When you suggest deinstitutionalisation to the management of a residential childcare institution, you usually have an uphill battle. This is not surprising, because why would they want to put themselves out of existence?
Still, despite it starting out as an uphill battle, it is not a fight lost before it was started. There are actually a lot of good reasons for people running an ‘orphanage’ to choose DI, even if you disregard the ‘it is less harmful to the children’-one.
For a long time, running an ‘orphanage’ was a way to gain respect, praise and admiration from the community and the wider world. It was seen as a self-sacrificing, charitable thing to do. People running ‘orphanages’ were seen as rescuers and guardian angels for vulnerable children. Just this reputation, could be a strong incentive for someone to start an ‘orphanage’. However, times have changed. Now that the orphanage-industry is thriving and more people worldwide are becoming aware that there is a lot of trafficking of children going on into and out of ‘orphanages’, the position of someone running an ‘orphanage’ is no longer such a reputable one. In fact, in some places it can be an outright smear on your name, these days.
Similarly, providing a place where volunteers could come to spend time with children in an ‘orphanage’ used to be a well-regarded and lucrative enterprise. Volunteers would flock from all over the world, bringing with them no experience and lots of money. Although this has not completely passed quite yet, it is certainly starting to wane.
Awareness campaigns are running in many countries, educating the public on the consequences of voluntourism – both for the children’s development, and in the sense of encouraging the orphanage-industry. In the past year, various volunteering organisations have announced that they will no longer be providing volunteering opportunities in ‘orphanages’, and universities have announced that they will no longer be sending out groups of students to ‘orphanages’. In Australia trafficking of children into ‘orphanages’ was recognised as a form of modern-day slavery, and so was the role of volunteers visiting ‘orphanages’ in encouraging the trafficking, last year. In the Netherlands, recently, a debate has been announced to discuss volunteering in ‘orphanages’ in parliament.
So, it looks like this is a source of income and of reputation that is about to dry up, within the next few years. And it is not the only source of income that is heading that way.
Lobbyists have been successful in securing a commitment from the EU that EU-funding will not be given if any of the money is used to fund institutional childcare. And work is being done to get the same kind of assurances from other major donors, like USAID.
This means that in a few years’ time, it might be the case that if a country wants to access any developmental aid, they will have to guarantee that no money will be spent on institutional childcare. This in turn could well mean that in 15-20 years’ time it will be nearly impossible to still run a residential childcare institution. Because if money from international aid, governments, and corporate and private donors all dries up, how is anyone going to be able to fund their institution?
So, even with completely leaving the children out of the conversation, there are plenty of reasons why it would be a good idea for institutions to choose DI. Essentially it comes down to the question: do you want to do it now, on your own terms, or in a decade or so when your back is against the wall?
Please share this blog to help spread awareness.
