Jargon: Silo or siloing
Translation: Means exactly the same as stovepipe/stovepiping. Which I suppose is logical because both are long skinny things. I find myself enraged, though, that we went to the effort of developing and using two different jargony terms for the same pretty straightforward concept. It seems like a deliberate attempt to make discussions as difficult as possible for outsiders.
Dear Alanna,
I too am starting up a very small nonprofit, and I admit that I am not comfortable with all of the issues you raised in your blog on November 8th.
Can you share some of your experiences in which inexperienced nonprofits did more harm than good?
DR
Dear DR,
Here are four ways that a small (or large) NGO can unintentionally do harm to the community it’s trying to serve.
1) You can waste the time and effort of a community by initiating projects which have little chance of success. It’s hard to identify a good project for a small community. Community buy-in is no guarantee of success; possessing deep local knowledge doesn’t make a person omniscient. Projects that have little chance of success include vocational training in sewing and handicrafts, beekeeping, and raising chickens. If you waste a year of the community’s time on a broiler chicken project that never makes a profit, that’s a year of time and effort which could have gone to real income generation or looking after children.
2) You can leave communities convinced that they need outsiders to solve their problems. If you raise $3000 for a backhoe to clear irrigation ditches, then what happens next time the ditches silt up? The farmers’ cooperative will never realize they could have cleared it with hand shovels, or raised the money by charging a membership fee.
3) You can damage beneficial community structures, or solidify harmful structures. Your choice of community intermediary elevates that person or group, by putting them in control (real or perceived control) of valuable assets. If you work with existing power structures, you can support and entrench inequalities, such as sexism or racism, which are already present. If you chose partners who are not part of the current elite, you can destabilize delicate community balances, and erode resilience.
4) You can construct a building and then not provide funds for maintenance or staffing. A school needs a teacher. A clinic needs a doctor or nurse. All buildings need upkeep – painting and repairs at the very least. A building with not funds for maintenance is a drain on community resources in perpetuity, or an eyesore.
I recommend reading Michael Maren’s book The Road to Hell; it has its flaws but it is very sincere and brings up a lot to think about.
Best,
Alanna
Readers – if anyone has case studies or examples, please comment.
Edited to add – 1) Check out the fascinating examples in the comments and 2) Owen has two more ways an incompetent NGO can hurt the population it is trying to help.
****
(Photo Credit: Copyright Glenna Gordon)
She gave it to me as an example of aid with unintended consequences.
Jargon: Stovepiping
Translation: Dividing things into categories. It has a negative connotation, and implies keeping things so isolated in their own area that there is no chance for inspiration or exchange of ideas.
1) The one who spoke fluent Russian and, when we traveled for work, used to negotiate with waitresses extensively to make sure I got my eggs the way I liked them.
2) The one who cared so much about our programs that she’d start swearing and waving her arms in the middle of meetings.
3) The one who would yell at me when he got stressed, but always grinned if I yelled back.
4) The one who was technically my subordinate but acted like my boss because he ran a really important country program. Why was he loved, you ask? Because he ran his really important country program really really well.
****
(photo credit: Bright Tal)
Chosen because four boxes sounds kind of like four bosses, and I loved the picture.
Jargon: Health care provider
Translation: Anyone who takes care of patients. This includes physicians, nurses, physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners, and midwives. I’m guilty of using this term myself – it’s an easy way to describe a big group. It’s unclear to outsiders, though, and can be a barrier to understanding.
About two weeks ago, something fascinating happened. Kjerstin Erickson, the director of FORGE, a small NGO that works with refugees in Zambia, posted on her blog at Social Edge. She said that FORGE was in major financial trouble and might have to shut down. The story has unfolded from there. A major philanthropy blogger wrote about FORGE on his blog, lauding their transparency. Consultants have been stepping up to help FORGE find a way to carry on. It’s become an opportunity to have some fascinating conversations about transparency, accountability, and what makes an NGO “deserve” to exist.
For something of such interest, this is getting no attention on Twitter; there is also surprisingly little attention from the web at large. I think this is because FORGE’s web presence is limited to the FORGE site and the Social Edge blog maintained by Kjerstin. Both of these are a good start but to create buzz you need to be all over the place. FORGE does not seem to have buzz.
FORGE needs a Twitter account immediately, as well as a friend feed account, and a Flickr pool. I know they have a very small staff, but they could work with a consultant to get the ball rolling (yes, I have contacted Kjerstin and offered to donate my services on this), and even some of the ongoing stuff could be done by a committed and well-informed volunteer. Their fundraising model – many small donations – is well suited to microblogging. So is their commitment to transparency. I’d love to see Kjerstin with a Twitter account, as well as someone in the field. Epic Change‘s use of social media would be a great model for FORGE.
Where is their board in all this? Sara Hall from New Philanthropy Advisors makes this point well. Why doesn’t their board care enough to give? And if they cannot give, why are they not out foraging for donations? FORGE can’t really overhaul their board now, but your board is not just a source of guidance or a required technicality. They should stand ready to open their pockets, call their friends, and do media on your behalf. The Nonprofiteer has some great writing on what your board should be doing for your non-profit.
Another thing: I hate to say this, but I don’t like the FORGE website. I think the writing is jargon-heavy, and obscures the power of their model and their message. I also think that the color and design is unwelcoming. In general, it feels very academic to me. It feels like something I am supposed to read about, not something I am supposed to be involved in.
Finally, I think FORGE is choosing the wrong selling points. Their main website page says “With FORGE, you can help end the cycle of war and poverty in Africa.” That doesn’t make them stand out from the scores of other organizations that work in Africa. They also emphasize that FORGE lets you choose how to support and change lives – again, that’s not very different from what everyone else is saying right now, especially Kiva. It’s all just more of the same. I also suspect that use of the catch-all “Africa,” instead of naming countries, may be off-putting to some people.
What is exciting about FORGE is that it is refugee-driven. Refugees themselves identify their needs, request funding, and implement their projects. FORGE just provides money and gives them tools and support as needed.
FORGE has the community drive and focus of a local NGO, paired with the accountability and transparency of an international organization. That’s exciting. That’s where they should shine their spotlight.
Jargon: Leakage
Translation: Corruption. Generally loss of goods or money due to bribery or theft. I think people use the term leakage because it feels better than saying “losses due to corruption.”