3
Setting aside the jargon, there are three approaches to overseas aid and developmentgenerally and specifically to the disability sector that Sar Ismak’s family need tounderstand. They are: “doing for”, “doing with”, and “doing by”. AUSAID-LSAF isentrenched in “doing for” with a token gesture towards “doing with”! Our organisationwanting to work with Sar Ismak, is the only one of the 10 NGOs AUSAID supported in2008 that is firmly committed to “doing by”, and was marked down accordingly this year.Maybe it was also due to no longer having the Australian Business Volunteers on thescene as they, if here, would also take up this issue and may do so yet (see later).
“Doing For”
has its origins in immediate post disaster or conflict intervention, where theoutside world charges in to a country with personnel and materials to relieve the plight ofvictims. They are the experts, they know best, and often are. They are needed but for alimited time.
“Doing With”
follows when host governments and native people in the country are able tobegin to run things for themselves, but they still “need” outside help. The dilemma here ishow to decide when, where, and how they should be left to their own devices.Unfortunately too many of the experts from the outside world are still in the country andhave a vested interest in staying there. So “doing with” is usually “
doing for, but you goalong with us, if you want our funding!”
2
“Doing By”
is quite different. Governments or people are ready to go their own way. Thebest NGOs in the “doing with” stage genuinely encourage and prepare for this stage, evenif they do themselves out of a job and income. It is in development jargon, the only long-term sustainable future. This is why it is called the “development” approach.All three stages can be illustrated by the work with poor disabled people. “Doing for” isthe post-shock medical treatment and support to overcome trauma. “Doing with” isworking with victims and their families to cope with and minimise the effects of their newdisability, usually called “rehabilitation” or “service provision”. “Doing By” is when thevictim becomes a survivor and is able to take charge of his or her life again; to be able toreach his or her maximum potential, to be self-sufficient, and for circumstances to beconducive towards those ends. This why our project that AUSAID rejected was called
“Self-Actions by Poor and Disabled People Toward Inclusive and Empowered Societies
”.
It was the only one of its kind submitted. It may well be that this approach is either notunderstood, or simply rejected by those grounded in rehabilitation, who made up themajority on the evaluation committee. The approach was of course well understood byAustralian Business Volunteers, John and Fran Digges. They spent more than 7 monthsfull-time working alongside many beneficiaries, in several tours of duty, towardsaccomplishing that end, and though now back in Australia they remain good activesupporters. They are very disappointed that AUSAID is ending its support when the newenterprises they initiated are wanted still and were to be introduced in 2009-10. IndeedSar Ismaak’s neighbour, Ismael Mohhamed and his family, who look after cows for richerpeople, was interested in starting the “natural compost” enterprise. They have a readysupply of the raw material which now is just a health hazard. Natural compost makes
2
For a fuller analysis, please read Action Aid report “Real Aid” by Romilly Greenhill, Patrick Watt, Jesse Griffiths and JasmineBurnley.
Leave a Comment