The recent announcement by ActionAid to move away from traditional child sponsorship schemes has sparked a heated debate about the future of international aid and development. This decision, part of a broader plan to 'decolonise' its work, follows similar shifts by other global NGOs in recent years, raising fundamental questions about the ethics and effectiveness of such programmes.
Critics Label Sponsorship Schemes as 'Colonial-Like' and 'Poverty Porn'
From a global analytical perspective, these sponsorship schemes have long been criticised as carrying colonial-like undertones. Local residents in recipient countries have frequently subverted and refuted their terms, with many viewing them as a form of 'poverty porn' that exploits vulnerable communities for fundraising purposes. The schemes often reify communities in ways that don't align with the realities of those who participate in them, creating problematic power dynamics between donors and recipients.
Research Reveals Local Staff Discomfort in Tanzania
Research conducted in Tanzania revealed that local staff members were consistently uneasy with the core premise of child sponsorship programmes. Despite this discomfort, pressures from higher up the organisational chain often made it a pragmatic choice to retain these schemes as a key source of unrestricted funding. This funding supports other vital advocacy work that project-based NGOs cannot always undertake, creating a difficult tension between ethical concerns and practical financial needs.
The relationships between NGO staff and families with sponsored children could become particularly fraught, with the burden of managing these difficult tensions often falling to unsalaried community volunteers. This thankless and endless work highlights the complex interpersonal dynamics that sponsorship schemes can create within communities.
Innovative Approaches Offer Alternative Models
Recent approaches to international aid, such as those pioneered by organisations like GiveDirectly, are innovating less colonial-like models. These programmes involve giving money directly to people so they can invest in their futures without conditions, agendas, or requirements to exchange letters or photographs with donors. While not without their own challenges, such schemes represent a considerable improvement in respecting the autonomy and dignity of recipients.
Longstanding Supporters Express Disappointment
As a longstanding ActionAid supporter, I was astonished by the vituperative coverage of this change in emphasis and the sudden pejorative dismissal of the charity's longstanding child sponsorship programme. Through this scheme, I have proudly sponsored community development, children and women's education, welfare initiatives, and livelihood skills development - all shaped by community needs and voices. I have never been asked by the charity to 'choose' a child from a photograph, contrary to some characterisations of these programmes.
The researcher Themrise Khan, quoted in your article, argues that governments should fund education, state welfare systems, and healthcare. However, the practical reality is that in many regions, they simply do not provide adequate support. Is it now politically incorrect to try to improve the lives of children and women everywhere because such efforts are labelled 'paternalistic' and 'transactional', as Taahra Ghazi, ActionAid's co-chief executive, suggests?
Call for Better Communication with Supporters
Perhaps ActionAid's new co-chief executives need to pause and consider whether they might be guilty of the very paternalism they accuse their supporters of demonstrating. A little more communication, information, and participatory engagement with their own community of supporters - and fewer attacks - might do less to alienate those who have raised funds and donated with real commitment to support women and children.
As for building community 'sisterhoods' of support for ActionAid? There's no harm in dreaming big about more collaborative and equitable approaches to international development. The debate about how best to deliver effective, ethical aid continues to evolve, with important lessons to be learned from both past approaches and innovative new models.
