World Vision

RECENT POSTS

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
November 3, 2011 | 12:12 PM | By

Bill Gates hands in his foreign aid report to G20. Gets a B+

UN

Bill Gates at World Health Assembly

Bill Gates, who according to Forbes is the fifth most powerful person in the world, today made his case for boosting foreign aid and development to the G20 meeting of the world’s richest countries, which is held in France this year

It’s a compelling case. Unfortunately, it may be Greek to the rest of the world’s powerful.

As The Guardian’s live G20 website indicates, the meltdown of Greece’s economy — and its potential adverse impact on the global economy — is going to suck the air out of any attempt to float any other issue at this posh meeting in Cannes.

To paraphrase: When the going gets tough for the rich, it’s tough luck for the poor.

So what did Gates say? A lot actually.

He proposed, and handed in, a specific Plan to Assist the World’s Poor, which included his support for the idea of imposing a small “Robin Hood tax” on the financial industry and other select transaction. He also wants to encourage private investments in what has typically been viewed as the purview of government or humanitarian organizations. Says Gates:

The private sector hasn’t always invested as much in development as it should because the market incentives haven’t always been clear, but there are ways to encourage involvement. In my report to the G-20, I’ll make half a dozen recommendations for mobilizing tens of billions of dollars annually from private sources. The African diaspora is sitting on $50 billion in savings that could fund development in their home countries if it were captured through diaspora bonds.

Here’s a video from the Gates Foundation in which Bill says what he’s trying to do:

As this story from Reuters notes, Gates is the first businessman ever to be invited to address the G20 meeting. Many humanitarian groups lauded Gates’ call for the richest countries to not neglect the poor and to remain true to past aid and development commitments.

In response to Gates’ participation at the G20, Oxfam‘s Luc Lampriere said:

Gates’ timely message is that there will be no lasting global economic recovery without tackling poverty. He brings much needed impetus and ambition to a Summit nearly paralyzed by Europe’s woes.

World Vision issued a release, praising Gates’ advocacy on behalf of the poor as well — but suggesting he tone down the ‘innovation’ pitch a bit and crack some heads on the chronic failure of the G20 to live up to its promises.

What we need most is for the G20 countries to spend the money they promised to spend. There is no doubt that innovation will improve our ability to meet global poverty reduction commitments, but innovative financing would make more sense if the G20 were already doing their part.

 

FILED UNDER: Bill Gates, foreign aid, G20, Oxfam, Robin Hood tax, World Vision
March 29, 2011 | 10:43 AM | By

Mercy Corps, World Vision and the nagging question of how to help in Japan

World Vision

World Vision in Japan, unloading relief supplies

The Japanese government and the UN agency coordinating humanitarian relief operations, in response to the March 11 quake and tsunami, have repeatedly asked that many foreign organizations refrain from trying to actively assist in the relief efforts.

Is this falling on deaf, if well-intentioned, ears? Or is it a request made to disguise the government’s inability to adequately respond?

I can’t tell.

The request by Japanese and UN officials may appear counter-intuitive, but it’s not too hard to understand upon further reflection. There is limited access on the roads and fuel shortages. The government and in-country assistance organizations need to have priority access. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: earthquake, Japan, Mercy Corps, relief organizations, tsunami, World Vision
March 18, 2011 | 11:35 AM | By

Why you should donate, but maybe not to Japan

Flickr, LiminalMike

People want to help.

Well, okay, not everyone wants to help. Some people are jerks.

Despite my skeptical (which some misinterpret as cynical) view of human nature acquired after working a quarter century as a journalist, I find that most people actually do want to assist when they see someone suffering.

Wanting to help is how many of us are reacting to the news out of Japan following the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami — now made even more terrible by the possible (though often exaggerated) threat of a major nuclear accident.

Still, it’s important to recognize that wanting to help and actually helping are not the same thing. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, disaster, earthquake, humanitarian, Japan, Mercy Corps, World Vision
March 11, 2011 | 3:39 PM | By

Disaster in Japan … and Haiti, Pakistan, Congo, Ivory Coast, Niger, Mali

Flickr, doegox

We are all focused on the disaster in Japan right now, as we should be.

But what about the other, bigger disasters?

The massive earthquake, tsunami and current concern about damage to a Japanese nuclear power plant are the top news stories today. The quake was huge, the fifth largest in the last century. President Obama said today the U.S. is “marshaling forces” to help Japan deal with the catastrophe.

Local relief organizations like World Vision and Mercy Corps have put the Japanese quake-tsunami on the “front page” of their websites even though it is unlikely either organization will be doing much in response. I talked to both organizations and they are standing by ready to help, but both said it is possible they will not be needed.

Japan can largely take care of itself. World Vision and Mercy Corps take care of those who can’t. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Congo, disaster, earthquake, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Japan, Mali, Mercy Corps, Niger, Pakistan, tsunami, World Vision
February 22, 2011 | 2:50 PM | By

Middle East erupts, foreign aid cuts and World Vision survives Superbowl T-shirt attack

Based on a very unscientific sampling of the foreign aid and development blogosphere, three issues have dominated most of the discussions lately in this community devoted to fighting poverty and improving lives worldwide:

  1. The uprising in the Middle East.
  2. The push by some in Congress to cut deeper into the foreign aid budget.
  3. World’s Vision plan to give NFL Superbowl T-shirts (of the losing team) to poor people.

Flickr, americanistadechiapas

Superbowl 2011

I will focus only on the last issue of the T-shirts, leaving aside for now the first two topics which may be more important but are often, in fact, not very entertaining.

It’s much more interesting to pick on a large do-gooder organization for doing something apparently ill-conceived like donating to poor people more “stuff we don’t want” (dubbed SWEDOW or GIK, gifts-in-kind, by the development cognoscenti).

I should add, in the interest of full disclosure, that I was one of those who jumped on the outrage bandwagon about World Vision’s loser T-shirt donation scheme. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, donation, foreign aid, gifts-in-kind, SWEDOW, t-shirts, World Vision
February 9, 2011 | 9:04 AM | By

World Vision under fire for NFL “loser” clothing donations

It may sound like a nice enough thing to do, but a lot of folks think it’s actually harmful and even immoral.

Donating clothing.

Flickr, americanistadechiapas

Super Bowl 2011

Ever wonder what happens to all those Super Bowl “champions” shirts and hats that are printed up in advance, but for the losing team? In America, probably only folks in places with an excessive tendency towards self-deprecation (like some of the wetter corners of the nordically infested neighborhoods in Seattle) would want to wear loser sports gear.

Given this, World Vision for the past 15 years has been collecting this loser gear left over from the Super Bowl and (according to its website) distributing it to people in poor countries:

World Vision identifies countries and communities in need overseas who will benefit from the gear. This year’s unused Super Bowl merchandise will make its way to Zambia, Armenia, Nicaragua, and Romania in the months to come. On average, this equates to about 100 pallets annually — $2 million worth of product — or about 100,000 articles of clothing that, instead of being destroyed, will help children and adults in need.

So don’t be surprised if you see lots of folks in southern Africa, eastern Europe or Central America mistakenly believing the Pittsburgh Steelers won.

As nice, or maybe slightly bizarre but well-intended, as this may sound, many people have a problem with it. If you’re not familiar with the long-running critique of what’s wrong with donating clothing, take a look at this Time magazine story about the 1 Million T-shirts campaign.

Saundra Schimmelpfennig of Good Intentions Are Not Enough says poor people don’t want or usually need donated clothing. They have clothing. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, clothing, donations, World Vision
October 21, 2010 | 9:00 AM | By

USAID Branding: Pressure still on to end the dangerous desire for self-promotion

It may be off the headlines now, but the pressure remains on USAID from many prominent NGOs like World Vision, Oxfam and Save the Children to end its requirement of putting the American flag on donated materials.

I wrote about this dispute last week and a USAID official told me talks aimed at resolving this disagreement are “intense.”

Humanitarian groups say they need to remain — and appear — politically neutral. They also don’t like getting killed just for PR purposes. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics, Afghanistan, Oxfam, Pakistan, Save the Children, USAID, World Vision