Positions with the Global Children's Fund in DC

The Global Fund for Children is looking for program directors for its D.C. office.  Check out these great job opportunities!

https://www.globalfundforchildren.org/get-involved/jobs/

Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down: False Dichotomy?

We are social workers, and as such we appreciate the importance of assessing and intervening with a client (or community) in context and affirm the value of self-determination.  We help to build individuals’ and communities’ capacities to shape their own future and define their own wellbeing.  It is important to keep these values in mind when practicing in an international context, especially because we are also engaged in historically hurtful power dynamics which we do not wish to perpetuate.  The difficulty of holding to this rule in international settings comes from the incredible cultural, economic, and political differences between the Western social worker/agency and the clients and communities at the grassroots level.  Both parties have resources and wisdom to contribute to intervention strategies; the trick is to find the right balance between both. 

And this is where most development efforts have gone horribly awry in implementation.  Foreign-led organizations and institutions may not engage in a detailed power analysis of community-level social norms, economic systems, and political processes.  The imposition of a Western framework (like a free market) onto a society which already has a functioning system of economic transactions is like mixing oil and water—one will not penetrate the other and instead of a fully integrated solution, you get a gloppy mix.  The target society of the intervention gets caught in between the traditional and novel system, which both break down as actors try to navigate both at the same time.  This is generally why “top-down” interventions don’t work, or don’t work as well as they should.

Recently, there has been more recognition that these “bottom-up” interventions are preferable for international community development and broad interventions for social issues.  Indigenous NGOs have become powerful actors in development, and tailored interventions for specific communities and populations have become more popular areas of Western donors to place their dollars.  However, NGOs and grassroots initiatives have severe limitations; it is impossible for these actors—even in coalition with others—to affect big projects that require significant financial and technological investment (e.g., national education or health policies).

The debate in classrooms and on the ground focuses on the battle between Top-Down and Bottom-Up models of intervention, for which a truce seems to have been authored:  Top-down intervention (led by foreign governments or global institutions like the World Bank) are effective for broad-based change requiring large amounts of resources while Bottom-up intervention (like microfinance strategies) work best at the individual and community level for improving people’s immediate well-being.  Thus, foreign actors maintain control of macro-level structural adjustment and indigenous actors are able to effect change at the local level.  This is not a win-win situation.  This leads to a stratified society in which people are not given the opportunity to contribute to nation building and foreign institutions continue to enjoy the power imbalance that started with colonialism.  Our job as social workers is to affirm the contributions of both models of intervention and development and to call out their respective weaknesses.  Perhaps then we can find the proper balance that will affirm  individuals’, communities’, and states’ rights to self-determination while also ensuring the well-being of all involved.

Who Gets Half the Sky?

If you’ve been paying attention to global development at all for the last ten years, then you know all about the “miracles” of microfinance.  In developing countries, particularly rural areas, microfinance strategies have been touted as something of a magic bullet for poverty alleviation and the promotion of women’s rights. Testimonies have spurred greater interest in microfinance development strategies; the enormously popular book and documentary Half the Sky touts this brand of economic empowerment as the best source of hope for women and girls around the world.   By giving the people who make up the “bottom of the pyramid” the opportunity to invest in a business startup, donors and lenders can increase access to markets which leads to greater agency over an individual’s life.  Or so the story goes.

Many people have benefited from microfinance programs, some have even been able to move out of poverty into stable jobs and living situations.  However, this development strategy rests on the idea of new business startups—a risky economic activity in the most developed countries.  One criticism of microfinance programs highlights evidence that the marginal return on investment for entrepreneurs often hides the very limited overall return, resulting in the inability for borrowers to expand their businesses to become stable profit-making ventures (Banerjee & Duflo, 2012).  Another criticism, from my own experience interviewing orphaned young adults in Addis Ababa, is that the structures of these programs often assume a certain level of informal social support and some financial literacy skills on the part of the borrower—assumptions that are not always true.  This results in either disqualification for microfinance programs or a lack of skills necessary to start a successful business and pay back the initial loan.

The history of microfinance as a development strategy is a familiar one: an innovative program is successful and is rapidly scaled up to be implemented in a myriad of contexts to serve a diverse array of people.  In the process, non-pertinent factors contributing to the vulnerabilities of communities are overlooked or unaddressed, and stories of non-success are rarely analyzed to improve program participation and efficacy.  This is not to say that microfinance initiatives are inherently bad or that they should be abandoned; there are a lot of individuals and communities that have greatly benefited from these programs.  But as with all development strategies, microfinance should be meticulously evaluated so as to make sure that it delivers on its promised outcomes and identify best (and not-so-good) practices. 

Most importantly, we should remember that microfinance, nor any one development strategy, is a cure-all for poverty, conflict, or gender inequality.  Sustainable change will incorporate the best development strategies for specific contexts and include intervention programs on a variety of levels and in diverse areas. 

This past Wednesday, SSA welcomed four practitioners from internationally-focused social service agencies to speak at a panel for the ISW program.  These participants included Scott Portman (Heartland Alliance International), Sarah Aulie (Catholic Charities’ Refugee Resettlement Program), Marianne Joyce (Marjorie Kovler Center for Survivors of Torture), and Diego Rodriguez Mendieta (Heartland Alliance’s Colombia Program).  The panel discussed the nature of their work, their organizations’ mission, and what the field of International Social Work looks like today.  This larger conversation dealt with larger themes of globalization (the good and the bad) and the intersection of local intervention with macro-level change strategies. 

Marianne Joyce and Diego Rodriguez Mendieta gave powerful testimony on the importance of trauma-informed counseling with individuals.  Marianne, with the Marjorie Kovler Center, has worked with survivors of torture who are seeking or who have been granted asylum in the United States, which requires not only individual counseling sessions but also larger advocacy work on the part of refugee communities.  Diego works with communities in Colombia to develop and implement culturally appropriate mental health services for victims of torture and displacement with the assistance of Heartland Alliance.  This program seeks to both improve the individual lives of survivors and to equip communities for (re)development in conflict-torn areas.  Heartland Alliance International hopes to build sustainable mental health programs in partnership with indigenous organizations and the government, so as to ensure that the effects of mental health intervention will be long-lasting and beneficial to these communities.   Scott, who is a program director at Heartland Alliance International, also described a similar program in Iraq. 

Heartland Alliance International clearly integrates the four perspectives of international social work practice as outlined by David Cox and Manohar Pawar (2006):  global, human rights, ecological, and social development.  The organization’s work is also a testament to the complexity of globalization ethics:  without the capacity of information and resource exchange that globalization can bring, trauma-informed treatment with refugees and international communities would be difficult if not impossible.  Best practices can be utilized in a variety of settings with diverse populations, and experience of practitioners in these cross-cultural settings better informs the development and evolution of practices here in the United States.  These programs are also being used to inform policy in Colombia, Iraq, and at home, emphasizing the need for macro-level focus in successful intervention strategies.  This integration was reinforced as the panelists were asked what they look for in applicants:  broad-based skill development, policy literacy, the ability to contextualize practice, adaptability, and a willingness to wrestle with ethical dilemmas.

As internationally-focused social workers, we are challenged to “glocalize” our practice—to adapt it to the specific contexts in which we serve so that our clients can reap the fullest benefits of intervention.  Heartland Alliance has glocalized trauma-informed practice, and has developed it into a multi-level intervention.  Glocal social work practice includes a willingness to wrestle with ethical dilemmas and to live in the tension between colonialism and grassroots development.  Yes, the West has a wealth of resources and theoretical frameworks to guide personal and community development all over the world, which we must contribute.  However, we must also enter the field with open minds so that we can also benefit from the global informational exchange.

You can read more about Heartland Alliance International, The Marjorie Kovler Center, and Catholic Charities' Refugee Resettlement Program.  

Development for Whom?

Social work, like many professions, is defined differently across the globe. In the United States, the profession has mainly focused on micro practice with individuals and families, with a greater emphasis on the clinical model.  Many European countries, with large state-sponsored welfare systems, see social work as the implementation of benefits programs; social workers are the facilitators of welfare initiatives.  For developing countries, social work has taken on a broader meaning, and often includes areas of social and economic development.  These stark differences have begun to blur into each other over time as globalization facilitated the sharing of ideas and practices.  Though practice emphases may be different, social workers across the world share a common value base and a commitment to social change. 

Conversations about social change—the most pressing issues and best practice strategies—will also vary between cultures and contexts.  The West, however, has often dominated the conversation because of its privileged place as the originator of the profession and the vast resources it enjoys to both define social problems and develop solutions.   While everyone may agree that integrating areas of economic development, human rights, ecological sustainability, and social welfare is the most effective strategy to increase well-being, Western organizations, political powers, and individuals are often the loudest voices at the table.  This has resulted in “imposed development” (Cox & Pawar, 2010), with rich and politically powerful states and organizations (like the United States, the IMF, and the World Bank) coercing developing countries into macro-level development strategies that may or may not disproportionately benefit Western Capitalist nations while having adverse effects on vulnerable communities.  Western entities have also taken charge of defining development goals for countries, which usually entails some prescribed method for attaining those goals.  Michael Barnett (2005) has argued that humanitarian action has now become an –ism:  a means to transform the world on par with other development philosophies such as communism and neo-liberalism.  The professionalization of NGOs has made these organizations a political force, with power that can either match or exceed political parties in different nations.  These agencies are committed to spreading democracy and development that help to create stable and effective states, not just to alleviate the immediate suffering of the poor and marginalized. 

A prime example of this dilemma is the case of the Millennium Development Goals.  These goals, as defined by the United Nations, have been adopted by many nations that do not have the resources or infrastructure to create their own methods of intervention.  These nations have no choice but to turn to Western organizations that helped to define the Millennium Development Goals in the first place.  These goals have been criticized by some for being too macro-focused and not paying close enough attention to the local experience of individuals and communities.  A country may reach 100% childhood enrollment in schools, but that does not automatically translate to 100% of children being engaged in education.  Without on-the-ground monitoring, evaluation, and input of local communities, the Millennium Development Goals may be met in letter but not in spirit.

Although Western-dominated strategies can have undesirable effects, the fact of the matter is that development cannot happen without the influence of the resource-rich and powerful West.  Most development dollars come from Western states and donors, most Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are based out of the West, and global politics are still led by Western nations.  Students from the United States interested in international social welfare policy and practice (i.e., us) will most likely work for international rather than indigenous organizations and agencies, which means that we must wrestle with the ethical questions of Western-led developmental practices.  Mainly, what should be the role of external aid in a country’s or community’s development?  And how can we, as individual social workers and as a larger profession, define and implement this role?