Orphanages can be a child's best hope
I write in response to the commentary featuring the work of Lumos and the call to "end orphanages" everywhere and the reference of the "horrific" situation in India ("An end to orphanages," May 7). I was both heartened and saddened to read the piece. Heartened because there is no greater need for our children than that of keeping them in their families and with your global influence and there can be no better ambassador for a worldwide embracing of alternative care options for vulnerable children. Saddened, because the reasons the authors have so rightly listed — those of extreme poverty, discrimination and disability — are not so easily wished away by the single-minded focus on closure of institutional care.
In a country like India where the number of vulnerable children is expected to be more than 24 million by 2030 and rate of adoption is abysmally low (for reasons ranging from social stigma to extreme vetting to counter the danger of trafficking) and where community-based programs are in their infancy, institutional care with a rights-based approach and individual child care plan is often the child's only hope. India has some small group care models that are well established and are able to provide children with access to safety, health, education and social development tailored to their individual needs, a solution where other forms of alternative care are yet to evolve or even be conceptualized.
Our experience of 22 years has shown that Indian children in institutional care are mostly orphans or, equally heartbreakingly, have been abandoned by their own families. Those who have some distant family are very reluctant to take responsibility for them. The prime objective of Lumos is to transform an outdated and harmful system into one which supports and protects children and enables them to have a brighter tomorrow. We see an obvious connect between Lumos and Udayan Care here, perhaps through a wider lens. We think it important to differentiate between large child care institutions and other models, like Udayan Care which has small group homes, lifetime committed mentors to the children, personalized care and social integration that includes community schooling and a participatory approach.
Interestingly, Harry Potter himself finds the love of a true family only once he is at Hogwarts in Hagrid and Dumbledore and friends that are like siblings, far away from the "kinship care" of the Dursleys. Hogwarts too is an institution, one that values Harry for who he is as a special individual, just like each child in our care. The dilemma here is that in circumstances where the ground realities are complex and do not allow for the child to be safe and protected in other forms of alternative care, is it not simplistic to undermine the role that safe institutions can play? Should then the emphasis not be on improving standards of care and monitoring mechanisms at institutions rather than propagate for their full closure?