In Sunday’s New York Times, Celia Dugger shed some much-needed light on Malawi in Aid Gives Alternative to African Orphanages. The point being made: orphanages are expensive, they harm child development and they irreparably fracture families and communities (and we’ve been hearing this for years from community leaders in northern Uganda).
An experimental solution is now in motion in Malawi that provides cash ($4 to $20/month) directly to the extended families who take the children in. It’s more cost-effective, it stabilizes the family unit and promotes independence. So far, these children are healthier, better fed and more likely to be in school. That being said, researchers admit, “the program has yielded ‘fabulous benefits’ but cautioned that the country needed better safeguards to prevent corruption and fraud in the future.”
What struck me most about the article though, was the reluctance of so many governments, foundations and large donors to take a risk with a program like this.
In fact, I just met with a potential donor, and budding entrepreneur, who was equally leery of a new program we’re aiming to seed. His response, and what I’ve heard over and over again, was, “Why not fund what’s already working. I want to be confident I’m going to get a good return on my investment.”
That doesn’t sound all that entrepreneurial.
It’s interesting how we’re willing to take risks at home with the vision of doing great things, but are cautious across the pond. Do we really need to invest only in what’s working (and I use that term loosely) or should we be seeding more and more ‘pilots’ and ‘ideas’ that are chasing something great?
And really, if we’re afraid to fail, are we truly ever going to be a partner in change?
