Together We Stand

[ 59 ] These insights can help us transform how we provide humanitarian assistance to extend our impact far beyond those directly assisted in a specific project. Here’s why. Cues for action In the Philippines, we tried briefing sessions; posters and leaflets with images of the construction practices; and training for local skilled and unskilled labourers in the hazard-resistant practices. Contrary to expectations, posters or leaflets illustrating hazard- resistant practices did not work nearly as well, perhaps due to issues of design, or the locations and timing of their distribution. What we learned was that direct observation of CRS’s construction techniques had the most influence, prompt- ing many non-beneficiaries to adopt improved construction practices. Being reminded of hazard-resistant construction practices and how to use them significantly affected how non- beneficiaries reconstructed their homes. “When I found out that we had not met the criteria to receive a house from CRS, I visited my relatives who were already having their house built by CRS and asked them about the practices,” Roger Dacles of Mangayon village, Compostela Valley, Philippines told us. “I also asked the CRS carpenters working there to give me advice and measurements for the foundations, bracing and connections.” We recommend efforts to maximize
the ‘cue’ value of demonstration homes and beneficiaries’ homes by increasing direct contact with the homes and skilled labourers working in them. Instead of seeing homes only as programme outputs, organizations should use them as multipliers/leverage points for extending impact beyond direct programme beneficiaries. We should construct more demonstration homes in prominent places, with a project representative present during construc- tion, and leaflets and posters available to skilled labourers. Access The reason many people aren’t building back safer is simple — they can’t afford to. This is what we found in India, Madagascar and the Philippines, particularly for single-headed households and those dependent on subsistence livelihoods. Non-beneficiaries who rebuilt their homes using CRS construction practices — known as ‘adopters’ 3 — almost always had greater access to money than non-adopters. In Bangladesh, many adopters took out a loan from a credit union or other moneylender for their flood-resistant construc- tion, or took part in cash for work programmes. In India, adopters of flood- and cyclone-resistant construc- tion practices tended to have two or more household income earners. Adopters also tended to include members working in waged labour, whereas non-adopters tended to rely solely on subsistence farming. Many adopters drew on previous savings to pay for reconstruction, while some saved gradually after the crisis to later buy construction materials. Assistance like cash transfers and materials from the national government also played a role in increasing ability to safely reconstruct. Image: Jennifer Hardy/CRS Brothers Mashooq Khan and Deedal Ali, in Pakistan’s Sindh province, hold a model they used to discuss construction techniques with other beneficiaries T ogether W e S tand