Photo: roberto volterra/CC BY-NC 2.0/ Flickr
by Claire McMahon
Recently, Words in the Bucket (WIB) published an opinion piece, titled, “to stop the institutionalization of children, stop volunteering in orphanages.” This piece argued that the increase of foreigners wanting to volunteer with children in developing countries has led to an increase in orphanages and, subsequently, the number of children in orphanages.
The article also addressed the negative consequences for children who grow up in residential-care institutions, abusive and corrupt orphanages, and called for a focus on more sustainable solutions.The natural response to this is, “but what is the alternative?” Meaning both what are the alternatives for children, as well as what are the alternatives for people who want to help them.
Understanding push and pull factors
It is important to understand the push and pull factors that result in a child being separated from their families and becoming institutionalized. This knowledge makes clear where resources should be directed in order to address the underlying causes of the problem. For example, Alternative Care Uganda, a civil society and government partnership supporting orphanage alternatives in Uganda, outlines several factors in the Ugandan Context. These include poverty as the primary reason as well as illness or parental death, disability, lack of access to services (i.e. education), discrimination (i.e. minorities or children born out of marriage), and displacement or emergencies.
This is written with the caveat that the contextual factors at play in each scenario must be taken into consideration. Each child, family, and nation face different challenges which have resulted in the institutionalization of children. Solutions should be considered on a case by case basis with the child’s rights, safety, and security taking precedence.
Alternatives to Orphanages
We know that four out of five children living in residential care institutions have one or more living parent. In many developing countries, when a parent wants to care for their child but is unable due to family crises or financial difficulties, their only viable option is to turn their child over to an orphanage. In these cases, the long-term solution would be to enact social protection policies which provide aid to struggling families and allow children to remain with their families. Ghana, for example, in an effort to deinstitutionalize children in the country enacted a number of social protection schemes. The most notable of which is the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) program which was introduced in 2007 to provide cash transfers to extremely poor households across the country.In a 2016 interview with UNICEF, an employee of the Department of Social Welfare stated Ghana’s intention to close down many residential care homes, especially those which do not comply with the national standards. Orphanages that stay open will be those operating as a temporary home, intending to find a permanent solution for children within 3-6 months.
However, not every government is poised to consider social protection policies and they are especially difficult to enact in countries with high levels of informal employment. To mitigate this, different actors, beyond governments, are showing greater involvement in social protection. These range from locally based community organizations to national and international NGOs. Accompanying the rise in social protection initiatives is an increasing trend in organizations dedicated solely supporting children in orphanages return to their parents or extended families and ending the institutionalization of children.Many of these have been started by former volunteers in specific regions who realized the harmful nature of the orphan industry, such as Alternative Care Initiatives in Uganda and Next Generation Nepal. Meanwhile, the Lumos Foundation works on a global scale.
What about children who do not have a loving family?
When stating that four out of five children in orphanages have one or more living parent, we can’t ignore the one who doesn’t nor the one who would alternatively be in an abusive household.