Donors building a web of trust

An emerging body of websites that can provide instant feedback on the use of aid money is sparking debate about whether such online tools could not only revolutionise non-profit fundraising, but also boost aid accountability.

The Kwale sub-district Hospital announced earlier this month on German fundraising site betterplace.org that it needs US$855 to buy antibiotics to control a cholera outbreak.

Three people have provided $88 so far.

Two advocates have vouched for the project, while a visitor to the hospital has reiterated the needs in a blog.

The “web of trust” that these different actors build will sway the member’s fundraising chances, said Joana Breidenbach, one of the co-founders of betterplace.org.

Breidenbach said these sites herald an era of more transparency whereby programme feedback is a click away and can be shared immediately with thousands —and with pictures as proof.

Nick Stockton, head of HAP-International, an organisation that evaluates and certifies aid agencies, said the new tools have had a positive impact.

“If these sites represent a growing trend in fundraising, the lesson we all must learn is there is a new generation of givers who want more evidence that their contributions are making a real difference.”

Jonathan Waddingham, charity champion for fundraising website JustGiving, confirmed this, citing supporters of a recent Twitter-inspired non-profit charity: water, that was set up to raise money to build wells in Ethiopia.

A few weeks after an online funding event— termed a “Twestival” —supporters could watch footage of the wells being built.

But Ben Ramalingam, head of research and development at ALNAP, an organisation that aims to boost humanitarian performance through better learning and accountability, said while encouraging feedback was a positive development, people should not assume web-posted feedback is representative.

“New platforms for new voices on aid issues clearly have potential,” he said.

“But will such mechanisms give a balanced range of information about a particular project? Or will they give prominence to the most controversial, visible viewpoints? …Blogs and social networking sites have a – perhaps undeserved – reputation for opinionated feedback with little attention to facts. More work is needed to strengthen the evidence-base of such tools.”

Project evaluations should be impartial, independent and balanced and must meet six criteria as endorsed by ALNAP and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development donors, said Ramalingam.

These include relevance; appropriateness; connectedness— whether short— and long-term goals match; and efficiency and effectiveness.