First  <<  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  >>  Last  

You just need to make sure that you're supporting responsible child sponsorship charities. While there are some that do a poor job, there are others that do a very good job. World Vision and Compassion, for instance, work with entire communities at a time so all children in the community receive help; children who lack a sponsor still receive help from the general fund while WV or Compassion look for a sponsor for them. If you're concerned contact charities and ask them how they do it.

Dan from California
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 3:03:14 AM

The article is very thought-provoking and I thank you for it.

Please give the date of the article. It seems dated although that does not detract from the excellent points the author writes.

Damani from Panama
Monday, April 6, 2009 at 8:08:19 PM

Sorry Af, but I don't see much benefit coming from engaging in a debate about child sponsorship. The individual organizations have information available that addresses the concerns you've raised; if you're truly interested in learning more, then the best way is to go directly to the source. All I foresee with a debate is a potential for things to turn nasty and give SK a black eye, with nobody's mind being changed anyway in the end.

Amy from Ohio
Monday, April 6, 2009 at 9:09:54 AM

and to Liz and the other supporters of sponsorship, hang around and persuade us of the merits of sponsorship. open discussion is a good thing. educating future leaders has its merits too. there are two sides, if not more, of most questions. so don't take your bat and ball, as the expression goes, and go home. a little respectful debate can't hurt.

Af from California
Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 9:09:35 PM

Your article on Child Sponsorships is just from one point of view and this can be misleading. Not all sponsorship programs are the same. Some are inefficient and selective with who they help. Others are VERY efficient, spend no money on "communication" or all the unnecessary aspects of these programs, and provide aid to all the children who need it. Sponsoring a child may not be what you want to do, but I don't think you should post such a one-sided article on it.

N from CO
Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 1:01:39 PM

its perhaps patronizing and divisive to "sponsor" a child. i would favor giving the funds to an indigenous NGO run by honest folks, or a water project, solar cookers, or disaster relief, or refugee camps, or doctors without borders, or a grameen type micro economic fund to help people raise themselves by their bootstraps rather than give handouts or promote graft

Af from California
Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 12:12:56 PM

I agree with Ashley on this one. Donating to an individual in poverty sort of assumes they live in a vacuum, which isn't the case. In reality we're just exacerbating existing inequalities and possibly putting a child at risk of other people that want the money we just gave them.

Matt from CT
Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 10:10:30 AM

(continued)
Also, be aware that a lot of SK supporters found our way here when organizations like Compassion International and World Vision were listed. You don't have to agree with child sponsorship, but just be aware that a lot of us do and are very committed to the cause. :) I think your blog was written respectfully, and I hope this comment is taken in a respectful tone also (as it's intended to be).

Amy from Ohio
Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 9:09:40 AM

The concerns about child sponsorship raised in the article and subsequent comments can be addressed fairly easily, but I know the comment wall isn't really the place for a point-by-point rebuttal. :) If you ultimately decide that you aren't comfortable with that idea, what about Caroline B.'s idea of microfinance? It seems to be a promising way to help those in extreme poverty help themselves out of it. (continued in next comment)

Amy from Ohio
Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 9:09:15 AM

I have to disagree with Liz. If you were donating money to a charity, wouldn't you want to know it if they were actually doing more harm than good? This is impossible if you demonize talking about the negative aspects of charities. Even if Compassion International loses donors, the former donors will probably give the same amount of money to different charities, possibly ones that are more effective. Stifling criticism leads to lack of accountability.

William J from Lancaster, PA
Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 12:12:29 AM

First  <<  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  >>  Last