Showing posts with label philanthropy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philanthropy. Show all posts

26 November 2020

Giving Tuesday (and a repost of "Criticizing aid...")

Judy's cornucopia for Thanksgiving Day 2010 at the New Humanities Institute, Elektrostal, Russia.

Thanksgiving blessings to you! 



Source.  

The "Giving Tuesday" movement has been going on for most of a decade, but I only began learning about it last year. I guess that's how far I've drifted from the world of nonprofits and fundraising that used to dominate my life.

The "Tuesday" of Giving Tuesday is linked to the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday -- it's in the week after Thanksgiving Thursday and the consumer binge labeled "Black Friday." In contrast to the consumer emphasis that is associated with the opening of the Christmas shopping season, Giving Tuesday seeks to inspire people to "give, collaborate, and celebrate generosity."

My introduction to Giving Tuesday began in Hebron, Palestine, where I spent last fall with Christian Peacemaker Teams' Palestinian program. The CPT office in Chicago asked us to contribute video to CPT's own Giving Tuesday campaign. We made several videos; I operated one of the cameras for this one.

The organization and board members behind Giving Tuesday appear to exemplify safe corporate philanthropy, which at first made me wonder why I'd want to link up with it. However, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to claim exclusive ownership of Giving Tuesday, or censor or limit the scope of activists and organizations who are encouraging participation in their programs by using that tag. To the extent that it's a genuine campaign to encourage generosity, I see no need to get all cynical about it.

But I'm not above giving it a test. Facebook is one of the corporate participants, so I'm carrying on my own Facebook-based Giving Tuesday campaign. I chose Christian Peacemaker Teams as the beneficiary of my little effort. For gifts that come in on December 1, Facebook has a formula to determine how it will match gifts that day from its US$ 7 million Giving Tuesday fund. For my CPT campaign, I set a goal of $1764, a dollar for every person on my friends' list on Facebook. Seems a bit ambitious to me, but why not?

In case you're in Russia, there's a #ЩедрыйВторник site.


Another organization I considered for my first attempt at Giving Tuesday fundraising was the program I served as staff for seven years, Right Sharing of World Resources. If this first Facebook/Giving Tuesday experience turns out not to be too embarrassing, I'll work with RSWR next. In the meantime, I'm glad to report that the Friends meeting I attend, Camas Friends Church, has taken on 100% sponsorship of one of the community groups supported by RSWR, and our prayer commitment and correspondence have begun, in what we expect will be an experience of mutual blessing.

My time with Right Sharing helped shape the following article I originally posted here back in 2013. The context at the time was the post-Arab Spring troubles in Egypt, but I hope that some of my observations and questions are still helpful.


Criticizing aid for fun and (non)profit 

As Egyptians seek ways to resolve their current violent clash of values, the USA's foreign policy establishment is caught in a familiar dilemma: how to influence events to our "advantage" by finessing our foreign aid commitments to the country. So often, aid policy seems to put the needs of distressed people in last place. Does it do any good at all?

To show that you, too, are intelligent
Smugly ask, “Is it really development?”
Ross Coggins, source.
There are probably few fields of human activity as rife with possibilities for righteous one-upping than foreign aid--oops, I mean international development assistance. Just think! -- intensely cerebral idealists and shameless opportunists alike (not to mention semi-disillusioned former practitioners like me) can question:
... while actual people living in bondage don't get a word in edgewise. And, just as with theology and doctrinal disputes whose urgency is linked to our concepts of salvation, the whole debate is electrified by the high stakes involved. According to UNICEF, 29,000 children are dying each day from preventable causes.

Having seen development philosophies cycle in and out over the last forty years, I now assume that any development doctrine, no matter how progressive or fashionable, will eventually be denounced as wasteful or imperialistic or self-serving or somehow fatally inadequate with the passage of time. And these devastating critiques will be undergirded by horror stories of failures (like the Norwegian fish-freezing plant on the receding shoreline of Lake Turkana). And our own local church-based attempts to confront poverty will be equally vulnerable to unintended consequences. See these posts by Jamie, the very worst missionary, for examples relating to short-term missions.

Is abandoning international aid the answer? I'd argue that it isn't, because any such decision is just as corrupt and self-serving as the various doctrines and channels of foreign aid have turned out to be. It turns out that we give money to panhandlers in part to stay human, not necessarily to feel virtuous or provide durable help to the panhandler. Nations are no different; if the USA were to indulge itself in an attitude of economic and spiritual isolationism in a world plagued by chronic economic distress, one of its core values--unaffected generosity--would die completely. Indifference is fatal. To struggle to find our way among admittedly imperfect solutions is far better than doing nothing.

Some critics of USA's aid might argue that "unaffected generosity" is already a myth. That may be what the American public thinks it values, but that's because most people are unaware of (1) how microscopic the USA budget for non-military overseas direct assistance is, proportionally; (2) how much of it goes (and in terms of official assistance, MUST go) to USA-based suppliers, carriers, and agencies. This argues, not for less aid, but for more honesty.

I remember a conversation with a USAID representative in Jamaica after one of the hurricanes devastated a part of the island. He said, in effect, that one of the priorities of the aid effort was, by way of the various emergency projects, simply to flood the affected area with money. They knew full well that the money would not necessarily be spent efficiently or 100% honestly, but at least it would begin circulating in areas that had been bled dry by the disaster. Somehow I appreciated both the honesty and the pragmatism of his explanation.

Development aid will always be a messy business, because we're humans, and we can't help getting our narrow worldviews and multiple agendas mixed into the process. Arguing about which channels and methods are best reminds me of endless Quaker debates on evangelism: do we emphasize the Quaker stuff or stress the need for (unbranded) salvation and conversion? I know I'm right about my own viewpoint, but the reality is that different approaches can work together in partnership, and when they irritate each other, it's not the end of the world. So here are some ideas on development aid that seem sensible to me, at least today:
  • systemic and palliative approaches are forever one-upping each other, but both are needed, ... just swallow your damn pride and keep each other informed!
  • waste is inevitable; keep things transparent, but don't get stingy just because not every penny of your own precious dollar is spent exactly the way you'd like (and don't take advantage of "convenient alienation," which is when individuals or churches are happy to find flaws in a denomination or charity so that they can cut their contributions and save money!)
  • fund the aid bureaucracy--competency in transmitting and monitoring resources is worth paying for!--but demand transparency, accountability, and participatory approaches at every point of the chain
  • relationship is supreme; beware of the "project" mentality that relies on forms and procedures instead of waiting for relationships to mature; remember John Perkins' three imperatives and the order they're in: relocation, reconciliation, and (gulp) redistribution
  • instead of blasting your fellow practitioners who are somehow less sophisticated than you or I, focus your withering rhetoric on government policies that can, in one stroke, neutralize all the good you're doing by increasing tariffs or holding aid hostage to favorable U.N. votes
  • always keep God at the center, and if you need a bit of a theological scare to stay focused, remember Emmanuel Charles McCarthy's words: "Apathy in the face of relievable human misery is radical evil."
This is a list that I hope you'll add to or correct! In the meantime, here are some related posts:

"If you know what's good for you"
Intentions and results
Give a man a cliché...
On giving and receiving



Back to 2020....

Two of my friends in the Friends of Jesus network, Micah Bales and Adria Gulizia, are part of the "God Squad" whose discussions form the new podcast, "For God and Country." Enjoy!

Margaret Benefiel: How do we discover the New Song?

Natasha Zhuravenkova and Sergei Grushko on translating Quaker texts into Russian. (I've been involved with several of these texts, including Katharine Evans and Sarah Chevers.)

Mike Farley on normalcy and change, digitalnun and Alexander Parker.

A film about two actual love bugs!


Igor Prado's first visit to Russia. The Roadhouse Blues Club in Moscow.

09 February 2017

Benefit of the doubt, part two

(And, in local news, "Our future Lomonosovs might be right in this hall.")


Last week I set myself the task of honestly applying the "benefit of the doubt" test to the administration of the USA's new president. The practical point of this exercise is to distinguish my urgent doubts about his leadership from both the blind fury and the undifferentiated ridicule directed at him.

If we doubters can earn trust through our fairness, is it naive to expect that Trump supporters will also give us the benefit of the doubt? Will they be able to see that we are motivated by love of country and democracy, rather than obsessing on the need to ridicule their hero?

Drawing on the benefit-of-the-doubt challenges I listed last week:

Are my complaints about Trump simply a matter of interpretation?

A fair question. I interpret the words and behavior of political actors based on a few assumptions, and fairness requires me to reveal those assumptions:
  • top public officials (and their families) should not benefit financially from their service, beyond statutory pay and benefits,
  • they should be scrupulous about the Bill of Rights, equal rights for all, the equal protection of the laws, due process, separation of powers, and the continuity of international agreements,
  • they should staff their administrations with the most competent people available,
  • they should not lie or be casual about the truth,
  • they should conduct themselves, and their advocacy and disputes, with dignity befitting their high office.
Are these reasonable expectations? And am I being ungenerous in judging that the president has failed to meet any of them? Is there or is there not a risk to our national institutions and civic norms if we simply allow more benefit-of-the-doubt time to see if things straighten out?

One more note: I believe I have applied these same expectations to previous presidents, including those I voted for.

Am I biased out of resentment because I voted against the winner? Am I a sore loser?

I am not exactly sore, but I'm admittedly very unhappy. My list of reasons for not wanting Trump to be president was based on his behavior before the election -- his bombast, defensiveness, assertions made out of thin air, aggressiveness, unwillingness to be transparent about his financial obligations, association with alt-right nationalists and racists, and frequent statements that he preferred to make decisions based on his own instincts and intelligence rather than study and advice.

If his behavior since assuming office had shown me that I'd misjudged him, I hope I would have had the fairness to admit so. Instead, his behavior in office to date confirms the doubts that I had.

Again: what am I missing? Is there evidence that my election impressions were either wrong or are severely disconnected from what we've seen since January 20?

Isn't the president simply doing what he promised?

OK, fair enough. On a verbal level, he made some explicit promises ...
  • shut down illegal immigration,
  • reject trade agreements unfavorable to the USA,
  • question collective security arrangements where the USA pays an unfair share of the cost,
  • fight crime, restore law and order,
  • eliminate over-regulation,
  • restore our deteriorating national infrastructure,
  • replace the Affordable Care Act,
  • nominate a worthy successor to Justice Scalia,
  • prioritize the fight against Islamic terrorism.
Each of these promises has positives and negatives, and there are ways that I could argue in favor of any of them. But they all involve incredibly complex trade-offs. I don't see Trump doing his own homework or appointing colleagues who are committed to the necessary study, consultation, and public discussion. Worse than that, he doesn't even seem committed to establishing accurate baseline data on which to measure future results. The murder rate and net illegal immigration, for example, are already at or near historic lows for recent decades.

The Gorsuch nomination may be an exception. And the Republican party in Congress (interpreted generously) does seem to realize that replacing ACA will require a lot of hard work. But so far I see no presidential leadership encouraging similar hard work in the other areas I summarized. Without that hard work, it's hard to trust that new initiatives are actually going to lead to improvements rather than external trade wars, cruel consequences for refugees and their families, collapse of international collective security, and repressive police and civil rights policies at home.

On a more tacit level, he seemed to be promising that the era of caring about political correctness is over. Is this a worthy promise? Since political correctness is just a jaundiced tag for sensitivity to vulnerable and historically marginalized people, do we really believe that those who voted for Trump can only gain by reducing or reversing the gains made by others? This seems like a sour, mean, even tribal approach to the dilemmas of our economic, class, and social diversity. Tell me if there's another, more positive, way to interpret Trump's antipathy to political correctness.

I believe that the disastrous initiative of temporary immigration bans is a good example of fulfilling this tacit promise. On the face of it, the ban was totally unfit for its stated purpose. The disconnection from reality was illustrated by Trump's public reasoning for the stealth implementation: if the ban had been rolled out over a week, bad dudes would have boarded those airplanes. Since nobody at all would have boarded those planes who hadn't already been carefully examined, there was no danger that miscellaneous terrorists would somehow jump the queue and crowd on board to take advantage of that week's notice. To prevent an entirely symbolic and fictitious danger in the service of this tacit promise, real-life risks, agonies, and humiliations were unnecessarily imposed on hundreds, potentially thousands, of families. What is untrue or biased about this summary of the situation?

Isn't Trump simply being a businessman instead of a politician?

The "businessman" pose is disingenuous for at least two reasons. First of all, for years he has engaged with politicians on behalf of his businesses, to the point of publicly explaining that his financial contributions to politicians are for the purpose of purchasing influence. He has done whatever it takes to make politics work for him. This isn't necessarily always wrong and certainly it's not unprecedented among businesspeople, but it means to me that he can't pretend to be an innocent newcomer in the world of politicians.

Secondly, not all businesspeople are created equal. Some are known for their ability to cast visions, to empower their colleagues and employees, to add value for society as a whole, and to lead very complex organizations through periods of market shifts and social change. If these are valid markers for a respected business leader, which of them applies to Trump and his branding activities, his marketing of conspicuous consumption, his beauty contests, and the racket known as Trump University? His appeal is not in the same league as the inspirational leaders of today's best businesses; it's more like the "Magic Rich Man" who appears to give a finger to the liberal establishment as he bestows his bounty on those less fortunate.

How am I not being fair? Is there a nicer way to describe this circus?

Why haven't I included a single positive development in my sour lists?

I hereby promise to do so when it happens. I'm not joking -- it's possible that a bipartisan plan for infrastructure restoration will emerge with Trump's encouragement; he may after all keep his promise that the future health care financing plan will be both better and cheaper than the ACA; and in each of the disasters he appears to be igniting, he might change his mind (or have it changed for him). He might even discover a sweet middle place in between the American imperial interpretation of global collective security and the complete collapse of the post-WWII world order that has so far prevented WWIII. Sessions may neutralize all our misgivings with a full-throated defense of voting rights. I promise to cheer.

In the meantime, he and his administration may also make dozens, even hundreds of correct decisions each day, as did every administration before him. Why should I praise him for that? It's his job.



I said that I wanted to distinguish my dissent from blind fury and undifferentiated ridicule. One of the enormous dangers of having a divisive and combative president is the degradation of our political culture. We need to stay sober and prayerful and retain perspective. There are leaders in this world who are much worse than Donald Trump, but even they should be prayed for every day. Fury and ridicule may gratify something in us during distressing times, but these times demand something very different: prayer, vigilance, and focused resistance, coupled with the humility that allows us to confess error and cheer when things go well.

We cannot praise diversity and at the same time ridicule Trump's supporters and refuse to engage with them. To refuse this engagement in favor of ridiculing them and their hero is to participate in the degradation that we fear Trump is causing.

Friday PS: I advocate this engagement to resist degradation in political culture, and because it is the way of love, but I am under no illusions concerning the possibility of convincing masses of people to question their selection of a hero.

Some Trump supporters will no doubt review and revise their decision, but many will not. Loyal members of his base are not evaluating him by criteria we share, such as those I've mentioned above. In fact, his violation of those criteria enhances his stature in their eyes. He perfectly expresses their disdain for the norms of political behavior. The America they want to restore never actually existed and cannot be recreated, and their new isolationist America is unsustainable, but I can't detect much capacity or desire to think critically about these incongruities instead of putting their hopes in a dynamic superhero who will do their thinking, or at least their disrupting, for them.

If this seems unfair, please explain why.


"Our future Lomonosovs might be right in this hall."
-- Khudainazar Yunusov
Welcome to Lyceum 7 for the Lomonosov conference (a regional academic competition for all school grades and subjects, in honor of Mikhail Lomonosov)
Greetings from our city's superintendent of schools, Elena Mitkina
... and from the president of the regional biology/chemistry/ecology teachers' association, Khudainazar Yunusov
Participants and jurors came from all over Moscow Region
Holmes and Watson explain the origins of Britain's image as "Foggy Albion"
Receiving a science certificate
A certificate of recognition for her national costume
Our rector congratulates foreign-language placewinners
My thank-you certificate as a juror. The event took place last Tuesday here in Elektrostal.


You'll be glad to know Trump isn't an evil genius.

A wonderful resource for maintaining perspective: The Planetary Society and its weekly podcast (which I never miss), Planetary Radio.

Another podcast: Sean Guillory has outdone himself, providing a fascinating interview with Jeremy Morris, author of Everyday Post-socialism: Working-class Communities in the Russian Margins. At $80 for the e-book, I am successfully resisting the temptation to buy it immediately, but I highly recommend the interview. Morris provides insights that ring true from my own experience of Elektrostal; but, more than that ... unlike so many so-called experts on Russia, he radiates affection for his informants and their community.

How many times can the USA lose its innocence?

Walking with refugees on the Resurrection Road.

Law and religious freedom in Russia: an overview of where things stand today.

Recent article on Quaker discipleship now available in Russian: English, Why I Give, and Russian, Почему я отдаю.



The circle will not be broken. "This is the very first song that my father taught us."

19 December 2014

Russia in crisis

. . . a look back at September 1998

According to a joke circulating in Russia [in the "default" year 1998], two bankers are conversing:

“How did you sleep last night?”
“Like a baby…”
“How could that be??!!”
“Every hour I woke up and cried!”
(Interfaks-AiF, September 18, 1998)


December 2014: We have been following this week's financial developments in Russia attentively. The implications for ourselves and our friends and colleagues in Russia make this story very personal. For this blog post, I dug out the report I wrote on my visit to Elektrostal, Moscow, and Volgograd in September 1998, the month following the famous "default." Here are some excerpts, edited for the sake of privacy for some people and groups mentioned in the original report.



Translator Mira Perper in her study.
Elektrostal, September 1998: this truck was selling potatoes
for 2 rubles a kilogram.
The relentlessly cynical Exile's cover for September 24, 1998,
featured an ATM telling the customer, "Sorry, all your money
is in Switzerland." 
Current humor. (Source.)
Survey: "How much will dollars cost in the new year"? The
online version of the business newspaper Kommersant began
running this survey yesterday. Choices from top to bottom:
64 kopecks; 36.6 rubles; 100 rubles; from three to five; money
isn't everything.
See source for most recent tally. Note: 36.6
rubles was normal about two months ago; today the figure is
about 60.
When I arrived here in Elektrostal, Russia, two weeks ago ... I knew I was coming to a country in economic crisis, whose financial structures seemed to be dissolving and whose government seemed powerless to act. The US news media had been emphasizing the worst, with dramatic scenes of lines at currency exchanges and warnings of the global consequences of Russia’s economic instability. Some members of the Board of Friends House Moscow, whose meeting was one of my reasons for being here, seemed ready to postpone the meeting entirely. What would happen if hyperinflation took over? Would a military adventurist fill the power vacuum? Would the borders be closed?

Six weeks ago, when the crisis began (provoked by announcements and hints from the Russian government concerning devaluation of the ruble and rescheduling of loan repayments), the Russian media were just as apocalyptic. By the time I arrived on September 18, the newspapers had become more philosophical, often reflecting (and fueling?) the cynical attitudes of the public with their own gallows humor. The weekly Argumenti i Fakti published an article with the front page headline, “How the Bankers Stole our Money.” The following week they asked, “Is it Worth Putting Our Money in the Savings Bank?”

The biweekly Interfaks-AiF ran a headline, “We Wait for a Change,” followed by the subtitle, “If the crisis is all in our heads, it’s not necessary to beat us about the head so hard.” In the same issue, a commentator, Vladimir Razuvaev, remarked on “Our Funny Politics”: “Politics in Russia seems funny by its very nature. The head of the state promises to lie down on the train tracks if prices in the country rise, and at the same time gathers neoliberal [market-oriented] economists under his banner. He makes his experienced and devoted prime minister resign, only to call him back to this same post five months later. On Friday he announces that the ruble will not be devalued, but the opposite is happening by Monday.”

Two issues later, a front page article is suggesting that if duty in the new prime minister’s cabinet is so unattractive to Russia’s politicians, maybe Primakov ought to consider some new sources for cabinet appointments: “Look, Russia’s great friend Helmut Kohl has just been released. The German electorate, who benefited from his sixteen years of chancellorship, have decided to change their country’s top person. As a result, the most experienced politician in the world today is sitting around without any of the sorts of responsibilities appropriate to his stature….” Remarking that “… it is not in our Russian nature to do things by halves,” author Anton Trishin goes on to add former prime ministers of Japan and Great Britain to his list of potential recruits, and then points out that, according to rumors, even such figures as International Monetary Fund head Michael Camdessus and our “friend Bill” Clinton might soon be available for cabinet positions!

In the meantime, you can turn to the newspaper Segodnya (September 28) for an article on “How to Transfer your Money Across the Border” – presumably to a safe place outside of Russia. Why would you want to do that? Because, as author Olga Zaslavskaya bluntly says, “Money which falls into a [Russian] bank literally disappears into a black hole.”

Serious analytical articles abound as well, including proposals from a panel of state-control-oriented economists from the Russian Academy of Sciences, leaks from within the government’s own discussion (one leak concerned possible restrictions on dollars, leading to a brief panic yesterday), and thoughtful essays and interviews with the views of such leaders as the head of the center-left Yabloko party, the head of the Central Bank, and former prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin.

Several commentators focus on the country’s lack of a pervasive national identity and sense of purpose as a systemic source of governmental paralysis. Commentator Nikolai Petrakov writes in Interfaks-AiF about the economic consequence, namely that the country’s financial sector is completely disconnected from reality, and the government is doing nothing about it. The banks have become financial organizations generating money out of thin air through their financial manipulations instead of actually investing in the country’s productive capacity. It is as if “our government regards the people as a biomass on which they can perform experiments.”

In an odd sort of way, maybe prime minister Primakov is confirming this suspicion, at least for the time being, by saying (as quoted by the newsweekly Itogi), “The country may be able to, so to speak, maintain self-restraint for some amount of time.” Newspapers and television stations are speculating on what will happen on October 7, the date appointed by a major association of trade unions for a general strike. Will people use the opportunity to say on a massive scale that they’ve had enough?

In an article in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 26, Duma member Vyacheslav Zvolinksky also addresses the systemic roots of the crisis in Russia, and warns of the possibility of civil war. He believes that the state, particularly the Duma, must take responsibility for its role in saving the country, but feels that the state has been paralysed because of the contradictions and imbalances contained in the constitution. He urgently calls for constitutional reform before food and energy supplies are depleted to the point where the people lose patience entirely and rise up in elemental protest, “sweeping away everything in their path: the new government, the president, and all the legislators lost in their doubts and discussions.”

At this point, people so far are indeed showing remarkable self-restraint. While the politicians dither and the financial puppeteers pull their strings in Moscow, the people of Russia show their characteristic patience, resignation, persistence and incredible decency and somehow keep the country going. What else can they do? So, as I put down the newspapers and look around at real life here, my first impressions are that life on the streets of Moscow, Elektrostal and Volgograd seems amazingly normal. The only unusual activity is that life’s daily rounds of shopping, school, childcare and (often unpaid) work now also include frequent trips to the currency exchanges, as people draw on their hoards of dollars to pay for food and other necessities whose prices had often doubled or tripled since mid-August. (Of course, not everyone has little stashes of dollars, but many did collect at least a few for a rainy day.) Here in Elektrostal, plain bread, potatoes, milk, vodka, bus fares, apartment rents and utilities remain at roughly the same prices for now, but just about everything else has gone up. Cheese has gone up 50% to 100%, meat has doubled or tripled, rice has gone up as much as five times. Many imported products, especially manufactured goods, are now priced in a currency euphemistically labeled “conditional units” (“UE’s”) which are really dollars, even though payment must be made in rubles.

New tasks lead to new hassles: Often people find that the currency exchanges close early for lack of rubles. Here in Elektrostal, it took me six visits over four days to two different places (and one private “banker” operating out of his car) to collect enough rubles to pay for my round trip Moscow-Volgograd train ticket. That hassle was a concrete, if minor, way I could share the daily reality of millions of Russians. Even when they can get rubles, people want to get the best price for their dollars, so they compare rates between different exchanges, and try somehow to slalom their way through the frequent changes. Just before I arrived, rates were as high as 22 rubles to the dollar, but today they are 14 to the dollar (making people very cynical about the fact that they can get rubles today but not when they were at 22!) and last week the dollar ranged between 15 and 11.5 within just a few days. As one person said, “There’s just no way to beat it; the people pulling the strings will always come out on top in the end.”

Underneath all this apparent normalcy (the usual activities of working, commuting, buying and selling, gardening to the very last moment permitted by weather, and so on) there is a quiet desperation which is only dealt with by concentrating on one day at a time. “I can’t even imagine how we will get through the winter, so I just think about today,” said one of my Elektrostal friends.

Another friend, in Volgograd, described how her elderly parents are coping: “They are spending the money they set aside for their burial. I go to the store for them, so I see how their money is getting used up. They try to buy things for me, too, but I tell them I have everything I need.” In saying that, she is simply lying; she can only count on some bread and one meal each weekday at the school where she teaches. Ordinarily she has to pay for her meals at the school canteen, but the director is allowing them to eat on credit until they are paid their salaries again. Not that the long-postponed salaries are much to wait for; hers is about $100 a month in newly deflated rubles. [The new rubles, with three zeros lopped off, were introduced the previous year.]

For their other needs, the teachers often pool their money together and divide up the shopping tasks – each person buys one or another thing in bulk for the whole group. Together they try to scrounge up food and supplies for the children as well. The same is going on at the home for children with special needs here in Elektrostal (headed by one of the participants in the Friends group) – the food budget allocations from the government have long since disappeared, so the staff must beg and improvise to keep the kids fed.

Twice I went to my host family’s dacha to help with their garden, a heavily planted half-acre or so. The little house on the plot burned down last year, but the main point of the place is not to relax, but to provide food, so the dacha’s winter-lifeline function continues. We carried back big bags of beetroots, carrots, tomatoes, lettuce, cauliflower, and turnips – and armfuls of gladiolas! In our case, the gladiolas are for gifts and for decorating the home, but I found out that for many, the importance of growing flowers is that they can be sold on the street. I saw several elderly women selling flowers on the street in Moscow; somehow they have to carry these huge, beautiful blooms in on the suburban trains and get to their destinations without crushing them, stand and call out to potential customers all day or until they run out, then go home and cook and get ready for the next day of survival. (They might be able to get a better flow of customers by bringing their wares to an outdoor market, but then they might also have to pay a cut to the Mafia.) On Thursday it snowed in Moscow and Elektrostal: the garden season is coming to an end, whether everything has been harvested or not….

The current issue of the Economist reports the results of a survey of Russians:

“Are you being paid at your place of work” Answers: Yes, regularly: 18%. Yes, irregularly: 25%. (Most of the Russians I know are in this category.) No: 57%.

“What will enable you to live through the economic crisis?” Food from own small-holding or dacha plot: 44%. Stockpiled food from the summer: 12%. Game-shooting, fishing, picking berries, mushrooms, etc.: 12%. Food bought at cheap outdoor markets: 10%. Informal self-employment 10%. Help from relatives in the countryside: 9%. Bank savings 5%.

Interesting, but not surprising to me, are the answers to another question: “Would you like to emigrate if the situation got worse?” Yes: 18%. No: 62%. Hard to say: 20%.

Compared to these widespread hardships, it seems anticlimactic to report on my own activities during these past two weeks. I spent most of the first week helping with English classes in two schools, Natasha Fedorchenko’s Foreign Language School (Natasha is a participant in the Friends group) and Sergei and Larisa Kazantsevs’ New Humanities Institute. The Elektrostal Friends group met once while I was there, probably their only meeting since Retha McCutchen and I visited in March. I also had visitors from Moscow.... I attended a meeting of the group working on joint publication of a Russian edition of the book Lighting Candles in the Dark, a Friends General Conference collection of stories of nonviolence in daily life, primarily illustrated with art by young Russian and American artists. I made two visits to a remarkable 81-year-old scholar, Mira Perper, whose parents were Tolstoyans and who herself has translated books and articles by [and for] Bill Edgerton, a retired professor of Russian history and literature and member of Bloomington Meeting in Indiana. Finally, a young member of the Elektrostal Friends group, Dmitri ... and I made a brief trip to Volgograd by train to visit with a teacher there who is a friend of Richmond residents Paul and Marie Turner.

... In case I leave the impression that there is nothing but misery and introspection in Russia, I should point out that people haven’t forgotten how to have fun. Elektrostal has just celebrated the 60th anniversary of its founding as a new Soviet city with festivals and carnivals and cultural programs. There is still a carnival going on at the hockey stadium, with rides and booths of all kinds, and plenty of loud music. Teenagers and young adults are still pairing off and flirting in public, on the streets, in the trains and metros and buses, creating little bubbles of privacy around themselves to make up for the lack of privacy at home.

President Clinton’s woes have been a source of diversion: every English class I have visited has had at least one student who wanted to know what I thought about the affair. Attitudes in Russia are almost 100% pro-Clinton. One laborer came up to me at the New Humanities Institute and, realizing that I was American but not realizing that I spoke Russian, said with a big grin, “Clinton – good! Kennedy – good!” Excerpts from Clinton’s grand jury testimony were shown on Russian television on the very day I arrived. A week later, a headline in one of the “boulevard papers” (Russian versions of National Inquirer-style tabloids) read, “Americans Tired of Lewinsky.” After reporting on Monica Lewinsky’s literary agent’s failure to get a book contract for her, the article went on to say, “We, however, publish our newspaper not in America but here, and so we promise that our next issue will have more spicy details from [independent counsel Ken] Starr’s office.”

Russia is still Russia, and signs of the Soviet era still remain here and there. During my visit to Volgograd earlier this week, Dmitri and I stayed at the Soviet-style Intourist hotel, run with the old “we know what is good for you” style. Sometimes the results of that attitude can actually be better than expected. When we registered at the hotel, we received breakfast vouchers. But when we asked about when we might be able to have dinner, we heard the familiar reply, “Sorry, but the restaurant is being renovated.” I asked, “How will we have breakfast then?” and was assured that though the kitchen was closed, there would be some cold items available in the morning.

The next morning, wondering what we would actually find, we sat down in the ornate and nearly empty dining room and awaited our cold items. There was no menu, we would get what we would get. And we did! -- apple juice, coffee and tea, a delicious cheese and egg dish, rolls, bread, butter and excellent Russian jam, cheese, and a huge bowl of hot cereal. Later we went to two museums in Volgograd – the museum of the battle of Stalingrad, and a museum devoted to the city’s civil war history and the Russian emigration to France. In both cases, Dmitri asked, “May I take photographs,” and in both cases, the response was “No, it is not allowed, but … oh, go ahead!” At the civil war museum, the staffer looked around and added, “But please make it quick!” The managing editor at Astreya, Svetlana Bazovkina, which is publishing the Russian edition of the Quaker book Lighting Candles in the Dark, presented us with some proposed cover art for the book which was a throwback to the socialist-optimism style of twenty years ago … but she did understand our doubts about that style. She herself is an editor for, among other things, the new magazine, Igromania (“Games-Mania”), a magazine for fans of Nintendo, Sega, and PC games.

After these two intense weeks, I’m leaving Russia with a lot of mixed feelings. This is not an easy time for the Russian people, and something in me feels a bit embarrassed to be “escaping” to the somewhat more stable West. I especially regret not being present on October 7 for the general strike. It helps to remember that my Volgograd friend, the one who was pretending to her parents that everything was okay, ended her visit to me with these words: “The most important thing is that I know Jesus Christ is with me.”  [Moscow-based Eastern Orthodox Christian and Quaker] Tatiana Pavlova said almost exactly the same words to me. In prayer and in the unity of faith, I hope we can be with them and the millions of others in Russia who are in the same situation. And may the same faith bear fruit in political life: as evidenced by the lively, creative debates in the press, the Russian people are fully capable of coming up with the policies needed for their country, but forming and applying the necessary political willpower seems to me to be a supernatural task.

[Sadly, Mira Perper died in 2001, Tatiana Pavlova in 2002, and Bill Edgerton in 2005. Eternal memory to all of them! To what extent these travel notes are still relevant to 2014, I leave to others to decide. Certainly there are many differences between 1998 and now, but the mood of uncertainty, a certain degree of resignation, and the importance of humor remain constant, along with the imperative of prayer.]



Source.
To receive a copy of Micah Bales' A Guide to Quaker Worship, the only cost is your e-mail address at this site. This may be the freshest and most accessible introduction to unprogrammed Friends worship that's ever been written.

"My Quaker Pilgrimage So Far" ... "I long for a community that is not simply centered on Christ, but is consumed by and in complete surrender to Christ." Can we be that community?

"The Sakharov Center in Moscow needs your help."

"Where Evangelicals Donate (and No Longer Donate) their Dollars."

"Majorities Believe Christmas Story is Accurate."

"Mary, can you teach us to be courageous?"

Seth Godin on "Clear language and respect." Amen.



Lil' Jimmy Reed (Leon Atkins) sings "Honest I Do," made famous by the original Jimmy Reed.

21 January 2010

Why Haiti?

I've been thinking about the reasons disasters seems to cluster more in some places than in others. Clearly, I'm not the only one who's been thinking about this--it didn't take long for Pat Robertson to weigh in. (Responses have ranged from "idiotic" to "what do you expect from him?" to a critical "qualified defense.") Last Sunday, on a visit to Kazakhstan, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill gave his own analysis:
Haiti's tragedy has stirred the whole world. It's an ill-fated country. As a French colony, Haiti had prisons where people were sent from France to serve life sentences. It was a terrible corner of the world. Then the country freed itself from colonial rule, but, unfortunately, unlike its neighbor, the Dominican Republic, Haiti was unable to establish a normal life and get on the sort of development path that could lead people to prosperity. I have been on this island, shared by two countries. These countries--the Dominican Republic and Haiti--seem like two different worlds. One part of the island flourishes, the other is dominated by crime and political instability.
And now the serious problems of this side of the island are compounded many times by a catastrophic earthquake. We see the depths of human suffering right on our TV screens.
Kazakhstan, like other countries, knows very well what an earthquake is like. When serious natural disasters happen, usually people get organized, start helping each other, and set the stage to receive external aid. But in Haiti, we are seeing the opposite: people die from hunger, thirst, disease, and the hands of criminals; you can can imagine what kind of hell Haiti's residents are in. 
The human tragedy of Haiti's devastating earthquake unfolds against a background of poverty, hunger, crime, drugs, corruption, all of which have many causes: historical, economic, political, social, climatic, and, not least, the role of personality in history. But we must not forget that in fact at the heart of many modern social problems--from drug abuse and crime to environmental pollution--is the condition of the human spirit. 
God saw fit to create us with a sense of morality, which makes itself known to us as the voice of conscience. It is by this sense, more than by anything else, that humans differentiate themselves from animals. After all, animals also display mental capacity. When we observe dogs, we can be amazed by their intelligence, their intelligence, their diplomacy, their cunning. 
However, in addition to instincts and intelligence, human nature has a moral sense. This is a very important human feature that distinguishes us from the other living creatures of our world. From this very source--the heart of human nature, the inner recesses of the soul--everything is revealed; as Scripture says, from the human heart come evil thoughts (Mark 7, 21). And if we turn those evil thoughts into evil deeds, the actions are secondary, they're the outcome--whether we're talking about politics, or economics; whether we mindlessly waste the natural resources that God gave us, and pollute our environment, or create unjust relationships, or cause famine, social upheaval and drug use....
Is this a subtler version of Robertson, as some charge? I've tried to provide a sufficiently long excerpt here for you to come to your own conclusions.
 

The first things that came to me when I heard Pat Robertson quoted on Haiti being "cursed" were, almost simultaneously, these thoughts:
  • What kind of a God would visit unrelenting punishment on generations because of the spiritual expressions, however heterodox, of a specific few rebels?
  • And what about the "curse" of conspiring to enslave, and keep enslaved, a whole people?
  • On the other hand, what if that pattern of slavery and cruelty did in fact create a zone where a spirit of oppression rules and must be explicitly dethroned?
That last thought reminded me of two experiences, which I've probably mentioned before. The first was a visit I made to a Quaker ministry site in Jamaica that has been troubled for decades by poor management and corruption. My colleague Vince asked one of the local staffers, "What was here before this was a Friends ministry?" The answer: "A plantation. And that's how we're still treated."

More recently, Mike Berry told us about how his church and other Annapolis churches confronted that city's history of involvement in the slave trade and reached for reconciliation between descendants of slaves and slavers, with remarkable results for the community.

Robertson's remarks have provided a lot of visibility for online material on Haitian history. Here are a couple of examples: Spencer Dew, "Is the Devil a Black Man?"; Jean R. Gelin, "God, Satan, and the Birth of Haiti," part one, part two, part three.
 


My fantasy vacation is a Caribbean cruise, on the kind of small passenger ship that my grandfather Knut Maurer sailed into the Caribbean many times. 

(Photo at right: MS Meteor, his last command.) 

I imagine good food, good conversations, the gentle roll of the ship, and many hours of uninterrupted reading. 

What if this delicious (and not cheap) escapist vacation coincided with, say, a terrible earthquake? That's just what happened to the MS Independence of the Seas, which docked in Haiti after a spirited internal debate among cruise line management. This Guardian article and this Cruise Critic newsletter outline some of the dilemmas.

I sympathize with those voting to have cruises continue visiting the country, despite its devastation. Among my reasons--there are local people who rely on ship traffic for income; a crisis is not the time to tinker with national tourism policy, as important as that is; and, most of all, buying passage on a cruise, even a fantasy cruise, cannot and does not guarantee immunity from reality.

Whether it's a fire at sea or a disaster on land, a time may come when there's a higher priority than escapism: namely, to witness, to care, to help, to be real. Some of those cruise passengers who are visiting Haiti, even points far from the epicenter, will never forget this moment of realism. I am sure that at least some of them are now part of the worldwide web of care mobilizing around Haiti.
   

Among the many helpful Haiti-related posts, I particularly appreciated these: "Don't choose a charity ... based on administration costs." (When I worked with Right Sharing of World Resources, and we were seeking partners to work with in India, I learned how precious competent administration can be.) And "posts and articles written by aid workers." Christianity Today's special subsite on Haiti is here.
   

Other links:
BBC News: "How did Quakers conquer the British sweet shop?" (Thanks, Stuart Willcuts.)
Haaretz: "Israel withholding NGO employees' work permits." (Thanks to Nino Brodin.)
Ken Haase at sBooks: "What should an e-Book cost?"
Joe Volk provides some welcome sanity after the Massachusetts by-election.
American Constitution Society blog: "Conservatives joining death penalty foes."
First Friends Richmond, Indiana, USA, marks its bicentennial with a forum on the future of Friends. (We were members here for about eighteen years.)
openDemocracy: "In memoriam Nastya and Stas."

07 January 2010

How will you distribute your 2010 donations?



С Рождеством Христовым
Christmas blessings



Last night I realized with a pang of guilt that I had forgotten to return the form that Reedwood Friends Church was using to find out the congregation's giving plans for 2010. That pang happened about the same time I read an article, "Help That Makes a Difference: Change our Worldview," by Brian Fikkert. He's the co-author of a book that Nancy Thomas mentioned on her blog a few weeks ago, When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor...and Ourselves. I'm just now starting to read the book myself.

In typical rabbit-chase pattern, the Fikkert article sent me back to something I posted back in 2006, "On giving and receiving," based on a document of the same name issued by the Quaker Peace Network--East Africa. In return, that reminded me of Justo Gonzalez's important article "Of Fishes and Wishes."

With such a chain of reminders about the importance of financial discipleship, I don't think I can put off thinking about it any longer. But what are others thinking and doing about all this--what about you? How do you decide on amounts--and how do you decide where it goes?

About twenty years ago, Andrea Ayvazian spoke to staff and volunteers of Friends World Committee for Consultation, Section of the Americas, on how to raise funds for FWCC. She spent some time talking about her own philanthropy, and described her personal guidelines at the time: She was earning $25,000 a year, from which she gave $2,500. She felt that it was important to make a few significant gifts rather than many tiny ones, so each year she decided on five destinations for the money, at $500 each.

This makes some sense to me. What about you? And if you adopt such an approach, what do you do with the blizzard of other appeals that will continue to descend?

Now: about how to deploy those resources.

Along with the titles mentioned above, including the book by Corbett and Fikkert which I've just started, I can list these helpful resources for reflection:

First, in the ambitiously titled Complete Book of Everyday Christianity from InterVarsity Press, a couple of relevant chapters are available online: "Financial Support" and "Stewardship." When considering specific organizations to support, some people have found these Web sites useful: Guidestar database of nonprofit organizations, and the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. And, for me, one of the ideal models for human-scale economic development help is the program I worked for between 1986 and 1993, Right Sharing of World Resources.

The book that has helped me think about financial discipleship more than any other, to date, is Charles M. Elliott's Comfortable Compassion, published in the USA by Paulist Press. Elliott's book is now probably out of date on some details (it was published in 1987, while I was at Right Sharing) and my copy is in storage thousands of miles away, but I remember his frank and useful ideas on the distorting influence of power on relationships between funders and recipients, and on the long-term cost of the split between the church's "mission" work and its "relief and development" work.

Who has helped shape your thinking on these themes? Is there a book or article or idea you can recommend?

Thinking only about money is something of an artificial distinction, since Quaker discipleship ("Gospel order" and our "testimonies") implies that our whole lives should reflect the Godward orientation of our hearts. But that's not an excuse to pull back on giving. The tricky part is that money does not transmit principles as efficiently as it transmits power. The discipline of giving includes thinking about the consequences of the transfer we're about to make. Strategic giving involves both prayer and research; sometimes it means investing in people rather than the (perhaps) more satisfying creation of new structures. Sometimes it may mean investing in lobbying along with direct aid. Sometimes it may even mean investing on oneself--perhaps giving up a job or taking a leave of absence to get personally involved.



Yet more links:

We celebrated New Year's Eve with faculty families and friends at our Institute. The TV was on (Channel 1) so that we could see President Medvedev's speech, followed by the Kremlin clock striking midnight. Shortly afterwards, I went upstairs for a series of games designed by Gennadi Utyonkov, so I missed what followed shortly afterwards: the cartoon that launched a thousand blog posts. Among the comments: "Making a little fun of Russia's powerful." "Russia's TV freedom has strings attached."

For students of Russian who caught the humor of the Medvedev-Putin cartoon wordplay on Medvedev's Internet presence, here's an interesting paper by Nina Mechkovskaya on the influence of Internet communication on everyday Russian language. (Thank you, russ-cyberspace.)

The book When Helping Hurts has an associated Web site here.

The International Development Exchange (IDEX) is a non-Quaker group that operates on a similar scale as Right Sharing and a participatory philosophy; I enjoyed collaborating with them when I was Right Sharing staff.

More development information than you'll ever need: ELDIS--a mixed bag with many gems. I'm glad this facility didn't exist when I was working for Right Sharing--I might not have gotten any work done!

What's wrong with this picture?

In Northwest Yearly Meeting, January is Peace Month.

Somebody wrote something nice about Americans! It actually seems true, too. I'm tempted to use this text in one of my classes.

Evangelicals and interfaith dialogue--a new paradigm. (My question: is it really new? Was Douglas Steere's concept of "mutual irradiation" actually relativistic?)

Another challenging gap to bridge: Joanna Quintrell and evangelism in the land of alternative spiritualities.

At last, a worthy appreciation of Marilynne Robinson.



John Lee Hooker with Muddy Water's band. In the words of YouTube poster mercydee, "Some historic, priceless footage here: The master Boogie Man backed in 1960 by the Muddy Waters Blues band (James Cotton, Otis Spann, etc). Watch out how Mr Spann knew how to raise the temperature up!" Priceless indeed.

30 November 2006

On giving and receiving, part two

I originally wrote on this topic back in March, after I received a copy of the proposed guidelines for donors and implementers that Eden Grace forwarded from a consultation in Uganda. That document, which I reproduced in its entirety in that March post, openly acknowledged the history of corruption that made the document useful and important. In its own way, the document acknowledged the culpability shared by donors and implementers alike.

In recent months, Friends in Northwest Yearly Meeting have been hearing a lot about the Kaimosi Friends University. On the request of one or more members of Tigard Friends Church, that church became willing to serve as a collection point for contributions for this university project. Later, a proposal came to the Board of Peace and Social Concerns of the Yearly Meeting to make this project one of the two concerns that would benefit from our yearly meeting's annual Thanksgiving offering. At the same time, wide publicity was given to a campaign to collect books for the university's library. For some time, I was receiving weekly pleas for contributions on Sundays at meeting, and was receiving parallel requests in my e-mail.

I'm using the passive voice more than normal in telling this story, both because I don't always know what person actually made a proposal (for example, the proposal to adopt this project as one of the Thanksgiving offering recipients), and because I'm more interested in discussing the principles involved than pointing fingers. I could point a finger at myself because at the crucial meeting of the Peace Board where the decision was made concerning the Thanksgiving offering, I was not present. I had made my concerns known to others in the Yearly Meeting; interestingly, the Missions Board of the YM had decided not to participate in supporting this project.

My concerns about the project are many:

  1. When I was active in Friends United Meeting administration, the University was presented as a vision of uniting the existing educational institutions in Kaimosi. At the time, not one of those individual instititutions was interested in participating in the formation of a university. I'm told that this is still true. The first classrooms will be located in a building owned by Friends Kaimosi Hospital, but that hospital itself is under Friends United Meeting management, and Friends United Meeting is explicitly not participating in the university project.

  2. I've heard no vision for how the university would help build up either the nation or the church. All I hear is how there are not enough university entrance slots for those who are qualified to enter university. What are the specialties that would be best to offer for the job market? If the job market is not to determine the offerings of the university, what criteria would be used? In fact, what definition of the word "university" is being used? What percentage of those underserved students would be willing to travel to Kaimosi?

    The kaimosifriends.org Web site says that there is a severe shortage of university entrance places, but in another place, the same site says that "New students must be Christians by faith, since the university is a Christian School. Other public and private universities are available to secular students." Are Christian students at a disadvantage in the larger educational market? Should secular students or those from other religions be excluded from the Christian influence of a Friends university? I can argue these things either way, but when was this conversation held? How is the word "Christian" being used here--referencing a spiritual community or a sociopolitical "tribe" that wants benefits for those who belong?

    I've been told that Kenyan Friends are united in support of this project. What exactly are they united about? If they are asked whether Friends should have a major institution of higher learning above the level of the current institutions in Kenya, just like the other self-respecting denominations in Kenya, they might well say yes. But have they been told the cost? Is it a high priority? Is Kaimosi the right location?

  3. Given the history of financial corruption associated with some Friends institutions in Kaimosi in the past, what are the mechanisms in place to safeguard and monitor donations? What has happened to money already collected? Is it true that some of the money donated to the university by Kenyan donors has gone into the general accounts of the Friends Church in Kenya and is no longer distinguishable or even traceable?

    According to the Web site, "The University will begin as a third campus of Daystar University of Nairobi. The Kenyan government requires an established university to shepherd the initial years of a new school to guarantee a strong beginning. All academic programs will exist under the already established structure of Daystar University. The first classes to be offered will be in education, religion and business." What is the financial arrangement with Daystar University? Do some or all of our contributions go to Daystar?

The American Friends involved with supporting this project have decided to go ahead in spite of urgent and repeated private questions. Maybe a more public conversation would bring greater clarity. This project may end up being a wonderful breakthrough effort for Friends in Kenya, but for that to be true, we must have a far greater degree of transparency and accountability than I've seen to date.



Righteous (?) links:

Corruption among Friends, of course, has not just been a problem in Kenya. One case that made my life as FUM gensec miserable for most of a year involved the National Friends Insurance Trust, and was the subject of this article and this editorial in Quaker Life. Another case of corruption affected many of the same Friends organizations that were negligent and hurt by the Insurance Trust scandal. I am not saying that the Kaimosi University project is in this league, but I am adamant that we need to bend over backwards to provide world-class accountability for the ways we label and fund our efforts. When fundraisers don't bend over backwards to anticipate and answer donor questions, they're asking donors to bend over forwards. In Kaimosi, that's happened too often already.

"The righteousness which exalts a nation": Last week, an anniversary went quietly by: the 33rd anniversary of the Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern, Nov 25, 1973. Concern for creation did not have the same attention then that it does now, but for the most part, that document was an important milestone in raising a powerful vision of integrity before the American evangelical movement.

28 March 2006

On giving and receiving

A simple and clear document like this has been needed for a long time. I hope it gets wide circulation.
On Giving and Receiving

Approved, Quaker Peace Network—East Africa
March 19, 2006, Tororo, Uganda

I know that I am corrupt, but who is corrupting me?
Sese Seko Mobutu, former President of Zaire (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

The issue of wealthier Quakers from the northern countries giving funds to Quakers in the Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is fraught with difficulties. Too often these funds have been unaccounted for, misused, and/or stolen. Traditionally the blame has been put on the African implementers, but the northern donors who have so quickly written off these losses as “that’s the way Africa is” are also part of the problem. There are more than enough Quaker organizations led by honest African Quakers that receive, spend, and account for their funds with scrupulous honesty that there is no need to “excuse” those who are unaccountable and dishonest. Each time funds are misused in Africa, it is the honest Quaker implementers who are hurt the most since the errors of the few tarnish the image of all. Money can lead to conflict so the proper use and accountability of funds is a peace-making activity.

There are various levels of corruption:
  1. Outright theft of funds for personal use.

  2. Misuse of funds for purposes other than those indicated in the proposal, including unauthorized “borrowing” of funds from another program.

  3. Waste of funds without using them as prudentially as possible because they are given by wealthy people from overseas.

  4. Lack of accountability for funds received which usually is used to hide one of the above misuses.

To rectify this situation guidelines for responsibilities of both donors and implementers are needed.

For Donors:
  1. Funds are given only to a recognized organization with a valid bank account. Funds are never sent to an individual’s bank account or given to implementers to carry back from overseas because this forecloses transparency. Even in the case of a scholarship, funds should be sent directly to the institution or routed through a dependable organization.

  2. In order to qualify for funding, the donor must receive a proposal from a recognized organization which has passed the proposal at a Board meeting of the responsible people. This proposal should include a detailed budget. Donors should have a clear format for the proposal. A neutral person, knowledgeable about the country and type of proposal, should review it with an onsite visit. Over-budgeting, currency transactions, over-pricing, hiking of salary beyond those normally accepted, and vague or unclear line items should be thoroughly questioned. The proposal including purpose, timeline, budget, and delivery of funds is public information.

  3. After funds are sent, monthly or quarterly program and financial reports should be regularly received. In these days this can easily be done by email anywhere in the region. No further funding should be sent until such reports have been received and accepted as proper.

  4. At the end of the proposal period, a final report and financial accounting must be submitted. There should then be another on-site visit by a neutral observer who should verify the accounting by looking at the bookkeeping and receipts to back it up. This protects not only the donor but also protects the implementer from any charges of mis-management of the funds.

  5. This implies that small donations are difficult to monitor and verify. Consequently it is advisable that those who are unable to make the appropriate site visits by neutral observers channel their funds through organizations that have this capability, allocating a proper amount for this administrative task.

  6. When theft, misuse, wastage, or unacceptable accounting is encountered, the donor must pursue these problems with the same diligence they would use for a similar case in their home country. Corruption cannot be excused under any rationale. If a donor is not willing and prepared to follow-up such mis-conduct, it should not accept proposals and disperse funds.

  7. When theft, misuse, wastage, or unacceptable accounting is uncovered, the donor organization will discretely tell the other donor organizations of such problems so that implementing organizations are not able to move from one donor to another with impunity.

For implementers:
  1. Funds are requested only by an established organization for one of its priorities and have been approved by the appropriate Board of Directors. The organization must have mechanisms for handling and reporting funds including checks and balances with a trained treasurer.

  2. The proposal will be transparent and shown to all who are concerned with it for their input and approval. No paid professional fundraisers should be used.

  3. Those who are dispensing the funds must be as careful with these funds as they would be with their own. They must receive receipts for all transaction (and have their own signed receipts when this is not possible) and keep an accurate accounting of all these funds.

  4. If it is necessary to substantially change the budget of a proposal (meaning more than 5% or as specified in the proposal), prior approval of any such changes must be received from the donating organization.

  5. Written reports and financial reports will be sent on a regular basis as indicated in the proposal.

  6. The implementers of these funds will be welcoming and open for all on-site visits by anyone sent by the donating organization. All written and financial accounting will be open for inspection.

  7. If anyone in the implementing organization is financially irresponsible, the implementing organization will notify the donor and take whatever appropriate action is necessary with the offending individual.

If these guidelines of responsibility for both donors and implementers are faithfully adhered to, many of the problems which have been encountered in the past will be rectified. In the long term, this will build a much healthy relationship between donors in the North and implementers in Africa. The result should be not only a much more prudent use of the funds available, but a larger flow of funding.



Many thanks to Eden Grace for passing along these guidelines, which emerged from a meeting she participated in last week. She says that the first draft of these guidelines came from David Zarembka.

My own commentary (do not blame the writers of the document above) ...

I remember a meeting of Quaker partner organizations that one of my Friends United Meeting colleagues held at a retreat center in Africa, where a similar set of guidelines for FUM work was being discussed. As my colleague reported, the main resistance to the guidelines came from Western representatives, who felt that such rules were colonialist. One of the African participants pointed out that avoidance of such rules was a plague in Africa, from the central governments on down. Honesty and transparency in financial relationships were not colonialist impositions, but actually the only hope for progress. (I might add that they were also the only hope for recovering the middle-class intelligentsia among African Quakers, many of whom seem to have distanced themselves from Friends in disgust at the corruption and government enmeshment that had become far too common.)

My own additions to the guidelines, from a North American's point of view:
  1. Don't play the tired old game of simplistically choosing "good Africans" who can do no wrong, and "bad Africans" who can do nothing right, among ministry partners and constituency members. How do you know? Do you treat your personal circle of friends and colleagues this way at home? Africans have just as many complicated mixtures of ideals and compromises as anyone else! And that "good African" for whom you will collect money without proper safeguards, will become just as corrupt as you would become under the same circumstances. Genuine friendship can never be purchased, nor can you atone for colonialist atrocities of the past by lazy sentimentality today.

  2. Part of a more mature and egalitarian vision of donor/implementer relationship includes being willing to examine very carefully when money or materials are the right form of resource transfer. Money and equipment can change power relationships and create new inequalities, not to mention increasing the "metabolism rate" of a local economy to an unsustainable level. On the other hand, don't go too quickly to the sometimes insulting notion that your technical expertise is what's needed, since many local cultures already have far more indigenous wisdom and expertise than political space or financial resources to use it. There's no simple formula for any of these dilemmas; what I'm calling for is taking the time to build relationships and trust and spiritual integrity before letting those relationships become monetarized and bureaucratized with the language of "projects" and "proposals."

  3. Rule 5 for donors in the document above includes a huge principle that many individual donors apparently do not understand. We donors need to get it through our thick skulls that strong, ethical administration costs money and is worth it. To treat an organization as your private, cost-free bank, to transmit your precious, special money 100% to its destination as if by magic, is either ignorant or insulting. What makes your money so much more special than that of the others who must cover the costs of doing ethical business? Do you think that, without dedicated administrators, accountants, bankers, translators, etc., there would be a hope in hell of your money being useful? (I feel as if I've waited far too long to get that off my chest!)

  4. The organizational corollary: Don't appear to donors and potential donors to be a black box! Issue annual reports, make your financial reports easily available to the partner organizations as well as donors, report governance issues honestly and provide easy access to minutes of meetings. Model the practices you expect to see from your implementing partners. When I was at FUM, I felt that historically, we had not done much better than the groups who received our funds. My colleagues and I did our best to change that.