GOAL 3's model carries real risks, and this page sets them out alongside what GOAL 3 does about each. Some come from the hybrid structure itself, others from working in health systems that are already under pressure. We set them out so funders can weigh them before committing, and so we can be held to the safeguards while delivering.
<aside>
</aside>
How philanthropic funding is kept from benefiting the Social Enterprise or its shareholders, and how conflicts of interest are handled.
<aside>
</aside>
How we address alarm fatigue, over-reliance on monitoring, system downtime and the protection of patient data.
<aside>
</aside>
What happens if local financing grows more slowly than planned, recurring costs go unpaid, government procurement is delayed or philanthropic funding shrinks.
<aside>
</aside>
The risks of scaling faster than quality allows, depending on partners, staff turnover in hospitals, and supply-chain and country-level disruptions.
<aside>
</aside>
The Evidence Summary Dashboard sets out the evidence base and its limits, so this section states them briefly rather than restating the analysis. The strongest clinical evidence comes from a small number of paediatric wards in Malawi. Several neonatal findings are not yet published. The main analyses use modelled counterfactuals rather than concurrent control groups, and ongoing studies are designed to address this. Results should not be assumed to transfer unchanged to every future hospital.
Additionally, cost-effectiveness figures depend on assumptions that vary by site. The study-based cost of approximately US$2.90 per admitted child annualises system cost over a seven-year lifetime and around 3,000 admissions a year. A ward with half that patient volume carries roughly double the cost per admission. Importantly, GOAL 3’s response is to report limitations alongside results to keep generating controlled evidence, and to treat the planning figures as assumptions that will be revised as data arrives.
<aside>
</aside>
The safeguards described above are supported by a set of controls that apply across projects: eligibility and allocation criteria for Foundation funded projects, a local cost-sharing and ownership requirement, transparent five-year cost models, phased scale-up rather than volume-led deployment, usage and uptime monitoring, external evaluation, and project reporting to funders that distinguishes financial attribution from health outcomes.