Should We ‘Tripadvisor’ Aid?

I turn 50 this month (eep!). If you told my teenage self that I would one day decide what to buy, where to go on holiday, and where to work based on Amazon, Tripadvisor, and GlassDoor ratings, I don’t think I’d have believed you. And yet – here we are.

The growing pervasiveness of these digital ratings has pushed me to consider whether they could be leveraged by the humanitarian research community. How would this system work? Would it be a good idea?

How Might It Look?

The ideal outcome of applying a Tripadvisor model to aid is being able to compare interventions of all shapes and sizes around the world.

The “AidAdvisor” would therefore have to work at scale, collecting information from as many people as possible. To achieve that scope and give access to all community members, the system would probably bypass monitors, allowing anyone to take part whenever they wanted.

We’d need to embrace digital tools and platforms, such as WhatsApp, Facebook, or an endless list of other options.

Mobile users in countries receiving aid could directly use these platforms to provide feedback. For instance, QR codes could be placed at food distribution sites, allowing recipients to scan the code and rate their satisfaction with the distribution. These sites could even be directly embedded in Google Maps.

There would need to be a central coordinator – one that communities know and trust. Probably the UN. The involvement of the UN would assure communities that the initiative was serious and their data was safe. NGO and CSOs could link into this core UN set-up, accessing free, user-friendly software.

Of course, we’d need to ensure the inclusion of the vulnerable and illiterate. For this, we might learn from Twaweza’s ‘Sauti za Wananchi’ initiative, which distributes mobile phones and solar chargers to communities without.

Would It Be a Good Idea?

It’s hard to say at this point. There are so many challenges. One obstacle would be fairness. Some projects are just more difficult to implement than others. I’ve evaluated fantastic projects that would receive low scores simply because they were in war zones where nothing worked perfectly. Recipients in this context are unlikely to give 5-star ratings.

A platform like this could also over-simplify – or even belittle – the work of civil society. Do human rights organizations exist in the same universe as companies offering packaged vacations in Cancun?

Another issue is that the direct beneficiaries are often not communities, but a limited number of individuals managing a project. If, for example, we were reviewing a small project providing teacher training, we would want feedback from the teachers at least as much as the children. Surely a healthier way to give feedback in this situation would be directly and intimately between the teachers and funder.

For some projects, the idea may not work, and that’s okay. And for many projects, sample sizes (and, certainly, statistical precision and representation) would represent significant problems.

But the upsides are also alluring! Above all, it would give communities a stronger voice. And it could do it efficiently! For me, a one-click survey offers a more respectful, sustainable way forward than lengthy surveys.

Foregoing monitors could lead to data quality issues, but it would also reduce social desirability bias. Of course, many vulnerable people don’t have phones, but a growing number do.

Perhaps the greatest benefit would be the ‘back-end’. I can only imagine the feverish debate that the initiative would create among senior officials in DC, Brussels, and London – eyes on stalks as they see which programs were rated better and worse by those who matter most. If we add the ability to upload videos (just like you upload photos of grimy bathrooms on Tripadvisor), the whole thing reaches another level.

Would evaluators start leaning on this? Could it eventually replace Third-Party Monitoring? Would I need to look for a new career? I think we’d glean real insights at the demographic, geographic, and thematic levels.

For the cynics out there who believe there’s just too much competition baked into the system for this to fly, the automotive industry already did it. Years ago, car makers realized that progress would require knowing who was better than whom, at what, and why. So, they took a bold step and asked one company, JD Power, to manage the whole industry’s customer satisfaction data. It revolutionized the industry and made consumer feedback easy.

On balance, I think it’s time for someone to pilot this idea. My gut tells me that investing in transparency is a good bet.

“AidAdvisor” may only give us a small part of the data picture – and one we’d hopefully learn to use judiciously. But I think we have slept walked into the creation of a humanitarian data space comprised of myriad isolated data sets. Much of the real value seems buried and yet to be unleashed!

Richard Harrison has 25+ years of experience leading MEL and research projects for the UK, EU, UN, US, Canada and World Bank, working on the ground in over 30 countries spanning the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

Supporting the Mental Health of Aid Workers

October 10th marks World Mental Health Day. The theme of this year’s Mental Health Day is “Mental Health in an Unequal World”, highlighting the importance of global equality around mental health support.

---

This year’s theme offers an opportunity to not only advocate for those in difficult contexts where the potential for mental health struggles can be most severe, but also, as the WHO reminds us, empower people to focus on their own mental wellbeing.

For organizations working in difficult humanitarian and development contexts, this means not only greater attention to the mental health of those they are supporting, but also focusing on the mental health of individuals working for the organizations themselves. Aid workers frequently expose themselves to stressful situations and engage with individuals experiencing mental health challenges because of conflict and crisis.

These concerns are particularly acute for local staff who are typically located at the frontlines because of their greater contextual and linguistic familiarity. These staff members often live in the same mentally distressing situations as the communities they are supporting – and are also affected by the challenges and traumas of those they are supporting.

These landscapes are difficult to navigate. They require intentional care to mitigate the risks of burnout, vicarious trauma, moral injury – and many other potential consequences.

Below are five ways that organizations can support the mental health of their staff:

• Establish policies: Having organizational protocols in place for staff struggling with mental health will increase the likelihood that mental health crises are responded to appropriately. Informing staff that such systems exist can also help create an atmosphere of safety and reassure staff that they can bring up problems or concerns with their management. It is also crucial that broader policies are put in place so that staff are not required to continually fight for their needs and entitlements; crisis situations involve myriad dynamics that are beyond the control of organizations, so providing order where possible is helpful.

• Conduct in-house-assessments and/or therapy: New hires often have previous field experience. Understanding any pre-existing trauma or mental health struggles will enable the organization to better support new members of their team. Having in-house therapy is not always financially possible, but it can be an invaluable means of offering support.

• Set initiatives: Celebrating awareness month, having group chats, or simply organizing lunches can help others to feel a sense of connection and belonging – as well as lift their moods. These initiatives constitute practical ways of supporting staff members' mental health.

• Offer workshops: Conducting workshops on stress management, psychoeducation, or self-care can equip staff member with the necessary tools to practice taking care of themselves and identify when they need additional help.

• Provide resources: Ensuring that staff have access to resources (therapy recommendations, list of support groups, financial help, etc.) can encourage them to seek support.

And here are five ways staff members can take care of their own mental health:

• Set work boundaries: The pressures of project delivery amidst volatility can be demanding, but setting boundaries around your work time, how you allow people speak to you, what you expect from yourself, and the types of tasks (and how many) you take on can help mitigate negative impacts the job may have on your mental health.

• Take time off: Use vacation days (and R&R if it’s provided). Ensure that when you are taking time off, you are truly off – and offline. Of course, it can be more difficult for local staff members to unplug from the work context, but taking smaller breaks can also help. Even two hours without checking your phone can beneficial.

• Take care of your physical health: Physical health impacts your mental health. Although it can be difficult in some situations, try to exercise, get fresh air, and eat foods that nurture you. Mistreating your body also affects your mental health.

• Spend time with people you love: Connecting with the people you love can help you switch your focus from work and feel a sense of meaning. Try to set regular times to see (or call/video chat) with family and friends.

• Express your feelings: Regardless of whether you want to have coffee with a friend, book an online session with a therapist, or spend time journaling, it’s important to stay aware of how you are experiencing your work and the impact it’s having on you.

Sara Kuburic is a mental health columnist (USA Today) and writer (Random House) who focuses on trauma. Find her on Instagram: @millenial.therapist

What I’ve Learned from My Work with Third-Party Monitoring

Twelve years of working with third-party monitoring (TPM) in fragile contexts has taught me a crucial lesson: TPM agents are more effective when they collaborate with – rather than police – project implementers.

---

The Role of Third-Party Monitors

TPM is an increasingly common feature of the monitoring, evaluation, and learning landscape. It is most often used in non-permissive delivery environments to supplement monitoring data, with the TPM agent acting as a donor’s eyes and ears in the field.

The main services provided by TPM agents are 1) verifying the reports of implementing partners by assessing the extent to which goods, commodities, and equipment have been delivered and services have been provided as indicated by the implementing partners, 2) collecting feedback from beneficiaries, 3) triangulating and analyzing data to determine if delivery is on track, and 4) collecting data to track broader socio-political and economic dynamics in the delivery context.

"Third-Party Monitoring is the systematic and intentional collection of performance monitoring and/or contextual data by a partner that is not [a donor] or an implementing partner directly involved in the work." – USAID 

The Importance of Being Supportive

Attitude is crucial in TPM. There is a tendency to assume that TPM is important because it allows for the identification of problems and the raising of red flags. But the real value of TPM comes from collaborating with implementers, deeply understanding the issues they are facing, and providing recommendations to improve program design and delivery.

Closely collaborating with implementers and fostering a supportive relationship with them yields a number of benefits:

1. Access to information. If implementers believe the TPM agent is only there to report on their failures, they are unlikely to facilitate site access or volunteer information. And if the implementers are uncooperative, the TPM agent can be forced to rely on the donor for access, which can delay the whole process and decrease the frequency of visits. This adversarial relationship also yields negative working conditions for the TPM agent’s monitors. I have personally seen monitors refuse to deploy to certain sites where they are treated poorly. However, if implementers feel that the visits might also benefit their work, they typically welcome the monitors. They are also more candid and honest with the monitors, volunteering information to increase the effectiveness of support.

2. Complete picture. when the TPM agent focuses on supporting implementers rather than identifying their mistakes, they prioritize a deeper understanding of the issues. If a discrepancy between reporting and observed conditions is identified, a supportive TPM team will stay in the field, talk to the implementer, and try to understand what is happening. For example, I worked on a project where we were verifying the receipt of microloans. We found that some individuals had received loans who were not on the list of beneficiaries. Rather than immediately raising a flag, we spoke with the implementer and discovered that some younger family members had received the loans on behalf of their elderly disabled mothers/fathers and had started to establish businesses that benefitted the entire family. These intra-familiar replacements were allowed under the program, so we asked to meet with the originally registered beneficiary, we verified the stories we were told, visited the place where the businesses were operating, and verified the documentations against the records and lists. As a result, we did not report this situation as a problem; instead, we noted these intra-familiar transfers and reported them as positive developments.

3. Fresh insight. If implementers – and the beneficiaries of their programming – believe that the TPM agent is truly there to help, they may also entrust it with information that would not otherwise be shared. For instance, I worked on a project where farmers informed us that they were receiving insufficient amounts of agricultural suppliers from the implementing partner and, as a result, they were purchasing further supplies from the market. These purchases had negative impact on their business because the supplies were expensive and of lower quality than those provided by the implementer. They had not reported this shortfall to the implementer or donor because they did not want to appear ungrateful for the current support. But they volunteered this information to us, understanding that we were speaking with them to ensure that the support being provided was as effective as possible. As such, we highlighted to the donor that, due to no fault of the delivery partner, it was necessary to amend the budget and increase the amount of agricultural goods being provided to each farmer.

How a TPM Agent Can Create Supportive Relationships

Relationships of trust need to be carefully nurtured, especially because the TPM agent needs also to maintain a degree of distance from the implementers to ensure objectivity and independence.

To achieve this beneficial relationship, TPM agents should consider a few factors:

• Starting on the right foot. During first contract with the implementer, it is crucial that the TPM agent (and the donor, if possible) makes it clear that it is there to help and support programmatic improvement and learning in whatever way possible. The agent has to therefore encourage the reporting of negative feedback – and assure the implementer that the feedback will be used to push for positive improvements.

• Problem solving, not raising. The TPM agent and its monitors need to demonstrate that the identification of a problem is not a victory. Instead, it is simply the beginning of an investigation to properly understand the issue. When a discrepancy is identified (as in the microloans example above), the monitors need to demonstrate a desire to understand the issue, not simply raise a red flag.

• Focusing on clarification. It is vital that identified issues are discussed with the implementer. This means not only undertaking full investigations in the field, but also giving implementers a chance to explain situations more comprehensively before reports are submitted. In the first episode of Proximity’s new “What the MEL?” podcast, co-host Richard Harrison noted that TPM should involve triangular communication between the donor, implementer, and TPM agent. Communication between all parties is essential. Of course, identified issues need to be reported to the donor, and monitors need to stay vigilant for signs of corruption or safeguarding issues, but communication between the TPM agent and implementers ensures that 1) more accurate information is conveyed, 2) the perspective of the implementer is included, and, thus, 3) a more collaborative process is created.

Conclusion

TPM offers many advantages in non-permissive environments. Beyond providing access, TPM yields robust and independent data, reduces project and financial risks, and helps improve program design and delivery.

The last point is the most crucial. But this potential for learning and improvement can go unrealized if TPM is not approached with the right attitude.

In the end, it is in everyone’s interest for TPM to focus on helping implementers to learn from identified issues, grow, and improve their delivery.