To think if teenage girls from a private school can afford plane tickets ...

[Morgansports]

.... To visit the orphanage in Africa that they have been fundraising for, then the orphanage would be better served by just receiving the money they spent on their tickets. Seriously, what actual use to the orphanage is a group of hair-flicking, ugg boot wearing blondes???

And the bit that made me laugh is that other parents at the school were asked to help fundraise for the girls' trip.

AIBU?

and yyy to everything that Himalaya just said about persisting attitudes towards African communities

All this should be aimed at the 'big guns'- those that arrange it and profit from the trips and not the naive school girl.

No harm in telling the naive school girl, but real change will only come if tour companies change their policy.

And yy to Smithson's quote.

It's patronising to teenaged girls (and boys) to think that they couldn't understand these arguments, given the right background reading etc... and instead should be encouraged to go with their first emotional response.

Exotic - they are businesses, they do what makes money.

It should be aimed at schools to stop peddling this nonsense. But I think also quite legitimate thing for A level students to think about. They don't need to stay naive for ever.

Exactly- they are making money- this doesn't make them immune from hitting them- equally target the school. It seems to be saying they are too big and powerful - go for the soft option - something that generally happens in life. Of course students can take in the arguments- but so can big business!

Exotic - as long as there are customers wanting to go on these life changing 2 week make-a-difference holidays there will be companies springing up to serve them.

As long as there are people saying what's the harm, don't be so mean to these well meaning young people etc... there will continue to be customers.

Now what would be a really great lesson would be to ask the students to create a computer programme that shows an African community complete with the most vulnerable members in the orphanage or hospital whatever and to allow the programme to show the short medium and long term affects of aid work (based on evidence) They could have lots of reading around what charitable giving means and how development/volunteering should be approached and what happens when the money runs out/ the tourists leave etc.. Speakers could come and give presentations and they could finish it with some fundraising where they use their new knowledge to decide together through informed debate, where it should go. The computer programme could then be used by schools that cant afford to hire a programmer to work with the kids etc. Wouldnt that be a better lesson?

It's a top idea, Smithson! Hope somebody who reads this will follow your idea through!

Not sure about the computer program idea Smithson, but I agree that schools should teach about development, and about aid in less mawkish and more informed ways.

They should also not present the story about Africa as only being about poverty and charity.

Laqueen was talking about teens growing up they will be doctors, teachers and engineers and can go and volunteer. But this is the same old story. When they grow up they may also work with and for African companies and governments. They will be voters and might be policy makers. They will be investors.

I am all for cultural exchange trips - where kids spend time with kids from other kids as peers - not as lady bountiful.

Totally agree Himalaya - i meant the programme should show the whole of the community NOT JUST the vulnerable and the knock on affect of development programmes throughout the community, including how big business and politicians, middle class people etc. are intwinned and affected by it.

The idea would be that it would show Africa as a complicated whole which is deeply affected on many levels by the images of poverty and the tourists and how problematic aid is when it creates a picture of Africa which is only about poverty and charity- and what other models are available.

Certainly it would be an interesting project, it would involve politics, economics, ethics. You could get many interesting speakers.

And yy to school exchanges, that would be an amazing experience!

Just diving back on the thread - it's school hols and I don't have time to read 530 posts, so sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick at any point!

Himalaya's recent post makes the following points:

"I think a big part of the harm is the "lessons" these program's teach donors- that poor people in Africa should take whatever assistance is offered, that the good feelings of the donors are more important than the best interests of the 'beneficiaries', that Africans are passive, corrupt and unskilled and need 'whites in shining armour' to fly in and paint walls for them, that supporting organisations that do the unglamorous business of employing local social workers, liasing and building the capacity of government institutions for child protection would be "throwing money at the problem" - that it is better to gather children whose families are in difficulty into institutions where they are convenient to enable compassionate teens to have life enhancing experiences."

I think I can debunk most of these ideas from first hand experience.

1. these program's teach donors- that poor people in Africa should take whatever assistance is offered - Not all of them. The charities I have visited mostly try to teach donors that poor people in Africa need access to better basic facilities (eg clean water, basic healthcare and education) in order to better themselves. They just sometimes need a hand up in the world, and where assistance is offered to get started there is no shame in accepting it. This is the same theory behind various charities in the UK - helping people to make a start and then leaving them to it, but providing a back up should they need more help in hard times.

2.that the good feelings of the donors are more important than the best interests of the 'beneficiaries', ---- No. The time I got in big trouble (the milk-buying incident) I was told that it wasn't about me. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has been educated this way.

3.that Africans are passive, corrupt and unskilled and need 'whites in shining armour' to fly in and paint walls for them ---- Anyone, anyone who goes out to these places will see that this statement is untrue immediately. Most ordinary Africans I have met (and my husband was born in Africa, my step mother is African, and I spend about 4 days every month in various African countries, and have done for the last decade. Even a short visit to Africa will teach you that there are many intelligent, friendly, kind and funny Africans out there, it's just the dictators and mass murderers who make it onto the news. Even if you are blonde and wearing Ugg boots you will see this.

4..that it is better to gather children whose families are in difficulty into institutions where they are convenient to enable compassionate teens to have life enhancing experiences - Rubbish. Most reputable charities will try and keep a family together no matter what. The only times children are separated from their families IME is when a teenage girl has been raped. There is massive social stigma attached to this, the babies are often born with HIV, and the family do not want to be left with a baby with high medical costs and short life expectancy once the mother has died of AIDS.

I could waffle on for ages, as I feel strongly about the places I go to in Africa, who DO benefit from teenagers on a short visit. But I'll leave it there for now.

Anyway its probably a crap idea but i am just trying to break the assumption that the trip for the girls is a good lesson when it isn't. Or that its the only lesson available otherwise they would just go to Ibiza or whatevs. By the time they are older teenagers they should be learning critical skills and this kind of thing is not challenging them to think and learn at all.or their parents for that matter. IMO.

"Laqueen was talking about teens growing up they will be doctors, teachers and engineers and can go and volunteer. But this is the same old story. "

Actually, one of the places I go to has supported one of their children through school and she is now at medical school in England. Thanks to visitors, a home has been found for her to stay in while she is in England, and Her intention is to return to her home in Africa once she is qualified. Not all medical aid to Africa is the way you might think it is! In this instance, aid has been provided which will enable one family to help a whole lot more Africans, and hopefully the point will come when they don't need assistance to get to this stage.

Backinthebox

For me, it's the specific 'orphanage tourism' which I dislike as I don't think it is appropriate for the children there - and research has shown this to be the case.

Visiting schools, homes etc well yy to that and I would encourage my DDs, but helping out in an orphanage, no it's not appropriate.

Himalaya -- you say doing no harm nine times out of ten isn't good enough. But that's not what I was saying. I was saying that every intervention results in good and harm, and what matters is the balance: the net-net, if you will. I'd add that every non-intervention also results in a mix of good and harm. Simply asserting "never do harm" is setting an impossible goal and Letting the best be the enemy of the good.

I am asserting that a qualitative description of some possible harms like "an orphanage may stay open instead of being replaced by fostering arrangements" isn't convincing. If you are going to apply this much analysis to the trip, it would be better to push further and actually look at the numbers, eg compare trends in support arrangements for children in places against trip frequency, determine variance in serious incidents and look for correlations with volunteer presence, etc etc. It would be a big undertaking, but the facts and analysis matter. Otherwise, for every possible harm you can describe, someone else can describe a possible good.

sihilly that analysis has already been done. hence the arguments against this kind of work. These arguments are not new.

Silhily - yes, this is what aid agencies do. They look at evidence and value for money and where there are funding gaps and over funded areas. They do the analysis, so we don't have to.

They have concluded on this basis (the net -net analysis as you say) that sending unskilled short term volunteers is not a good use of resources and puts children at risk, and that orphanages are over funded relative to other children's services. This is why if you phone up Oxfam, Save the Children, Cafod, UNICEF etc... and say "I'd like to go and volunteer for two weeks working with children, I'll pay my own way" they will say politely thanks but no thanks. If you say "I'd like to donate money but only for orphanages" they will say thanks but no thanks. As would a UK based organisation caring for vulnerable children.

So when a school promotes these trips they are ignoring all the analysis that has been done based on evidence.

My OP was only fiveish lines long and essentially asked a very simple question. AIBU to think that this money could have been better spent?

Not many posters have answered the question directly but there have been some interesting input regarding the girls' potential to teach the orphans some dances and a few words of English. How weird that the major organisations don't place ads in the broadsheets asking desperately for funds to send schoolchildren on these eye-opening, feel-good visits. So much more beneficial than raising funds for famine relief, irrigation projects, health clinics, vaccinations, education.

I am happy to provide bank details for anyone who wants to chuck some money the way of these girls by the way. Any takers? Is such a good cause. No, thought not.

Quite obvious to me that many posters on here simply don't have a fucking clue about the realities of life in certain African countries and what is needed NOW. I know, let's start a fund for some plane tickets for them .....

I shan't return to this thread. The posters who do understand how I feel, thanks for your fabulous posts.

Backinthebox - just to be clear, I am not against aid, just the idea that the best organisation to support is the one that will let you visit and have direct contact with beneficiaries. We don't think this way in relation to Backinthebox - just to be clear, I am not against aid, just the idea that the best organisation to support is the one that will let you visit and have direct contact with beneficiaries. We don't think this way in relation to cancer charities, emergency relief, human rights charities etc...

I am not against expert technical assistance (including long term cancer charities, emergency relief, human rights charities etc...

I am not against expert technical assistance (including long term volunteers) where this is what governments and local civil society organisations have asked for to meet their capacity gaps.

There is no shortage of unskilled young people and school leavers in Africa, how on earth is it 'aid' to send more?

i agree with everything himalaya says. It seems impossible for many people to have this conversation, focused on what is best for the Africans/ Africa without repeatedly swinging back to the poor vilified well-meaning teenagers and the importance of not bursting their bubbles

Ive been thinking about what the attitudes would be if the visitors were from an inner-city state school.....The school where my kids go has a lot of families from Africa and Pakistan. There is enough first hand experience and awareness amongst the parents and teachers, that if a scheme like this was ever suggested by anyone, I would bet my left leg, it would be a non-starter

See, now I'm glad I stumbled on this discussion.

As a blogger of 6 years vintage, all of a sudden charities have cottoned on to us working with them to highlight their (very good and worthy) causes. I have done a few bits and bobs with charities who I like the work of. They were all very much things which ran through my blog and Twitter, and didn't entail me going anywhere past London.

However, last year, I was approached to go abroad. I was told everything would be paid for for me and the other's who'd been asked, including flights and hotel.

They have had a few high profile bloggers go over, one who is very well known now and everyone is expected to bow down to purely due to her going over first no matter how much of a cow she is. The thing is, when other's have gone over and milked the arse out of it for blog promotion purposes they've never mentioned not actually contributing financially to their trips.

I cannot see how a group of people form our country, doing some crying on film for their blogs or whatever, yet the charity cops the bill, how does that help? You can just as easily raise awareness via images on your blog, or via the charities pre-recorded promotional videos. How much does all this cost after all per person?

I turned it down, and got a bit of a flaming from other bloggers for being selfish, but I felt least selfish of all! What would be the point of me being an emotional wreck for a few days?

Lots of state schools participate in projects like this.

I am taking a Nigerian girl on a charity trip next year- she has excellent experience. Because she spends every summer holiday back in her fathers Nigerian village running a dance camp (with her sisters) for the local children from surrounding villages. He father is wealthy (enough to send several children to boarding school in England), but he makes his teens give back to the community they're from.

there will always be something 'better' to spend charity money on. Don't give £100 to the RSPCA, give it to Christian Aid, oh no water aid. Oh no hang on, not £100, £200 don't waste money on your already privileged kids Christmas presents. Etc.. Etc...

A quick response to Himalaya re the contact with beneficiaries thing (slightly off topic sorry) As i said upthread somewhere, i have worked extensively with vulnerable people in this country and I will not work with volunteers at all (unless they are professionals volunteering) because they almost always want to have direct contact with beneficiaries and almost always have real difficulty interrogating personal motivations as to why they want to do this. They also often get very often angry that they are not given immediate access to the beneficiaries because they are "volunteering" It can really be a minefield and in my opinion charities do have a duty of care to protect the vulnerable people they are set up to support and gatekeeping is necessary, however annoying this may be to well meaning volunteers. Im not sure why this should be any different in an international context regardless of the other issues.