By Andrea Kazindra (Co-Founder/Co-CEO) and Joash Ndizaawa (Head of Outreach and Social Work)

Back in 2008, we rescued 80 children from an orphanage where they were enduring horrendous conditions. They were starving, sleeping on rocky dirt floors, living amidst garbage, and lacked basic amenities. Shockingly, we discovered that the orphanage leaders and local officials were profiting from foreign donations, mainly through child sponsorship, without benefiting the children. This prompted us to establish Musana Children’s Home, dedicated to providing these children with safety, hope, and opportunity. (In 2011, Musana moved away from a children’s home and evolved into a community development organization.)

To fund the relocation of the children, we turned to child sponsorship, which seemed the most effective fundraising model. At our initial event in September 2008 in Colorado, we secured 40 sponsors pledging $40 a month each. We promised sponsors a life-changing connection with their sponsored child, encouraging communication through letters, gifts, and even visits.

Initially, the program flourished, covering over 75% of our monthly expenses. However, as Musana grew, we realized the negative repercussions child sponsorship was having on our children and community:

1. Child Dependency: The program fostered an unhealthy reliance among children on their sponsors for every need, affecting their emotional well-being and perpetuating a cycle of dependency. For instance, children would wait restlessly for letters, feeling unloved and forgotten if they didn’t receive them. Those who did receive letters, became emotionally dependent on them.
2. Organizational Dependency: Relying heavily on foreign funding hindered our efforts to become self-sufficient and locally led, stunting long-term sustainability and innovation. For example, staff became complacent in raising local funds, knowing that sponsorship money would cover most expenses.
3. Inequality: Some sponsored children received preferential treatment, causing resentment and social tensions among peers. Watching their friends receive letters, gifts, and visits from sponsors, exacerbating feelings of abandonment. This led to daily queries from children wondering why their sponsors didn’t love them as much as others.
4. Limited Long-Term Impact: While immediate needs were addressed, systemic issues of poverty and inequality remained unaddressed, hindering community development. For instance, despite sponsorships providing immediate benefits, they didn’t address the root causes of poverty that led to the children being in the orphanage initially.
5. Cultural Insensitivity: Imposing Western values created conflicts and isolation within the local community, hindering cultural integration and understanding. Local staff complained that children were unruly and disrespectful due to their perceived association with Western norms, leading to their isolation from their own culture.
6. Lack of Sustainability: Dependent on external funding, we risked collapse if sponsors withdrew, highlighting the unsustainability of the model. Donations used as investments in local enterprises would have ensured community self-sufficiency.
7. Prevention of Local Ownership and Initiative: Staff lacked investment in the organization’s success, fostering corruption and a lack of accountability within the community. The community referred to Musana as “the Mzungu organization,” indicating a lack of local ownership.
8. Stigmatization: Sponsored children faced stigma from peers, perpetuating feelings of inferiority and dependency. This was particularly evident when the school was opened to paying day scholars, and sponsored children were perceived as receiving special treatment.
9. Promotion of White Superiority: The program unintentionally reinforced harmful stereotypes, fostering dependence on Western intervention rather than local empowerment. This led to inauthentic relationships between foreigners and locals, as locals sought support from foreigners rather than addressing community issues themselves.

Realizing these detrimental effects, we reevaluated our values and shifted away from child sponsorship, prioritizing local ownership, sustainability, entrepreneurship, and accountability. Though challenging, this shift was necessary to align our practices with our core values and foster genuine, dignified community development.

Presently, Musana provides full and partial scholarships to 1,943 students. What sets Musana apart is its self-sustaining model, where local income, not external donations, supports these children. The community’s investment in Musana enterprises, including schools, hospitals, training centers, restaurants, and guesthouses, ensures their sustainability and profitability.

A dedicated team of over 12 social workers identifies the most vulnerable children in the community, who then receive support funded by profits. This approach empowers the community economically, enabling them to independently care for their own members, rather than depending on external aid.

Moreover, by integrating scholarship students and their families into the Musana community, they are motivated to become active contributors to their own development, alongside staff and other community members. This shift from passive recipients of charity to active agents of change embodies true dignity and fosters hope.