White Paper—Survey of Issues Faced by NGOs Serving Transitional Populations

Paul Bolton MD MPH ScM

Nancy Cunningham MPH

Center for Refugee and Disaster Studies

Department of International Health

Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

Introduction

Until recently relief and development were considered mutually exclusive.  Humanitarian workers and organizations specialized in one or the other approach, with relief agencies caring for disaster-affected populations until the emergency was over and stability restored.  Over the last decade the prolonged nature of some humanitarian emergencies has revealed the negative effects of this long-term relief assistance: People become dependent on aid and lose initiative; providing cheap or free goods destroys local production and markets.  Overall, populations fail to transition from relief to development when relief assistance is provided for a long time.

Yet the development approach cannot be introduced when the situation is still unstable.  Some humanitarian agencies have recognized the need to fill this gap: to develop a new approach for helping disaster-affected populations make the transition between relief and development (‘transitional’ populations).  But experience is limited to the last decade and largely confined to NGOs, a type of agency that does not widely disseminate information about their work.  Without widespread sharing of information, no generally accepted model of how to work with transitional populations has yet emerged.

As a first step to understanding and addressing the problems of working with transitional populations, we contacted NGOs working with these groups.  We spoke with field and headquarters staff about the problems they face and how they could be addressed.  This paper is a record of the information we obtained.

Methods

We contacted the 17 largest US-based NGOs that receive funding from USAID and who we felt were likely - based on their mission statements - to work with transitional populations.  We also contacted one smaller NGO that we already knew was working with these groups.  

We contacted by telephone those persons with the NGOS who were responsible for humanitarian assistance and asked whether the NGO worked with transitional populations. We explained that, by "transitional" we meant populations who are between the acute phase of an emergency operation and recovery.  Twelve NGOs identified themselves as serving transitional populations. We then asked knowledgeable headquarters staff from these NGOs the question ‘what problems do you face in working with transitional populations?’  Staff from eleven responded at length.  These were: Africare, Adventist Development and Relief Agency, American Refugee Committee, CARE, Christian Children's Fund, Catholic Relief Services, Islamic African Relief Agency, Partners for Development, Save the Children, World Vision, and World Relief Corporation.

This resulted in 14 responses from headquarters staff.  We also asked for the e-mail addresses of knowledgeable field staff serving transitional populations.  We sent the same questions to these (23) field offices and received replies from16.  Five could not be contacted, and two did not respond, despite repeated messages over many months.  We finally received replies from 18 field staff. 

We read through each reply and coded the nature of each comment.  We then grouped similar comments together.  We then grouped these similar comments by category, for example comments referring to donors vs comments about security.  These general categories are included in the table in the Results section, including the numbers and percentages of interviewees who made those comments.

Results

Table:  Frequencies of Issues Raised by Interviewees.*

*  Number of HQ staff=14, number of field staff=18.

Table 1 summarizes the types of issues raised by the interviewees, and how frequently they were raised.  The major issue by far, particularly for field staff, was donors.  Among donor issues the easily the major issue (again, mainly for field staff) was that donors need to be willing to fund more development type activities.  Respondents who mentioned this most often referred to the need to extend funding beyond the acute emergency; and avoid earmarking money solely for relief, regardless of real need.  They noted that populations in need often require development activities alongside relief, to avoid future problems.  For example providing seeds and tools as well as food, so that people can be preparing their crops while they receive the food aid.  Some respondents noted that the situation, and therefore the needs, can vary rapidly.  Rigid earmarking of moneys for specific purposes in a changing environment can mean that money is not spent on what people really need.  These respondents advocated more flexibility in how they use funds.

Related to this issue was a need to recognize a distinct ‘transitional’ phase between (or beside) relief and development.   This was more an issue for the field staff than for the HQ staff.  These respondents expressed a keen awareness that the transitional phase carries its own distinct challenges, and that as yet these are not well understood.  In order to learn more there needs to be a wider acknowledgement of this among donors and others, so that funds can be allocated for research and learning by experience.

The third major issue raised was the need for education and training.  This was equally important to both HQ and field staff.  Respondents commented that educating children and training local workers was not a priority in programs but should be.  This was related to their concerns about increasing development activities.  But some respondents also mentioned the need to train local people in relief activities to assist programs and to increase the level of self-determination. 

Finally, many respondents, both field and HQ, were concerned about security.  Poor security was blamed for inhibiting return of refugees and their willingness to collaborate in interventions.  NGOs also found it difficult to work in insecure environments because of danger to their workers and uncertainty about the immediate future.  All concerned were hesitant to commence programs in areas where the programs might be shut down at any time.  Respondents expressed the need to improve security as a means of ensuring effective interventions and promoting a more rapid transition to development.

Conclusions

The major concerns of the NGO staff we interviewed reflected a lack of capacity to deal with both immediate and longer-term issues emerging from disasters.  Issues in the immediate phase reflect limited capacity to be self-sufficient, and a need for more flexibility.  Longer term there appears to be a disconnect between the priorities of the NGOs and those of their donors:  NGOs see a continuing need for a different type of assistance after the acute emergency, including rebuilding lives and communities and maintaining peace.  For this they need a wider role, and a wider range of resources and skills.  Of particular concern are security issues, which loom large in the minds of the affected populations but are not yet well addressed by NGOs, although they recognize the need.  Other issues include employment and education, which need to be addressed soon after a disaster and not wait for funding by development-minded donors. 

Those interviewed believed the disconnect was due to donors thinking in a limited time frame and not understanding the need for a development-based approach.  Donors need to appreciate that a situation does not just require relief or development interventions, but usually a combination of both.  With OFDA NGOs also face a structure which artificially divides activities into relief and development for bureaucratic reasons, thereby frustrating an effective long term approach.  Other problems in taking a longer term approach include the limited state of knowledge about how to pursue transitional and long-term goals and how to measure impact (whereas interventions in the acute emergency phase are much better understood); and the frequent lack of infrastructure and local authority following many disasters.  Many interviewees were sensitive to the need to include those affected by disasters in the decision-making and implementation process.  They expressed a need to develop ways in which to more effectively bring them into the process.

 Recommendations

The rapidly changing nature of humanitarian emergencies requires that NGOs have more flexibility in their use of funds. Inflexibility of funding  mechanisms appears to be the biggest barrier, at this time, to effective transition programming.  Donors need to consider other funding strategies during transition periods.  For example, rather than designating all funds to particular tasks, some funds could be provided for a variety of possible needs as - and if - they occur.  Or a pool of funds set aside and linked to a much more rapid approval procedure than normal.

USAID and NGOs should examine the reliance of NGOs on international agencies for transport and logistic support.  Do these hamper the humanitarian response?  If so, how, and what should be done to address the situation?

NGOs are the frontline of humanitarian assistance.  Yet many respondents are uncertain about how best to assist transitional populations due to a lack of knowledge about the populations themselves; their challenges and needs.  NGOs also lack tools to assess the success of their programs, a vital element in program improvement.  Without this knowledge and tools, how can donors be confident their money is well spent, regardless of the good intentions and professionalism of the implementing agencies?  As a basis for effective programming, donors must be willing to fund research on the particular needs of transitional populations, and for developing assessment and evaluation tools. 

Research should also include development of methods to communicate effectively with the populations after each emergency, to determine their own priorities as well as their capacities.  This will avoid providing assistance which is harmful.  It will also nullify the impression of populations as victims who cannot help themselves.  Such research can be done using a combination of rapid qualitative and quantitative assessment methods.

The security situation and existing infrastructure is poor in most transition situations.  Crises may come and go during this period, causing populations to displace multiple times.  Costly investments in infrastructure can be quickly lost.  Therefore, where the security situation is poor or unstable, NGOs should focus on interventions that build upon existing capacity with benefits that are ‘transportable.’  These include education (including health, agriculture and livestock, conflict resolution, and basic literacy) and community problem solving skills (defining problems, setting priorities, identifying root causes, developing, testing and monitoring solutions) which can be effectively transferred through techniques of Participatory Rural Appraisal. 

NGOs should take care that long-term assistance provided to transitional populations should not be superior to that available to other populations living in the same area.