Fundamental flaws of funding

THE EDITOR: Please allow me space in your very popular paper to advance a deep concern that relates to Social Improvement Programmes and Projects introduced by the State in its attempt to reduce or improve the quality of life of the less-fortunate in the society.

The concern here is not so much the intent and purpose of these initiatives, but more so the executional and administrative methodology adopted in dispensing of this social safety net. Moreover, in spite of successive well-intentioned and demonstrable social responsibility, through these Human Developmental Assistance efforts, they invariably end up in failure. For all intents and purposes the programmes under consideration and to which this critical extrapolation refer include, but not limited to, the Unemployment Relief Programme (URP), the Community Development Fund (CDF), CARE, YTEPP, NADAP, HIV/AIDS Awareness Programme, National Commission for Self-Help, and the multiple institutions established to deliver credit and other financial facility to generate an entrepreneurial class. These programmes can be broadly categorised into four distance groupings: Social Welfare Assistance, Education and Training Development, Employment Creation via Micro-Business Acumen and Physical Improvement Assistance.

Indeed included in this rubric are the low income homes programmes administered by the National Housing Authority, the mandate of the Mortgage Finance Company, the Special Assistance Packages for the disabled and poor communities, the executing agencies being the Social Services and Community Development Ministries respectively. The specialised role of State sponsored Financial Institutions such as the NEDCO and the Business Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago (BDC) are included for the purposes of this analysis. The question remains — why the abysmal failure and what are the remedies, if any, to arrest the failure haemorrhage which, if not addressed, will see the further deterioration of the socio-economic and psycho-cultural fabric of poor communities all over this lovely country? The consequences of which are already the subject of intense national debate in the manifestation of crime, mediocre academic performance and poor choices. I think the most sober explanation of this phenomenon, repose in the critique of Community Development Consultant, Mr Lennox Smith, whose experience and knowledge in the field of Poverty Reduction Strategies has taken him to many parts of the Caribbean, and the Metropolitan North. Mr Smith has argued that in the context of Trinidad and Tobago, there are fundamental flaws in the design and operationalisation of Social Assistance Programmes developed by Government, which have a penchant for failure or less than desirable results. Interestingly, he points to what is aptly described as the “cork-screw effect,” which essentially attempts to reduce failure by imposing constraints that either retards the initiative in question or makes failure more complicated.

Mr Smith in his incisive examination of the Social-Safety Net Package surmises that designers, policy makers and bureaucrats seem to forget that there are specific multiple sub-cultural considerations that should be taken into consideration when designing programmes to assist the poor. In other words, to implement a Grant Funding Programme such as CDF to address typical identifiable social problems among the impoverished, these so called experts adopt a simplistic approach devoid of an appreciation for the dynamics at work that will nullify any praiseworthy intervention. The intentions are certainly good but the practical metrology for the execution of such projects necessitates built-in flexible and adaptable response mechanisms that have hitherto eluded designers. As Mr Smith will advance, it is not surprising for Administrators of these projects to conclude that the intended beneficiaries are either disinterested or prefer to remain in their impoverished quagmire, in spite of the presence of ill-conceived state-sponsored social intervention programmes.  The poor and underprivileged will always want to improve their circumstances. To conclude otherwise is in my view, an admission of failure and runs counter to the natural instinctive desire of every human being to improve his/her quality of life. The fact of the matter is that the system has failed!

While each category of interventive strategy on the poor’s behalf has its unique prescription for successful implementation, the one most common relates to Grant Funding Interventions as those Administered by the Community Development Fund and to a limited extent the National Self-Help Commission and CARE. To this category, Mr Smith recommends training and re-training of the bureaucrats that administer these programmes. Too often Administrating Officers display a level of insensitivity that fosters antagonism and lays the foundation for incremental failure. This, over and above poorly designed programmes that are tied to policies and procedures that projects dehumanising rather than the human development it was originally conceived to address, leads to undesirable outcomes. This combination does not inspire confidence, objectivity and trust. Co-operation is therefore reduced to implicit competition of wits, and suspicion in which both administrator and recipients are locked in a battle of strategy to protect turf. In the final analysis the whole system appears punitive and overtly not worthy of the effort to access the intended benefits, given the trauma and perplexity built into the access-procedure. Failure become almost inevitable. This truism is idiosyncratic of the Laventille experience.  There are too many failed Social Improvement Programmes here. This is largely due to the failure of the designers and administrators to consult those in the know, whom derive their experience from the bowels of the Community. High paid foreign consultants cannot articu-late/supplant that which experience has taught individuals such as Mr Smith. These are the true consultants that should be sought after, less Human Development through State Sponsored Social-safety net strategies will continue to fail. Let a new approach/dispensation begin with the implementation of the current (2004-2005) budget. Think about it!

MICHAEL MORGAN
President South-East
Port-of-Spain Workshop