Comments on: 1-800-How’s My Spending?

By: avam

avam — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:27:46 +0000

Re: My above post on SwiftRiver – see also:

http://blog.ushahidi.com/index.php/2009/04/09/explaining-swift-river/

By: avam

avam — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:51:15 +0000

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.”

By: Leah Ambwaya

Leah Ambwaya — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:44:22 +0000

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.

By: Word_Bandit

Word_Bandit — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:10:09 +0000

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.

By: Marc Maxson

Marc Maxson — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:41 +0000

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).

By: It’s a fair cop « Swahili Street

It’s a fair cop « Swahili Street — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:03:09 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: David Zetland

David Zetland — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:25 +0000

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.

By: Dennis Whittle

Dennis Whittle — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:23:43 +0000

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.

By: Bob Macdonald

Bob Macdonald — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:58:35 +0000

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!

By: avam

avam — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:18:43 +0000

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.