Competitor comparison Cancel Se requiere un título

I think for the first-time, a non-profit has given a competitor comparison in the child-protection sector, so thought sharing my take on this.
www.children.org/see-the-impact/how-sponsorship-works/best-child-sponsorship-organization

This list provides 7 of the major charities in the world, but I too have a list, which tracks sponsorship fee changes across 13 of them – Child Foundation, Children Incorporated, Pearl S. Buck International, ChildFund International, Plan International, Orphan Sponsorship International, SOS Children's Villages International, Children International, Save the Children, Unbound, Compassion International, World Vision, and Childcare Worldwide.

In the internet era, the sector has become highly competitive with new/smaller NGOs now offering unique services incorporating technologies like Skype for child/sponsor interaction. Hence the larger players’ drive to raise sponsorship fee significantly in a short space of time to stay in business.
For example, Save the Children changed monthly fee 3 times over the past 12 months: October 2018 = $36; April 2019 = $38; September 2019 = $39
They also publish photos of its US children in waiting, whereas CI does not – not sure some states allow and some don’t in view of the law.

CI financial accounts for not only the monetary donations such as sponsorship and EG fees but also the value of product donations made by private sector annually. This means, the latter does inflate the revenue figures compared to income streams of many other charities.

I sponsor students through CI, Save the Children, and Unbound.  There have been some distinct pros and cons to each.  I have also shared some of my thoughts on the three with some of my more advanced kids.  CI is 'best in class' in many areas - however if I was told that I could only contribute to one..... 

But my conclusion is based on very personal priorities and expectations in trying to help the kids. 

This is all still very much a work in progress for me.  But there are a number of lessons to be learned from each organization - including basic differences in their categories.  I'll try to elaborate, in stages:

From a sponsor (and child relationship) point of view, the first big distinction on the comparison chart is 'community' vs 'child'.  Community means whatever we contribute goes to 'everyone', with no EG's or individual educational support.  For those on a budget who can't get into the kind of EG's we see here, that could be a good thing. For those who want help their kid, it means we have to be either more generous or more creative.  I got my StC child in Nepal English lessons that she felt she needed by instead setting up an after-school class for all of the kids in her school who wanted to take them, including her.  It turned out to be very efficient, actually, but it is a fair bit of commitment.   It really is an interesting way to do it, however, if we were trying to think of this as providing the most benefit for as many of our kids here, collectively.   For all the disadvantages of of this collective approach, these organizational restrictions do at least make us think about how we can leverage our contributions to help more kids.

In another case I wanted to incentivize 14/15 year olds in Bolivia - engage and reward them without the use of EG's.  I made contributions in the kids 'names' (first name and id number) to a highly regarded local shelter for abused children, with the idea that they would be actual donors as well as possible mentors.   When I set this donation up with the shelter's founder she said she was 'in tears'.  It's early to tell - but this was just an example of the way to skirt the 'support' rules and still give something to the kids, in a way. Again, this isn't for everyone.  But I wouldn't mind seeing more of this kind of 'community benefit' thing going on here - it often only comes from necessity, as with StC and other 'community' sponsorships.

The next thing I would look for might be 'graduation date'.  Many people here have commented on the age 19 limit relative to college needs, for students who are continuing on.  This is where Unbound has some advantages over CI.  Students are eligible for sponsorship as long as they are enrolled in school, including college.  They also have a 'future college fund' option, which I have recently started using - so my sponsored children can plan ahead, long-term in confidence (this fund is transferable to my other sponsored students if not used by the first one). I've told the kids that they are covered through med, law, whatever, if they choose. Anyway, the pre-set vs open-ended program 'graduation' is something to consider - whether that's a plus or minus depends on our particular circumstances.

EG philosophies differ - another topic for another post.  CI's EG's are generally consumption-oriented, where with others there can be focus on other priorities (income-producing activities - or - greater emphasis on add'l lessons or training).  

Letter-writing, and communications generally, differ dramatically among organizations - even when ages, countries, and grade levels are the same.   I'll typically get four pages of closely spaced writing from one group of students - these clearly weren't just done in an hour or so at the center - vs the letter-with-picture-on-back.  It's not just the length, of course, but the effort put into writing.  In my small sample, one organization's exception is another's rule.  Personally, I rank 'writing' high in emphasis because (for those like me who can't visit) this is our entire communication with each other.  Plus I happen to be a big believer in writing as a skill, for the kids.  Of course, there are exceptional writers in each organization, but the greater emphasis in some organizations really does show. 

The comparison chart notes religion - in my experience so far, the religious spectrum is fairly similar for each organization - it seems to be the kids' country, not the sponsoring organization, that's the biggest factor. (Is it just me and my tiny sample group, or are families in the Philippines really special in this regard?)  Generally, I have always been surprised at how religious sponsored families - and kids - in disadvantaged areas around the world are, compared to what I'm accustomed to here on the east coast.  Plus India, for example, has been quick to toss out organizations they perceive as religious 'influencers', so remaining organizations there have to be careful not to be seen as promoting any particular faith.  

There are a couple of other areas that I am still testing - we'll see.  But the thing is that, so far, CI is the best in many things (especially sponsor community & sponsor support).  Other organizations really can be frustrating, organizationally.  But there is still plenty of opportunity for every one of these organizations to get even better, including even CI.  Each organization I've seen seems to do at least some things very well.
  

Bill, Thanks for opening the discussion and sharing an in-depth account of your experience. It's good to hear the views on how different organizations operate from a sponsor perspective. Am I right in thinking that your engagement in multiple charities primarily stemmed from the locations they operate worldwide?

Interesting point you mentioned that though Save the Children (StC) is 'community' based, you were able to provide direct assistance to a child in Nepal – is this type of gift to your child regarded by StC as 'community project' due to its on-going nature? CI adopt similar model for projects like home improvement, IGP.

Your other point about 'honorary gifts' on your child's behalf.. This is personal to individual sponsor, and in my case I have made contributions to World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and CI Youth Service Projects in honor of my children's birthdays and the gifts/certificates they received help to open up a dialog on the causes supported in our subsequent writings.

For special donations like Unbound model of 'future college fund', CI does have 'Sponsorship Trust Fund' but restricted up to the graduation age (19). My Hope Scholarship Trust provides an annual scholarship to a deserving youth anywhere.

I'm glad to hear the greater emphasis put on writing skills shown by other organizations. Do you see this in 'community'-centric more than in 'child'-centric organizations?

CI started as Holy Land Christian Mission back in mid 1930s, but later became secular. From religious stands point CI is well versed with individual cultures in particular as you said, Indian. As a sponsor myself, I embrace all beliefs of my children. Last year I sent Katerin books (29) from Scholastic International, including "Lee y Aprende: La Biblia" (544p) and she just wrote to tell me that “my parents are very happy because I returned to the church and they are in the church and they are very happy. I love it that they are that happy and I hope they stay like that for the rest of my life.”

Your concluding remarks gave me some pause for thought on my own engagement with CI. I have been fortunate to witness 'golden years' of CI, though today it has moved on with the rest of the world to meet the ever expanding needs of our children.

StC was first for me, and I learned that I wanted to see how effective the features of the others might be.  I figured that I will have my own objective scorecard on which is 'best'.  Right now my pro's and con's are my subjective thoughts.  

Each of these has wide enough reach so they are all operating in destitute regions.  Although one of the early appeals to StC was that it operates in some parts of the world where girls are particularly expected by their families and communities to drop out by mid-teens, just for example Mali and Nepal.  

When I initiated the English classes in Nepal I had to do it with no bias to my own sponsored child - or even just the ones that wanted the class.  It really did have to be a new community program, and I also had to support alternative activities (while the class was going on) for any children who were not doing the class.  I did not get any help from the US corporate office for this, in that their planning cycle for new programs had passed and would have to be submitted for review in the next cycle. Therefore I had to work directly with the field office.  I was in a hurry because I didn't want to miss a year for my child.

I proposed this as basically a fully-paid-for program - to run a preliminary test, a prototype, in 'one of their communities' (maybe even a particular one) so that they could evaluate whether this kind of class was something worthwhile for the rest of the country.  I assured them that if this was successful I would see what I could do, to do my part to help them to the next level. [Before I go further, this stays here - I don't want to put any jobs in jeopardy].   Meanwhile, we have English classes.  I make the contributions through the US office as always, earmarked specifically to support the Nepal office.

I see CI's 19 year cap for college funding as a really big obstacle.  I tell the kids they can dream big for college, and then I can't see them through.  I have one exceptional 16-year-old in 7th grade - if I didn't know her grade level I'd say from her letters that she was easily my most advanced student in Zambia - who wants to eventually get to college and be a teacher.  She won't be through high school at 19.   her chances are extraordinarily poor without support.  With the Unbound kids I tell them that any tuition for med school, law school, etc is assured.

Originally with STC, one of the things that was easy to see in selection was the kids' career goals.  That made it easy as a sponsor because I had eight students, all very close to the same age and grade, with similar career objectives.  At least at the beginning I had a 'team' with common goals.

On the child-attributed donations, the main thing was that I made it clear to the local charity that I was only getting the ball rolling, and that the kids would be advising me on how we proceed in the future (cultivate any relationship with them, not me, as they would be calling the shots).  I figured that I was doing this as an opportunity for their involvement, and they could either pick it up, or pass.  Their choice. I started with $3k, which I figured would put the kids in the class of serious benefactors for that non-profit.  That particular abused-children program attracts college interns from the US (the founder, a Bolivian woman abused as a child, has a law degree - and apparently a following - from Rutgers).  It also happens to be an StC 'partner' in that country, which was reassuring. I figured that my kids' exposure to these kinds of things might be positive - if they decide that they want to support this.

The objective evaluation of all this will come when the kids in these programs all start their first jobs.  We'll see.  But that "as long as they want to continue in school" full scholarship puts one organization out front.  Those kids, I think realize it.  

My most prolific letter-writer in that group (and overall) is an aspiring attorney.  This year her combined letters have totaled 20 solid pages, and she quotes Peter Marshall, Jon Bon Jovi, and people I don't know to make her points.  She's 15, living in Payatas.   I really think it makes a big difference knowing that money for the whole thing is assured.   

Based on my own contacts with each of the three, however, CI is the indisputed star in 'sponsor relations' - both through the KC organization itself and the sponsor community.  There is no comparison.

Bill, The life you devoted for these children is immensely fascinating. Your approach to a ‘scorecard’ shows how important your philanthropic endeavors are and strategic thinking gone into them. I'm with you on this as choosing the right organization is like a diver searching the sea floor, unearthing all sorts of treasures!

One of the powerful things a sponsor can do is to empower girls to be equal in society, and I know Plan International is among the champions in this front.

You obviously have undertaken bespoke/grand projects with StC beyond your basic sponsorship, i.e. planning, coordination and funding by all yourself is admirable.

CI has been working on a solution to help support the continuing education after 19, but is still in its infancy.

In contrast to your 'team' approach, I tend to treat each child as if I only have him/her in my care. In other words, guide them individually along the way.

Finally, you do have very promising young talents, and I can only hope that your commitment to providing financial support will see through to the end whichever sponsorship/organization that might be.

I guess I should explain what I mean about the team thing.  My student in Nepal and the two in Bolivia ( plus the ones in Mali and Haiti) are all on my StC 'team'. Everyone in this group is similar age and they all want to eventually have careers in health care.  But each has unique challenges, which I address individually.   So with Nepal I have one project, Bolivia another completely different one, Mali a third.  Being similar ages and occupational interests, however, there are some topics where I'll have group letters.  Sometimes when I do a group letter I'll include a thumbnail picture of each recipient.

My Unbound team is a little different - they all have very different career goals, but some common strengths. Today I just mailed them a group letter explaining The Economist's July 'Big Mac' index, gave them the data so they could calculate it themselves for their countries, and talked about how that relates to a variety of things, including sponsor 'extra gifts'.  [my STC team's countries don't have McDonalds, plus no EG's, so I'll take a different approach to the concepts]  With those kinds of group letters I can really dive into subjects.  I sent The Economist's recent article (edited some) on predatory lending to women in Sri Lanka and what to do if anyone in our group had problems, and the African pig virus (two of the families had bought piglets with EGs) including pig safety and effects on prices. Where kids in different countries have common interests, I'll bring those out.  

None of that is in place of individual letters and targeted help - it's just another dimension.   With this team aspect I am also really hoping that they'll develop relationships that will survive me.

I'm stunned by William’s detailed and thorough description of his experiences with different organisations. Excellent work! I am considering to try sponsoring via ​Plan International in the future, now I understand the 'community' approach much better, so thank you for that.