Coming into this trip, Matt and I both had a generally negative view towards NGOs and government aid programs. (Matt more so than I as he is more business minded.) Sure, they have good intentions, but we’ve seen a fair share of brand new UN Land Cruisers and other nice digs, as well as heard stories and witnessed for ourselves what we consider misused and/or inefficient uses of grant monies both at home and abroad. One of our favorite authors, Paul Theroux’s cynical take on aid in Africa in his book Dark Star Safari didn’t help add any positive feelings towards international aid either. It’s not that we are turned off by the idea of aid, rather, how it is managed and the effects can be disappointing. So it has been refreshing to hear some success stories—such as that new cases of HIV/AIDS has been dropping in recent years due to extensive education campaigns, some funded by the US. This was great to hear in particular as many of the orphans have lost one or more parents to the virus. Meeting individuals (kids who might otherwise have had no place to go) is a reminder that, despite the fact that things could be managed better or that we as Westerners could be more careful and critical when choosing organizations to donate through, aid organizations, domestic and international, do make a difference. Even if it is just making a small dent in a sea of needs, like the starfish story: it made a difference to that one.

On another note, aside from the NGO, what are practical ways regular people can help out abroad? Cynically, perhaps not all “regular” people are qualified to “volunteer” abroad—that is, if you really want to make an impact on someone besides yourself. Bring some skills with you…or at least a chunk of time to get involved. Short visits such as ours seem to be welcomed, but I think longer visits have the potential to bring about lasting benefits to the organization and kids. Long-term volunteers have time to get to know the kids and help with specific things, such as a tough subject at school (or providing supplements to the usual curriculum), personal hygiene, or dealing with grief. Lengthier visits (at least a few months as opposed to a couple weeks) paired with language skills, preparation and materials, professional skills—especially in the medical fields, and administrative experience (for help with office organization, computer skills, and perhaps coordinating an outreach project—like working a deal with a local optician to organize eye checks and buy glasses for people who need them) can help make profound impacts. No doubt, the kids love visitors and attention from people who aren’t their peers, but, if you want to help, give yourself a chance to think beyond a weeklong visit to play with kids.

Side notes on charity

Ok, I don’t know what genius coined the unfortunate Christian phrase “to love on [someone]” as in to help out in loving and charitable manner, but if you find yourself saying it, have you ever thought about how stupid you sound? Think about it, why the heck do you need to add “on” to the sentence? “Love” is a verb itself and doesn’t need to come with an “on” after it. In the context I’ve heard it used “to love on” isn’t exactly the same as “to get your groove on.” So really, drop the “on.” You sound like an idiot.

A final pet peeve of mine is World Vision’s “Operation Christmas Child.” Perhaps you’ve heard of it? Shoe boxes are a nice idea, but a poor use of resources. Have you ever done one? How much did it cost to put the box together? How much time did you spend doing so? How much did you have to pay for the fee to have the box sent to the hands of a waiting child. Well let’s see: $10 gifts, at least one hour of you time for shopping and wrapping (assuming you make at least $15/hr, that’s around $20 (post-tax) for an hour of overtime, obviously a lot more for those of you in the $20-50 range), and at least $7 just to get the box to the kid. So for $30-40 you can send a kid a box with some pens, stickers, maybe a shirt or something. Ok. What if instead of digging out an old shoe box (don’t tell me that you’ve justified buying yourself a new pair of shoes so that you’ll have a box…) and spending time and money at Target buying things that we’re made abroad anyways, and then paying a shipping and handling fee so that World Vision can deliver the gift—what if instead of that you take the time you would have spent doing the above and worked overtime (overtime since that’s the same time you will be using to buy the gift, etc.) and then combine your overtime pay with all the funds you would have spent on the gift and combine THAT with the money all 49 other people at your church or work or where ever is doing a “shoebox drive” and put all the money together. Connect with another group doing the same thing. Send a competent person abroad with a contact of people in need. Let that person buy gifts for the children in their own country and distribute them. This eliminates the costs of the middleman (World Vision), generates a little business for local businesses rather than a discount retailer in the US where each item costs more than it would abroad, eliminates the shipping (and resultant pollution), and on top of all that, the most important thing is that (at least in theory) more kids will have been able to benefit from the modified operation shoebox because the same resources would have been used more efficiently and therefore could be stretched further. Thoughts? I know some of you probably have a different opinion on this one. I go back and forth sometimes (going back to the idea at the beginning of the post that something is better than nothing), but it just seems that at a certain point it makes sense to get more efficient and effective. But who knows. Maybe Operation Christmas Child helps out beyond each gift box, maybe it generates publicity and more donations for other projects, and hopefully not too much of that money is going to new SUVs.