Having Given, did you later wonder 'what must have been the impact of the giving on the recipient?'
Any change under the surface?
This question actually poses two queries "When you gave, what did you want to achieve?" and "has it been achieved"?
Finding the answer to the first part of the question is relatively easy.....since it is essentially about 'you' and 'your' objective in giving. The second part of the question is comparitively more complex.....since it requires gauging the level and forms of change in 'someone else's' situation:
Change in the recipient's (person or cause) current and future condition.
Effect on the recipient's personal perception of self worth, dignity and capacity to maintain the changed condition.
How we give and the results achieved are closely interconnected.
The manner of service delivery can either foster dependence or self-reliance. Post the 2001 earthquake in India, it was reported that men in certain affected areas had gotten so used to aid delivery, that they spend more time waiting to collect the aid then tilling their land. Till one day the trucks stopped coming and there was no crop to harvest.
The gap between the objectives of the giver and the needs of the recipient can create an imbalance. For example, after the initial phase of providing relief to the disaster affected people, begins the process of rehabilitation. It takes much longer and needs more capital for rebuilding what was destroyed and creating new structures. But it is easier to find donors for supporting relief than rehabilitation. Similarly it is easier to raise money for earthquakes than it is for droughts. The signs of destruction of an earthquake are immediately visible and concentrated in an area. While droughts slowly drain away life from the land, people and animals. Its impact stays for a long time, but the signs appear gradually. As a result the emotional reaction to earthquake victims is stronger than that for the drought affected.
The act of giving is not the end but rather the means to an end. In that case before deciding how and what to give, would'nt it be prudent to consider the situation of the recipient and the value that can be created by the different forms of giving? Functionaries of the social sector have with experience learned that there is no singular or quick solution to social problems and sustainable difference is achieved when we build the capacities of the community to deal with issues and be self-reliant. We have realized that sympathy may provide temporary relief but empathy leads to long-term changes. Businesses have to their pleasant surprise found that contrary to their belief, the 'poor' are a very large consumer market capable of paying for their services. And the lack of formal education does not deter the 'illiterate' from using hi-tech gadgets like PDA's and smart cards. With these realizations there has been a paradigm shift in approaches to development, role of organizations and the community.
This broad shift in thought process is largely a result of - the failure of conventional top-down approaches to sustainably solve social issues; gradual recognition of people's ability to solve their own problems quite effectively; evolving sensitization to respect their right to make choices and be treated with dignity.
How do you view those that you are trying to help?
"When you look at the world what do you see? Victim...or Hero; Oppressed... or..Courageous; Starving child...or..Future Leader; Dependent...or..Capable; Criminal...or..Activist; Downtrodden...or..Determined? Change the Way You See Them. They Can Change Their World. You Must be the Change You Wish to See in The World (Gandhi). Be the Change."
Be The Change Video, Mercy Corps.
Though at the broad policy level this shift is quite apparent, but in practice the recipients are still viewed as helpless and needing charity. C.K Prahalad begins his book `
The Fortune at the bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits' by challenging the stereotype image held by the corporate sector of the global 4 billion people in the low income segment. He believes that "if we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden and start recognizing them as resilient and creative entrepreneurs and value conscious consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open up." ITC E-Choupal, PRODEM FFP, Cemex and Casas Bahia are a few examples from the range of successful business enterprises that provide goods and services customized to the needs of low-income earners. These ventures demonstrate the immense potential to generate profits while 'creating opportunities for the poor by offering them choices and encouraging self-esteem'. And their achievements show a whole new dimension of corporate social responsibility.
How do perceptions influence organization's programmes and our giving patterns? The most obvious examples of linkages between perception and giving styles can be found in fundraising material and techniques. Charitable organizations primarily focus on appealing to people's charitable side. Hence images in advertisements, brochures and annual reports portray stark pictures of misery and helplessness. Disturbed by such sweeping stereotyping, John Wilson and Dan Taylor in their article 'Financing Development Practice: How can we start to make the difference that makes a difference?' pointed out that "Poverty may be real but representations of the poor distort reality and are often false, portraying poor people as helpless victims of circumstances devoid of any dignity. For example, it lends itself to generalisations about an entire continent - of considerable diversity in both its environment and its people - characterising it as a single, uniform problem. The starving masses of Africa depicted with dramatic effect on our television sets in the North apply only to specific places, at specific times. Yet Africa as the continental 'basket-case', incapacitated by poverty and in need of charity, continues as the underlying theme."
The mission of a developmental organization is served when it captures the interest of the donors for its cause and provides a range of possible innovative solutions and options for their strategic involvement. As John Wilson and Dan Taylor also state in their article "the public must be redirected towards the positive message of what development - that process by which communities are empowered to take control over their lives - can achieve, rather than the negative message of destitution". Further, since development is a long term process, the organizations emphasis has to be on using fundraising methods that grows the interest and involvement of the donor for a long long time.
How we give and to which kind of organization we give determines the impact on the recipient.
The nature of impact of a charitable and a developmental organization varies by virtue of the difference in approach to their stakeholders (donors and recepients). Simultaneously the act of giving sets the ball rolling which passes through various stages, comes to the recepient and still moves on to indirectly impact the community and society. Considering the potentially wide scope of effect, it would be important to explore the various dimensions of our giving and evaluate them with our personal and organizational values and objectives. Olympic gold medalist Johann Olav Koss went to Eritrea with a plane full of soccer balls, a week after President Afewerki had made an international appeal for food aid to his country ravaged by war and hunger. Reacting to this unexpected and unusual contribution to Eritrea's children, the President said to Johann, "This is the most beautiful gift we have ever received. Finally we are being seen as human beings. We are more than mouths to feed, more than people dying who must be kept alive. We are people. We, too, have dreams and we hope for a better future".
Interesting Online Reading on the Aid impact
