Haphazardly Trying to Make the World a Better Place. Inspired by my time as a student at the University of Notre Dame.
When it comes to international aid and development, we are all biased. It doesn't matter if you're a donor reading pamphlets, a celebrity or YouTuber endorsing your favorite NGO, a journalist interviewing villagers, an academic outside of the ivory tower, an experienced aid professional talking about "good aid", or even a free agent trying to be a bridge-maker. There is nothing nefarious about this fact. We as human beings, while capable of untold capacities for empathy, will never have a complete verstehen and fully imagine the complexity of others. This is important because the arbiters of what is and is not ...
My thoughts on how charities need to drop the guilt is getting tons of views. But the question remains: how does a charity drop the guilt? Can they do it overnight? Cold turkey? As I mentioned some charities, like the US-branch of Save the Children, have already stopped using "poverty porn". I'd like to share something I've talked to them about behind closed doors. I guess you can call it a 5 Step Program for NGOs using guilt:
[caption id="attachment_3629" align="aligncenter" width="473" caption="A Charity Guilt-Ad Currently Airing in Canada"][/caption] It's 2011 and we still live in a world where many charities think that the best way to raise funds to help those in need is by using guilt. This needs to stop and here are three reasons why:
This year I’ve been talking a lot about the “Digital Divide”. But what is that? And why does it matter? The “Digital Divide” is basically a term to describe the technological gap which prevents the poorest of the world’s poor from participating in global online conversations that are occurring on the internet. This is important because what we are doing on the internet is starting to have the power to shape our politics, our governments, our economies, and our own personal priorities, opinions, and tastes. If the poorest of the poor are excluded from these global conversations, we can only use the internet ...
A Charity Guilt-Ad Currently Airing in Canada
It’s 2011 and we still live in a world where many charities think that the best way to raise funds to help those in need is by using guilt.
This needs to stop and here are three reasons why:
Continue reading ’3 Reasons Charities Need to Drop the Guilt’
We need to bridge the digital divide because the people who can best speak for the poor are the poor themselves. What does that look like? Well, meet Eric Sheptock. He advocates for the needs of the homeless in America. Is he some expert or aid worker? Nope. He’s actually homeless himself. He’s able to connect with the world (and has way more fans and friends on Facebook than I do) thanks to a donated laptop and some free wifi.
What struck me the most when I uploaded this video is that so many people leaving comments were actually homeless themselves. Which brings me to another point. When the poor in developing countries start speaking for themselves as easily as you and I are able to upload something to YouTube, you can be sure that some of them might have a thing or two to say about charities which use guilt-based advertising.
Yes, this is a real ad campaign by KFC for Double Down sandwiches.
Let’s say some fast food restaurant is running a slick and savvy ad campaign that’s caught my attention. When I go to buy their food, do I complain that part of the price they are charging me is meant to cover part of the cost of their ad campaign?
What if I get a heart attack after eating all that fast food? Should I complain that part of the hospital bill goes to covering the doctor’s salary so he can earn enough to repay his student loans and justify spending all those years in med school?
As consumers, we will always be paying for expenses over and above the goods and services we directly benefit from. The same is true for charity: there are expenses over and above the help that any individual or community directly benefits from.
This is a no-brainer to everyone reading this. But I feel I need to state the obvious because what I’ve been saying about trackable donations and charity overhead has been misunderstood by aid bloggers who have stumbled across this project.
I’m not saying that overhead is bad. I’m not saying that overhead isn’t required. I’m not even saying that charities need to reduce overhead. What I am saying is that there is value in charities considering a different approach to covering overhead.
They should consider this because this matters to a lot of people.
Jason Sadler
Inspired by some recent comments on this blog and tweets, I’d like to talk about the direction I feel this project needs to be going. And it starts with the story of Jason Sadler.
Jason Sadler is an entrepreneur who has successfully used social media to generate fame, attention, and wealth for himself through his business called I Wear Your Shirt. Hoping to use his momentum on social media, Jason decided to form his own non-profit organization.
Jason’s non-profit was about providing free clothes to people in Africa. He called his organization “1 Million Shirts” with the goal of getting people to donate 1 million used shirts which he would then ship to needy families in Africa.
A lot of us donate our gently-used clothing to local good-will. And, when I’m overseas, I often find myself parting with some of my favorite shirts because I find people who could benefit from them more than I could. But, on the scale Jason was aiming to do, this could do more harm than good.
Click the jump to read more…
When it comes to filming & photographing, I always try and learn from the professionals. I recently discovered superstar photographer “Joey L”. Joey’s worked with some big names (The Jonas Brothers, Usher, NBC, FX Network, Warner Music, and the Salvation Army).
Joey also travels to developing countries and photographs and films those living in poverty. Recently, he uploaded a video on his trip to visit the The Mentawai in rural Indonesia (WARNING: NOT SAFE FOR WORK):
The reason this video is not safe for work is because it shows full frontal nudity of children. I’m not trying to hate on Joey. In his defense, this is probably nothing more than you’d find in National Geographic Magazine. I’m sure the intention was documenting – not pornography.
But, this raises a question, what are the ethics of filming and photographing the poor in the nude? Is filming for charitable purposes different than filming for documentary purposes? Are the standards different for those living in the West vs. those living in developing countries?
From what I can tell of Joey’s work, that seems to be the case. In this video, he blurs and blocks out nudity of himself and his assistant as they bathe in a river – but does not do the same for any of the naked locals in the same scene (WARNING: ALSO NOT SAFE FOR WORK):
For me, I come from a very different perspective. Even if families are itching and eager to be on camera – if they are nude, I say no. Or, at the very least, frame it to protect privacy. This helps because when I team up with Save the Children, I’m in line with their policies and practices.
But the fact is, no matter how much care & consideration one takes in filming and photography, there is always going to be someone out there who thinks you’re grossly violating the rights and disrespecting your subjects.
On-the-ground I know that my paranoia of not filming nudity seems to foster respect among those I film & photograph. It also stems from the fact that I share a cultural ancestry with most of the people I try and help.
It’s for that reason, I’m not going to change how I do things. But, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this – especially if there are any professional photographers and filmmakers out there reading this.
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.
This is a bottle of Evian water:
You can buy yours for about $2.25 at a convenience store for about a 1.5 L bottle.
Here’s what you guys spent your money on instead:
Pond Sand Filter Water Samples (click for larger size)
This is water samples from the near-finished Pond Sand Filter. Paid for by donations from you and voted democratically upon in Challenge Poverty. This will serve over 50 families in rural Bangladesh and has the potential (if maintained inexpensively by the local community) for approximately ten years.
Just some of the 50+ Families to Benefit from This
Thanks to Save the Children for tirelessly working on this to make sure this small rural community gets to drink water as clear as if it came from the French Alps.
