Ship of Fools: The Kid On The Fridge

Thread: The Kid On The Fridge Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025923

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

We have sponsored children through various organisations in the past, and for quite some years now we have been sponsoring a young woman from a poor community in India who has nearly finished her nursing training.

I suppose we have always been aware of criticisms of the theory and practice of such systems, but it has never occurred to me to actually go looking for studies assessing their effectiveness.

This article is encouraging.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/june/want-to-change-world-sponsor-child.html

Any thoughts on, or first-hand experiences of, child sponsorship?

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :

I have sponsored a girl, in Kenya, for many years and was absolutely heartbroken when she and her family were 'displaced' during the riots a few years ago. Having seen her grow, and seen the changes in her letters, from the first where she had not done anything other than a scribble to the last one, 8 years later which she had written totally herself was immense. And added to the pain that I had felt a connection with this child, her family and then all of a sudden that was gone.

I had a break, and currently sponsor another child with the same organisation but to my shame, I am much poorer at writing to him than I used to be etc.

So, I have experience of being someone who sponsors, but I also have friends who work for the charity I go through, who have been out to some of the countries they work in, have met their own children they sponsor, and who see and now first hand how it changes the lives of the child, their family and the communities around them.

A few years ago, when I was working for a christian charity myself, I met and made friends with a guy, who had come over to the UK to 'serve' a group of churches, because he felt he had to give back to the country of the people who had seen him sponsored through the charity I support.

Becoming good friends with him, hearing his life story, meeting some of his family and hearing from him how it impacted him will always always stay with me.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horatio Harumph:
Having seen her grow, and seen the changes in her letters, from the first where she had not done anything other than a scribble to the last one, 8 years later which she had written totally herself was immense.

We have had a similar experience, HH.

Our girl's first letters were written in Tamil which someone translated.

Today, a young woman, she writes for herself in English.

Years ago our daughter visited her in her isolated rural village, and was exquisitely embarrassed to be seated on a dais, wearing a garland, where she had to eat a large meal while the whole village looked on.

They had even, somehow, provided Coke and Pepsi, because they "knew" that all Westerners drank one or the other!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I think 'financial adoption' programmes can be ok. Once we tried to set one up in Brazil (where families from Brazil itself would financially adopt a child from the favela), with limited success. I prefer adoption programmes where not only the child benefits but also the community (like for example the ones from Plan).

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
not only the child benefits but also the community

As I understand it, that is how schemes such as Compassion and World Vision work.

They operate by a sort of harmless fiction thar your contributions are going to "your" child.

In fact, you are supporting an organisation which sets up community projects of which the child is a part.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Mrs Martian and I sponsor a Bangladeshi girl through World Vision. Thus far it seems to be going well.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I sponsored for several years but stopped because the following made me uncomfortable (and don't seem to be addressed in the linked-to research):

what effects does it have on the children who are NOT sponsored?

what effect does it have on the families of sponsored children?

does sponsoring make us feel good and think we are doing our bit when, actually, there are deeper, systemic causes which need addressing? ie instead of doing ambulance work with individual casualties, shouldn't we be addressed further up the road at what causes these casualties in the first place?

how does it feel for a sponsored child to write a letter to and have his/her school reports sent to a person from a foreign country whom s/he is unlikely ever to meet? might s/he have divided loyalties between sponsor and parents?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

The reasons leo mentions is why I find it better that the money goes to a community and not to a single child. I believe most serious sponsoring programmes do that already.

I do believe that it's important that an organization is honest about this though: when the financial foster parents think that all the money go to 'their' child, it might be a shock if they find out that it goes to the community.

I didn't know that in some programmes the correspondence includes sending school reports. For me this crosses a line of privacy already.

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

I sponsored a child in Viet Nam through World Vision until the project came to an end, and now I sponsor a girl in Bangladesh.

If the projects give hope for a future then I am all for it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I didn't know that in some programmes the correspondence includes sending school reports. For me this crosses a line of privacy already.

It was Action Aid that included school reports when i started giving to it in 1974.

I stopped sponsoring individual children when 'mine' went missing from Rwanda during the tutsi/hutu genocide - her school was attacked so either she fled to the forests pr was killed.
Since then, I've asked for my money to go into the general pot.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

SOS Africa still send school reports.

This article has a good summary of the pros and cons of sponsorship.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Your comments are exactly the sort of thing I had in mind in my reference to "criticisms" in my OP, Leo.

I suppose it boils down to deciding whether it is better to help some kids through a flawed support system, or to refuse to become involved in a band-aid policy when the real problem is large-scale and systemic, even though there is little or nothing most of us can do about it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Kaplan Corday: I suppose it boils down to deciding whether it is better to help some kids through a flawed support system, or to refuse to become involved in a band-aid policy when the real problem is large-scale and systemic, even though there is little or nothing most of us can do about it.

I don't know. If the money does go to programmes that help to strengthen the community, then this might be a good strategy to address the large-scale and systemic problems. I guess it all depends on how the organization does it.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I sponsored for several years but stopped because the following made me uncomfortable (and don't seem to be addressed in the linked-to research):

what effects does it have on the children who are NOT sponsored?

what effect does it have on the families of sponsored children?

I don't know about the exact way this works on the ground, but I have verified that with the schemes operated by both World Vision and Compassion, the vast majority of the funds are a "general" investment into sustainable developments for the entire community. The effect on other families in this respect is good.

The "personal" part of it is extremely minimal but not so small to be a "harmless fiction", and I do know that Compassion do filter out any inappropriate letters that go either way, and they require that their workers oversee any visit by a sponsor to a sponsored family's village.

In general I think it is a very good thing, especially with World Vision* and Compassion which are both generally regarded as very transparent and accountable organisations. I'm not so sure about many of the others though.

* yes, I am aware that World Vision has come under fire in the past for their workers driving around in recent vehicles, and with the amount of aid they were 'losing' to warlords in Somalia. I was also quite satisfied with their open responses to both criticisms - the vehicles being donated (verified by the organisations which donated recent ex-lease vehicles), and some aid being wasted being a necessary evil to get the rest of it into the country.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

We sponsored some children when our own children were young. I felt that our own sons were so fortunate, growing up in an area with plentiful supplies of all they could ever need (food, health care, education, etc.) so it would be right to give some other children the chance to do the same.

The sponsorship was through TEAR Fund (I didn't know of other similar schemes at the time, and theirs seemed to be already well established). The plus points were that the whole family, and even the community was helped, not just the individual; there was regular contact from the child as to how he was getting on; my own children could write to them as penfriends and send drawings, stickers, bookmarks and other little gifts. Minus points were that the letters from the children seemed somehow unreal, talking about God in a way that made me feel uncomfortable, as if they were being indoctrinated. If the children decided to leave their church or school, the sponsorship stopped and we were told the child had left the programme - with no follow-up details supplied. There was the feeling that the children were only helped if they were good little boys and went to church as they were told. That may not be TEAR Fund's fault, but perhaps the indigenous church situation in the countries themselves.

So, after weighing up the pros and cons, I decided not to support additional children when the ones we already supported had left the scheme. I still wonder, from time to time, what happened to them - and whether they look back to their time in the sponsorship scheme as damaging indoctrination or a helpful start in life.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

I looked into this recently, and considered overseas sponsoring. However, I finally decided to sponsor a child in this country, which can be done through Barnardos.

Obviously, confidentiality is an even bigger issue when sponsor and sponsee could potentially turn up on each other's doorstep. So the child I have been allocated I know by a name other than his own, and I have no idea where he is located. But his support worker posts updates, and they do a nice thing where I have been sent a little lollypop-stick figure designed by him. I also get to send a lollypop-stick figure back to him, and am encouraged to send regular messages. In addition, I have access to a website where updates are posted, and I have a fridge magnet!

So it is personal enough to feel a proper connection to an individual child. Nevertheless, my gift does not go to him directly. My child has educational difficulties, so about two thirds of my contribution goes to Barnardos education support projects. The remaining third goes wherever the need is greatest, and 5% to administration costs.

It suits me. [Smile]

[ 08. July 2013, 08:24: Message edited by: Cottontail ]

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

I used to work in an NGO that had a child sponsorship programme. To me it was appalling - the level of personal info provided e.g. their HIV status. However, this was a small missionary organisation, set up by a white couple who had no idea what they were doing on all sorts of levels - the child sponsorship scheme being the least of it. Sadly, it does work in getting in money.

The level of self-indulgence of the missionaries was also disturbing - the reality is that in a poor part of the world those coming from Europe or North Africa have the money to call the shots. They could live a far more luxurious lifestyle than would have been affordable back home, and do whatever (or as little) as they wanted because they were 'volunteers'.

One of the founders celebrated their 'conversion' of a Muslim boy who, when he went back to his family, promised that when he went to the mosque with them in his heart he would be praying to Jesus. This was a very vulnerable child who had spent time living on the streets and was desperate for love and approval.

I tried to make the child sponsorship scheme more ethical (I was supposedly in charge of fundraising - except when the founders didn't like what I said) but was fought by the founders all the way [Frown]

It was a very bad experience which has made me wary of Christian NGOs, missionaries, and child sponsorship.

At best, even while done carefully, child sponsorship is a fundraising exercise for the organisations who use the funding. I don't know any organisation that would run such a scheme if there was any other way that was as effective in getting committed giving. If you really want to help then just set up a monthly donation to a charity/NGO you think is doing good work.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
I used to work in an NGO that had a child sponsorship programme. To me it was appalling - the level of personal info provided e.g. their HIV status. However, this was a small missionary organisation, set up by a white couple who had no idea what they were doing on all sorts of levels - the child sponsorship scheme being the least of it. Sadly, it does work in getting in money.

The level of self-indulgence of the missionaries was also disturbing - the reality is that in a poor part of the world those coming from Europe or North Africa have the money to call the shots. They could live a far more luxurious lifestyle than would have been affordable back home, and do whatever (or as little) as they wanted because they were 'volunteers'.

One of the founders celebrated their 'conversion' of a Muslim boy who, when he went back to his family, promised that when he went to the mosque with them in his heart he would be praying to Jesus. This was a very vulnerable child who had spent time living on the streets and was desperate for love and approval.

It was a very bad experience which has made me wary of Christian NGOs, missionaries, and child sponsorship.

At best, even while done carefully, child sponsorship is a fundraising exercise for the organisations who use the funding. I don't know any organisation that would run such a scheme if there was any other way that was as effective in getting committed giving. If you really want to help then just set up a monthly donation to a charity/NGO you think is doing good work.

It is true that Westerners can finish up with more power and prestige in a missionary context than they would ever experience at home, but it is not inevitable.

Likewise, missionary organizations can let their workers on the ground operate with little or no accountability, but some are far better supervised than others.

On the basis of our years in India, I dispute the idea that missionaries enjoy a “far more luxurious lifestyle” than they would at home.

Materially, we were better-off than most Indians, but worse-off than middle-class Indians, and certainly not as well-off as we would have been in Australia – we did not have a car or a television, for example.

Even the North American missionaries, whose comparatively opulent lifestyle was the target of much satirical and /or envious comment from UK, Australian and NZ missionaries, would have been better-off back in Canada or the US.

We also knew missionaries in the back of beyond (my wife visited a village in their vicinity where they had never before seen a white woman) who lived and worked in conditions which few Westerners would tolerate.

The problem of the religious indoctrination of children, and the temptation to bribe them away from the faith in which they have been brought up, is a very real one.

The young woman we support came from an existing poor rural Christian community, so there was no problem there.

I’m not sure there are easy answers, but it should be remembered that kids, whether in a family, a community or a children’s home, are inevitably going to be raised under some sort of worldview.

There is no natural, neutral, default position to be adopted which will leave the child as a religious tabula rasa on which they can write their own belief system when they reach the age of responsibility – rationalist secular humanism is as much an unprovable / disprovable assertion as Hinduism, Islam or Christianity.

I don’t agree with your cynical position that child sponsorship is merely the most effective means of fundraising.

Call me naïve, but it seems to me that the bigger and more responsible operations, such as Compassion and World Vision, genuinely believe that a greater interest in, and understanding of, problems in the developing world on the part of Westerners can be best encouraged by personalizing and individualizing the situation.

It is true that there are cowboy outfits operating in this field, and in our experience the worst are run by people in and from the countries themselves.

In India we knew a Canadian who ran a very good children’s home.

One day he was visited by a neighbour who had managed to acquire a mailing list of Westerners, and had persuaded a number of them to support his “orphanage”.

Now one of them had written to say they were coming to visit and inspect this “orphanage”, and he was desperate to temporarily “borrow” some children from our Canadian friend to show them.

We have direct knowledge of a similar scam in Uganda.

Posted by dv (# 15714) on :

I sponsor through heal.co.uk (Health and Education for All) and have visited the original Heal Village in Andhra Pradesh. Practically all of the children are orphans and they are well cared for in small "family" groups. I was impressed by how much the kids supported and cared for each other and they clearly rejoiced in anyone's educational, sporting, and other achievements. They get a great (predominantly technical) education - recognising this as the only way they will succeed in adult life - but are also nurtured with fantastic social and cultural programmes too. They were remarkably well-adjusted given the traumas they'd all been through earlier in life. Heal also has rural poverty upliftment schemes for those who don't wish to sponsor an individual child. They're also building a much bigger children's village elsewhere in Andhra Pradesh.

One of my reasons for sponsoring through Heal is that I favour charities that are real charities. There are no fancy offices, glossy brochures or fat salaries here or in India. All of the staff in the UK are volunteers as are the administrative and fundraising people in India. The "house mothers" are usually widows, themselves, who raise their own children alongside the Heal children. The children retain their own religious traditions, rather than having those taken away from them too, but are taught to respect those from different communities and all major religious festivals are observed.

The girl I've been sponsoring for a few years recently got married and I've now been allocated a younger child so that my sponsorship can continue. I hope to meet her early next year on a planned trip. What was clear on my last trip is that the kids love meeting anyone's sponsor; they all claim you and are proud to have you visit. It is quite an occasion for some funny foreigner to pop in and see what is going on. They absolutley revelled in showing me round and in teaching me about how things work.

I'd unhesitatingly recommend Heal. They do fantastic work with meagre resources.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

I realize that one bad experience does not mean all set ups are unethical and exploitative!

However, I do think the sponsor a child system is inherently unethical and exploitative. If it brings in money that wouldn't otherwise come in then of course you have to balance that against the good that the money can be used for. And the reality is (from the experience of someone who has been a fundraiser for many years in the UK and overseas) very few people who sponsor a child would give a regular donation without the sponsorship programme.

Children raised in institutions are often delighted to get extra attention from visitors. Indiscriminate affection to strangers is a well recognized symptom of attachment disorder, which is a widespread problem of institutional care.

Think about your own children having various random strangers traipsing through their house and wanting to see their rooms, their school reports, play with them, have photos taken with them etc. They would probably soon be fed up with it, because they have all the attention they need from family and friends.

My (adopted) daughters - who lived in that institution for a while - were very well looked after and we are in close contact with their house mothers. But they hate people to know that they were in a children's home, and are glad they were never part of the sponsor a child scheme. The visitors they did value were a group of volunteers from a local church (in an affluent area) who came once a month, so at least they could get to know their names.

Interestingly, having been on the financial/ organizational side of the NGO, I know it is far, far, cheaper per child to run a foster care programme than an children's home. It is also far better for children's emotional, physical, academic etc. development. Yet also far more difficult to raise money for.

Also, a very small proportion of the children in the children's home were truly orphans. The main reason their families didn't look after them was the effect of (multi-generational) poverty.

We would often get well meaning people coming to get advice because they felt called by God to set up children's home. We would ask them about other options, such as the possibility of a community foster parent scheme etc. None were willing to look at that option, no matter how much we showed them research findings, broke down costs, asked what happened once the children were adults etc.

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :

Sponsorship is good for people who wouldn't otherwise give at all, but surely it has to be less efficient than simply giving to a charity that works in the area. A sponsorship charity has to spend money on finding and matching children, and on gathering, translating and distributing letters and other information to send to sponsors (assuming they don't just write one generic letter to send to every sponsor, as that would be a bit unethical and easily discovered), all of which is just for the benefit and enjoyment of the sponsors. If you want to give, just give; but sponsorship is partly giving and partly paying for a service that makes you feel good.

Posted by dv (# 15714) on :

I really don't get the idea that it is somehow wrong to support an individual child because there is a sea of poverty. That's exactly what natural parenting does: it focuses on the nurture of a single individual and hopefully encourages the next generation to see themselves as interdependent and responsible for each other.

Sponsorship, when done well, relies on more than the simple financial transaction. It is about relationships. The children I have sponsored do not remain "random" or "strangers". They, and their friends, become known, over years, and delight in having direct contact with someone who cares about them. The international aspect is part of their (and our) educational richness.

There is no welfare system at all in the particular country where I sponsor, so hand-wringing and flights of fancy about western-style fostering or adoption doesn't help a single child in his or her current situation. There are, of course, bad examples of sponsorship - and some of the biggest Christian organisations waste vast amounts of money on glossy communication and salaries - but done simply and effectively (the kids themselves help each other write e-mails as part of their education) it provides financial security, a direct relationship, a great education and the possibility of many children being able to be lifted from abject poverty with its likelihood of slavery (bonded labour) or prostitution in adult life.

The particular charity I support was started locally, by two Indian women, and its international profile has been raised by the work of a UK-based GP born in that region of India. None of them were or are paid. I've been visiting India each year for more than 20 years as part of my work and I have to say that the charity activity that actually materialises and brings real change does seem to be this small scale stuff that relies on relationship. It is less prone to government rake-offs and other institutional corruption. I have grown tired of the big names in the charity world (including many Christian charities) with over-paid Western workers, flash offices and seemingly never ending marketing relaunches. How much is each new name, logo, letterhead, signage, press release? .... The rosy glow of working for a big NGO doesn't change the fact that much of this work is self-serving, parasitical and wasteful. It is also often larded with fashionable, comfyland, theoretical gibberish that has no practical application in dire situations in poverty-striken communities and a different culture.

Sponsorship isn't a substitute for political action to change the economic and societal structures but it does make a positive difference in individual lives. Not the answer but an answer. It is an opportunity to have a small but positive effect in someone's life. Both parties are usually enriched by that in ways beyond the financial.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
...sponsorship is partly giving and partly paying for a service that makes you feel good.

Feeling good about our charitable giving? God forbid!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dv:
I really don't get the idea that it is somehow wrong to support an individual child because there is a sea of poverty.

There does seem to be a certain air of "if you can't help them all, don't help any of them" on this thread, doesn't there?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

Children raised in institutions are often delighted to get extra attention from visitors. Indiscriminate affection to strangers is a well recognized symptom of attachment disorder, which is a widespread problem of institutional care.

Think about your own children having various random strangers traipsing through their house and wanting to see their rooms, their school reports, play with them, have photos taken with them etc. They would probably soon be fed up with it, because they have all the attention they need from family and friends.

Those are certainly important points, but we also need to remember that the modern West's preoccupation with (fetishisation of?) individual privacy is only historically recent and practicable, and is not necessarily regarded as a self-evident value in many other parts of the contemporary world.

I contributed to diverting this discussion into the area of orphanages and children's homes, but the emphasis of most major child sponorship schemes, AFAICS, seems to be on helping families and communities so that their kids don't have to be separated from them.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

Also, a very small proportion of the children in the children's home were truly orphans. The main reason their families didn't look after them was the effect of (multi-generational) poverty.

In India, long-lost relations can mysteriously materialise to claim kids when they reach the age of potential economic usefulness.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by dv:
I really don't get the idea that it is somehow wrong to support an individual child because there is a sea of poverty.
There does seem to be a certain air of "if you can't help them all, don't help any of them" on this thread, doesn't there?

If it is, it's not coming from me. By all means help as much as you can, but not in a way that makes the situation worse. And the most effective giving doesn't demand the high degree of investment by the recipients that a child sponsorship programme does.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

Children raised in institutions are often delighted to get extra attention from visitors. Indiscriminate affection to strangers is a well recognized symptom of attachment disorder, which is a widespread problem of institutional care.

Think about your own children having various random strangers traipsing through their house and wanting to see their rooms, their school reports, play with them, have photos taken with them etc. They would probably soon be fed up with it, because they have all the attention they need from family and friends.

Those are certainly important points, but we also need to remember that the modern West's preoccupation with (fetishisation of?) individual privacy is only historically recent and practicable, and is not necessarily regarded as a self-evident value in many other parts of the contemporary world.

I contributed to diverting this discussion into the area of orphanages and children's homes, but the emphasis of most major child sponorship schemes, AFAICS, seems to be on helping families and communities so that their kids don't have to be separated from them.

I'm not talking about Western ideas of privacy. I'm talking about well recognised, evidenced, cross-cultural psychological damage - attachment disorder.

I have been talking about a predominantly Xhosa community in South Africa.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

Also, a very small proportion of the children in the children's home were truly orphans. The main reason their families didn't look after them was the effect of (multi-generational) poverty.

In India, long-lost relations can mysteriously materialise to claim kids when they reach the age of potential economic usefulness.

They're not long-lost relatives - they're relatives who are known about (and often known) who can't look after a(nother) child adequately. They don't turn up when the child is older either.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

Children raised in institutions are often delighted to get extra attention from visitors. Indiscriminate affection to strangers is a well recognized symptom of attachment disorder, which is a widespread problem of institutional care.

Think about your own children having various random strangers traipsing through their house and wanting to see their rooms, their school reports, play with them, have photos taken with them etc. They would probably soon be fed up with it, because they have all the attention they need from family and friends.

Those are certainly important points, but we also need to remember that the modern West's preoccupation with (fetishisation of?) individual privacy is only historically recent and practicable, and is not necessarily regarded as a self-evident value in many other parts of the contemporary world.

I'm not talking about Western ideas of privacy. I'm talking about well recognised, evidenced, cross-cultural psychological damage - attachment disorder.

I have been talking about a predominantly Xhosa community in South Africa.

In fact, this is the community of origin for my daughters. My older daughter enjoys going back to friends and extended family for visits and living a more communal lifestyle. She is only too happy not to be living in a children's home and being visited by strangers. They is a huge difference between a constant stream of friends, family and neighbours coming though, and one-off visits from people who 'want to see the children' as if they were animals in a zoo. As I said, the regular visitors from a local church were valued.

But I take your point that most sponsorship schemes are community based. I was commenting on the one I had experience of.

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
...sponsorship is partly giving and partly paying for a service that makes you feel good.
Feeling good about our charitable giving? God forbid!

It's not the feeling good I was objecting to, but the diverting of the charity's money, which could be spent on the children, to products whose sole purpose is to make the donor feel good. It's better than not giving at all; but giving without the expectation that part of your gift will be spent on yourself would be better still.
It's a bit like paying for a new community building on condition they erect a statue of you in front of it.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

Also, a very small proportion of the children in the children's home were truly orphans. The main reason their families didn't look after them was the effect of (multi-generational) poverty.

In India, long-lost relations can mysteriously materialise to claim kids when they reach the age of potential economic usefulness.
They're not long-lost relatives - they're relatives who are known about (and often known) who can't look after a(nother) child adequately. They don't turn up when the child is older either.

I'm not talking about the common phenomenon of kids being cared for because their nuclear or extended family can't afford to do so.

I'm talking about kids who have no known family until they reach a certain age, after which someone turns up claiming to be a relative.

It happens.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

Also, a very small proportion of the children in the children's home were truly orphans. The main reason their families didn't look after them was the effect of (multi-generational) poverty.

In India, long-lost relations can mysteriously materialise to claim kids when they reach the age of potential economic usefulness.
They're not long-lost relatives - they're relatives who are known about (and often known) who can't look after a(nother) child adequately. They don't turn up when the child is older either.
I'm not talking about the common phenomenon of kids being cared for because their nuclear or extended family can't afford to do so.

I'm talking about kids who have no known family until they reach a certain age, after which someone turns up claiming to be a relative.

It happens.

I'm sure it does. But in the situation I introduced, that isn't what's happening.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Horatio Harumph:
Having seen her grow, and seen the changes in her letters, from the first where she had not done anything other than a scribble to the last one, 8 years later which she had written totally herself was immense.
We have had a similar experience, HH.

Our girl's first letters were written in Tamil which someone translated.

Today, a young woman, she writes for herself in English.

Years ago our daughter visited her in her isolated rural village, and was exquisitely embarrassed to be seated on a dais, wearing a garland, where she had to eat a large meal while the whole village looked on.

They had even, somehow, provided Coke and Pepsi, because they "knew" that all Westerners drank one or the other!

Have you arranged to reciprocate and have her come and visit you? or is this strictly a one-way proposition?

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Horatio Harumph:
Having seen her grow, and seen the changes in her letters, from the first where she had not done anything other than a scribble to the last one, 8 years later which she had written totally herself was immense.
We have had a similar experience, HH.

Our girl's first letters were written in Tamil which someone translated.

Today, a young woman, she writes for herself in English.

Years ago our daughter visited her in her isolated rural village, and was exquisitely embarrassed to be seated on a dais, wearing a garland, where she had to eat a large meal while the whole village looked on.

They had even, somehow, provided Coke and Pepsi, because they "knew" that all Westerners drank one or the other!
Have you arranged to reciprocate and have her come and visit you? or is this strictly a one-way proposition?

IME it is nigh on impossible to get the British Embassy [Nepal in our case] to issue a visa. This is on the grounds that they come form a poor background and won't want to go back. So in the case of the project we support visits are a one-way proposition.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
]Have you arranged to reciprocate and have her come and visit you?

For obvious reasons, the sponsorship organization controls contact between sponors and children.

When my daughter visited, it was with their permission, and under their supervision.

Our sponsorship would normally have been curtailed earlier than this, but was extended until our young woman finished her nursing course.

Whether she can ask the organization for our direct contact details, or we can ask for hers, and whether the organization would consider a suggestion from her or from us to visit us as appropriate, I have no idea.

I imagine that they have all sorts of regulations in place to cover such cases, but how applicable they are to sponsored children who have grown up and become adults capable of making their own decisions, I don’t know.

She would certainly be welcome if it were practicable, and we would be happy to pay her fare, but it would not be a decision to be taken impulsively without consultation with the sponsorship organization.

Have you, or has anyone you know, participated in such an exchange of visits?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

We would often get well meaning people coming to get advice because they felt called by God to set up children's home. We would ask them about other options, such as the possibility of a community foster parent scheme etc. None were willing to look at that option, no matter how much we showed them research findings, broke down costs, asked what happened once the children were adults etc.

Looking after 'orphans' is a more romantic notion than helping children to feel a part of their community, isn't it? As a foreigner running an orphanage you're making children wholly dependent upon outsiders who've come in to help them, rather than creating something where local people feel they're helping each other. Sadly, I suppose the ego boost is greater with the first option.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

There are a range of organisations that exist to promote genuine exchange, including the financial contributions from the more affluent partner. Usually it is done through schools, churches or youth groups - the idea being both sides share their experiences and ideas on some sort of basis of equality.

I can't remember the name of the one my daughter's school is involved in - the principal and a teacher from each school visited each other last year, and more staff will do the same this year. The British Council supports British schools to pair up with schools abroad if you are interested in exploring that option. There are difficulties with under 18s travelling, but with email and Skype the children are able to speak directly to each other. The Girl Guides also encourage Guide groups to twin up. I should imagine that any worldwide denomination would have various schemes of a similar sort - a quick Google shows Winchester Cathedral is twinned with Holy Trinity Cathedral, Rangoon for example.

Alternatively, there is always the option to make a monthly donation to a project you like the sound of, without it being attached to a particular person. I am sure the larger donors of the project you mentioned will get reports that inform them that the young woman has now graduated, along with information about other young people who have benefitted.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
I am sure the larger donors of the project you mentioned will get reports that inform them that the young woman has now graduated, along with information about other young people who have benefitted.

Possibly.

The large mainstream sponsorship organisations, of which this is one, seem to have a general policy of cutting of the relationship when the child is in their middle teens at the latest, and trying to interest the sponsor in transferring their standard monthly contribution, to a new, younger child.

Our young woman is now nineteen, which from my (far from comprehensive) experience is the longest I have ever heard of a sponsorship being extended.

We are therefore in terra incognita as to what and when the organisation will do next.

As far as I can make out, such organisations are nervous about children getting in touch with their former sponsors off their own bat and pressuring them for help with study, jobs, travel to the West, etc., because if that happened, and became generally known, it could deter potential new sponsors from becoming involved.

[ 11. July 2013, 10:36: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0