When the Wells Run Dry

A peer-reviewed study in The Lancet estimated that substantial cuts and the effective abolition of USAID programs could lead to more than 14 million additional preventable deaths globally by 2030, including over 4.5 million deaths among children under five.

These numbers are too big, almost, to metabolise. Yet when large systems contract, responsibility doesn’t disappear. It decentralises.

While this might be a slight departure from my usual musings, I assure you this is not an article about politics, or the whys and wherefores that led to these cuts. It’s about how we respond. When the scaffolding shakes, how do we stand? Who are we when things get harder than we’d prefer?

So let’s talk practically, as individuals, as communities, and as actors within the social impact sector, about what can be done when global aid shrinks and the consequences are measured in human lives.

From helplessness to agency

As individuals, the first temptation is paralysis. “What can I possibly do about a million deaths?” Fair question. But scale can be a sedative. It lulls us into believing that unless we can solve everything, we should do nothing.

We cannot replace a multibillion-dollar aid program. But we can redirect our capital — financial, social, intellectual — toward high-leverage interventions. We can focus on leverage not volume by:

Supporting organisations with strong evidence of cost-effectiveness (malaria prevention, vaccinations, clean water access).
Funding local organisations operating in affected regions; they often have lower overhead and better contextual intelligence.
Considering recurring contributions rather than one-off emotional giving. Stability matters in unstable times.

For many men in midlife, the question is no longer “Can I afford to give?” but “What am I optimising for?” Another upgrade to the kitchen? Or underwriting the distribution of bed nets that cost less than dinner for two? I am not playing the guilt card, just affording a little clarity. There is no right or wrong, but there are consequences.

We can consider skills-based contribution. Money isn’t the only currency. Accountants can help nonprofits tighten compliance and reporting. Logistics professionals can improve supply chains. Technologists can optimise data systems. Lawyers can help navigate regulatory friction. Executives can mentor leaders in fragile contexts.

In Australia, check out sites like Kilfinan, Good Company, or Seek Volunteer for open opportunities. In Singapore, check out TalentTrust. In UK, Pilotlight. The second half of life is often when competence peaks. Use it. You’ve spent years becoming good at something. Don’t let that something retire before you do.

We can also expand our circle of concern. We can pay attention, by subscribing to reporting from credible local and global health and development outlets. We can choose to follow practitioners, not pundits.

The old man in us prefers comfort and familiar horizons. The wiser man widens his aperture.

Shrink the distance

When large institutions pull back, local and relational networks matter more. Communities, such as faith groups, civic associations, alumni networks, professional guilds, can act as force multipliers.

Collective giving and micro-pools are great examples. Instead of ten individuals giving modestly and sporadically, a group can create a pooled fund with intentional strategy.

Choose one focus area (e.g., maternal health, food security, water access).
Conduct light due diligence together.
Commit for a fixed period (12–24 months).
Track impact and share updates.

These kinds of giving circles and funding networks build not only funding continuity but shared meaning. Men, in particular, are often more comfortable “doing” than “feeling.” Collective projects provide an action-oriented structure that bypasses performative empathy and moves straight to contribution.

In Australia, https://www.thefundingnetwork.com.au/ offers white-label, “Dragons’ Den”-style giving sessions that companies can sponsor for their staff, clients, or partners. In these high-energy events, carefully selected charities pitch their work live, pledges are made in the room, and the sponsoring company typically match-funds the total raised, instantly doubling the impact.

It’s a practical, engaging way to democratise philanthropy within an organisation. Employees don’t just write a cheque; they hear directly from frontline leaders, ask questions, and collectively decide where funds go. The result is sharper giving, stronger team cohesion, and immediate, measurable support for high-impact social initiatives.

Abstractions often numb. Tangible projects mobilise. We can choose to focus on specific outcomes to motivate fundraising activity:

Fund a rural clinic’s annual medicine supply.
Sponsor a school feeding program.
Partner with a clean water initiative to finance a specific well or filtration system.

Even better, we can try building relationships with the implementing organisation. For example inviting a field leader to speak virtually to your group. Learn the constraints they face. Let the work become personal. Distance dehumanises, while proximity dignifies.

Global instability has ripple effects that can be mitigated by building resilience on the home front. Communities that cultivate local resilience — food networks, emergency response capacity, strong social ties — are better positioned to extend generosity outward.

Charity without local cohesion becomes brittle. Resilient communities generate surplus capacity. This is less about isolationism, and more about systems thinking.

Adaptation over nostalgia

For organisations operating in the development and humanitarian space, the contraction of funding is existential. Some will close. Some will merge. Some will pivot. The question is not how to restore the past. It is how we evolve.

In times of abundance, inefficiencies can hide. In contraction, they become fatal. In response, organisations are starting to double down on:

Clear theories of change.
Transparent metrics.
Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Honest reporting of both success and failure.

Meanwhile, donors (institutional and individual) will increasingly demand evidence, and that’s OK. This is not antagonistic behaviour, rather it is an example of good stewardship and is to be encouraged. If it forces us to ask hard questions of ourselves, so much the better. The sector must shift from storytelling that tugs heartstrings to storytelling that demonstrates outcomes. Data with a soul, stories framed in terms the listener will understand.

Meanwhile, when large international actors reduce their footprint, local organisations often remain and become more critical. Investing in local leadership:

Reduces costs.
Improves cultural alignment.
Strengthens long-term capacity.
Avoids the “fly-in, fly-out” model that can create dependency.

This requires humility from larger NGOs and funders. Power must be shared. Decision-making must move closer to the communities affected. It is operationally smart to invest in capacity building for long term viability and scale.

Overreliance on a single funding source, governmental or otherwise, is a structural vulnerability. Forward-looking organisations will:

Build individual donor bases.
Cultivate corporate partnerships aligned with mission.
Explore impact investment models where appropriate.
Develop earned-income components when feasible.

Resilience in funding mirrors resilience in ecosystems: diversity prevents collapse.

In these times, collaboration makes way more sense than competition. Scarcity often triggers territorial behaviour. But fragmentation wastes resources.

Shared procurement, joint programming, data-sharing agreements, and coordinated advocacy reduce duplication and increase efficiency. In practical terms: fewer branded banners, more shared back-office systems. The people at risk do not care whose logo is on the truck. They care that the truck arrives.

Refusing cynicism

There is another casualty in times like these: hope. When institutions falter, cynicism presents itself as maturity. “This is how the world works.” “Nothing ever really changes.” “It’s all corrupt anyway.”

But cynicism is a luxury belief. It costs the speaker nothing. It costs the vulnerable everything.

For those in midlife, especially men accustomed to equating strength with control, there is a deeper test. Can you act meaningfully without controlling the entire outcome? Can you contribute without applause? Can you stay engaged without turning it into a tribal argument? That is grown-man work. It takes effort. The effort is worth it.

In the Don’t Let The Old Man In podcast series, we sometimes talk about the internal drift toward smallness. The old man says:

“I’ve done my part.”
“It’s too complicated.”
“Someone else will handle it.”
“It’s political; I don’t want to get involved.”

The wiser voice says:

“What’s mine to carry?”
“Where can I be useful?”
“Who can I strengthen?”
“How do I age into responsibility, not retreat?”

Midlife is not a time to withdraw from the world’s pain. It’s a time to metabolise it differently. We don’t need outrage. We need conviction.

A practical framework

Here’s a grounded exercise. Take 1% of:

Your discretionary spending.
Your professional bandwidth.
Your network introductions.
Your attention.

What would happen if you decided to redirect it intentionally toward high-impact local, community-based, or even global humanitarian work? One percent will not bankrupt you. But aggregated across communities of capable adults, it becomes serious capital.

If you’re leading a company, what would it look like to allocate 1% of corporate social responsibility funds toward evidence-backed global health work? If you’re part of a professional association, could 1% of annual conference revenue fund a targeted intervention?

Small percentages, consistently applied, compound. Just like fitness, investing and wisdom.

Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free

The long view

Large-scale aid contractions are not the first in history. They will not be the last. Human progress has never been linear. Gains are made, reversed, and remade. The deeper question is whether capable people remain engaged across the cycles.

We cannot prevent every tragedy. But we can prevent our own disengagement. When we step toward responsibility rather than away from it, something in us strengthens.

Contribution organises the psyche. Generosity stabilises identity. Purpose metabolises anxiety. We may not save 14 million lives. But we might save fifty. Or five. Or one.

And in doing so, we prevent a more subtle loss — the erosion of our own moral muscle.

When big systems fail, smaller systems must rise. Individuals. Communities. Lean, adaptive organisations. Competent adults who refuse to drift into spectator mode.

We do not need grand gestures. We need disciplined ones. The old man wants comfort, yet the wiser man chooses contribution. In uncertain seasons, that choice (repeated quietly, consistently) becomes a form of leadership. And leadership, especially now, is simply this: refusing to look away, and doing what we can with what we have.

Don’t let the old man in.

—

This post was previously published on The Wisdom Vault.

***