Value for money in aid must not ignore small-scale initiatives

It is a bold and positive step for the coalition government to commit to protect spending on international development and to reach the 0.7% target on “overseas development assistance” by 2013.

The £7billion a year spent on international development has a huge impact in terms of lives saved and communities transformed (and it is hardly in the league of education spending of £86billion and health spending of £120billion).

But despite the relatively modest amounts involved, scrutiny of international aid spending is high, from public to politicians. There are the siren voices who talk up fears of corruption and of money “wasted”. Those of more sober mind are reciting the new political mantra, ‘value for money’.

Value for money is vitally important. I am as outraged as the next person if I see work done to a poor standard or any hint of corruption. Just because people are poor doesn’t mean they deserve second-class treatment. But I am nervous about a growing emphasis on big projects in order to do more for less administration and lower overheads.

Of course such talk about scale is understandable, but I am very protective of the smaller-scale work in development, work that is more participatory, that empowers people to gain control over their own lives and overcome barriers that keep them poor.

Yes, sometimes overheads are a waste of money, but equally, those “overheads” may be the very means by which the right decisions are made, for example:

• Participatory processes that ensure women and marginalised people’s voices are heard by those whose decisions are keeping them in poverty;

• Training for local people to ensure accountability or even good management, and so ensuring that corruption is less likely.

Value for money in aid cannot just be about economic measures, important though they are. It is about getting the right outcomes and processes too – both efficiencies and effectiveness. And for Progressio, there is another ‘e’ – and that is ‘ethics’. The values and principles of human dignity, solidarity and justice that underpin our work must be part of the value for money calculations.

As a £5million a year organisation we support more than 100 partner organisations in 11 countries in an intensive and cost-effective way. In the last year we have helped partners to reach more than 50,000 people to improve food security (not including the emergency in Haiti), 29 of our partner organisations report they are better able to support their communities and influence for change to tackle poverty and injustice locally. Through our support more than 1.7million people have been involved in influencing local development plans and budgets.

All this work brings change to very local levels because behind the big numbers are the personal realities – individual lives changed, hope given, confidence raised for a life of dignity and control over ones future. This kind of aid is effective and it is for the long-term.

So, value for money discussions are laudable if they are a genuine attempt to show voters that international development is money well spent. But in an environment where international development is under tight scrutiny, we must remember that yes, people need to be provided with the basics of humanitarian aid, such as water supplies and food. But, as well as hand-outs in the present, they need a hand up to benefit them in the long-term.

Photo: A local women's group in Zimbabwe's Zvimba district, supported by Progressio partner organisation Batsirai and development worker Stancelous Mverechena, meet to discuss the situation facing AIDS orphans in their surrounding villages. Together, they are working to help supply food and find educational opportunities for almost 600 children who have lost their parents to AIDS (Photo © Marcus Perkins/Progressio).

Christine Allen is Progressio's Executive Director.