Hello Daniela and PEPY staff. I can see this being quite a predicament. It is hard to say \"no\" to opportunities that are clearly beneficial to individuals when they arise, especially when our goal in life has somehow become to do all we can to help everyone we can. However, I can definitely see both sides of the argument in this case. I was wondering if you could expand on what the summer camp entails. Why is it such a great opportunity? What will the children do/learn/experience? How long will it run? How did the children who went last year feel during the camp? How did they feel when they returned to Cambodia? I know we want to improve children\'s situations in Cambodia, and perhaps giving them a glimpse into the world outside can do that. However, it could also hinder or make things more difficult for them when they return. I think this camp could be incredibly beneficial to help children become competent and successful in their surroundings. However, showing them a world, that, try as they might, they will never be able to have in Cambodia, due to various outside reasons beyond their control (i.e. government, economics etc.) could potentially end up being disheartening and discouraging for the children that go. I guess the best way to judge that is to talk to the children who went last year and get their opinions on the situation. If they are having difficulties in any way, I don\'t think sending more children is a good idea. However, if they are flourishing and doing great, then clearly this was a good idea and something that should be continued. And funding should continue to be recruited.

Another thought is to see if there is any way to run the same or a similar camp in Cambodia. I\'m sure it would be cheaper to sponsor/host the camp directors for a few weeks in Cambodia than to send a small handful of people to the states. This could also benefit more children in the area and prevent feelings of jealousy amongst peers. Is this a possibility?

Any expansion on the camp details or directions to another blog or link where you may have already written them, I apologize if I have missed that blog/ info somewhere, could help us offer a little sounder advice.

I think your mission as PEPY is wonderful. You are doing so many good things with that. Recognition of this program is clearly growing with National Geographic\'s support, which is fantastic. While expanding ideas and dreams is good, I think it is important that your initial mission remain your focus. Small goals are achievable and in the end, more beneficial.
That’s my two yen on the situation! Best of luck with the decision making process!

PEPY and Daniela,

I love your mission and tout your accomplishment. My advice right now is to edit. Keep you message succinct and focused. That goes for respondents as well. Boil it down. A paragraph of an email will capture more attention than an essay, which translates to greater contribution. with much admiration and respect, Brian

Hi Daniela,
I think this is a great post and I have to admit when I first read about the project I had two distinct reactions...\"That\'s awesome\" and \"How are they going to raise that kind of money!\".

I don\'t think the enthusiasm for the idea is wrong, it seems to me that the fundraising just hasn\'t been marketed to its full potential so rather than support your mission the program has appeared to be separate from your mission. I think you were diligent when it came to deciding if and how to implement, but not how to support it in regards to funds needed.

My advice is to step back and see how it DOES fit in your mission, articulate that and then fundraise to that point.

Good luck!
Andrea

Dear Pepy,
I would suggest that such opportunities only come along once in a while and one will never know if this is a useful initiative unless the opportunity is seized. While it is a considerable investment the benefits to the wider community may far exceed the costs as those who go may well become mentors and expose their peers to a wider world experience. If the programme is not useful upon the children\'s return it is a valuable lesson learned for the organization with probably negligible negative impact for the children and teachers who have had the opportunity to experience another culture. You clearly have done the requisite fact checking on the operation and I would fall into the camp that supports the idea.

I saw your Tweet and have dropped by to give an objective, albeit ignorant, perspective.

It looks to me as though you might be beating yourself up over this decision: if that is the case, don\'t. IMO there are no such things as bad decisions and mistakes: you made the right decision at the time.

Now is the time to look at moving forward. I suggest that in the light of all your experiences to date, including this one, you sit down and thrash out, with all stakeholders a revised Mission Statement. You might end up with the same one but at least it will have been aired.

Your Mission Statement should be the guide against which all decisions are made. If an activity does not fit with your Mission Statement, you move on.

By visiting the Mission on a regular basis you need never become dogmatic but in the interim you avoid distractions.

I wish you continued success with all your good work.

P.S. For the casual visitor it might be worthwhile having a separate section on here headed \"Mission Statement\".

Interesting. This is a difficult situation, and I have just a couple of thoughts and comments to add.

First, to what extent is this a \"decision\" if the children have already been chosen and promised the opportunity to attend camp in the US? If PEPY rescinds this program, what will be the ramifications to other PEPY programs in the community? Here it may be a good lesson, though a hard one for all involved, to secure funding before selecting participants for a proposed program.

Secondly, it sounds like the idea is to provide these children with new experiences and leadership skills - which would diffuse to their community on their return? Or? However, I\'m not quite sure how this diffusion would occur, particularly if there is resentment or jealously in the community. Would the leadership that these children already have in Chanleas Dai become based on their new \"status\" as US summer camp participants rather than solely on their personal skills and abilities? Just something to consider.

Thirdly, will this be an annual program, and if so, how will you insure sustainable funding? If not, it seems to raise expectations in the community that might be hard to fulfill.

Fourth, it seems from your description above that part of the idea for this program was in response to a feeling from foreigners that they wanted to give money to a particular child. While such \"child sponsorship programs\" may be common, I think it\'s important to consider such schemes holistically and very carefully. How much are such programs designed to satisfy a donor\'s want to give - and be \"paid back\" by being able to observe the particular child helped? Such programs consider a child apart from his/her context in many ways, and that seems to me counterintuitiv e if the goal is community/human development. If one gives money or a special opportunity to a particular child, but he/she remains in a context where institutions are poor, it is hard to imagine how this this will reduce poverty or improve human capital sustainably(the other option is to remove the child from the context, which may leave the community relatively unchanged). PEPY\'s focus on education, building and improving schools etc. appears to be an effort to change the environment in situ rather than ad hoc. Thus, I have a hard time understanding how a child sponsorship program falls in line with such an approach.

Best of luck, D, I know this is a hard situation. Thanks for asking.

It’s a challenge to watch your decisions being publicly scrutinized, which is why I love that Daniela suggested posting this. It pushes us. Its also an interesting position to be in for me (and I believe for Daniela also) because I DO agree with much of the critiques made above, and have made some of the same myself. But when I read them from outsiders, my internal “PEPY Loyalty” clicks in and my first response is to defend and explain instead of acknowledge and agree.

We’ve had significant internal debate about starting and continuing this program. Daniela and I have both played the two sides of the argument, and on different days argued against each other. Still, I realize in writing this the temptation I have to defend every step we’ve taken, even though they might be the same decisions that I disagree with behind closed doors. It’s much harder to be self-critical in public than it is in private, which is why I’m so thankful that I work in an atmosphere that encourages me to be both, questioning publicly and privately the decisions we make as an organization. If more NGOs did this sort of thing, I’m certain that aid would be more responsible.

I recognize and appreciate what was mentioned about us potentially losing focus and wanting everything for these kids. Its true---we definitely do. And being on the ground with strong relationships shapes that perspective. I’m not sure whether the outsider point of view or the on-the-ground insight is more useful in situations like this. I wish that there was a clear answer. My thoughts on what is appropriate development shifted strongly after a year spent in Cambodia and Chanleas Dai. In part, that’s because I have more information and a better sense of what works by being on the ground. Its probably also because I have smiling kids in front of me each day, and am surrounded with short-term realities---not big picture theories and ideas. As one example, when I was in the US, I thought XO Computers were a western, arrogant idea. They seemed culturally inappropriate, and technologically complicated. Why invest in one computer when you can provide 100 books? On the ground, I see a different picture and recognize how incredible this technology has been in developing the critical thinking skills of our students. Both opinions are valid, but one is more convincing depending on the context one is in.

I’m sure I would have been 100% against this camp two years ago. Now, I am much more open to the idea, though I have many concerns (as I still do about XO’s still on some days). I don’t think one perspective is wrong, but that context and the size of the lens one is looking through can skew the picture considerably. In a global lens I am against sending Cambodian youth to America to learn anything---why can’t they learn it in their home, and is a waste of money? With an eye towards Chanleas Dai and these kids I see much less problematic with providing an opportunity to go to camp, and I see promise in investing in individual leaders, particularly these individuals.

Will we be sitting here in 5 years saying “can you believe we almost didn’t send them? “ or “my gosh, how could we have been so naïve”? I don’t know, but I hope it’s the former. I had a scholarship for a study tour of Europe after high school and it changed my world. I know that I wouldn’t be where I am today had someone not funded me to go and see possibilities beyond Austin, Texas.

In the end, I honestly don’t know whether this is the “right” decision, or if there can be a right decision here. I also don’t believe that the choice of sending kids from Chanleas Dai to camp should be up to me, but rather believe it should be up to our supporters, the community of Chanleas Dai, and our team. This opportunity was opened up to us. We spent hours, days, and weeks debating. After speaking with the community and our staff, we had a resounding YES from both of those groups. Is it my priority for PEPY’s work in my eyes? Certainly not. Do I see it as an incredibly valuable opportunity for these four kids, two staff, and in turn their families and communities? Yes. Would I love to see it happen? You bet. Would I spend my own money sending these four kids and two staff members to Vermont? Absolutely. Am I asking you to spend yours? Only if you believe in it. If I had a donor ask me where they should put their 20,000 dollars would I put it here? No, I’d put it towards sustainable school development programs. Would I spent unallocated PEPY money which could be put to other use? Not a chance. Do I think its where we will have the greatest impact? No, but then again I’m not sure and so far I’ve been wrong more than once.

And I think that’s what it comes down to. To me, this is an opportunity like any other to support a program you believe in as a donor. Its fraught with unknowns, and whether it’s an effective use of funds or not largely comes down to what we define as effective. That’s for donors to decide which is why we are putting the question to YOU. Some people believe in our bike to school program, others believe in child to child, others simply believe in PEPY, and trust us to put their funds where we need them most. This program is different, and we’re not putting your money into it unless you tell us to specifically. That’s because we ARE unsure about whether this is the most effective use of funds, and we don’t know what results will come of it. If we get outside funding specified for this, its likely these kids will go. If we don’t, that’s our answer. This is an opportunity to invest in children and staff we believe are fabulous for those interested in that. For those who want to support our ongoing programs emphasizing sustainable educational change, we’re certainly going to keep prioritizing these programs, using that money as best we can to have a sustainable and substantial impact on the communities where we work.

Whew this is getting long. One last thing I wanted to address. I recognize what a few people mentioned in the posts above: you’re right we CAN publicize this opportunity better if we market the potential benefits to students. However, I don’t think that we should. We’re not in the business of “marketing” our programs, and I don’t think we should hide our concerns, doubts, and questions. This is an honest attempt to say to supporters and potential donors that this program is not a “PEPY Priority” but IS an opportunity for a different kind of support---one that we know some people want to invest in, and one that we are excited to support if we have the resources devoted to it.
I’m glad we have this dialogue going and I hope to chime in again!
-Maryann

Wow! I love that you have all joined this dialogue. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns. I think it is important to show the thought process that goes into NGO decisions sometimes, as nearly none of our decisions are black and white.

Some responses and thoughts:

Genevieve – Thank you for your thoughts. We of course weighed the pros and cons of exposing kids to a world they will likely not be able to recreate in Chanleas Dai, but part of that can even be said for the striking difference between Siem Reap and Chanleas Dai. Besides a ½ day in New York City on arrival, the kids will be in rural Vermont in cabins with no electricity and no running water, but either way I think it could be argued that protecting kids from something “they can’t have” might in itself be limiting. We met a group of Cambodian teachers who went abroad last year to visit a British international school, and the director of the program in Cambodia was really opposed to sending them for the same reasons. In the end, she thinks it was one of the best decisions they made as indeed they couldn’t replicate all of the fancy computers and tools in the classroom, but they could replicate so many of the ideas – the teachers camp back and created their own bulletin boards out of thatched mats, organized their teachers offices and supplies differently, etc. Our teachers then got to go to their school and learn from them and they continued to pass their new ideas on. They couldn’t take all of the resources, but they could take some of the ideas they liked, and I think this would be the same for the students.

I can send you a word document we have about what makes these camps different, but for now here is an excerpt:

“Whereas most camps operate on the premise that adults should generally make decisions for children, we have based our hundred and thirty years of success on the opposite premise - that camp is a perfect setting to give children the chance to make their own decisions. We begin with the strong conviction that children can learn to make good decisions. We then create an environment where the children can safely and competently make all the major decisions in the course of their day.”

This is so inline with the Child-to-Child philosophy, of which all four students are members. The goal of C2C and this camp is to empower children with the ability to make their own informed decisions and not be afraid to step up and do something they believe in, even if others are not. I think these skills will be beneficial to the students and, if shared, to those in their child clubs when they return home. Thanks for your “two yen”!

Dave – Thank you for acknowledging that this is a tough decision and that there are pros and cons on both sides. I agree with you that we shouldn’t be emphasizing the common belief that America holds all of the promise and answers in the world, as indeed many here would believe. As Genevieve pointed out too, could we not spend less money and do a camp here? Actually, we do Child-to-Child, which I think is much better than a camp, as it is every week, run by local staff, and addresses the on-going needs and concerns of children in the community. The opportunity didn’t come about in the sequence of 1) we are trying to find a way to build leadership and 2) we went to seek out opportunities of how to do that and found this camp, instead it was 1) we are offering opportunities and programs to support young leaders 2) this camp found us as we know the director well and he recognized that his camp’s philosophy and ours seemed to be inline and he offered us this opportunity. It was never going to be decision of a US camp or Cambodia camp. And it was always presented as an opportunity which would be available for some, a select number of kids, which is not typically how PEPY operates programs.

I will jump straight to commenting on Chris Noble’s response and say that, if faced with the above choice again, after of course going to the community/school with these options as we did, it would have perhaps been better to offer the opportunity through another entity – like through the camp’s charity arm directly if possible. (though one could of course argue changing the structures is all semantics and does not change the fact that this program benefits a select few kids, which is indeed true)

Brian – if you read this far, than you know I am not heading your advice. My loquaciousness is hard to tame ;-) Actually, in many cases, and of course in pleas for funding, I very much agree that I should be more succinct. In this case, I am hoping to open up the thought process and situation to anyone interested in reading through all this to gather their opinions, so perhaps there is more information included than the average person wants to read. I should edit, this is very true….. there needs to be more hours in the day ? Thanks for your thoughts!

Luke – Thanks. This was what many of our Cambodian teachers said in the decision making process.

Andrea – Thank you! If you have any guests staying at your beautiful hotel who you think want to get involved – let us know ? Thank you for sharing, and I do indeed agree that there are people out there who would want to support this.

Noble – again – “lopsided in potential” – ‘tis true. This was why we did not want to (and wont) take money away from our programs to do this. At the time when we made the decision to go ahead with the camp, we had verbal support from a few funders, though of course this year at PEPY has taught us to not count our chickens before they hatch. We did though, and do, think that there are people out there who would support this project but yet might not support PEPY’s overall programs. If funding indeed came from those channels then it would not take funds away from our Chanleas Dai programs. If, on the other hand, we spent all of our time marketing for this (or writing long posts on our team journal you might say!), then indeed it is diverting our focus. I hope that overall this will be a learning experience for all of us, a chance to engage in dialogue with you, and very beneficial to the children and communities if it is indeed fully-funded (to date, we now have 4 out of the 6 participants funded through verbal commitments for funds outside of our core funding.)

Dougald – Thank you for the thoughts (and congratulations on Heritage Watch being a finalist for the Tourism for Tomorrow Awards!). The fact that “such opportunities only come along once in a while” is indeed true and when there is a potential to fund the project, you know the children personally and know how much they, their families, and their communities might benefit from the experience, and trust the people providing the opportunity, it is hard to turn down just because it doesn’t fit in line with the rest of the PEPY programs. (Indeed AUW is a similar situation – where PEPY is the recruiting partner for the Asian University for Women in Bangladesh. The funding all comes from outside, so it does not take away from our programs financially, though sometimes with time and focus. We supported 8 girls to go to the school last year and 30+ are on the short list to get interviewed next month by AUW staff for next years group. It is hard to draw a comparison between a 3 year camp and a university degree program, but the concept of investing in leaders is still the same.)

Tom – Some donation commitments are still coming through. We are waiting until we have the full amount “committed” (or until the second week of June) so that we know if we are doing this program or not (it will of course be all or nothing, either we fund all of the kids/teachers or we don’t do it as we will not be using program funding to make this happen). We are short funding for 2 people right now.

The community has been behind the program as well as the district office, but then again as Dave pointed out, it is an opportunity to go abroad which many are longing for. Aline, our Country Manager, told us that it was likely that most parents would not let their kids go. Of all four students chosen, all of the parents said they were not nervous about the program at all and hardly had any questions, as they said they trusted PEPY and they knew their kids would be ok. Yikes! Now THAT’S a lot of pressure…. (FYI, they would be insured through the camp should anything happen while they were in the US)

“Tony” – thank you for your post and following @pepyride or @danielapapi in twitter. Glad to hear people are reading ?

Thank you for the reminder to revisit our mission statement. Also, thank you for the reminder that I should send the link out through our NGO arm, not PEPY Tours, as that would indeed be confusing for anyone who is just visiting us for the first time. Our NGO arm’s website is www.pepyride.org which should have our mission and programs explained in more details.

Hi Mandy! We miss you over here! Yes, there is indeed the potential that it would be an annual thing. Thanks for reminding me to point that out. We would not have chosen to pursue it at all I don’t think if that was not an opportunity. If the program is funded and goes through and both the kids/camp find it to be a good fit, we could likely indeed send kids/teachers annually.

Hi Jill! Thanks for chiming in – great to hear from you.

Maryann already commented that indeed the community knows this is a possibility. I agree though that it would be better not to raise hopes and wish the timing was different and would have allowed us to get the funding first. To be honest, we did not think they would all get their visas. We knew the kids would, as the US embassy would know they would be coming back, but the chaperones were supposed to have to get in on working visas to volunteer at the camp, and it was very likely that they would not have passed the interview test as they are in English and can be very tricky. When we went through the process, they allowed them to apply for regular visitors visas, which is amazing because the interview is in Khmer, and we were lucky that they were able to pass, largely because of Jed’s experience with 100% of staff returning to Cambodia each year.

As to how this information would diffuse, the students were chosen because they are already leaders in their communities/school and also in PEPY’s Child-to-Child program. Their status as such is not something we think they will gain, but that they already innately have, hence why they were chosen.

As for annual funding – this is indeed true. If we are able to do it annually, funding would need to be secured and that is something we would either have to outsource, or try to get those involved to take this on as something they support annually/find others to take over.

It is true that PEPY’s approach is based on changing attitudes (towards education, community engagement, etc), and that takes support for the community as a whole, and of course individual leaders as they relate to those topics. This program is indeed outside of that, but it was not by any means designed BECAUSE people want to support individuals. We decided to take this on because we thought it would be a good opportunity and we hoped it would be FUNDED because people want to support individuals, does that make sense?

Thank you, Jill!

Aileen – Thank you for your comments! Yes indeed, the philosophy behind the camp is similar to our child clubs, which is WHY we think this program is great. Giving student leaders even more exposure to opportunities to learn to problem solve and be independent thinkers, in my opinion, does not undermine the efforts of the child clubs but supports them.

Yes, culture shock was something to consider, but as there will be other Cambodians there working at the camp to take care of them specifically, many of whom have worked at the camp in years past and can relate to their own culture shock when visiting America and returning home. They will be a resource for the kids before, during, and after camp is over.

The NY portion would be for a half day, then they would likely get a chance to camp out at my aunt/uncle’s house in VT for a day to adjust, before heading to camp for three weeks (and straight home from there where they will eagerly eat Cambodian rice, I’m sure!). Thanks for the questions!


Maryann – I am so grateful that I get to work with you. And I am so glad that you too are open to public criticism and debates about our work. In some ways it is so much better than having people complain about poor decisions when they are behind closed doors, I think. I love that our supporters have the ability to and the willingness to tell us what they think as that will help us improve our work.

I agree with all Maryann has written, I just want to clarify one thing. When she says “we are leaving the decision up to the donors” – I know her and our work well enough to know that she does not mean that donors should choose how programs are run, as we both believe strongly that this is one of the major problems in NGO work today (donors, who know little about the on-the-ground realities trying to dictate how the programs are run). Instead, we are saying “support this if you want” and we hope that there are people out there who really want to support THIS program, perhaps for the chance to have a huge impact in one person’s life.

I realize that most of what I have written above is in defense of our original decision to move forward with the camp, but that is indeed because we moved forward with the decision BECAUSE we came to that consensus after going through discussions like the above. As Maryann pointed out, there are/were areas we were all concerned about, but believed in the opportunity and had hope for the funding enough to decide to pursue this.

Yes, Brian, I should edit, but instead I might go to sleep as it is very late here and tomorrow we have a trip of students from the University of Notre Dame joining us as well as a lot of planning for our classroom library program and some goodbyes to Aline as she moves back to Phnom Penh to look after her aging mother. Thank you for reading this far if you did, and thanks for believing in PEPY enough to engage us in this dialogue and pushing us to improve.

Best - Daniela