But i found some critism regarding World Vision.
Would like to share here..
Any idea?
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
In a report on famine in Ethiopia, reporter Andrew Geoghegan visited his 14 year old sponsor child. The girl has "been part of a World Vision program all her life" yet says (in translated subtitle) "Until recently, I didn't know I had a sponsor." and when asked about her knowledge of World Vision sponsorship says "Last time they gave me this jacket and a pen." Geoghegan was disconcerted to find that despite being "told by World Vision that [the girl] was learning English at school, and was improving... she speaks no English at all."[1]
In their response, World Vision states "World Vision unapologetically takes a community-based approach to development – a fact we publicly promote at every opportunity. Providing money directly to the families of sponsored children simply does not work, no matter how dire the circumstances. A ‘direct benefit' approach creates jealousy among community members that do not have sponsored children and fosters an ethos of dependency. So while sponsored children may receive some direct benefits – like school materials or a jacket for warmth – this in no way represents the entirety of our work in a community, and it was disingenuous for the Foreign Correspondent story to imply this."
It is clearly stated on the World Vision website: "When you make a gift, your contributions are pooled with that of other sponsors of children in the community where your child lives. Your child receives health care, education, nutritious food, and the entire community benefits from access to clean water, agricultural assistance, medical care, and more."
The journalist and producer were offered the chance to view the full breadth of work World Vision is undertaking in the community, in health, education and food security, but this offer was not accepted."[2]
Foreign Correspondent replied to World Vision. In part, that response reads: "Foreign Correspondent sought answers from World Vision representatives on why the organisation's literature creates the impression that donated money goes directly to the sponsor child. The World Vision representative failed to adequately respond to the questions and instead outlined the community projects where sponsor money is spent. Foreign Correspondent does not dispute the integrity of World Vision projects but questions the way sponsorship is promoted to the public. In its response, World Vision has ignored the reporter's surprise at finding his sponsor child speaks no English, yet he has been receiving regular reporters from the organisation that she's learning English at school and has a good command of the language. .., Andrew Geoghegan has sponsored Tsehaynesh Delago for a decade and yet she claims she was unaware, until recently, that she had a sponsor and says the only benefit she has ever received directly from World Vision is a pen and the denim jacket she wore on the day of filming."
The full response is at http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/World_Vision_FCPResponse.htm
In their response, World Vision states "World Vision unapologetically takes a community-based approach to development – a fact we publicly promote at every opportunity. Providing money directly to the families of sponsored children simply does not work, no matter how dire the circumstances. A ‘direct benefit' approach creates jealousy among community members that do not have sponsored children and fosters an ethos of dependency. So while sponsored children may receive some direct benefits – like school materials or a jacket for warmth – this in no way represents the entirety of our work in a community, and it was disingenuous for the Foreign Correspondent story to imply this."
It is clearly stated on the World Vision website: "When you make a gift, your contributions are pooled with that of other sponsors of children in the community where your child lives. Your child receives health care, education, nutritious food, and the entire community benefits from access to clean water, agricultural assistance, medical care, and more."
The journalist and producer were offered the chance to view the full breadth of work World Vision is undertaking in the community, in health, education and food security, but this offer was not accepted."[2]
Foreign Correspondent replied to World Vision. In part, that response reads: "Foreign Correspondent sought answers from World Vision representatives on why the organisation's literature creates the impression that donated money goes directly to the sponsor child. The World Vision representative failed to adequately respond to the questions and instead outlined the community projects where sponsor money is spent. Foreign Correspondent does not dispute the integrity of World Vision projects but questions the way sponsorship is promoted to the public. In its response, World Vision has ignored the reporter's surprise at finding his sponsor child speaks no English, yet he has been receiving regular reporters from the organisation that she's learning English at school and has a good command of the language. .., Andrew Geoghegan has sponsored Tsehaynesh Delago for a decade and yet she claims she was unaware, until recently, that she had a sponsor and says the only benefit she has ever received directly from World Vision is a pen and the denim jacket she wore on the day of filming."
The full response is at http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/World_Vision_FCPResponse.htm
This post has been edited by sjz: Feb 25 2009, 11:29 PM
Feb 25 2009, 11:27 PM
Quote
0.0124sec
0.39
7 queries
GZIP Disabled