Friday, July 26, 2013

Meanwhile, a chicken was being slaughtered on the other side of my bedroom door

Disclaimer:
     Some of you may not like what I have to say. You may disagree, I may offend a bit, and I might come off a bit too harsh. This is just a blurb of what I had learned as of my third week in the field of development, followed up by an even smaller blurb from earlier today. A few months ago, I never thought I'd be writing something so critical; but then again, maybe I needed a little more criticism in my life rather than taking things so easy.

     P.S. Don't worry, laid-back Richelle is still alive and well! Just with a different outlook on some things.

The Odd Sides Of Development
     During my first three weeks of working in development, I feel as though I have already encountered many struggles within the field that are not very often talked about. And if they are talked about, then they're probably not highlighted—rather, I think that people tend to skim over these issues because they are incredibly difficult issues to overcome.
     The first is the shelf-life of NGOs. Somebody mentioned the other day that most NGOs do not last past three to five years. To me, development sounds like a rotating door of NGOs that all try to tackle really important issues; however, if the door keeps rotating, that means that nothing stays still. And if nothing stays still—at least for a little while—then there is very little opportunity to create tangible solutions. When I heard about this shelf-life I was very surprised...I feel like you always hear of these really great NGOs that are starting up, but you never hear about NGOs going under. I suppose that they shut down due to inadequate funding/sustainability or overreaching aspirations. Of course, I am making a complete generalization. There are many successful NGOs in the world and I really do believe that they serve an incredibly important purpose. I love the idea of NGOs and the missions that they serve (at least most of them). However, if the majority of them do not survive, then the effectiveness is questionable. I have to ask: If a five-year-old NGO falls down in a forest and only a few people are around, does it make enough of a sound?
     The second has to do with an organization that I've had my issues with in the past: TOMS. One for One. It sounds good! People feel like they've done a poor child some good when they buy their $44 pair of canvas shoes that fall apart in a few months. The purchasers are happy, so everything's good, right? Wrong. I know that the downside of TOMS has been discussed at length, but let me summarize it really quickly.          There are small problems (the shoe sizes of the children not necessarily being catered to, the rate at which kid's feet grow, etc.) so I will focus on my main issue with them: the last of sustainability. Suh.stane.uh.billITy. FSD's favorite word and one of the biggest things I have been/will be learning about during my time here in Kakamega. Plainly put, the shoes will be torn apart after a few good months. The shoes will get their share of wear and the rocky terrain and incredibly rainy weather tendencies are not very conducive a long life span for canvas shoes. And what happens when they are trashed? The child is without TOMS once again because they definitely do not supply shoes for a lifetime.
     If you can't tell, I may or may not have participated in a TOMS shoes distribution the other day. It's true, it does feel good to see the kids so happy when they receive their shoes! They're excited and you're glad to see them excited (and you also score a free pair along with it). I will give the company some credit: it is a very good temporary way to avoid jiggers, which is especially rampant in this area. These shoes are also better than the rubber flip flops (or “slippers”) that I see so many people wearing. Nonetheless, its long-term benefits are absent.
     While discussing my frustrations about TOMS with her, my sister helped me remember the root and branch methods of solving problems that I studied in my United States Politics class last semester. It is exactly how it sounds. When you tackle a problem using the root method, you take into consideration every single issue involved and go straight to the cause of these issues. From there, you reform. However, with the branch method, you basically just put a band aid on the issues that are going on. It is quick, clean, and easy. And this is how the majority of our problems are solved.
     TOMS is a perfect example of Western intervention using branch methods to tackle something that is caused by poverty rather than contributing to alleviating poverty. Sure, sometimes we need to have a quick-fix for some things, but do we really need it on such a large scale? So large that it takes away from the bigger ultimate goal?
     Let's wrap up this discussion about TOMS in a nice package with a bow on it: oh wait, that's what TOMS is. It's a feel-good approach to fixing minimal problems. But once the package is opened, there's nothing inside. The mystique has dissolved and now you're without a pretty put-together box.
     Whoah. Just a side note, a lot of the Kenyans I know like to speak in metaphor...I think it's contagious and I apologize. But just a little.
     This model has gotten me to think more about what makes a successful organization. TOMS is booming and incredibly successful despite its huge downfalls. So is this what it takes to become a well-known, income-generating NGO? Come up with a model that sells? Does it not have to be sustainable as long as it appeals to the masses with money? Ehh, I don't think so. I still believe that NGOs can be successful without going the way that TOMS did. It just has to have the right timing and management. What the right timing and management actually is, I have no clue. But that's okay.
     The whole TOMS thing also brings up the good ole development vs. aid debate. Which I don't really want to get into right now. In short, I have seen many organizations so dependent on external funding that if the funding stopped, the organization would follow. Which is pretty disheartening. At the same time, though, many of these NGOs are providing free and necessary services to the community that cannot otherwise afford these resources. So how do you make an income off of that? How can it really survive without the aid?
     The main lesson I've learned through my Kenyan work experience:
     Starting and maintaining an NGO is hard. Development is hard. Everything is hard and requires a balanced equation that nobody really has the answer key to.
     So that's that. That's my spiel about what I've observed in the past few weeks. It's a bit jaded, but I still have faith in the field.

Fast forward three weeks...
     I have just completed my sixth week of my internship and my position on the matter holds. I just have one more thing to add to my mini epic on sustainability and aid and development and all the good things in the world.
     I remember one day in World Politics we had a discussion about aid and the extent to which it is effective. One anti-aid stance was focused on the argument of dependency. We discussed the possibility that providing so much outside monetary help would result in the receiving end being overly dependent. Of course, when we were discussing this, I thought to myself “No way, everything's fine! Everybody takes responsibility for their stuff and there's cohesiveness in the development world!” In retrospect, I think I had too much of a sunshiney, nearly pristine and Hans Zimmermany outlook.
     As much as I hate to say it, I have proven myself wrong. There is one school community in particular that I am working with towards sensitizing their community about the health services offered at the hospital right down the street (side note: there's a large misinterpretation of what the hospital actually provides...such a gap). As I was discussing a hopeful relationship between the school and hospital in the future, the community representative began asking me about the free services they'll get and whether I'd be able to fund them or have my “people” back home fund them. Wait a minute...what?? I joked around with him and lightheartedly—but also seriously—explained to him that I am on scholarship and have to work hard to attend school. His response: “Yes, but you are in a developed country.” My internal response: “Yes, but just look at my mountain of debt.” I know that Kenya being an ex-British colony has a lot to do with the general image of mzungus, but the piles of aid doesn't necessarily help how I'm received when I'm walking through a crowd of mutatu drivers; meanwhile, a box drifts past me reading “USAID: From the American People.”
     My final stance: No, aid is not the devil. It is very necessary for programs and such to exist and run smoothly. As much as I'd like it to, the world can not function without money. But when monetary help on one side turns into dependency on expected incoming funds is when we get into dangerous territory. For an organization—or even society for that matter—to flourish, it must have the tools to stand on its own two feet, not have the tools handed to them every time. Weening is a good thing!

     Once again, we have a very delicate balance. How do we manage it? Oy, I don't know.

No comments:

Post a Comment