The Consequences of Child Sponsorship
A monthly donation likely won’t change a child’s life for good
Adham El-Sherbini
April 3, 2023
Source: Unsplash
As people and organizations engage in child sponsorship, they hope to improve the lives of children in impoverished regions.
The concept is straightforward: contributors provide a child—or a group of children—with ongoing financial support to enhance their health, education, and general well-being.
While there are certain advantages to child sponsorship, it can also be problematic, according to Lynn Cockburn, adjunct professor at U of T.
Child sponsorship can cause a negative power dynamic between the giver and receiver, Cockburn said in an interview. The child sponsors are typically presented as passive and appreciative recipients of the donor's generosity. In contrast, donors are portrayed as the saviors of the poor, in many cases propagating a “white savior complex.”
“People in North America just want to help out that one individual child, regardless of its consequences. Whether it's for self-gratification or developing a personal connection, I am not sure,” Cockburn said.
With this framing, the donor has all the power, and the recipient is vulnerable.
“[This dynamic] can be problematic as it insists that individuals living in poverty must be saved and are unable to help themselves,” Cockburn continued.
According to Cockburn, there is also a dysfunctional dynamic between the donor and family or community members, potentially causing jealousy or hatred toward the sponsored child.
Although a sponsored child's immediate family and neighborhood may also receive benefits, there may be resentment toward the child who is receiving more support. Other members of the community, especially other children, may feel abandoned.
The dignity of a child diminishes through sponsorship. When sponsored, they must give frequent updates—including letters and photos—to the donor.
The child and their family must divulge intimate facts about their lives to a stranger; this can lead to feelings of duty and pressure. The sponsorship procedure dehumanizes the child, turning them into a cause for sympathy or posting them in the format of a shopping catalog.
Child sponsorship programs foster dependence. A child or community may struggle to deal with difficulties independently and become reliant on support for their fundamental necessities. It ultimately harms their independence and self-reliance. Once the children are unqualified for child sponsorship programs, the degree of dependence may lead to self-destruction.
Cockburn raises a notable question: What would happen if a child were receiving more money than the income earner for the family? What type of dynamic does that instigate?
“This is an emotionally complex issue,” she explained.
Donors usually approach child sponsorship with a "one size fits all" approach, which is damaging because children require different domains of assistance based on location and income. For instance, donors frequently have specific sponsorship objectives, such as ensuring the child can access healthcare or education. The objectives might not align with what the child or the neighborhood requires, as more priority should be placed on food or shelter. Another common example is that the donor might prioritize education more than other needs, such as having access to clean water or wholesome food.
Ultimately, the donor's objectives might take precedence over the needs of the children or the community.
“More charities have come to recognize how problematic child sponsorship can be,” Cockburn said.
There remain better models of helping impoverished children other than through child sponsorship. Well-intentioned charities should actively seek said models and experiment with newer donors. This can include donating to specific causes or trusted organizations to implement assistance for all children.