When aid stops too soon
Voices | Activity for everyone
In this video, Fayudatu explains how donations have helped families with premature babies. She also describes a major challenge.
Should international aid projects continue for longer, even if that means supporting fewer projects overall?
Watch their video and share your thoughts in the comments below.
Video not working? Follow this link: https://vimeo.com/teef/fayudatu-yakubu
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think that international aid projects should [fund fewer projects for longer/ fund as many different projects for a short time] because [your opinion]. One reason for my view is [something said in the video]. However, others might argue that [a different point of view].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers and respond to someone whose choice or opinion is different from yours.
Comments (38)
Very impressive work to care for families in that aspect, so as for me, I believe that international funding as such should still be supported, despite the fact that it may mean fewer projects being achieved or completed. As far as the project works for the good and is stable enough to keep going, I don't see any reason to cut it short, because real change takes time, you know. For such a project, to build trust with families, raise a name for your programme, and ensure it works, it all takes a lot of time. People could eventually start depending on these means, which could cause dependence issues; if such funding is cut off, people will feel the impact of it. Short-term is more of the focused part of aid like that, for emergencies that need over-consistency in aid, but at the moment, long-term is the best option in my opinion, because complex issues like neonatal care need widespread attention, and as far as the funding reaches, aid has done a good job.
What do you think?
In my opinion, international aid project should fund fewer projects for a long period of time. Let's take for instance that many projects were funded and everyone is benefiting from it. But due to lack of adequate funding, they all closed down and we are back to square one. Now what would be the value for the effort made in funding these projects. If fewer projects are funded for a long period of time, there could be time to find other sources of donation before sponsor stops sponsoring the projects.
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer because long lasting support is more likely to create tangible results. One reason for my view comes from the video, where Fayudatu explains how donations helped families with premature babies. This support clearly saves lives, but it also shows that when aid stops too soon, families are left struggling without systems they still depend on. Health projects in particular need time to build trained staff, reliable equipment, and trust within communities.
However, others might argue that funding many short-term projects allows aid to reach the desired audience that it was made for, espoecially in emergencies. This is a valid point, because short-term aid can be crucial in crisis situations and can sve lives immediately.
With that being said, I believe the best approach is prioritising long-term funding, especially in sectors like healthcare, education, and security, while still keeping some resources for emergencies. Supporting fewer projects for longer reduces dependency, strengthens local capacity and prevents progress from collapsing once funding ends.
I think International aid project should fund fewer projects for longer time as this creates stability and balance. Building a specialised support for neonatal care requires trust and consistency. One reason for my views is that Fayudatu mentioned families in rural areas still lack access after discharge, proving that short term plan or help doesn't always reach the finish line. However others might argue that spreading funds across more projects ensures that at least a basic level of care reaches a wider geographical area. When people or organisations do a lot of projects in a short time, they will have too much things in their hands which might result in them not enshrining excellence in some of the projects.
I think that international aid project should fund fewer projects for longer time because of the emotional and psychological care for both moms and dads, which is not a one time fix it all. One reason for my views is that Fayudatu says parents feel less alone mainly because there is a support system that is placed there longer. We all know how it feels when it seem you are all alone and going through a diffcult time, this feeling can easily return after a period of lets say 5 or 6 months when there is no longer any support system. Someone might argue that local systems can become more dependent on the aid and never learn to fund their own projects as long term fundings leaves a sense of dependency.
I think international aid projects should fund as many different projects for a short time because the more aid/community projects there are the better the lives of the people in the community, this will also help the people and community learn and then go ahead to improve themselves. These projects will serve as a seed to find communities which are ready too take over the work. One reason for my views is that Fayudatu said that donations are vital for strengthening support and i believe getting the initial support and strength in 50 places is better than in 5 places. Someone might say that we will create a cycle of disappointment when these initiatives are stopped just around the time the families are beginning to enjoy the project as noted by the warning given by Faydatu in the video.
While I supported the side for fewer funding for longer time-frames, I do understand how a wider spread of impact in terms of helping 50 places in the short-term versus only 5 in the long-term can help ignite people's motivation and hope to improve things on their own accord. This reminds me of my research on states' rights and limited federal intervention actually---the idea that people should be able to sustain their own needs and support their own aspirations with limited help. Your post made me question, does long-term help creates dependency? And if so, how would an organization find that sweet spot of where they are helping just enough? It is a tough question to answer.
I also wanted to ask for your thoughts about a different perspective. I resonated a lot with Ms. Fatudatu's concerns because I have led initiatives myself that felt too short or insignificant because of lack of resources. One free resource is social media, right? We can use it as a platform to share our concerns and advocate for an issue. But, there is a gamble on how many people it will actually reach---unless you pay for it to be an ad. So, beyond just educating people and spreading awareness, there are a lot of funding needed to actually carry out big projects---and those projects are better when they are recurring because people expect to see it and know of it. I think that was part of what Ms. Fatudatu's concerns were, and I would love to hear what you think in regards to those concerns. Maybe you know of solutions that I have never thought about? :D
First, I admire Ms. Fayudatu's works and initiatives in taking care of babies and families. Upon viewing the video, I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer time-frames. This is because permanent and real change requires sustained aids, and caps on funding for a wide array of projects can disperse prioritization.
My perspective is corroborated by the Ms. Fayudatu's explanation on how the short programs and limited funding causes the families she serves to not fully receive sustained help once they are discharged from hospitals, especially in rural communities. Not only so, Ms. Fayudatu's experience is also part of my own. The impacts of programs usually range from education/awareness, application to daily lives, and sustained habitual practices to improve quality of life. However, programs in Georgia, such as those led by the youth, only have just enough funding to facilitate short-term campaigns that spreads awareness and education, but there isn't enough funding to take the impact to a new level such as working with legislation and lobbying to impact policy makers and providing sustained and recurring donations. Therefore, in terms of international aid, being more centralized to most promising groups and increasing funding amounts can help strengthen impact.
Nonetheless, I do resonate with concerns that fewer funding can limit the number of opportunities and can potentially limit newer initiatives. Therefore, not only is sustained funding important, sustained and operationalized evaluations of impact is equally helpful.
Alright. I quite liked the the way you linked Ms. Fayudatus story to even a bigger problem in international aid it is so clear and insightful.
It was really great that you chose to articulate the idea of getting rid of small problems and funding fewer larger ones over long period of time. Real, lasting cannot be achieved through short, term activities it is a slow process and a dedication over a long, time period is required particularly in rural ares where families heavily depend on hospital after discharge.
I also liked how to made a link to your personal experience in Georgia. It is true that youth, led initiatives can be very meaningful and that that lack of funding at policy advocacy or the creation of sustaining support programs. Your comment is a very nice piece of knowledge.
Moreover I respect that you acquainted the negative aspect even if if it was slight fewer projects might mean less fresh ideas . Your idea that not only the frequency but also implementations of impact evaluation can be sustained is an excellent one. It is not only a question of money it is about understanding and enhancing real long, term impact.
I think international aid should fund fewer projects for longer time because we know that there many important projects that will change today's world but i believe fewer projects will have lasting and bigger difference especially in countries that are in serious dilemma for example if we take neonatal projects, we know that neonatal outcomes can only be measured in years not in months. One reason for my views is that Fayudatu talked about the fact that short timelines forces them to stop initiatives almost as soon as it is started. I know some might say they are not there for long term social work and that a donor's responsibility is to provide relief to the highest number of people where possible but imagine a refugee camp starts getting relief and within six months it stops. What will happen to the refugees? I believe a lot of stress and chaos, no schooling, no clean water, no hospital, no good shelter, no enough food, life will be so miserable for them. I believe what is worth doing, is worth doing well.
I believe international aid project should fund fewer projects for longer time because when we fund different projects at the same time for short time, we might only get to inform the people of what the project is about without actually carrying the project. We need to acknowledge the fact that community support network takes years to stabilise and solidify. One reason for my views is that Fayudatu say network support help parents feel better equipped to face the future and you know getting to this stage is a gradual skill building process. I know some people might say that in a global crisis, it is not right to help a village for 12 years while we ignore 12 villages for 12 months butIi say helping 12 villages for only 12 months often leaves all the 12 villages exactly at the start point once the money finishes.
I think that international aid projects should fund many different projects for a short time because this will bring about rapid innovation and also testing of new methods. One reason for my views is that Fayudatu spoke about parent coaching and community awareness, short timing can actually help in educating a whole community, or even generation quickly. However some might argue that educated parents might not have the medical professionals to link to without sustained funding as Fayudatu suggested is necessary but i believe some projects would at least be introduced to rural areas which otherwise would have been ignored.
I agree because in the video Fayudatu told us how her many different projects, such as counselling, expert care and so on, made a difference in the lives of people. Even though some families still struggle, it still makes one aware of things happening. The little things we do today can make a huge difference tomorrow, no matter how long or short it takes to do it.
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer because longer time gives more time to help others. One reason for my view is because it says "they have been strengthening the support for adults by giving counseling, parent coaching, community awareness, and expert care".However others might argue that "the impact of donations cannot be over estimated".
I think that international aid projects should fund many different projects for a short time because people that live in rural communities would have trouble getting to the places and it maybe be dangerous for them to travel and if they have more nearby it would be less dangerous . According to the video, she says that having these programs help moms and dads to be able to care for there family and provide counselling, parent coaching and community awareness.But others might think that having lots of projects would cost a lot of money a not be worth it.
I agree with you. I also think funding many different projects for short time helps to create awareness in many places. according to the video community awareness session can have ripple effect even after the money stops. Other might argue that parents will be frustrated because of the fact that creating awareness without quality healthcare is just a waste of time.
I think international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer because this will ensure that small organizations are
able to be funded long enough to achieve their goals and also grow big enough to support other humanitarian organizations
with similar goals. Funding many projects for shorter period of time may look like it will spread all over quickly but it might not achieve much as the organizations might not be strong enough to stand alone for long.
I think aid should not stop to soon because if you get hurt they would not be there to help you. You should always care about families they look after you help you and care for you. Short term is more of the focused part of aid like that, for emergencies that need over the world. I want to keep everyone safe around the world
aid should not stop so countries can help people get well
i think that some families really need some help in some countries because there might be somethin for a medical and really verry dangerous for a reason for a flood or a super bad like where you go up hight or you need to take your self under ground and they might really need a first ad if they are really hurt or injury or they might have some medical reason like they don't have legs or don't have any reason so they can also be helped by from a verry bad situation what they might really need help in something bad or verry sad thank you
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer because there are only a few popular and standard health organisations in every country that support the entire nation; those organisations should be firstly considered when handing out international aid. Funding fewer projects for a long time is certainly more profitable than funding many for a short period of time. Not every country needs aid as much as others; therefore, the less privileged, or more economically disadvantaged countries should be the first to receive aid, hence helping weaker countries grow and creating more donor countries.
As ineffective as it seems, I think it is better to fund fewer projects for longer than to fund more projects for a shorter period of time. Even though it helps less people, I still think that it is better to do this than to help a wider scale of people and leave them after the short period of time when they are still relying on your help. It is better to do long term so that when you are to leave, you can rest assured that you are not leaving them when they still need you.
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer because real change takes time, especially in healthcare.
In the video, Fayudatu explains how donations helped families with premature babies. That shows aid can truly save lives and support vulnerable people. But she also talks about a big challenge when the support stops too soon. If funding ends before a project becomes stable, families can lose access to important services. For example, premature babies need continuous medical care, trained staff and equipment. These things cannot just disappear after a short period. Stopping aid suddenly can undo the progress that was made.
As a 13-year-old from Egypt, I’ve seen how some charity projects start with strong energy but then fade away. When that happens, people feel disappointed and lose trust. Long-term support can help communities become independent instead of dependent. If projects last longer, they can train local workers, build strong systems and create sustainable solutions.
However, others might argue that it is better to fund many different projects for a short time so more communities can receive help. They might say that limited money should reach as many people as possible. I understand this point, especially when there are many urgent crises around the world.
Still, I believe lasting impact is more important than short-term numbers. Helping fewer projects but supporting them properly could create deeper, more permanent change.
Hi resilient_king you make a strong arguement for longer term funding of projects. Given limited resources how do you think the projects to receive funding should be selected?
That’s actually a tough question 😅
If money is limited, I think we should choose projects that really matter most and can actually last.
First, the project should solve something urgent; like healthcare, food, or clean water. If people’s lives are at risk, that should come first.
Second, it should have a plan for the future. Like, are they training local doctors? Are they building something that won’t collapse once the funding ends? Because there’s no point in starting something amazing if it disappears after a year.
Third, it should show real results. If a project is already helping people and you can see the difference, it makes sense to keep supporting it instead of starting over somewhere else.
In my humble opinion, I feel like it’s better to fully fix one problem properly than to half-fix ten problems and then leave. Real change takes time, especially in healthcare.
I think some international aid projects should fund more projects for shorter time some people may be in great danger and they'll only be few projects so more projects and shorter time will save people's life if they're in Great danger .But some people think that if you do less projects not just a long time it will last longer without sending lots of aids in conclusion it depends if you are going to send lots of aids or make it last longer so then you don't have to keep on sending AIDS.
Bye for now typical talkers
i think that international aid should be country wide because what if one country give another country aid/money but they dont get anything back? This might start a war between both of those countries. It will then get bigger and bigger until a world war begins. So this is my point of of country wide aid.
1.aid could never stop because if it is stopped countries suffer from homes broken and from poverty ,plus they can start getting hungry and start to get skinny and causing disease and people can start to die because of this
2.aid is the most important thing plus it can be counted as giving, blankets, food, clean water, and finally lots of financial aid
I believe that international aid projects should support fewer projects for a longer period because this will bring about sustainable change.
Firstly, one of the reasons for my opinion is that projects supporting families with premature babies should be supported for a longer period because this will help hospitals to train their staff and provide proper equipment. If the funding process is stopped abruptly, then the progress that has been achieved might be reversed, and families might suffer again.
On the other hand, someone might argue that it is better to support as many projects as possible for a shorter period of time because this will help more communities.
In my opinion, supporting projects for a longer period of time is more effective.
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer because long-term support can create more lasting change. In the video, Fayudatu explains how donations helped families with premature babies, which shows that continued support can truly save lives and improve healthcare. These kinds of medical programs need stable funding so hospitals can keep equipment running, train staff, and support families over time. If funding stops too quickly, the progress that was made could be lost.
However, others might argue that it’s better to fund as many different projects as possible for a short time so more communities can receive some type of help. They might say this spreads resources more fairly and allows more people to benefit.
Even so, I believe that long-term impact is more important than short-term help. Supporting fewer projects for a longer period can make sure the change is real, sustainable, and not just temporary.
believe international aid is extremely important because it helps people who are facing serious challenges such as poverty, lack of healthcare, and limited access to education. Without this support, many communities would struggle to survive or improve their living conditions. However, the way aid is given also matters a lot. If aid stops too soon, the progress that people worked hard to achieve can quickly disappear, and families may return to difficult situations again. This shows that short-term help is not always enough to create real, lasting change.
At the same time, countries that provide aid must think carefully about how they spend their money and make sure the support is truly helping communities grow stronger and more independent. Aid should not only give immediate relief, but also invest in schools, hospitals, skills training, and local businesses so people can support themselves in the future. In this way, aid becomes a long-term solution instead of just a temporary fix.
In my opinion, the best approach is balance. Governments should continue offering help where it is needed most, but they should also focus on building independence so communities do not rely on aid forever. When aid is planned wisely and continued for the right amount of time, it can change lives, reduce inequality, and create a more stable and hopeful world for everyone.
By and see you soon ♥👍🏻
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for a longer period of time.
This is because when the projects last longer there is tendency for more achievements and consistency, and when consistency is valued, more goals are achieved and organizations or individuals may be impressed with the works and may decide to support the projects.
Also when the projects last longer more critical solutions like Fayudatu's cases are attended to and properly taken care of instead of being in a hurry and doing unsatisfying projects.
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer, because funding and supporting many different projects for a short time may not be able to reach a certain goal that those organisations were looking for. I also think that with only a short period of time to improve and upgrade the organisation, will not be as effective, whereas improving a few organisations for a longer amount of time will be more efficient in reaching goals and objectives.
One reason for my view is Fayudatu Yakubu explained that donations are vital for strengthening support and can be an excellent source to help fund and fulfil basic priorities essential in the country. Having more time and resources for only a few small organisations can potentially turn those into large corporations and organisations. To put into perspective, attending a private class for a specific sort of skill you want to learn is considered more advantageous than public classes with more people. This is because the instructor spends more time to focus on what you need to improve and progress on, but public classes the instructor has to focus on each student, which doesn’t fully show as much affection and dedication to helping.
However, others might argue that it will take an extended amount and doing it quicker and faster will actually develop the organisations. Not really, because shifting to funding faster will only make a small change, whereas building and progressing takes sustained effort.
In conclusion, I believe that enhancing less organisations will be more beneficial and productive.
It varies because some countries may take advantage of your country if you're the supporter, but I love your evidence and linking to real-world explanations and events that has occured, and the way you explain things is on point.
I know that some countries need to give aid or they will have to much money and they won't be able to use the money properly and also some other countries shouldn't be paying aid because they need aid or there country will not thrive as well compared to other countries like England and the USA.
Aid helps people and schools and governments to make sure that they are doing there part in the world so that the earth will not get to hot and we can't live on it anymore.
I believe that international aid projects should fund fewer project for a longer time because this will help to create a real change. In some projects we can see that when some short projects finish to quickly and the results don’t usually last.
I think that, When aid stops too soon, it can undo a lot of progress. In the video, Fayudatu explains how donations helped families with premature babies survive and stay healthy. If that support suddenly ends, hospitals may lose equipment, medicine, or trained staff. This can put vulnerable babies at risk again.
Continuing aid projects for longer can create lasting change. Long-term support allows communities to build strong systems, train local workers, and become more independent. This may mean fewer projects overall, but the ones that continue could have deeper and more sustainable results.
However, there is also an argument for helping as many places as possible. Shorter projects can spread support to more communities in need. The challenge is finding a balance between reaching many people and making sure the help truly lasts.
In my opinion, it is often better to continue important aid projects for longer — especially when lives are at risk — even if that means supporting fewer projects. Strong, lasting impact can sometimes be more valuable than short-term help in many places.
I think that international aid projects should be fund because many people in third world countries need help like money , food and medical care. If everyone donate even a small amount , the corresponding organizations can support them with what they need.
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer because if you support them for a short period then the project might not show its full potential. However, others might argue that funding fewer projects for longer is more effective because you provide them with more capital for them to work with.
I think that international aid projects should fund fewer projects for longer because everyone is benefiting from it. One reason for my view is that donations helped families with premature babies. Also Faydatu said they help parents face the future.
I think the international aid should fund fewer projects for a longer time because change takes a lot of time and funding fewer projects helps to find other sources of donations.
Let's take for instance, many projects were funded and donations are not enough for them the aid will be forced to stop and it will lead to many families struggling and many families will be back to square one. The reason for the funding will not even happen and the efforts will all come to waste.
That is my opinion, what do you think?
@charming_physics interesting idea. How would you decide what to prioritise if you were in charge?
I think international aid works better or best when it combines long term support with reaching multiple communities. Long term projects are important because, am Ms Fayudatu explained, consistent donations can help families with premature babies and provide the support they really need, which encourages others to sponsor and continue helping them. At the same time, spreading aid to more communities, even for a shorter time, helps more people get initial support, learn skills and start improving their own lives. However as Ms Fayudatu warned, stopping projects too soon can create disappointment, especially when families are just beginning to benefit. By combining both approaches, international aid can make a real, lasting difference while still reaching those who need it most
This video highlights a very important issue that many people don’t always notice — help should not only arrive quickly, but it should also last long enough to make a real difference. Supporting families with premature babies is not something that can be solved in a short time. These children need continuous medical care, emotional support, and stable resources, and when aid stops too soon, the progress that was made can be at risk.I believe international aid projects should focus more on sustainability, not just numbers. Helping fewer projects but ensuring they succeed long-term can create deeper impact, stronger communities, and real change that continues even after the funding ends. Short-term help can save lives, but long-term support can transform futures.Fayudatu’s story clearly shows how donations bring hope, relief, and opportunity to families during very difficult moments. At the same time, it reminds us that challenges don’t disappear overnight. True support means staying, listening, and building systems that families can rely on.In my opinion, the best approach is balance: continue supporting new projects while also protecting the ones that are already making progress. Every child deserves a fair chance, and every family deserves consistent care — not temporary solutions.Thank you for sharing such a meaningful video. It encourages awareness, empathy, and thoughtful discussion about how we can make aid more effective and more human🌹.
I think that international aid projects should be able to
- help countries bounce back on their feet in a certain amount of time
- help citizens get food and shelter so they can survive on their own
- not to support that country for too long, as they can take advantage of you
- provide ways or support economically to help that country
Some people may disagree because some countries take longer than others because they're slow learners and their economy was bad since the start, or some countries just can't follow or do things that other countries try to tell them to do because it's different from what they're used to, and it sometimes breaks the rules of their tradition such as eating pork meat for muslim people and more.
I think that the two opinions should meet in the middle, supporting many projects long enough to let them stand alone and be semi-independent.
If it took too long of support, the company/project would never learn neither discipline or to be independent. If it took to short of a time, all the projects would fail miserably given the time they were supported in.
In the other part of the conversation, having too many companies at once can break the money/political cycle, needing changes in the country itself, leaving it with more money to be lost down the drain. Having too little of companies but stable ones can raise prices , leaving the citizens to either travel abroad or protest against it.
Having the perfect amount of countries that soon would not need any support can benefit the political/financial section of the country leading to a balance and perfection.