Continuum of Care (enablement/intake)

Let’s face the facts. Many orphanages have been started with children that have existing or remaining family.

Part of a dinnertime conversation here in Burundi concerned this reality.

In Africa, there is a broad cultural acceptance of having other people raise your children for you. It’s not uncommon for a parent to ask a more well-to-do friend to take in their child so that child might have better opportunities in life. Some of this is related to the "it takes a village to raise a child" mindset and part of it is just based on pure economics, especially in situations of polygamous marriages where dozens of children are involved.

One of the organizational workers that joined us for dinner explained how a friend of hers was brought up in an orphanage. Family and extended family were either nowhere to be found or inadequate attempts were made to find them. The child was alone and subsequently raised by the institution. She beat the odds and ended up doing quite well for herself. She became a nurse. She married a doctor.

It was at that point that family came out of the woodwork and introduced themselves to her. Her new-found professional and economic success was, no doubt, a significant draw.

It was evident that she was being watched from afar. Family that didn’t want the responsibility of raising her were tracking her life’s developments, perhaps out of curiosity and love, perhaps for opportunities of future personal gain.

Yes, this child was indeed unwanted and abandoned for whatever reason. But could there have been better intake procedures to identify her true origins and the existence of family? Could there have been ministry opportunities into that shallow or overburdened family that could have changed the whole dynamic and situational analysis?

A major ministry once established and ran multiple orphanages in East Asia. The president of this ministry recently shared with us how they eventually had to make the decision to shut down the orphanages and follow a new ministry model that was not based on institutionalization. On the day the facilities were being closed, relatives literally lined up to pick up the children, pick up the ‘orphans.’

In India, we have visited many orphan homes where there were a large number of ‘needy’ children being housed with the orphans. Well, as you can imagine, many, if not most of the children of India could be classified as disadvantaged or needy. Where does one draw the line?

The line should be drawn at orphaned or endangerment status. Period.

Any type of group residential care program, regardless of whether it is an institutional orphanage or family-style home, should never, never, never (did I emphasize that enough?) enable families to give up their children for others to care for. That is simply unacceptable. The child needs to be with their family, even if that family is struggling greatly.

As with most things there are exceptions, of course. If the family is truly abandoning the child, selling the child, abusing the child, or planning to kill the child...those situations take special consideration. The child needs to be removed while that family is being ministered to. The goal would ultimately be reconciliation and reunification, brought about through the Gospel and much counseling.

But if the family just wants to have others take the burden of raising the child, or feels that others could do it better, that is simply not acceptable under any circumstance. That family should also be ministered to and supported. But their child should always remain with them.

Institutional orphanages are indeed part of the problem and actually help to perpetuate the problem. The very existence of an institution in a community can create orphans, create abandoned children. It’s too big of a temptation. It becomes an easy ‘drop-off’ point for families that are struggling to raise their children or want better opportunities for them. In addition, as those children grow up without healthy family role models, they end up abandoning their own children. Orphanages can create, perpetuate and increase the numbers of abandoned children over generations. They can destroy communities and nations.

Residential care should never enable abandonment!

Related to this, where there is a need for residential care, there’s usually gross problems regarding intake procedures.

Churches know the families and kids in their communities. They are much better positioned and equipped than the government, NGO’s, or established institutional orphanages to assess the needs of children and to know the specific situations concerning their status, abuse or abandonment. They know who the true orphans are. They minister to the dying families and know the children before they hit the streets. They know if extended family options exist or not. Their very work and involvement in the surrounding community is the intake assessment procedure!

Since the funding of institutional orphanages is often based on the number of children they care for, there is an inherent conflict of interest involved. Even above-the-board orphanage directors are less than motivated to make sure a child is a true orphan, and they are certainly not inclined to try to keep children in families or return the children to them. They need to keep the child numbers up in order to keep income up.

Yes, churches can abuse the system also, most notably when they receive funding for children from the West. Narrowly-focused, poorly-run child sponsorship programs create these potential problems where funding is directly related to the number of children involved. Such sponsorship programs should be left to the experts (i.e. Compassion International and other dedicated sponsorship ministries) who have significant, multi-tiered, in-field accountability structures.

Provided that poor sponsorship programs aren’t in the mix, the church is clearly the better assessment and intake mechanism because they are involved in activities spanning the full continuum of care, most notably orphaning prevention and delay programs. In addition, their heart is for the community they serve, not for filling up buildings with children. They take a more integrated approach that involves multiple options.

They don’t enable abandonment.