In 2004, writer J.K. Rowling founded an organization called Lumos to prevent "poor, ethnic minority, or disabled" children from being unfairly placed in orphanages.
On July 16, the foundation sent a tweet encouraging followers to think before contributing to institutions that house children en masse.
In response, celebrity chef José Andrés proposed a solution: People should help out in person instead of (or in addition to) donating.
"What donors should do is visit the orphanage and volunteer at them, and if possible adopt," Andrés wrote. "We support one in Haiti and my family volunteers!"
Rowling replied to Andrés from her personal account, explaining how support from wealthy patrons frequently contributes to the abuse suffered by children in orphanages and why, despite good intentions, taking a more active role might not be the answer.
Disability rights advocates praised Rowling's advice.
While not all children are able to live with their family, Rowling says there's a better solution than foisting them on frequently neglectful group homes.
The author believes that working to end the cycles of poverty that force parents into a choice to give their children away rather than supporting the institutions that provide an insufficient (and frequently detrimental) backstop is the best, albeit more complex, solution. In other words, orphanages address the symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
Several statistics back her up.
A January 2017 study by researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health found that 80% of children in Cambodian orphanages indeed have at least one living parent.
Additionally, a 2012 analysis concluded that children reared from a young age in substandard group living situations are at a higher risk for neurological, cognitive, and behavioral problems. While well-run institutions do exist, examples of gross abuse and neglect are sadly ordinary (warning: link contains graphic, upsetting images).
Lumos works to reunite children with their families and channel funds away from orphanages and into local community services that support parents, making it easier for them to raise their own children in the first place.
For well-intentioned donors, Rowling believes giving money to institutions that provide little support for children beyond simple housing and a baseline education should be the last resort.
Helping prevent children from going there should be the first.
(Source: Upworthy)
On July 16, the foundation sent a tweet encouraging followers to think before contributing to institutions that house children en masse.
Donors funding orphanages unwittingly contribute to the continued abuse of children in orphanages - better ways to give. #100andchange
In response, celebrity chef José Andrés proposed a solution: People should help out in person instead of (or in addition to) donating.
"What donors should do is visit the orphanage and volunteer at them, and if possible adopt," Andrés wrote. "We support one in Haiti and my family volunteers!"
Rowling replied to Andrés from her personal account, explaining how support from wealthy patrons frequently contributes to the abuse suffered by children in orphanages and why, despite good intentions, taking a more active role might not be the answer.
.@chefjoseandres Many, many kind and well-intentioned people think this is the way to help the world's most vulnerable children, José /1 twitter.com/chefjoseandres…
but this is based on several misconceptions. The number one driver into institutions is poverty, followed by war and natural disasters. /2
only because the alternative was starvation. Disabled children are greatly over-represented in institutions because in many countries /4
their families and communities. There is also a (largely western) misapprehension that 'orphanages' are benign places, even though they /6
are 10 times more likely to become prostitutes, 40 times more likely to have a criminal record and a horrifying 500 times more likely to /8
volunteering are motivated only by a desire to help children. However, many institutions are known to be the seat of trafficking and /10
to western donors. Please visit @lumos for more information. Our website has plenty of research to substantiate what I'm saying here. /12
Disability rights advocates praised Rowling's advice.
.@jk_rowling sets folks straight on why every child deserves to live in a family, not an institution. Yet another reason to love her. twitter.com/jk_rowling/sta…
I cannot express how much I admire @jk_rowling for choosing to champion disability rights & community living through @lumos.
The author believes that working to end the cycles of poverty that force parents into a choice to give their children away rather than supporting the institutions that provide an insufficient (and frequently detrimental) backstop is the best, albeit more complex, solution. In other words, orphanages address the symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
 |
| An orphanage in Afghanistan. Photo by Noorullah Shirzada/Getty Images. |
Several statistics back her up.
A January 2017 study by researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health found that 80% of children in Cambodian orphanages indeed have at least one living parent.
Additionally, a 2012 analysis concluded that children reared from a young age in substandard group living situations are at a higher risk for neurological, cognitive, and behavioral problems. While well-run institutions do exist, examples of gross abuse and neglect are sadly ordinary (warning: link contains graphic, upsetting images).
Lumos works to reunite children with their families and channel funds away from orphanages and into local community services that support parents, making it easier for them to raise their own children in the first place.
For well-intentioned donors, Rowling believes giving money to institutions that provide little support for children beyond simple housing and a baseline education should be the last resort.
Helping prevent children from going there should be the first.
(Source: Upworthy)
No comments:
Post a Comment