Some nitpicking, and some substance

I’m working without the benefit of class discussion here, so forgive me if I repeat what someone has already said/step on any toes:

OUR VISION: We envision a world in which every mother, father, son, and daughter have the opportunity to realize their potential through hard work and lead a fulfilling life together.

For some reason this is reading awkwardly to me right now.  Maybe “to lead a fulfilling life together” would make it more parallel?  But I’m not quite sure, and I definitely understand it as is.

OUR BELIEF: Sustainable solutions to poverty require the endogenous emergence of effective, legitimate, and resilient community-wide institutions that foster productive cooperation among its members.

I really like this.  Nothing to add here.

OUR MISSION: Empower our clients with the assets and capabilities to participate in, influence and hold accountable the institutions that structure their lives, their children’s lives, and their communities.

This might just be me, but saying “their children’s lives” sounds a bit do-gooder to me.  I like that it explicitly draws attention to the future, but something about the phrasing grates a little on me as being a bit too trite.

OUR METHOD: Expand economic opportunities for and improve the everyday living conditions of our clients through the provision of financial, social, and educational support.  To do this, we develop long-lasting relationships founded upon mutual respect and open communication with our clients.

If we’re really stressing conciseness, “everyday” can be cut.  But I think it does add a particular emphasis, so I would keep it.  I agree with some of the other posters that this section could be expanded a bit more to include more concrete examples of what we do: here’s where we can mention microloans, and curricula programs.  Otherwise it sounds sort of vague: we need to show what sets La Ceiba apart, and what defines us.

OUR MOTIVATION: Hope for a better tomorrow, dreams of your children’s future, and optimism that if you work hard and keep working hard that success can be yours are things that poverty can steal from those in its grasp.  When it does, we want to steal it back.

This is unclear to me.  The first sentence doesn’t make sense: listing of these good things that we can accomplish (that’s how I’m reading it, anyways), then “are things that poverty can steal from those in its grasp”.  This seems to clash with where the sentence was going, and it’s abrupt.  I also don’t know that I like how it takes away the agency of those in poverty.  At the same time, the last sentence packs a punch, so I don’t know what I want to do with this.

Also, I’m not sure that I like “your children’s future”: again with the do-goodiness, and who is “you”?  The donor?  Our clients?  Us?  It’s not clear.  I personally would say “our” children’s future if we want to keep the basic structure, and I like the inclusiveness.  We are all working at this together: La Ceiba, donors, and our clients.  So I think we should all have the same motivation.  Also, “work hard and keep working hard” is redundant: I think it can just be “work hard”.

So overall, I think it covers the bases pretty well; just a few grammatical points and that last section hold issues for me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php