Criticism[edit]
In a 2008 report on famine in Ethiopia, reporter Andrew Geoghegan, from Australian TV programme Foreign Correspondent, visited his 14 year old sponsor child. The girl has "been part of a World Vision program all her life" yet says (in translated subtitle) "Until recently, I didn't know I had a sponsor." and when asked about her knowledge of World Vision sponsorship says "Last time they gave me this jacket and a pen." Geoghegan was disconcerted to find that despite being "told by World Vision that [the girl] was learning English at school, and was improving...she speaks no English at all".[44]
In response World Vision states that they take a community approach where the money is not directly provided to the family of the sponsored child. The 'direct benefit' approach would result in jealousy among other community members without children and would not work.[45]
Foreign Correspondent replied to World Vision concerning child sponsorship. In part, that response reads: "Foreign Correspondent sought answers from World Vision representatives on why the organisation's literature creates the impression that donated money goes directly to the sponsor child. The World Vision representative failed to adequately respond to the questions and instead outlined the community projects where sponsor money is spent. Foreign Correspondent does not dispute the integrity of World Vision projects but questions the way sponsorship is promoted to the public. In its response, World Vision has ignored the reporter's surprise at finding his sponsor child speaks no English, yet he has been receiving regular reports from the organisation that she's learning English at school and has a good command of the language..., Andrew Geoghegan has sponsored Tsehaynesh Delago for a decade and yet she claims she was unaware, until recently, that she had a sponsor and says the only benefit she has ever received directly from World Vision is a pen and the denim jacket she wore on the day of filming."[46]
In 1999 the academic journal, Development in Practice published an overview of World Vision's history focusing on the evolution of its global architecture. `Pursuing Partnership: World Vision and the Ideology of Development' was notable for being written by then World Vision staff person Alan Whaites, who went on to become a respected development political scientist. Whaites offered a picture of an organization that was often spurred to innovate and change as a result of internal reflection on external criticism.[47]
In 2007, British animal rights group Animal Aid criticized World Vision, Oxfam, and other aid groups for sending farm animals to families in developing countries. Animal Aid argued that farm animals drink water and eat the food that could otherwise be used to feed families more efficiently.[48]
Corruption in some national offices[edit]
"In February 2007...World Vision received an anonymous tip that lower level World Vision Liberia employees in key positions...were diverting food deliveries and building supplies for personal gain. World Vision immediately launched an investigation into the allegations, sending auditors to [their] field sites. Through this extensive internal audit, World Vision uncovered the nature and extent of the alleged violations and furnished detailed documentation that assisted the U.S. Government’s subsequent investigation."[49]
On October 25, 2013 World Vision Malawi cancelled a visit and fact-finding trip by a dozen United States Christians from San Antonio, Texas. A fear of danger and instability resulted from the dismissal of World Vision Malawi staff due to corruption. At the same time, the Malawi government fired the president's cabinet because of corruption.
Evangelism[edit]
World Vision India has been accused of spending money on Christian evangelism in India.[50] The political weekly Tehelka has cited World Vision India's involvement with AD2000 as proof of proselytizing.[51] World Vision's Indian leader Radhakanta Nayak was also accused by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh of being involved in the murder of Swami Lakshmanananda.[53] World Vision India condemned the murder and denied any involvement, pointing out its anti-proselytizing policy.
Political Conflicts[edit]
In February 2012, based on information provided by the Israel Law Center, World Vision Australia allegedly provided "financial aid to a Gaza-based terrorist group", the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), which they also alleged is a "front for terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine". WF had "suspended its dealings" with UAWC until the outcome of the investigation.[55][56] WV resumed working with UAWC after AusAID and World Vision found the allegations were unfounded.[57] The Israel Law Center considers World Vision's response to be a whitewash and maintains that the allegations have not been refuted.[58]
Academic Iain Buchanan, author of "Armies Of God: A Study In Militant Christianity", has claimed that World Vision is effectively an arm of the United States Department of State.[59]
