Sand in the gears

Short-term trips short on impact

by John Longhurst

One of the fastest-growing trends in missions today is the short-term missions trip — church members going overseas to help at an orphanage, build a school or clinic or provide some other kind of assistance.

An estimated one to four million North Americans go on these trips to poor countries every year (nobody knows for sure, since most people go independently). It’s impossible to say that nothing good comes from the experiences; homes, schools and orphanages are built, and that’s obviously not a bad thing. But neither is it the best way to help people in the developing world.

Imagine, for example, that a group of people decided to go to Kenya to help construct a clinic. Each person would need to spend $4,000 to $5,000 for airfare, lodging and expenses. If 20 people go, that’s $80,000 to $100,000. That amount of money would enable 17 Kenyan construction workers to work for a year on the clinic and other projects, based on local wages.

Or, it would enable relief and development organizations to send 3,125 children to school for a year, give 49,000 people access to clean water and provide emergency food for 10,000 people for a month.

This point was underscored by a 2006 study by Kurt VerBeek, a sociologist at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. He studied the effects of short-term mission efforts in Honduras after Hurricane Mitch struck that country in 1998. Nearly every Honduran he spoke to expressed appreciation for the many North American Christians who came to help. But they also said the money spent on plane tickets, food and lodging could have been put to better use building houses for homeless people. They noted that once all the travel and other expenses were factored in, the houses built by the North Americans cost $30,000, compared to just $2,000 for houses built by local people.

Supporters of short-term missions often concede that the trips are not cost effective and that the money could be put to better use by local people. But, they hasten to add, that’s not the only way to measure effectiveness. Equally important, they say, is how the trips change the lives of participants.

But VerBeek’s study raises doubts about that claim. He asked North Americans who went to Honduras if the experience had increased the amount of time they spent in prayer, volunteering, giving to charity and showing interest in poor countries. Eight years after their trips, only 16 percent of participants said there were significant long-term positive changes in their lives in these areas. Similar conclusions have been reached by 12 of 14 other similar studies.

“This study shows that short-term missions as done now are not having the impact that people think or want, even if done to levels of excellence,” VerBeek said in an interview. “If that’s true, it requires a whole rethinking of whether or not we’re going to do this, and if so, how.”

Short-term missions trips are here to stay. Many North American Christians don’t want to just give money anymore. They want to be personally involved in helping poor people. But before they go to a poor country, they should think seriously about how they can maximize the benefits for the people they want to help, and minimize any harm they might cause. For VerBeek, this means doing such trips only through a reputable development organization that integrates short-term volunteers into longer-term project goals, so that the work continues after the group leaves.

He also recommends that short-term mission groups continue to meet after they return, to provide “accountability and encouragement” to volunteers who want to translate their two-week trip into “life-lasting changes in prayer, giving and lifestyle.”

I would add that anyone going to the developing world should learn as much as they can about the host country and its economic situation. They should also become familiar with both the positive and negative impacts of aid. And then, when they get home, they should keep the experience alive by volunteering with a local agency.

Or, best of all, people could decide not to go at all. As one Honduran told VerBeek about the short-termers in his country: “They gather money to come here to do work, work that we are capable of doing.” Added another: “It is better for them to send the money in order to help more people who are in need.” ◆

When all costs were considered, houses built by visiting volunteers cost $0,000, while those built with local labor cost $2,000.

John Longhurst is director of communications and marketing at Canadian Mennonite University (CMU) in Winnipeg.