Comments

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.

Cy Nic - yes that is a very cynical view, and actually very far removed from the reality the majority of the time. In my experience many Peace Corps volunteers view their placements as little more than a chance to "hang out" and have a cultural experience, because their pay and program does not treat them as professionals. AVI volunteers however value their opportunity and feel respected by having a proper living allowance and a respected position in their host organisations. I must say that I found the Austraining response very "nothing"... just the usual PR spin. High staff turn over in country indicates that there are systemic issues that need to be addressed, generally! And why on earth would Austraining be offering "pastoral support" to volunteers? It is not supposed to be a religious program! In my experience both as a volunteer and as CEO of an organisation in which a number of volunteers are placed, the experience of feeling under-utilised due to organisational resistance and role confusion is very common - and not necessarily entirely preventable. The support needs of volunteers however do need to be much more thoroughly addressed, and better preparation would certainly help. It has seemed to me that volunteers are largely expected to carve out their own positions in an organisation and the ICMs only get involved if all else has failed - and sometimes too late. This was never the case for me but it was for a number of my peers. Volunteers need to be seen as a privilege and a massively valuable opportunity that an organisation must make the most of... and one of the systemic issues which could be addressed is the pressure to avoid "early leavers" from AusAID's side as this undermines the program's capacity to address issues effectively.

Hi Chris, Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I understand your first measure. Aid is a very small % of government spending and so, effectively contributing factor to any debt which a country might possess, so I don't quite see how debt could be used as a measure of aid generosity. On GDP per capita -- after a very quick preliminary think about it I think I get your point. For example (using GNI/Capita which is very close to GDP/Capita) for simplicity's sake. If we imagine two countries (A and B) with the same GNI but one (A) which has twice as many people as the other (B). B is in fact a much poorer country than A, but if they gave the same amount of aid their aid/GNI ratio would be the same. Which seems unfair as B is sacrificing more than A. On one hand this isn't perhaps a huge issue as the OECD DAC is made up of countries that are all pretty wealthy on a GNI/Capita measure. However there is some variation between the most and least wealthy, and what you are suggesting would be a measure of generosity that better takes this into account (I think). Note that as Australia is one of the wealthier OECD countries (by GNI/Capita) on your suggested measure it would come out looking somewhat worse than it does on a pure per GNI measure. Thanks again Terence

The genius of the Australian Government's AVID program is that it pays, I mean provides a living allowance to, volunteers that is just enough to keep the volunteers happy and/or in alcohol for the length of their assignment. Reduce the payment to a Peace Corps-style subsistence allowance, and I reckon nine out of ten volunteers would decide they were wasting their time chasing the white unicorn of capacity development and leave early.

A bit more perspective, from P542 of the Latest Issue of Perspectives on Politics: "By mid-2010, the US Agency for International Development alone was spending $340 million on Afghan reconstruction per month, often on questionable projects..."

Hello Angus, Thank you for your interesting blog. I was just hoping to hear what your (and others) thoughts were about including the following in the ODA generousity measure: 1) Government Debt as a percentage of GDP - higher government debt would imply greater generousity 2) GDP per capita - lower GDP per person would imply greater generousity There is a great deal of variation among OECD countries across these indicators. If they were factored in, how would Australia compare in terms of generousity?

Thanks Garth. That is very interesting information (and also true of other countries if my memory serves me well). For the record, I definitely agree with you and Angus on the merits of ODA over total govt spend as a means of communicating aid share with the public.

I agree, Stephen, with your concerns about unpredictable aid levels having a major impact on aid quality and effectiveness. It can make planning very difficult for receiving countries, can harm coordination with other donors and must be a nightmare for AusAID having to change its comprehensive 4 year plan months after its release. If government is serious about maximising the effectiveness of aid it must provide long term predictability in aid funding and utilise its skilled AusAID staff to plan and implement expanded programs, not rewrite plans and juggle funds. I don't however think that it follows that the increases need to be of similar size each year or that an annual increase of 0.05% of GNI is unmanageable. AusAID already has plans to accommodate that scale of increase. In addition, underfunded but treatable, health needs (such as HIV, malaria,TB) alone could very effectively use any additional funding that Australia could offer to the Global Fund and other effective multilateral agencies. And then there is expanded health worker training and recruitment needed to improve child and maternal health ... There is no shortage of needs, nor of effective mechanisms (including AusAID) to help meet these needs - the limitation is adequate, predictable, long-term funding.

Thanks Garth. I take your point on the chart title - something to bear in mind for future summaries.

Thanks Angus for starting this interesting discussion. While I agree with Terence's arguments about the better comparability of the ODA/GNI ratio I do think that the ODA/federal budget ratio can have more meaning for the public, and in some ways, for MPs. For this reason World Vision and other groups have often included questions in opinion polls about what share of the federal budget the respondent thinks is currently spent on aid and what share they think should be spent on aid. Every survey I have read has the following outcome: - most people think that a greater share of the budget is spent on aid than actually is, and - most people suggest a share that is higher than the current 1.4% of budget expenditure. I think the 2011 <a href="http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/2011-lowy-institute-poll" rel="nofollow">Lowy Poll</a> was the most recent Australian opinion survey to cover this. It found that the average estimate of current ODA/gov expenditure was 16%, while the average suggested share was 12%. Australian NGOs campaigning for greater aid regularly highlight the very small share of the budget that goes to aid, but we tend to focus on the ODA/GNI target as we do not want to confuse people with different measures.