To think voluntourism needs to be called out?

@CandidHedgehog you seem to feel strongly on this. Why do YOU think it creates so much damage?

I wasn’t talking about the benefit only for the teenager but just the inherent fact that people do mixt one way or another.

voluntourism or else.

I also think that to say they create damage is soooo hypocritical…because centered onto your own way of thinking. I looked at the research by the way…

And you are repeating nonsense you’ve been fed by people who want your money while ignoring the multiple sources (not just the Guardian) explaining why voluntourism is a bad idea.

Your choice.

Nobody is saying it’s not massively beneficial to the teenager in question.

The question is how much damage to the people they are pretending to help is acceptable in return.

My view is none. You are entitled to disagree.

Edited to say: By ‘pretending to help’, I fully accept the teenagers in question genuinely think they are helping. It’s just that usually isn’t true.

actual research

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/01/22/the-paradox-of-voluntourism-how-international-volunteering-impacts-host-communities/

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/voluntourism/2019-09

Yeah…sure.

I really do think that travelling as a teenage and altruism are a good mixt. That helps people not saying stuff such as: « But should we really be using residents of poorer countries as teaching tools for our teenagers? »

Going out of…home? Country? Comfort zone?…Is litterally life 👀 you should try it.

I disapprove of these “ experiences” laughable that a bunch of teenagers have the expertise to build a house, sanitation system etc etc. the money they raise would be better spent funding operations there rather than flying them out. The way it is sold to pupils is disingenuous and sadly parents are deluded if they think it is the best way of helping the developing world. I know people who children have participated but when asked sent emails , Facebook requests I have ignored them.

Sorry but I'm not sure how you can detach the "idea" of the organisation from the worrying practice of charging unqualified foreigners to interview apparently vulnerable children twice a year.

You’re repeating nonsense you’ve read in the Guardian. Many of the large global charities you are giving to use voluntourism as an income stream or way to fund their projects.

i don’t know where you get the idea that I said that people only give to charity to benefit themselves. But it’s one of the reasons people give and one of the reasons people volunteer. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Sorry I think you have misunderstood me.

The basic idea of the organisation seems reasonable and better than others I have seen here.
Of course the tourist being involved in the interviews is wrong.

It was me who mentioned the need for Swahili.

I am sure the Tanzanians do all the work and the tourists look pretty in photographs.

The tourist part is racist, the other things look reasonable.

a few guardian articles on bad voluntourism projects isn’t evidence that it’s evil anymore more than the many articles of charity corruption/harm is evidence that all charities are bad and harmful.

The reason people don’t just give money is Because the money is for a trip and an experience for them as well as for the charity. It’s one way (many) charities raise money. Why do people in the uk volunteer rather than just work a few extra hours and donate the money? Obviously because they want to get something out of it too. And there is nothing wrong with that.

And you are repeating the talking points of the companies and charities that make money from this.

Somehow I think I will believe the multiple people and organisations (not just the Guardian) who have actually researched the subject and have no axe to grind over the agencies that make money from voluntourism.

You do realise that you are repeatedly insisting that the only reason people have for giving to charity is if it benefits them? That’s really not true for most people, you know….

lol - the house wouldn’t been built at all if habitat for humanity had not funded it and built it. We provided jobs for local construction workers who worked on the project with us. After we left there was a house that wasn’t there before and wouldn’t have been there if we never had visited. The emissions were nothing extra to if we had just gone on safari.

you’re lucky that you have the luxury of repeating guardian reader talking points. I grew up in poverty so I’d rather have the house that is needed and otherwise wouldn’t be built.

I’ve volunteered on uk projects for habitat too - was I taking away work from uk laborers? Should no one ever volunteer?

Having Tanzanians involved is hardly a barometer for ethics is it? Shipping out foreigners to interview children isn't good by any metric. It's concerning that you would think it is, given you are apparently a teacher in Tz... you ought to be hotter on your safeguarding practices than that.

Taking into account what a poster has said about needing Swahili to be of any use, I am even more convinced the whole ‘sign up children and check how sponsorship is being spent’ is a fake.

If this is a genuine charity, my guess is the Tanzanian staff are doing the actual work and then taking the paying volunteers to carefully curated locations to ‘sign up’ existing beneficiaries of the charity who have been coached in what to say.

The voluntourist is travelling around viewing traditional Tanzanian villages rather than going on safari with an uncomfortable implication of treating the village residents like zoo animals. Which is racist.

It does have Tanzanians involved in the organisation.

They don't have a link to how to book your safari when you come out to help.

I didn't say it was good but compared with some I have seen it has a few good points. The bar is very low though.

I was going to add a few more, @CandidHedgehog, but honestly don't think there's much point when people do this only to be told evidence doesn't exist

The blind-eye-turning/blinkered attitudes are unfortunate, but as said upthread I can understand that - having lashed out an awful lot of money - folk want to believe it's been sensibly spent

Edited to add 300 posts now, and still no answers as to why fundraisers don't just donate the money directly to their chosen cause

I’ve posted links to the evidence of significant harm in multiple posts in this thread alone. Even the most basic research shows the substantial harm caused (although I accept you have to look at the later pages of google results - the profit making companies claiming it’s a good thing have taken up the first few pages).

You wasted an enormous amount of money that could have been used to build houses by travelling out there yourself, took paid labour from locals, thereby distorting the local economy and causing hardship to local families, and (unless you are a qualified construction worker) did a worse job than a competent local could have done.

That’s harmful.

Edited to say: Plus the ecological harm of multiple flights so a load of British people can perform unskilled labour in a country teeming with people who could live for months on the cost of 1/10 of one of those flights.

But it let you team build so that’s all OK (/s)

Not all volunteering in the uk or elsewhere needs to be done by highly skilled people. There’s no reason unskilled people can’t volunteer- in respect of foreign volunteering people are doing it for an experience but that’s ok. It’s tourism it’s hugely beneficial for the local economy and charitable projects.

Absolutely. Voluntourism done responsibly is a good way to fund charitable projects and have an interesting experience. There’s no evidence at all of significant harm to local communities and lots of evidence of positive impacts.

my employer paid for a trip to Africa for team building where we built a house with habitat for humanity. We had done builds in the uk with them too. We did a safari and some other tourist stuff too but also funded and built a house for a local community organization. Of course that isn’t harmful and it’s just silly to pretend it is.

It doesn't look like one of the better organizations. The bar is already so low, we don't need to feed the delusions.

I've googled the charity.

The voluntourists interview the children and enroll more into the scheme. Why they need people to come to Tanzania to interview the children I'm not sure. It would make much more sense to have Swahili speaking Tanzanians to do the interviews. I could find them some volunteers.

The level of English in Tanzanian schools particularly at primary level and in the rural areas is not good. I live in an area where there are a lot of tourists and even here you need swahili to communicate. We work with local schools, our swahili speaking students are always needed to translate. I really don't see how in this area the children are going to have enough English to be interviewed.

You can also deliver a mattress or carry a chicken. Again not sure why a British teenager is more skilled at that than a Tanzanian.

You can sponsor a child for 3.50 pounds a month. If she really wants to help why not sponsor 47 children for a year and get some change out of her 2000 pounds.

It does look like one of the better organisations but still I don't see how your friend is going to help. It is about her not the Tanzanian children.

You asked about MSF. So I responded that the ideal is supporting local skills. I'm not sure why you're taking it so personally.
Perhaps you could reflect upon why you don't have reasoned response, and can only respond with accusations of condescension?

It is relevant in the sense that some people will lump this together and still criticise. As is evident by some posters here. If you agree that volunteering with relevant skills is different, then fair enough.