I have a big problem with Habitat for Humanity

and I want to see what people have to say about it. Maybe this should be in GD not the lounge, but I don't know if it's "current" enough.

Let me first say that I do not hate Habitat in general, but the way it runs here at Harvard (and at probably every other college) is probably the most INEFFICIENT way to help people ever.

A group of maybe 30 people went to Honduras for spring break to build houses. All of these people could have obtained a short-term campus job that pays over $10/hr doing data entry, library shelving, etc. If everyone in the group worked on campus for a week, they would have over $400 each. Add to that the expense of plane tickets (maybe $300?), housing, and food for 30 people for a week, and you would have a lot of money.

Instead of having a group of college kids attempting construction, the group could have used the money to hire MANY more workers in Honduras. They would have

1) Created needed jobs
2) Hired MORE people because I bet people there would be HAPPY to get $5/hr
3) Used more skilled labor
4) Contributed DIRECTLY to the community instead of using half of it on plane tickets

Habitat projects in the US probably don't apply to this criticism because there are fewer travel costs, and the differential cost of labor wouldn't be as dramatic.

Anyone have thoughts?

EDIT: One of my friends says that at her college, the Habitat workers help out construction workers in their small town every weekend. That makes sense.

It makes a great deal of sense

Habitat may be gearing their intentions not so much toweards the most efficient means of building - which would be to hire locals for pennies - but as a means of teaching Americans that THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.

Sending Harvard kids - arguably future members of the leadership caste - to a place where abject poverty and the fallout from American economic/military interventionism is evident, might help create a segment of that aforementioned leadership caste that will bend efforts to help that place and other places like it, said efforts coming at a time when they will have serious financial/political muscle to lend.

In other words: Seemingly wasteful investment in the short run for potentially massive returns in the long run.

Also, thinking pragmatically, HfH knows they have a bunch of people doing work they can directly supervise. The risk of your suggestion is disbursing cash that could be skimmed or stolen outright.

that should be the stated purpose of the organization--"allowing people to see the impact of poverty." I actually think that here, the experience of seeing poverty is preaching to the choir.

I think if people realized that the building houses part is crap, they might be more likely to contribute to an organization that has more concrete effects.

I think the building part is key. They see the problems, and then they get their hands bloody in the process of doing a small part to help it.

Result: Damn, this is hard, and there's so much more to do! Where's my wallet...

should spend some time on the plantation.

First, could that large of a group obtained a short term job over spring break to work for a week? I kind of doubt it.

Second thought. It's inefficent, but sending them is probably the only way it would get done at all. Think about it. You're a volunteer. You get a chance to go somewhere, an exotic culture, a little bit of vacay, and really get the one on one experience of helping someone. It's attractive, right? Now, would you really be as enthusisastic about raising money by working at home and just sending it away?

Human nature. the 'doing good' has to be made more attractive. I bet if it was boiled down practical bare bones -- they'd have a lot less takers.

If Harvard people really need to experience a different culture, they should join the peace corps for a semester.

It's a two year commitment.

Locals helping locals makes sense all the way around.

Symbolism IS important and does accomplish good.

Also, as a pragmatic matter, it's much easier to get people to take part in a social and geographic adventure while giving of themselves, than it is to get people to give away their *percieved* earnings from a run-of-the-mill job.

But your points are well taken and your math is likely flawless, and ought to be taken up by another group (the BarracksForMyWorld foundation?B-)), or an arm of Habitat should work that angle as well as their traditional projects.

I especially agree with the point that indigenous workers can do the work. Much like Iraqi workers can do anything Halliburton can do. Can we teach them a thing or two? Sure. Can they learn and apply? Of course.

But I bet if I asked every member of Habitat if they would consider contributing a week's wages, nobody would say to my face that they're in it for the trip.

If I calculated the hours of work time per amount of money in either scenario, it might still be better, even if only one third of people did it.

There are some very interesting microfinance organizations here, like one that gives women in underdeveloped countries small amounts of capital to start a weaving/sewing/crafting business.

It was cool. I really loved it.

there is a method to what they do.

Going to a foreign country, HfH does much needed PR work, as well a show students that others are in some pretty bad shape worldwide. they also have the opportunity to teach others skills that are sorely needed in the host countries.

I recall that here in Nebraska a few years ago, a tornado hit a part of a small town; the ONLY building that survived in the tornado's path, was an HfH built home. This brought out Engineers and architects...they found out that the HfH crews did not skimp on nails, screws or other building items. They had built, in essence, a darn good house, not one of the prefab things going up these days.

These people volunteer for this noble act, and while I believe that having them build here in the US is more important to US residents, I have no qualms about people going overseas if the project is noble. Those that benefit, will know that all Americans are not the type of people that are running the country, and the vol's get a chance to see other cultures...it may cost $, but it seems to be a win-win to me...:)

they are going to Honduras. I have traveled in that country, it was about 20 years ago but I am guessing things have not improved much. Nobody needs better housing more than the people there. I know there is poverty everywhere but these folks were in bad shape. I am just happy they are helping them. Such good people who have endured so much.

it seems kind of insulting to me that people feel like they have to "go and save" those "poor poor" third worlders.

they're tough, they can do it on their own; just give em the materials and they'll do a great job

I think hiring locals to build homes can also be done without eliminating the volunteer trips.

In terms of travel: what's better, a volunteer trip, or a drunken bender in Cancun? Also, if the stated intention were to show the impact of poverty, people might not sign up. It's best to make those points obliquely.

Also, as a result of a memorable experience, HfH alumnus is more likely to stay in touch with the organization and give money over the years.

But I do think you touch on a good point, the question of self-satisfaction in charitable work. It has always bothered me, and I have often had similar thoughts to yours.

I did HfH for three years when I was in college. We spent every weekend putting up houses in bombed out areas of Newark supervised by professionals who knew what they were doing. The labor was free (10 people, no matter how unskilled, putting in 9 hours days four times a month adds up to a pretty sizable donation) and we carpooled. Plus we accepted donations from people who were renovating their houses (old appliances and fixtures) and sold what we couldn't reuse, donating all the money to the organization.

One year out of the three we did a Spring Break trip to Tulsa. We drove ourselves cross-country and slept on the floor of the church. I'm not sure if you could call it a boondoggle sleeping on the floor in Oklahoma and eating rice when we could have been in Tampa getting drunk like everyone else. But it was great for morale and team building. When we got back we were all fired up again for the bread and butter stuff- helping in our local community.

As for hiring local workers, it's a volunteer organization. I don't think they hire workers at all (maybe some supervisors get paid, I don't know). But why focus on the one thing that volunteers do to relax and then write off an organization that does so much good otherwise?

I think your Newark and Tulsa work is awesome. I am uncomfortable with spending what would be a year's wages on plane tickets and building houses in an undeveloped country when you could be providing them with jobs.

I mean, with some exceptions, there are few times when it wouldn't be more efficient to pay others with more expertise to do a job than to donate one's time, but that's not the whole equation. Particularly at the college level, there's an aspect of the picture that is about educating the person doing the service.

To stick with a Harvard example, I did the FUP program before my freshman year and lord knows that the church we worked on in Dorchester would have been better off had I worked a job and sent that money to someone who knew what the hell they were doing -- at least compared to a city boy like me. But I learned quite a bit from that experience, and it influenced me in ways that perhaps were not the most efficient, but valuable nonetheless.

And anyway, I tried my damndest to get a library job all four years, and I couldn't even get one in my House! It's not so easy! ;-)

My criticism here is very specific. It applies to community service that involves expensive trips to another country when a microfinance project would have been more appropriate.

I've done hundreds of hours of community service, but I didn't take a job from someone who needs it. And I've done service that is in my community and requires no expense of resources, like playing with kids at the Boys and Girls club or and face-painting at a Park District Halloween Fair.

There are definitely tons of jobs here. I got a well-paying administrative job the day after I started looking. There is a website now that lists many, many jobs including short-term off-campus jobs like babysitting. But yeah, the house library jobs go fast :) (what house were you in?)

I was in Adams House...a lot of fantastic memories. I still show up in Cambridge ocassionally just to go to Pinnochio's. ;-)

How bout you?

(the best house on campus)

I did learn how to ride a bike in the Eliot courtyard when I was little, though. The Master of Eliot at the time was my dad's mentor, so I actually spent quite a bit of time there.

is worth more than gold. Helping other human beings should not be just a dollars and cents proposition. It should be about learning from others and teaching others.

Projects like this were never meant to eradicate poverty so don't try to apply rules like efficiency and cost effectiveness to them. It is a chance to reach out to people and learn from each other.

Some things are just too important to place a monetary value on.

that does good work. I can only relate though that on a local level there seems to be a number of disorganized personalities running the show.

there WILL be Hondurans working alongside them, including the future residents of the house, who are required to put in a certain number of hours of work in order to get a house.