Habitat for Humanity: Calibrating Best Practice Against the MDGs

Poverty alleviation lies at the heart of contemporary international initiatives on development. The key to development is the creation of an environment in which people can develop their potential, leading productive, creative lives in accordance with their needs, interests and faith. This entails, on the one hand, protecting the vulnerable from things that threaten their survival, such as inadequate nutrition, disease, conflict, natural disasters and the impact of climate change, thereby enhancing the poor’s capabilities to develop resilience in difficult conditions. On the other hand, it also requires a means of empowering the poor to act on their own behalf, as individuals and communities, to secure access to resources and the basic necessities of life such as water, food, shelter, sanitation, health and education. ‘Development’, from this perspective, seeks to address the sources of human insecurity, working towards ‘freedom from want, freedom from fear’ in ways that empower the vulnerable as agents of development (not passive recipients of benefaction).

Recognition of the magnitude of the problems confronted by the poor and failure of past interventions to tackle basic issues of human security led the United Nations (UN) in September 2000 to set out a range of ambitious, but clearly defined, development goals to be achieved by 2015. These are known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The intention of the UN was to mobilise multilateral international organisations, non-governmental organisations and the wider international community to focus attention on fulfilling earlier promises to combat global poverty. This international framework for development prioritises: the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and developing a global partnership for development. These goals have been mapped onto specific targets (18 in total) against which outcomes of associated development initiatives can be measured and the international community held to account. If the world achieves the MDGs, more than 500 million people will be lifted out of poverty. However, the challenges the goals represent are formidable. Interim reports on the initiative indicate a need to scale-up efforts and accelerate progress.
Only MDG 7, Target 11 explicitly identifies shelter as a priority, identifying the need to secure ‘by 2020 a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers’. This raises a question over how Habitat for Humanity’s commitment to tackling poverty housing fits within this broader international framework designed to allievate global poverty. From an analysis of HFH case studies, this report argues that the processes by which Habitat for Humanity tackles poverty housing directly engages with the agenda set by the MDGs. This should not be regarded as a beneficial by-product of the delivery of decent, affordable shelter, but rather understood in terms of the ways in which Habitat for Humanity has translated its mission and values into a participatory model that empowers individuals and communities to address the interdependencies between inadequate shelter and other sources of human insecurity. What housing can deliver is as important as what housing itself is.

Examples of the ways in which Habitat for Humanity projects engage with the MDG framework include the incorporation of sustainable livelihoods strategies, up-grading of basic infrastructure and promotion of models of good governance. This includes housing projects that have also offered training to young people in skills used in the construction industry, microfinanced loans for women to start up their own home-based businesses, and the provision of food gardens. These play an important role in lifting families out of poverty and ensuring the sustainability of HFH projects. Studies of the impact of improved shelter and security of livelihood upon family life and the welfare of children evidence higher rates of participation in education, more time dedicated to study and greater individual achievement. Habitat for Humanity projects also typically incorporate measures to up-grade the provision of basic sanitation facilities and supplies of safe, potable drinking water. These measures not only directly help reduce mortality rates (e.g. diarrheal diseases account for around 2 million deaths annually in children under 5), but also, when delivered through HFH project-related ‘community funds’, empower the poor to mobilise community resources, develop local leadership capacities and even secure de facto security of tenure from government authorities.

In the process of translating its mission and values into practical measures, HFH has developed a range of innovative practices that deliver much more than housing alone. The organisation’s participatory model enables both direct beneficiaries and the wider community to tackle the insecurities they face, unlocking latent skills and enterprise, building sustainable livelihood capabilities. HFH plays an important role as a catalyst for change, delivering through the vehicle of housing the means to address the primary causes of poverty itself. Its contribution to wider development priorities deserves better recognition. In calibrating the success of HFH projects in terms of units completed or renovated alone, the significance of the process by which HFH realises these outcomes is often not sufficiently acknowledged, both within the organisation and externally. As the case studies developed in the report illustrate, the methodologies Habitat for Humanity employs to address the issue of poverty housing within the developing world, place the organisation at the centre of a global strategic agenda to address the root causes of poverty through community empowerment and the transformation of structures of governance.

Given this, the global network of HFH affiliates constitutes a unique organisational framework to faciliate sharing resources, ideas and practical experience across a diverse range of cultural, political and institutional environments. This said, it is apparent that work needs to be done to better to faciliate the pooling of experience and lessons learnt from across its affiliates. Much is to be gained from learning from less successful projects, sharing innovative practices, identifying strategic partnerships with donors, other NGOs and CBOs, and engaging with the international development community on how housing fits within a broader agenda to alleviate poverty and promote good governance.

Development of the Consumer Refrigerator Safety Questionnaire (CRSQ): A Measure of Consumer Perceptions and Practices

Food preparation and storage behaviors in the home deviating from the ‘best practice’ food safety recommendations may result in food borne illnesses. Currently, there are limited tools available to fully evaluate the consumer knowledge, perceptions and behavior in the area of refrigerator safety. The current study aimed to develop a valid and reliable tool in the form of a questionnaire (CFSQCRSQ) for assessing systematically all these aspects. Items relating to refrigerator safety knowledge (n=17), perceptions (n=46), reported behavior (n=30) were developed and pilot tested by an expert reference group and various consumer groups to assess face and content validity (n=20), item difficulty and item consistency (n=55) and construct validity (n=23). The findings showed that the CFSQCRSQ has acceptable face and content validity with acceptable levels of item difficulty. Item consistency was observed for 12 out of 15 refrigerator safety knowledge. Further, all five of the subscales of consumer perceptions of refrigerator safety practices relating to risk of developing foodborne disease food poisoning showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α value > 0.8). Construct validity of the CFSQCRSQ was shown to be very good (p=0.022). The CFSQCRSQ exhibited acceptable test-retest reliability at 14 days with majority of knowledge items (93.3%) and reported behavior items (96.4%) having correlation coefficients of greater than 0.70. Overall, the CFSQCRSQ was deemed valid and reliable in assessing refrigerator safety knowledge and behavior and therefore has the potential for future use in identifying groups of individuals at increased risk of deviating from recommended refrigerator safety practices as well as the assessment of refrigerator safety knowledge, behavior for use before and after an intervention.

A systematic review of evidence-based assessment practices by allied health practitioners for children with cerebral palsy

AIM: The routine use of psychometrically robust assessment tools is integral to best practice. This systematic review aims to determine the extent to which evidence-based assessment tools were used by allied health practitioners for children with cerebral palsy (CP).

METHOD: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis protocols 2015 was employed. A search strategy applied the free text terms: 'allied health practitioner', 'assessment', and 'cerebral palsy', and related subject headings to seven databases. Included articles reported assessment practices of occupational therapists, physiotherapists, or speech pathologists working with children with CP aged 0 to 18 years, published from the year 2000.

RESULTS: Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Eighty-eight assessment tools were reported, of which 23 were in high use. Of these, three tools focused on gross motor function and had acceptable validity for use with children with CP: Gross Motor Function Measure, Gross Motor Function Classification System, and goniometry. Validated tools to assess other activity components, participation, quality of life, and pain were used infrequently or not at all.

INTERPRETATION: Allied health practitioners used only a few of the available evidence-based assessment tools. Assessment findings in many areas considered important by children and families were rarely documented using validated assessment tools.