OH man this infuriates me. I’ve spent time volunteering in two different locations (Bolivia and Haiti), both were great experiences for me, but I only feel that my time in Bolivia really benifited the people there in the long term.
I spent about three months on the ground in Haiti after the earthquake. I wasn’t a first responder or anything, I actually arrived 6 months after the earthquake, so most of the emergency relief was over. I left during some unrest and was told not to return by the nuns there for fear of my safety. I regret not going back to this day.
After that I went to Bolivia for 6 months. There I was a teacher and mentor to some of the more rural communities. Again, both were great experiences but we actually helped in the Bolivian community in a long term manner, where as in Haiti, we didn’t really help anyone, we just floundered like fish out of water. Which is what I think most people were doing.
The reason I think this was the case for most NGOs in Haiti is because of the bias that is expressed in the article. NGOs come to work on the Haitians not with them. I was there to sell them a bill of goos, and not to ask what they needed.
This was made very clear by one example. I was shown a “groundbreaking” new technology, where you could assemble a house from simple materials made of compressed wood that would stand up to hurricane force winds. The issue is that it wasn’t something the Haitian people wanted to use. When we showed it to them they seemed baffled as to how this was a permanent house. They all aspire to the same things we do, that is a solid 4 walls and roof over our heads, not just temporary shelter.
The shelters ended up being a dead end project that floundered because we couldn’t get Haitian support, and I left feeling that I had been more a burden then a support for my friends in Haiti.
In contrast my time in Bolivia was focused and intense. We were working for the nuns in Bolivia, not on them. The goal of this project was to build up a school on the shoulders of American volunteers and then leave the community when it was stable, and when the nuns said they didn’t need us anymore.
In the beginning of the program the volunteers taught core math and science courses and they were integral to the operation of the school. 10 years later (during my time there) we taught basic English classes and visited the neighboring communities. It was rewarding work, but we could see that soon they would no longer need volunteers. After about 20 years of volunteers in this community the school was self-sufficient and the nuns let us know that they didn’t need any more volunteers.
The main difference between our success in Bolivia and relative failure in Haiti was customer buy in. In Haiti we were working on the people not for them. The trust (as stated in the article) wasn’t there and the Haitian people were not leading the effort. This led to some very beautifully created architecture that the people didn’t want to live in.
In my opinion the goal of any NGO should be to build self-sufficiency in a community so that it can stand on its own. The Red Cross didn’t do that. There are organizations out there that have (even in Haiti) if you’d like some references on how to donate to a meaningful charity read Mountains Beyond Mountains and help Paul Farmer out, or just donate to Partners in Health. Note: I have no affiliation with him or his foundation.
I do have more anecdotes, but I’ll leave it at that for now.
Edit: Re-Wrote the whole thing. Thank you nate_meurer, I hope this is clearer, if not please let me know where I can clean it up and I’ll try to get it right. The original in comments in my response to nate_meurer.