How big is too big?
Us small organizations often turn our noses at the "big guys". One could argue that it is fear of being squished or pushed off the table. As I see it, the smaller you are, the closer you are to the people you are working with, and the more your cries for change echo theirs.
Big organizations usually find it hard to tailor their programs to the specific needs of a certain area or people or community, let alone the individual. It's too hard and takes too much money, time, and energy to tailor large-scale programs. Just like in the tsunami "temporary shelters" built in Sri Lanka where I volunteered (which of course were not so temporary as they are still being used now) could not be tailored in size and style to support different families sizes and locations. They were mass produced and erected sporadically at times, even if tailoring or consideration for location would not have cost more time or money, just some knowledge of the people and the area they were working in.
The more time I work in the NGO field, the more I see signs of this, money being wasted on useless projects, while other projects are implemented which COULD be hugely successful if those implementing the program knew even just a little more about the culture, people, and location they were working in. In Sri Lanka, "free" toilets for Tamils being built behind a Singhalese shop, thereby making it almost inaccessible for the Tamil women, here in Cambodia programs implemented to support female education which really just encourage other families to pull their kids from school in the hopes of being taken into the support program, etc etc.
This is NOT to say that I think PEPY, or any small NGO is flawless. Quite the contrary. Both the big and the small NGOs are all working on assumptions, facts gathered from surveys and data which are not thorough enough, and often involve foreign employees, or even locals from a different area, who are not 100% aware of all factors that might effect a certain project. BUT, as a small NGO, PEPY can test out a project, realize its flaws, and quickly adjust. At least, we can try to. We can take the effects our programs have on specific communities and even individuals and come up with solutions tailored to that problem.
When a teacher has too many kids in the class, they often teach to the middle child. The advanced students are bored, and the low performing students are lost and never able to catch up. The few in the middle are getting educated, but that's about it. This method of working toward the average of a large spectrum of people is equally as ineffective in teaching as it is in aid.
If we continue to support big programs working for the "average person" where local areas are not taken into account, we will continue to waste money, hurt economies, and take funding from programs which might actually have a chance of making changes.
Something to think about... all that we think is commendable, can sometimes do MUCH more harm than good.
Big organizations usually find it hard to tailor their programs to the specific needs of a certain area or people or community, let alone the individual. It's too hard and takes too much money, time, and energy to tailor large-scale programs. Just like in the tsunami "temporary shelters" built in Sri Lanka where I volunteered (which of course were not so temporary as they are still being used now) could not be tailored in size and style to support different families sizes and locations. They were mass produced and erected sporadically at times, even if tailoring or consideration for location would not have cost more time or money, just some knowledge of the people and the area they were working in.
The more time I work in the NGO field, the more I see signs of this, money being wasted on useless projects, while other projects are implemented which COULD be hugely successful if those implementing the program knew even just a little more about the culture, people, and location they were working in. In Sri Lanka, "free" toilets for Tamils being built behind a Singhalese shop, thereby making it almost inaccessible for the Tamil women, here in Cambodia programs implemented to support female education which really just encourage other families to pull their kids from school in the hopes of being taken into the support program, etc etc.
This is NOT to say that I think PEPY, or any small NGO is flawless. Quite the contrary. Both the big and the small NGOs are all working on assumptions, facts gathered from surveys and data which are not thorough enough, and often involve foreign employees, or even locals from a different area, who are not 100% aware of all factors that might effect a certain project. BUT, as a small NGO, PEPY can test out a project, realize its flaws, and quickly adjust. At least, we can try to. We can take the effects our programs have on specific communities and even individuals and come up with solutions tailored to that problem.
When a teacher has too many kids in the class, they often teach to the middle child. The advanced students are bored, and the low performing students are lost and never able to catch up. The few in the middle are getting educated, but that's about it. This method of working toward the average of a large spectrum of people is equally as ineffective in teaching as it is in aid.
If we continue to support big programs working for the "average person" where local areas are not taken into account, we will continue to waste money, hurt economies, and take funding from programs which might actually have a chance of making changes.
Something to think about... all that we think is commendable, can sometimes do MUCH more harm than good.
Daniela Papi
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home