Hunger: accountability

One of the big issues these days in development is accountability. Do you manage to do anything, or do you just shuffle paperwork? The problem is, how do you measure real progress?

The famine relief people have it easy. They can say they fed so many thousand starving people for so long. But relief isn't development.

Within my own sphere, livestock development, things tend to move slowly. One of the reasons Heifer International is so popular is that it moves at a noticible pace: people receive their animal, their lives improve. What about cross-breeding to improve genetics? It takes several generations of animals to see an improvement. Cut and carry to improve nutrition? Slow, gradual improvement. Nothing dramatic like building a dam.

And what metric do you use to measure improvement? If you allow development projects to measure their own success, you may get a more meaningful answer. You may get manipulation of data to ensure funding continues. Metrics are specific to the project, but they can be too specific.

And is it appropriate to punish failure? We like to say that a negative answer is still an answer, but try getting it published. The same goes with programs that have gone nowhere -- we learn something from them, but try getting funded again. If a funding agency cares about accountability, they won't go back to a project that has failed. If it doesn't, its funds will be taken up by projects that look good on paper, but don't necessarily even get out the management door.

In other words, accountability is still an issue. My request for you is that you ask about accountability before donating to a group that funds hunger development. If you don't, your money may not be going where it's needed.