Comments

I am a little late to this discussion so I may not have anything to contribute that has already been better expressed by others, although I would like to add my voice. I have had two experiences as an Australian volunteer, once as an AYAD in 2006 and as an AVID in 2011. I agree wholeheartedly with Weh Yeoh in that there is a real problem in the way expectations are built in volunteers before they depart. Particularly as AYADs, we were repeatedly told how we were the leading young people in our respective fields etc. I think there needs to be a significant readjustment in the way these assignments are framed toward prospective volunteers. I used to get quite annoyed hearing all the young volunteers complaining about how they were not achieving their objectives after three to six months. There seemed to be little self-reflection among many volunteers about the fact that they were often younger, less experienced and in most cases couldn't speak the same language as their colleagues. Yet they still expected their ideas for at times quite significant organizational change to be implemented by their colleagues. I also agree with Ashlee and others that the term "volunteer" is problematic. In addition to the points made by others it can lessen the contribution you are able to make in your host organization due to a lack of formal status within your host organization. At the same time, however, I have seen many cases where volunteers have fallen back on the term when it suits, ie. turn up late, take extra leave days and so on because they are "just a volunteer." Is it that much of a problem if we consider the volunteer program as a well-supported internship program? The program provides the opportunity for volunteers to gain great experience in a) international organizations that would normally only accept expats in senior positions or b) local NGOs that would only been able to pay around $200 per month. Ultimately I think the benefits in terms of intercultural exchange far outweigh the moderate capacity building outcomes.

Paul you are so right, pre-departure preparation and training is undervalued, not so much by the volunteer who may not know what is required, but by the sending agencies who should know better. You cannot fit the minimum required into the four day (maximum) briefings provided by agencies sending under the government's AVID program. It would seem that in the four days there is some emphasis on risk management and one would expect other practical advice on staying physically healthy. Given one is bound to engage many new and various characters in a placement the course I facilitate also has sessions dealing with psychological and interpersonal health. There is a responsibility to ensure that people engaging in a culture so completely different from their own know not only about the culture in which they will live, but have a sense of how different cultures function (including their own) and have a framework for processing what is happening to them when they feel they may not to be accepted, or able to operate within the culture. Are volunteers heading to Timor Leste given tools to assist working with people still suffering from the experience of extreme trauma? How much work is done on theories of development and the importance of analysing the assets a community already has for the development and capacity building they seek to undertake? The volunteer may have skills in the area for which they have been recruited , but it does not make them good development workers. Good development will have a toolkit containing many processes on which one can draw in different circumstances. In programs I have coordinated over 15 years the evaluations both on completion and after six months into the placement have helped to shape future sessions and as a consequence they are most often rated as very relevant and useful. I am happy to have my email shared with anyone who might want an outline of the content and outcomes for the various sessions. Oh, there is one thing I will question about what you suggest Paul. It does not need to be boring. With a variety of learning styles including simulations, presentations, discussions, workshops and a cross-cultural field trip there is something for everyone and valuable supportive inter-generational relationships to be had over nine days with the staff and other participants, which ultimately provides a great cohort of support while people are in the field.

Interesting to hear "the whole careerist push" get mentioned. Dr Nichole Georgeou's <a href="http://booko.com.au/9780415809153/Neoliberalism-Development-and-Aid-Volunteering" rel="nofollow">book</a> raises some serious concerns about volunteering being framed as a career development path for the privileged. Sadly, it has not been included on the ODE's volunteer evaluation literature review, despite being the most salient research on the topic that I've read. Let's hope the obvious nerve you've hit amongst returned volunteers gets their attention.

The essence of the issue of overseas aid is often a cultural impasse of perception. People who come from a so called ‘western’ culture that has evolved over hundreds of years and have a relatively easy life may, through their own compassion, decide to offer their services to others in foreign countries where the contrasted poverty and lack of resources is the norm. Likewise, those who sit in high rise, sterile apartments can’t or won’t see that their ‘café latte’ lifestyle is only enabled by others who labour to produce their food, clothing and material goods. These people are susceptible to supporting wonderful and warm hearted programs and policies that sound great in theory without possibly understanding the reality of practice. Warm hearted people in so called ‘developed’ countries often seem compelled in some way to try and change the world by donating money and resources to ‘good’ causes. Just as long as they don’t actually have to get down in the mud and flies and suffer the same as those who they believe they are trying to help. Therein lies the imbroglio of foreign aid and assistance programs. When many of these genuinely concerned people discover the reality that many aid programs don’t achieve any long term benefits for those who they are intended to help, they find it very difficult to understand why? Why don’t those who have now been offered the opportunity to ‘improve’, aspire to change their way of life? Why don’t the governments who have apparently allowed the calamitous situation to occur now change their ways and adopt a more egalitarian approach? What’s the answer? Well the first hurdle that must be faced is one of understanding what is achievable and what is not. In order to view what is achievable, the potential donor has to take off their own possibly rose coloured glasses and put on those of the society and culture they are aspiring to assist. But that’s easier said than done. Preparation and planning is often dull and boring when one is raring to get out in the field and change the world. Unfortunately, all too often each new wave of bright eyed and terribly keen aid workers become disillusioned when they finally come face to face with reality. Many of us have been there. The real problem is one of a lack of an over-arching training and information program about the issues, problems, culture and previous knowledge and training that should be available and studied before any initiative actually commences. Unfortunately, this often doesn’t sit well with those institutions whose bread and butter may be to promote overseas aid programs and various political viewpoints, both at home and overseas, that see the chance for a short term, quick fix to provide a convenient and easy response to genuine community concerns.

Hi Les, Thanks for your contribution to this very interesting debate. Your perspective on capacity building from within UN agencies is an interesting one -- I was by no means implying that capacity building doesn't take place within a UN context (that's a whole other debate really, it was a very hot debate among NGOs in Dili). I was questioning the overall lack of clarity within the volunteer program and the inconsistency in the 'counterpart' based approach. As for your views on broken people volunteering, I have to say that I find your suggested approach advocates for the same entitled and self-important behavior that you seem to resent. It implies that foreigners always have something to offer a developing country and know best. It implies that volunteers shouldn't try to work within the organisational or social context of the HO and should instead force change without cooperation. Quite frankly, I didn't feel I had the right to tell people how to do things. I could only make suggestions (initiative?) and identify paths forward and try to work with people to make these changes and offer my support. But if the people didn't want it or weren't interested in my suggestions, why do I have the right to push it upon them? You can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped. As a volunteer, I was not a manager -- it wasn't my right to call the shots or set priorities in the HO or to performance manage staff who were not contributing. So I disagree with you on that. I would say that it is important to remember (as SvM mentioned) how different it is to operate in a national NGO or country office context compared to a more established/resourced organisation. I will admit that my two years of experience in Indonesia didn't prepare me as much as I thought it would for Timor-Leste -- the challenges in a LDC were far different from a MIC. Just like working in a multilateral is worlds apart from working in other organisations and communities.

Thanks for your comment Michael. I gave Austraining the opportunity to respond, in the spirit of dialogue and conversation, and to correct any inaccuracies in my post prior to publication. I received no corrections, so take from that what you will. I am sure Austraining are reading the comments etc on this, and they are more than welcome to participate in the discussions. Ashlee

Hi Weh, I also think this comes down to the narrative around the program and the mode of recruitment. If positions were advertised more realistically, perhaps it would attract a different crowd. i.e. If outcomes were: assist counterpart to learn Microsoft Word, implement basic calendar system in office, copy edit English funding proposals, etc you would probably get people with more modest expectations coming in than those arriving thinking they are going to implement a national five year strategy or something. The whole careerist push whereby international volunteering is seen as some sort of box to tick on a CV doesn't help this either. You see all the colleges (particularly in the US) that create these summer program volunteering/internship things that have dubious development impact. I think many young people feel like it's something they should do instead of questioning what is actually the best way for them to help effectively.

Thanks for your comment EM. I agree that the gaping disparity between the volunteer allowance and local counterpart salaries etc is an issue. In my org, local staff knew how much volunteers were receiving and I think this likely contributed to the challenges I faced. The disparity can cause fractures in working relationships and understandable resentment. It also confuses the meaning of the word 'volunteer'. On the other hand, I probably couldn't have afforded to volunteer at that point in time without some kind of support -- even though I wasn't effective, I think some of the most effective people I have seen also needed support (i.e. had a mortgage back in Australia, had kids, etc). So in some ways I understand the allowances because it widens the possible socioeconomic pool of Australian applicants (but then I would also argue that the recruitment process narrows it again anyway), but it very much muddies the water about what a volunteer is. It isn't just Australia doing it -- UN Volunteers are also financially supported, and from what I heard anecdotally from UNV friends, their allowances are in a similar range to the AVID ones.

Although, on the other hand country B because it is more populous is asking each individual citizen to give less, which mitigates the above in a sense.

Hi Chris, It's an interesting suggestion but I don't think it's a fair assessment of generosity for two reasons: 1. The amount of debt a country has is, in most circumstances, a political decision (they could have less if they raised taxes) and it seems unfair to 'punish' a country and make them seem less generous simply because they have a long run sustainable fiscal policy. 2. Aid as a percentage of total government spending is, as this post shows, low (approx 1%) so it plays no real role in whether a country has a deficit or not. Good, interesting suggestion though.

Hear hear. Les, delighted though I am to hear that you've had resources and expertise enough at your disposal to ensure your UN placement has allowed capacity building across a broad section of the community, I'm not convinced this responds to Ashlee's enquiry about the legitimacy of placing 'volunteers' in agencies that have such resources (material and human) so readily at their disposal. I interpreted Ashlee's comments as seeking some clarity about the overall objectives of volunteer program, and suggesting scrutiny that ensures 'volunteers' aren't simply being provided to well-financed agencies in liu of an affordable staff member. I agree to some extent with your sentiments about ineffective vols justifying a paid holiday, but disagree entirely with your telling insinuation that there could be no real challenges for volunteers working with local organisations. Local organisations can be extremely tough, and effective work is not about charging in with big ideas and disregard for local colleagues. In fact, this may be precisely the view that negates your confident assertion about having done effective, community-wide 'capacity building' in your volunteer role with the UN.

Hi Russell, Thanks for your comment. I certainly enjoyed the opportunity to learn more about Timor-Leste and to meet many wonderful people there -- it is definitely a country I would return to again happily, despite the challenges. I previously worked in Indonesia for a couple of years, so I have a strong affinity for the region and my understanding and interest was only enhanced by my time in Timor-Leste. I share your frustration on feedback. As for the 'projecctised' approach, it could be an interesting model -- you are almost seeing the volunteer as a consultant in this approach, right? Another system that I've thought could work, particularly in places with many volunteers doing similar work (i.e. communications in Dili) could be to set up skills hubs, where a volunteer with a certain skill (i.e. photography or video) could conduct training and support across multiple organisations on a project basis?