New Research on Orphanages

Posted on January 4, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Last month the New York Times reported on new research regarding orphanages. The study evaluated the previous findings that recommended orphanages be used only as a last resort due to the negative impact institutionalization has on the emotional and intellectual development of children. A Comparison of the Wellbeing of Orphans and Abandoned Children Ages 6–12 in Institutional and Community-Based Care Settings in 5 Less Wealthy Nations
found:

The institution-based children scored higher on intellectual functioning and memory and had fewer social and emotional difficulties. These differences were more pronounced when comparing these children only to community-based children not cared for by a biological parent.

Why the difference in these findings from previous studies? One of the reasons for this is that the orphanages they studied are quite different from the orphanages in earlier studies.

“Many institutions grew out of the community to meet the need of caring for the new wave of orphans and are a part of the community in a way that institutions in other regions and perhaps of the past were not. These institutions are not family-style/community care and they are not foster care, but they also do not look like institutions as we have come to think of them.”

and

Finally, cultures may differ so that institutional caregivers provide more parent-like support; and children living in the institutions may be more incorporated into the surrounding community.

These changes in orphanages are in line with the United Nations Draft Guidelines for the alternative care of children. They also match the criteria for donors that I presented in my post Be Cautious when funding orphanages.

Unfortunately, there are many questions left unanswered by the study. For instance the study found that:

“… positive institutions may provide a place where children can focus on education and their own needs rather than supporting their families. If the latter is true, then it may not be that institutional care is ‘good’ but that it is better than the community alternative”

The study compared institutions where there is financial and other support with children cared for by relatives without any apparent additional support. In the study the children in community settings were cared for primarily by family members, 55% were biological parents (for what is known as a single orphan rather than a double orphan), 13% were aunts or uncles, and 22% were grandparents. This would explain why they may need to help support their family rather than just focusing on their own needs. There is no information on how children in community care situations where the caregivers received additional support compared to children in institutions.

While there are some positive findings in this study, it is far from definitive. The researchers themselves call for additional studies including:

This study argues for a move beyond the dichotomized choice set of community vs. institution-based care towards an analysis of the specific characteristics of these care settings which are associated with improved child outcomes.

Until more research is conducted I recommend that donors still use the questions I outlined in Be Cautious when funding orphanages, which are based on the UN guidelines, for determining how best to support children in need.

—-

Related Posts:

Orphanages revisited
Be cautious when funding orphanages
Does funding orphanages create orphans?
Hug-an-orphan vacations

« Interesting aid news and debates from 2009   •   My response to Philanthropedia’s post »