World Vision Australia Recenzje 3

At first, this organization seems decent with values and a noble mission. But if we work with it. Which was the case in Ukraine, Dnipro we have a very sad experience. In particular, the regional manager Pavlov Andrey runs the office in Dnipro, Kharkiv and Nikolaev. This person is of very low moral qualities. He humiliates and insults sort-workers, saying that he is the head and everyone will fulfill his requirements, no matter that they are not ethical, if he said so, so it must be done. Also, being married, he entered into a relationship with Anna Rybka (Anna Radchenko), who was also married. For personal purposes, they used the organization's housing, the organization's transport. There are suspicions that Pavlov conducts machinations with partners and lists of beneficiaries. Acting Director Arman Grigoryan turns a blind eye to all complaints and suspicions regarding Pavlov's work and pressures the investigation so that there are no questions left for Pavlov. Then, the person who initiated the investigation is subjected to a series of measures forcing him to leave the organization. In the reports you can find information when people received payments several times, also the question about the office in Kharkiv, which stands empty, for it pays a very large rent, it is easy to check by looking at the cost of rent in the city and which is paid by the organization. But the management represented by Arman Grigoryan does not see this as a problem and continues to support the dubious and morally dirty activities of Andrei Pavlov.

Cancelling sponsorship was really difficult during a challenging time in our lives. Will never deal with world vision again. Try Compassion Australia we had children with them and cancelling was easy.

My wife and I sponsored a child for 16 years at a cost of over $9,000, which is completely fine; we are happy to have made this contribution to the darling 5 year old girl from Ethiopia who is now 21. Last month we received an email from World Vision saying that now that our sponsored child has graduated, we have zero means of staying in touch with her. We understand that we cannot be given her contact details due to concerns over child safety, but as I pointed out to World Vision, our child (now 21 year-old woman) should have the right to be passed on our contact details should she like to remain in contact. Our child has been part of our family for 16 years! World Vision should let donors know from the outset that our children will be cut off from us as soon as they graduate from the program. World Vision has lost our business.