ActionAid UK is rethinking its child sponsorship model as part of a broader plan to 'decolonise' its work. The charity's new co-chief executives, Taahra Ghazi and Hannah Bond, are seeking to transform the way the organisation approaches fundraising, shifting from a focus on sympathy towards solidarity and partnership with global movements.
Critics have long argued that the current child sponsorship model perpetuates racist attitudes, with donors choosing which children to support based on their appearance. This process has been likened to "poverty porn", reinforcing negative stereotypes about people in developing countries. As Ghazi pointed out, the majority of ActionAid's supporters are well-off individuals, many of whom are white, making the decision-making process inherently paternalistic.
ActionAid sponsors children in 30 countries, with donations providing 34% of the charity's global funds. However, Ghazi and Bond are seeking to overhaul this model, incorporating community voices and responding to the realities faced by communities today. The organisation aims to evolve its systems, funding, and services to reflect these changes.
Instead of relying on individual sponsorships, ActionAid is exploring alternative approaches. One possibility is the formation of "sisterhoods" – groups of friends or family members who collectively raise money for women's rights groups in developing countries. The charity also plans to launch a fund specifically supporting grassroots groups working on women's rights, giving those on the ground more control over their funding.
Ghazia and Bond are clear that ActionAid's future lies in solidarity, justice, and driving forward change. They see the organisation as having a critical role in pushing back against global injustices. However, critics like independent researcher Themrise Khan argue that the current model is fundamentally flawed and racist, advocating for its complete abolition.
Khan believes that better education, state welfare systems, and healthcare should be prioritised over individual charity donations. She sees the current approach as a form of "white saviourism", where wealthy individuals are positioned as benefactors to those in need, rather than acknowledging the rights and agency of local communities.
As ActionAid embarks on this transformation, it faces significant challenges and criticism from some quarters. However, Ghazi and Bond remain committed to their vision of a more equitable and just organisation, one that prioritises solidarity and partnership over paternalistic approaches to fundraising.
Critics have long argued that the current child sponsorship model perpetuates racist attitudes, with donors choosing which children to support based on their appearance. This process has been likened to "poverty porn", reinforcing negative stereotypes about people in developing countries. As Ghazi pointed out, the majority of ActionAid's supporters are well-off individuals, many of whom are white, making the decision-making process inherently paternalistic.
ActionAid sponsors children in 30 countries, with donations providing 34% of the charity's global funds. However, Ghazi and Bond are seeking to overhaul this model, incorporating community voices and responding to the realities faced by communities today. The organisation aims to evolve its systems, funding, and services to reflect these changes.
Instead of relying on individual sponsorships, ActionAid is exploring alternative approaches. One possibility is the formation of "sisterhoods" – groups of friends or family members who collectively raise money for women's rights groups in developing countries. The charity also plans to launch a fund specifically supporting grassroots groups working on women's rights, giving those on the ground more control over their funding.
Ghazia and Bond are clear that ActionAid's future lies in solidarity, justice, and driving forward change. They see the organisation as having a critical role in pushing back against global injustices. However, critics like independent researcher Themrise Khan argue that the current model is fundamentally flawed and racist, advocating for its complete abolition.
Khan believes that better education, state welfare systems, and healthcare should be prioritised over individual charity donations. She sees the current approach as a form of "white saviourism", where wealthy individuals are positioned as benefactors to those in need, rather than acknowledging the rights and agency of local communities.
As ActionAid embarks on this transformation, it faces significant challenges and criticism from some quarters. However, Ghazi and Bond remain committed to their vision of a more equitable and just organisation, one that prioritises solidarity and partnership over paternalistic approaches to fundraising.
. I mean, can't we just support whole communities instead of individual kids? It's like, what even is the appeal of this old model? And yeah, poverty porn is a real thing, it's not like people are trying to be cruel but it's still super problematic.
.
. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's great they're trying to 'decolonise' their work and all that, but I'm not convinced this sisterhood thing is going to make a real difference 
. It sounds like just another buzzword scheme to me 
. And what about the community voices? Are they really being given a platform or just getting used as some PR tool 
? The whole thing feels like a PR stunt to me 
. I'm also worried about the funding and systems not working out – we've seen plenty of charity schemes fail in the past 
. Maybe it's time for ActionAid to focus on actually doing something tangible instead of just talking the talk 
.
. I get why they wanna change the way they fundraise, but I'm not sure about these 'sisterhoods' idea 
. I think Khan has a point about the whole "white saviourism" thing 
. We need to listen to these communities more than just write them some cheques 
. It's all about finding that balance between helping and not being a part of the problem 
. It sounds like they're trying to shift the focus away from actual helping hands 
towards some sort of social justice revolution 
. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for supporting communities in need, but is it just a fancy way of saying they want to control how our donations are used? 
.
. I mean, isn't that what the charity is for? To help people? Instead of making a bunch of buzzwords about solidarity and partnership...
. 
to show how it could work: 
.
. We should be prioritizing education, state welfare systems, and healthcare over individual donations 
. But let's work together to create a system that supports both: empowering communities to thrive and ensuring everyone has access to the resources they need 
.
It seems like this new approach is just gonna make things more complicated... like who gets to decide where the money goes? 
. Like, if you're supporting someone from another country, why not let them decide how their own money is being used? 
It just feels like there should be a way to make both the charity and the community happy at the same time... maybe?