Sunday, May 12, 2013

What Happens When an NGO Admits Failure?!


 Who loves TEDtalks? We ALL love TEDtalks!

Here is the TEDx talk I’d like to reflect upon…

            Though there are no mind-blowing innovations in this talk, its simple, yet profound reminders stood out to me. This speaker is David Damberger, who worked with Engineers Without Borders for four years as the director of Southern African programs, where he consulted governments and nongovernmental organizations on “agriculture, sanitation and development.” He talks about how ten years ago, EWB’s mission was wrapped around how it’s unacceptable that 5 million do not have access to water and that they need to work on projects that matter and can fix this. In order to do this, him and his friends knew that that it was important to first understand the problems that exist, so they decided to “live like local Africans.” They stayed in the villages, learning the local language and taking public transportation. Even with good intentions, however, we must be wary…
            During his talk, he tells the audience about the conditions in Malawi and how over the past five years, millions have gained access to freshwater. As his powerpoint displays a picture of an ecstatic boy collecting water, he says, “This picture is a lie.
He details that though 80% now have “access” to freshwater sources, a report on these taps uncovered the reality that 81 of the 113 in the area are not functional, springing leaks and needing repairs. The thing is, though infrastructure was built, there was not much thought put into how these taps would be maintained. There was a focus on hardware and not software. Though people in the community had skills to repair them, they had no access to affordable spare parts. When he asked a local about another similar tap he noticed 30 feet away, the villager said, “that’s the American gravity system.” There, Damberger realized that a project that failed 10 years ago by a different American group, was recently rebuilt by EWB 10 years later, also failing from the same problems.
            He then reflects on power systems and why this might’ve happened. With a simple diagram, he shows how in public sector, constituents, whom decisions affect, have power to make change and in the private sector, customers, whom decisions affect, have power to make change; In the development sector, however, donors have the power to control decisions that will affect beneficiaries. With this reality, he says we should invest in private and public sectors, which already have infrastructure to hold people accountable. He encourages investing in businesses and government in Africa. In these sectors, if customers aren’t served, and if sectors do not innovate and change and adapt to their needs, customers will not continue to support.
            Another thing he suggests is fixing the development sector system, by making it more accountable, creative and transparent. He says that beneficiaries need to have the option of rating their projects, moving donors closer to beneficiaries (as only 20% of African staff are based in Africa).
            The most important takeaway I got was that people must be open to admitting failure so that then, people in the future will not make the same mistakes. He shares a story of his work in India, where he led and implemented a rainwater harvesting project. When he came home to Canada, people were inspired by him and praised him for his work. However, a year later, he found out that not a single one was operating and then, he felt like an imposter, so ashamed and disappointed in himself.
            The admirable thing is that he turned this situation around into something positive. Because of his effort, Engineer Without Borders is now more focused on the “softer” side of things, where staff members are working towards letting others know the successes and failures that are happening. In the last three years, a “Failure Report” has been published which reveals these disappointments. Of course, donors initially did not feel good that their contributions were not put to use, but once they started reading, they came to understand the power of sharing these things. He talked about how there are websites like admittingfailure.com out there, existing to share these things.
            Now I’m thinking, how does the International Rescue Committee discuss successes and failures? On their website and pamphlets, I see time and time again, pie charts of their successes in each department and how a majority of money is going directly to the refugees they serve. What I gather from this is that IRC takes a lot of pride in putting their clients first and making that know to donors. However, I am wondering if there are actually problems that run deep that are hard to admit it that the common citizen will never know. As I think about criticisms of the US Refugee Assistance Program, I see how many highlight the lack of an adequate information sharing system. This is important, because refugees who go through secondary migration after arrival are lost track of and then ineligible for certain government benefits. On the other hand, I see how it is hard to actually go out and be vulnerable in sharing failures in a world where funding is given based on quantitative data that proves success. Data on success allows donors to know that they are supporting a worthy cause. If an organization admits their faults, will it decrease the financial support they will receive? Perhaps our whole system that provides funding to organizations needs to restructure in ways that enforce better foundations. Foundations that are thoroughly informed on the work that has been done in past and required regular assessments are necessary to break the continual failures that organizations face. We, as people who are passionate to be catalysts for change, need to think about these things first, before we get out and take action! 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.