Comments

A great article Ashlee, thanks for sharing. I was particularly surprised and disappointed by Austraining's response. This struck me as typical bureaucratic-speak, with almost no substance at all. In particular, no reason is given for the organisation's lack of response in this instance. They don't even assert that Ashlee's private feedback reports were in fact read, which in my mind all but confirms that they weren't. Also, if volunteers are told to be ready to "tear up assignment descriptions", then in my opinion it's highly questionable not to provide enough flexibility for someone like Ashlee to change the terms of her assignment under these circumstances.

Hi Les, That is an interesting comment but I don't think you're being at all fair to Ashlee. And I think you've obviously been very lucky with the development work you've done to date. Otherwise I doubt your horse would be quite so high. 1. A lot of aid work fails to produce sustained development benefits. This is not the same as saying aid doesn't work full stop: some aid does a lot of good, and a lot of aid does some good, even if only in the short to medium term. But sustained improvements are hard. And yet this, I think, is the yardstick that Ashlee is holding herself against here. Which -- to state the obvious -- is not the same same as not contributing at all, which appears to be the charge you're levelling at her. 2. To me Ashlee's post reflects the fact she did take initiative. She decided the the costs of her being there outweighed the development benefits (which, I repeat, is not the same as doing no good whatsoever) and left. Would that other development actors were so ethical and decisive. 3. Have you really never encountered intractable problems in your own work? My reading of Ashlee's post is that the problem she faced really was, owing to its nature, one she really couldn't solve. Given this, the decision she made strikes me as good development practice. And her writing this post is also good development practice -- this isn't 'whinging' it's reflecting and suggesting improvements. Which, I would think, is how we make things better. Terence

I'm currently on assignment and can contribute several points. My placement was disastrous for several reasons, not least because the host organisation had not had active programs for a long time. It was disappointing to me that the organisation was not better vetted by the in country manager before the post was advertised, as there were many warning signs. That said, the in country team have been very supportive in quickly redeploying me to a good organisation where I am able to contribute. I think we need to realise that there are many reasons assignments can go wrong, but better safe guards in the process would certainly help.

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.