UP | uncultured project

Just noticed this was the banner ad displaying on the “Change the Conversation: In Photography” blog post from yesterday…

I’m sure if you search my Flickr archive, you might find a few stoic & frowning kid faces too. I’m by no means an expert (or the standard-bearer) for how to photograph and film the poor. But, is there like some rule a charity ad can’t feature a smiling kid?

“NGOs come to the village here to take pictures of people. At church, at the market, on the road, at meetings. Only people who are dressed poorly.”

That’s what Edward Kabzela of Malawi said – and he’s not alone. Whether I’m traveling to Kakamega in Kenya, a rural village in Bangladesh, or a local food bank in Los Angeles – everybody hates being portrayed as poor and needy.

I’ve been inspired to write about this again because I just stumbled across this blog post by a fellow Canadian by the name of Duncan McNicholl. As Duncan puts it – in many respects – charities are like a business.

For a charity, their “revenue” is your donation dollars. And most of them think that the best way to get your donation dollars is by portraying the poor as objects of pity. They’d rather show you a picture like this:

Photo by Duncan McNicholl

Instead of a picture like this:

Same person, photo also by Duncan McNicholl

It still surprises me how many people, charities, and organizations still don’t get it. In fact, I’ve debated this with good friends of mine – some suggesting my portrayal of poverty is overly cheerful and glossy (with the exception of stuff involving disasters).

But my rebuttal is this: I’m only allowed to portray those I film & photograph as they wish to be filmed & photographed. Sometimes, especially during disasters, they want me to capture their sorrow. But, most of the time, the poor may want our help – but they don’t want our pity.

Less than 24 hours ago, Apple surpassed Microsoft to become the world’s biggest tech company. As someone who used to spell Microsoft with a dollar sign, I can’t believe what I’m about to say: this is a bad thing for the world.

The only thing I love more than Apple is what I use my Mac gear for: fighting poverty in developing countries. In this regard, unlike Microsoft & Bill Gates, Apple & Steve Jobs don’t seem to care much about poverty and global development.

One runs the biggest tech company in the world, the other is a global leader in fighting poverty.

Before starting this project, I really wasn’t aware of just how much Microsoft was doing in the fight against global poverty. I’m not even referring to Bill Gates and how he has used his own personal wealth to create The Gates Foundation.

As a company, Microsoft is hugely invested in fighting poverty. They partner with charities that keep aid workers connected during disasters, they invest in global health initiatives that save lives, they match employee donations, and much more.

And, as I learned after the earthquake in Haiti, Microsoft even has a disaster response team to provide assistance after natural disasters – with technology, equipment, & even funding. This is mind-boggingly unprecedented from a for-profit.

NetHope (a charity Micorsoft has partnered with) provides connectivity for relief workers in Haiti.

In fact, in the three years I’ve been doing this project, it seems like virtually every aid & development contact I’ve made in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas seems to have (or knows of) someone who can help them from Microsoft.

The same cannot be said for Apple. In fact, to this day despite all the contacts I’ve made, I have yet to find a single person who knows anything Apple has funded or supported in the fight against global poverty.

In fact, when I started this project back in 2007, I placed a formal written request to see if Apple would help me through either lending or donating Apple software or gear. Their response? They don’t do that kind of stuff.

Click to read full letter.

I was also very lucky to meet some high-ranking Apple employees & engineers during my trip to San Francisco late last year. Unfortunately they too confirmed to me that, with one exception not related to poverty, Apple simply doesn’t have any programs which focus on charitable giving.

Until that changes, Apple will never truly surpass Microsoft.

I’ve been doing this for over three years now. And, together, we’ve done a lot. As I try and figure out how to sustain this project and continue this journey for the long-term, you might be wondering, why don’t I just register as a (non-profit) organization? Isn’t becoming an “NGO” or “NPO” just a tax status? Here’s five reasons why I disagree & dislike the idea of becoming an organization…

5) Creates Two-Tier Donors: This project was born on the internet. On the internet, everyone is equal. If there was a way I could register as an organization so that every donor – from anywhere in the world – could get a tax write-off, I would. I don’t see the point in giving one country special preference and turning a project – born out of a global online community – into something which is skewed (or becomes more skewed) to one particular country.

4) Requires Working Under the Radar: Most developing countries have different requirements for those visiting as an individual vs those coming to work as part of an organization. Some charities, like World Vision, Save the Children, & the Red Cross, invest millions of dollars to register, form a legal presence, and hire a permanent staff in all the countries they serve in. Many smaller organizations simply fly-in & work under the radar. I don’t have millions of dollars, don’t have a need to hire a permanent staff, and don’t want to disrespect the laws of the countries I visit.

3) Takes the Fun out of Fundraising: As an individual, I don’t have a bottom line and I have relatively low overhead. As an organization, I’d need to raise funds – not just to register – but to sustain the organization itself. You’d be surprised at how expensive it is to run even the smallest organization – and how breaks like pro-bono lawyers are few and far between. I don’t want to create something that requires me to pressure you to donate in order to reach some preset funding requirement.

2) Hinders Community Democracy: I wanted to give 10,000 lbs of food to the LA Food Bank. Whose permission did I ask? Yours. I wasn’t sure if I should build a Pond Sand Filter. Who made the call? You. If I was an organization, that power would be vested in a Board of Directors – not you. The ups and downs of this project have taught me this: I never want anything – or anyone – to have veto power over you guys. There is, of course, one exception: the people we are trying to serve on the ground.

1) Limits Trust-Building on the Ground: The number one question I get in Bangladesh is whether or not I’m an organization. Most rural Bangladeshis have had negative experiences with organizations and have seen NGO corruption first hand. This maybe why they get so excited when I tell them I’m just a guy. Simply not being part of an organization seems to foster trust, approachability, a willingness to brainstorm, and interaction with you guys (who I explain are my friends back home who support my work).

What I’ve learned in Bangladesh is that, as just a guy, I add value to any existing organization. Locals see me as an independent voice – one whom they can approach with their ideas, suggestions, and even complaints (and, yes, I do address and resolve their complaints – albeit not always publicly). Meanwhile, the online community sees me as their direct line to both those they help and the good they have funded.

I don’t have anything against organizations. In fact, why can’t organizations that have already done all the hard work to formalize, reap the benefit from someone like me (as an independent individual)? This is why I try so hard to pitch the idea of teaming up to multi-national organizations. It’s also why I wish foundations & funding sources supporting initiatives like mine wouldn’t brush me off just because I’m not a tax-writeoff.

Because doing good is more than just a tax status.

A little over a month ago, I wrote a blog post about how I feel that charities can be fortresses and how it seems impossible to team up with them at times. Sometimes things can have a fairy-tale ending and this definitely feels like one.

Since writing that blog post, I’ve been talking with Wendy Harman at the American Red Cross. If I were to describe Wendy in one phrase it would be this: she gets it. The Red Cross is very lucky to have someone like Wendy who understands the nuances of online communities and social media.

Beth Kanter, Me, and Red Cross's Wendy Harman

So does this mean I’ll be teaming up and doing stuff with the Red Cross? It’s way too soon to say. The Red Cross is a big organization and they have to consider everything from funding, logistics, ethics, legalities, and a million other things I can’t even think of.

I just had a high level meeting with Red Cross staff. One thing we discussed is that teaming up like this is definitely new ground. So, here’s my advice to anyone who might find themselves in the same boat as me:

• Timing is Key: Don’t go rushing to team up with a charity because you’ve seen some problem or tragedy in the news. The time when you want to team up the most is usually when they are the least able to consider it.
• Don’t Push an Agenda: Don’t try and force your way of doing things down the throat of a charity. There needs to be a give and take. Remember, if you’re asking for a charity to change, you may need to change how you do things as well.
• Remember the Bottom-Line: A charity’s job is to help people. Even if you have a good idea, it has to take second place to helping people. If the cost-benefit is such that it takes even a fraction away from helping those on-the-ground, don’t be surprised if they have to say no.

If you’ve followed this project for a while, you know I haven’t always kept these three points in mind. Consider this learning from my ups and downs as I’ve muddled through all this

At the end of the day, the Red Cross can still say no – but that doesn’t matter. Not being a fortress doesn’t mean saying yes to everything. A charity can be open to new ideas and still say “no”. The key is how wiling a charity is to look into, explore, and seriously consider doing new things.

And, on that front, I can honestly say the American Red Cross is already a leader.

When I was building the Pond Sand Filter in Barguna, Bangladesh, I decided to scout out and see what the condition of other recently completely water projects were like. What I saw shocked me.

A leaking & broken faucet from a Pond Sand Filter left in disrepair in rural Bangladesh

Most of the completed water projects under community control were in disrepair. Even things like faucets & knobs – things easily fundraised & replaced by villagers – were left unrepaired.

At the same time, the same villagers were each saving up so that they could each have a cellphone and many were trying to save up to have a television or radio in their house.

Did these villagers not care about clean water? Were they too lazy? Unmobilized? The answer? They just wanted to be on par with their neighboring villages.

It turns out many of the neighboring villages didn’t receive clean water support from a charity. So, even if the Pond Sand Filter in this particular village failed, they’d still be on par with their neighbors.

Because drinking unsafe water was the norm, it didn’t seem like a loss. But, because cellphones were becoming ubiquitous in other villages, villagers were saving up so as to not be left behind.

This is important. What this shows is that how we progress as a society is based on our impetus to keep up with others – and what we feel will become (or is already) ubiquitous.

I mention this now because I recently read an article by New York Times author Nicholas Kristof. In it he mentions that:

Much suffering is caused not only by low incomes, but also by shortsighted private spending decisions by heads of households.

NY Times Author Nicholas Kristof

In the article he points to parents who buy booze & cigarettes – instead of tuition for their kids. Or families who spend money on cellphones – instead of mosquito nets.

His conclusion is that aid & development agencies need to “try to redirect the family money now spent”. I agree with Mr. Kristof – but he’s mistaken a quirk of human society for individual irresponsibility.

If you want families to invest in their children’s education – let’s first make education standard and ubiquitous for all. Granted this burdens the developed world with the cost – but we don’t have to fund this forever.

Even if a single generation gets the taste of universal education and grows up where everyone around them is educated – it will be sustained. Why? No village would ever want to be the first to slide back from that progress.

Not only that, but if education isn’t sporadically distributed, it is easier to see the correlation between education & success. It only takes the proper investment in one generation to create role models for the next generation to follow.

(As a side note, Americans spent $8 billion on cosmetic products – but it only costs $6 billion to provide free education to every child in the developing world. So it’s not like we can’t afford to do what I’m suggesting.)

Similarly, if you want to make it so every water project is sustained by a local village, make sure every village gets clean water. No village will want to be the first one to start drinking brown water again.

(As a side note, Europeans spent $11 billion on ice cream last year – but it only costs $9 billion to provide clean water for every single person who doesn’t have access to it right now. So, again, we could afford this if we really wanted to.)

We often fail to imagine the complexity of living in poverty. For most people living in extreme poverty, clean water, childhood school education, and a malaria-free life are luxuries.

And, when it comes to how we buy luxuries, we always do so in a way that keeps up with the Jonses. Which is why Bangladeshis villagers I met bought in cellphones instead of clean water and the Congolese villagers Mr. Kristof met bought booze instead of school tuition.

Writing this blog post was a bit tough because Mr. Kristof is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner – and I’m a graduate school drop-out. He’s the gold-standard for articles & thoughts about global poverty.

But, in this particular case, I respectfully disagree with his POV.

Christopher Fabian is the Co-Leader at UNICEF’s Innovation Team. Today he wrote this interesting blog post. Here’s a (slightly edited & typo corrected) excerpt:

Imagine if a large organization could put out its project plans in a way that was appealing to comment on.

Imagine if there was transparency and accountability of ideas in development.

Imagine if there was involvement of donors and implementers – and (watch out!) the beneficiaries of projects.

Imagine if we could actually ask people in the developing world what they thought of projects before we started them.

Hello! *waves hand…. points at project* Oh wait, I should probably post some examples:

Imagine if a large organization could put out its project plans in a way that was appealing to comment on.

Imagine if there was transparency and accountability of ideas in development.

Imagine if there was involvement of donors and implementers – and (watch out!) the beneficiaries of projects.

Imagine if we could actually ask people in the developing world what they thought of projects before we started them.

UNICEF is one of the many organizations I’ve been trying to team up with. I would love the opportunity to get UNICEF (and staff like Christopher Fabian – whom I actually met and talked to about my project earlier this month) beyond just “imagining”

P.S. The last video which mentions that a Pond Sand Filter last two years is actually a bit off. Since then I talked to an engineer who told me that a community-maintained Pond Sand Filter (maintaining = releasing the waste valve, rinsing the sand, etc) will last 10+ years.