Dr. Jane Aronson's picture
Posted by Dr. Jane Aronson
May 10, 2013
Partners in Healing

Photo of Dr. Aronson by Mani Zarrin

 

Splash is honored to have Dr. Jane Aronson, “The Orphan Doctor” and Founder and CEO of Worldwide Orphans, as our guest blogger this Mother’s Day. Dr. Aronson is a pediatrician, adoption medicine specialist, and winner of countless awards and accolades, including the Angel in Adoption Award, Glamour Woman of the Year, and 2013 Time 100 Nominee. A portion of this blog post is excerpted from her recently published book: 
Carried in Our Hearts: The Gift of Adoption; Inspiring Stories of Families Created Across Continents.

 

In 2008, I met a young man named Eric Stowe. He is a very tall young man with a boyish face with dimples when he smiles and a very warm and friendly manner. I was taken by him in seconds and was curious about what he was doing in the world. I knew that he was doing great things in this hard world because he was so very sincere and because he made me laugh quite easily.

 

We knew one another from the world of adoption….he worked at an agency and I was an adoption pediatrician. We were destined to meet because we had both found a new home in this community…even though he was in Seattle and I was in New York City, we had both dedicated our life’s work to supporting orphans and at-risk children.

 

Few people know more about the challenges faced by children living in institutions than the adoptive parents Eric and I worked closely with during that time. Many have seen orphanage conditions firsthand, and they often have to cope with the lingering affects those conditions can have on their child’s health as well as physiological, emotional, and social development.

 

My own son, Ben, was adopted from Vietnam in 2000. Here is just part of his amazing story of perseverance:

 

 

He couldn’t keep his head up straight, he still held his hands in fists, and he wasn’t able to turn over. He qualified for services with an occupational therapist and a physical therapist because his delays were 33 1/3 percent in each domain of development, that is, gross motor and fine motor.

 

I didn’t know what to expect, even with all of my experience with adopted kids. Still, we settled into our family life. This was my kid and there was no map or predetermined plan. We just hoped that with all this work, he would be okay, whatever that meant.

 

Ben had six hours of physical and occupational therapy a week, but then, at ten months, he let out his first belly laugh and we came running to witness it. His neck had straightened over the months with a lot of manipulation, massage, and hard work on his part. He was happy in his Boppy pillow, able to see the world around him. He finally walked at fifteen months with a great sense of pride in himself.

 

 

By the time I met Eric, I had been working for over ten years at Worldwide Orphans Foundation to provide children like Ben with critical access to medical care, education, and psychological and developmental support. I did not think providing them with clean water was mission drift. I felt that partnering with Splash was clearly part of the mission of WWO. Children have a right to have health, and clean water is essential for good health.

 

 

So I worked very hard to help support Splash to provide clean drinking water in Ethiopia to all the children we served, some of whom were infected with HIV; without clean water, this group of orphans would always be threatened by “opportunistic infections” and need life-saving medical care for those infections, which would threaten their lives needlessly.

 

All of the orphans and at-risk children served by WWO in Ethiopia have clean water because of Splash—and, incredibly, we are no longer losing kids to infections. I also found out this week that there are 31 clean water sites in Ethiopia care of Splash….and I might add that I felt a certain sense of pride because my networking made it possible for Splash to scale and deliver its mission.

 

 

Splash also provides many nationals in Ethiopia with professional development and education on how to maintain the water systems. Million, my assistant camp director and sport and recreation program coordinator, is one of the many beneficiaries of Splash’s training. Now Million can train others and that is capacity in its purest form.

 

That is how partners work well together. They align and stand side by side helping one another grow and scale projects to reach more human beings.

 

I am simply grateful for Splash. On Mother’s Day, please support something that does good in the world…just something….maybe WWO…maybe Splash. Just something!

 

 

 

Des’ Village (Children’s Home)

WWO Academy

WWO Academy 2

WWO Clinic

 

 

0
This post is about: Ethiopia, Partners, Orphanages
Norea Hoeft's picture
Posted by Norea Hoeft
April 24, 2013
Don't Drink the O. J.

It sounds like something out of Willy Wonka: when you turn on the water at a public school in Kathmandu, Nepal, orange juice comes out.

 

But it's not the tasty kind with all the vitamin C. "Orange juice" is the (darkly humorous) Nepali term for the city water in Kathmandu, notorious for its high iron content, which turns the water a rusty orange color.

 

 

That's not the only problem with the water in this densely populated urban area (by conservative estimates, close to six times the density of New York City). Like many rapidly growing cities in developing countries, Kathmandu lacks the infrastructure to provide clean, safe drinking water to its residents. Some 10 million children in Nepal suffer from diarrheal disease every year.

 

When asked to describe the water challenges in Kathmandu Valley, Splash Nepal's Country Director, Prakash Sharma, doesn’t have to think about it. Two things, he says immediately: water access and water safety.

 

“The bitter truth is that the municipality supplies water for only half an hour every week, and even less in the dry season. People in urban areas must have their own, in-house source of water, whether it’s from a bore well, a hand-dug well, or tanker purchase [all of which cost money]. So access to water itself is a big challenge for poor city children and their families.”

 

 

Even if they have water in their homes, says Prakash, water safety is still a challenge, and an even harder one to solve than water access. “The infrastructure in Nepal’s cities is very poor. Water is contaminated because of bad sewage management and pipe leakage. Half an hour of municipal water a week is not enough for a school, so many have wells or make tanker purchases. And in 90% or more of these cases the raw water is ‘orange juice.’"

 

Prakash says that readily available treatment options, like sand filters, are inadequate. In water quality testing conducted by Prakash’s team in Kathmandu’s public schools, they consistently find high levels of total coliform well above what is considered safe to drink—even in water that is treated and looks clear to the naked eye. “This [clear but unsafe water] is an even greater threat to kids than the orange juice,” says Prakash. He explains that kids drink more of it, assuming that because it is clear it is safe. "Children," says Prakash, "especially those from poor and marginalized families who go to government schools, are at high risk of consuming unsafe water."

 

The disturbing irony is that schools like these in poor, urban areas—schools that have “access” to water may indeed have access, but they have access to bad water—unsafe for drinking. Some 99% of charitable water programs focus on providing first-time water access to rural communities. Those efforts are good and well, but they leave gaps (like "orange juice", E. Coli, and more). The good news is that Splash is filling this gap. Focused solely on vulnerable children in urban areas, Splash is committed to installing and maintaining water purification systems—high-volume systems that clean water to the highest possible standard, removing 99.999% of all biological contaminants—in every public school in Kathmandu. Splash's team in Nepal, led by Prakash, is already 15% of the way there.

 

1
This post is about: Impact, Nepal Update
Eric Stowe's picture
Posted by Eric Stowe
November 05, 2012
Ethics of Partnership

 

While people know us for our work with water, our essential focus is children. Clean water is our way of helping them. It is children who compel our efforts, and children’s full potential that inspires us to act. We know that for kids facing immense obstacles—like poverty, abandonment, trafficking, or homelessness—clean water can make a world of difference. It won’t solve every problem—not by a long shot—but it can sure help.

 

In the countries where we work, we undertake water projects in institutions such as schools, orphanages, street shelters, hospitals, and rescue homes. These places of refuge, of learning, and of care, are crucial and often under-resourced, forces in deflecting or alleviating the serious risks these children grapple with daily.

 

Our fundamental model is built on partnership. We identify local institutions, serving children, and partner with them to ensure clean water. Each site is independent and autonomous. We don’t manage a single such institution. Instead, we look to identify excellent institutions doing great work, and offer to assist them in securing a reliable flow of clean water.

 

So, what happens if one of our partner sites comes under a cloud of suspicion for its leadership, its integrity, its safety, or its effectiveness? How should we respond? We are struggling to answer this very question right now.

 

On October 26th, the Cambodia Daily ran a shocking story about a partner organization with whom we have worked closely for over four years. An organization we have trusted and whose mission and work has moved me, personally, to tears. I am speaking about the Somaly Mam Foundation.

 

In the article, the Cambodia Daily suggests that the Foundation may have taken part in fabricating horrific stories about one of the girls under their roof—pushing her onto a global stage to tell a brutal story about her time in a brothel, over and over again. This young woman’s harrowing tale has now made its way to the lips of prominent global diplomats. Celebrities such as Oprah and Susan Sarandon have sung of her heroism. Her face is on the cover of a major book on trafficking. She was even a spotlight story of a recent, and highly regarded, documentary on PBS.

 

The Somaly Mam Foundation, in the same week, posted on its site an official response to the allegations, stating that the Daily’s article was compelling enough to warrant further investigation of the young woman’s story, but that the heart of the article may miss the point that: “We have hundreds of survivors, who are cared for in our grantee’s shelters, each with a story to tell. It is their truths that help the world better understand the deep, dark, grotesque realities of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. For those very few survivors who have the courage to come forward, our role at the Foundation is to protect them—to empower them as free women with basic human rights.”

 

We are presently watching this story closely, as this is very much a personal matter to all our staff, especially those in Cambodia who have worked at these rescue homes for the last four years. Many of us know the staff and girls who live in each of the centers. For those of us who have personally listened to this young woman tell her story, we are balancing on the brink of two extremes: if the Daily’s allegations are true, we have been manipulated and lied to and so feel both angered and saddened; if the allegations are false, we fear this young woman’s claims will always be in question, and that her recovery—as well as the recovery of the thousands of other girls who benefit from the programs offered by rescue homes—will be jeopardized.  

 

At this point, we don’t know who is telling the truth. What we do know is this: a young girl has been put in the spotlight of a conflict that ultimately has no winners.

 

We at Splash aren’t putting this information out there to avoid suspicion in this controversy. We know there will be times when the partners we work with are put under intense scrutiny for their activities. This is the risk we accept when we choose to work in such complex environments, where appropriate safety nets for children living on the margins are often built and borne by nonprofits in the country. Those nonprofits usually emerge from self-starter projects fueled by very passionate people—and, on occasion, by people simply looking for an easy buck. We do our level best to vet every site—not just working with an orphanage because it is an orphanage; not simply working with a poor school because of its surface needs. Vetting is shored up by frequent monitoring visits from our staff in country, which in turn guide our processes with and assessments of our partners over time. But in the vetting process, we have to rely, to a degree, on governmental accreditation of our partners and on their reputation within the broader community.

 

So what will we do as an organization with this disturbing information from the Daily? Honestly, we will continue to make sure safe water flows at each of the Foundation sites. It is a fundamental part of Splash’s mission to work in rescue homes. We are dedicated to removing the barrier of unsafe water for the victims of sexual trafficking in order to aid in their recovery and rehabilitation, and we will continue to do so. As I wrote in an article about our work with Somaly two years ago, and stand by today: Through our intervention, “during a victim’s time in the shelter… I know her food is safe, her water is clean, and she can bathe with dignity. It is not as much as I wish we could give, but it is a start toward a better life and I am so thankful we are a small part in that incredible, and incredibly hard, transition.”

 

Although only roughly related to water, this post is of great importance to us as an organization and me as its Director. The children we serve often have complicated lives- far more confusing and complex than we give credit to or even relate with. But we also don’t shy away from this confusion or complexity, and we look forward to further clarity on this story as it unfolds.

 
0
This post is about:
Amelia Lyons's picture
Posted by Amelia Lyons
October 11, 2012
Water Impacts Girls
In honor of the first annual “International Day of the Girl” I thought it would be good to draw a few connections I think about every day—regarding girls, water, hygiene, education, and opportunity. I am Health & Hygiene Manager for Splash, and I can tell you unequivocally that unclean water adversely affects girls.
 
If you want the fun & quick version, just meet Jharana here and read her visual story (by scrolling down the page).
 
If you want my version, here it is:  When discussing support for girls globally, I hear people invoke education, health, and economic opportunity. We talk about preventing the trafficking of girls, and of child brides. Each of these things is critical—and I think of them, too—but I also think about water.
 
Water impacts girls greatly. Just for starters:
 
  • I cannot begin to count the millions of girls who, daily, are drinking unclean water—water that makes them sick.
  • I cannot count the billions of days of school missed by girls—and opportunities set back—because girls are, naturally, menstruating.
 
Cultural bias and shame prevent so many girls from attending school—one week each month—which could be prevented if girls had clean water + personal hygiene education.
 
But I’m just getting started on why my daily work for Splash is an embodiment of my commitment to girls’ futures. Here are five ways, each day, that water distinctly affects girls:
 
  • Collection Duties: Girls and women are the primary collectors of water for their households in many countries. Since girls have to collect water, in addition to other household chores, they are less encouraged to attend school, less able to do homework, and less likely to advance from grade to grade.
  • Menstrual Hygiene Management: A girl menstruates one week a month, which is 12 weeks a year, or 3 whole months. If she is unable to clean herself during menstruation, she has no choice other than to stay at home (for fear of being ridiculed, feeling uncomfortable, or potential for infections). When there is safe water available for cleansing, and hygiene education is readily available, she can go to school, focus on learning, and advance her education.
  • Health: Boys and girls are equally affected by the risk of illness from unclean water. However, when a girl is sick she misses even more school (than I described above). Since many parents in poverty have to choose between limited funds and supporting their kids’ educations, they can become more likely to choose their sons (whose chances are perceived as stronger).
  • Hygiene Promotion: While both boys and girls are receiving hygiene education through our work, girls are more likely to bring it home. A girl has chores when she gets home, some of which include helping her mother prepare meals and tend to the other kids in the house. When a girl learns about hygiene regarding something like food preparation, she is much more likely to bring it up when working in the kitchen with her mom. If the family is drinking water with dinner, a girl can suggest boiling the water (or other treatment methods she learned about in the hygiene training). A boy, on the other hand, does not often spend much time in the kitchen, let alone prepare the family’s food. While he might learn healthy hygiene habits in the training, it's unlikely he will hover over his mother (and sisters) when they are preparing food to patiently instruct them. Additionally, girls spend time taking care of other kids in the house. When girls learn the right times to wash their hands, they will know to wash their hands, like when they change a baby's diaper and before cooking a family’s meal.
  • Future: Girls become mothers, and mothers tend to be the caretakers of the family. If a young girl learns healthy hygiene habits; if she learns the importance of water treatment (that germs make kids sick, and germs love to live in water, and treatment of that water can get rid of germs); if she recognizes the value of water availability during menstruation, then she will raise kids and daughters who understand these principles, as well (both boys and girls).
 
I will not pretend that our work is only for girls, we serve girls and boys equally, but I will suggest that water is, for girls, a critical first rung on a ladder of opportunity. Especially for a girl living in urban poverty, the ability to consume safe water, and to learn healthy behaviors for personal hygiene, is absolutely crucial for her life’s trajectory.
 
We clean water, to make it safe for drinking and hygiene, for girls who have been rescued from trafficking, who are growing up in orphanages, who attend impoverished schools, and more. You can read about our approach here. But most importantly, please remember: The impact of water for girls is life-changing.
 
0
This post is about: Girls, Impact, WASH
Eric Stowe's picture
Posted by Eric Stowe
June 06, 2012
When Down Is Up
On May 23, 2012, if you visited our website you would have read that we provide clean water for 279,233 children. Just two weeks later that number went down to 211,922—a loss of 24%. Then with today's update (since our site auto-populates this number each day at 8:00 AM) it reads 210,257. With such a decrease, it would be easy to assume we were disappointed. Yet, in our office, we actually welcome this dramatic change in beneficiary count.
 
 
Why? Because the new number reflects two really positive developments, plus honestly addresses a set of challenges: On the positive side, we switched the way we calculate usage rates at hospitals where we work and we decommissioned a bunch of projects for several communities where we were no longer required. That's what brought us to 211,922. On the challenging side, the number went to 210,257 because eight sites were identified as temporarily non-operational. When that happens, we subtract the beneficiary number (and will add it back in, of course, once the systems are back in use). Being more honest and not being needed are both great things.
 
Right now the nonprofit world speaks of the communities they serve in the same way fast food chains speak of the commodities they sell. Many of us remember when McDonald’s would highlight their numbers on their reader boards—until, in 1994, they finally ran out of room and couldn’t handle all the zeros. When McDonald’s announced that they had sold their 100 Billionth Burger they had to switch to the alternate, and now ubiquitous, “billions and billions served.” It was, and has been since, a great marketing tool for them.
 
Unfortunately, this framework is also used throughout the NGO world, as if it is the best way for nonprofits to describe impact. You see it in advertising, annual reports, funding pitches—on and on: We have provided X # of beneficiaries with Y type of product over Z # of years. In this way, we conflate historical numbers with actual present-day impact.
 
 
But I would argue the total number of beneficiaries served throughout the years shouldn't matter to you. It doesn’t to me.
 
What I am concerned about is how many children are getting the product—in our case, clean water—today. The water sector is known for abhorrent failure rates. Given that service coverage often peaks and then declines in most places after the NGO “moves on,” counting up children served over the years means very little.
 
So what we are pushing for is a daily use rate: how many children have access to our water on any given day.
 
 
It is actually pretty easy—when a project fails, as some invariably will, we take that number of children associated with that project out of the total number.
 
When we decommission a project because the community no longer needs our intervention, we take those children out of the total number.
 
When other actors take over full ownership of our projects, we take those numbers of children out of the total number.
 
Last week, our numbers went down by more than 50,000 children even though nothing actually happened to any of our projects. It changed because we switched to a daily usage rate for the hospitals we serve—we had been calculating based on a monthly usage rate. Why did that change things? Counting beneficiaries in hospitals is complicated because the population changes substantially each day, unlike an orphanage or a school. We work in multiple hospitals that each serve more than 120,000 children annually—including some of the largest pediatric hospitals in Nepal, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Back in 2010, I decided a monthly number was appropriate; counting annual rates was inappropriate and daily rates seemed to diminish the sheer volume of users and impact over time. However, it has been apparent for a while that we can't discuss being honest with our numbers and have hospitals defined/counted/measured differently than the schools, orphanages, and feeding centers we work with. So, we switched to daily usage rates and subsequently the number of kiddos served dropped dramatically. Our programs and impact didn’t decrease, but our taking credit for serving a certain number did.
 
How about losing the additional 17,000 this week? After the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan, China, Splash had rare permission to work in-country with the Chinese government in the most damaged areas of the epicenter—providing clean water to 30 displacement camps, schools, and hospitals. More recently, many of those displaced families and communities have gone back to their homes and no longer need our direct intervention. The projects we undertook were thus decommissioned and with them went the number of children attributed to each site. That really is cause for celebration: families torn from their communities by a natural disaster are now able to return and start anew! How could we be anything but excited?
 
I don’t anticipate that our numbers will continue to dwindle. In fact, in the next ten years we are on track to serve more than 1,000,000 children daily. That is pretty cool.
 
But here’s what is much cooler: our overall goal is to eventually get that number to zero in the next 20–30 years. It doesn’t mean the children we serve now won’t get safe water then—it just means we will no longer be the primary drivers in that intervention. Other local actors will continue to push the work forward. Why should we keep hold of the numbers if that is the case?
 
 
I think we can either strive for a Guinness Book-style record (competing for who served the most people), or we can try to solve a compelling and complex problem. I believe the two are distinct—and should be—if we are to honestly discuss our reach, scale, outcomes, and impact.
 
For us, we had to lose nearly 70,000 children to get closer to that honest discussion. Yet I am celebrating rather than upset; proud rather than concerned; and excited rather than nervous.
 
9
This post is about: Transparency, Impact, Philanthropy, Sustainability
Eric Stowe's picture
Posted by Eric Stowe
November 29, 2011
Rock Stars and Diapers

I met a famous Thai rock star today. So did the 400 kids I was with.

The rock star came to visit the Pakkred Home for Disabled Children, in Bangkok, where I was working. I was there to assure clean, safe water in their kitchen and cafeteria facilities. We were completing installation of a water purification system and needed to conduct quality checks and verify functionality of the system. The rock star was there "to make a special donation and express his charitable spirit." Even though we were both on-site for ostensibly similar reasons – to help the children – our thoughts and actions couldn’t have been more different.
 
The Pakkred Home houses and cares for more than 400 children from all over Thailand, ages 7-18, who have severe special needs. It is the largest of its kind in the country, and one of the better-run institutions I have partnered with in my eight years of doing this work.
 
Here’s what happened: The lunch bell rang. Children from throughout the campus were wheeled, carried, and assisted to their regular seats. Anxious to eat, the children’s meals were placed in front of them - yet nobody ate! I asked about the delay and was told they were waiting for "special visitors" who were filming a documentary. Two cars arrived, replete with one celebrity, three PR reps, a photographer and a videographer. Their donation: six bags of diapers, two bags of rice, a few cans of formula, and one stuffed animal.
 
I watched as nearly 100 children waited for over thirty minutes – hot meals going cold in front of them – for the celebrity to arrive and his videographer to capture the optimal shot. Once the right lighting and framing were achieved, I watched as the rock star, and members of his entourage, grabbed trays of food from waiting children. They then enacted carrying and serving those same meals, from the kitchen – on camera. Once done, the celebrity sat down with the interviewer to discuss his work with disabled children.
 
 
The children sang a lackluster song, rehearsed time and again for other celebrities and donor groups who routinely visit the site, the rock star congratulated his team, praise was passed around, and the video crew left full of smiles. In their wake, the children were given the OK to begin eating. They wolfed down their food in minutes. The staff then packed up the meager donation and wheeled it to the front of the building, where it sat for hours unattended.
 
 
We returned later, after closing hours, and there it all still sat – save for the rice which had already been cooked, eaten and fully depleted by dinner time.
 
 
The contribution, both ill conceived and entirely unsustainable, was provided as a feel good moment for the donor only. The rice was exhausted in an hour, the diapers will last little more than that. (And about that formula – Did the donor check to see if it is a brand the children are accustomed to? Is it appropriate? Or might it upset the already sensitive stomachs of the children who receive it?)
 
I recognize that it is easy to rally and rail against self-promotion disguised as charity, especially when contrived for a rock star’s media blitz. But that is not my purpose here. Instead I would like to spotlight a core deficiency in one-off contributions – generally speaking – and of poorly managed donations. For any charitable organization, this is fundamentally crucial terrain. And it is under-discussed (probably for fear of offending "well meaning people") across the sector.
 
Good intentions – combined with naiveté, or self-congratulation – can go awry. Imagine if the videographer had instead captured a thirty-minute wait, followed by a contrived act of service, then featured the headline "Celebrity makes children wait for food – then pretends to serve it!"  Only then would most people have perceived the true story – and the gravitas it carried. When we leave scenes like this un-critiqued, it hurts everyone.
 
Prior to launching Splash, I worked in international adoption. Over several years, I was privy to observing groups (often with honorable intentions) tout and publicize their "relief projects" to media, international governments and adoptive families alike. Quietly in my mind, I called these "diaper donations" – as this "relief" consisted, more often than not, of people traveling great lengths to spend five minutes with a group of marginalized children to drop off a few bags of formula, clothing and diapers. Very infrequently was this model challenged by those in a position to do so.
 
What I am describing, here, is actually the context wherein Splash came to be conceived. I tried to figure out a meaningful, measurable, and sustainable intervention to improve the health and development of children in the orphanages I worked in – something that was vital for the children, requested by the staff, and previously lacking in the institutions. The answer didn’t reside in cheap clothing, it wasn’t fostered with a few grocery bags of produce, and it certainly wouldn’t be realized by a week’s worth of diapers, nor a day’s worth of formula. Safe water, in this situation, sat at the crossroads of all factors I was considering. It has become the lifeblood of our work ever since.
 
It took years of obsessive focus to codify our approach, and to develop a model that could even come close to being regarded as sustainable. We are continually refining our work to ensure the best and most far-reaching solutions for the children we serve. Yet even at our advancing stages of development, we conduct our work with a healthy dose of humility. We believe we must continually learn. So when I see antiquated, inadequate and truly untenable "diaper donations" being repeated, it is incredibly disheartening.
 
 
Our work centers on seeing these children have clean water at their disposal daily. Whether on day one or day two thousand, safe water should no longer be a thing they worry about, or are negatively impacted by. And we are staking our reputation on ensuring this is the constant reality. This requires a ton of hard work to build the base, a handful of failures to continually learn from, deep collaboration with the communities we serve to ensure sustainability, and open minds and ready ears to ensure successive growth. It is a much tougher and complicated route, but we will take that any day over the fluffy narrative of "diaper donations" and self-praising back patting.
 
Sadly, the water sector is rife with these types of donations: short lived photo-op contributions of filters, wells, hand washing and toilet projects that are uninspired, go unsupported, and remain unprotected for long term use. These may have a greater immediate impact than the offerings from the rock star that I cringe at, but they don’t have staying power.
 
We are a small agency—fairly young, and relatively unknown - but we know what types of projects we don’t want to emulate. To ensure our work is both needed and sustainable will cost us more, require greater bandwidth, assume trial and error, and necessitate a ton of innovation. But we won’t, and can’t, take part in the small thinking and weak impact of "diaper donations". (Imagine popping through for five minutes and dropping off a water filter!)
 
The work of our Splash team is based on listening to our local partners closely; building trustworthy partnerships (and if not, stepping back); assessing real needs; collaboratively planning solutions; training the students and staff for success; and being driven by a guiding vision of sustainable, locally appropriate solutions.
 
3
This post is about: Impact, Don't Do This
Peter Drury's picture
Posted by Peter Drury
October 19, 2011
Follow Your Gift

I remember making a stretch-gift to a children’s organization back in… oh, let’s see… was it 2007?

I can still picture the event: where I sat, what we ate, who I met… I remember pushing myself to give more, because their work was so compelling to me personally. But I wonder now where my gift went? Where is it now?
 
I like the organization—I still support them—but I honestly don’t feel crystal clear about where my 2007 gift went, or what impact it really made (beyond reducing somebody’s budget gap). It would sure be nice to be able to go somewhere, log in, and see what difference my gift is continuing to make four years later.
 
The most important things I’ve learned about fundraising, I’ve learned as a donor. As a donor, I part with my money because I want to make a difference on something I deeply believe in. I don’t just give money away because I can’t think of anything else to do with it! So I like standout organizations that help me follow my gift, through time, allowing me to see the plant that grew up from the seed that I gave.
 
When we designed our new website for Splash, the team thought first and foremost about how we could keep our friends and supporters in touch with their own impact over time. We don’t think of donations as “cash” or “one-time” or even a “transaction.” We believe donations are gifts—investments of good intention—and are to be treated with respect for their dignity and purpose.
 
Just last weekend I received an unexpected gift: I got to see my old “brother” Arturo, a former exchange student from Mexico, who lived with my family when we were in high school—over 25 years ago. We laughed and reminisced as we brought our new families together for a wonderful meal. At the end of the dinner, Arturo presented me with a thoughtful gift: a warm pullover jacket from his home in Guadalajara. I like it a lot. I can hardly wait for the right weather to wear it—not so much because it will be warm and cozy (which it will), but because it will carry for me good memories, strong feelings, and friendship across time and borders.
 
Arturo’s gift is something I will cherish for years to come. In like manner, gifts to Splash are something we will continue to honor, to remember, and to uphold. We would like every donor to be able to follow their gift—as it makes an impact in the world, and also inside their selves. In short, we don’t want you to give your money away; we want you to put your money to work and be able to watch its impact grow.
0
This post is about: Impact, Philanthropy
Eric Stowe's picture
Posted by Eric Stowe
October 06, 2011
Fewer Orphans in China
Things are changing in China’s orphanages. It is not the same old story you’ve always heard.
 
In our work over the past decade, we have watched orphanages throughout China reduce their numbers — sometimes by more than 75%. In the starkest of examples, we know of some that in 2003 had over 1,000 children but today have fewer than 100. We have watched whole wings close, and have also seen mergers of previously separate orphanages, due to reductions in numbers of incoming children.
 
We can’t claim to understand all the angles and drivers that have made this trend true. But from our vantage point we do view three primary factors, particularly in the last five years:
 
  1. There have been far fewer abandonments of children throughout the country. The greatest impact has been along the coastlines where the majority of orphanages exist. Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang and Jiangxi provinces previously had the greatest influx of orphans, and have the highest percentage of orphanages per province anywhere in the country. While their numbers are still high, the rate of children entering has slowed significantly. Whether this is due primarily to economic or social factors, we can’t say. But the trend is welcomed.
  2. Beginning in 2005, for the first time, China witnessed domestic adoptions outpace international adoptions. There were nearly 13,000 adoptions from China into foreign countries that year, and there were more than 25,000 adoptions within China. This has continued to be true since 2005, with the gap growing in favor of domestic adoption. A cultural shift has taken place in many cities allowing citizens to re-envision what family means and how adoption can now fit into their definition.
  3. The Chinese government has pushed hard for most orphaned children to live in a foster care setting (rather than in an institutional one). In fact, nearly every orphanage we work with now has a foster program that has in turn provided for stark reductions in the number of children who actually live on site. Unlike the situation just 5 years ago, the majority of children now residing in orphanages throughout China are considered ‘special needs'. These are primarily children who have either mental or physical challenges and are considered harder to adopt or foster.
 
Any of the above factors, taken individually, would have a positive effect on China’s orphan population. However, when viewed collectively they have had dramatic effects throughout the country.
 
While it is a story that remains virtually untold, much of this incredible transformation has been made possible by rapidly shifting policies, both nationally and provincially. Whatever misgivings people may have of the Chinese government, one thing is certain: they have done an incredible job on behalf of China’s orphans in the last few years. As an organization, we aren’t in the business of praising governments, but we do stand proudly alongside those Chinese officials responsible for this sea change, and we are grateful for the opportunity to work collaboratively with them.
 

 

0
This post is about: China Orphanage Update
Stephen Jones's picture
Posted by Stephen Jones
July 06, 2011
Righting A Wrong
If you’ve followed the work of Splash closely over the last two years there is a good chance you’ve seen this photo. It’s one of our favorites. Look at that sunlight breaking through, just above the student’s heads, as they dutifully wait in line for their first sip of safe, clean, wonderful water. We love this photo so much that we made it our primary Cambodia photo in the 2009 Annual Report.
 
 
It is a deceptively beautiful photo. I say ‘deceptive’ because it could easily seduce the viewer into believing it is the whole story. However, it doesn’t document all of the hard work undertaken by volunteers from San Francisco, California, who both paid for and oversaw the construction of Kravan Primary School – a small school of 400+ children existing within the Angkor Wat Temple Complex. The photo doesn’t wax eloquent about the ingenuity of solar panels supplying the school with electricity. Neither does it capture the fruit and vegetable gardens that a local organization, Caring for Cambodia, helps maintain.
 
Most of all, it doesn’t tell the story of Kravan Primary School’s current water situation.
 
When the team at Splash reflects together out loud, we have come to characterize the point of installation (of our water purification systems) as not an ending, but a beginning. It is true that there is much to celebrate, that it has taken a lot of work to get this to point, and that there’s a wonderful sense of accomplishment… but it is not true that it signifies completion. Truly, our work begins on the day the water first flows.
 
 
Would a musician walk on stage and consider her first song the end of the concert, just because she had rehearsed so long and finally sang a song? Would a great chef prepare your meal, then not care to stay and see if it met with your satisfaction? (Would you let a hair stylist take one snip and call the job done?) We think not.
 
Check out the latest photos from Kravan. Not quite as beautiful, are they?
 
 
The first two photos show us what happens when too much dissolved iron – which occurs naturally in water and spikes severely in this region’s summer months – enters into the Splash purification system. For all of its amazing features and functions, it cannot, like most filtration systems, remove dissolved iron. (It’s important to note that iron at this level isn’t actually harmful, but it will cause your water to taste like a mouth full of pennies.)
 
The third photo tells a slightly different story. What caused the damage to the carbon filters here? Not iron, but rats.
 
But this is the point – technology didn’t fail Kravan Primary School. Rats didn’t ruin this water project. The factors that contributed to its failure are a bit harder to capture, not as easy to focus in on. While these photos likely won’t make next year’s annual report, we want to show them to you here and have an honest conversation about what happened.
 
In early 2011, Kravan experienced a solid dose of transition within it’s core leadership. The group which had done so much to get the school up and running decided it was time to set their eyes on new projects. During that time, the primary caretaker for the Splash filtration system also moved on to a new school. Unfortunately, as we learned too late, the caretaker did not pass along his knowledge of routine maintenance, much less the importance of communication with the Splash staff. The system wound up with no ‘owner’ and it ultimately failed.
 
Here is the good news: the last photos aren’t the end of the story.
 
Our team is committed to Kravan Primary School. We are committed to bringing this system back online and making sure that we can take more beautiful photos of children with clean water. We are currently working with Kravan’s new leadership team to make sure this happen. And it will.
 
We’d like for you to follow along with us as we make this right. Please keep an eye on Kravan School on our ProvingIt website. (Kravan Primary School ) There you will be able to view real-time updates from the field on progress that is being made. We look forward to sharing more beautiful photos with you – and we hope you will help hold us accountable to get this story back to a place of true beauty.
 
0
This post is about: Lessons Learned
Aaron Walling's picture
Posted by Aaron Walling
May 14, 2011
Surprised By Iron
Starting in late 2010, at several sites in Kathmandu, Splash Nepal staff began witnessing extremely high spikes in iron content evident in well water. The iron started causing problems – problems so great you wonder if you can solve them – to the water filtration systems we typically consider to be immensely durable.
 
At four different locations, the ultrafiltration membranes became completely clogged.
 
 
Facing this unexpected problem, and with 25 projects standing ready in the pipeline for installation, Splash staff rapidly mobilized to identify appropriate solutions. (We were also really disappointed, but there was little time to dwell on that.) We consulted with several water engineers, who suggested that the best solution would be chlorine dosing, thereby oxidizing the iron so that it could, in turn, be more easily removed by the filter.
 
Two chlorine-dosing pilots were undertaken but the results were not satisfactory. At the same time, a local Nepali-designed solution was brought to our attention. Pilot projects confirmed that this local solution was not only highly effective, but could also be readily installed and maintained through local technicians.
 
The local Nepali system is based on aeration of water, then removal of most iron, prior to having the water enter the Splash system. At sites at risk of such high iron lodes, we now begin by pre-treating the water through this imminently local technology. To date, Splash has installed 15 of these iron removal systems. Specifically, the systems entail:
  • Water is pumped up to a rooftop tower.  A waterfall effect is created, with water moving through three trays. This exposes the water to oxygen and thereby oxidizes the iron. 
  • Oxidized iron is subsequently removed from the water as it flows through a 500 gallon tank, filled with sand. 
  • Once the iron has been aerated, oxidized and filtered out, it is ready to go enter the Splash filtration system.
 
 
Splash believes that this blend of the best of global and local technology proves an innovative, sustainable and effective way of making water safe to drink. The standard Splash equipment is the best solution for biological contaminants, whereas local technology is the best intervention for chemical and metal contaminants.  But don’t just take our word for it – let the children who drink this water on a daily basis tell you the difference it makes – not only now but for decades to come. 
0
This post is about: Lessons Learned