Warehousing our children - Orphanages return?

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | 06/19/03 | Mary Wiltenburg |

[bedolido]

An apparent shift toward more institutional care of foster kids has some child-welfare advocates worried that America is straining against 100 years of research.

These are no angry behemoths hulking on downtown streets or rising on the hills of distant railroad towns. Often, today's American orphanages look so unlike their Dickensian predecessors that you could almost believe the brightly colored cottages were sets for some Disney fairy tale. The children, too, seem distant from the privations of old. They have food, clothes, and a measure of stability - most even have parents, beyond the wilds of the foster-care system.

Look deeper, though, and perhaps not so much has changed in 150 years.

"The orphanage never really went away," says child welfare expert Richard Wexler. "It sort of metamorphosed" into the system of shelters, group homes, residential treatment centers, and residential educational academies that provide the bulk of institutional foster care in the US today. "But they couldn't change the facts: Institutional care is bad for kids."

Mr. Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR), is among a growing number of analysts drawing attention to what he calls a "back to the orphanage" movement now under way. The population of American foster children in institutional settings is quietly growing, they say - not due to any concerted social or legal effort, just a pieced-together system that affords comparatively few services to families in need but offers fiscal incentives to take children away.

These analysts are not the only ones concerned: Last week the US House Ways and Means Committee heard testimony on a Bush administration proposal that would allow states to take their annual foster care money - currently the only bottomless pool of funds available for poor kids - in an up-front sum that could be used for family-preservation services. The child welfare community is divided: some Bush detractors actually support the proposal, citing its potential to strengthen family services; many institutional care providers oppose it.

[Temple Drake]

Orphanages are probably better than foster families -- many of whom are not normal, married couples and too many of of whom are in it for money.

[conservativeinbflo.]

"...please sir... can i have some more?"

[LiteKeeper]

SITREP

[afraidfortherepublic]

But they couldn't change the facts: Institutional care is bad for kids.

So is parental and step-parental abuse and neglect.

[dogbyte12]

What would be easier for a case worker to regulate? 100 foster homes on his case load, or one orphanage with 100 kids? Hell the guy could just camp there every day.

I think that for those kids who aren't adopted, an orphanage might be a better option if it is well run. Kids in foster homes get lost in the system.

[stuartcr]

There should be a nation-wide poll, and everyone that is pro-life should have an orphan assigned to them.

[Lorianne]

Well this is interesting give that I just had a discussion on another thread in which some advocate the State taking away children from their parents, not for abuse, but because they are poor.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930740/posts?page=280#280

So rather than financially helping out a poor parent, some advocate taking their children away. Of course, we'd still have to collect taxes to pay for the upkeep of kids who won't be adopted. In the meantime, they lose their biological parent as well.

[Lorianne]

So do you advocate State forced abortion? Because you seem to be implying that abortion is a better option than orphanages or paying for children born.

[waRNmother.armyboots]

Do boarding schools where the rich who do not want to be bothered with the rigors of rearing their own children send their children count as institutionalized care? If not, it should. It is basically the same if not worse. As to institutionalized care, the cottage homes are very similar to a large family and I think better than living in an orphanage of Dicken's day by far.

[CobaltBlue]

I was in Catholic boarding school for a year while my parents were engaged in a knock-down, drag-out custody battle. I was miserable away from my family but looking back it was an oasis of sanity and structure.

Later I "gave back" by acting as a weekend "counsellor" (like camp counsellor) at a Catholic group home for pregnant teens.

Institutional care depends on the institution. The Catholic church worked for me.

[waRNmother.armyboots]

Being poor is not a crime, but being lazy should be. If the parents are only poor, then the children should not be taken away. And where is the church in this situation? Helping poor people in Africa?
My family met the government guidelines for poverty as my Dad was in the military(ironic, isn't it). However, I never felt poor, never lacked for food, clothing, shelter(no we did not live on base)or guidance and a strong foundation in a work ethic and solid moral principles. Not graduating from high school was never an option.

[stylin19a]

I have mixed emotions about orphanages

My sister was 6 & I was 8 when we were put in an orphanage. I stayed until I graduated from High School.

I HAD a lot of resent about the treatment I (and every other kid) received.

Nuns took care of the raising of the kids. There were house mothers and teachers. The house mothers provided for our well-being. We were well fed, clothed and disciplined.

The teachers were, well.. teachers. In High School, we went to school half days and learned a trade the other half of the day. The rest of the school day was finished at night, after supper.

We had our own bakery, shoemaker, doctors, florist/greenhouse, paint shop, print shop, garage, kitchen powerhouse, carpenter shop

Life was pseudo-military. In grammar school, we lived 30 to a cottage, 1st graders through 8th graders. Sleeping areas were dormitories. Movements were by formations. Everyone had chores.

Discipline mostly consisted of harsh corporal punishment.

In reflection of my life, over time, my resentment has turned into being gratefull. I have no idea what would have happened to my sister and I had we not been sent to the orphanage.

Maybe there is a way to provide the same types of things I was able to experience...without the discipline & military blurprint.

[bedolido]

Amazing life you've lived. Lord bless you.

[stuartcr]

No, the only implication, is what you attempt to read into my reply. I just think that those that are strongly against abortion should have an orphan assigned to them. Abortion is not an issue with me.

[stuartcr]

How would you discern between a lazy, poor person, and a not lazy poor person?

[Lorianne]

Meaning what? That since you don't have a problem with abortion, then you shouldn't be asked to pay for born alive children?

[stuartcr]

I have no idea what thet means. I didn't say I have no problem, I said it's not an issue with me, meaning that it doesn't influence the way I vote.

[jimt]

There should be a nation-wide poll, and everyone that is pro-life should have an orphan assigned to them.

If I can stop paying the taxes that support irresponsible welfare scum, and they're not allowed to create any more kids they won't support, I'll take the deal.

[Mamzelle]

Orphanages have some attractive advantages--it'd be easier for a community and churches to organize volunteer help for a central institution. Also, it'd be easier for that community to observe how the children are treated. The main problem would likely be the children who abuse other children.