Kabissa 2.0

So I've fallen off the blogging bandwagon and this is the beginning of getting myself back on track...it's a bit difficult to keep up with my blog as I've never had one before, not to mention I'm partial to hard-copy journals. Nonetheless, I have this running list of "Things to Post" on my blog. So without further adieu, to item #1:

About a month ago, I encountered a pretty amazing organization called Kabissa that was launching a brand new project called Kabissa 2.0 that

"Marries power of Web 2.0 with passion of 950+ African orgs in our network. Savvy Web 2.0 Ambassadors will collaborate through the Kabissa site and face to face to develop and promote homegrown strategies for employing Web 2.0 for social change."

When I first found this organization, they had a pretty snazzy YouTube clip explaining how this would work, but unfortunately, that clip is currently no where to be found. Basically, this initiative reminded me of what Kiva does, but instead of recruiting lenders to donate small amounts of money for borrowers from developing countries, this site seeks volunteers to donate their time and expertise to various African groups and villages. My first reaction to Kabissa 2.0 was to envision the possibilities...and there are many! However, after viewing clips with a few individuals huddled around a laptop in a hut with dirt floors, it made me wonder what percentage of African communities could benefit from Kabissa 2.0. Obviously, in order to benefit from the valuable knowledge that volunteers could offer, the village would need to have pretty good internet connectivity in order to have video conferences, etc. Thus it's primary beneficiaries would not be the poorest of the poor. This point presents an internal conflict for me: on the one hand, I feel that helping any population is 'good enough' ; however, on the other hand, I wonder where we would be as a global population if everyone had this mentality. What would happen to the poorest of the poor? At some point, if more targeted efforts to assist those living in abject poverty ceased to exist at all, the divide between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' would be even more exagerrated and the segmentation of those considered 'have-nots' would exacerbate existing disparities.

Clearly, broad programs aimed at poverty alleviation (etc.) generally benefit the less poor more than it does the poorest of the poor. Is it acceptable, for us as a society, to create these initiatives that may improve the well being of all segments of society, but generate more pronounced disparities across socioeconomic classes? It's a tough dilemma because how could you reject a program that would produce postive change for your targeted population(s)? While a one-size-fits-all solution does not exist, generally, an approach to poverty alleviation (etc.) that benefits all segments of the target population without exacerbating existing disparities requires a shift in how these problems are conceptualized and how success is measured. I believe such a shift was highlighted in Anke's article we read a few weeks ago. I won't recount point-by-point each and every aspect that must be considered to ensure that initiatives are meaningful and beneficial for the target population as Anke outlined them clearly.

Instead, I'll end this post with the acknowledgment that this problem is not limited to poverty alleviation efforts in the developing world, but is actually quite prevalent in any quality of life improvement initiative. For example, quality improvement in healthcare is definitely not immune to such a dilemma as it relates to the differential care minorities and non-minorities receive and their resultant health outcomes. I don't think this dilemma has a concrete solution, but rather requires conscientious questioning and consideration of how programs/initiatives are designed and implemented and the identification of possible unintended consequences they can yield.