The Uncultured Project

A few thoughts-

Read further on those “gifts” – they’re representative, not physical chickens neccessarily. Those donations go toward pools of funds that support projects in agriculture, education, nutrition etc.

WV does provide report backs on projects supported by donations.

But anyway – You’re missing the point. Giving to support the alleviation of poverty is not about the “giver” – it’s about the receivers. If you’re doing it for the right reasons, you don’t need someone to send you a little video saying “hey hankley family, here’s the well you bought oh and here’s your name on it” – what does that do to the community where that well is? How are they empowered knowing they did that for themselves, when the name of a family is on it some 10,000 k’s away? It perpetuates a hand out mentality.

I get you say this isn’t WV hater mail – but to be honest – do your research a bit more!

Hey Sarah! I *love* your comment because this is exactly what I want to talk about.

My research comes from both my work on the ground (as part of this project) and also as someone with Bangladeshi heritage. Did you know that most immigrant Bangladeshi families tend NOT to donate to charities like World Vision? Most (including my own family) either go back home and help first hand and/or use a network of family and friends to help the poor.

There are two reasons for this.

First, and this is only something you truly understand if you come from a developing country, is that people (as beneficiaries/recipients) actually *prefer* to have a connection and knowledge of who is helping them.

This connection, even if it is 10,000 miles away, makes it feel less about a big organization giving a handout. This is true even if it is integrative with community meetings and mobilization, like World Vision does, because there is still a perceived power differential.

A person-to-person connection avoids this and makes it feel like one person lending a hand to another. There’s a sense that, if the roles were reversed, the person on the other end would do the same. This is why those from developing countries prefer to help the poor this way.

Second, you hit the nail on the head. Even if you go to the gift catalogue, select to donate 2 chickens, it may be that no chickens are actually given! Rather it just goes into the fund of a particular program (which maybe used for something not-chicken related at all).

So, here’s what it boils down to: right now World Vision and Charity: Water both have a “choose what you donate” option. But, as you’ve admitted, only Charity: Water carries that through. And, as I can tell you first hand, this is something the poor prefer.

The “choose what you donate” gifts – it is explained on the webpages you purchase from, and hardcopies floating around, that your donation goes to a pool of funding. You just have to read closer.

We can all say a lot about first hand what the “poor prefer”. Unique contexts require unique approaches. It’s not the same everywhere. No one organisation, including WV (who are happy to admit it) and Charity:Water, has it 100% right.

All the best.

Thanks Sarah I agree with your latest comment 100%.

I’d just like to add that, even if the World Vision “choose what you donate” option doesn’t actually donate what you choose (as per fine print) – World Vision does have the technical capacity to do so. And it does indeed do so for partners like Generosity: Water – because World Vision lets them track which wells are built for them.

A small comment: You’re kinda asking for two completely opposite things. First, you point out that other charities don’t put any of your money towards overhead (and kinda imply that overhead or admin costs are waste. so NOT true, but that’s another can of worms). Then, you suggest that WV should create videos and content showing projects and funds at work (which they do, but perhaps they are not obvious enough).

Well, trust me, creating those type of resources is expensive. Expensive goodies like videos featuring people’s names (I actually like charity:water, but those videos with random supporters names are little more than feel-good gimmicks) cost money that would be considered “admin” or “overhead” or “fundraising”–the very costs which you just spoke out against.

BTW, I totally get that you’re not a hater. And I love the healthy dialogue that you’ve started.

[Full disclosure: I work at WV]

Hey Andrew! I know you! I’ve watched your vlogs with World Vision Canada!

First and foremost, I don’t think that overhead is a bad thing. The fact that my own project (as small as it is) needs an Operating and Equipment Fund is proof that I think it’s *necessary*.

But, I just think there is a groundswell of people who currently flock to Charity: Water & my project simply because they have a better sense of control as to how much (if any) of their money goes to overhead.

I also think the idea of trackable donations is more important than whether or not overhead is taken. Take a look at the YouTube comments on my video – people are saying exactly that.

The other thing, and maybe this is impossible for World Vision to implement, is the idea of having a separate pool raised for overhead. This small project does it but so does charity: water.

But the one thing I would disagree on is the idea that these videos showing donors where their money has gone (with thank yous and stuff) is just a gimmick. It’s really not.

I’ve only just recently started to tap into the more academic explanation to this. It has to do with the sociology of giving and receiving aid and the significance of gratitude expressions in some cultures.

I haven’t written anything up yet on this, but if you have 15 minutes to hear me ramble, I’ve uploaded my initial academic thoughts on the matter to TweetMic:

http://tweetmic.com/p/rkt9c5bixqw

Shawn –

To begin with, I do enjoy your opening of this dialogue. Your discussion raises positive points as to the link between donors and their funding. Millenials, the generation that you and I belong to, all seek to be involved. You’ve proven it yourself – with the onset of this fantastic initiative and we see it happening all around the globe: Charity: Water (a mere 4-5 years old?), TOMs Shoes, Invisible Children & many movements that have risen from our generational need to be first-hand-involved and do more.

But I fear that your argument – like the best of reporters – severs the context of this comment from which it was made. You seemed to have misquoted Frezned. Directly after the section you chose to view on your video, he talked specifically of how that opinion was challenged & that he realised wasnt functional & effective:

“The main thing that World Vision projects are set up to do is end. That is, their main priority is not ‘lets build this well’ – its ‘when we leave, nobody is left in the lurch’.”

“World Vision doesnt just throw water at thirsty people. Or medicine at sick people. It sits down and works really closely with the community to figure out why people cant get water and medicine in the first place”

These comments cannot be any closer to the truth of World Visions aim and mission. Upon arriving to any location, World Vision establish “a process for putting their integrated programming into action by working with partners and communities toward the sustained well-being of children, especially the most vulnerable” (quoted direct from their own policy documents). Most importantly, this critical path is flexible and adapts to fit the needs of each specific location.

This discussion is not to suggest that NGO’s such as Charity:Water, etc are not implementing their own version of this model. But more to inform you what World Vision does do (and why it has worked for them).

Upon arriving in a location, World Vision spends time (a significant amount more than people would expect) establishing key questions with partners such as “Who are you” and “Who are we”. They then assess what is already being done – by locals & WV – then identify what more can be done (again, being shared by locals & WV), designate what tasks will be done together (partnership between WV & locals), who will contribute what, how does the management occur together & how do the locals & WV transition together (and ultimately, how do WV transition OUT of the community.

World Vision – quite candidly will often come in on the first day and say to a community “We would like to talk about the day that we leave”. World Vision sees itself not as a hand-to-mouth Aid organisation that is directly funded by individuals, rather it is a partnership with a community.

When a World Vision well is dug – it is more often than not dug by members of the community (employing them with a wage) and then maintained by those same members. World Vision advises the community on the proper maintenance of the well & rather than giving them a budget to do so, encourages the community to establish a process for them to develop and sustain a pool of funding that is used soley for the maintenance of the wells. Identifying the integral link for community members – that a need can be resolved by the community, not by aid. A member of the community is taught by WV how to maintain & repair the well and is then given the responsibility of continuing this on.

By definition amongst the World Vision model, a well – or any other aid (be it chicken, goat or otherwise) is not donated by an individual, but created by a community.

This is part of the reason why you dont see videos saying “Johnson family – this is your well!” – World Vision simply doesnt see their aid as somethign that an individual has achieved, rather that donation to World Vision invites you into the community. And the World Vision community is then enabled to assist other communities throughout the world.

Furthermore, World Vision primarily raises its funds under a very unique model – that does fulfil on your request: to see directly where funds are going. Rather than operating a system where World Vision sees a need and waits to act upon it until they have funding – the process of donation is, essentially, one of paying back. When you see a well, chicken, goat or even child to sponsor at World Vision – it is not to say that that location, family or child are waiting until you provide the need. But rather, World Vision begins to partner and support them and then gains the funding from the Donors afterwards.

This function is best observed under their sponsorship model – If you were to decide to sponsor a child, they would not attend their first day of school the day after your credit card bill goes through, but you then join them on their journey and provide the funds so that World Vision may stay in that community & that childs life. Sponsorship is a living and breathing example of seeing directly where your funds go – you are enabled to write letters back and forth to your sponsorship child and those funds are then used – not only to provide only your individual child with their needs, but to give the entire community the access to healthcare, food, water, sanitation.

Because of this high-level overaching view of a community and its needs, World Vision is afforded the opportunity to see the links between issues – that children who have to hike for hours to get water lack the time to seek education or that malnutrition heavily impacts the rate of Malaria. And thus, World Vision able to fulfil their donor promise to an individual donating to a Malaria campaign – not only by providing a net, but treating the problem as a whole and finding solutions to the entire issue at hand.

Finally – you may be assessing the partnership with other aid-orgs with World Vision backwards. Its not that WV partners with these organisations, but the reverse. These orgs turn to World Vision to help them achieve the donor-promises that they are sometimes unable to fulfil, or where partnership with World Vision significantly decreases their operational costs.

For example – TOMs Shoes now distributes through World Vision ADPs because TOMS recognised they have to be able to serve the communities that they place shoes on in the long term. Because once you put a shoe on a foot, while you do eliminate a series of issues – you need the foot to continue to be covered, otherwise you have begun a series of new issues that werent present before, due to the softening of the feet. I believe that World Vision has agreed with Toms, to enable the distribution of upwards of hundreds of thousands (this would have to be checked – I am unsure of actual stats) of shoes over the next few years.

While these one-to-one Charity models are commendable, all of these charities are in the same place that World Vision began – 60 years ago. Its not that World Vision, shoudl be more like Charity: Water. But that Charity:Water is exactly like World Vision. This is where they started – for World Vision, through Bob Pierce simply “break[ing his] heart over the things that break the heart of God” and reaching out to one child at a time.

As these NGOs, like Charity:Water, TOMS Shoes, Invisible Children, etc are moving out of their infancy stages – we are beginning to see the transformation towards being more like World Vision.

As so candidly put by Frezned, in the video you used as an example – we will soon see these NGO’s transition towards “building little stepladders that allow every member of the community to climb up for themselves and effect each other in ways that brings them all out of poverty together”.

Together.
For themselves.
Not, because you paid for it.

Oh – didn’t mention this in my original response. I had made this video as a video response to Frezned’s video. The idea being that Frezned’s video would be displayed and linked from this video so people would have easy access to full context. But, unfortunately, Frezned hasn’t approved this video as a video response. So the link to full context isn’t present

Thanks for sharing the information. To remove extreme poverty requires a great effort and help..
charity foundation

Hi Cynthia – great comment, thanks for leaving it I just thought I’d add, as a matter of transparency for anyone reading this, that you are in fact a World Vision employee based out of World Vision’s Toronto offices

I know World Vision’s Canadian CEO has a cordial relationship with the Founder of Free the Children and Me to We, so I trust you aren’t implying that Free the Children (an organization twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize) is doing anything shady. 

Ditto for your comment on charities doing the 100% model. Charity: Water, for example, is using the 100% model and they’re work is reputable. And so is Generosity: Water. And guess what? Generosity: Water implements its projects through World Vision!

And, I’m not just a donor… and so what I can say is that one needs to look more than just an organization’s financial statements to know if they are doing good aid, if that aid is being well received, and if they have the trust and respect of people within the communities they serve.

Best,

- Shawn

Hi Cynthia – I love your candor, honesty, and frankness

Here is some info about me which I hope shows what I mean by “more than a donor”:

http://philanthropy.com/article/How-to-Adjust-to-a/65855

and 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/forging-links-for-the-impoverished/article1879458/

I have tried to reach out to World Vision in the same way I have reached out to other organizations. 

But, in terms of the work I do (as described in the above articles), I have yet to be successful. I am based out of Toronto so I assume connecting with the Toronto offices makes the most sense. 

My main contact was Director of Digital Channels at World Vision Australia – Keith Don. But he just left the World Vision family to pursue paths in other sectors.

I can be reached by Twitter at @uncultured and by email at project@uncultured.com