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 (12)
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.
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 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.