Oprah’s Big Give, and what’s wrong with it

This is a remarkably good post about what’s wrong with Oprah’s Big Give. The comments, however, are some of the lamest I have ever seen. They run the gamut, from a classic Sernovitz, to just plain missing the point, to my favorite, “Why would you ever criticize someone who is trying to do good?”

I find the tone-deaf comments extremely frustrating. They demonstrate to me that no one is taking charitable giving seriously; that somehow people believe all projects are equally valuable and effective. Give a car to a restaurant manager or an impoverished veteran. It’s all the same. It’s charity! And charity is good!

Some projects are better than others.

It’s not just that different nonprofits do different things. Some charities are better at stretching their budget. Some have better methods. Some are led by better people. It’s not all the same, and it’s not all equally important. Money spent on bad charity is at best wasted and at worst damaging.

I’ve mentioned this before: good intentions are not enough.

ETA: Mike makes an excellent point in the comments – the author can’t seem to decide if he hates the rules of the show, or the contestants. It seems to me that he was trying to say that the show is rigged to fail, and fail it did, but that point doesn’t really come across clearly.

Getting the most out of field visits

I’ve mentioned in a previous entry that doing the occasional visit to your field programs does not count as in-country experience. If you’re HQ-based, though, or managing several countries, you can’t just move to be close to your sites. Field visits are all you have to get the inside story on your programs and the communities they partner with.

Done right, field visits are a useful tool. They are not as good as living and working in-country, but they’re a lot better than nothing. Here’s how to get the most out of your field visits:

1) Don’t call them missions. That’s just offensive. It’s a field visit, a site visit, or a trip out to see your programs. Unless you are trying to convert people to the one true faith of your choice, it’s not a mission. Calling it one implies that you’re heading out there to teach the locals what’s what. You are heading out there so the locals can teach you. Don’t forget it.

2) Always keep this in mind: your two primary goals in any trip are to learn more about your programs, and more about the context they operate in. You may have specific tasks to achieve on your trip, but if you fail at those your trip still has value as long as you learn.

3) Listen. Talk to people. Talk to your staff. Talk to your beneficiaries. Talk to government officials and community leaders, and taxi drivers. It doesn’t take probing questions, or special insight on your part, just a willingness to sit down and hear what people have to say. Pack your schedule with as many meetings as you can humanly stand. By listening, you learn how your project and organization is perceived, what your community thinks of you, and what your own staff is thinking. You can unearth technical problems and discover what you’re doing well. You also learn about the culture you’re in.

A health educator once told me that they were showing slow behavior change rates in one region because “the women just weren’t very smart there.” That was a major clue that we had a problem in how we thought about education. A doctor my program had trained told me that the most useful thing about our trainings was the chance to talk to other physicians and swap for clinic supplies; we built an extra session into our trainings just for trading. A community leader told me she was sorry our children’s program was closing down in August, which made it clear that the concept of local handover was not being understood.

4) Look. Pay attention, all the time. In Tashkent, the mulberry trees drop their berries to the ground where they rot and make a sticky mess. In Cairo, children climb the trees and pick the berries. Very few fall to the ground. What does it mean? Maybe Egyptian children are hungrier. Maybe Uzbek children are afraid of heights. But it means something, and something you notice now and something you notice later may fit together into information you can use.

Do the traffic police seem to know and like your office driver? An intern once pointed out to me that our information sessions consisted of a male educator standing up while women sat on the ground all around him – what message was that sending? Do your cars have no guns stickers and do your drivers actually follow that rule? How do men and women relate to each other in your host country? How do people treat racial and linguistic minorities?

Much like listening, watching takes no more than your undivided attention. Provide it, and create as many opportunities to look around you as you can. Drive to further-out sites instead of flying, if it’s feasible. Get out of your hotel and take a walk. If you are not a visually observant person, train yourself to become one.

5) Focus your attention on people, not things. If your project repairs water towers, don’t drive out to look at a tower. Instead, talk to your water and sanitation engineers about the rehabilitation process, and talk to the project manager. Talk to people who get their water from the tower. Talk to the mayor of the village the tower is in.

6) Don’t forget women. Don’t forget either gender, but women are far more often overlooked. If none of your meetings are with women, schedule some. Your government officials may be disproportionately male, but the community you work with should not be. If no one in your project can suggest women for you to meet with, something is very, very wrong.

Edited to add: I thought of this in a meeting today – take notes at all your meetings, in a notebook, unless it makes the other person uncomfortable. At the end of every day, transcribe your meeting notes and add anything you noticed during the day. This will help you remember and process what you learned and provide a great basis for your trip report.

on research and donor funding

This nice summary of BDI logic models does two things. It 1) gives you an overview of a model for behavior change that actually takes into account the complexity of human decision-making and 2) tells you how to market it to potential donors. It’s very savvy, and it makes me kind of sad. I see useful public health research go unused all the time because it’s too complicated for non-experts, and donors are rarely experts.

Bad granting can hurt communities

I have mentioned before that bad donor projects will hurt they communities they are in. This article demonstrates that a bad grantmaking process will also hurt communities. Which makes sense when you think about it, but how many people think about it?

In the case of the Northwest Area Foundation, I think they went off the rails as soon as they decided that a new organization had to be created for implementation. It’s always tempting to make something new and better but too often it’s just new, inexperienced, and not up to the demands being made. It’s my opinion that you always work with existing groups if you can.

I saw a lot of small developing world NGOs formed around a single issue go through endless rounds of training so they could apply for different donors’ grants. It did often make me wonder how much work they could get done in the time it took to be trained.

Amy Sample Ward’s Blog

Amy Sample Ward’s Version of NPTech. Amy Sample Ward’s blog is a really exceptional resource on nonprofit technology, particularly fundraising and the web. I’m sending a link to a couple old employers who could use the info.

In general, I find blogs like this really energizing because they are about what works to motivate people and bring them together, which can lead to insight on a lot more than fundraising and advocacy.

Reader Question #2

So, my reader questions are nothing like I expected them to be. Which probably makes them more fun to answer. This question has to do with sexual identity, so skip it if it’s not something you are comfortable reading about.

Q: Why did we begin using the term MSM? I thought it was because not all men who have sex with men consider themselves to be homosexual or bisexual. I thought there was a trend of allowing individuals to determine his/her own sexual identity.

I have had an argument with 3 friends, 2 liberal, about this exact conversation. In my head, a man having sex with men does not make him homosexual or bisexual. In the head of my friends, it does. Am I crazy? Am I being overly sensitive and picky about the wording that we use? Is this not a personal descriptor that can only be determined by the individual? Does it actual “make” someone gay? Is this just something that I should get over because it is never going to change? I am not ready to say I am wrong. One friend threw wikipedia and the oxford dictionary out.

A: I think you are exactly right. There are a whole host of emotional and cultural reasons a man might have sex with another man and yet not be homosexual or bisexual. I think we use the term MSM because sexual identity is so fluid and complex that it’s a lot more useful to just describe the situation than to try to apply a label that serves no diagnostic or risk-management purpose. As health professionals, it is useful to know if a man has sex with other men; his reasons for doing so are a lot less important in any immediate calculation.

There are plenty of reasons a man himself might want a more specific label for his sexuality, but that’s not our business. We just want to provide the best services possible.

Links worth looking at

I am traveling, and I’m not sure what kind of internet access I will have to update. I’m offering up a bunch of interesting links to keep everyone busy in my (possible) absence.

1) The Children of War Rescue Project actually has a dayblog listing day-to-day activities. It is an amazing exercise in transparency, and also a great way for outsiders to learn more about what NGOs do. If you are thinking you’d like to work for an international NGO, just following along the posts is like a mini-internship.

The marketer in me thinks that they could be using this dayblog more for promotional purposes. Right now it doesn’t even have a link to their main project website. They should also explicitly describe it as an exercise in transparency, and have donors look at it to see what they do.

2) Paul Graham on the overlap between nonprofits and companies. I am consistently impressed by his ideas, and this is a great think piece on what makes a company and what makes an nonprofit. I have long held that the major difference between an international NGO and a company is tax status and no more. It is interesting to see someone else’s similar take.

3) Soap operas changing family size in Brazil. This article makes me twitch in different directions. On the one hand, it justifies the educational soap operas I used to help produce. On the other hand, what kind of unintended effects is TV having on our society? Since almost none of it is designed to do anything good. In fact it seems to me designed to make us meet more junk food and buy stuff…maybe I don’t have to just wonder what effect it is having.