Details, details – who needs to know anyway? : Ken Gibbs

UNICEF, at the time I was working in Namibia, seemed to follow the Russian Communist model in that they developed Five-Year-Plans.  They were rather different from the Russian model in that when those plans had been completed, they seemed not to follow them too carefully.  Besides, UNICEF seems to have decided that they knew better than the local Department of Water Affairs how to handle drought responses despite the Department having managed pretty well for the past 50 years or so, and UNICEF was undertaking its own drought response separate from the government.

Putting that on one side for a moment, shortly before I was due to be separated from UNICEF, we went through a planning exercise to collect data and to analyse it, the better to be able to plan a coherent response for the next planning cycle.  Naturally, I was in charge of the water sector data collection and analysis which we gave over to the University of Namibia to undertake.  From memory, an expatriate social anthropologist working with a number of undergraduate national students, performed a number of surveys to solicit user perceptions and other data about water supply and sanitation.  We had periodic meetings with the lead researcher and, when the report was ready to be handed over to UNICEF, an official meeting was scheduled, and I was provided an advance copy of the report a day before the meeting so that I could prepare any questions I felt needed to be answered.  I read the report.

Having had some experience of such data compilations and analyses, I was struck by a couple of statements in the report which seemed to be at odds with what I had observed in the area where the survey had been undertaken.  One in particular related to a statement by the researcher that a certain percentage of water users in the area maintained that they treated their collected water with chlorine tablets as a means of ensuring that it was safe to drink.  Since the same survey gave a detailed socio-economic profile of the respondents, it was quite easy to deduce what their median disposable income was, and what – if the researcher’s statement were true – the water users must have spent on chlorine tablets.

Before walking to the meeting with the university where the official handover of the report was to take place, I visited a large pharmacy where I knew chlorine tablets were available, and purchased one blister pack of the tablets, asking for the receipt to be printed and given to me.

The presentation of the report took place and a number of questions were asked.  Towards the end of the questions, I asked if the researcher would confirm the statement about how many of the respondents claimed to have treated their water with chlorine tablets ?  He confirmed it.  I then asked if it was reasonable to deduce what the median disposable income of the respondents in the survey was ?  He confirmed that my deduction was reasonable.  I then showed that if what the respondents said about treating their water with chlorine tablets was true, they would have spent more on chlorine tablets than on food for the family.  At this juncture, I placed the blister pack of chlorine tablets that I had bought before the meeting on the table, together with the receipt, as evidence that what was claimed in the report was impossible.

I then asked what weight had been given to the fact that many societies in Africa will tell you what you want to hear – rather than the truth – as a response to a direct question ?

The report was withdrawn for reconsideration.  One wonders in how many countries, the agency goes through the same process but how few of the agency’s staff take the time to study the surveys in sufficient detail to be able to challenge the conclusions where it is necessary; and with what impact the results might have on children ?

*****

A similar event occurred while I was working in Bangladesh as the Chief of the WatSan Section.  As with the foregoing piece, UNICEF and Government were about to agree on the programme(s) for the next 5-year cycle, and as part of the data collection on which programmes were to be based, an IMR/CMR (Infant and Child Mortality) study which had been undertaken by government and funded by UNICEF, was due to be discussed.

On the day before the Government-UNICEF meeting was to take place at the Planning Commission, the IMR/CMR study was placed on my desk.  All section heads had been provided a copy to ensure that cross-cutting issues were addressed.  I was curious and took it home that evening.

I slept very little that night.  I simply looked at the arithmetic/maths and the analysis of the study, page by page, table by table, and the conclusions reached.  Two pages into the study, I felt that I had to check every single figure in the report because there were so many glaring errors that any conclusions based on the mathematics was unlikely to be useful.  By morning, I found that fully 30% of all calculations were either guesstimates or simply completely wrong.

I met the Senior Planning Officer in his office as soon as he arrived next morning and handed over my marked up copy telling him that it was essential that no agreements be made based on the figures from this study in its present form.  He was shocked, naturally.  Obviously nobody, and I mean nobody was riding shotgun on the research work on which programmes (with UNICEF funding) were based.  Even in those far-off days, some UNICEF staff were not doing their job, it seemed.  It’s alright to take the salary, but do they actually have to do something to justify it ?

I gather that there were discussions in corridors before the meeting took place, but no decisions were made at that time.  As the study had not come out of my section, it was not my responsibility to determine who should have been overseeing the work, but I do know that the Senior Planning Officer was not at all pleased.

*****

In the present iteration of UNICEF, I wonder if there are any staff who look at technical details of government studies and programmes which UNICEF funding supports ?  Hands up anyone ?

*****

Ken Gibbs can be contacted via kengibbs1941@gmail.com

Click here to read more stories by Ken Gibbs