I’m interested in sponsoring an international child, but would prefer a non-religious agency. Does such a thing exist?
Well cool. I’ve found a child and sponsored her, so thanks for that. 
(I guess that means this thread can be closed unless other people are interested.)
Save The Children is non-Religious.
So are ActionAid and Plan. Both organisations have an approach that goes beyond the individual child - the sponsorship is arguably an engagement mechanism for donors - the real work they do supports the empowerment of the entire community and lobbies for change at national and international level. If you are going to sponsor a child, either of these two would be the most effective way of doing so, IMHO.
While it’s Off Topic for the question as asked and answered, I’d like to observe that many of the “religious” (meaning started and supported by religious groups) child-sponsoring agencies are focused on practical, charitable help, not on proselytization and evangelism. One of the several hijacks of the recent PRR Pit thread dealt briefly with this – Christian Children’s Fund is an example of a group focused on providing practical help where it is needed, eschewing the convert-'em aspect that seems to be the main reason for distaste with religion-based groups. Another is Project Heifer, which has the narrow focus of providing a child with young livestock to raise, which is in many countries equivalent to giving him/her an independent income.
Oh for sure. I just refuse to support Christain agencies in any capacity.
I’ve just received my confirmation for Margret, my Zambian sponsor child - I guess I’ll get a package in a few days.
As a matter of interest, Children International actually has children in the US for sponsorship - in Little Rock, Arkansas. They are inner city children, apparently, but that an agency would need to appeal for sponsorship for children in the richest country in the world struck me as kind of sad.
The US is the richest country in the world? cite? I thought they were neck-deep in debt.
pardon the hijack. Good on you for sponsoring a child.
Actually I should have said “one of” the richest countries. The US is in the top 10 in just about every per capita measure, I think.
If anyone is still looking:
We sponsor a kid in Beijing through Half the Sky.
If you’d like to help generally but don’t need the “get a picture of your kid” sort of thing, try The Look Project.
Yes, they’re both China focused agencies. We are China focused too, since we have 4 adopted Chinese daughters.
I completely understand that stance and its ethical basis, but in the interest of promoting help for children who need it in a broader sense, I wanted to make sure that those whose reservations might be that they don’t want kids evangelized with their money aware that some “religious” groups don’t. And let me second the sentiments of Septima: Good on you for reaching out to help a kid!
I sponsor a Sri Lankan orphan through Orphan Sponsorship International (www.orphansponsorship.org) - they’re a pretty small organization but I absolutely love them. Every penny you send goes directly to the child - other people are “program sponsors”, which means they give the money to keep the programs running, so every penny you give directly helps your kid in some way.
You get a little balance sheet on a website that tells you how they spend your money - for example, last month they spent 14 bucks on food and board at the home, she needed underwear (2.08), school shoes and polish (5.90) and socks (1.38). They won’t be buying much for her for a while, because they do a little more at Christmas and then “stockpile” a bit. I get her letters via e-mail (I think that’s a lot easier for the lady who translates) and eventually they’ll send me a packet of her physical letters. Which reminds me, I promised to send her some pictures - I’ve gotta remember to do that Monday!
Reported.
I knew a few people that worked for them in the Republic of Georgia when I lived there and they told me that the last thing Save The Children does is save the children. They seemed to spend quite a lot of money on housing, offices, cars and salaries. This was in 2002-03 so perhaps they have changed.