Update: This has quickly become my most popular post as a feed in from MetaFilter. It has lead to some really strong reactions. Unfortunately, the links to not include this response post from Jina Moore: http://ow.ly/2tvKe where she corrects many mistakes I made. I followed up to her post with this: http://ow.ly/2tvCO that addresses where I still disagree and where I have now seen that I made a mistake. It also acts to flesh out some of my thoughts that started here. So, I welcome all new visitors and encourage you to read the two companion posts. Comments are great and I hope you will see that I really want to learn more through this. Please stay respectful and let's try to see if we can learn from each other. Tom
Update 2: I have created a post based on the lessons I have learned through this process and Aaron Ausland writes a great reflection that calls for 'moderate elitism' which should be read as well.
Update 2: I have created a post based on the lessons I have learned through this process and Aaron Ausland writes a great reflection that calls for 'moderate elitism' which should be read as well.
The Washington Post featured the story of Mark and Naomi Hughes in their Sunday edition. It tells of the ‘life changing trip’ the two made through East Africa that lead to their realization that students needed bicycles to get to school.
Students were often late because they were walking distances from two to 10 miles and would arrive exhausted. In a village without electricity, the long walk home also meant that they frequently arrived after dark and had no light to study under. And because the nearest secondary schools were even farther away, many children couldn't go at all.
The solution to the problem came to the two in the form of buying bikes. (It must be noted that one smart thing they did is buy local bikes so that it gives business to the local economy, reduces un-necessary costs and does not run into the problem of bringing in bikes that cannot be repaired). They even developed a clever scheme for raising the money; donate 10 percent of the fees earned through their grooming business, donate all tips, and encourage clients and employees to participate.
Entirely missing the way it can be demeaning, they named the newly created nonprofit Pets for Pedals. Yup, that is the name. The article goes on to praise them more and talk about how they donated 45 bikes last year and hope to donate 100 this year.
Here are where the problems come into play. You must be asking how the 45 were distributed by this point. Simple. A lottery. 22 boys, 22 girls and a coed drawing. So, 45 kids went home one day with a bike from the white heroes, while the majority returned home likely upset they did not win (remember, these are kids).
What happened after the lottery? Article does not say, but let’s do a little hypothetical.
The children return home to families who were unable to afford bikes for the child to go to school. So, this means that they only have a bike for the father/mother to travel to work or do not have one at all. The families without bikes rejoice as they just came into a free bike that will now be used by the father to travel around and child will continue to walk. Those who have no need for the bike and are smart will probably sell the new bike or one of their old ones for a profit. Some might get to keep the bike for themselves, but it will be just a handful. A few bikes will turn into scrap metal as it might be more valuable to some, others will fall into disrepair and be sold because they cannot be maintained. When the Hughes return to the school to see the bikes, they will see many lined up outside of the school. The head teacher and principal will tell the children to talk about how great the bikes are and offer profuse thanks to the Hughes when they come. More bikes will be given away via lottery and the same cycle will continue.
Credit has to be given for the innovation for raising money. The Hughes have found a great way to raise money for a cause they deeply believe in. They should definitely continue this practice as it is a way to connect with more people with each dog they groom. However, the program itself seems to offer little in terms of real solutions. They should join up with existing programs that are providing projects that are proven to be sustainable.
--------------
What is more disconcerting is the fact that the Washington Post featured this in their Sunday Edition. There needs to be better reporting than this simple feel good story. The narrative of life is far too complex to reduce to something as simple as the story of the Hughes family. Maybe I am completely wrong about my assumptions and leanings, but there is nothing in the piece that works to reduce these concerns (and, before a Kristof like argument finds its way in response, let’s stop pandering to people and assuming that they would not be able to read an article that includes more of the impact of this program). There seems to be a much lower standard for development and aid reporting that editors continue to OK and journalists keep on writing. Enough of this poor work.
13 comments:
I don't think that the 'problem' of children's tardiness is what compels folks like these to act. When any Westerner experiences the socio-economic reality of the global South for the first time, most feel the need to 'do something'. Few acknowledge that it is their own inability to act, their own need to be needed and/or their unconfronted internalized guilt, that is the true problem they are trying to solve. These are also the very same people who are the most defensive of any criticism or of their own aid failure. At the root of this anger, I believe, is but a wounded heart.
With these types of travel trips only increasing, how can the global aid community harness this 'energy' for the greater good? And when will the media world acknowledge it is not the duty of aid professionals to conduct due diligence on journalists' behalf. These professionals are out out in the field, blogging only to educate the rest of us on how to be better practitioners. Time for the traveler saviors and journalists of the world to pony up to the same standard.
There's some context that's really important for you to understand. You lambast this article as "development and aid reporting that editors continue to OK and journalists keep on writing." But this is NOT development/aid reporting. It may be ABOUT development and aid, but you have to pay attention to a few things which are about how news is done. The way a newsroom structure works has a lot to do with the kind of product that comes out, and I think we should have a little empathy for that.
Here are two things to think about:
--what's the dateline? Loudon (Virginia).
--in what section of the newspaper did the story appear? "Local Living."
Those answers tell you something important: This is a domestic features assignment, not an international aid story. Maybe you'd rather see this done as an international aid story, but I would rather see the budget for an international aid story taken up by something more substantial.
So why did this article happen the way it did? Keeping those two questions in mind:
1. Local lifestyle sections are the bread and butter of Sunday newspaper editions; that's part of why people buy them, is to kick back and read a soft feature about something in their neighborhood that doesn't make the tighter cut of hard news during the week. There's a business model to Sunday editions, and say what you will about the fledlging business model of news, it has worked for a long time (and the world of newspaper subscriptions aren't actually as dire as some would lead you to believe, but that's for another time).
2. That's why it's datelined Virginia. This is not a story that seeks to tackle aid; it's a profile of a local couple who tried to do something that sounds good. It's not fair to fault a suburban reporter, who probably rarely gets a chance to write anything interesting, for lacking reporting that takes on-scene presence, including reporting out the hypothetical you write. This is local journalism in a newspaper with a national reach; you're confusing the two.
3. The better question, then, is should newspapers publish these features without a chance to verify the impact of the work of the people they profile? That's a worthy question, but I'm pretty sure you're never going to get newspapers to say no to a nice Sunday feature about a couple because it can't go verify where the bikes went --- especially with news budgets for international travel being so abysmal.
4. The best way to help better international reporting is to subscribe to a newspaper, thereby providing it with a useful revenue stream that it can use to help pay for the reporting you ask for, or to mail them a check earmarked for exactly that. You probably can't write it off your taxes, but it might help.
There are good reporters trying to do what you and Anonymous demand. This article does not and could not set for itself the kind of standard you describe. So take it easy on us, ok?
I can understand your hypothetical.
After working for a few months in SSA last year, I met up with a former colleague who had just arrived to do a three-week evaluation for a program on bikes and health care delivery. He seemed incredibly optimistic, that the evaluation would prove giving bikes to local health workers would improve access to drugs and health services. My response: "Uh, do you actually SEE the bikes? How do you know they weren't sold or used for other purposes?" (Oh, the cynicism of the crushed idealist).
A month or two later, a woman who claimed to have participated in one of my trainings stopped me several times on the road, asking for money after telling some heart-wrenching stories. When I asked my local counterparts about this, they were quite wary: "If she were in trouble, she would have asked her family and community, not a mzungu. We take care of our own."
I mention both scenarios as elaborations on this and Jina's post. Should we have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to programming? Of course. But to completely admonish its potential based on hypothetical misuses is another brand of paternalism that those in our field claim to abhor. As Jina and my counterpart express, people take care of their own.
All this being said, I think the Hughes should implement some evaluation mechanism.
Thanks for your comments KP.
I think you are right. A balance needs to be struck. If every idea, like this one, is laughed off as silly and ineffective it becomes an exercise of sorts in being strident.
I attempted, maybe could have been better, to point on the positives in what the Hugues are doing. Namely, their choose method for raising money and awareness is brilliant. It does not place a large burden on them, it is not over the top, it involves the community and allows them to spread awareness of the issue by connecting over a shared interest: pets.
I went with the worst case because I saw groups come through a local orpahanage while I was in Kenya where they would feel great about the things they brought but never see them through. The kids' toys would break, the footballs would be used as soccer balls, and it kept going.
I hate to be so cynical when it comes to these things, but seeing how they ended up providing more to the givers, I have a hard time not seeing it as a bit of a self-serving activity.
Also, DM me on twitter, I think I know who you are but at least want to be sure to engage you in these discussions in the future.
Thanks
Jina,
Thanks for your comments and response post. I have responded in kind and look forward to continuing this discussion.
Tom
interesting, food for thought, realities of both sides need to be considered. It's never black or white is it?
...if only it was that simple
Thanks for your comments angelica. If you have not seen it, go check out Jina's response, my follow up response, and her ultimate question of who should determine how aid is distributed. Would love to get some of your thoughts on that topic as well.
Thanks again and I really enjoy your blog.
Tom
You shouldn't give African kids bikes or toys, lest said gifts break or be misappropriated?
What about giving bikes to poor kids here in the USA? Their parents might sell them and use the cash to buy pirated DVD's, you know. And what of middle-class kids, whose parents might hook little Ashley's ride and take it to Starbucks? Oh my god I gave a toy helicopter (which can't be fixed locally) to my nephew for Christmas... he said thank you, but now I see how demeaning it was.
THEREFORE let it be resolved, that forthwith all dog-grooming tips should be forwarded to accredited representatives of the international development community. With moral clarity undimmed by "unconfronted internalized guilt", they can use it to replace their aging laptops, or perhaps to defray travel expenses for aid conferences. Unfortunately all the good conferences this year are too far away to reach by bicycle...
Thanks for your comments JcrCarter. I think you are right in many ways to react that way. The point I want to make is that there is a lot involved in making such a simple gift. I presented, and you snarked on, some possibilities where the bikes would not be used as intended. It is also possible that every kick uses his or her bike to get to school and it increases attendance, reduces drop outs and so on. There is a chance that they bikes donated can have a significant positive impact.
However, to make decisions without complete consideration is wrong at best and damaging at worst. Even in your idea of giving a gift to a nephew, did you honestly not make the purchase thinking about the quality of the product and if he would like it?
Finally, at no point do I want to suggest that every large organization and NGO has all of the solutions. There are many which are poorly run and do a terrible job. However, many are great resources and have so much experience that it is foolish to not engage them when wanting to implement a program.
In the end it is hard to strongly evaluate the Hughes' program. It is why my focus was on the portrayal of them in the story. There is much more that takes place beyond what was simply reported. To me, that can be damaging as people will continue to accept "trying" and "good enough" when it comes to actions that can have significant impacts on people.
Thanks for your comments JcrCarter. I think you are right in many ways to react that way. The point I want to make is that there is a lot involved in making such a simple gift. I presented, and you snarked on, some possibilities where the bikes would not be used as intended. It is also possible that every kick uses his or her bike to get to school and it increases attendance, reduces drop outs and so on. There is a chance that they bikes donated can have a significant positive impact.
However, to make decisions without complete consideration is wrong at best and damaging at worst. Even in your idea of giving a gift to a nephew, did you honestly not make the purchase thinking about the quality of the product and if he would like it?
Finally, at no point do I want to suggest that every large organization and NGO has all of the solutions. There are many which are poorly run and do a terrible job. However, many are great resources and have so much experience that it is foolish to not engage them when wanting to implement a program.
In the end it is hard to strongly evaluate the Hughes' program. It is why my focus was on the portrayal of them in the story. There is much more that takes place beyond what was simply reported. To me, that can be damaging as people will continue to accept "trying" and "good enough" when it comes to actions that can have significant impacts on people.
You shouldn't give African kids bikes or toys, lest said gifts break or be misappropriated?
What about giving bikes to poor kids here in the USA? Their parents might sell them and use the cash to buy pirated DVD's, you know. And what of middle-class kids, whose parents might hook little Ashley's ride and take it to Starbucks? Oh my god I gave a toy helicopter (which can't be fixed locally) to my nephew for Christmas... he said thank you, but now I see how demeaning it was.
THEREFORE let it be resolved, that forthwith all dog-grooming tips should be forwarded to accredited representatives of the international development community. With moral clarity undimmed by "unconfronted internalized guilt", they can use it to replace their aging laptops, or perhaps to defray travel expenses for aid conferences. Unfortunately all the good conferences this year are too far away to reach by bicycle...
I can understand your hypothetical.
After working for a few months in SSA last year, I met up with a former colleague who had just arrived to do a three-week evaluation for a program on bikes and health care delivery. He seemed incredibly optimistic, that the evaluation would prove giving bikes to local health workers would improve access to drugs and health services. My response: "Uh, do you actually SEE the bikes? How do you know they weren't sold or used for other purposes?" (Oh, the cynicism of the crushed idealist).
A month or two later, a woman who claimed to have participated in one of my trainings stopped me several times on the road, asking for money after telling some heart-wrenching stories. When I asked my local counterparts about this, they were quite wary: "If she were in trouble, she would have asked her family and community, not a mzungu. We take care of our own."
I mention both scenarios as elaborations on this and Jina's post. Should we have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to programming? Of course. But to completely admonish its potential based on hypothetical misuses is another brand of paternalism that those in our field claim to abhor. As Jina and my counterpart express, people take care of their own.
All this being said, I think the Hughes should implement some evaluation mechanism.
There's some context that's really important for you to understand. You lambast this article as "development and aid reporting that editors continue to OK and journalists keep on writing." But this is NOT development/aid reporting. It may be ABOUT development and aid, but you have to pay attention to a few things which are about how news is done. The way a newsroom structure works has a lot to do with the kind of product that comes out, and I think we should have a little empathy for that.
Here are two things to think about:
--what's the dateline? Loudon (Virginia).
--in what section of the newspaper did the story appear? "Local Living."
Those answers tell you something important: This is a domestic features assignment, not an international aid story. Maybe you'd rather see this done as an international aid story, but I would rather see the budget for an international aid story taken up by something more substantial.
So why did this article happen the way it did? Keeping those two questions in mind:
1. Local lifestyle sections are the bread and butter of Sunday newspaper editions; that's part of why people buy them, is to kick back and read a soft feature about something in their neighborhood that doesn't make the tighter cut of hard news during the week. There's a business model to Sunday editions, and say what you will about the fledlging business model of news, it has worked for a long time (and the world of newspaper subscriptions aren't actually as dire as some would lead you to believe, but that's for another time).
2. That's why it's datelined Virginia. This is not a story that seeks to tackle aid; it's a profile of a local couple who tried to do something that sounds good. It's not fair to fault a suburban reporter, who probably rarely gets a chance to write anything interesting, for lacking reporting that takes on-scene presence, including reporting out the hypothetical you write. This is local journalism in a newspaper with a national reach; you're confusing the two.
3. The better question, then, is should newspapers publish these features without a chance to verify the impact of the work of the people they profile? That's a worthy question, but I'm pretty sure you're never going to get newspapers to say no to a nice Sunday feature about a couple because it can't go verify where the bikes went --- especially with news budgets for international travel being so abysmal.
4. The best way to help better international reporting is to subscribe to a newspaper, thereby providing it with a useful revenue stream that it can use to help pay for the reporting you ask for, or to mail them a check earmarked for exactly that. You probably can't write it off your taxes, but it might help.
There are good reporters trying to do what you and Anonymous demand. This article does not and could not set for itself the kind of standard you describe. So take it easy on us, ok?
Post a Comment