Too often donations of physical goods has to be rejected because cash is more agile and useful in emergencies. However, with decreasing individual cash donations, the donation of physical goods can free up resources for other projects.

Every time there’s a humanitarian emergency, World Vision Australia fields phone calls from dozens of compassionate individuals and businesses wanting to contribute their goods to send as relief. In almost every instance, we have to decline the offer. Cash is more agile and useful in emergencies, because the items most needed are pre-positioned in strategic locations, and because it’s almost always more cost effective to procure in-country or in-region.

Physical goods donations can, however, play a positive role in ongoing development programs, but that role has been dramatically reshaped and refined after decades of mixed results and, often, abject failure.

With private individual funding of international development, and with the increasing need (and genuine desire) to engage the private sector in development activities, NGOs now look beyond traditional funding sources to support development projects. This often takes the form of the donation of physical goods.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, sending physical goods overseas formed the backbone of large charity operations – it was hoped that the shipment would cure whatever was ailing a disadvantaged community. Providing the hardware of resources without the software of defined programs was largely unsuccessful, because it assumed the needs of communities and prescribed western solutions.

In many ways, what’s old has become new again, and international NGOs are increasingly turning to donated goods (gifts-in-kind, or GIK) to support programming and free up cash resources. The risks associated with the acceptance, distribution and programming of donated goods are myriad, and the failures litter development literature – as well as warehouses in Africa, South America and South East Asia.

In examining failure, motivation is key: corporate donors can often claim goods donations as tax deductions, and NGOs can often record gifts-in-kind as income. These two motivators are powerful, and often cloud the approval process.

Goods are often sent without consideration of the local economic circumstances, and no primary producer in a developing country can compete with freely distributed items in their market. Similarly, goods can be sent without regard to local culture or need, leading to confusion and disuse. Inferring that all failure comes down to financial incentives is too simplistic: the vast majority of corporations and organisations donating goods want to help. But without quality local staff and programming for implementation, the results tend to be negative.

Whilst World Vision Australia has been implementing donated goods in field programming since the early 90s, in 2006 there came a realisation that the organisation had become a solution for corporates to offload excess stock, rather than a solution for priority resource needs in the field. As a result, comprehensive change was made. The focus on the nominal income of a donation was removed, and impact was prioritised – improving outcomes for both field beneficiaries and corporate donors.

Resource donation should never be solely about what a donor or NGO wants from a financial perspective. For donated goods to have any meaningful impact, the focus must be on strategic acquisition and integration of the resources that are going to genuinely contribute to achieving program objectives, and better the lives of beneficiaries.

This acknowledgement meant the development of global standards that require continuous consultation with field staff to determine what’s most needed, analysis of local markets to prevent negative impact, and a far stricter approach in assessing offered donations.

The wholesale change in operations has meant resisting financial pressure to accept ineffective but high-value items in a contracting funding environment, and resisting pressure from donors who are certain their excess stock can make a difference overseas (despite evidence to the contrary.) But through resisting these pressures and educating internal and external parties based on honest disclosure of past failures, donated resources have begun to have a far bigger impact at a time when they’re increasingly important in allowing NGOs to free up much needed cash resources.

One of the most important factors for success has been sustainable, ongoing partnerships. These annual donations allow field programs to plan for resources effectively. By building multi-year partnerships with some of Australia’s largest textbook publishers, we are able to give field staff the opportunity to select the right titles for their national curriculum. By integrating these resources into proven literacy programs, we can provide visible, measurable impact in primary and secondary education.

Rather than focusing solely on ad-hoc partnerships based on excess inventory transfers to the developing world from Australian manufacturers (transfers which had achieved little real impact), strategic partnerships were sought with large corporates with access to identified field resource needs, as well as smaller NGOs that could leverage a larger NGO’s logistical capabilities and programs.

Within WVA, a partnership was forged with a volunteer group of knitters to supply durable thermal blankets to help encourage health clinic visits for expectant mothers. A group of retired machinists and mechanics in Western Australia now supply hundreds of World Health Organisation-standard wheelchairs every year for clinics in southern and eastern Africa, implemented with the expertise of trained clinicians from an NGO specialising in disability. Through working with the Birthing Kit Foundation (Australia), 30,000 clean birthing kits (comprised of basic medical goods to enable a safer delivery) have been provided through World Vision programming to clinics and hospitals in fragile states to bolster maternal and child health programs.

This is not to suggest that every implementation has been successful. Gaps in planning have seen some resources kept in safe, secure spaces within communities – out of the hands of recipients – because they are so highly valued. The difficulties of international logistics, particularly in the African context, consistently challenge best-laid plans.

But these failures and gaps are diminishing year on year as the provision of donated goods meshes further with ongoing programming objectives. For beneficiaries, this means better outcomes in education, health and economic development. For donors and NGOs, it means building partnerships that aren’t simply financial and transactional. This has given rise to partnerships based on transparency and shared goals; partnerships that help donors better tell the story of what they’re achieving to staff, customers and volunteers; and partnerships that achieve positive outcomes for communities most in need of assistance.

Matthew Morris is a Project Facilitator with World Vision Australia’s Program Resources team. This article can be republished with attribution under a Creative Commons Licence.