Below is an article I wrote earlier this year for InterAction's Monday Development's magazine. It was published by them in April, and I'm posting it here for you ConversantLifer's who are interested in aid work and the price tags that can come with that calling (the case study on conditions in Sudan and Chad looks at an assessment conducted by the Headington Institute late last year).

 

Thanks for stopping by,

lisa

 

Psychological Security: The Issue of NGO Staff Wellness

By Lisa McKay, Director of Training & Education Services, Headington Institute

 

Images of desperation and need in refugee camps are familiar to many: row upon row of tents covered with blue tarpaulins, people lining up to receive the food being measured out to them, children whose menacing bravado far outstrips their physical size casually handling AK-47s. They are scenes from Sudan, Chad and many other places. And in and behind these scenes are humanitarian workers trying to help meet those needs.

 

Meeting those needs as a humanitarian worker, however, means entertaining risk. In the last twenty years, the number of attacks on aid workers around the world has risen sharply, with the rise in acts of violence growing steeper in recent years. Nearly 80 percent of aid worker victims are nationals of the country in question, but international humanitarian workers are far from safe. International aid work has the fifth highest job-related death rate among U.S. civilian occupations, and it is the only one where the leading cause of death is intentional violence.

 

The last two decades have seen an increased acknowledgement of the risks. The issue of staff security has become a fairly standard operational consideration, and agencies have responded to security risks in a variety of ways – many by devoting increased time and resources to help ensure the safety of their staff though contingency planning, monitoring and training. In the wake of this culture shift around security has grown another level of awareness: aid workers not only face significant threats to their physical security, but also to their psychological security. 

 

Those who choose a career in aid and development tend to be naturally resourceful, passionate and committed. Over time, however, humanitarian workers are cumulatively impacted by experiencing and risking traumatic events, living and working in fluid and insecure environments, witnessing suffering and need on a daily basis, and working with limited resources within an ever-quickening cycle of disaster response, recovery, and reconstruction. All of these and a host of other unusual stressors associated with aid work inevitably take a personal toll.

 Ironically, it is perhaps partly because of the inherent resilience of many aid workers that an organizational culture of strength, independence and ‘machismo’ is not uncommon in humanitarian agencies. Historically the managerial message, often unspoken, has tended to be, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Until recently, little credence was given to the notion that humanitarian workers (and the work they are doing) would benefit in significant and lasting ways from psychological support services such as counseling or stress management training.  

In the last several years, however, issues of staff well-being and psychological support have attracted an increasing amount of attention. Some research about the experiences of humanitarian workers has been published, and more studies are underway. Several conferences have explored related issues (e.g., The Headington Institute, People in Aid, and Antares sponsored conferences). Some guidelines on staff care have been proposed (the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Guidelines of Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings, the Antares Guidelines of Good Practice, and the People in Aid Code of Good Practice). Most recently, InterAction has undertaken a comprehensive process designed to support humanitarian workers in Darfur and Eastern Chad and the organization will also likely spearhead a collaborative process to outline minimum standards for staff care.

 

It does seem that a shift around issues of staff wellness is underway – one driven by both practical and moral imperatives.

 

Practically, many humanitarian organizations are concerned about high levels of burnout and staff turnover, and the impact on the design, implementation, effectiveness and longevity of relief and development programs. Both common sense and research suggest that staff who feel well-prepared and supported will stay longer with their organizations, and in the broader humanitarian field. At its core, this means that the specialized knowledge and invaluable practical experience they have gained at some personal cost will continue to benefit the organization and, ultimately, program beneficiaries. 

 Organizations in the business of helping others should set a high standard in how they care for and support their own staff – even in the midst of crises. At this moment humanitarian workers from all over the world are working in crises in Darfur, Chad and elsewhere. For most of them, however, this is not a one-act play. Humanitarian workers confront disaster on a regular basis as they move from crisis to crisis. It seems a worthwhile investment to help make sure that they are able – not just physically but psychologically by strengthening policy and practice around staff support and well-being and helping humanitarian workers understand stress and trauma and improve their coping skills. Then, the next time a crisis like Darfur unfolds experienced staff will still be there to help others.