Katine schoolboy William Adungo, whose story prompted readers to offer direct financial assistance. Photograph: Richard M Kavuma
We have a dilemma. Several readers have written in and offered very generously to make a contribution to a particular person whom we have written about on the site. One reader wanted to pay for the lunch of a particular schoolboy whom we had featured at length.
She was very concerned that this boy - like most children in Katine - can't concentrate on his lessons because he is so hungry. Typically, children don't eat their one-meal-a-day until late afternoon.
But Amref has a policy of not allowing sponsorship of individuals. There has been a long history to this issue. When I first visited Uganda in 1993, I came back wanting to "do something" and ActionAid was offering a sponsorship scheme so my husband and I duly signed up to both sponsor a child. We used to get letters occasionally and the odd drawing. I have to admit that these communications didn't make much of an impact; they seemed too much like rote.
I felt as if some child in Uganda was having to write letters to total strangers as a form of homework. But ActionAid stressed that the sponsorship was for the whole community and that everyone benefited, not just the child.
But fifteen years on, such schemes are very hard to find amongst mainstream UK aid agencies. The consensus emerged that such sponsorship is divisive because it singles individuals out when in fact it is better to work with communities.
Also, it adds to the administrative burden of the aid agency; someone has to put in a lot of organisation to gather all those letters and to make sure they get sent to the right donor - for what? So that the donor feels good that there is some individual child benefiting from their money? It is often not a cost-effective way of using funds.
So Amref has a policy that it works with the whole community and it cannot be seen to favour any individual. For some of the Guardian journalists visiting Katine, this rule can be very difficult; often, the journalists are given a huge amount of help and friendship by the people they meet. It is only understandable that when they return, they might want to take a small present - such as a bar of soap, or some pencils - for the people who have helped them.
But Amref insists that this kind of present-giving can set up expectations which can hamper the project. Obviously, if the arrival of a white skin and a jeep in a village comes to be associated instantly with presents, then the whole purpose of the project as one in which the community are being encouraged to organise themselves and take responsibility for their own wellbeing, can be undermined.
The stakes are high. One can see their point. But the reader who offered lunch for the hungry schoolboy was very disappointed and frustrated by Amref declining their kind offer.
It's interesting when you run this dilemma past middle class Ugandans in Kampala. Many of them will recount the story of how they spotted a bright young child and have since paid for their education. One woman told me with pride of how her sponsored child is now a teacher. Many well off Africans are often supporting many children through their education; one diaspora Kenyan admitted he was paying for 20 children, the offspring of relatives and friends.
'Sponsorship' is a very African idea; when you talk to successful Ugandans, many of them have benefited from someone giving some help - paying for a course, paying fees - which has transformed their life chances.
Now we face another dilemma on the Katine project. A reader has offered to pay for some training for a teacher. Amref is currently considering what to do about this request. Here is a keyworker in the community whose training would benefit Katine, so perhaps Amref should say yes. On the other hand, other teachers will resent the fact that this one individual has been singled out: why can't they also get training.
Amref will make the decision, but what advice would you give them?
