Human Translation

Impact assessment has become somewhat of a buzz phrase recently in the world of development work. Historically the primary tool for assessing the value of a humanitarian project was measured through a combination of instinct and narrative - stories told by those people affected and those who experienced first-hand the value of a project. The value shown tends to be immediate, and this method tends to satisfy a very powerful human understanding of what has worked and not worked. Politics, it seems, also tend to function in a very similar way.

Since international aid and development work is something that has only recently been brought to scale, affecting millions of people worldwide, it is about time for all of us to start thinking about the good work we're doing in a new way.

As we all know "good intentions" can often lead us down a path of tremendous unforseen consequences. As was the case with many of the early development projects, money was spent on unsustainable operations, propped up by compassionate dollars which flowed forth without proper questions about how that money was spent. At Human Translation, we have often been surprised by how few questions are asked about the so-called "downstream" consequences of our work. We have been fortunate enough to have some amazing partners who have helped us deal with many of these unforseen consequences in a logical and effective way. On top of that, our staff has been amazingly adaptive with many of the problems that that have sprung upon us - from landmines to land grabbing - which would have crippled us without their constant sense of self-improvement and a willingness to act quickly.

This process of constant adaptation often requires immediate responses on the ground, and a network of dedicated peers that can provide counsel in the toughest situations. In many ways, large aid organizations are sometimes not particularly well-suited to the constant stream of difficulties that often spring forth in the immediacy of an aid project, as centralized regulation structures can stall an otherwise good idea in need of immediate implementation. On the other hand, smaller projects are often volunteer-driven, which can limit the learning curve of individuals dedicated to a project.

Unfortunately, just as there is not a silver bullet for pulling people from poverty, there is not one for donors to determine exactly where and how they should spend their money. From our perspective, working small on grassroots community-driven projects can make a tremendous difference in creating a lasting and sustainable improvement in livelihoods. (Conversely, I'm sure many of my friends in larger aid organizations would say there are benefits to supporting the UN or multinational development funds.) We will continute to try and prove our case.

So echoing this idea, I will say that we at HT are committed to providing clear and transparent metrics on the results of our projects as we develop them (it does take time), and we believe that all of our donors deserve the best information possible. Starting soon, we'll begin to publish some of our results, and hope that you will be patient as we start to go through the sometimes difficult process of assessing the impacts of the work we do.

I hope you'll continue to join us as we attempt to do good work better.