Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Similar to MAD LXD 2014 Rizwan Tayabali's Problem Definition Presentation
Similar to MAD LXD 2014 Rizwan Tayabali's Problem Definition Presentation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
MAD LXD 2014 Rizwan Tayabali's Problem Definition Presentation
- 1. The Big Picture LC 2014
- 2. 1. Why we do what we do 2. What we need to do really make a difference 3. How we need to evolve as an organisation
- 3. Why? Because quality of life matters
- 4. 1. Freedom from exploitation 2. Ability to cope with life crises
- 5. Children in shelters are highly vulnerable on both counts
- 6. Unfortunately the current system isn’t capable enough
- 8. We need to change this
- 9. What do we need to do?
- 10. 1. A solution that works 2. An infrastructure that can deliver it effectively
- 12. Drivers of outcomes Resilience drivers Adaptiveness drivers Institutionalisation drivers Knowledge/capability/qualification drivers Exposure drivers Social stigma drivers Documentation (identity) drivers Representation (voice) drivers
- 13. Driver clusters 1. The child’s ability to cope and flourish 2.The impact of institutions or agents that affect their development and progression
- 14. Core strategies 1. Empower the child 2.Enable the institutions that impact the child
- 17. How do we get there?
- 18. Really understand the problem Expand what we do to a holistic solution Synchronise better across programmes Become experts in this space
- 19. 1. Longer term 2. Track and prove impact 3. Scale by embedding the model across the system
Editor's Notes
- This talk is about the big picture and where we are heading as an organisation.
- Let’s start with impact in general. Why do we bother to invest time and resources towards making things better for others? Because we believe that everyone should have a reasonable quality of life, or at the very least, we recognise that people should not struggle or suffer unnecessarily. What people rarely consider is the baseline for quality of life, and so have no real idea what it is they are aiming for and why. In an ideal world everyone would access luxuries, but on a practical level we need to aim for a point at which we no longer need to worry about people. A point from which they have the ability and potential to progress towards those luxuries or whatever other choice they want to make.
- The level at which we can stop worrying about people is when they covered on two key fronts Freedom from exploitation – When we talk about exploitation people tend to assume labour exploitation, when in fact there are a huge range of exploitations – from the obvious labour and commercial exploitation to financial, social, familial and state exploitation. So while we often think of education in terms of economic progression, the first thing we need to worry about is whether this education is delivering the literacy, knowledge, rights awareness and personal or collective voice to enable the individual to avoid or stand up to exploitation. Ability to cope with life crises – If they lose their work do their families end up on the street? If their child falls sick can they afford treatment or do they risk personal loss? Do their only alternatives involve crippling debt or indentured labour? So although people often think about economic impact in terms of improving income levels in percentage terms, the reality is that small percentage improvements often have little impact on the real issue. We need to think about interventions that enable the individual to earn at a level that leaves them able to survive crises without everything falling apart.
- The reason we worry about children is that they are particularly vulnerable on both counts, and children who have no families, or are cannot be supported by their families fall into the most vulnerable category of all. We could potentially aim to intervene directly and shelter the child, but the fact that is that there is already a systemic infrastructure that is set up to do that, and this infrastructure exists on a scale that appears able to absorb the numbers involved. We are unlikely to replicate or match the same scale ourselves
- We need to consider whether or not the existing infrastructure is actually ensuring that children in this category are able to realise a reasonable quality of life or are they ending up as vulnerable adults in an ongoing cycle of risk?
- Unfortunately from what we can tell it is the latter. Outcomes for children that grow up in shelters don’t compare well with outcomes for children that grow up with reasonable family support systems, even against the same economic demographic, so we need to think in terms of how we eventually enable these shelters and support systems to ensure better outcomes. Categories: Living conditions – access to basic needs Access to appropriate support systems Financial situation Working situation Family life and status of the next generation Level of exploitation Ability to pursue goals and dreams The trouble is that while we think this is reflective of the reality, we aren’t really sure. There is no data easily available. We haven’t found anyone who has tracked these outcomes. So that’s one of the things MAD is now working on as a priority.
- The upshot though is that our mission needs to be to make a difference at this level. Our vision needs to be of children who end up as adults living a baseline quality of life that is at least on par with what could be expected of peers coming from a stable background. This is essentially what we refer to as equitable outcomes.
- To really make a difference you need 2 things. A solution that works An infrastructure that can deliver it effectively MAD’s current strength is delivery, but there is probably some work that needs to be done on the solution front. Right now we have a number of individual programmes that are kind of evolving as we learn and understand need, rather than strategically prioritised and designed against the real factors that impact outcomes.
- For more about this framework for solution design visit www.socialeffect.org
- Once we understand the problem we can start to identify the real drivers behind negative outcomes and start to address them. While we investigate these to confirm outcomes, the reality is that based on experience we can actually extrapolate some of these, which means we can probably get to work already.
- At a higher level these drivers can loosely be clustered into two groups 1. The child’s ability to cope and flourish 2. The impact of institutions or agents that affect their development and progression
- If we really want to make a lasting difference we therefore need to focus on two correlated strategies Empowering the child Enabling the institutions/agents that impact the child
- The blueprint for addressing the core factors that affect child outcomes breaks up along the lines of the core strategies. Depending on what the problem actually looks like for MAD’s demographic (i.e. Children in shelters in India) we can work out which of these intervention areas require attention.
- There are lots of programmes that are standard for each intervention area. Once we know what the critical priorities are we can pick and choose what we need to focus on, and learn from other organisations who have already worked out effective methodologies for each. The point is that it isn’t all that complicated. It doesn’t make it easy, but it does mean that it isn’t impossible, and we can aim higher. We can actually do something powerful, and for all the time and energy we put in we must aim to see something lasting and meaningful.
- If we want to impact the true scale of the problem across the country, we will need to make a difference to the way the shelter system operates on a national scale, rather than by delivering programmes to shelters ourselves. One potential route to that is as follows 1. Stabilise current approach 2. Shift to Optimal solution = holistic solution 3. Scale organically i.e. Grow again 4. Replicate 5. Normalise model across the system