to think that a looking after six orphans is a full-time job and a constitutes a worthy cause?

[starfield]

My friends, both with relevant degrees, are moving themselves and their two small children to another country in order to run a tiny home-from-home orphanage with the aim of providing disadvantaged babies and toddlers with a safe place in which to emotionally and physically heal. The shelter would be a home for up to six children at any one time.

They consider that a sustainable venture requires two additional local carers besides themselves, as some of the children are emotionally troubled and physically very ill and need nursing through the night.

My friends would work hand in hand with local authorities who leave the children with them, then collect them when a local adoption placement or similar has been identified (and the child in question is well enough to go).

They've successfully run an almost identical project before with twice as many children. That came to an end through no fault of their own. Without question, they were instrumental in saving children's lives, especially children who were on some last-chance medications which proved incredibly demanding to administer. I could say a great deal more about this but don't want to give identifying details.

The difference now is that they're starting their own project from scratch.

My friends have a christian faith and would be sharing that with the children where appropriate. However this has not detracted from their professionalism in any way and they're held in respect by government agencies. Their 'home' church here has helped significantly but is not in a position to fund this venture. Nor do they belong to a wealthy religious denomination.

Having seen a project like this in practice, I cannot think of a more worthy cause. But DH tells me that many people (his family included) see missionary work as a lifestyle choice for those who like the sun and dislike the 9-5 grind.

He thinks it will be very difficult to persuade anyone to fund a venture that's trying to make at least three full-time jobs out of caring for six children. After all, many people in the UK have six children and manage to work.

Am I being unreasonable to think that most right-thinking people should consider this venture a worthy cause? If not, could you tell me what would make it a worthy cause?

I work in funding in the charity sector. Very few funders would support this - because of the religious aspect, the fact that its parachuting in a solution rather than looking for a local solution to support families stay together (trust me, i have discussed support for orphanages with many funders) and its unsustainable. Without the support of a recognised development charity it would raise too many concerns.

madmum: Yes to your question. Kids are young. I'd agree if it worked in practice to hire people 'cold'. How would you even advertise it? '24/7 Children's worker'?

kungfupanda: The project is expandable but in a sustained way. My friends plan their family project as a model; the hope is that other families, both here and there, will be able to see what fostering within the context of a supportive community looks like. It's ambitious but the goal is to show that sustainable outreach can start with a family. And the project would incorporate that. If husband and I were to die, I would hate my daughter to be in a children's home (which we know is not emotionally adequate, I hope). I would be happy to see her in a supported family environment with dedicated houseparents.

We can see in our own culture that life is much more likely to be unsuccessful for children who aren't loved and made to feel wanted and secure in a family environment. The same thing is true for other countries. Are we saying that they only 'deserve' the lowest, most utilitarian intervention, on the basis that anything else is more expensive and cannot be justified? Even when we know that a generation of children raised in institutions is much more likely to produce adults who are more vulnerable and less able to promote their own welfare, both individually and as a society?

I can see there isn't the kind of support for this project that I'd hoped there would be. It's saddening.

msgee: You haven't read my post. The project has local government agency support and has been modelled successfully already. This is an idea that has been developed in conjunction with local aid - no parachute, although I can see that it would strengthen your response if it was. If you're experienced in this field, you'll be aware that a short-term emergency foster-care centre would be advantageous to keeping families together longer-term. Ideally, this is how local government agencies would use the facility (although it often isn't possible, hence the time spent with my friends more often being used to identify the right placement). I find it strange that you cannot differentiate between an orphanage and what is being discussed here, as the local authorities are not using the facility in that context and are clearly capable of telling the difference.

Why are they are trying this o. Their own rather than working with global agencies who have the experience and funding available?

Also out of interest what degree is considered relevant to such work? Have they considered the needs of their own children regards nutrition, safety and education?

Then if they are hoping to be involved in a sustainable and expandable project, they are going to need to accept that the religious aspect is going to have to fall by the wayside in order to attract funding.

There's a big difference between people who happen to be Christians doing something because they feel it is of benefit to a wider community, and people doing something because their faith is driving them, and with the intention of sharing that faith as part of the project.

Again, it seems to me to be a mish-mash of personal aspirations, spiritual agendas and practical intentions.

OP, it's rather patronising to think that the best solution to the problem is to send westerners in. It has been shown time and again that this type of aid doesn't work well. tends to recreate cycles of problems, and reduces the skills in an area. There has been even more written by local people themselves on the conflict that religious aid has brought to areas. The best solution now, to help those kids now, is to support their local area and local people now.

Would they be prepared to do it without the religious aspect?

rosemary: What a charming way to talk about an underdeveloped country! In response to your questions, I can only say that these parents are, as you'd imagine, highly tuned into their own children and utterly devoted to them. They've chosen a country where healthcare is accessible for their own children. I expect they'd be damned either way for that. But there still a risk, yes.

What the actual fuck are you trying to ask star? As far as I can see this thread simply seems like an opportunity for you to have a go at everyone who doesn't feel religion has a place in charitable support?

Starfield - because its money the 'locals' need, not our expertise and knowhow - such a colonial fucking view point you have, even if its wrapped up in niceties. Its not complicated and what they are really doing is just a grown up version of students gap year - how ever worthy you think it is . It's a personal gratification exercise, rather than a targeted and empirically efficient use of funds in a long term sustainable and/or self reproducing local enterprise.

tenbit: I don't think they would. Not because they don't care about the cause enough though. You'd have to meet them to understand how truly impossible it would be for them to do that successfully. They understand what they do in terms of it being an outworking of what has been done for them by Jesus - I have no idea how they would ever be able to leave it at the door. They're pathetic at keeping secrets.

Then why aren't they going there and supporting local families to do this? Rather than setting up their own? If the model is proven the next step would be for local families to implement it not UK ones. They could so that without setting up their own? Does the model that proven include religion? If its with local agencies would they not pay for it?

Ok it's not an orphanage - poor choice of words on my part. Bit it's not what funders believe to be best practice. It's still a Uk couple going over and doing, rather than supporting a local community to do it.

I think there certainly is an implication that no-one in this local community is capable of providing care to the standard of this couple.

There are wonderful, caring, selfless people in every corner of the world - you hear stories about them all the time - and I would have thought that a project could be structured around suitable local carers, with all funding being directed towards supporting them and recruiting more.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the UK-based team from spending time there and offering guidance and support, but I don't see the benefit or the need for a UK couple to go in and show the locals how to offer love to a disadvantaged child. Unless, of course, the people involved genuinely don't think that people in that country/area are capable of loving and caring for children as well as people in the UK.

Reading this more I think that this isn't about "a friend" at all.

Also if this project is based on tried and tested existing (succesful) projects then why is there concerns about funding and it being a worthy cause?

No, then, I couldn't support this.

I, like many other posters, believe it is a warped exercise in self-gratification and pseudo altruism.

If kungfu's idea of a project were in question, then yes, I would support it.

If the government of that country said to them - this is a lovely thing you are doing, we are very grateful. Our only condition is that you do not teach them anything about christianity, no hymns, no mention of Jesus, no christian education at all...

And the government checked up on it. And it was not possible to get round it.

would they still go over there and have those orphans?

If the answer is yes, then they are doing a good thing. If the answer is no, then they are not.

stuntgirl - when posting the thread, I was asking -naively- is anyone disagreed with me in thinking this was a great idea. I thought that anyone who disagreed would do so on the grounds that there was a better way to help. Then I was disappointed and irritated by the negative response without a practical alternative that valued what we'd consider best practice for children here. And I was taken aback by the negativity surrounding the sharing of faith in any context at all, as if it was wrong to do so. And I was incensed by the idea that its easy to sensitively resource an underdeveloped country.

But yes, I agree with you. My AIBU is answered and perhaps the usefulness of the thread is over.

I think you need to take a close look at the negative impact missionary work has had on many tribal areas of Africa

Sorry OP, but I agree with those who say that there are much better ways of providing the care that is needed for these children. I am well aware of the wretchedness of the lives led by many children around the world, and I do all that I can to contribute. However, as others have pointed out, sending a couple of westerners out there to provide primary care is paternalistic, not cost-effective and unsustainable in the longer term. There are many organisations that I would prioritise over and above the venture that you describe.

Also, I wouldn't ever support a charity with a "spiritual agenda" in any case. That's not to say that I don't have the utmost respect for those who do good work that is motivated by their religious beliefs, but when sharing those beliefs becomes part of the work itself, I feel that they have crossed a line. There are many, many Christians (and atheists and people of other faiths) who do fantastic work under the auspices of secular charities. I would not be willing to support any aid project that seeks to promote a particular religious agenda.

raspberryroop: You didn't respond at all, you just said 'fuck and targeted and empirical' all in the same sentence! And if you don't know the difference between spending a crazy year visiting a community and devoted the best part of your life to nursing dying children and being there for all of it then...you know what, we haven't anything to talk about. Let's leave it.

"And I was taken aback by the negativity surrounding the sharing of faith in any context at all, as if it was wrong to do so."

Wow. "as if" if it's wrong to inflict your personal brand of faith on other people, especially children? Of course it's wrong! I'm amazed you can't see that.

tenbit: I have. I've studied it and written papers on it. It's shaming and humiliating. My friends are different and so are many younger Christians - there is a desire to learn and change and hand over direction and leadership and resources.

Starfield - you may talk priddy - but it still all religious patronising shite

And how is that 'desire' any different from previous generations' pseudo altruism?