The expansion from 100 to 300 orphans so quickly was good to see at the time, but reinvigorates my feeling we should pay the entire child's premium in advance. ...
The idea is this, the maximum age a child is in the sponsorship program is 22 years old (it can be as low as 18 and varies by country). So instead of expanding in the future, let's pay the remaining term off for each of our orphans. Then in future months, when times are good, adopt new orphans and pay their entire term in one fell swoop.
I do feel awful suggesting dropping 200 sponsored poor children ("orphan"). Although this doesn't remove our commitment as quickly, it provides a gradual (and better) way out from this financial obligation. If we assume, 15 years per child @ $39/mo, for 300 children, it'd be a ~$2M obligation? It'd take ~15 years if we paid ~$11k per month? 1 month vs 15 years, but no child is left behind. Even if BBP dies before 15 years, we leave a legacy where some children were fully sponsored until adulthood. I support this approach.
From a marketing standpoint, it is a lot easier to relate to a single sponsored child's growth than 300 random children.