Sue writes…
Obviously you are completely committed to Compassion. I sponsor a child through World Vision. Do you see a big difference in the two organizations?
Thanks for asking, Sue.
First, I’ve seen World Vision’s programs and met their staff around the world. Their work often makes the work of other organizations, like Compassion, possible. For instance, in El Salvador I visited one of Compassion’s child development centers where children are served water drawn from a well World Vision had a hand in digging. Compassion and World Vision are on the same team and they need each other.
Secondly, there are many differences between World Vision and Compassion International but here are the two that mean the most to me:
1.CHURCH BASED: Compassion meets the needs of over 1.8 million children in twenty-five of the world’s poorest countries by working exclusively through the local church. Partnering with churches allows Compassion to ensure that children not only receive health care, proper nutrition, and education but are also given the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. Because of this commitment to sharing the gospel through the local church, 500 children, on average, come to faith in Christ every day through the ministry of Compassion around the world.
Every employee and volunteer at Compassion International is a Christian as well. According to Fabiano Franz, World Vision’s national director for Mali, World Vision does not require employees to be Christians. Some are not, and some who are cannot openly share their faith in Jesus because of the laws of the countries in which they work.(Source)
2.CHILD FOCUSED: When you sponsor a child through Compassion International a minimum of 80% of your monthly gift goes toward meeting the spiritual and physical needs of your sponsored child through a partnership with a church in his or her neighborhood. Compassion calls this “child development through child sponsorship.”
When you sponsor a child through World Vision, however, your child is not guaranteed a direct benefit, but their community is. Your money is used to build roads, dig wells, provide food, fund schools, carry out disaster relief (World Vision has an incredible disaster relief program) which will positively impact many lives. This is “community development funded by child sponsorship.” There is no promise from World Vision that your contributions will have any direct impact on the life of the child you are “sponsoring.” World Vision explains it this way…
Under the heading “How It Works”, WorldVision.org/sponsor-child describes what sponsoring a World Vision child accomplishes: “Sponsorship fosters sustainability. World Vision plans and works alongside community members to help build healthy communities for children.”
Compassion International and World Vision are different but together, with many other wonderful organizations, they can curtail extreme poverty. Compassion always works through the local church to develop one child at a time into an adult who can transform their community some day. World Vision, sometimes in partnership with local churches, develops communities in a way that positively impacts the lives of children.
Grovesfan says:
Thanks for posting this! I was wondering this myself and have been asked this question when volunteering at Compassion tables, etc.
Beth
Brandy says:
I was wondering that same thing myself. So thanks for posting this! My husband (Jason—he’s a regular commenter here) and I have sponsored (past tense) children through World Vision before … and we’d really like to get into sponsoring at least one child again. Compassion is something we’ve been considering … because we like that we’d be DIRECTLY helping a child through this ministry. Now we just need to quit being so lazy and sign up lol
I did like World Vision … it does do very good work. I just like knowing that when I’m sponsoring and praying for a child that the money we’re sending is actually helping that specific child/family intended for.
Brandy Campbell says:
Well said Shaun! I sometimes forget what a non-programmatic, succinct answer sounds like. You should work for Compassion. Oh wait…
Kelly @ Love well says:
Great explanation. We sponsor two children—one through Compassion, one through World Vision—and your descriptions are spot-on, in my personal experience.
Kelly @ Love well says:
I should add—though World Vision’s sponsorship money may be spent differently, the child I sponsor through World Vision is still personal. We write him letters, he writes back, etc. It’s a one-on-one thing. Someone correct me if I’m wrong here.
Laurel says:
THANK YOU for writing this, this is a question that has been rattling around in my brain =)
Richard says:
Shaun–Thanks for this post. We’ve been wondering what the difference is as well. I’m glad both groups fill different needs, and there are certainly plenty of needs…
Sue says:
Thanks, Shaun. It’s exactly what I wanted to know. And thank you, Kelly, for further clarifying, because I have gotten letters from my World Vision child.
Shauna says:
I’ve sponsored a child through Food for the Hungry for the past 10 years (my first child is no longer with the program, so they assigned a new one). FH doesn’t give sponsorship money directly to the child or family either because their goal is to develop communities as well as families. I would hate to think that anyone would stop sponsoring with World Vision, FH, or another agency for this reason, though! I think Compassion is a wonderful organization and would like to start sponsoring through them as well. I definitely agree with this:
“We’re different but all on the same team against a common enemy.”
Paloma Ramsey says:
I’ve been following your blog since the Uganda trip and really enjoy your posts!
I have also been thinking about sponsoring a child for some time now, but was still unclear about the differences and if one did a “better” job.
Thank you for clarifying the differences(not weaknesses) of each.
I’m comitting to pick my child this week!!
AmyL says:
I too, have been sponsoring a child through World Vision, and we receive letters and photos regularly. It’s not to say that I think WV is the be-all and end-all. If I had to do it over and had the information you just presented, I would choose Compassion, to be honest. But I just wanted to make sure the truth is out there.
Tara says:
Thanks, I’ve learned about Compassion International from boomama and now you, but have been a WV sponsor and fan for years. I would also add that WV sponsorship is a very direct, personal connection to one child, and while I haven’t made it to Africa, folks in my church have done just as you say – gotten on a plane flown there, and met THEIR children. The way I’ve heard it explained goes along with your distinction of the philosophies of the orgs – WV said that providing too much direct support to one or a few sponsored kids in a community in which they are doing community development can provide hard feelings amongst kids and families (why him/her and not me or my kid?), so they do spread sponsorship around a village, say, to help prevent that. However, I can also direct special gifts to my sponsor kiddos families alone, should I choose too. Your Uganda trip sounded beyond amazing, and both orgs, as you say, have PLENTY to do with all of our support!
Chris says:
The difference between the WV sponsored child relationship and the CI sponsored child relationship is not necessarily in the letters or drawings a sponsor receives or the ability to visit the child but rather how the monthly financial support is used.
Shaun Groves says:
Chris, do you think that was clear in my post or do I need to edit for clarity?
Chris says:
It’s definitely clear. I made my comment because I simply wanted to emphasize the point.
Sarah, Tara and Amy commented on the relational aspect of WV sponsorship, and they are correct and accurate in what they said, but for me, I value not only the relational aspect of the communication but the relational aspect of knowing that my money helps my sponsored child directly and specifically. It strengthens the bond I feel. It makes me feel that I’m more intimately involved in his life.
There isn’t a right or wrong way in how these organizations work; however, comparing Compassion and WV is not comparing apples to apples. It’s Compassion’s apple to WV’s orange
They’re both fruit (i.e., offer child sponsorship), but they nourish the person differently.
Chris says:
Winky is supposed to be after orange. DOH! Not in the middle of child sponsorship.
Shaun Groves says:
Agreed, Mandy.
And, to clarify…vaguely, so as not to get myself or anyone into trouble: Compassion does not sponsor children in “closed” countries but that doesn’t mean Compassion isn’t doing something in those countries.