Comments

Garth - there is no shortage of needs or effective mechanisms, but there is a shortage of political commitment to the 0.5% target. I can see why NGOs continue to campaign on 0.5%, but in my view it would be better to get consensus on a more modest target rather than lip service to a more ambitious one. The danger is that 0.5 will become the new 0.7: an aspiration only, never to be got near let alone achieved.

Whether the masses agree or disagree with this article aside, I am pleased to see some dialogue (ahem, excuse the development buzzword) around the validity, impact and cost-effectiveness of the (now) AusAID volunteer programs from which many of us have benefited. Oh, and hopefully through which we've even slightly contributed... Cy Nic's supposition that a reduction in allowances would create any sort of positive change is jaundiced and naive. Let's not strive for anything close to a Peace Corps model with it's 30% drop out rate and average 22 (alleged) sexual assaults of volunteers each year. Australia's volunteer programs should endeavour to be professional, supportive, mutually beneficial partnerships, and ones volunteers and taxpayers can trust will be underpinned by humanitarian concerns first, but know will involve - inevitably - political interests second. Just as all aid is highly political. What I am uncomfortable with is our deliberate misappropriation of the word 'volunteer', which should be replaced in the interests of accuracy, transparency and to help avoid the 'martyrdom' situation to which Ashlee rightly refers. A well-remunerated human resource does not qualify as a 'volunteer' simply by virtue of the fact that the host organisation is not the one paying. I second many of Roger's comments relating to expectation management and the disturbing lack of clarity about such seemingly exorbitant costs. I found the AYAD recruitment process highly flawed, and as I looked around the room during what I experienced as a lowest-common-denominator pre-departure training, found Austraining's repeated saccharine overtures about our being the creme de la creme of our field and generation questionable at best. This was reinforced in-country, during which time I was astounded by the arrogant, unethical and self-interested behaviour of some volunteers. I should say that I have also met grounded, pragmatic, talented people well worth their allowance (if not the additional $50k or so!) and clearly of value to their hosts, but not enough to suggest that this isn't happening as a result of mere luck. Finally and most personally, I share Russell's experience of Austraining's unwillingness to acknowledge or accept feedback from volunteers, even where this was provided constructively, repeatedly and with relevance to the immediate safety of volunteers. With one notable exception in the form of a very dedicated and helpful In-Country Manager (since left), I felt consistently disregarded by Austraining and found no evidence that feedback from volunteers ('volunteers') was considered to hold any value. In this respect at least I suppose they did show themselves to be like your average aid agency... practicing monitoring and evaluation for the sake of ticking the box (apologies for the cynical finale). I make these comments with some residual frustration as each a former AYAD and an Australian taxpayer, but more importantly, as a person with a belief in humanitarianism, ethical conduct and the responsibilities of the global north. I enjoyed your take on things, Ashlee, and certainly believe the program has merit. Like you, I hope that some open discussion can lead to positive changes.

Les - in line with your comment about the people that are volunteering pulling the finger out, I'd go as far to say that it's the way that some of the placements are set up that attract that exact behaviour you are describing. Looking at AYAD for a start, we have relatively inexperienced professionals thrown into the deep end with often very little support and then set up as the expert in their field, with the prime concern of "capacity building" one counterpart. This promotes one way learning and the expectation that when the volunteer says jump, everyone in the organisation should be leaping for them. There's very little about the placement that forces the volunteer to think about the strain they put on the organisation. One other thing - you queried why some volunteers can't take initiative. This is just wild stab in the dark (having never participated in such programs) but could it be because they have their hands held from day one? Right from Pre Departure Training in the Berra, all the way through to (in Cambodia) being told that volunteering outside Phnom Penh and Siem Reap is too dangerous?

Hi Roger, Thank you so much for your extensive and thoughtful comment. I think that many of the questions you have raised are very valid, particularly around the cost of sending volunteers (I too have heard figures in a similar range on cost per volunteer). I would love to access a breakdown of the spend per agency, I will keep looking around for those figures but I haven't found anything so far. For me, I definitely didn't anticipate having any impact in six months, but a third of the way in to an 18 month assignment I was unable to see how I could really contribute -- if I could have seen pathways starting to emerge by that point to achieve some sort of positive outcome I may have been motivated to stay on. I also had broader disenchantment with the program, felt unsupported yet expected to meet certain rules and expectations, and as I mentioned, felt awkward about being financially supported when I didn't feel I was contributing (even though I was trying to). I had worked overseas (quite effectively I believe!) in Indonesia previously for two years, so I probably did have some expectations based on that experience that didn't translate to the more challenging context in Timor-Leste. But the only training we were given to 'capacity build' was a short session at the pre-departure that didn't really explain anything (including any strategies or tools). So I agree with you that preparation is lacking. We spent more time going through slides of horrible motorcycle injuries from the health insurer than actually learning tools or skills to transfer knowledge. I also felt that the pre-departure training did not deliver adequate country-specific information -- although I did my own research before going etc, it would have been useful to hear information that was directly relevant to a Timor-Leste context. Ashlee

Hi Nishan, I told you to volunteer with Palms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4--prEwuiU 😉

Ashlee, I think you've go it wrong on two fronts: Firstly, from having spoken to many AYADs/AVIDs about their work, I have found that volunteers based in UN agencies tend to, counter-intuitively, be better placed to achieve tangible 'capacity-building' outcomes (whether or not we end up achieving these outcomes is another matter). I think that this may come down to the more established management and governance structures at a UN agency, better supervision and clearer terms of reference, not to mention a better standard of professionalism (I'm only speaking in very general terms here!). Don't forget also the UN's mandate is to provide technical support to national partners, so the 'capacity building' that you conduct is most likely outside the office (which may be indirect, through supporting the staff member within the office). In my case, I've been an AVID with UNAIDS Cambodia for the last 18 months and I've been lucky enough to work directly with a number of CBOs/networks. I've found that, because of the resources and expertise at my disposal, I have been able to contribute to much more 'capacity building (if we're going to use this rather obscure indicator) for many more organizations, impacting on a wider segment of the community, than if I were outside the UN. Yes, I believe that the volunteer program needs improving on the whole, but I disagree that UN agencies should be singled out as not being appropriate hosts for these volunteers on the basis that 'capacity building' isn't done. Secondly, and please don't take this personally, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it isn't so much the volunteer program that is broken, but rather the people who volunteer. It seems that many volunteers turn up to their host organisation with an inflated sense of entitlement and self-importance, and when the working environment isn't set up perfectly to suit their needs, they bitch and moan and use it to justify their impotence and for treating the rest of their assignment as a paid holiday. I find it difficult to believe that anybody could 'struggle' to contribute while working in an aid-organisation IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. So what if your counterpart doesn't want to work with you? So what if your supervisor isn't in the office to hold your hand? Take some bloody initiative for goodness sake! Bloody hell, I have the impression that many smaller NGOs actually find having AYADs/AVIDs as a massive strain on THEIR time and energy. Have we really turned into such a bunch of whingers, expecting to be spoon-fed detailed instructions on how to do some good? If you have these expectations, then obviously the volunteer program isn't for you, nor is development work. Thanks for this opportunity to reflect and debate. I'm ready to be thrown off my high horse!

Hi Nishan, Thanks for your comment. Just FYI, the AYAD program still exists, it is underneath the broader AVID umbrella. Also, I think you are being very conservative in your estimation of volunteer sending costs -- though it would vary greatly by country. I've heard costs in the range of $70,000 per volunteer, for 12 months but can't confirm that (I also heard around $100,000 for an 18-month assignment). The assignment allowance varies greatly depending where you are -- from $1000 a month or thereabouts in Indonesia, to $2000-ish in Timor-Leste, to $3000 or so in PNG (all numbers based on what friends have told me). The addition of local and regional volunteers would be a wonderful option. I agree that the focus of the program needs to be on development outcomes of some kind, if it is funded under the aid program. PR and Australia's interests should be the side benefits of this type of engagement, not the focus. And if the positions are actually internships, then perhaps the funding should come from another area (education, training, foreign affairs?)

Hello Terence, Thank you for your response. In terms of how aid donor generousity relates to debt as a percentage of GDP, I was refering to the pressure on the donor government's budget. For example, say two countries (A and B) that give the same share of ODA/GNI, Country A has debt as a percentage of GDP of 100% and Country B has debt as a percentage of GDP of 20%, Country A could be considered more generous. Do you think that is reasonable? How would this change OECD aid donors ranking?

Thanks for your comment Rhianon. I agree that support is a major issue in effectiveness, particularly for young volunteers -- without the backing of their sending organisation, it's difficult in many contexts for them to work through issues. From speaking with other volunteers, a large number of which are young women sent into organisations to 'build capacity' of those older than them and sometimes male in organisations or societies with strong hierarchical/patriarchal values, unless someone with some perceived authority intervenes to work through problems or to negotiate the terms of the role and try to define expectations, they often just face roadblock after roadblock. I wonder whether trying harder to pair counterparts with someone similar to them would improve effectiveness? i.e. young women with young women, etc. I certainly got on very well with my young female counterpart, however my older male counterpart (+ no intervention from the HO on this) was a roadblock to us doing anything and basically wouldn't even speak to me no matter how hard I tried.

I fully agree with the sentiments here, I was also an Australian volunteer (back when it was called AYAD) and saw many of these same issues. I continue to see these issues from friends who are currently in the program. I think the fundamental flaw is that the volunteering program is not based on the needs of the locals. The country managers try to find organisations to take on the volunteers and the 'volunteers' can only be Australian citizens, I estimate the total cost for a one year volunteer at more than 15,000 (1000 per month salary + flight, insurance, etc.), this kind of money could hire a highly qualified local or regional person and probably have additional money for activities. The host organisations however are not given this choice, or any choice on the expenditure except for selecting from a small number of pre-selected Australian candidates. If host organisations could actually chose what to do with the money then they would take far more ownership of the outcomes, and you wouldn't get the (too common) case of the expensive but unwanted volunteer sitting around checking Facebook while the host NGO worries about where to get a $1000 to pay for some critical work to alleviate poverty. I heard that the Canadian equivalent (CUSO) does allow local and regional volunteers, why can't Australia do the same? I think the root cause is that the AVID program serves a dual goal to 'alleviate poverty' AND 'help Australians get jobs'. I wish that aid money (a mere 0.4% of Australias GNP) was spent only for alleviating poverty, and the remaining 99.6% can be for helping Australians. If that was the case then we would have the flexibility to meet the needs of the host organisation.

Dear Ashlee, I have noted the many concerns you have with international development volunteering and agree with most of the attributions you make for the problems you faced. Essentially however the problems occur because the assumptions about what can be achieved are wrong and the model attempts to ignore the approaches required to deal with cross-cultural engagement, especially in grass-roots placements. Advice to ‘tear up our assignment descriptions’ sounds like it is born of the frustration of someone working in a program that does not have the freedom to work with the reality as they find it, rather than as the Australian Volunteers for International Development program AVID/AusAID want to believe it can be packaged. There is just too much focus on outcomes being achieved that would be ambitious for an employee, even in a well-resourced Australian workplace. As you identify capacity building is not something that you can presume to undertake from day one, although I fear inadequate preparation left you with the impression that you could “have a tangible impact” within six months. I have had 20 years’ experience in international development and manage a program that has been preparing and sending volunteers for over 50 years. Our comprehensive pre-departure preparation promotes the understanding that if one has built some trust and credibility with the host community/organisation, capacity building might be planned in consultation with them sometime after day 181. It’s incredible that those who set the expectations for AVID volunteers appear to have no capacity for understanding that or providing the training to manage the first 180 days. Have they ever volunteered? Or do they only have the experience in an Australian workplace? So how does a volunteer usefully occupy their time in the first 180 days? I am happy to outline appropriate approaches that work in different circumstances, but first I want to highlight some of the underlying flaws of the model currently in play. The first comment to your blog from Nic makes part of the point succinctly, but I want something done about it, and I suspect we need to spell it out even if that is not the accepted protocol of a blog response. The cost to Government of funding an international development volunteer is very much higher than one might expect. No matter how much “good” argument one might believe there is to explain the cost, it is a figure that will legitimately put a sparkle in the eye of media commentators who love to highlight “the wastage of taxpayer’s money”. Such a campaign could have implications for longer-term Government support of Australian volunteer programs, but there are also many reputational risks for “volunteers” and programs in overseas communities that receive volunteers. One of the agencies sub-contracted to the Australian Government under the Australian Volunteers for International Development (AVID) program told one of our partners recently that the cost to mobilise a single volunteer for 12 months is $80,000. This is an even more astounding figure than the $60,000 per annum mentioned to me by the First Assistant Director General of the Africa and Community Programs Division at AusAID around 12 months ago. My experience tells me that with no more risk to volunteers, or program effectiveness, significantly more communities can be served using approaches that cost just over $20,000 per annum. The question: “Where is the money spent?” inevitably arises. I can explain $20,000, or possibly even $25,000, but no one has shown me a breakdown of the $60-80K expenditures. AusAID explain that their independent auditors have satisfied them that $60,000 is an appropriate expenditure. The Volunteer Allowance: Some very worrying signs are coming from the field. In one country an AVID volunteer was critical of the idea that volunteers from another agency was paid a much smaller allowance than herself. The lower-paid volunteer in question, like most that make the effort to adjust, reports she found fulfilment in frugality as she had learnt again to appreciate the small things in life and her low income required a small dependence on the local community that seemed to enhance her relationship with them. It is important to encourage a relationship with local communities whereby they recognise the value of the volunteer’s contribution as something worth paying for and so my organisation asks communities, where possible, to provide a level of support for the volunteer and, if possible, accommodation. It is a sound principle given that in the longer-term communities may need to make provision for the payment of one of their own to replace the volunteer. However it is not a principle encouraged by all agencies. When such principles are abandoned bad development practice can take hold. A consequence of volunteers being given big money by their home government is that receiving communities come to understand volunteers as cash cows able to pay, and handsomely, for their own accommodation. Sustainable development programs become secondary in communities where the primary reason for requesting volunteers is the cash and cargo they might bring with them. Agencies meeting quotas: The issue is compounded further where agencies with large government contracts have a desperate need to get appropriate volunteer numbers in the field and are less than thorough in ensuring substantial real work for a volunteer. Is this, combined with a large income the reason we hear of so many volunteers wandering around more like 'voluntourists' who find it easier to give their money rather than themselves? It is easy to see how such a scenario distorts appropriate relationships between volunteers and local communities and ultimately the understanding of the value of volunteers in effective capacity building. If volunteers happily assist to create the charade can we blame them? So many, encouraged by universities looking for students, get qualifications in “International Development” and then volunteer agencies, competing for recruits, encourage their vocational ambition with a placement that will enhance their CV. Unfortunately, naively focusing on this potential reward (a lifetime’s work helping others to develop) can assist to distort the mutual relationship required to engage appropriately and learn from the local community how to effectively participate in sustainable capacity building. Regardless of what causes the volunteer to struggle money will only compound the problem. Spending a big allowance socialising with other expatriates may help to put the struggle to one side, or raising funds from home can assist to buy some cargo the community might at least appreciate in the short-term, but neither promotes sustainable development. Greater vulnerability with less money allows a better engagement with the community and accepting appropriate approaches to development is more likely. What else absorbs the funds? This remains unclear, but I think efforts should be made to make it public. Why are AusAID satisfied that $60,000 is an appropriate cost? It has climbed significantly in recent years, but if as I have been given to understand, success is based on the self-reporting of the agencies, perhaps it is easy to believe that it is money well spent. I presume the auditors AusAID contract check that the $60-80K per volunteer is spent without deliberate miss-appropriation. However it is unlikely that the auditors are mandated to question what makes for good volunteering outcomes. And, as you point out Ashlee it is very unlikely that they here much of the concerns of volunteers. Does anyone know if we can get a breakdown of the spend by the contracted agencies? Or is that conveniently classified for commercial in-confidence reasons? What is being spent on office rental, recruitment and personnel support? Do AVID agencies have more paid staff per volunteer or, more “specialist” staff that require much higher remuneration? Is it really a model that works? The worry is the $60-80K figure will work for a shock-jock wanting to highlight “waste in overseas aid at the expense of your Australian living standards”. Something must be done before the reputation of International Development Volunteering is written off as a scandal. Government needs to be able to say other models are being trialled. Justifying the volunteer program will be even harder if we start talking about the other more efficient, more ethical, value for money options that have been rejected without explanation.

Ashlee - a reasonably balanced and objective article. I agree with you on several fronts. I have nothing to complain about in terms of personal gains from my assignment, and I enjoyed my time in Indonesia immensely (so much so in my day job now I deal regularly with activities based in or focused on Indonesia). However I too question the gains for my host organisation - especially when it took me more than half of my 12 month assignment to convince them they needed to employ someone to be my counterpart because I wasn't going to be around forever. Feedback to Austraining seems to fall on deaf ears, and I have very few positive things to say about support from the current ICM and team in Indonesia (though since leaving in June 2012 that may have improved). Regarding assignment design, I have often thought a 'projectised' approach would work better, whereby the needs of potential host organisations are determined and volunteers with skills found to meet those needs (e.g. a broad-category need might be 'business management', or a desired outcome might be 'better stakeholder engagement'). On arrival the volunteer could then spend the first little while working WITH the host across multiple counterparts to develop 'projects' that can make the most of the volunteer's and their skills, and realistically be achieved during the volunteer's time in-country. All that being said, I would not swap my time in Indonesia for anything and I encourage any and all people with even the slightest inclination to sign up.