Insights into refugee resettlement in Germany

Last week, I was in Munich, attending a conference organized by the Institut fur Politisch Bildung, a German think-tank and Virginia Tech (my alma mater). The three day visit was overwhelmingly positive, except for a visit to the Dachau Concentration camp, which left me drained, emotionally.  Regardless, here is a quick synopsis of some of the key points made by Kelly T Clemens, Depy. Director, UNHCR, who was one of the speakers.

  • “Statistics are stories with tears dried off.” Stats do tell a story. Just 8 yrs ago, there were 42 mn forcibly displaced people. Afghan and Iraqi were about half (doesn’t include Palestinians). 75% resided in the neighboring countries of origin. Two years later, in 2012, this went up to 45 mn- by 2014, 60 mn and some of the same populations. We just published mid-year trends in 2017. 67 million now. The trends we have seen are clear and unambiguous. Old conflicts have festered and Somalia and Afghanistan have been major senders. New conflicts have erupted, including Syria, which led to new displacements. 2017 saw Myanmar’s Rohingya leaving. The situation in 2018 is not different.
  • Millions leave and are struggling in the margins. Minara, who I met in Bangladesh; walked for three weeks (1 yr old baby). Had lost her husband. The story of her flight is terrible. She and her husband were chilli farmers. It’ll be challenging for her to restart her life. This is a lesson we have learnt. Apart from physical safety, it impacts their ability to begin to reestablish socio-economically. Refugee crisis in 2015, it is impossible not to refer to Syria.
  • UNHCR, working with over 1000 partners, registerd 1 mn March 2015 and 4 mn by 2015. Today, its over 5.5 mn refugees. By hosting countries, neighbours provided global good (Syria’s neighbors). They granted people to enter local and national job opps. In most cases, they are not partners of 1959 Geneva conventions . We helped with setting up camps only where necessary and provided support shelter, aid and sanitation.
  • We also gave cash registration instead of in kind. Innovative solutions, in addition to traditional. We work with World Bank and other partners, to identify the most in need and embraced digital platforms, web based systems and other platforms.
  • Faith- based groups run by refugee groups are modern day echo of megaphones to refugees. Alongside, there is recognition of challenges to countries.
  • We work with UNDP, regional local UN resilience plan. With World Bank, Poverty and Welfare study.
  • Turkey has spent $8bn. UNHCR advocated funding to host countries. Can we provide concessional financing to Jordan, other countries? Concessional financing facilities. Inspite of generous response, at least to allow partial funding.
  • The appeal we have launched, only 41% support. Cuts in food aid for thousands. Thousands left out of cash funds. Lost access to healthcare. Many adults were forced to beg, etc.
  • In Jordan, new identity docs required too much money to pay. Limited education opps, were also factor. 90K students unable to access education in school. Lack of security for people in their own country was the major cause to leave.
  • ElSalvador and Honduras unspeakable violence. Gang violence and extortions. Flee to Mexico. Cash based support from UNHCR. What was clear from dozens of stories, we heard that they needed protection and aid. Their stories were not separated from socio-eco lives.
  • People resort to different and more dangerous routes. How do we advise asylees to seek help? It was one of the most frustration operations have experienced.
  • The 2015-16 left a profound impact on European systems. We can speak of pre-and post 2016. Populatinos have shown commitment to host refugees. New partners have been formed, down to municipalities, NGOs and govt. A broad commitment has provided a holistic system. A contribution to help refugees, designed to make their lives better.
  • NY Declaration– 129 countries adopted a declaration to protect people from all countries. It helps support people. Through this declaration, states have adopted robust measures to help fleeing people and a call for global solidarity. Intl responsibility sharing. Incorporates strong calling for solutions and need to address root causes and help resolve conflicts through peaceful means. Annex 1 mandated us to have a comprehensive refugee response network.
  • Four aims in 13 countries, to ease pressure on hosts and expand access to third country. Voluntary return in safety and dignity and covers entire cycle.
  • We have central lab in Central America who are driving the cause and strong network of countries in Horn of Africa, who want to take this on and interest from Asia as well. Applied from diverse range of actors and NGO actors. Our work in these countries has led to inclusion of eco. For refugees. Taking a step back, what’s diff now? First, it’s a political statement that we should engage more comprehensively and secondly, this response clarifies that humanitarianKelly.JPG action alone is not enough We need political and development efforts. Addresses root causes and requires us to consider refugees not in isolation but as part of communities.
  • Calls upon us to rely on private sector. Particularly, since 2015, engagement of World Bank and $2bn for refugees has been monumental.
  • Djibouti – new refugee law  – to settlement approach. Ethiopia too, to implement programs A roadmap driven by PM around large-scale employment. Removing encampment policies to have free movement of people.
  • Somali region – 200,000 people in Ethiopia – local community was struggling. Ethiopian govt has kept borders open and this has happened over decades and inspite of difficulties, hosts and refugee countries are working together to grow crops and help themselves. Private sector, through IKEA foundation, to irrigate farm lands etc. they have built schools that include both hosts and refugee kids. Also, renewal energy to save planet. Excellent example.
  • Uganda – coordinating mechanism place. Key role, to help sustainable response. Help other stakeholders in place. In addition to philanthropy, private sector are being tapped.
  • 3 countries accounting for major refugees hosting, other countries in the global North and South need to do more.

Does giving free money work?

One of my students in my Nonprofit Management class pointed out  ‘Give a man a Fish’ by James Ferguson on the (controversial) idea of a universal basic income (UBI). This has been an ongoing debate in the world of development studies. The premise is simple : Give the poor enough money so they don’t have to worry about the basic necessities. This stems from the understanding that the poor need help and with enough food, money for living etc. they will focus on the higher needs of life – following Maslow’s hierarchy.

When I suggested this idea, the class was more or less bought in, except for one (or perhaps two) who thought that this would make people ‘lazy,’ and dependent. While in principle, this may seem possible; studies conducted in Kenya show promise in terms of how giving directly seems to be working. The speakers in the podcast point out that most people know how to spend money to become self-reliant. The field research project being conducted shows that money, given on a regular basis, to a while community ultimately helps them.

They also point out that US Founding fathers thought of this idea, so was the idea around during the French Revolution. With growing industrialization, fewer jobs; there seems to be a realization that such an income is the only way to take care people who don’t have jobs.

Of course, this has opposition from those who don’t believe in distribution of income, for no efforts from people.

From my own experience, of witnessing my (late) mother – a school teacher – help many of her students and nephews and nieces, who were poor; I think this idea works. My mother gave ‘directly’ to many families, for over 25-30 years, often sums of money that helped the families educate their kids, feed them and in many cases, helped them send them to school. The long-term effect of this strategy? I know at least three families that are doing significantly doing better, with the children having been educated at universities, many of them working in stable jobs and the entire family being lifted out of poverty.

Do I believe in UBI? I have reasons to, as I have seen the effects of such a measure. Will this become a policy in the West? That, I am not sure of. However, countries such as India, Kenya could be persuaded in this direction.

America’s philanthropy problem?

170616141515-amazon-whole-foods-jeff-bezos-grocery-brick-and-mortar-00001001-1024x576A debate that is becoming salient, over the past few years is if philanthropic foundations are becoming powerful by the day? A recent article in The Huffington Post points this out. The writer points out, correctly, that Jeff Bezos solicited ideas for his philanthropy, just a few days before the purchase of Whole Foods. PR stunt? Astute move to buy some social capital? Or perhaps a combination of both?

For some, this is a problem – arguing, as does the Huff Post writer, Matt Stoller. But for others, this is nothing but a transactional idea. A means of buying some legitimacy in a world where raising questions such as this is moot. The battle of ideas over the legitimate use of power is over, in this other world-view. The capitalists have won and rightfully decide what needs to happen in our world. Whether it is by monopoly or other means is irrelevant.

A friend recently pointed out Hypernomalization, a documentary that also makes this point. The thesis in this documentary, that giving away of democratic power to those with wealth is dangerous and has brought us to the current state of affairs – with a climate change denying President and a world where the state is increasingly being made irrelevant and the real power resides in the handful of oligarchs around us.

This is not just a political problem but also a social problem. And in that sense, a philanthropic problem as well. For those of us who study (and practice) philanthropy, this should be disconcerting – simply because of the ramifications of how the act of philanthropy is perceived.  Whether it is a genuine act – aimed at bringing about social change or a PR stunt depends as much on one’s motivations and style of managing it. The current tilt towards hi-networth philanthropy makes it less egalitarian and ‘normal,’ it seems.

The trinity of nonprofit sector: Time to revisit some assumptions?

The trinity of transparency, accountability and efficiency are also at play in the world of public health. In the book Governing Global Health by Chelsea Clinton and Devi Sridhar, that I am reading now, this theme comes up time and again. They both argue that among the various organizations that they have studied in the book, including World Health Organization, Gates Foundation; WHO comes up short on transparency measures.

They point out that WHO does not have a transparency policy and also does not report to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). They do point out to the presence of some measures such as livestreaming of Executive Board meetings as example of some transparency. While no one today would question the need for transparency, the question is how can people use it?  But does having more transparency really make all the difference? The assumption behind calling for more transparency is that it will enhance participation, questioning from all stakeholders and make the process more equitable. But what of the converse situation, where there may be more procedural transparency, but no substantive transparency; in that there is no actual recourse to using this information to correcting the perceived wrongs? This is an aspect that hasn’t been discussed in much depth.

Their recommendation is for the older institutions such as the WHO and World Bank to increase their stakeholder engagement and transparency to ‘regain their legitimacy and public trust.’ (p.160).

Can celebrity philanthropy be harmful?

Remember the ads in which Angelina Jolie comes out and shames the world for ignoring the plight of refugees?  Or the Bono concert for helping AIDS victims? While each of them have done incredible good in the world, there is an argument out there; and it is a fairly strong one that goes like this : Since these celebrities are part of a governing regime of capitalism that causes this poverty in the first place; they are not doing anything substantive to address/ ameliorate poverty. They are just putting a bandage over a wound that is bleeding a patient to death.

Here is a scholarly paper by one of my PhD committee members, who helped me think about this aspect when I was a Phd candidate. I was aware of some of the negative influences of celebrity culture. This whole notion of attention seeking has never appealed to me. While attention seeking for a purpose is OK, most celebrities seek attention for  the sake of attention, that has never appealed to me.

Patricia Nickel says in her paper  “modern-day parables of philanthropic celebrities powerfully govern the oppositional impulse as they impart as sense of ‘benevolence’ in the form of an individualized disposition towards well-being and entitlement.” She further argues that this ‘governing regime’ which the celebrities sanitize with their appeals to charity is itself rotten.

In another paper, she, along with another scholar Angela Eikenberry argue that “However, this discourse (of celebrity philanthropy) falsely conveys a community of individuals with access to a venue for shaping social change. Rather than providing an open, discursive space for imagination, philanthropy as it has come to be defined, disguises its own discourse in its portrayal of the mediums of consumption, profit, and media celebration as the basis for benevolent human relations.” So, the issue that is problematic is one of relying on the market to manage relationships of benevolence. The buying of a laptop to eradicate AIDS (Red’s campaign) is problematic, according to Nickel and Eikenberry. This is also problematic given the ‘end of discourse’ that they suggest is going on.

This is also to suggest that while celebrities bring up certain problems, they don’t really talk about the structural problems that caused the crisis we are in, in the first place. This is the real issue with celebrity philanthropy.

While I agree with her assessment that there is an over-reliance of market mechanism for philanthropic activities, we seem to be enveloped in the market, the world over. There seems to be little space, if any for transactions or discourses to occur outside of the market mechanism. How does one impact lives outside of the market mechanism?

There are mechanisms and tools available to reach people and meet their needs. One is to explore traditional systems of charity, for instance religious giving to one’s place of worship or charitable organizations that are faith-affiliated. My dissertation work looked at some of these possibilities.

Indeed there needs to be greater space for personal benevolence and charity to occur, but the manner and speed with which celebrity philanthropy is occurring is not without its flaws.

Are corporations going to save America?

With the recent Executive Order banning entry of people from seven Middle Eastern countries, the nation is in uproar. This order also includes refugees, who were fleeing violence and oppression in Syria, among other countries.

The fact that several companies such as Lyft and Starbucks have stepped up and spoken out against this order is heart-warming. While Lyft donated a million dollars to ACLU, Starbucks has announced that it will hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years, globally. Others such as Uber, have stood by the government’s decision – either by inaction or by remaining silent. And for this, many of their customers are punishing them.

What does this mean, fundamentally? At the surface level, it looks like a bunch of corporations standing up to the President of the US.

At a deeper level it could mean that even the President of the US cannot stop globalization. It also means that corporations are interested in keeping diversity intact, especially in a country such as the US, which was built by immigrants and refugees.

What does this signal for the future of Corporate Social Responsibility? We will have to wait and watch, as this could mean a new era of social justice issues taking forefront, rather than other forms of CSR activities being pursued.

At least for now, this is a welcome sign that some of the biggest and most influential firms will not stand by when the fundamental values of their business are threatened.  They may at least contribute to the ‘saving of America’ from forces that want to make it exclusive, mean and small.

How to measure what matters : Nonprofit management 101

The nonprofit industry is obsessed with one thing : measurement. For those who do research or are involved in actual program delivery in the nonprofit sector, this desire to ‘measure spoons’ as Alnoor Ebrahim, a Harvard University professor calls it, can translate into a variety of things. There are a great many metrics that are often considered, when evaluating if a nonprofit is doing its job. For instance, people ask if the proportion of money spent on programs versus program administration (overheads) is ‘reasonable’. There are industry norms, suggesting that if an organization spends ‘too much’ then it is wasting people’s money. We base many of these arguments on the fact that they are the ‘rational’ thing to do. In a world, where philanthropy i.e., scientific way of doing charity has overtaken all other forms, this call for rationality and scientific ways of measuring this is but natural. But the really rational or ‘substantively rational’ question should be: what should we measure. And why? What impact does this have, in the long term.

Max Weber was one of the more prominent thinkers who write largely about rationality and how it is shaping our world. This short paper offers an in-depth discussion of the different types of rationalities that Weber expounded, upon. To summarize it, he posited there being four different types of rationalities: practical, theoretical, substantive and formal.

The ‘disenchantment’ of the world that leads to greater ‘rationalities’ of the formal, practical and theoretical type are evident in the field of philanthropy, as well. By this, I mean, there is a move away from ‘feeling’ or ‘reasoning based on an other-worldly’ sense of why we do charity or philanthropy. There is a growing sense that an act is justified or carried out towards an end. As Kalberg (1980) points out, the four types of social actions: affectual, traditional, value- rational, and means-end rational action are the core traits of ‘human’ actions and are outside of historical man.

Substantitive rationality ‘directly orders action into pattern.’ In seeking this form of rationality, one asks, not “what good is there at the end of the action” but rather, “should one even carry this out” and “what good will come out of this action,” in other words, this form of thinking is based on an ethical disposition of what is right and wrong.

Coming back to our initial discussion, if one were to use a substantive rational dispositions, one might : what is being measured and why? Does what we measure matter? And if so, how?

Ebrahim warns us in his piece Let’s be realistic about measuring impact, that “ It is crucial to identify when it makes sense to measure impacts and when it might be best to stick with outputs — especially when an organization’s control over results is limited, and causality remains poorly understood.”He suggests that simply repeating the mantra that measurement matters won’t get us there. There needs to be a long-term commitment to research and collaboration.

 

As Dan Pallotta argues in his book The Uncharitable that how we measure overheads is problematic. He gives the example of two soup kitchens: Kitchen A and Kitchen B. Assuming that Kitchen A spends only 10% of their revenues on overheads and Kitchen B spends about 30%. If this were all one knew, then one would judge Kitchen B harshly, saying they are producing a lot of waste. However, if one discovers that Kitchen A offers very bad quality soup, in poor conditions, while Kitchen B produces very high quality soup, at a great environment, then our perception of the services may change. This is a classic example of using substantive rationality, in making decisions.

There is a strong argument to be made for measuring only a few things, but asking more hard-nosed questions that get to the heart of why we are measuring a thing and at what point in time of the project life-cycle. Not to do so may actually lead to bad and hasty decision making.