Compassion International

Throughout my time in this course, I have been thinking a lot about the impact of various aid organizations. There are two that I have had a small level of involvement with that I have naturally been contemplating more. These are Compassion International and WAR international. I just wanted to take a couple of these blogs to discuss my thoughts on them and see if anyone else had opinions or information about them.

I’ll start with Compassion International. They are basically an organization that pairs sponsors with a specific child. The sponsor gives a sum of money each month, most of which goes to the child’s education and health. It is a faith-based organization, so resources also fund church-related activities, but the overall priority seems to be fighting poverty through education and health, including care for mothers. The sponsor and child also exchange letters. The thing that I had liked originally about the organization is that they have people staying in the locations of the children being sponsored on a long-term basis. They work with locals and the parents to find out what the actual needs of the child are. Additionally, when sponsors purchase birthday or Christmas presents for the child, they do not select the actual items. Those who are on-site in the child’s area select what is best suited for the child. These factors appealed to me, because I know that it is difficult, if at all possible, to determine the needs of someone whose culture and environment you do not understand. A lot of our readings have established that partnership with the community is essential for effectively delivering aid.

However, this organization is not perfect. I understand that people at times take issue with faith-based organizations, but I’m not going to discuss that here. My biggest concerns were with how sponsors are paired with children and how the situation is framed by the organization. Sponsors select the child or children they want to support by looking through pictures coupled with information about the children and their area. My worry is that people will be more likely to select children that they think look “cute,” leaving, for lack of a better term, less physically attractive children with a lowered chance of being paired with a sponsor. The organization does identify children that are “more in need of help” with the child’s information. Specifically, they label those who have been waiting for a sponsor for over six months and those are in areas with a higher prevalence of HIV.

My final concern was the manner in which they sometimes frame the sponsor-child relationship. The advertisements clearly use “hero” terminology. I feel like this is extremely common for aid organizations targeting the Western world. It is a persuasive technique playing on people’s desire to be a hero, make a difference, and feel good about themselves because of it. The concern is that this will perpetuate the inequality between the groups. Those providing aid will continue to view themselves as the powerful providing a service to those in need rather than equals facilitating the fulfillment of the human right to health. But, I suppose that framing the action as heroic rather than a duty is more persuasive. So what matters more, persuading people to donate money or promoting an ideology of equality?