Capacity Building vs. Gap Filling

Capacity Building vs. Gap Filling. This is a topic that has been brewing in my mind for some time. It started a few months ago when a friend who had recently finished her time as a VSO (Voluntary Service Oversees) volunteer described her exit interview to me. She said that the problem with her volunteer placement (at a youth agriculture project) was that VSO and the local organization that she had been placed with had two different ideas about her purpose. The VSO organization thought (and surely had said so) that they were placing her as a capacity builder (someone who works with local staff to train them in whatever skills they need to continue the work after she goes) whereas the local organization was using her a someone just to fill a staffing gap. In talking with other volunteers I know, and also in thinking about my own experiences, I have realized that this is a very common problem.

In analyzing this problem, I will first take the perspective of the volunteer or donor agencies (such as NGO’s). They are wisely attempting to build a sustainable future. It’s the development version of “teach a man to fish”, and it comes from a recognition that Zambia is in short supply of the sort of skilled individual needed (from the outside donor’s perspective) to keep a local organization well funded and serving its clients well into the future. These sorts of skills include budgeting, financial management, information organization, communication, grant writing, monitoring and evaluation. Increasingly the international donors are choosing to work with local organizations that demonstrate use of these skills. This makes sense – who would want to give funds to a local organization that couldn’t explain why they wanted those funds or if the granted funds had the desired impact on the community? In some cases capacity building is also needed for an organization to deliver their direct services to a community. In some of the schools I work with, for example, I worry about whether or not there will be a teacher with the time and expertise available to teach IT skills to pupils once we stop paying for outside lab managers.

The case for capacity building is pretty clear, but now I will attempt to take the perspective of the local organization. If a volunteer/donor agency gives you a choice of providing staff support for capacity building or providing no added staff at all, I suspect you are likely to take the capacity builder even if it isn’t your first priority. Then you can try to convince this individual to do other work once they are on-site. I have chatted with several VSO volunteers who have had this experience such as “I am supposed to be helping so-and-so work on organizational development, but he’s always out of the office and just wants me to type up meeting minutes instead.” Now why wouldn’t capacity building be your first priority? In most cases I think this boils down to immediate needs outweighing the needs of the future. If you are hungry, isn’t it easier to have a donated fish than a lesson on how to fish, which you may or may not be successful at? If your organization is short staffed at keeping up with daily tasks, it could be pretty hard to take someone away from a daily task to have them work alongside a VSO volunteer who is perfectly capable of working independently. For some of the schools I work with, they often complain that the Ministry of Education doesn’t supply them with enough teachers. I have tried to get them to release a teacher part-time from their regular academic work to help with the computer project, but in most cases they have not been able to do this. And who am I to say that teaching computer skills is more important than teaching chemistry?

One model that does seem to work for at least for skill sharing is workshops. People are typically quite eager to attend workshops because they provide some variety to life and because they can been financially quite advantageous (see a blog post from September 2007 titled “I’m Blaming it on the UN!” However, two conditions need to be met for the workshops to truly be useful: 1) The information has to be appropriate for the individuals participating and 2) The participants need to have the time and tools available to implement the knowledge when they return to work. I know that the few times I attended workshops when I was a high school science teacher, I would leave the workshop with full intention of implementing all of the new skills I had gained. However, I would soon be faced with the overwhelming need just to “keep up” with the daily needs of a teacher. Immediate needs would again win out over long term change.

So what is the answer out of this quandary? I’m not sure I know. I think developing a common understanding between donor agencies and local organizations would be a good start. Local organizations need to be more up front (and realistic) about their immediate needs and constraints, while still looking towards the future. International donor and volunteer agencies need to better explain the purposes and constraints on their donations, and make sure they have local “buy in” before donating. My current thinking is that this “buy in” needs to take the form of the local organization agreeing to take a share in both the cost and the staffing needed for a particular project before that project is funded and/or staffed. They will only choose to share the cost and staffing when they are truly ready to commit to what the NGO is willing to support. But I am sure that capacity building success is not this simple!