling the truth, whether you were seeing a truly representative sample of opinions, or who might be promoting some hidden agenda. We wouldn’t want to dismiss these considerations, but we’ll happily take problems in aggregating or verifying feedback over the alternative, which has for far too long been very little feedback at all.
10 Comments
Still no accountability.
Did Globalgiving refund the 8019$ to the 193 individual donors? Did they take the alleged thief to court?
No, they moved on to the next project, asking for more donations. Until the next manager pockets the free cash. This project might even be worse, now the managers learned how to game the rules…
I do not see any difference between this and billateral aid moving on to the next silver bullet project.
By the way, I see legally disturbing behavour of this organisation.
On the basis of rumours, hearsay (oh, it’s called “feedback” in the aid jargon, cool)
and the opinion of a “professional evaluator” (Waw, there are nice jobs in the aid sector, where should I send my job application? Can I fly first class to Nairobi? How much is my per diem?)
they punished an innocent (because not-yet-convicted) person.
Being party and judge in the same proceedings,
waw,
they don’t like human rights anyway.
I’ve got to say, I think gekonomist makes some fair points here. What is the difference, when you get down to it, from the funds being moved to another org at a local community level – or, as gekonomist writes, “between this and bilateral aid moving on to the next silver bullet project.”
I would also be sceptical about the benefits of things like twitter etc – yes, the twitter posts may reflect well founded issues (re corruption), Or they may be (local) party politics in another form. Changing the form of communication won’t change the underlying issue (corruption, bad governance etc), unless the new organisation has a clear charter of some sort/regulations (and even then, it’s still not going to necessarily make a lasting difference if, at a ground level in that area, local community involvement is polarised in any way).
I think the dev field suffers when (it often seems!) every new story/paper that comes out it stated as the next holy grail – “This observation, simple on the face of it but downright revolutionary in its implications”. Maybe I’m missing something, but in the field work I’ve done, and that done by colleagues/friends – and the subsequent discussions we’ve had – I can tell you the observation made by Global Giving is not an unknown idea. The issue, as far as I can see, still remains – what’s the main difference in the long-term once the funds have been moved? Does the new org work better, the same – worse?
However, I do think Global Giving is an important and innovative organisation.
I find this a fascinating debate for many reasons: I think the concept of goal-oriented development has already been proven over and over again as a sound approach to economic and social development. What has sadly occurred over the last ten years has been an over-complicating of the issue by a tsunami of NGOs (never so many in human history!), and gimmicks and trend-chasing that have turned much of aid and development into a rolling huckster show worthy of carpetbaggers in the US South after the civil war.
I have worked in a wide range of countries and social and economic systems. And probably the best approach I have seen to date is hiring professionals who are paid a decent civil service salary, are held to modern government standards of behaviour and accountability, and who have a set time frame (2 years) to get things done. I have seen way too many NGOs out there winging it!
Thanks for all the comments on this. First, let me agree that there are no silver bullets out there – notwithstanding our natural desire to find one. Second, I want to acknowledge that there are lots of challenges to aggregating beneficiary desires and feedback. No question about that.
But if the alternative is not listening to beneficiaries and letting the experts and expert organizations decide, then I can’t agree there. I think we are getting closer to a situation where the default should be to listen to the beneficiaries – both about what they want ex-ante and about how projects are being implemented. That will – and should – be the rule rather than the exception. In some cases, beneficiary views should be the final word, and in other cases it will be used as input into decisions by agencies. But it is hard to imagine a lot of cases where it should not be solicited and play a significant role in decision making.
Finally, another dynamic in this case that made me optimistic was the reaction of donors to the transparency. GlobalGiving has what may be the first ever Guarantee – if donors are not satisfied with the use of their donation, we will give them a refund so they can use it on another project. I am unaware of any other organization that offers this level of accountability. But when we told them what had happened, they supported the outcome.
I’ve looked into this from a theoretical angle, and it makes TOTAL sense that beneficiary empowerment/feedback will increase the quality of aid. More of that, by whatever channels are available!
Read this for more.
Thank you Laura for posting, and commenters for your points.
The story is obviously much more nuanced and complex than you can fit in a summary, and I encourage you to read our actual paper. The link is found at http://blog.globalgiving.org/2009/09/16/we-are-listening-real-time-feedback-loops/
On the accountability front, I feel that GlobalGiving raised the bar here.
How much money was really “lost?” Little. $7,419 of the $8,019 came over the time period when youth claimed they were being served well by the organization.
In reality, legal recourse would have been costly, have a chilling effect on feedback, and probably not achieve the desired outcome.
Instead…
(a) we kept the donors and the people served informed throughout the process.
(b) retired the project as soon as the people served (AKA the real experts) found an alternative means of continuing the work, which was extremely important to them.
(c) offered all donors our GlobalGiving 100% satisfaction guarantee. I think only one person out of 193 used it (to allocate their donation to a different project).
I wasn’t going to comment on this, but Bill Easterly keeps advertising this post on Twitter as “What do the poor want?”
I’m not reading that question here, but since he keeps tossing the bone out to the dogs . . .
This reads to me like a bunch of haves talking about what to do for the have nots in the most esoteric terms, but what do I know.
Really, what do anyone of us want? A safe place to live, family, friends, decent water and sanitation, some creature comforts, and education, because life doesn’t mean a whole lot if you can’t communicate your heart to the world.
(Note please my educational bias here, the old liberal arts education runs deep in the blood.)
Although Dennis is a nice guy and no doubt knows these things better than myself, I’m not entirely convinced by this claim:
“Local people are the experts on whether they are being well-served by a development project or organization.”
Depends on the amount of poverty and hardship experienced by the locals.
As anyone who has ever experienced hunger and true poverty knows, long term and short term needs are obfuscated by hardship, and judgment may falter as a consequence.
Guidance and some insight might be required, beyond what people think is best for themselves . . .
poverty psychotherapy as well as economic planning.
:::::::shrugs:::::::::
Y’all are the experts in this stuff.
Which is kinda ironic.
This is a very interesting debate. I am the external professional evaluator that is refered to in this whole debate. I must say that It was may first to interaction with this organizatioon and so my interaction, observations nad conclusions were purely independed and without prejudice. we administerd a tool that was able to assess the institutional capacity of the organization and give an honest opinion as to weather they have certain capacities that will enhance the use of dondor funds for the inteneded purpose. we tested the systems, policies, engagement with benficiaries and community,governance structures and systems, reporting systems, operations and clearly there were major capacity gaps. The strength of the organization to mobilize the youth and keep them enganged in sports was appreciated in our observations nad recommendations. We would have apprectietd a capacity building initative for this organization as opposed to establishing a parallel organization. The young people were crying for greater involvement in the running of the organization and transaprency, and this should have not neccessarily resulted in the action taken. However , i wish to stake catagorically that every giver/donor/wellwisher , wants to see their funds reach the person it was intended for and not find its way into an individuals pocket. This is a problem that is widespread. A capcity assesment of the projects that are uploaded on GG site prio to funding will be the best way to go. Abit expensive at the start, but much more sustaibable and lesser problems in future. Beneficiary feedback through emails, twitter, sms name it is a quick fix, it could be riddled with vendetter and bad blood, knowing the truth and the lies may be an uphill task and difficult to assess. In future these could lead to serious and expensive legal implications/ consequences. The volunteers and field staff could double up their tasks and carry out a capacity assessment of the applicants.
I put my case to rest.
This was on BBC online yesterday – See bottom paragraph on ‘SwiftRiver’. It seems like an interesting avenue (re issues surrounding twitter accountability problems etc.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/8406509.stm
Excerpt – “What has emerged from the partnership’s report is the value inherent in information coming directly from those people involved in a crisis. “It highlights the new ‘people-centricness’ of information in disasters,” Ms Waugaman told BBC News. “It means that thanks to innovations, tools like Ushahidi, FrontlineSMS, Twitter, and Facebook, you’re seeing people becoming more and more a primary and trusted source of information in disasters.”
However, the new tools can also be used to spread false information when they are used in politically charged situations. “The challenge with this, as we found with Twitter in Tehran [surrounding the Iranian elections in June], is confusion about the authenticity of information being shared, about what was rumour and what was true,” Ms Waugaman continued.
To that end, the founders of Ushahidi are helping to develop a service called SwiftRiver that aggregates information surrounding a crisis – from aid agencies themselves down to the tweets of those affected. Further, it provides a measure of both how likely any piece of information is to be true, and if so, how important it is.”
Re: My above post on SwiftRiver – see also:
http://blog.ushahidi.com/index.php/2009/04/09/explaining-swift-river/
One Trackback
[...] It happens all the time, and Global Giving is trying to find an answer to that. It is documented here on Aidwatch. Over a little more than a year, GlobalGiving combined staff visits, formal evaluation, third-party [...]