Nearly three hundred years ago, some profound words were spoken. However, here we are, still trying to embrace an ideology which supposedly should be common-sensical.
“an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure“
Benjamin Franklin, 1735
Hundreds of thousands of children and families around us in the UK are in a state of entrenched crisis. Numerous charities have been responding with all the compassion and endeavouring to change the status quo. But we and the policy makers are often too late to arrive at the crisis zone. Things are too embedded and it takes a lot longer and much more effort and resource to strike at the problem and seek a resolution.
With all our experience working with communities, why did we not see this coming or pre-empt crisis one may ask? Why is it so hard for charities and development organisations to sometimes justify preventative approaches. It seems that the very policies that have been designed to make sure we maker sure we can enhance ‘resilience in communities and prevent future crisis’ are running contrary to their stated purpose and inadvertently set up to undermine resilience, despite their best intentions.
Let’s think about funding. Speaking to a charity CEO recently they shared how some of the donors they were interacting with would much rather give money towards emergency food aid ie helping people with short-term food parcels than actually fund work that prevents people from falling into crisis in the first place. Why is that one may ask, even when figures show that funding an emergency aid response might cost a lot more than working with at-risk individuals and families on preventative techniques such as working through root causes such as mental health, drug and alcohol recovery, or learning how to cook healthy meals on a budget or providing money management training to young people and children.
I think the answer lies in a three-pronged dilemma.
#1. The result-focused agenda.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for good development delivering lasting outcomes and meaningful results for those who are the most vulnerable. However, the parameters within which organisations are expected to deliver the goods and ensure accountability towards funders are often too stringent, poorly thought through or linked to unrealistic expectations.
Over the years there has been a massive focus on quantification of impact. We have advanced the science of monitoring and evaluation, theory of change driven programmes, logical frameworks and developed sophisticated indicators as metrics to track our progress. However, such tangible results get harder to capture when you get into preparedness mode as we have effectively averted the point of crisis which has made it even harder to articulate the results and claim any credit for it, as attribution is no easy play! Also, the journey can often be equally valuable as the destination as there is so much learning on the way, which in itself seeds resilience, but in the eyes of decision makers, outputs are mistakenly prioritised over process.
#2. Short-termist attitudes
With political cycles being short, political insecurity being high, decision makers feel under pressure to deliver ostensibly to their electoral mandates. There is a tendency to prioritise and fund projects and programmes which are more assured, deliver ‘quick’ wins and seem to make a ‘visible difference’. In my ten years of working on disaster and climate resilience, it was evident that high media profiled humanitarian emergency response efforts were able to raise funds much quicker than long-term outcome focused disaster risk reduction or climate adaptation programmes ever did. The state of play is not very different in UK charity spaces today.
#3. Playing safe
In the development world abound with constricted funding flows, under resourced organisations, struggling economies and steadily rising needs, the atmosphere is ripe for organisations to stick to the tried and tested. And rightly so, as they are rewarded for that. On the surface, innovation is hailed favourably, but not if one does not have all the tangible outcomes to show for it. Therefore organisations who are deciding to take the risk of breaking through the mould by investing in policy and advocacy to influence the decision makers, engaging with do-good preventative approaches that were undoubtedly putting communities on their front foot and reflecting more qualitative impact, better be prepared. When showcasing compelling ‘case study narratives of overall well-being enhanced for individuals and families backed by lived experience’ as opposed to ‘number of people who had their problem fixed through a handout or another more quantifiable short-term intervention’, they might experience some praise, but prospects of overall donor backing in practical terms may be less forthcoming.
While exceptions exist, the general trend as painted here does seem somewhat bleak. Does that mean we are resigned to this reality as charities where our funding environment does not quite incentivise a preventative, forward looking approach that invests upfront to build community resilience?
Absolutely not! We need to continue to :
– push for system change. This means raising awareness amongst our donors and policy makers and present compelling evidence from those most affected on what will make a meaningful difference. How proactively working with communities to mitigate risk factors can set them up for a much better quality of life and dignity as they would be more self-reliant.
– buck the trend. We need to get better at showcasing the impact of what we are achieving even if the outcomes are incremental and ones that need some extrapolation and imagination to reliably predict the future. A focus on the potential likelihood of our successes and achievements and what factors might contribute to that would hold us in good stead.
Even if odds are stacked up against us, let’s persevere. We’ve got to! We can’t keep waiting for vulnerable children and families to hit the point of crisis which leads them onto a downward spiral of chaos and deprivation. They deserve better than that. They deserve early interventions and support that prepares them for a healthier and happier future.
So let’s be proactive and not reactive. Let’s co-create better futures!
