I called this blog ’Lessons I Learned’, but really it would be better titled ’Lessons I’m Learning’. I believe in sharing what we learn to help others avoid our same mistakes and also exposing ourselves to the criticism and questions which might help us improve. I am skeptical of the popular approaches to both voluntourism and development work, though those are both areas in which I have worked as I’d love to be part of learning how we can do them both better. I think we need to learn before we can help, so I believe “service learning” should be “learning service”. I feel like I am learning more every day about how to help create the world I want to see my future kids and their future kids living in, and sometimes what I learn contradicts what I thought I knew was true. I have learned that good intentions are not enough and that the only person you can “improve” in the world is yourself, so I had better start improving the world by starting there. I hope the dialogue generated through this site will give me more chances to do that and to share the lessons I am learning with others who could benefit from avoiding my mistakes.

05 October 2009 ~ 6 Comments

The Social Venture “Scalability” Model

Are there any “scalable” & profitable social ventures?  There is talk of “social ventures” being our saviors from the likes of the non-profit world.  Do they REALLY exist?  Or are they mostly hybrid models which still rely heavily on their non-profit arms in order to succeed at scale?

It is VERY hard to find examples which fit all three of these criteria: social venture, scaled beyond it’s initial area of impact, and profitable.  We have all heard of Kiva and Grameen, Friedman congratulates Digital Divide Data, and we will all soon know about SHE (Sustainable Health Enterprises), but none of these fit the bill entirely.  They are all innovative models, but I think there is a growing misconception that there is a huge social venture movement which is led by groups which are funding their work via markets and are impacting development work without relying on donations. If you subscribe to the newsletters of the above example groups, you know that each rely heavily on donations to improve the social impact of their work or to scale their models.

In essence, many of them start like this:

A social venture when it starts in one localized area.

For Digital Divide Data, that break even entity is one of their data entry company locations in South East Asia.  Each makes enough money to pay employees and cover operational overhead.  But what about R&D for the technology they need to expand their work or funds to cover the school scholarships they offer their employees?  SHE will help factories start which will not only break even but will eventually bring in profits for the women who will become full-owners in their plant.  But here too, R&D as well as health education will likely not be able to be funded to the extent needed via this model.  KIVA is entirely a non-profit with their operations and overhead funded through donations from lenders and other investors.

Most groups expand with a non-profit arm, here called “The Replicator NGO” which relies on donations to scale and support the model:

Scaleable_Model_2

Each localized venture on its own is at least breaking even, and there might be net profit enough to expand slightly, but often times the idea of “scaling” something to a much larger area requires R&D, systems design, and a larger investment of both time and money than the local project can generate.  Many new social ventures run like any start-up would, constantly in bootstrap and catch-up modes, expending nearly all their time and money resources in the DOING part of their work with little left to allocate towards strategic planning/documenting/scaling.

What does this say to me?  This says we SHOULDN’T hold the false ideal of financial sustainability and completely cutting the strings of non-profit donations as the ultimate goal.  These groups and others have proven that a hybrid model is just as, if not more successful at impacting positive global change while also filling needs in the traditional market economy sense.

Grameen might be the best example of why we shouldn’t set financial sustainability as the ultimate goal.  Check out what Grameen Foundation does.  THAT is the success of their model – building human capacity, investing in improving systems, connecting and educating organizations and people…. not just giving out loans.  Others have copied the loan model, but forgotten to read further into their model which involves vetting projects before investment, creating solidarity groups among borrowers, etc.  It can be argued that taking their model and NOT taking the non-profit side of what they do can be more harmful in the long run.

So, I ask two things of you:

1) contemplate on the fact that maybe complete financial sustainability might not be a feasible or the best solution for the problems facing our world, and then comment on that below

or

2) give some examples of social ventures which fit all three categories: social venture, scaled beyond initial area of impact, and profitable – and add them to the comments below

Thanks for reading and thinking about this!

“Are there any “scalable” & profitable social ventures?”: This question is the main topic of an ongoing conversation I have had with many of my friends and co-workers.  The thoughts and (poor) images I came up with above are mostly based on discussions I have recently had with Tim Rann (of PEPY) and Rafe Furst.

A quick and easy answer would be what I’ll call for now “intellectual scaling” – the sharing of impact through the sharing of ideas.  The emergence of a range of Web 2.0 technology based sites, on-line supported initiatives, and conferences and trainings surrounding information sharing can probably tick all three boxes.  I’d love to learn of and from other examples outside of just information sharing initiatives.

05 October 2009 ~ 54 Comments

A Protest Against Orphanage Tourism

I try to avoid spending much time on “bar street”, a place in Siem Reap which is full of, yep, bars.  The main reasons I avoid it now are no longer just the noise, the embarrassing displays of lack-of-clothing on gap-year tourists, the drunken fools, nor the begging, though those reasons alone should be enough…. the  biggest reason I can’t stand to be there is now the orphanage tourism exploitation which is fed by this crowd with lubricated pockets, melted hearts, and lack of knowledge about responsible giving or responsible travel.  I came home one night after dinner a few months ago, furious from watching an “orphanage” roadside display: poor-looking children dragged  through the street by an adult carrying a sign saying “visit our orphanage”.  The children play songs, the tourists clap and throw money, and I want to scream some sense into the irresponsible supporters of this behavior.

That night I sent out an email to friends who work in Siem Reap and others who I thought would agree that this issue was an important one, asking for help to come up with a plan for how to curb this behavior.  My initial suggestion was a very abrasive and probably too condescending cartoon aimed at asking tourists to reconsider the effects of their “good” behaviors. A lot of us who work in Cambodia feel the same way about exploitative orphanage tourism, so we have gotten together a few times to try to discuss how we can help educate the traveling population who feed these irresponsible and often fake orphanages.  It’s clear that, for most of these travelers, their hearts are in their right places, and they want to do good by what they see as these “poor helpless looking kids” they think they are helping.  What’s not clear is how to slap them upside the head with a dose of reality that let’s them know they are supporting a movement towards harmful child rights violations, without making then too afraid to trust anyone in the future.  We have a few ideas we are working on.  (Something to note: Go to the police or start a “responsible orphanage practices” training course, are not viable solutions.  Corruption and a clear understanding of the child rights violations being committed by those using children to make money for themselves are two of the reasons why.)

In the meantime, I had been meaning to write about this, but I hadn’t found the time to get these thoughts on “paper”.  Saundra’s  Good Intentions Are Not Enough blog on “Hug-an-orphan vacations” inspired me to write some of this down.  Below is what I wrote on her post.

I would love to hear other people’s experiences in regards to this issue.  Those who have joined our discussions, please add additional thoughts which you think should be shared in the comments section or pass this on.

—-

Thank you for putting this up, Saundra. I think another thing to Continue Reading

30 September 2009 ~ 0 Comments

Are PEPY Programs “Sustainable”? Part 1 of 2

What is this “sustainability” thing all about?  It is a word that gets thrown around so often by NGOs, donors, and most people working in development, yet what is means in the reality of our day to day decisions is less often understood.  I wrote part one of a two part look at PEPY and our “sustainability”, or lack there of.  This was in the last PEPY Newsletter, and if you want to get the next installment of the PEPY newsletter, please register to do so.

——–

We recognize that many of the projects we have taken on in the past, and even some of the programs we are still doing now, are not “sustainable”.  In next month’s newsletter, we will look at how we at PEPY define that over-used-and-not-often-attained concept. We will highlight which of our programs we think are the most “sustainable” based on what we have learned over the past 4 years of implementing PEPY programs and which are the least, and why.  We will also examine what changes we are making in some Continue Reading

23 September 2009 ~ 1 Comment

Travel Operators & Development Work

Most of us who criticize, publicize, support, or question “voluntourism” follow that word on google alerts, and so we were all alerted when Abercrombie & Kent (a high-end tour operator) announced their philanthropy tours.  Alexia, aka Voluntourism Gal, put up a post about this topic which sparked a lot of discussion and asked for my opinions to be added.  As I started to write,  my thoughts got way too long, so I only put my key ideas up on my comment.  The full thoughts are below (highlighted for those who prefer to skim).

Here are some of the key points I want to highlight regarding this issue: Continue Reading

13 September 2009 ~ 2 Comments

Learning (and thinking) Resources for Travelers

It’s exciting when people look past the bottom line of their own company and spend their time and resources to take action to improve the whole field in which they work.  Priscilla Macy of Global Sojourns is someone who does that on a regular basis.  Priscilla and her company offer a range of adventure travel options and she also runs “Giving Circle” trips where travelers have a chance to support and learn about development programs in Africa. Having worked in development for many years, Priscilla has strong reservations about having short-term and inexperienced volunteers get involved in any development projects, so “voluntourism” is something she has stayed away from.  She does though try to encourage people to support the projects they learn about on their travels and is always looking for the best ways to facilitate that.

As we have seen proven in Cambodia as well, Priscilla believes that there is a lot of learning which must happen on the part of travelers and novice donors in order to translate their good intentions into positive results for local programs.  As such, she has created and collected a wealth of resources with which to educate her guests and provide context for their travels.

Here are two of Global Sojourns’ reading packets for their Giving Circle Tours.  The “Ambassadors Booklet” has information about traveling and supporting development work in Africa.  It is an interactive PDF and it has a wealth of valuable resources which are useful for travelers looking to support programs in any country.

The “It’s More Complicated Than It Looks” reading packet includes a few short reflections (including one of my own) about Traveler’s Philanthropy gone bad – a sort of how not to do global giving handbook – which is intended to highlight the importance of long-term planning for travelers looking to support development programs.

Check these out and use them in your travelers!  If you love them (as we do), then please visit Global Sojourn’s website and tell Priscilla you’re impressed with her work!  We sure are!

10 September 2009 ~ 5 Comments

OLPC: The $100 laptop DOES have potential

When I first read this post by Alanna Shaikh, I was too busy to write, so I passed it on internally to all those at PEPY, because I know that so many of us would disagree with her. I can’t see the comments on the page, because maybe they have been hidden, but supposedly there are many others who felt the same way, including a post by Nicholas Negroponte.  I hope they will be republished soon, so that we can all see them.  (Oh!  I found the reply by NN – “Wait and see.”  Rock on Nicholas!)

I would have agreed with Alanna at some points a few years ago. Many of our current staff or visiting donors did, before they arrived here. The post is clearly written from someone who is looking at this idea “computers in the developing world” from a theorist standpoint, reading the media available to her written in her developed country of choice, and who has not had much (or any?) interactions with these computers in the areas where they were designed to be used.  In effect, she’s saying bananas don’t taste good and are of no use to humans when eating those she bought in her local 7-11, having never tried one off the vine in Honduras.

I understand where she is coming from, I have shared her opinions in the past, and still share her opinions when it comes to what appears to me to be wasted non-applicable technologies being introduced in a non-sustainable way.   I see where she is coming from, but I still think she is very wrong. Perhaps if she were here, her opinions would be different. She and I might agree that buying computers and solar is surely not “sustainable” for Cambodia, that teacher training or support to get increased government action to improve education would be better uses of money. We might agree that the computer is in its nascent stages and there is a lot to be improved. We might agree that a great TEACHER is the best way for kids to learn, and a green machine can’t replace that. But if she came her, she might change her opinion that these green things can’t, won’t and aren’t changing the world because indeed, they already have.

Here is a reply I wrote to this blog but since the replys don’t seem to be showing, I’m putting it here:

Note: For anyone using XOs out there: we had someone come in and do a research project on our XO program who helped to match the Cambodian curriculum with XO programs and come up with learning ideas. If you want to learn more about this, contact us at PEPY www.pepyride.org


I think this is a very myopic view on the potential for change OLPC has started. If you had looked at the Apple2e computer I used when I was a kid maybe you would have only seen the basic programs I was using and not see what is possible today. We use the OLPC laptops in Cambodia and when I look at them in use, I see my Apple2e. It’s very basic now in some ways, but that’s the point. It’s opensource. The people in the places that are using these can, will and are developing better and better programs for it.

I have been to the schools the Negropontes sponsor in Cambodia, which was our impetus to apply for laptops through the give-one-get-one program. Spend a day in one of their schools, and I guarantee you will change your mind, at least in terms of the potential for change, based on these tools.

If there was no word “laptop” in the name, they would have gotten a lot less press, but naming it a “learning tool” would have been a more correct choice and perhaps saved them a lot of criticism. It’s not a “laptop” meant to replace what you and I are working on. It is a tool for kids to guide them through their own learning – when their teachers don’t show up, when there is a huge differentiation between levels in one class, when there are too many students for one-on-one instruction.

I don’t agree with Nicholas Negroponte that any child can pick one up and know how to fix the inside. I do agree with Alanna that, for the best learning environment, you need a great teacher or ideally facilitator, but that is the same for anything you are learning. I have seen in our students and the other OLPC programs we work with in Cambodia, that these tools are inspiring children to lead themselves into areas of education that they are not given access to in their normal government classes.

The word “lesson plan” is evil in the constructivism world of Papert followers and the child-led learning model of OLPC. No “how-to” guide is not an accident but was planned. I agree with Alanna that for most people, who have been spoon-fed their knowledge all their lives, they are not capable of making the leap and learning on their own. In a place like Cambodia some of the most educated young people I know are used to that: they teach themselves all they want to learn via the internet. We have found those people make great facilitators for the program and we don’t follow all constructivist methodologies in our classroom, in fact we brought a researcher in to observe and analyze lessons our teachers had developed and to turn those into “lesson plans” (gasp!).

If you really believe “But it’s not going to change the world, or even affect it all that much.” you have not made all of the connections to all of the ways it already HAS changed the word. It has some of the newest technologies in environmentally friendly parts, screen visibility in bright light, battery life, mesh-technologies, etc etc… and all of those things are ALREADY changing the world as others take them and continue to improve upon them.

Here in Cambodia, there are groups of young Cambodians who meet regularly to translate OLPC programs into Khmer. The new versions we just got have Khmer script and we are now using Scratch in Khmer as well. Walk into a classroom where we work and see older students teaching younger students how to read Khmer via the animated Khmer testing program they designed themselves, and you will change your mind a bit. Talk to our computer teachers, young Cambodians who taught themselves how to use the XOs, and yes, they will tell you there is a lot they don’t understand, but they are effecting change. You can’t see that from your office, but I can see it here. It’s just the start! Each new version of the XO we get is better and better and will continue to be.

If you want to learn more about what we are doing with Scratch on the XOs or about the “lesson plans” our team developed to match the Khmer curriculum, contact us at PEPY www.pepyride.org

10 September 2009 ~ 4 Comments

PEPY on Travelfish: What changes would YOU like to see in tourism?

Here is an interview travelfish did on PEPY: http://www.travelfish.org/feature/161

One of the questions they asked was about the changes I would love to see in tourism in Cambodia.  Here are my answers:

3) You say on your website that “PEPY Tours aims to catalyse a large-scale, transformational change in tourism.” What do you think is the single most important change required in Cambodia?
In Cambodia, there are roughly two million tourists a year who come to Siem Reap. Among tourists in particular, there is a strong tendency and urge to “give”. People come to Cambodia, fall in love with the place and the people, and want to “help”. With little understanding of how to do that more effectively or who to trust, travelers can sometimes unknowingly support short-term solutions, undermine government projects, encourage more dependency, or contribute to corruption through ill-researched donations. Some might choose to not support a project at all because they don’t know the best ways to do so.

In an ideal world, Cambodian tourism would be environmentally sustainable, low-impact, and community-led, generating funding which goes back to local projects. It would lead to better understanding between peoples, a higher standard of living for Cambodians, and a significant learning experience for travelers. It could empower, not foster dependency.

To get closer to this goal, the four main changes we would like to see in tourism in Cambodia today are:

a) No more orphanage tourism. In some cases, donations for “poor” orphanages are keeping kids looking poor and orphanage owners very rich. In addition, unrestricted visits by foreigners to visit and play with children can lead to negative outcomes. This tourism trend will continue to cause harm until travelers are better educated about the rights of children and ways to support them. Child-Safe International is a great resource to learn about some of these issues.

b) More money staying in Cambodia. Most visitors don’t realize it, but they are usually staying in foreign-owned hotels, eating in foreign-owned restaurants, buying imported fruit and foods that came over from Thailand, and little of their money is staying in Cambodia. PEPY’s Responsible Tourism Statement highlights our efforts to try to increase the positive impact of our tours in Cambodia and might spark ideas and questions for others planning their travel in the area.

c) Tourism that adds to the community. With so many good intentions out there, it’s disappointing to see how often “voluntourism” or traveler’s philanthropy ends up doing more harm than good. In an effort to improve our own work and to share the lessons we have learned with others, we have conducted research to develop a Voluntourism Self-Check tool full of questions, which should help voluntourism operators and travelers better analyze the impact of volunteer travel offerings.

d) An end to both child, and adult, sex-tourism. Enough said. It’s horrific. To this end, we should still work on the first point above as sometimes unrestricted access to children’s facilities that have no child protection policies can add to this.

Click here to read the full article.