Tag Archives: Honesty

Kompong Thom

5 Nov

Times change, and a number of things are coming full-circle for me lately. It’s time to repost the post that started the current version of Tales From the Hood, back in March, 2008 (there was a previous version that was not interesting). Here it is, Kompong Thom:

* * *

It was during the first few days of a trip to Cambodia in October of 1999 that I was at a remote health station in Kompong Thom Province leading a small technical team comprised of a community health consultant and two expatriate colleagues based in Phnom Penh. It was one of those clear, intense, very hot days that you sometimes in see in Southeast Asia during the late rainy season. My itinerary from Washington D.C. had been tiresome: layovers in Chicago and Los Angeles, and an overnight stop in Bangkok, but with not quite enough time to sleep before checking in two hours early for a 7:00 am flight to Phnom Penh. Three days later I was still fighting 12-hour jet-lag and general fatigue. I was tired and cranky and hot and uncomfortable, in need of a shower, a square meal, and a few hours of uninterrupted sleep.

A muddy, pot-hole ridden, unpaved road was the only way in to the unremarkable health station. Inside it was a typical, quasi-open-air third-world clinic: Mosquito nets covered only about half of the windows. There was electrical power to only one or two rooms – one housed an ancient looking refrigerator and miscellaneous lab equipment, and another housed a couple of grimy PCs, presumably for keeping records. The two inpatient wards were just long rooms, each with 6 or so metal beds inside. No mattresses or bed clothing, just woven straw mats.

The general ward housed an assortment of wrinkled old people with I.V.s and bandages. Several recently delivered women occupied the maternity ward, breast-feeding newborn infants while assorted family members looked on. They looked exhausted. Flies buzzed through the open windows, the ground behind the laboratory was covered with disposable syringes, hypodermic needles and plastic packaging. The inside of the building had that smell so common in rural clinics in Southeast Asia in those days: a combination of body odor, sterile bandages, local cooking, and floors recently mopped with river water.

The director of the health station was also typical. He had once, perhaps only a year or two before, been energetic and full of desire to help the people of Kompong Thom, to be a part of the reconstruction of his country. Long days had run into long months and into years and the reality of probably never being invited to an administrative post in Phnom Penh had set in. He was also tired. Tired of the long hours, tired of explaining basic hygiene to illiterate peasants, tired of never having electricity to keep the few precious vaccines cold, tired of old malfunctioning equipment, tired of insufficient medicines, tired of working day after day and month after month with no perceptible improvement of any kind. Most of all – I could tell just from looking –  he was tired of Kompong Thom.

Kompong Thom and innumerable districts like it from Latin America to sub-Saharan Africa to the depressed remote regions of the Former Soviet Union to the backwaters of southern and southeast Asia are a nasty trick played upon energetic young medical students. They have dreams.  They will travel abroad for professional upgrading or possibly vacation. More often than not, however, they end up in places like Kompong Thom, far from the capital city, delivering babies in the middle of the night, dispensing ORS packets and explaining to iodine-deficient villagers why condoms are an effective means of preventing pregnancy.

And so, as the heat of the day was only beginning wane and the round tropical sun was only then beginning to dip towards the western horizon, and as we were only then beginning to move towards our vehicle having concluded our conversation with the tired health station director, I first saw her being carried into the health station by her mother. She was no more than four years old, emaciated (even for Cambodia in 1999), feverish, listless, lying limp in her mother’s arms. She was most likely suffering from dengue fever or possibly malaria (both were endemic there, at that time). Her mouth hung partially open, her limbs flaccid, her eyes glazed and beginning to roll up into her head. There had been patients straggling in and out of the health center the entire time that we were there, but I remember this little girl and her mother because we not only passed them on the way out the front door, but also stopped to talk with them. We – the director of the health center and our own health technical team – stopped to ask what was wrong with the little girl. How long had she been ill, what had the mother done? The little girl was obviously dying – her breathing was labored and she was barely able to keep her eyes open.

The doctor on our team agreed that without proper hospitalization she would most likely not last through the night. The mother had no money, no means of affording transportation to Phnom Penh. She had obviously spent too long doing the wrong things to care for her sick daughter: this visit to the health station was her last resort.

It would have been only about a three-hour ride to Phnom Penh and a facility able to treat the little girl. The sacrifice required by me to tell my local counterpart and the consultant that we needed to take them to Phnom Penh that evening would have been no more than a few hours’ sleep.

But I was tired, hot, stinky and dying for a bucket bath and an early retreat under the mosquito net. I was hungry. We were all ready to declare the work-day over. And in the end we simply left. We concluded our conversation, climbed back into the company white SUV and began easing back over the awful road to town.

* * * * *

I have long felt that as humanitarian workers we too often give in to the temptation to overstate our own importance. Too often we overestimate the value and the impact and the general “goodness” or “helpfulness” of what our organizations and programs and projects bring to the lives of those we genuinely want to help. And too often we overestimate our own individual roles in making those changes happen.

We – I include myself – take a measure of pride in our genteel poverty: we are not like our materialist peers in the for-profit sector. We are on the right sides of all the issues. We are making a difference. We sit in the comfort of our homes and offices, whether in suburban America, spotlessly clean Europe, or upscale neighborhoods and apartment complexes in “the field”, and we dole out paltry amounts relief in a desert of human suffering.

It is not that we should be endlessly self-critical. I truly believe that the work we do does accomplishes good. Real, objective good. But I am challenged to remain in a state of confident humility. We must not just sit and watch while the problems of our fellow humans go unattended. There is something called the humanitarian imperative. We must do something, and we must do it confidently. And we must do all of this humbly. If my own experience is at all representative – and I receive regular and consistent confirmation from other aid workers that it is – then we must go about the business of making the world a better place mindful of the fact that we are all still learning. We must keep in realistic perspective the limitations of what we have to offer, not just technically or intellectually, but as human beings, too.

When I look back on over two decades of humanitarian work, it is tempting to feel… almost pride. Pride in grants successfully won, targets successfully achieved, strategies successfully carried out, promotions successfully attained. And in those moments I am kept humble by the memory of a time when I had the ability to make a difference but did not. The image of a thin, brown child lying listless in the arms of a haggard mother under a sinking Cambodian sun remains with me still.

The 2nd Aid Blog Forum: Admitting Aid Failure?

14 Oct

Welcome to the Second Aid Blog Forum.

The topic for internet-wide discussion: Admitting Aid Failure?

I perceive a growing wave of sentiment in the general public that humanitarian relief and development agencies are, well, less than honest with their donors and constituents. Up to now that suspicion has been focused primarily on financial things: the disclosure of financial information such as the amount raised, the amount spent on a relief response over a certain period, aid worker salaries, etc. In the United States, at least, the primary requirements for qualification as a humanitarian or “charitable” organization have to do with financial things. As aid workers and as NGOs, we’ve grown accustomed to a certain level of scrutiny and compulsory disclosure of specifically financial information. And our in-house systems, policies and procedures reflect this reality.

Over the past two years particularly, however, I also sense that the general suspicion of aid workers and NGOs has grown to encompass a great deal more than just what we do with income from donors and how. There are increasing demands for us all to talk in meaningful, less simplistic and less universally rosy terms about what we accomplish. Increasingly we’re being asked to talk about our failures. There’s even an organization devoted to the concept of assertively admitting failure, named – as one might guess – Admitting Failure.

Admitting failure is a scary thing for NGOs and aid workers. It raises the possibility of loss of funding and livelihood. It raises the possibility of being misunderstood. And it raises the possibility of  deeper suspicion and more intense, uncomfortable scrutiny coming from an increasingly unsympathetic public.

On the other hand, few people inside the aid industry right now would argue categorically against being open and honest about anything less than success as a non-negotiable part of organizational and individual learning. Simply put, you can’t learn from your mistakes if you don’t acknowledge – admit – your mistakes.

So, what do you think? What is or would be the value of aid agencies admitting failure? What about individual aid workers? What are the downsides? What would you decide if you were in charge and could make the decision what would be required, what would be strongly recommended, and what would be optional? Should there be some kind of regulation about how we talk about successes? What if results are just marginal, but not outright failure? Some kind of required balance between discussion of success versus failure in our publications? Should just any random taxpayer be able to walk in off the street and on demand see any document in (for US citizens) the HQ or field office of a 501(c)3 NGO? Where would you draw the lines between what international relief and development NGOs should be required to disclose, and what they can choose to keep in-house? Once it becomes common practice to admit failure, what then? Should there be a limit on how many times the same agency can fail at the same thing and/or in the same place before some kind of sanction happens? Once failure has been admitted, then what?

This Aid Blog Forum will work the same as the first one (read the Rules of Engagement). To participate, you simply:

  1. Write a post with your thoughts on admitting failure on your own blog.
  2. Come back here, click the dorky blue lizard, and follow the prompts.
  3. You’re done!

Guest Post by ‘Angelica’

27 Sep

I’m pleased to feature a guest post by fellow aid worker/parent and blogger, Angelica, author of “On Motherhood & Sanity“, here today (also linked in my extended blogroll). Follow Angelica on twitter as @onSanity.

* * * * *

Finding the G-spot

I was reading a recent post by J., right here at Tales From the Hood about “local” being an article of faith in the Church of Aid, and it came to me that Gender is the Humanitarian G-spot.

You know I’m right. You just cannot (and certainly should not) have a document, meeting, program or strategy that does not address gender. Depending on the place and theme it can range from anything along the lines of combating FGM to increased political representation and decision making.  As aid practitioners we are acutely aware of the pitfalls and structural biases that leave women vulnerable to abuse and dependency. We ignore the local’s arguments that link these forms of discrimination to culture or tradition, and demand equality be treated as a basic human right.

So why is it we are failing so miserably to achieve gender balance at home?

Some years ago, when the goal of gender balance for UN staff was set for all the agencies, I was working in a large UN agency myself. Very responsibly they hired a (female) consultant to undertake some focus group discussion in order to discover why it was so difficult to retain qualified women. I took part of the young professionals discussions. The YPP was a group of staff selected through an intense process for their management skills to be fast tracked within the organization. For the most part they were in their mid twenties/ early thirties and females. The group discussion, as might have been expected, revolved around two things: motherhood and the difficulty of having men follow a woman around, (which the UN career requires as there is constant rotation between duty stations all over the world, much like a diplomatic career).

I also took part of another mixed group with men and women from different departments and ages. I remember a man in his forties talking about how young staff would come to him for advice on how to advance their career. His advice was to go to a difficult duty station. These are the places were you get noticed, where you get fast tracked, and are mostly non-family duty stations, so, he admitted, hard for a woman in her thirties who is probably starting a family. His suggestion was to introduce the possibility of extended 2-3 months missions to these places for women past the recommend six month breastfeeding period so that they’d be in  a position to compete for these spots.

I was secretly a few weeks pregnant back then. There was something about this proposal that just did not quite work in my head, back then I didn’t understand what.

The consultant’s conclusion after weeks of intense study was that the best way to ensure that women don’t fall off the career track was to have their babies later on in their career, once they were established. No mention of the fact that many (most) women would not be able to conceive by then.

Fast  forward a few months, I’m walking around the office with a big belly when I find out that a job I am perfect for is up for grabs. I start asking around and get positive reactions from the people involved. It’s really interesting and a step in the right direction for me. After a few of these positive informal talks I ask why this position is empty:

“The woman that used to chair this group went on maternity leave. She was meant to return this month but has decided to quit instead”

As his last words echoed we looked at each other in silence. I am wearing large overalls and am but a couple of months away from maternity leave myself. It dawns on us that there isn’t a chance in hell I’m going to get that job. No one is going to say it, they are going to make me go through the steps (written exam, panel interview…) but no matter how well I do we both know that fight is lost. At the same time my husband is interviewing for a great job. The fact that he is about to become a father is irrelevant.

Fast forward to the day I gave birth to my first born. I had been pre selected to be part of the first training for middle level management. I’m not middle level management yet. I’m not even based in Africa which is where the training will be placed. The mere fact they are considering me is a huge pat in the back. As the phone interview to confirm my spot begins I warn her I am in labour and might stay quiet during the contractions. It sounds extreme, but it was the last day they could interview me, and I was determined. I knew what being part of that group could mean for my career. She said:

“Go have your baby and call me back in a couple of weeks.”

I ended up doing the interview while breastfeeding and my mom holding the phone. I got in but I never did it because, like the mother whose job I had wanted, I decided to extend my leave.

Fast forward again towards the end of my extended leave. I get an email from my old boss all excited that my name has been put forward for deputy (second in command) for a small office in south America. I contact the office and set a day for the interview. During this call I mention that although my leave is indeed about to end, I am now 6 months pregnant with my second child. Silence. The interview is set. After a long struggle between my old and new identities, I call back and cancel the interview. You can hear the relief in their voices through the phone line. They thank me.

At the time I was based in Cambodia for my husband’s job. The one he got when I was 7 months pregnant. After some months as a consultant for a UN agency I am offered a fixed term position. My old career self is about to have a fit, but the new mom side wins again, I turn it down. I never got another consulting job from them again.

You might say this was a personal choice, that I didn’t have to turn those jobs down. And you would be right. You would also be ignoring the fact that I’m a psychologist and for a living look after the well being of children, and that inevitably entails the family, and in particular the mother and the role she plays. How can anyone expect me to work all day to get the best possible life situation for other people’s children, and not aim to get the same for mine? We are talking about regrouping families in Africa and Asia, and at the same time about ways to get the women away from their own children so that their careers wont suffer.

I’m not saying stay at home is the only choice or even the best choice. If it makes you a bad mother (which it would make me, trust me: I would go insane), then it’s definitely not the right choice.   Sometimes it’s not even a choice. All I’m saying is that it is high time that we started looking at what we preach and helping families (emphasis on family, not women) find the best solution for them. This might mean flex-time, it might mean that some days you work from home. It probably entails an obligatory paternal leave to level the playing field.  It might mean that each parent can take one day off a week so the kids spend 4 days out 7 with at least one parent, as opposed to 2. (before you laugh, this is common in Holland, so yeah, it’s doable, and in the private sector too where it’s not about politics but getting the job done).

I’m saying that what we are doing now is not working, it’s not good enough, and as a consequence we are hardly in a position to go around preaching to others what we haven’t managed to work out at home. I feel like we keep trying to will the typewriter to be the best option, and frankly, the world has changed, the tools and mechanisms we use to work have evolved and it’s high time that we do too. We can do better. If we are looking at remote management for unstable situations that might blow up, maybe we can consider introducing these options for the benefit of our own staff and their families, and as we know from all the research, the impact of this would benefit us all.

Personally, I believe that these changes would lead not only to happier children and parents, but to more productive, creative and efficient aid workers. Trust me, you’d be surprised how much a working mom can get done in that ONE hour she gets between drop off and the TV repair guy.

Deep down we all know that if we could just find that humanitarian G-spot, we’d all be much happier and better people.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 672 other followers