The Best and Worst of CARE

Starting a series this week looking at what it's really like to work for various humanitarian agencies.  Asked friends to send in what they thought were the best and worst aspects of various large NGOs and UN agencies for which they'd worked.

Today is CARE, followed by IRC, Oxfam, the UN, and various other agencies over the next few days.  If anyone would like to contribute their thoughts, send an email to change.humanitarian.relief@gmail.com.

Aid Agency Reviews: The Best and Worst of CARE

To sum up the responses below - the best aspects of working for CARE are the people (mentioned again and again), as well as the organization's commitment to a rights-based approach.  People also complimented CARE's focus on staff security, the pay and autonomy, and its wide range of programs.

In the not-so-good category, people mentioned a decline in basic operational capacities (i.e. grants management), too cozy a relationship to the US Government, the "perpetual state of evolution and planning," the work load, the bureaucracy, and lack of organization.

The Best of CARE

- I think CARE has, in the past decade+, made a genuine shift to being a rights based organization and I don't think that's just lip service.  Particularly given CARE's size and reach, it's very satisfying to work for an organization that has such a serious commitment to social justice.

- I have met some of the most fascinating, good-hearted, humble people at CARE. Of course there are neat people and there are jerks everywhere - but there is definitely a greater concentration of amazing experiences here. I know that's a facile sort of answer, but honestly, it (and the increasingly problematic inertia) is what's keeping me here.

- CARE as an agency really tries to ‘walk the talk’ in terms of being accountable to the people it says that it is serving. It also places a high value on staff safety and security, and this is hugely welcome in dangerous countries.

- CARE has tons of brilliant and qualified people; it's a secular organization but one with a solid and well-articulated mission (which it really tries to live up to); it has a reasonable theory of change for carrying out that mission; and it has made serious moves to get into fuzzier issues that many NGOs lag on like social movements, gender equity and human rights.

- The amazing people we meet along the way.  The diversity, the courage, the depth of commitment, the wisdom.

-The learning – I can honestly say that there is no greater university than development work and CARE in particular.  I haven’t stopped learning since the day I joined, and even when my sprit is tired – CARE pushes me to question, reflect, learn.  The lessons are hugely personal and hugely inspiring.

- The opportunity to multi-task – I get to do all sorts of things… from nosing around in the books to meeting chiefs and ministers.  From connecting with UN and donors to facilitating a learning process with staff and partners…. Nothing beats it.

- I would probably say a lot of autonomy. Also I was probably best paid in my whole career so far.

- Working for CARE was an extraordinary experience. The number of interesting, gifted, talented and dedicated humanitarians I met at headquarters and in the field was unlike any other organization. In my five years with the organization, I was able to delve into so many different programmatic sectors, which allowed me to grow professionally and personally as an aid worker. It truly is a cutting edge NGO when it comes to programme quality and accountability.

- I think the thing that I like best about working for CARE is the tremendous diversity of challenges and opportunities that one faces.  CARE has a wide range of programs in its portfolio, and each has its own and constantly evolving set if issues.   To be effective one is constantly challenged, and renewed, in facing these challenges.    And CARE looks at issues in their full complexity. Feeding widows in [country where CARE works] was a nutrition and human rights issue, but it was also an opportunity to provide employment to women and to challenge some of their core beliefs in a very pragmatic way.  As history evolved and additional opportunities were available to women in [the area] the program had to change and wind down, but in so doing we had to find additional ways to work with these very vulnerable people.

The Worst of CARE

- I think that shift over the past decade has come at the expense of some basic operational capacities, in areas like basic grants management, project management, and financial systems - something that is seriously being addressed now.  I don't get the sense that CARE is any worse in these areas than its similiarly sized counterparts, but I think it was truly known as a leader previously and that status has changed.

-I don't like knowing the internal workings of a humanitarian organization. I don't like knowing how much the executives make, or how they really come up with that 90-10 figure. I will say that everyone is very respectful and there's none of that jocularity about poverty and suffering that you might encounter in other situations.

- Over-focus on what I regard as an historic connection to the US Government (this is for CARE USA). Too many systems are aligned to the USG and not enough thought given to other donor partners.

- CARE seems to be in a perpetual state of evolution and planning to the extent that it becomes hard to actually get any work done.  CARE USA has a pretty out-dated HQ building compared to, say, Oxfam or CRS.  Sometimes it seems like CARE is of two minds: a mainstream, well-established player that is essentially conservative and simultaneously a progressive and edgy organization trying to mobilize global social movements.  Because CARE doesn't seem to know of which mind it is at any given moment, it is sometimes not as effective as it could be.

- The fact that our values and principles seem to be getting lost – we are losing our commitment to respect of people and to their dignity – and this starts within the organization.

- The work load – commitment is great – but people need to rest to be strong; I am not sure that 80 hour weeks are helpful.

- The loss of focus on our core business – our programming – we seem to focus a lot on our ‘domestic’ identity and credibility these days – and the work in the developing countries is suffering.

- Best and worst, huh? I'm a people person, so the best thing ... the people, and the worst thing ... the people! (I am soooo deep and articulate, si ndio?) On a more serious note, let me think about it and write a few sentences later. I'm chock-fulla on the negatives, but coming up short on the positives. I personally feel CARE is a dinosaur, or at least close to extinction, and the old-school, bureaucrats who make up the bulk of our "manager/leaders" are living on past glories. We've strayed really far from core business and seem to be missing the plot all together. Poverty? Social injustice? HELLO! Does any of this ring a bell?

- Cough cough - BUREAUCRACY!!!

- Disorganized; lack of direction & clear management guidelines; random human resources politics, with personal likes and dislikes muddling HR-politics; lack of planning on financial side; lack of a vision.

- The emphasis on program quality was often at the cost of program support. Often the support systems to allow and facilitate programs were not there, particularly when it came to rapid, on-set emergencies. As such, CARE was often behind other NGOs when it came to responding in humanitarian situations. I think getting back to the basics on what made CARE the organization it is today may be food for thought.

- The worst thing about working for CARE is perhaps that we are primarily funded by restricted donor grants.  This means that we can do our best to influence the priorities and perceptions of donors, but ultimately if we cannot find funding for a worthy project, we cannot do it.  This sometimes leaves important opportunities and needs unmet.

- Chalk up CARE in the "endless strategic planning" column. Add in neverending re-organization. Including some re-orgs that un-do the last re-org mere months after the fact. And would it be unkind to say that some outfits are too kind to the incompetants? It appears to be impossible to fire someone, no matter how checked-out they've become. Basically, they ain't running the place the way I would run it. Off with their heads. But only after a formal six-month "improvement plan" which will probably get lost/ forgotten when HR gets re-org'd.