SAVING THE BABIES:

LOOKING UPSTREAM FOR

SOLUTIONS

By
Steven E. Mayer, Ph.D.

January 4, 2008
Revised 7/29/08

Created with support from the

Ford Foundation
for JustPhilanthropy.org

Effective Communities LLC

45 University Avenue SE / #706 · Minneapolis, MN 55414 · USA

www.effectivecommunities.com
www.JustPhilanthropy.org
 SAVING THE BABIES:
LOOKING UPSTREAM FOR SOLUTIONS
Steven E. Mayer, Ph.D.
Effective Communities, LLC

The story below 1 lifts up a key dilemma underlying much of philanthropy. It’s a parable
illustrating a dilemma of choice. It tells of how difficult it can be to pick among
alternatives for the best way to “do good” and “make a difference.” What is the right
choice? Or even a good choice? And if there’s a group of us, do we all have to make the
same choice? These questions have big implications for how philanthropic organizations,
giving circles, and individuals approach challenging issues facing society.

The story: One day a group of villagers was working in the fields by a river.
Suddenly someone noticed a baby floating downstream. A woman rushed out and
rescued the baby, brought it to shore and cared for it. During the next several
days, more babies were found floating downstream, and the villagers rescued
them as well. But before long there was a steady stream of babies floating
downstream. Soon the whole village was involved in the many tasks of rescue
work: pulling these poor children out of the stream, ensuring they were properly
fed, clothed, and housed, and integrating them into the life of the village. While
not all the babies, now very numerous, could be saved, the villagers felt they were
doing well to save as many as they did.

Before long, however, the village became exhausted with all this rescue work.
Some villagers suggested they go upstream to discover how all these babies were
getting into the river in the first place. Had a mysterious illness stricken these
poor children? Had the shoreline been made unsafe by an earthquake? Was some
hateful person throwing them in deliberately? Was an even more exhausted
village upstream abandoning them out of hopelessness?

A huge controversy erupted in the village. One group argued that every possible
hand was needed to save the babies since they were barely keeping up with the
current flow. The other group argued that if they found out how those babies were
getting into the water further upstream, they could repair the situation up there
that would save all the babies and eliminate the need for those costly rescue
operations downstream.

“Don’t you see,” cried some, “if we find out how they’re getting in the river, we
can stop the problem and no babies will drown? By going upstream we can
eliminate the cause of the problem!”

1
This version is composed from several variations heard by the author, and this paper was greatly aided by
advice from Arthur Himmelman, Danielle Hicks, Charlotte Kahn, Ricardo Millett, Barbara Raye, Jim
Richardson, Carol Simonetti, and Gary Stern.

© Effective Communities, LLC Page 1 of 4 January 4, 2008

 “But it’s too risky,” said the village elders. “It might fail. It’s not for us to change
the system. And besides, how would we occupy ourselves if we no longer had this
to do?”

This parable is told in different ways for different audiences with different emphases. For
our purposes, it illustrates a dilemma of choice. Do we direct our philanthropic assets to
rescuing victims or to making sure babies don’t fall into the water? The answer for
society is probably both, at least for the foreseeable future, because we do have to take
care of the victims. But we also owe it to ourselves and everybody else to cut down or
even eliminate the tragedy caused by something upstream that’s causing these babies to
fall into the water.

As individual “philanthropists,” however, chances are we each have different

inclinations, just as the villagers in the story did. Some of us, perhaps because we’re
reminded of how we were fished out of the river, want to be sure there are rescue options
for other victims. Others of us, perhaps because we’re angry at the system that
victimized so many, want to fix the system so our brothers and sisters and neighbors
won’t become the next victims.

These two basic options are clearly not the same. The first, while taking care of the
victims, does not address the underlying causes of the problem. The second, while fixing
the system to produce a more level playing field, does nothing to address the needs of
current victims.

The first approach, for which our systems of charity and social services have been
developed, is better funded in this society. The second, which requires efforts to create
change in the way our systems and market work, is far less funded.

Why is that? The vocabulary may have something to do with it. The term “social
change” can arouse suspicion and animosity in some people, especially in those people
who are uncomfortable acknowledging the power dynamics that are usually unspoken.
The term “social change” is part of the same category of emotionally-laden terms as
“racial equity,” “social justice,” “advocacy,” “activism,” and “reform.” The political
overtones are clear. Who has power? Is that OK? Can’t they share some? Why can’t we
just leave things alone? What we have is at least familiar; change is unpredictable and
scary. The terms “social service” or “charity,” on the other hand, sound nice and non-
threatening, humane and charitable. They’re familiar and predictable. Service is not
necessarily justice, but it can take you there.

In our Pathways to Progress project (www.JustPhilanthropy.org), we are looking for

ways to make a difference in the chronic problems of society -- problems of justice and
fairness -- so that our systems and markets work the same for everyone regardless of race,
gender, or circumstances of birth.

So, back to the story, the dilemma of choice. Are we content to rescue the children and
help them regain their lives? Or do we go upstream, see what’s happening, and create

© Effective Communities, LLC Page 2 of 4 January 4, 2008

solutions that prevent unnecessary loss of life? If we looked upstream, we could find any
number of things.

Maybe it was a mysterious illness that had stricken these poor children. We could
then search for a cure, and make sure that in the future they get the proper
treatment.

Maybe the shoreline had been made unsafe by an earthquake. We could restore
the shoreline, or put up fencing, or teach children how to swim.

Maybe there was some hateful person throwing them in deliberately. We could
preach against hate, or keep that person away from children, or them the arts of
self-protection.

Unfortunately, even knowing the problem doesn’t guarantee that we’re of one mind about
a solution. Lots of things could be contributing to the problem, and many legitimate
approaches could contribute to their solution.

So, how do we choose what to do with our own time, talent, and treasure, and our
community’s collective time, talent, and treasure? Some guidelines:

Satisfy yourself that an investment of effort “here” has a good chance of affecting
things “there,” that there’s a connection between your effort and a consequence
for others.

Draw on the imagination, intelligence, resources, and skills of all those in the
village – not necessarily to produce a unified effort, but to make sure that you’re
using all your assets.

Encourage the search for solutions. Invest in the leadership of the best and the
brightest, help them achieve, and hold them accountable.

You can see there are lots of choices that can be made, and that your voice and your
assets have the power to make change.

© Effective Communities, LLC Page 3 of 4 January 4, 2008