Jun 22

Brilliant Partnership or Potential Disaster?

The University of Oregon and the Global Oregon Initiative recently announced an interesting—and controversial—partnership: a partnership with the government of Gabon. This one-of-a-kind cooperative agreement has a noble purpose: to establish joint research centers in Eugene and Libreville in order to study sustainability, economic development, and natural resource management. However, the union is problematic because of Gabon’s difficult history and legacy of corruption, and especially because of the history of human rights abuses in the nation.

Current Gabonese President Ali Bongo Ondimba rose to power in 2009 after the death of former president Omar Bongo Ondimba, his father. Omar Bongo ruled Gabon for 42 years and had a wide variety of human rights violations and corruption charges leveled against himself and his family. So far Ali Bongo seems to have worked to improve the situation in Gabon, especially in regards to human rights and to the environment, but the memory of his father’s harsh rule has not yet faded.  Further, Ali Bongo became President through a highly contested election many consider to have been fraudulent.

Many think that Ali Bongo will bring change, however. Dennis Galvan, associate professor of international studies at the University of Oregon and one of the major players behind the partnership, insists that Ali Bongo is committed to change and good governance, ending corruption, and addressing the needs of the poor. Bongo himself has stated that he is working hard to reduce corruption and to build a government that is transparent and ethical. On the other hand, a profile of Gabon published in a 2009 issue of the New York Times revealed that 60% of the population lived on less than $2 a day and only 10% of the roads were paved, while the Bongo family has over 3 dozen real estate holdings in Paris.

Whether or not Ali Bongo reverses the trend and remains committed to democracy and good governance, the partnership seems like it will be extremely beneficial to both countries. Gabon is an oil-rich country that for decades has relied almost solely on this one resource, but now that their oil-based economy is dying they must quickly find a way to diversify. This partnership with the University of Oregon will help Gabon transition to sustainable natural resource management and low-impact ecotourism while investing more in education and human capital, which in turn will help boost the economy and ensure that the country will not collapse when there is no more oil. Gabon will become the sustainable development model for Africa, a great gift considering the nation has national parks over 11% of the country and rain forests covering a large portion of the rest. Since Oregon is at the forefront of sustainability and green development in the U.S., the union of the two makes perfect sense.

The concept behind the Gabon-Oregon Transnational Research Center on Environment and Development is fairly straight-forward: students from the five Oregon universities involved in the partnership will do study-abroad, internship, and research programs in Gabon, while Gabonese students will do the same in Oregon. The programs will help Gabon modernize its education system and promote research, and the focus will mainly be on issues like environmental management, ecotourism, sustainable development, and green business. It seems like an ideal program: Oregon has plenty to teach, Gabon wants to learn, and world benefits from Gabon protecting its diverse flora and fauna and promoting ecotourism and sustainable development in Africa.

The only hitch is the threat of the return to the corruption and human rights violations of Omar Bongo’s rule. It seems for now that Ali Bongo is on a good track, but who can say what will happen five years down the line? I am glad, though, that the University of Oregon agreed to this partnership early on, rather than waiting to see what will happen with Ali Bongo’s presidency. If the oil were to dry up in a few years and Gabon had been unsuccessful in finding a partner to help it diversify its economy we could have much larger problems on our hands than the potential threat of a return to Omar Bongo-style leadership. Plus, we could lose a lot of rainforest and endangered species in the intervening years. So for everyone’s sake, I hope that this partnership is long and fruitful, that Ali Bongo remains dedicated to ethical and transparent government, and I applaud the University of Oregon and the Global Oregon Initiative for taking such a courageous step in the face of vehement protests.

Share

Jun 22

LGBT Refugees and Asylum Seekers

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community has experienced discrimination, threat, and violence around the globe.  Violations of human rights are heavily affecting LGBT individuals in many regions of the world, forcing them to flee persecution and seek refuge in other nations—one being the United States.  The resettlement network in the U.S. has limited awareness about, education on and resources for LGBT asylum seekers.  In my last post, I highlighted some of the initiatives undertaken by the Obama Administration to expand and protect the rights of LGBT citizens here in America.  Now, I am pleased to learn that the Administration has provided the first-ever grant to build a resource center that will address the specific needs of LGBT refugees seeking resettlement in the U.S.  The grant was provided to Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights, based in Chicago, in the amount of $250,000.  I am hopeful that this initiative will provide necessary information and resources that seek to fully serve and protect LGBT refugees to the fullest extent, but I cannot help but to be cautious in my enthusiasm.

Heartland Alliance will be partnering with the Administration for Children & Families and the Office of Refugee Resettlement in a comprehensive initiative that maintains the goal of eliminating worldwide violence based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.  The basic components of the project will include:

  • Resource and capacity development in key resettlement locations
  • Sensitivity training to network staff, including overview of key issues regarding newly arriving LGBT refugees
  • Technical assistance in service delivery
  • Development of best practices and orientation materials for refugee service providers across the country

More than ever before, LGBT individuals are publically coming out, not hiding their true identities as human beings any longer.  With an increase in public awareness, those living in countries that have homophobic laws and religious statutes live in fear of their lives on a daily basis and are increasingly seeking asylum in safer regions.  Unfortunately, seeking asylum in the U.S. is not a short or easy process.  The process has been criticized in the past for denying LGBT individuals refuge specifically because of their sexuality up until the mid-1990’s and more recently due to claims of individuals not being outwardly “gay enough.” Although the later has been refuted by immigration officials, there have been identified cases where this may have occurred.  Officials have made counter-claims stating that some individuals were applying for asylum based upon being homosexual in an oppressive country, yet were later found to be fraudulent cases.  I can understand the apprehensiveness of immigration workers to grant asylum in situations where individuals file on the basis of sexual orientation for the fear of fraud; however, that is why it is so important for network staff to become educated on best practices and why the need for this upcoming resource center is super significant in making sure needs of LGBT refugees are respected and met.

It starts with the application and interview process, but then what about when LGBT refugees are finally granted asylum and have entered the U.S.?  Some of the agencies that assist refugees in their resettlement have been accused of neglect and/or abuse.  Neglect has occurred in instances where refugees are linked to agencies that do not provide services or resources to LGBT individuals and/or are not sensitive to their needs.  Until recently, agencies only received basic information about the asylum seekers (i.e. age, gender, nationality, medical issues) they would serve with no mention of sexual orientation or reasons for fleeing their countries of origin.  This tells me that there is not a thorough resettlement process that allows for refugees to form relationships with organizations based upon their individual needs, but rather with what is most convenient.  This can be damaging to individuals who are trying to adjust to new surroundings and have very little, if any, support.  Abuse allegations have occurred in instances where refugees were discriminated against and bad-mouthed by employees of the very agencies that are supposed to assist them in rebuilding a life in the U.S.  I was surprised to read about allegations made by Sudanese refugees regarding negative experiences with the very agency that is leading the LGBT refugee resource center initiative—Heartland Alliance.  While these are just allegations, nothing should be ignored.

Learning from past mistakes and creating a resource center that genuinely aims to serve and protect LGBT refugees is necessary.  Making sure asylum seekers get the resources and support they need to live successful lives in the U.S. should be made priority.  It is important for the governmental refugee resettlement program to create new and long-lasting non-governmental partnerships in safe (and gay-friendly) communities that can support those in need effectively.  Program evaluations and a checks-and-balances system would ensure positive outcomes for those being served and pave a way for improvements.

Governmental and non-governmental agencies must reevaluate their intents going into projects or positions, where human lives have been and will be affected significantly by the choices they make.  While I think that the new LGBT refugee resource center initiative is something that is desperately needed, care must be taken to ensure asylum seekers are not re-victimized.  As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in.”

Cynthia Castaldo-Walsh is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on gender-based conflict, non-violence and peacebuilding for conflict transformation, and sustainability for conflict resolution.
Share

Jun 21

A Healthy Dose of Skepticisim

In my last post, I remarked that I believe most people intend to be kind. Yet sometimes, because they often lack the awareness of what it takes to be kind, they fall short of fulfilling this lofty goal. Our lack of awareness of what it takes to be kind is not the only thing that prevents us from doing good. As empirical observation from Nazi Germany or findings from the Milgram experiment suggest, people are often convinced that wrong is actually right by authority figures. I love my dad very much. Nonetheless, because I am aware of how harmful obedience can be, I will ironically dedicate this post-Father’s Day article to discussing the importance of questioning authority figures and the dangers of Paternalism as a political philosophy.

For those of you who have never taken Psychology 101, Stanley Milgram was a psychologist at Yale who, following the Holocaust, wondered how millions of people in Nazi Germany could have prescribed to such amoral orders. Essentially, Milgram wanted to study the power of authority and perils of obedience. In this controversial experiment, the researcher asked a “teacher” (the research subject) to shock the “learner” (a confederate) if this student responded to questions incorrectly. The teacher was told to increase voltage on each successive miss. Although the learner wasn’t actually receiving a shock on missed questions, the teacher believed the learner was receiving shocks and even heard fabricated screams of pain from the learner. If the teacher expressed desire to stop administering shocks, the researcher simply calmly demanded that it was essential for the teacher to continue the experiment.

The results of this experiment were unsettling at best. 65% of the subjects administered a final 450-volt shock, which was labeled ‘XXX’ on the shock generator. Not even a single subject managed to stop shocking the learner at 300 volts, which was labeled ‘Intense Shock’ in red text on the generator. What do such results imply about humanity? If so many typical law-abiding citizens were so capable of hurting a stranger for the sake of fulfilling a random researcher’s demands, how extensive is our potential to do wrong on the whim of an authority figure?

Obedience in the context of mental disorders is especially interesting and controversial. Many patients complain about forced hospitalizations or prescribed medications. They argue that treatment is not consensual and certain medications can turn them into a shell of their former selves. At the same time, such medications often allow the patient to fulfill responsibilities to himself, his family, his friends, and to the world. Here, I struggle to reconcile my strong belief in an individual’s right to autonomy, knowledge of the positive effects that certain unwanted medications can have on an individual, and understanding that not all patients are at a mental state that renders them capable of making good, practical decisions.

Most mental illnesses include fluctuations in mental state, and a patient’s ability to make good, rational decisions can vary depending on the day. At what mental state should a patient receive complete autonomy to choose which treatment he receives? There are clearly some times where a parent, spouse, psychiatrist, or neurologist should be making decisions for the patient, whereas others where the patient is fully capable of making good decisions for himself. What should the government’s role in this process be? When should they pass decision-making responsibility to a patient’s caretakers, and when should the patient retain this responsibility? These are difficult questions to answer – questions for experts in the field of neuropsychiatric conditions. One thing is for sure. We should be vigilant to monitor that these answers are based on scientific evidence. As citizens, it is our responsibility not to simply obey the orders of specialists and politicians. We must be on the constant lookout for human rights abuses by our “authority figures.”

As you may have gleaned about me from this post and my post discussing the validity of legalizing certain drugs, I take issue with the government telling its people what they can and can’t do on subjective moral grounds. I think such paternalistic laws are potentially very dangerous for society. First, they can encourage citizens to turn into mindless drones who do or don’t do certain things just because they are “the law of the land” or because “that’s just the way things are.” This mentality is dangerous, as people may stop thinking critically about right and wrong and take laws at face value. We should wonder WHY is this right or wrong and WHY is this law valid or invalid. Second, in the event that our leaders convince us to prescribe to this mindless mentality, we are open to exploitation. They can impose laws to fulfill their own agendas and stunt societal development or progress.

I am not attempting to argue that paternalistic laws, or even laws in general, are necessarily a bad thing. I just think people should be wary of their governments, or other authority figures in their life. They should do things based on an absolute sense of right and wrong rather than what their “superiors” tell them to do. I should not commit murder because I know that it’s wrong to take another person’s life, not because I know that it’s against the law. Similarly, I should not use drugs because they might be bad for my health or against my own ethical code, not because some men and women in suits decided it was wrong for me to do so. Such skepticism of authority figures is what allowed revolutionaries and civil rights leaders such as Gandhi, Mandela, and King to enact such dramatic change in their respective countries. If they gave in to mindless, paternalistic laws, the state of the world could be very different today.

I do not claim to know when a bit of paternalism imposed upon a mental health patient, or upon any ordinary citizen, is justified and not justified. However, I do know that there is a very fine line between the two. Ignoring the potentially malicious power of obedience can lead to inaction from citizens and eventually human rights abuses. Thus, in all cases in which authority figures impose their beliefs, a healthy dose of skepticism should be used.

 

Shaunak Varma is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focusing on mental health. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.

Share

Jun 21

Opium and Afghanistan

The opium industry in Afghanistan is booming! But will it remain this way?  The poppy plant, from which opium is derived, has been a staple crop of Afghan farmers for many years now.  And for good reason, for poppy is relatively easy to take care of and fetches a lot of money.  However, only 10% of the world’s production of opium is legal, and is strictly monitored by the governments in India, Australia and Turkey.  The other 90% of the world’s opium production comes from Afghanistan but is completely illegal.  Various organizations have been working for over a decade to try and end this illegal cultivation and trade of opium.

When I first heard of the overwhelming statistic on poppy crops in Afghanistan, I was surprised and then confused.  Aside from the obvious facts that opium is illegal and highly addictive, I was completely unaware of why so many international organizations were concerned about poppy cultivation.  After doing some more research, I realized how drastic the repercussions of opium in Afghanistan truly are:

  • The majority of money made from opium goes into funding the Taliban.  The insurgency uses the drug money to buy their weapons, explosives, and to pay their soldiers.
  • Villages of Afghanistan that are unstable, underdeveloped and prone to violence are the leaders in growing opium.  These are the areas that have stronger ties to the Taliban because the government is not doing enough to provide for them.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) notes that there is a direct correlation between high insecurity and high opium cultivation.
  • The high prices of opium have pushed out all desire for farmers to plant any other crops.  Even for the few farmers that do wish to farm other crops, there is unfortunately no alternative offered to them.
  • Opium is very much engrained in the lifestyles of Afghans; a large portion of the population is addicted to opium, even children.

 

Now that I understand how dangerous the opium industry is, I am completely in support of projects that work to stop the cultivation and production of opium.  However, I also am aware of how ambitious an endeavor this is.  While there is no lack of aid being poured into Afghanistan, none of these projects are able to truly get to the root of the development problem, which is that Afghans cultivate poppy because they have no viable alternatives being offered to them.  Some current projects by Continue reading

Share

Jun 21

Elephants to the Rescue

Southern Sudan’s wildlife could provide it with an opportunity to develop a vibrant tourism industry

July 9th is fast approaching. This is the day when south Sudan is scheduled to secede from the north and become an independent nation – something many of us have been eagerly waiting for. Violence has plagued the build up to this monumental day, but a recent agreement between northern and southern Sudanese military forces to withdraw from the disputed oil-rich regions offers a glimmer of hope that the south can separate in relative peace.

But what happens when the south does secede? How can a brand new poverty stricken nation build itself into a more economically sound nation? One helping factor, as I’ve discussed before, is the role played by aid organizations. Another factor is the assistance offered by foreign nations who have an interest in helping south Sudan get to its feet. This aid will probably be particularly generous when coming from the nations that rely on Sudan’s vast oil reserves, such as China.

To an extent, both of these factors neglect to take into account what the Sudanese themselves can do to help lift their nation out of poverty. So what does southern Sudan have to offer outside of oil?

Despite years of war and unkempt hunting, Sudan still has an incredible amount of wildlife. In recent aerial surveys, as many as 1 million antelopes, 300,000 gazelles and 5,000 elephants were counted as they roamed across the plains. The lack of an established tourism industry means that there has been little incentive to foster the growth of these animal populations. Why bother regulating them if no one is coming to see them anyway? It also means that there are few measures in place to discourage poaching. In one national park in the south that spans 10,000 square miles, there are only 150 park rangers – that’s over 66 square miles per ranger.

Some tour providers in neighboring countries have already jumped on the idea of expanding the industry to south Sudan. While assistance from those experienced with the running of such an industry should be welcome, the southern Sudanese are the ones who need to end up managing it. Otherwise, any capital raised might slip right out of south Sudan and defeat the purpose of creating the industry to support the new nation all together. Members of the Wildlife Conservation Society who are already working in Sudan alongside the Sudanese could help train more locals on how to care for the wildlife and help the number of animals to grow. Without the animals, after all, there is no safari adventure.

It’s clear that the desire for a more tourist friendly nation exists, as some groups have already signed up for Sudanese safaris that don’t yet exist. The innovators and some adventurous tourists are there, but the actual program is not.

When people think of the African continent, many think safari. While safari may not be inherently connected to Sudan as it is to, say, Kenya, with the right amount of animal protection, tourism promotion and security enhancement, Sudan could attract a vibrant crowd of adventure tourists. The value of attracting this crowd extends beyond that of the money charged for the actual event. Foreigners need a hotel to stay in before and after the safari, they need food to eat and they need transportation. All of this helps put money in the local pocket. Even if the safaris are package deals run by foreign companies, the industry would give southern Sudan an opportunity to shine as a place that is worth visiting – and revisiting.

I am not so naïve as to believe that a robust tourism industry alone could prop up southern Sudan economically, but I do think that it could make an important contribution. Anything that could help shift southern Sudan from a poisonous reliance on oil should be welcome. The southern government should of course focus on building better infrastructure to help address the basic needs of its citizens, but it should also focus on projects that could help the country in the long term. As for the latter, managing the wildlife might just be the ticket.

Ryan Pavel is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focusing on foreign military involvement, policy and strategy into conflicts and motivations behind and impact of foreign aid. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

 

Share

Jun 21

The white man’s burden

Leer la versión en Español

Scarcity or inequality?

We live in a world with economic inequalities, divided between the “developed” and the “developing” countries, the North and the South. As citizens of the world, we deal with those economic inequalities in different ways.

Developed nations and individuals feel the need to carry on with the “white man’s burden” (to quote Kipling’s poem). For Kipling, the white man’s burden is the responsibility to help and civilize others who seem less technologically and culturally developed. Indeed, since colonial times rich countries and individuals (generally white) have offered assistance, either with good or bad intentions behind it.

Nevertheless what we now see as poverty may not be as dramatic as we hear. It’s not to say that poverty doesn’t exist. It does, and it is serious. But it has become more of a problem of inequality than of scarcity, a problem of justice more than of resources. To give just one example, nowadays more people die of obesity than of hunger (heart disease are the primary cause of death worldwide, see here). It is estimated that 1 billion suffer chronic hunger but over 2 billion suffer from obesity.

So it seems that overproduction is actually killing us! And bad distribution of food kills some others. Maybe the white man’s burden is now a burden to help him-self and not “the others”. Kipling’s poem should be updated (with a less racist tone).

Unequal consumption is not only a matter of food. We could also compare how we use energy, or compare how we use resources (natural and financial), to see that the solution relies on distribution and not exactly production. Knowing how much we can produce, we may even start asking ourselves what is the meaning of being “developed”. Is it just being more wealthy and productive? When we offer development, what exactly should we offer? I think that before taking any action we should try to answer those questions.

A while ago I volunteered for a non-profit to build a house for a poor family in Mexico City (Un techo para mi pais). Their home was small and they had very few things. Our

Building the house for Un techo para mi Pais

task was to build them a new house, and when we finished it we were all (the volunteers), feeling pretty good about ourselves. After all, we’ve just built a house!

But the family I was with was not as enthusiastic. They were grateful, for sure, but we really didn’t do anything to lift them out of their poverty, and they knew it. The poverty that we saw in their house was “tragic” to us because they didn’t have good clothes, tennis shoes or good shampoos. But they did have a roof, food, and clothes. We had felt that by building a new house we were making them less poor, but the truth was that the family felt poor only when they compared themselves to us. Poverty becomes a matter of inequality, not scarcity.

On the other hand, what was really tragic was that the mother could not raise her children because she had to work 10 hours as a maid and was not paid enough to save money. What was tragic was that the father had to commute 2 hours to get to his work. Everyday he had to walk, bike, and hop on the subway before getting there. If he was late or could not go, he did not have any rights to protest, and was at risk of being fired and losing his job.

Sometimes we think of people as poor because they don’t have everything we have, and therefore we try to help them. But development is a matter of human rights and of leveling the playing field more than it is of giving better standards of living. What the family needed was better institutions, better services, and more opportunities. I almost feel we could have been more useful in the long term by giving them a civics class and teaching them their rights.

Whenever we’re faced with poverty (or I should say inequality), we feel compelled to help, often out of some type of “pity” or “guilt” that individuals don’t have the same things we have. But this only leads to band-aid solutions. Because of the separation between “us” and “them”, “we” try to help according to what “we” think “they” need. This separation hides (and even denies) the connection we all have with each other, and it helps us (the developed) deny that we are also part of the problem, not just the solution. Sometimes we just want to get rid of the poverty we see on the surface, so that we don’t feel bad. We don’t dare to blame ourselves, and recognize that we are responsible for it as consumers and producers. (Thomas Pogge further develops the idea in his book). Until we do this, we’ll not be able to find long-term solutions. The “white man’s” most important burden is to re-examine itself and its role in society.

Julia Naime is a Research Intern at the Sisgi Group. She’s soon to be a senior at New York University, majoring in Economics. During her internship, she will research about sustainable development, international economics, and environment. She deeply believes in the interconnectedness of our world, and the need to find sustainable solutions. To learn more about the SISGI group, visit sisgigroup.org
Share

Jun 20

Second Life Offers Virtual Abled and Disabled Experiences

Some would scoff at the idea of living with an alternate identity in a virtual world, as in the popular Sims games, or the widely-played “massively-multiplayer online role-playing games” (MMORPG). However, since it was introduced in 2003, the online virtual world called Second Life has completely transformed self-expression. Because of its user-friendliness and a multitude of building options, not only does it allow members to create customized worlds and identities, but the software has been used more and more as an educational tool by academic institutions, a virtual work space to collaborate and conduct training, a gallery to display artwork and creative media, and a means for businesses to market their products.

Interestingly, the virtual space has also become a very useful and innovative way to disseminate health care-related information and create supportive environments for members of the disabled community.  For many persons with disabilities (PWDs) who are physically limited from venturing out of their homes, Second Life provides access to social networks. And for those PWDs who wish to simulate alternative physical capabilities (even superhuman abilities like flying), Second Life offers a world of liberating and fantastical options.

When I first discovered this trend, I was a little skeptical about its advantages. Instead of allowing PWDs to remain physically isolated, I am usually much more supportive of long-term initiatives that integrate them into “real world” communities, and force policies that will make public life universally accessible. But once I recognized the social, medical, and psychological advantages to having a virtual support group at your fingertips, I was completely won over by the idea.  Virtual spaces are being used by people from all walks of life, and with varying degrees of ability. While many parts of society are still struggling to overcome false impressions of disability, Second Life offers a bias-free environment in which PWDs are treated with the same respect as all other members. For example, due to discrimination in the hiring process, individuals with very serious physical limitations may have trouble securing job positions. But if they have the right skills, they may be able to gain similar work experience and skills via their avatars on Second Life. I certainly don’t think that this is a long-term strategy to challenge cycles of discrimination, since people shouldn’t need to resort to “virtual” (i.e. “able-bodied”) versions of themselves to gain positive recognition. But I do think it offers a temporary, safe environment where individuals can create receptive communities.

Further investigation revealed a crowd of organizations and individuals who are working to provide the optimum virtual experience for individuals with disabilities. By improving accessibility on the site and designing adaptive technology for those who may have trouble using the traditional keyboard, mouse, or touchpad, Second Life becomes available for all users. For example, Virtual Ability, inc. is a non-profit corporation based in Colorado, which evaluates individuals’ skills and offers to adjust hardware and software to make Second Life easily accessible. They also offer training and orientation on how to use Second Life, and how to access “information, encouragement, training, companionship, referrals to other online resources and groups, ways to contribute back to the community, and ways to have fun.”

Alternatively, I came across those who are also developing applications that would simulate disability for non-disabled users. This feature could be either very useful or in very poor taste, depending on its purpose. It shouldn’t be used to trivialize the experience of disability, but rather, as a tool to educate and raise awareness. A positive example is a team that developed an application to teach park and recreation employees about barriers in the park. This feature could be very useful for those who are designing public spaces or assisting and interacting with PWDs on a regular basis. Experiencing the world from the point of view of PWDs is  a hands-on, eye-opening way to have non-disabled individuals wake up to the reality of an inaccessible world.  Felix Kratzer focused on developing exactly such applications that would simulate various types of disability so that non-disabled users can have a sense of what it might be like to have physical limitations. I believe that projects like these, if they are able to reach sizable parts of the mainstream population, could have a positive impact on building sensitivity skills and reaching across social boundaries. Overall, I am pretty impressed by the idea of exploring alternative bodily experiences through virtual worlds, especially when there is potential to built relationships and communal atmospheres among both PWDs and the non-disabled population.

This video is narrated by the founder of the “Heron Sanctuary”, a virtual support community in Second Life, created for members who have disabilities that limit their mobility and access to social groups.

Share

Jun 20

The Nonprofit Disconnect, Part II

Last week, I wrote about how nonprofits should work together to make sustainable change. Rather than organizations focusing on specific issues individually, I think that establishing a type of “nonprofit team” to address multiple aspects of a complex problem could really make a huge impact. Theoretically, I really think this could work – but there are obvious challenges that must be addressed.

The first obstacle is determining how exactly these teams should be formed. There are so many nonprofits out there, and many have overlapping causes and donors. Additionally, each area is unique and has its own needs – a team that works in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, may not be as effective in India. It’s important not to make a “one size fits all” model, and instead treat each area individually.

That being said, I do think the best way to create these teams is based on the area in need. The first thing to do is focus on what the community needs: clean water? A greater food supply? Better education? The more in-depth the evaluation, the more equipped the nonprofit team will be to address the challenges. Then, specific nonprofits will be put together to work for the greater good of the community. Many nonprofits have a specific area of interest already – like Bridges for Community, which focuses specifically on construction in Nicaragua – so those nonprofits would stay consistent with their interest areas. However, a team of nonprofits working together in a specific area has a much greater power to make a positive change than one organization working alone.

Another important question that must be addressed is how to allocate the funds for a particular nonprofit team. This is obviously a controversial topic, but one that is essential in making sure that the organizations have enough money to do their job well. Many donors have relationships with individual nonprofits; however, with all of the competition to get donations between them, I think there should be a common fund for each nonprofit team. Funds can be determined on a needs-based proportion, so each organization will have as much as they need – but not more. While this may decrease the connection between a donor and specific organization, it actually stretches their dollar even further. For example, not only would a donation help build a well, but it could also help improve education, reduce malnutrition and disease, and boost the local economy. Donors would contribute to overall community progress rather than a smaller, more specific goal.

Of course, operational costs must be covered as well. The more nonprofits that collaborate on a particular community, the greater the operational costs will be in order to accommodate staff salaries. I think the key in minimizing these costs and maximizing the efficiency of the team is to have a centralized staff. For example, if nine organizations work together in an African village, there could be a central strategy team of 3 project managers (each responsible for the projects of 3 organizations), 2 financial managers (to strategize how funds are distributed), and 2-3 overall team strategists who oversee the entire operation. Having a centralized staff – instead of project managers representing each nonprofit – will decrease the number of staff members and consequently the total operational expenses.

Because each area is unique, the primary focus of these central teams would be strategy. In other words, most of the hard work should be planning exactly how the organizations will accomplish their individual goals in the context of the team goals as a whole. This is why a small, centralized staff is essential – they can strategize exactly how each piece of the puzzle will fit together to make sustainable change. Having that oversight makes it easier to organize more specific projects.

Linking nonprofits into working together may be a radical way of thinking, and it definitely won’t happen overnight. But by addressing the potential problems and offering solutions, it’s possible that creating these nonprofit teams can become a reality, and we can start making real sustainable change. Perhaps an innovative approach like this is exactly what can really boost the nonprofit sector – rather than working alone and competing with each other, nonprofits can collaborate and work together for a greater cause. Can you imagine all that can be solved?

Rebecca Birnbaum is a Program and Research Intern for the SISGI Group focusing on nonviolent conflict resolution, nonprofit management, and sustainable development. She is a senior at the University of Michigan, where she studies Anthropology, Political Science, and Peace and Social Justice. To learn more about the SISGI Group, visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Jun 20

International Corporate Volunteerism Partnership

On May 31st USAID announced a partnership with IBM and CDC Development Solutions, an NGO that focuses on international corporate volunteerism (ICV), which USAID believes will make ICV more effective and sustainable. The partnership spawned a new agency: The Center of Excellence for International Corporate Volunteerism (CEICV), which will be funded by USAID, IBM, and CDC Development Solutions for a two year pilot period and will then hopefully become self-sustaining, funded by membership fees and other sponsorships. The center will promote “citizen-diplomats,” skilled employee volunteers from various corporations who will teach and advise local governments, small businesses, and civic groups in emerging markets as a method of international economic development and aid.

IBM already has a program similar to this, the Corporate Service Corps, which has sent over a thousand volunteers to almost twenty countries, mostly in Africa, since its launch in 2008. Employees who seek out the opportunity to volunteer abroad are carefully vetted to ensure that their projects are practical and sustainable, and though the volunteers are only in-country for about a month, they remain in close contact with their partners abroad long after they return. The projects that the employees undertake are designed to improve local economic conditions, support entrepreneurship, and to enhance transportation, education, and healthcare. IBM is an ideal partner for USAID in this new venture. IBM and CDC Development Solutions have a lot of experience in ICV, and so will provide advice in areas such as employee training, managing complex projects, and ensuring that those projects are in line with a company’s business goals and achieve the best results possible.

In this era of declining federal budgets, projects like this are becoming increasingly important, and so they should receive a lot more attention than they generally do. The United States has one of the lowest international aid budgets, with less than 1% of the federal budget going to foreign assistance, and most other industrialized nations aren’t much better, especially given the economic difficulties of the past couple years. So corporate programs and NGOs are doing the bulk of the work when it comes to international aid and development, but receiving very little attention for it. I mean, how many of us can say they had heard of IBM’s Corporate Service Corps, or of ICV for that matter, before about 15 seconds ago? And yet the Corporate Service Corps has initiated over 100 projects designed to boost local economies and improve conditions since 2008.  Private-public partnerships like the newly formed CEICV deserve to be better known, as they have the capacity to move millions of dollars and to provide expertise for development assistance from the American private sector at no extra cost to taxpayers. Further, corporate initiatives are much more nimble than government aid programs, as they are able to adapt to local circumstances in the countries in which they are working in a way that publicly funded initiatives often cannot.

The CEICV (and others) also deserve more attention to ensure that they succeed in achieving their goals. For example, the CEICV aims to provide sustainable solutions, but without anyone to hold them accountable, how will we ever know if they are achieving this goal? This blog, after all, is dedicated to challenging projects and initiatives to meet a higher standard of impact, and so its very existence is proof that while many organizations have admirable goals and good intentions they often fail to make a real, lasting change. The CEICV and the three organizations that founded it, are dedicated to self-sustaining and practical projects, very admirable goals, but only time will tell if they are able to succeed where many others have been less successful. And who will know if they do? Will any of their future projects make it to the American press, or will this be the last thing you ever read about the CEICV?

Share

Jun 20

What Happened to Our History?

U.S. Students Peform Poorly in American History Exam

What were the major battles during the Revolutionary War? Who was Ulysses S. Grant? What did Abraham Lincoln do that was so important? These, and a myriad of other questions, were given to a representative sample of 7,000 fourth graders, 11,800 eighth graders, and 12,400 twelfth graders across the country. The students were told to answer a series of U.S. history questions on an exam provided by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). Unfortunately, the test results, which were released on June 14, 2011, turned out to be less than stellar. The Nation’s Report Card, which is what the NAEP is sometimes referred as, showed that only 13 percent of the nation’s high school seniors had sufficient U.S. history knowledge to pass the exam. In the younger grades, only 22 percent of fourth graders and 18 percent of eighth graders had a proficient or higher grade on the exam.

The rather bleak looking results happen to be higher than the NAEP test results from 2006. Apparently, fourth graders performed two percent better in the 2010 version of the NAEP exam, scores for the eighth graders remained the same, and seniors in high school performed one percent lower. Though the 2010 test results do not show significant changes throughout the grade levels, the fact of the matter remains that most students performed poorly on the national history exam. Many would hate to admit that there is something wrong with the history results of American students, but the truth is in the results. Diane Ravitch, an education historian on the governing board to assess student answers, stated that only two percent of twelfth graders were able to answer a question regarding the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case. The case, which is a hallmark moment in history, declared that separate schools for black and white children were unconstitutional. The fact that American students are unable to answer such an important question incorrectly proves that there is indeed something wrong with how history is taught in public schools.

So what can be the reason behind the lackluster performances of students across the nation? According to Linda Salvucci, vice chair of the National Council of History Education, believes that there are two reasons as to why students had such meager results on the NAEP exam. One reason is that many history teachers are not experienced enough to teach and another is the No Child Left Behind Act. The law is extremely restrictive, and requires schools to put a lot of emphasis on math and reading; causing other subjects to be left on the back burner. A March 2006 report from the Center for Education Policy stated that 71 percent of American school districts have decreased their attention to subjects like science, history, and geography since No Child Left Behind was passed. Such a sharp decline in time, resources, and attention to subjects like history will inevitably detrimentally affect the future generations of America. For example, in a previous post of mine I mentioned how foreign language departments in a myriad of school districts have been suffering from a lack of resources. Subjects like the foreign languages, history, and science are usually not given enough focus because of the NCLB act, and this is tragedy for students. The non math and reading subjects are the ones that aid children in becoming well-rounded, globally aware global job contenders.

Despite the fact that history is sometimes looked as a simple subject that merely requires rote memorization, it is rather important subject for students. History allows children to understand the country they live in, and have a better appreciation for the world around them. Whether students are studying history about America or the world, they will come to learn about the many individuals in time who affected today’s society. From the events and people that children learn about in school, they will eventually come to a conclusion about how to understand their own country, foreign nations, and those who live in both.

Share