Paul Myhill's Blog

Families for China’s Orphans

PROJECT PROFILE:

China has over 20 million orphaned and abandoned children. The country's 'one child' policy and preference for male heirs has resulted in many baby girls being abandoned at birth. Many of these girls are shuffled into institutions that have been set up for orphans and the elderly. Some private orphanages also operate in the country and typically receive handicapped children. Chinese authorities have been somewhat reluctant to assign healthy children to these independent projects.

World Orphans' network partner in China (undisclosed for security reasons) offers a rare exception to the Chinese institutional model and has been granted the right to care for healthy children in apartment homes. Our partner works with house churches to provide mothers for each home, with each mother caring for six children as her own. Almost 60 children are now being raised in these apartments and World Orphans still needs $8,134 per month to provide for their care.

CHINA COUNTRY PROFILE:

Number of Single Orphans* (one parent lost): 18,000,000

Number of Double Orphans* (both parents lost): 560,000

*not including abandoned, sold or trafficked children

Population: 1,338,612,968

Average Annual Income: $860 per person

NETWORK PARTNER:

Undisclosed for security purposes

CONTRIBUTIONS:

To give to this project please view our giving options (link below) and write "CHI-523" in the online memo field or on the memo line of your check:

Giving Options

Beating the Traffickers in Moldova

PROJECT PROFILE:

Moldova is one of the largest hubs for human trafficking in Europe. Many traffickers target orphans (both boys and girls) that are "aging out" of government-run orphanages. Our partners in Moldova have shared stories where corrupt orphanage officials are even informing traffickers when desirable children are being released from their institutions. Under such a scenario, the traffickers wait curbside in vans as the naïve and vulnerable youth enter a world they are totally unfamiliar with. Other children are simply picked up off of the streets, missed by nobody.

Jesus Saviour Church, led by Pastor Vasile Surdu, is trying to get there first, reaching out to these children during a highly vulnerable time and taking them into transition homes when necessary. In conjunction with World Orphans partner, New Hope International, summer camps are held for street children. World Orphans short-term teams have participated in these camps to help the church build trust and relationships with kids who have often been abused and exploited.

For children who require family-style residential care because of highly risky situations, Jesus Saviour Church places them into their transition home situated on the church property. The home was funded by World Orphans and is one of many transition homes that World Orphans is establishing, through partner indigenous churches, for the vulnerable children of Moldova.

World Orphans still needs to provide Jesus Saviour Church with $1,485 per month for the care of the children and upkeep of the transition home.

Summer Outreach Camps to reach the street children in Moldova cost World Orphans approximately $15,000. We still need this funding for 2010 camps.

MOLDOVA COUNTRY PROFILE:

Number of Single Orphans* (one parent lost): 77,000

Number of Double Orphans* (both parents lost): 3,600

*not including abandoned, sold or trafficked children

Population: 4,320,748

Average Income: $460 per person

NETWORK PARTNER:

 

CONTRIBUTIONS:

To give to this project please view our giving options (link below) and write "MOL-543 Home" or "MOL-Camps" in the online memo field or on the memo line of your check:

Giving Options

Community Solutions (part two)

I’ve also seen plenty of cases where the placement of orphaned children into community families brought about the same scenarios of abuse and exploitation that the presenter attributed to institutions. Children being used as sex slaves. Children being used as domestic help or as wage-earners for these families.

Without the necessary screening and monitoring structures, many ‘community solutions’ are akin to the Hail Mary pass, throwing up the ball for grabs and hoping for a successful completion. To just state that community child placement is the solution, without having all the infrastructure in place to make it work, is an oversimplified picture, an erection of an obvious straw man that damages the perception and acceptance of ‘other’ orphan care scenarios.

Who is going to screen the families according to their ability and intent? Who is going to make sure that families aren’t just leaving the children to fend on the streets? Who is going to ensure that these families aren’t trafficking the children or using them for illicit purposes?

To simply say that children are ‘in families’ or that ‘community families’ should simply absorb them is to be ignorant of or to ignore the cultural issues and fallen human nature that serve to enslave or neglect these children.

If I were to tell you that we need to solve our impending Social Security crunch by having more people paying in and less people drawing out, you’d tell me that was pretty darn obvious, right? The reality is that the numbers don’t add up and there are many other factors involved that make that suggestion an absurd one.

Likewise, to say that we simply need to see these millions of orphans placed in community families is unrealistic and unattainable. It is devoid of the cultural taboo issues concerning adoption or foster care in many countries. It is devoid of the limited capacity considerations of many countries that already have families caring for multiple children in addition to their own. And it is devoid of the understanding of sinful human nature to use others to forward your own objectives and desires.

To be continued...

Broken Heart

It was a million dollar view. The wooded property on a hillside overlooks Guatemala City. Volcanoes dot the horizon and add further majesty to the scene. One would expect the rich of society to be dwelling on such a plot. A mansion could have suitably left its footprint on the land, nestled in comfort and grandiosity. Grecian columns would have matched the noble girth of trees. Rock gardens and ponds would have complimented natural terraces of foliage and sloping outcroppings. It would have been a fine estate, one of enduring legacy, one fit for a national leader or captain of industry.

Instead, a stark and underfunded Catholic orphanage sits on the land. Manicured lawns have given way to bare dirt. Grand vistas and pools of leisure have given way to makeshift playground equipment of old tires, splintered wood and rusty rebar.

The children, covered in dirt and dust, looked every bit the orphan, although they were officially part of the rescued statistics. Scabs and sores bore further evidence to ongoing lack and need.

And then there was the little boy, the one without a name.

He was purple. He has a heart problem that prevents his extremities from getting adequate oxygenation. Is he still alive even today, a week after our visit? He’s just another boy in institutional care with an issue that his caretakers are poorly equipped or resourced to solve.

The thing that struck me is that this boy, discarded for being damaged or incomplete, is worth much more than any regal manor or stately home. The things of greatest value are already occupying this prime piece of property. They are the land’s greatest heritage, its greatest legacy.

Instead of investing hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop the property with an architectural statement for the generations, isn’t it worth a couple of thousand dollars to leave a more lasting generational impact...to fix one little boy’s heart?

All is Not What it Seems

There is nearly unanimous agreement that China’s opening ceremony for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games was a masterpiece. However, as we’ve learned over the past few days, all is not what it seems.

Stories hit the media earlier this week that part of the fireworks display was faked - a computer-generated animation prepared months ago and fed out by Beijing Olympic Broadcasting, the entity that controls and provides the primary video feeds of all Olympics events to other broadcasters.

Now, today, it has come to light that the precious little girl who sang "Ode to the Motherland" during the opening ceremony was, in fact, lip-synching to another child's voice.

The musical director for the event, Chen Qigang, admitted that, "After several tests, we decided to put Lin Miaoke on the live picture, while using Yang Peiyi's voice. The reason for this is that we must put our country's interest first. The girl appearing on the picture must be flawless in terms of her facial expression and the great feeling she can give to people."

The New York Times reported, "Under pressure from the highest levels of the ruling Communist Party to find the perfect face and voice, the ceremony’s production team concluded the only solution was to use two girls instead of one. Miaoke, a third grader, was judged cute and appealing but "not suitable" as a singer. Another girl, Yang Peiyi, 7, was judged the best singer but not as cute. So when Miaoke opened her mouth to sing, the voice that was actually heard was a recording of Peiyi."

My heart crumbles for little Peiyi who lost her opportunity to sing, in person, for a billion people because the country that devalues girls so much deemed her as not cute enough.

Near the end of the opening ceremony, we saw thousands of pictures of little children held up by the performers. The images were also repeated on the fringe screens that wrap the whole stadium – a plethora of bright, smiling children.

Too bad that China’s one child policy, the desire for perfection, the devaluation of the female child, and the preference for a "lucky" male heir, means that thousands (by some estimates, millions) of children - mainly little girls like Miaoke and Peiyi - are presently languishing in Chinese orphanages.

Look past the façade, folks. I’m a father with a Chinese daughter. I used to work with and in Chinese orphanages. I’ve seen the reality of bleak holding cells filled with the children that the Chinese government now wants you to believe are cherished and valued.

The dying rooms still exist. Abandonment occurs in record numbers as precious little infants and pig-tailed girls are discarded, victims of a system that places very little value on human life.

Continuum of Care (hand in hand)

An attention to the child continuum of care goes hand in hand with an attention to holism.

An indigenous church that is engaged in all aspects of the continuum is inherently taking a holistic approach that seeks the integrated physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being of the child.

Jonathon’s parents, David and Sarah, are dying of AIDS in the Kibera slum of Nairobi. A local church has been visiting them for months, providing antiretroviral drugs (ARV’s), other medications and meals, as well as school fees and tutoring sessions for eight year-old Jonathon. Various church volunteers help to bathe, feed and pray for the ailing family with regular visits each week. David and Sarah really look forward to the company since the members of the church are now the only people that come by to visit. Others in the community have long since stayed away, scared by the evil ‘stigma and spirits’ of HIV/AIDS.

David and Sarah’s fragile bodies were far too damaged during a prolonged period without access to ARV’s and proper care and nutrition. Their deaths are imminent.

The church is working to preserve family stories and memories for Jonathon. A book has been compiled with narratives on how David and Sarah met, fell in love and got married. Other pages chronicle broader family and clan history and give an account of their move from the village ten years ago. Additional entries tell of how Jonathon was given his name and of a younger sister that died when he was four years old. Jonathon’s young life is described in detail and his parents include letters to him, imparting blessings and giving him instructions for a life worthy of the family name and heritage. Interspersed between the pages are the few fading photos that the family possesses.

The book is placed into a keepsake box, along with what meager items the family treasures – a small wood carving of an elephant that Jonathon chose on a visit to the Rift Valley, his first t-shirt emblazoned with Tweety Bird, Sarah’s heart-shaped locket (the only piece of precious-metal jewelry she has ever owned), and the broken spectacles of their daughter who had also succumbed to the ravages of AIDS.

As a result of all their home visits, and the thorough process of establishing a memory book for Jonathon, the church has an intimate knowledge of his past and potential. They know his parents well; know their hopes and dreams for him.

Jonathon has no extended family in the slum. Relatives in their village of origin either scattered long ago or have no desire to welcome the son of AIDS victims into their families.

For Jonathon, the church’s family-style home is his only hope.

But he knows these people, has played with them, prayed with them. They are his friends. The family that is taking him in has visited his parents on many occasions and helped him with his homework. He is comfortable with them. He watched them nurture his parents. He will watch them give his parents a decent and dignified burial.

The pain will still be initially unbearable. But most of the deep and long psychological scars will be averted.

Jonathon will never have to wonder about who his parents were and struggle with being a person without a history, dropped off on the doorstep on an institutional orphanage.

He will be more whole.

...Because the church engaged him and his family at the entry point of the continuum of care.

Continuum of Care (mistakes of the past)

We in the West have done a great disservice to Christian ministries and pastors in the developing world.

Through many decades of missionary involvement, and an underlying history of imperialism and associated colonial rule, we have trained indigenous Christian leaders to believe that large orphanages are the clear solution to the burgeoning numbers of orphaned and abandoned children in their societies.

Multiple generations have now witnessed the model where hundreds of kids are crammed into large melancholy buildings that hold them for a time, only to churn them out unprepared into an unfamiliar world.

For most indigenous pastors, they now don’t know any different. They have grown up thinking that this approach is the approach. Unfortunately, they’ve also seen that it’s the approach associated with the greatest influx of western funding.

Even worse, so many of these institutions have been set up and run by foreign para-church organizations from the developed world, that many indigenous pastors have now shunned the responsibility altogether. They simply wait for westerners to build and oversee orphanages in their communities.

World Orphans is committed to great care in assessing the cultures it works in. Where culture is not contrary to the Gospel and teachings of Christ, we want to complement it, not replace, destroy or minimize it. After all, this is part of God’s beautiful mosaic and how He is most gloried – through a diversity of ethnic groups, languages and customs coming to together in unified worship.

As far as rescued children are concerned, their culturally-relevant teaching and socialization obviously falls squarely upon the shoulders of those who are part of the culture. We want to honor the forms and functions accordingly.

There is indeed a place for us (and it is incumbent upon us) in the West to share new knowledge about health and nutrition, helpful technologies, trauma counseling and psychological strengthening, spiritual development approaches, and discipleship methods in general, but we are not to impress our cultural preferences on others unless it’s part of a process of destroying indigenous cultural elements that are not honoring to God, according to His nature and word.

We do now have another responsibility, though. There exist many instances where we have to break what is now accepted by others cultures - and deeply ingrained within them - that are the result of our faulty involvements in the past. We have to retract the assimilated elements that we originally inserted in error.

This includes the acceptance and proliferation of institutional orphanages.

Institutional orphanages were very rarely a construct of the developing-world cultures we now engage. More often than not, this model was an export of developed-world societies during the industrial revolution and age of colonialism. We have therefore replaced "it’s takes a village" scenarios with "it takes the Westerners" or "it takes institutions."

It’s a wrong that we now have to right. We have to use or withhold funding for the opposite intent and purpose - to help pastors identify other points of entry and involvement in the full continuum of care for children.

This concludes the series of Continuum of Care entries that I wrote last year in Burundi. The Continuum of Care posts that follow contain material that has been written since that time.

Continuum of Care (silos and islands)

I keep thinking of those sheets of paper on the wall. Each representing what a specific Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) is committed to, the only fields where they desire to put their stakes into the ground.

Each a visible reminder of the limitations of visions, mission statements and strategies.

Each a horrible directing and channeling ofministry to meet organizational slants and objectives.

You see, the front line of ministry here in Burundi, and elsewhere in the developing world, is typically very malleable. A wholesale lack of resources means that impressionable funding recipients acquiesce easily to the forms and functions imposed upon them by western benefactors.

Pliable indigenous churches brought into compliance to others’ visions because that’s where the money is?

Christians being "one in heart and mind, sharing everything they have with each other" wasn’t supposed to take such an ugly turn.

It happens in sister-church relationships, para-church partnerships, and mission agency joint initiatives. It occurs with long-term missionaries, short-term teams and everything in between: Western visions imposed on indigenous partners, or projects initiated simply based on the category of funding available.

For the purpose of our discussion here, we’ll focus on the indigenous church as the recipient of training and resources and the actual implementer of the ministry. After all, that’s way that it’s supposed to be.

But if that indigenous church is unhealthily swayed to tailor its programs according to where the preponderance of funding is, or based on what a current or potential western partner is willing to fund, we have a problem, a serious problem.

Obviously my specific area of interest is orphaned and abandoned children, so let’s use them as the example.

A church the Golden Triangle region of Thailand wants to address the growing orphan population in its vicinity. It is introduced by a friend of the ministry to a NGO that provides funding for the building of orphanages. In order to participate in the opportunity afforded by the introduction, and to tap the potential resources that can obviously come with it, the church decides to put together a proposal to build a large orphanage on the hinterlands of town. The NGO, happy to have a project that meets with its funding criteria, subsequently approves and invests in the project, providing $200,000 for full infrastructure and start-up needs. On opening day, the orphanage takes in over 100 children.

Too bad that a fraction of that $200,000 investment could have kept all 100 of those children with close relatives while providing direct ministry opportunities into those same families as part of a church-sponsored home visitation and assistance program.

Meanwhile, a church in sub-Sahara Africa decides that it has to do something about orphans who are left with no extended family options to provide residence and care. Through a visiting short-term team, the church becomes aware of a para-church organization that funds foster care programs that enable the placement of children into community families. One of the short-term participants, who has a friend in the para-church organization, tells the church that she’d be happy to make a recommendation.

Soon, the arrangement comes to fruition. The indigenous African church receives funding for the sole purpose of seeing orphans placed into community families.

Families, motivated by the financial reward and the opportunity to have a domestic servant, sign up to participate. As a result, dozens and dozens of healthy children are provided to them, along with sizable monthly checks.

Seem implausible?

It happens each and every day...in a variety of geographical locations and cultural contexts.

Most ministries champion and protect a limited scope of engagement, often an expertise that they deem to be the best - and only - solution. They only fund according to a narrow spectrum of options and, in most cases, fund one thing and only one thing.

This is tremendously damaging to a continuum of care options and often causes one of the least effective options to be employed.

Lives are destroyed. Money is wasted.

As my good friend and colleague, Mike Vinson, frequently says, "Most ministries are silos," independently-operating organizations that are totally disconnected to or disinterested in alternatives, especially if those alternatives require the involvement or credit of other organizations.

We can’t have non-integrated, islands-unto-themselves, lone ranger approaches that don’t take into account a plethora of other good solutions...better solutions.

Funding should never be used to limit those options. Everything has to be evaluated according to the continuum of care possibilities for each church, each community, each child...using God’s ultimate instrument of ministry that He has set in place, the local church.

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.

Continuum of Care (introduction)

I wrote the following entry, and a few that follow, at 4:00 AM as a storm rained down on a tin roof overlooking a courtyard in Bujumbura, Burundi last year. I’m not sure why it took me so long to post them, perhaps because they fall more into a ministry philosophy category than one of in-field reporting. Regardless, we have developed this model considerably further since I penned these initial thoughts based on our discussions. I look forward to sharing more with you on that later...

Continuum of Care (introduction)

True holistic or ‘whole’ ministry not only means providing for all the functional needs of the individual, but possessing all the potential solutions available for that individual. It entails having all the options at your disposal to meet the needs according to a ‘continuum of care.’ Where an individual’s needs and circumstances fall on that spectrum dictates the prospective approaches and solutions. For the potential orphan, it involves first trying to prevent orphaning, second, rescuing the child after orphaning.

More specifically, the rescue and care of abandoned and orphaned children should follow a progressive continuum of options that all involve the coordination and direct involvement of the local indigenous church located in the community.

PREVENTION/DELAY

Prevention involvement should primarily focus on keeping dying families or guardians alive for as long as possible, or by supporting high-risk struggling, impoverished, or single-parent families. In other words, the goal should be to avert orphaning and abandonment, or to at least significantly delay it.

Indigenous churches, as they engage their communities, conduct home care visits and provide much-needed medicines, food and other assistance for this purpose. Naturally, they also have significant additional ministry opportunities into these families as a result.

TRANSITION/RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT

If orphaning is still imminent, the church already has a history with and familiarity of these children due to its prevention and delay involvement. Requisite trust has been built with the families and the kids. The church prepares the family for death through counsel and practical programs that help to safeguard memories, family heritage and continuity. Meanwhile, the church looks to see what extended family options currently exist or helps to convince and support otherwise uncommitted relatives to step up and take in these children. Again, this provides further inlets for the church to reach and minister to families. The church is given witnessing avenues beyond just the interest in the children.

If these first two options don’t exist or have failed, then the church turns to its own congregation – first to see if church members can raise and care for the children as their own (adoption) or as an intermediate step until another family is found (foster care). The church therefore serves as an integral community-based solution.

If the church’s capacity has already reached its upper limits, then a church-based residential care solution is needed in order to keeps kids off of the streets, herded into institutions, preyed upon by traffickers, or being exploited as domestic slaves in other community homes.

Group residential care, however, still has to be designed to provide a family environment, albeit a large one of fifteen children or so. Church families, that may have existing kids of their own, are recruited to care for these additional children in church-based homes with full funding provided for food, clothing, education and other critical needs. It’s a long-term obligation - a lifelong commitment - to what, in essence, equates to a group adoption.

In these large family settings, widows can complement the live-in care provision. Formerly disenfranchised and ostracized, many of these ladies need a home themselves and a renewed sense of purpose and belonging. They know loss and pain and are therefore uniquely qualified to counsel and comfort children who have lost their parents.

Volunteers from the church body are also on hand to provide assistance, mentoring, and skills development for the children in the group home.

RESCUE

There exist many young children already struggling on the streets and in garbage dumps and brothels. The indigenous church still goes through the necessary steps to find and support extended families for their rescue. But, absent that, these children also need to be incorporated into families within homes overseen and run by the church.

TRANSITION/REHABILITATION

Many orphan care ministries speak in terms of ‘transition’ or ‘reintegration’ concerning children that age-out of the system. For the children in World Orphans’ church-based homes, these words carry less meaning. Under our current ministry model, our children remain fully integrated in their communities and daily experience what healthy families look like. There is no big disconnection between the environment of their upbringing and the next season of life in the ‘real world,’ only the normal anxieties typically associated with making it on your own.

What’s more, these children never graduate from a home, much like we would never graduate from our own families. The families are told that their care for the children is not a 5, 10 or 15-year commitment. It’s a 65-year commitment! These kids are now part of families, families that they will still visit; families that they will celebrate life’s achievements and milestones with; families that will gather together for reunions and holidays.

There are children we serve, however, that can be deemed as in need of transition. These are children in countries that raise their orphans in state institutions, or in countries where circumstances placed them into large privately-run orphanages. They also include latter-stage children that have been on the streets or rescued from other dire circumstances. These kids need comprehensive help through well-designed intervention programs that prepare them for the next stage of life.

In many cases, these children are immediately placed at the mercy of evil forces that prey upon them as soon as they are released from institutional care. If the church doesn’t step in at that point, the kids are soon immersed into a world of drugs, prostitution, slavery, or forced military conscription. Their lives are typically harsh...and short.

To avoid this highly-vulnerable period following institutional release, World Orphans is establishing transition homes, again owned and run by indigenous churches, that take in children before malevolent parties have a chance to grab them. This residential care format provides the necessary training (including social and skills development) to allow the children to better integrate into broader society at a later date.

SELF-SUSTAINABILITY

Whether it’s a child leaving a primary or transitional home, or directly aging out of an institutional orphanage, there is a further opportunity and responsibility for an indigenous church. Much like we would help our own children with ‘next steps’ resourcing and care, so is it with children from any type of residential care program. They need assistance to take the first strides of self sufficiency. That may come in the form of additional training or higher education, but can often mean a simple micro-loan to establish them in a trade, small business, or other income-generating scenario.

Why go this extra mile?

Because it could mean the difference between stopping or perpetuating the vicious cycle of orphaning and abandonment. It’s not just the specific child (now young adult) in question, but also their future offspring. The child needs to have every chance to be successful and self supporting so that they don’t, in turn, abandon children or fall to the ills that take and destroy lives after children are born.