Children need guardians. Orphans are children without guardians. Orphanages provide guardianship. Orphanages, therefore, are the solution. . . right?

Wrong.

From UNESCO to grassroots NGOs, sources assert that funding orphanages actually creates “orphans”. How can this be? And if the criticism is accurate, why does such dysfunction persist? Most importantly, what’s the better alternative?

Specious asylum.

You visited Cambodia. Did you tour Angkor Wat? Ride an elephant? Hug an orphan? Much like unspoiled landscapes and ancient temples, orphans have become commodities in the developing world. It’s trendy these days for tourists to “give back” when traveling to destinations less affluent than home. And third-world orphanage owners, though not necessarily the children themselves, benefit hugely from travelers’ uninformed philanthropy.

Over the last decade, thousands of new orphanages have emerged at the twofold cost of

1) foreigners’ cash

and

2) children who have become commodified wards of exploitative custodians.

The problem: tourism’s demand for orphans in tourist meccas greatly surpasses supply. Thus the industry creates false orphans—children with at least one parent or adult relative, who nevertheless live in orphanages. International watchdogs report that the majority of orphanages in developing countries are unregistered (accountable to no one), with false orphans constituting at least 80% of those institutions’ children.

Hearts, not minds, campaign.

It pays to mistreat children. Scrawny kids with scabies elicit pity. And for industry orphanages, pity equals profits. Rithy Thul is a Cambodian NGO worker who spent two years teaching in one of the capital city’s orphanages. On the topic of profit-seeking orphanages, Thul explains, “Tourists want to believe they have helped someone in need; they want that feel-good experience. So orphanages keep children out of school and out of bed so that they can be visible in the streets. It also helps if they appear very needy.”

This heartstrings approach is entrepreneurial sleight of hand. By evoking an emotional reaction, the ragamuffin charade distracts from the fact that these children are being put on display at the expense of their well-being. And in some cases, the children’s next of kin are equally deceived, believing their relinquished guardianship and visitation rights confer nourishment, education and opportunities that they cannot provide. (Another common practice: orphanages “rent” especially cute children from poor families, in which case the family and orphanage are complicit.)

Simplicity sells.

With assessments consistently exposing the near-ubiquity of fraudulent orphanages, why do these shams continue to profit and proliferate? To descry just one cause would be naïve. Lenient and corrupt governments, legal loopholes, cunning proprietors, and (in some cases) parental apathy all contribute. But the fundamental enabler is donor overwhelm. [kw4]

Complexity and abundance of choices in many aspects of life render the onus of choice overwhelming to the individual. The Internet has 183.3 million websites, so we trust StumbleUpon.com [kw5] to choose which ones we visit. The legislative process is convoluted, so we elect representatives (senators, parliaments) to make decisions for us.

Gurus reassure us with their supposed understanding of the esoteric—they are paternalistically comforting. And many philanthropic tourists possess the balance of characteristics that funds orphanage profiteers: the humility to admit they don’t understand a problem, and the lack of time or gumption to learn. Orphanages offer guilt-free relief from the choice-yoke of responsible philanthropy by presenting the low-resistance option. Just donate. It’s so simple.

Carry that weight.

But just as with StumbleUpon and congresspersons, you have input. By making informed donations, you influence the trajectory of each system.

Children’s rights advocate Saundra Schimmelpfennig advises prospective donors to err on the side of skepticism. There are no magic bullets, and not donating is more helpful than uninformed donating. She warns, “Most social problems do not have a quick fix,” and “funding poorly run or unnecessary orphanages may actually hurt the child far more than it helps. . .”

Both Thul and Schimmelpfennig agree that while some orphanages are necessary and responsible, in most cases the best solution is one that doesn’t take the child away from his/her family and community. Before you give your time or money to an orphanage, consider instead the kind of foundations that build capacity within communities, so that families can provide for their children rather than export them.

Suggested reading:

http://informationincontext.typepad.com/

“Why family is best for orphans” on www.irinnews.org/

“More orphanage tourism (No!)” on http://lessonsilearned.org/