January 27, 2012 | 11:02 AM | By

Update: Humanitarian rankers don’t like getting ranked on

In case you haven’t been following the comment thread on my earlier post regarding the Top 100 NGOs as identified by Global Journal, I wanted to post here a critical look at the rankings by development professional Dave Algoso.

Dave Algoso

Algoso is an expert on aid and development issues. Here is his post Lies, Damned Lies and Ranking Lists: The Top 100 Best NGOs written in response to my earlier post about Global Journal:

Ranking lists are great publicity for both the rankers and the ranked but they usually involve bad analysis and mislead the readers…. Most of these NGOs are, to the best of my knowledge, quite good. My big disagreement is with GJ‘s ranking methodology. And the fact that they created this list at all.

Meanwhile, the equally well-intentioned folks at Geneva-based Global Journal have expressed, to me by email and in various comment threads, their disappointment at being ‘ranked on’ for publishing their list of the top non-governmental organizations working at making the world a better place.

The editor, Jean-Christophe Nothias, takes special umbrage at being criticized by lowly bloggers and even contends this may involve ‘libel.’ Says Nothias of their rankings:

It is a journalistic approach, not an academic, not a mathematical, one approach that understands a simple fact. Profit has a metric, money. How do you measure solidarity? How do you measure healing, suffering? Do you believe such a ranking has anything to do with the S&P, the NYSE and other financials index?

Right, so how did they do it? How did Global Journal arrive at placing Seattle-based PATH as 6th best NGO in the world — along with ranking a few other local organizations like Mercy Corps and Landesa — and inexplicably exclude other top NGOs like World Vision and the Gates Foundation?

The folks at Global Journal don’t want to go into the details. They appear to be arguing that they didn’t depend solely upon a quantitative methodology that can be checked by others for reliability. They also relied on their journalistic methodology, their own expert judgment, as Nothias says:

Do bloggers have a methodology? Do they make a difference between being a reporter and a rapporteur? Or is journalism, in their eyes, at the cemetery? We have an ethic and a strong belief in the fact that journalism is already part of the methodology.

As a journalist who is also apparently a blogger, I can say with great confidence that the ‘methodology’ and reliability of journalism is highly variable. Ranking, by its very nature, implies some kind of quantitative assessment that should be independent of even the best journalistic judgments.

As far as Algoso is concerned, Global Journal’s list is so arbitrary and subjective it is meaningless:

Ultimately, it sounds like the methodology was: we browsed the web, talked to a couple people, then sat around the conference table arguing among ourselves. Here’s the result. Sorry, guys, but that just doesn’t cut it. That’s not a methodology.

Well, so what? The folks at Global Journal are basically arguing that an imperfect listing is better than no listing.

Algoso disagrees. He notes that many organizations are already using the magazine’s ranking for promotional reasons — for fund-raising, that is. So there’s one obvious downside to Global Journal’s rankings. Should donors not give to World Vision because they aren’t on the list? Says Algoso:

As a development professional, I want to see a more efficient market for funding social causes. That’s an economics-y way of saying that I want funds to flow to those NGOs that can best convert them into positive social impact.

There is a great need to improving the evaluation of impact and effectiveness within the humanitarian, or NGO, community. It’s actually quite difficult to find consensus on the best metrics in this field. Many experts are struggling to come up with the most reliable measures of effectiveness.

In the meantime, people like Algoso think subjective short-cuts to rigorous evaluations may do more harm than good — if only by shifting funding away from those who actually are doing a better job toward organizations that happen to have won a media-sponsored lottery.

FILED UNDER: Basics, Global Journal, Landesa, Mercy Corps, PATH, World Vision
January 27, 2012 | 10:02 AM | By

Award for the most insulting film of the year

And this year’s winner for the most exploitative film on Africa is Machine Gun Preacher! The folks at NYU Development Research Institute have called it. See these posts as well for context.


At the Exploiting Africa Academy Awards is… The strange contrast between evil violent African males with the saintly violent white male, who frequently boasts “I am saving African children,” was apparently a clincher for our voting audience. If you want to read more, the most (very) detailed blog post is by Brett Keller (shorter version in Foriegn Policy.)

Read more at: nyudri.org

January 27, 2012 | 10:01 AM | By

A million facing starvation in central Africa, the Sahel

Will the international community act now to prevent deaths or wait until the suffering begins?


A hunger emergency looms in the Sahel: Half a million children face starvation in the Sahel if help doesn’t arrive on time, according to humanitarian agencies. A recent UNICEF survey in the Sahel forecast a million cases of severe malnutrition with anywhere between 25% and 60% of those people likely to die, without emergency assistance.

Read more at: latimesblogs.latimes.com

January 27, 2012 | 10:00 AM | By

Philanthrocapitalists claim credit for something they think is a mistake

Matthew Bishop (author of the term and strategy known as “philanthrocapitalism”) claims the creation of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria is based on his philosophy. Not sure about that. But then Bishop then goes on to ridicule taking the same approach of creating a Global Fund for Education. Huh?

Earlier this week former British prime minister Gordon Brown emerged from hibernation to lobby for a bold new plan to push education up the global agenda. The world has made progress in recent years but, Mr Brown reports, 68 million kids still get no education.

Read more at: www.philanthrocapitalism.net

January 27, 2012 | 9:56 AM | By

Popular complaints force Chinese officials to face massive air pollution

For years, China’s government has contended its air quality, most notably Beijing’s air quality, is improving. A citizen revolt has collected data to show otherwise.


That began a chain reaction. Volunteers in Shanghai and Guangzhou purchased monitors in December, followed by citizens in Wenzhou, who are selling oranges to finance their device. Wenzhou donated $50 to volunteers in Wuhan, 140 miles inland, to get them started. Officials have claimed for years that the air quality in fast-growing is constantly improving.

Read more at: www.nytimes.com

January 27, 2012 | 9:43 AM | By

News Rounds: George Clooney’s satellites sound alert in Sudan, suicides high in China’s high-tech gizmo city and more

Rights groups say satellite photos foreshadow Sudan fighting (LAtimes) A coalition of human rights groups conceived by actor George Clooney warns that new satellite photos show grave signs that the Sudanese government is gearing up to attack the Nuba people in the country’s South Kordofan state.

Occupational health in the electronic age: disease in the new sweatshop (Global Health Hub) When we say our products are made “in China”, what we really should say it that they’re made in Shenzhen–a city in Guangdong Province, just north of Hong Kong. Sanjay Basu looks at life in Shenzhen where, among other things, suicide rates are high.

Davos leaders say key to world stability is feeding the hungry (CBS) While the world focuses on financial crises, Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and other leaders say those priorities won’t matter unless people have one basic thing: Enough food to eat.

New donors shake up humanitarian aid landscape (Reuters) Emerging powers like Brazil and China are gaining influence on the international humanitarian aid scene, bringing new funds and perspectives. Here’s Reuter’s list of the top 10 new donors in terms of humanitarian aid reported to the United Nations.

Why do people get kidnapped in Somalia? (LAtimes) Poverty is stark in Somalia. The country doesn’t have a government strong enough to stop the crime. Those two things have helped make kidnapping foreigners and seizing foreign ships common in and around this anarchic state.

HIV-Related Deaths Slow South Africa’s Economy (Inter Press) If there was no HIV/AIDS, South Africa would have 4.4 million more people than today, the size of a major city. This significant slow-down in population growth is causing a slow down in economic growth.

Whether or not the U.S. is declining is the wrong question (Foreign Policy) The issue isn’t whether the United States is about to fall the from the ranks of the great powers, says one writer. It won’t. The issue is whether developments at home and overseas are making it harder for the United States to exercise the kind of dominant influence that it did for much of the latter half of the 20th century.

January 26, 2012 | 9:15 AM | By

Gates Foundation boosts funding and confidence in troubled Global Fund

World Economic Forum

Bill & Melinda Gates at Davos 2010

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has pledged another $750 million to the ‘troubled’ Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Associated Press Gates Injects $750 Million in Troubled Global Fund

Washington Post Gates Injects $750 Million in Troubled Global Fund After Director Resigns

Troubled seems to be part of the Global Fund’s official title these days.

Yesterday, Reuters reported that the head of the Global Fund, Michel Kazatchine, quit due to funding cuts. That’s not quite right. It is true that this initiative created to fight AIDS, TB and malaria has seen funding decline as donors have reneged on their promised pledges.

Kazatchine appears to have resigned largely due to the allegations of mismanagement and tolerance of corruption in an internal shake-up. Some accused donors of using these allegations — which seemed to me a bit hyped as I wrote here and here — as an excuse not to come through with the promised funds.

The subsequent failure of donors and governments to follow through on funding to the Global Fund following this flap made Canadian politician and former UN AIDS ambassador Stephen Lewis absolutely apoplectic.

All this makes the announcement today by Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland very welcome news to many in the global health community. Davos is the same place he and Melinda announced more than a decade ago that they were giving the same amount of money to launch the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI).

Here’s a series of reports from 2001, in the wake of that announcement, I wrote for the Seattle PI.

There just seems to be something the Gateses like about announcing global funds at Davos and giving that $750 million figure. Some saw GAVI as a model for the later creation of the Global Fund.

Both are collaborative international projects that award grants to poor countries based on their performance in combating diseases of poverty — one aimed at fighting the top three killers and the other aimed at boosting childhood vaccinations in poor countries.

Both have trouble with “fraud and mismanagement” which, to some extent, comes from them handing over more control of in-country operations to, uh, countries not known for doing too well at combating fraud and mismanagement. But if the subcontractor shirks on the plumbing, the contractor pays for the leaks.

After the Gates announcement, Sarah Boseley at The Guardian raised an interesting question in her article today The Global Fund – saved and wrapped in a US flag?

With the Gates Foundation stepping in where the international community has stepped back, Boseley asks if the Global Fund risks becoming a bit too unilateral, less European. That may sound petty from an American perspective, but it’s not. These initiatives really can only succeed if they are truly multilateral.

Politics aside: Between these two funds over the past decade, more than 10 million deaths have been prevented and some disease rates in poor countries have been significantly reduced. Not a bad return.

Here’s a pretty good video from the Global Fund making its case with a little help from Bono, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and others (many of whom who are probably now in Davos):

FILED UNDER: Health, AIDS, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, Global Fund, Michel Kazatchkine, Stephen Lewis
January 26, 2012 | 8:52 AM | By

America’s billionaires give to pandas rather than people in need

Why do the media do so many gushy stories about rich people giving to socially unredeeming pet projects, asks Pablo Eisenberg. He finds this ‘deeply disturbing’ – because of the lack of skepticism and critical analysis by journalists as well as for the misplaced priorities of the rich.


This post originally appeared at The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Under a big headline on the front page of The last week came the news that a local billionaire had provided $7.5-million to restore the Washington Monument, which has been closed to the public since it suffered serious damage in this summer’s East Coast earthquake.

Read more at: articles.businessinsider.com