Volunteering in Kathmandu - boy

When C said she wanted to do a week's volunteering at a children's home I didn't know it was something that currently appears to be very popular in Kathmandu. A flyer saying "Spend a week with orphans!" says it all I think. Westerners = publicity in the west = little old lady donors. C though was determined to give useful advice and not just be there to play with the kids. Being of a less charitable disposition but thinking it might be an interesting experience I decided to join the helping and not playing with the kids too (most of whom are pretty smelly anyway).

First impressions weren't great and second impressions were worse. Maybe a week playing with the kids would have been better, not so much rationalising to do. I've spoken to people who have had similar impressions of comparable institutions in developing countries so I believe it is perfectly normal.  Cagey answers and dodgy practices are common. However, a director who sleeps most of the day (and does bugger all when she isn't sleeping), another who periodically tries to dictate his illustrious biography to anyone that will listen and his spoilt brat of a daughter who struts around screeching orders at the more accommodating volunteer (poor guy) is probably a specific treat to this enterprise.

Before arriving in Nepal we had read a number of articles about adoption in Nepal regarding foreigners who had to return their adopted child because unbeknownst to them due diligence had not been taken by the orphanage when finding out whether the child had parents. It could be a genuine mistake but since large sums of money are handed over at every stage to the orphanage and government (via the orphanage) the temptation must be great not to check the parentage too thoroughly. Like most (if not all) Nepalese orphanages, this institution accepts children who have parents and handles adoption procedures too.

Though, I should temper my pessimism with a counterweight: This is a country where the infrastructure and political situation is temperamental and fragile. On our first meeting we could barely reach the other side of the city due to Maoist demonstrations, a common occurrence here; our work schedule revolved around battery life and availability of electricity; we dealt with a computer company that promised much and delivered nothing; had a daily commute the price of which constantly fluctuated; a crazy woman roamed the street in the early hours of the morning making animal noises and I had a couple of extremely bad hangovers due to the crap in the beer. This environment is not conducive to nurturing a dynamic work ethic.

There is another counterweight: I tend to see people in the west who run charities as those who've sacrificed pay for a worthwhile cause (and job satisfaction) since in the west most high level managers will earn less than they would otherwise earn in the private sector. In developing countries charities seem to be every bit as lucrative (sometimes more so) than private businesses. It follows that salaries should be of primary importance under these conditions. In fact, a director not paying himself a larger percentage of the total incomings than his western counterpart should be considered an exception. In countries where regulation is not rigorously applied hitting on the idea of starting a charity and understanding how to tap foreign donors is like discovering oil. Wealthy individuals are created; jobs are created; the disadvantaged are taken care (while funds last); a burden is lifted from the government; and the donor feels good about themselves. Everyone's a winner - rationalisation complete.