Are Orphanages Better for Kids than Welfare?

November 27, 1994|By RICHARD O'MARA

Resurgent Republicans in Congress under Newt Gingrich are breathing new life into an idea whose time most people thought had already come and gone.

They want to bring back orphanages and other forms of state-supervised residences to care for the illegitimate children of young women who would be cut from welfare rolls under their proposals.

In addition to evoking images of little Oliver Twist begging for another bowl of porridge, the initiative, a part of the Republicans' Personal Responsibility Act, has sent a shiver of apprehension through the community of child-care workers.

This is because the idea collides with the principal tenet that has guided their profession for nearly a century: that children are raised better in families, even imperfect or incomplete families, than in institutions.

Resort to orphanages, said one political scientist writing a book on the subject, is a return to the very institution whose failure led to the welfare system as it exists today.

Matthew Crenson, a Johns Hopkins political scientist, said the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program actually evolved from earlier measures devised as remedies for the ills visited upon thousands of children raised in orphanages.

The movement to reconstitute orphanages or other forms of supervised group-living outside the family has been growing for several years. It has been supported by conservative Republicans such as William J. Bennett, academics like Charles Murray (co-author of "The Bell Curve"), and more recently by Rep. Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia.

The nature and preoccupations of some of its other partisans, prominent criminologists James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio, suggest that though it is being touted as welfare reform, it is also seen as an anti-crime measure. Its partisans believe it would help reduce illegitimacy, which many people think stimulates crime.

Another partisan of the orphanage movement is Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Rector credited President Clinton for having spoken out about the problem of illegitimacy as a key cause of crime. But he faulted the president for failing to reform the system to reduce the national illegitimacy rate, now one out of every three births.

The Republican proposal in the House of Representatives, Dr. Rector believes, would do that by cutting off AFDC and housing assistance to young unmarried women for the care of their children. This, he said, would make having illegitimate children less attractive.

The main author of the GOP measure is Rep. James M. Talent of Missouri. He said the money withheld from the mothers -- both for housing and child support -- would go to the states. They would be encouraged to use it to create group homes, where several mothers and their children would live closely supervised lives.

These mothers, Dr. Rector explained, "would have no walking-around money for cigarettes, booze, clothes. Some of these women like to dress their kids up. They would have to take parenting classes, finish high school and have a curfew. The bottom line is, this would be the only option for these women."

Part of the federal money diverted to the states would finance the orphanages for the children of those mothers who did not want to keep them, or couldn't.

Child-care professionals argue strenuously against this. Said Earl Stuck, the director of residential care services of the Child

Welfare League of America, a national children's lobby: "I don't see any connection between putting kids in orphanages and illegitimacy. Women don't get pregnant to get higher welfare payments."

And on the matter of costs, he said: "One of the things Gingrich talks of is warm, caring, loving orphanages. To produce that would be very costly [over $100 a day per child]. You will not save money if you start throwing kids into residential care unless you cut the costs [of running the institutions], and then we're talking about the Dickensian orphanages."

Currently, according to Mr. Stuck, about a half-million children are in "out of home care." About 400,000 are in foster homes, and the remaining 100,000, nearly all suffering from learning difficulties or behavioral problems, live temporarily in residential care facilities.

These are not orphanages, nor, Mr. Stuck said, are there many "dictionary definition orphans" -- that is, children with no parent at all -- in the United States. Accordingly, there are few actual orphanages left.

The orphanage had its heyday in America during the last century. Most were religious institutions, and among them most were affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant orphanages began to sharply increase in number during the latter part of the century. The two Christian sects competed to bring more and more children under their care.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.