Mandate eNewsletter, 2007 - Issue No. 3

Relief and Development:  The Distinction is More Than Academic
by Steve Corbett and Dr. Brian Fikkert

We turn on the evening news and see that an earthquake has devastated China, leaving millions without food, adequate clothing, or shelter. Following a commercial break, the news returns and features a story about the growing number of homeless men in our city, who are also without food, adequate clothing, or shelter. At first glance the appropriate responses to each of these crises would seem to be very similar. After all, the people in both situations all need food, clothing, and housing, and providing these things to both groups seems to be the obvious solution.

But there is something nagging in us as we reflect on these two news stories, for deep down it seems like the people in these two crises are in very different situations. In fact, applying the same remedy to each situation might very well do harm. As in all situations, truly loving the poor requires careful analysis in order to design the appropriate response.

A helpful first step in thinking about working with the poor in any context is to discern whether the appropriate approach is to use relief, development, or some combination of the two. “Relief” can be defined as the urgent and temporary provision of resources to reduce immediate suffering from natural or man-made disasters. Relief is the first response that comes to most people’s minds when they see the suffering of others. “Development” can be defined as a process of ongoing change in which people are moved closer towards being in right relationship with God, with themselves, with others, and with creation. As people develop, amongst other things, they are better able to support themselves through their own work.

Both relief and development can be appropriate interventions, but if we do relief when we should do development, we can actually hurt the very people we are trying to help. For example, giving food to an able-bodied person who persistently refuses to take advantage of opportunities to work will simply enable them to continue to live irresponsibly, thereby hindering their “development” of better relationships with God, with themselves, with others, and with creation. In such a situation, not providing this person with relief would be the loving thing to do. But that doesn’t mean that our responsibilities towards them end. On the contrary, our neighbor in this instance needs “development,” which will be far more time-consuming for us, as we seek to walk alongside of this person and help them to develop better work habits.

Diagnosing the Situation

How can you discern whether relief or development is the appropriate approach? Unfortunately, there is no magic formula, but there are some principles you can use. 

First, a good rule of thumb is that you should not habitually do for somebody what they can do for themselves, for if you do so you will undermine their development as stewards of their own gifts and abilities. Many well-meaning ministries routinely violate this principle, thereby doing serious harm to the development of the very people they are trying to help. For example, years ago one of the authors of this article helped to mobilize his church to volunteer at a homeless shelter. The church members graciously bought food, prepared a meal, served it to the residents of the shelter, and cleaned up afterwards. The homeless men were never asked to lift a finger in the entire process, thereby confirming their perspective that they were incapable of taking charge of their lives. A more developmental approach—and a more time-consuming one—would have involved the homeless men in every stage of the process, from planning the meal, to shopping for the food, to helping with serving and clean-up.

Second, there are some assessment tools that can help you to discern the nature of a person’s needs. These tools can range from an informal set of questions used in an initial conversation to a more formal and detailed written form. Examples of information to be gathered in such an assessment can be found in Changing Times, New Approaches: A Handbook for Deacons by Jay Van Groningen (CRC Publications 1996) and Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s Diaconate Manual: A Handbook for Diaconate Mercy Ministry (PRC Press 1998). Such assessment tools help to identify the type of assistance that would be most beneficial and can also help to determine if the need being expressed by the individual seeking help is real. Furthermore, these tools can reveal the willingness of the person to address larger life issues that may have contributed to their present situation.

Providing Relief Effectively

If you determine that relief is the appropriate response, there are some principles that can help to make your efforts more effective.

First, relief needs to be immediate. If a person is in the midst of suffering from a crisis and cannot help themselves, a timely response is crucial. For example, when a large-scale, natural disaster hits, the victims cannot wait weeks while churches or organizations try to think of what they should do. Neither can they wait while organizations and churches try to secure funding. What is true for large-scale disasters is true for the battered woman who has bravely come to the church office seeking safe shelter. Sending her back home to wait while the church tries to find her some alternative shelter is not a good relief response.

In order to provide timely relief it is important to engage in disaster preparedness.  This means simply looking ahead and forecasting the types of relief situations that the church or organization may encounter. Financial, material, and human resources can be identified and secured to be ready to be put into play at the right time. For example, the deacons can ensure that the church either obtains or creates a directory of services that are available in the community to address relief needs. The deacons can also line up people within the congregation who would be ready to give of themselves to help someone who is in the midst of a crisis. Such help could include opening their home for a few nights, providing transportation to an agency, taking a person out to eat, or working at the church’s clothing closet to ensure it is well organized.

Second, relief is also temporary, provided only during the time that people are unable to help themselves. However, determining when to stop relief is never easy. On the one hand, we can make the mistake of ending our assistance too early. An uninsured family facing ongoing medical bills due to an unforeseen health emergency may need more than a single gift of $100 from the church’s benevolence fund. On the other hand, if relief is given for too long, it can do harm. Because the primary relationship in relief work is that of provider and receiver, prolonged help can move beyond appropriate alleviation of suffering to the creation of unhealthy dependency. Again, do not habitually do for people what they can do for themselves. A church or organization needs to have policies in place that define the degree, frequency and length of relief efforts. While there may be occasions that call for working outside of these policies, having such policies can greatly aid in providing appropriate relief.

Doing Development Successfully

The majority of poverty in the world does not stem from some temporary crisis such as an earthquake in China. Hence, providing temporary relief is unlikely to solve most of global poverty. A longer approach that gets at deeper issues will be needed.

What are those deeper issues?  What is the cause of poverty? As explained in the first article in this newsletter,“How to Help the Poor Without Hurting Them and…Ourselves,”  poverty is rooted in the brokenness that the fall has brought to each person’s relationship with God, with themselves, with others, and with creation. The appropriate response to this deep-seated cause of poverty is “development”—i.e. reconciled relationships that manifest themselves at the individual, community, national, and international levels. There is no easy remedy for bringing healing to these relationships, but there are a number of principles that can guide us a bit along the way.

First, those engaging in development work must understand its long-term nature. Development is a slow, ongoing process of change. It involves addressing large, foundational problems that are not quickly or easily fixed. The fall has created brokenness on both the personal and structural levels over years, decades, and even centuries. Bringing reversal or renewal can also take such lengths of time.

Second, everyone is living in poverty at some level, and thus everyone is in need of development. While many of us are not economically poor, we are all poor in the sense that we are all suffering from the effects of the fall. Embracing this truth is crucial if we are to have the humility of heart and mind that is necessary in order to help the economically poor. Such an attitude helps combat feelings of superiority as well as the god-complex that leads us to believe that we need to “save” the poor. Both of these mindsets can create paternalistic actions and programs that communicate to the economically poor that they are inferior to us. What is needed are people who are broken and ready to have their own lives changed even as they seek to be agents of change in the lives of others.

Third, because the fall has distorted everything, development needs to be done at the individual as well as at the societal level. Thus, housing development can be the rehab of a single home of a member of your church, or it can be a major housing renewal throughout the neighborhood. Development can be tutoring a child after school, or it can be the creation of a quality school in the community.  

Fourth, it can also be said that development is a process carried out through the vehicle of “products.” For example, wells for clean drinking water, improved crops, rehabilitated housing, more small businesses, and new schools are all products. They are easy to photograph and document. But the process used to create these products is at the heart of development. Did the low-income people participate in the process in such a way as to increase their knowledge, attitudes, skills, and power so as to better provide for their families and to create stronger, safer, and healthier communities? Did the well-to-do enter into the development process with the economically poor, or did they try to do development to the poor? If it was to instead of with, then it is unlikely that real development occurred.  

Indeed, one of the central factors in the quality and thus impact of the development process is the type and degree of participation of the poor in their own development. The more the poor are at the planning table, the more they are fully engaged in implementation of these plans, and the more they have a voice in the evaluation process (i.e. measuring success), the more effective the development process will be. The role of the worker in such participatory development is to be an encourager, a catalyst, a facilitator, and a networker. These roles are all highly relational in nature.

Development is difficult, but you and your church can do it with God’s help! To see inspiring examples of how God is helping churches to bring development in powerful ways, read the articles in this issue of Mandate and click on the video link included on the first page.

Steve Corbett serves as Community Development Specialist at the Chalmers Center and is an Assistant Professor of Community Development at Covenant College. Dr. Brian Fikkert serves as the Executive Director of the Chalmers Center and is an Associate Professor of Economics at Covenant College.

For more information about the Chalmers Center, visit us at www.chalmers.org.

12/5/07