World Vision (WV) announced that for the 15th year they are going to be distributing the unused gear from the Super Bowl loser (aka the Steelers). The announcement has stirred some discussions surrounding the choice to distribute clothing. Noting the buzz, WV has responded by saying:
Hey Readers – We’ve noted the disappointment that some of you have expressed at World Vision’s distribution of clothing the NFL donated following the Super Bowl. I’m hopeful that I can answer some of the possible misunderstandings about our shirt distributions, especially as they compare (or more accurately, don’t compare) to the efforts of groups like 1 Million Shirts (particularly as it was first starting out). As many of you know, World Vision’s work has a comprehensive scope. We do long-term development in communities where we build relationships, often for up to 15 years. Our distributions of supplies, including, sometimes, new clothing and new shoes, are not standalone projects in isolation. Rather, these supplies are tools as part of larger development strategies and are distributed under the following circumstances: · After we have established an understanding of the culture to ensure that we only send clothes and other supplies that are appropriate religiously and culturally. · After we have established an understanding of the local economy. In fact, we deliberately distribute the Super Bowl gear to several different communities in at least four different countries to ensure that we don’t flood their local markets with more supplies than the market can handle and that our distributions don’t have an adverse affect on local suppliers. · After we learn what the community members want. Because we have longstanding relationships with the communities where we serve, they are able to tell us what supplies they need and want. And because we work in more than a thousand communities in about 100 countries, we aren’t pressured to provide unwanted supplies. What is unwanted in one community is often very valuable in another. And because we’ve done this work for many years, we know the types of supplies – things like pharmaceuticals, school supplies and clothing – that are generally useful and unavailable or difficult to access in developing communities. We know that some critics simply do not like supply distributions as part of relief and development work, and we may not end up seeing eye to eye on this issue. But it is important to understand that World Vision does its supply distribution work with a great deal of study, input from our community partners where we work, and as part of a larger development strategy. Respectfully, Amy Parodi, World Vision communicationsWhat do you think? Is it overreacting to say that what WV is doing wrong? Or is WV falling into the same traps that many do when they make GIK donations to Africa? Is it possible for donations of any kind to have zero impact on local businesses? What if WV, rather than donate the clothes, sold them to local business people to then sell to their community? What if the NFL decided to sell the shirts here in the US for a reduced price and donated the money made to WV? What if merchants did not print the merchandise until after the game? Are we that impatient?
Is there a better way? My gut tells me that there is, but I do not want to claim that I understand how the entire process works from order to distribution. Because of that, I am unwilling to rail against WV for this program.
What do you think? Care to tackle any of my questions?
28 comments:
I don't think you need to have a definite answer about what would be a better way in order to assert that there IS a better way.
What really disturbs me about this program is the fact that these are shirts that no American would wear... They are, essentially, trash. As someone pointed out (can't remember where), the $2million value rests on the assumption that each shirt is worth $20. That's not true - you'd be hard pressed to sell these incorrect shirts for $20 each in the US.
To me, it seems like an elaborate scheme for corporations to get a nice big tax-break for their donation to a non-profit. T-shirts are not hard to come by pretty much anywhere in the world - it's a matter of affordability. If a community is flooded with free t-shirts, how will clothing retailers in those communities survive? By increasing their margin on the fewer products they sell? Handing things out for free is not good aid - it's "old school" unsustainable charity and perpetuates inequality between the giver and the receiver.
Look at it this way: these shirts aren't being distributed because of an identified lack of shirts in the communities. They're distributed because the t-shirt makers don't know what to do with their surplus product, and don't want to completely lose out on a return. Sounds a lot like dumping excess food crops in the developing world....
I want to find out exactly where these t-shirts are being shipped and bring a significant amount of them back to the United States so I can sell them to Steelers fans in Pittsburgh for $49.99 each. Then I will donate the proceeds to Project Diaspora to help with the expenses of the next Villages in Action conference.
I think my biggest problem with the whole thing is the way it'll be perceived by the public in the US. After a lengthy comment from World Vision to those who understand "good development", the program seems to lose some of the evil edge. But the general public, who don't have Masters degrees or work experience in the field of international development, and who also won't receive this lengthy explanation from WV, are left thinking that giving away free stuff is a GREAT thing for developing countries. And that is not a good message to send. In fact, that's exactly how you get Jasons starting their own DIY charity programs! If we're to follow Owen Barder's calls for increased public engagement in foreign aid decisions, then we need to stop dumbing down aid work and start giving people information so that they may learn, understand and decide for themselves: what is good aid?
Hello Tom,
I left a post about this topic and ruffle a few feathers, which was not my intention.
Many opinions in the aid world are violently opposed to donations for reasons such as a disadvantage to local businesses. This opinion is baseless, there are very few textiles industries in Africa (at least the region I come from)...so the donations of free t-shirt will not disturb the sale and distribution of existing clothing businesses.
The donations from World Vision is given to populations who can't affort clothing at all: some people wear the same t-shirt or clothing item all-year-round until they get a new gift of clothing.
What about those people?
Can anyone tell me what is harmful about providing a t-shirt for someone like that? Especially in the villages where folks barely invest all of their income on food, water or health care.
They don't have any funds left over to go shopping for clothing.
There's no "mall" in Bafoulabe, or Koulikoro. These are real villages with real people in them.
At the end of the day, it is easy to criticize something being done but when you really question the finger-pointing and the dust settles there is really no real or valid argument against the gift of brand new NFL t-shirts to the poor.
Donations do work when they reach the poor who really needs it, and in this case, they do reach the poor so what is the problem?
The most troubling part is that donors are being bullied by experts and that is not right...because they have the right intentions. So donors like World Vision might be "wrong" about how they're doing aid, but no one has come up with the "right way" of providing aid so far...assuming World Vision is wrong (which they are not).
My last statement is just to remember the relief that poor recipients have once they are able to get a brand new t-shirt so that they can finally throw away the same old torn-up shirt they walked around with for several years.
Folks don't really think about that because they are so out of touch with reality in Africa.
That is my one comment I think is most relevant about this topic, folks are just out of touch with African context.
I have plenty of hesitations regarding GIK, but the argument that giving something away for free is ALWAYS wrong, just because it is done in a developing country, is not convincing to me either.
A steady flow of free t-shirts might disrupt the businesses of those people selling t-shirts in some of these places. Will it disrupt profits for people selling clothes? I don't think so. The assumption that poor people will wear Steelers t-shirts in the same way they wear, say the clothes made by local tailors, is faulty.
I also think you can go back and forth for a long time discussing whether or not the fact that Americans don't want the NFL tshirts (which they do, I'm sure... hipsters will snatch those up like mad) means that they shouldn't be given away. The logic behind this is that, if we wouldn't do it in the US, we shouldn't try to do it elsewhere. BUT, I've received dozens of free tshirts in my lifetime. So are Americans allowed free, junky tshirts, but people in poorer countries are not?
Honestly though, I think this conversation is, in the scheme of things, kid stuff. Yes, we want to make sure INGOs are using best practices, but the sometimes I worry that focusing on things like tshirt give-aways can distract the conversation from weightier issues. Such as what types of projects USAID is willing to fund and where. The efficiency and effectiveness of official development assistance deserves much more focus from thoughtful experts than a million or so free tshirts.
In the comment above, Performance Consultants mentions that there are "there are very few textiles industries in Africa (at least the region I come from)", which in fact is one of the results of massive dumping of bales of second hand clothes in Africa.
This PBS video provides a in-depth look at the damage caused by clothing donations: "T-Shirt Travels" or as I think of it, "The Story of #SWEDOW" http://j.mp/eOTXly
Assuming you still want to give free tshirts to needy Africans. Shipping 100,000 shirts from Pittsburgh is not a very efficient way to do that. Just the cost of shipping, estimated by @Bill_Westerly to be $1.50 per shirt based on WorldVision's appeal for donations to cover shipping costs, could buy more than a single shirt at the already existing 2nd hand clothing market. Second hand clothing is sold in bales, with approx. 200 tshirts in a 100 lb bale, at less than $1 per lb. So the shipping cost of $150,000 could buy approximately 300,000 tshirts. Three times more free shirts than WorldVision is providing. So not only is it bad aid, it is not very cost efficient bad aid.
To add to Katherine's point, the book 'The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets, Power, and Politics of World Trade ' has an excellent chapter on the impact of second hand clothing in East Africa. I do not remember the numbers, but it is striking how the growth of second hand clothing lead to the decrease in textile industries. Definitely a book worth reading.
http://www.amazon.com/Travels-T-Shirt-Global-Economy-Economist/dp/0471648493
@ erinantcliffe - I agree with you that WV's t-shirt distribution program sends the wrong message about what constitutes good aid.
@ performance consultants - so far, most of the people who have commented on this issue (on this blog and others) are who are quite "in touch" with the reality of Africa... You assume that these shirts are going to people who "can't afford clothing at all", but there is no evidence to back this up. I'm sure WV is diligent enough in their work to select the right people in the right community, but that's besides the point. In my (humble) opinion, as I mentioned in my first comment, this is about perpetuating an unequal relationship between the West and the rest, between rich and poor - we think it's fine to dump our unwanted things on poor people, because, hey!, they have nothing. But does giving a t-shirt per year to someone really help? I don't know, my instinct is I don't think so.
@ betsie - I actually think this isn't "kid stuff". As erinantcliffe pointed out, when a massive, influential org like WV engages in this type of project, it has repercussions. What projects USAID decides to fund or not is important, but I'd argue that improving GIK standards is a very important question for modern philanthropy and poverty alleviation efforts.
Also, you can't compare getting a free t-shirt at a conference in NYC to sending a 100,000 shirts to poor communities across the world. There is something fundamentally different at work there.
@Betsie,
Yes we've already received plenty of free t-shirts - generally as swag and advertisements for products or events. Which is essentially what these t-shirts amount to. Is it really a good investment of nonprofit time, money, and staffing to ship, clear customs, transport overland, and then distribute - in a fair manner - what is essentially advertisements or swag?
There are far more important uses of staff time and aid organizations resources. These distributions take away from all of that other work for very little actual impact.
@performance consultants, I think there's an important distinction to be made in terms of the supply of t-shirts in Africa. It's correct that there aren't many textile manufacturing plants in Africa (although this is changing), but the lack of plants does not mean there is no supply. As @Katherine points out, supply comes from abroad, but in a much more efficient shipping method than that that will be employed by World Vision for a small-scale project. The idea that people do not have clothes because clothes are not available is simply unsupported by the evidence.
For anyone interested in an academic analysis of this issue, I highly recommend Olumide Abimbola's social anthropology dissertation on Ibo trade networks and secondhand clothing in Nigeria. More info here: http://loomnie.com/cv/
I spent a good chunk of yesterday wondering where in the world free t-shirts are urgently or even non-urgently needed by a community. And I was hard pressed to come up with anywhere. For me the bottom line is if it is junk here it is junk there. People love putting their junk in donation bins so they can clear some space in their closets so they can go out and buy more junk. People look up to World Vision as experts in aid- and essentially World Vision is telling people donating unwanted t-shirts is something to be proud of.
World Vision made the mistake of bragging about it on their blog. I found their let's agree to disagree response in their comments section unacceptable. If they feel so strongly what their doing is good then they need to demonstrate its value to their donors and the general public. I think it is time they are accountable for this behaviour.
First, addressing the "Why can't we wait?" question, it is clear that there is a huge first-to-market advantage in shirt sales. Super Bowl championship t-shirts are purchased in the euphoria immediately following the SB victory--waiting 4+ weeks for printing, packaging, shipping and distribution (into March Madness, when no one is talking about football) prevents you from selling to the impulse buyers. Secondly, larger price premiums can be extracted from consumers in the period immediately following the Super Bowl--they are willing to pay for the instant gratification.
What bothers me about WorldVision stepping in is the fact that they are helping companies improve their cost-benefit calculus in favour of this wasteful behaviour. By taking the factually inaccurate t-shirts (Steelers: Super Bowl Champions) as donations at the sticker price of the factually accurate shirts, you are providing a huge tax write-off for the t-shirt producer. This tax write-off makes the wasteful behaviour of producing t-shirts covering both contingencies more affordable. Then WorldVision funds and manpower must be spent to abet this waste.
The position from WorldVision that they are creating a positive externality from wasteful corporate behaviour ignores the fact that they abet the waste by giving the "donors" (should be viewed as "dumpers", imo) a tax write-off.
Hi Tom,
I’m a long-time reader, first time commenter. Thanks for this honest post. While I largely agree with most of the aid blogosphere’s criticisms of #SWEDOW, I think this program is different in a few notable ways.
- Saundra and Wanderlust question if the shirts could sell for $20 in the U.S, and say there is “indignity” in giving them shirts Americans don’t want. Have they ever heard of a garage sale? Just because one person doesn’t want something doesn’t mean it isn’t useful to another. It's still perfectly good clothing. As a big sports fan, I’m sure that there would be plenty of Steelers fans (and probably Packers fans as a way to spite the Steelers), and others, who would pay for the novelty of such a shirt. Regardless of what they would sell for in the U.S., I don’t think that should determine whether they be distributed in Africa or not (I realize Saundra’s post was more on the financial motivations of GIK).
- Wanderlust and others suggest using this as an opportunity to convict the American public of their “disgusting wastage on such a symbolic level.” But let’s be realistic, as Jorve points out, it’s good business to have both items on hand. Businesses are out to make money, and anyone who’s ever taken an econ class knows that means balancing acceptable risk and investment. Besides, couldn’t you also make the argument that printing 100,000 extra shirts is providing work to whoever is doing the printing?
- The NFL is not legally allowed to sell the inaccurate gear in the U.S., and if they were, wouldn’t they keep the profit for themselves? From a development perspective, obviously investing money in long-term programs is preferable than shirts, but in this case the only other option is that the shirts are destroyed. Would Wanderlust and Saundra prefer that?
- I think there’s also something to be said about the value of PR and the awareness it raises. While I agree that oftentimes NGOs sugar-coat the information or only tell half the story, at least some of the story is getting told. These organizations have to pick the lesser of two evils: Be completely realistic about programs and thus not appeal much to media and donors, or work on incorporating their work into pop culture and at least getting people thinking about these issues. I realize much of the aid blogs are idealistic in this regard, but sometimes you need to face reality. (Cue righteous indignation from other bloggers).
Just my 2 cents.
--Francisco Allman
@Penelope and @Saundra,
I apologize for being unclear. I don't think the fact that, as Americans, we receive free t-shirts is a good excuse for handing them out to people in poorer countries. I'm comparing the logic behind this question to the logic behind critiquing t-shirt giveaways because Americans wouldn't wear them. There are a lot of strong, convincing arguments against GIK, but the argument that because Americans wouldn't wear it we shouldn't give it away, is not one of them.
@Jorve,
One thing you are forgetting is that the IRS now requires Charitable organizations, like World Vision, to deduct a charitable gift's fair market value if there is one. I can't say for certain (cause I haven't looked) but I am pretty sure that there is a fair market value to these shirts. So the NFL will have that deducted from their gift.
Tom-
Lack of time, can't read what was posted prior so forgive me if I repeat something. Having WV recognize that they may have messed up after the 'flood' of responses they have received is a start. But they are in denial. As the comment stated, they cater to the communities 'needs and wants'. Well, if I lived in poverty and a white person offered me a free t-shirt, would I say no because I have a few shirts at home? No! People will always say yes to free shit, period. I guess I am just anti-disaster relief aid/religious-based NGOs
Travis Warrington
A great post and thank you for providing a different perspective on the situation, rather than just launching into the "it's bad aid" tirade, which really, should be very obvious. Most of all to World Vision. As others have pointed out elsewhere, apart from the pragmatic problems associated with under-cutting locals, the message this initiative sends out is completely wrong. Both for the recipients of aid and for the general public in the States. No wonder so many people have the misconception that "aid doesn't work", when it is portrayed as a one way exchange between a paternalistic benefactor and pitiable recipient. These sorts of programs are a real slap in the face for the empowerment model of development that is needed.
I hope people will comment with similar energy on some of your other great posts on more important topics!
As a lawyer, I can see this as an unusual situation involving intellectual property--not really a great paradigmatic example for people to play Hatfields and McCoys about SWEDOW or surplus clothing more conceptually.
If the excess shirts were from the Mississippi State High School Basketball Championship, they would be surplused in the ordinary course. In the U.S., the NFL will consider them damaging to its brand, but doesn't have that problem in Africa because of lack of mutual interest (as of 2008 the Nation didn't even report the score of the Super Bowl, much less cover the NFL).
It's just too bad that there weren't an extra 100k World Cup shirts. Assume WV would sell those if someone donated them!
I hope people will comment with similar energy on some of your other great posts on more important topics!
As a lawyer, I can see this as an unusual situation involving intellectual property--not really a great paradigmatic example for people to play Hatfields and McCoys about SWEDOW or surplus clothing more conceptually.
If the excess shirts were from the Mississippi State High School Basketball Championship, they would be surplused in the ordinary course. In the U.S., the NFL will consider them damaging to its brand, but doesn't have that problem in Africa because of lack of mutual interest (as of 2008 the Nation didn't even report the score of the Super Bowl, much less cover the NFL).
It's just too bad that there weren't an extra 100k World Cup shirts. Assume WV would sell those if someone donated them!
First, addressing the "Why can't we wait?" question, it is clear that there is a huge first-to-market advantage in shirt sales. Super Bowl championship t-shirts are purchased in the euphoria immediately following the SB victory--waiting 4+ weeks for printing, packaging, shipping and distribution (into March Madness, when no one is talking about football) prevents you from selling to the impulse buyers. Secondly, larger price premiums can be extracted from consumers in the period immediately following the Super Bowl--they are willing to pay for the instant gratification.
What bothers me about WorldVision stepping in is the fact that they are helping companies improve their cost-benefit calculus in favour of this wasteful behaviour. By taking the factually inaccurate t-shirts (Steelers: Super Bowl Champions) as donations at the sticker price of the factually accurate shirts, you are providing a huge tax write-off for the t-shirt producer. This tax write-off makes the wasteful behaviour of producing t-shirts covering both contingencies more affordable. Then WorldVision funds and manpower must be spent to abet this waste.
The position from WorldVision that they are creating a positive externality from wasteful corporate behaviour ignores the fact that they abet the waste by giving the "donors" (should be viewed as "dumpers", imo) a tax write-off.
I don't think you need to have a definite answer about what would be a better way in order to assert that there IS a better way.
What really disturbs me about this program is the fact that these are shirts that no American would wear... They are, essentially, trash. As someone pointed out (can't remember where), the $2million value rests on the assumption that each shirt is worth $20. That's not true - you'd be hard pressed to sell these incorrect shirts for $20 each in the US.
To me, it seems like an elaborate scheme for corporations to get a nice big tax-break for their donation to a non-profit. T-shirts are not hard to come by pretty much anywhere in the world - it's a matter of affordability. If a community is flooded with free t-shirts, how will clothing retailers in those communities survive? By increasing their margin on the fewer products they sell? Handing things out for free is not good aid - it's "old school" unsustainable charity and perpetuates inequality between the giver and the receiver.
Look at it this way: these shirts aren't being distributed because of an identified lack of shirts in the communities. They're distributed because the t-shirt makers don't know what to do with their surplus product, and don't want to completely lose out on a return. Sounds a lot like dumping excess food crops in the developing world....
I know this is an old post, but I have a nagging question related to it.
I am becoming well-versed in the problems with ineffective charity. I'm learning more about the ways to do partnership with the poor right, holistically and with dignity, focusing on felt needs, root causes, and empowerment rather than giveaways, "charity" and "Whites in shining armor". But something interesting to me is that some of the very formational people in giving me this holistic view, such as Bryant L Myers and Jayakumar Christian, are themselves rather big within World Vision, and many of the models that focus on learning from communities and empowering them were developed within World Vision. Is World Vision just such a big organization that they're not being fully transformed by voices like Myers and Christian? Is there a disconnect between their work at the local level, which may be great, and their donor campaigns, which may be flawed? Or are they potentially really doing it the "right way"?
They should really do something about this since it's causing trouble. Thanks and I hope they would figure out a plan.
When you are in a crucial financial situation and rightfully would not have the money to pay off the government, there is a method called Currently Not Collectible that you may qualify for. The offer will not be available for anyone, this can be very tough to be accepted in it, and in fact it is exclusively after the IRS has evaluated all your financial paperwork that they'll make a choice about the status of the case. If you think maybe there's a chance you're capable to submit an application for the program, look at the requirements here: http://www.tax-defense-network-irs-programs.com/tax-defense-network-currently-not-collectible/
What I don't get is that it's not as if that flood is some water damage milwaukee that they have to really be distressed about. They could have just added more manpower to assist in the situation.
In fact, major professional sports should do this. The NBA, MLB, NFL and MLS could do their share with this idea.
spot on with this write-up, i like the way you discuss the things. i'm impressed, i must say. i'll probably be back again to read more. thanks for sharing this with us.
Lee Shin
www.trendone.net
Post a Comment