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?

pendipidy as one of those Chrstians claiming to be one I have a problem with missionary work because it's not sharing it's strong arming your view onto vulnerable people. True Christian charity is given freely.

On and guess what Christians are not an entirely homogenous group we are all entitled to interpret, view and practice our faith differently without others casting aspersions on our faith.

Personally I am a pragmatist so if it s choice between a child dying or a child living but being indoctrinated into the Christian faith then I would rather the child lived.

Therefore, if I had infinite money to support infinite good causes I would donate to this cause.

However, I do not. And as I said I am a pragmatist. A quick google shows that a donation of £5 a month to UNICEF will provide 5 families with clean water. So for £50 a month I could provide 50 families with clean water. Logic tells me that will saves the lives of at least 6 children. I suspect your friends would need more than £50 a month to keep going. So, as a pragmatist I prefer to save six lives rather than contribute a drop in the ocean towards saving six lives.

(In fact, for personal reasons, my charitable giving is to the Alzheimer's Society but if I decided to change it to foreign aid the above is what I would do.)

If it wasn't a god forsaken dirt ridden hole you wouldn't be contemplating going star !

If it was an evangelical, hygenic, christian eden there would be no need for you to descend at all !

parents that are so bloody minded as to think that as long as there' a dirt track and a 4by4 to anti-biotics should their own children fall ill, then hey ho what a jolly good thing to do really can not be trusted with anyone elses children.

In the absence of anyone else helping in this place then good for the Christians for getting on with it.

Its not saddening to me. its heartening that im not the only person to me that thinks these children shouldnt be subjected to missionaries when theyre so vulnerable. The starting point in this situation should be no religious pressure or bias from the caregivers with sensitivity shown for any (or no) religion the children may already be practicing. Theyve got enough to be going on with coping with, without someone trying to convert them. if they really wanted to help the children first and foremost then there are better ways to do it.

I wouldn't fund them or touch it with a 20 foot pole. Anything that shoves any religion down the throat of vulnerable children is a no as far as I'm concerned. And if they're doing Christian songs and prayers at bed time then that's what they are doing.

Samaritan's Purse anyone?

I have serious ethical issues with missionary work. It isn't right to press religion on vulnerable people, IMO, even if it isn't a quid pro quo sort of thing. It is exploitation of a vulnerable population, especially if children are involved.

While I applaud your friends' desire to help people in need, I agree with others on this thread that their plan doesn't sound like it follows the best practices available for development work.

thermals but there are ways and ways to help. This seems to be "lets have an ideal of cuddly friendly Christian family homes" when there is a desperate need for food and shelter for far more children than can be accommodated this way. The logic behind orphanages is that you need to ensure security and food before worrying about family bonds, dreadful though that sounds.

If 60 children could be helped for the same price, without the "love and Christian values" that is being proposed then that would be better IMO. And the OP has refused to tell us where this dreadful place is so that people can look at what other help there is and whether there are other channels to help.

Its either so desperate that any help is better than the current situation and the aim should be to feed and shelter as many children as possible or not that desperate and they are just looking for a way to spread The Good Word.

I just also think

Imagine if your two friends died. Leaving their DC as orphans, they believe their parents are in heaven with God (or whatever)

They are taken in and cared for by someone who explains it is their mission from Allah/ Bhudda whoever... And that they are being cared for because of that.

The children choose to convert

Is it because they believe, or they just desperately want someone to be there for them an don't want to let them down. Also what would their parent have thought? Their kids recruited and converted at their most vulnerable.

What about the kids belief that their parents were in heaven with GoD? Are their parents actually in hell/ purgatory?

Sad, they need to keep their religion to themselves.

I think the reality is that regardless of religion your friends are doing very little good. For a start they are focusing on 'caring for the orphan' no doubt with the requisite religious verses, the 'saving children' religious people always quote instead of what communities actually need which is family preservation projects.

There is good evidence that funding for orphanage care particularly high quality orphanage care encourages more 'orphans' as families see this as a way to ensure adequate food and care for their children. It divides communities children in orphanages receive higher quality care than children in their birth families. Children need to be in their birth families first and if that is not possible in local families who speak their language, can transmit their birth culture and provide similar standards of care as other children in their community receiving. There are many successful projects working in areas with high numbers of parentless children promoting local foster care, why don't your friends fundraise for one of these.

Also unless your friends are intending to remain with these children for life or at least the duration of their childhood unless they are adopted by local families then it becomes a bit of a 'hug an orphan' project, for show but not providing children with what they actually need; permanent caregivers with whom they can build a strong, lasting attachment. Foreigners going over to volunteer in orphanage care in developing nations means the government no longer have to fund local people to provide this care and deal with the problem of parentless children, many orphanages in developing countries are run on successions of volunteers ensuring children have no continuity of relationships.

I imagine your friends have a bit of a starfish mentality, the 'saved that one' thing going on. They should rethink, this kind of project looks great to the church at home but causes long term harm to families and communities. If your friends have skills in medical care, therapy, providing institutional care, they could offer that to the community they wish to serve which would have a greater positive impact on children.

sorry that was long

Momma I didn't mean to criticize you, meant I was chastened and wiser as a result of reading all the posts, particularly your own as it's hard to argue with firsthand experience, nor would I wish to. But clearly I didn't convey that.

No, I'm not one of the couple going. However I do love them and love the difference they're making and I'm prepared to listen to anything that makes for a better experience for the kids. And probably would be going if my circumstances were different.

But also important is that my friends are able to serve in a way that is authentic for them. They could not teach a different faith although they could probably look at how their own faith is coming across and how helpful that is for the child. There is a difference between wanting to spread your religion like some kind of virus, stooping to anything to get the numbers up, and really believing you have something to share that could help and console. But I do appreciate that children needing emotional stability might be exhausted and confused by that. I also share some posters distaste about making humanitarian aid dependent on spiritual compliance. Ditto sneakily going after desperate people because they're easier to convert.

While i take all thats been said on board it does seem as if some posters are basing their revulsion for Christianity and missionary work on quite an outdated model. Many Christians have acknowledged these failings and tried to move on with a more respectful and professional approach. In fact many Christian aid workers are very vocal about this. I've been to bible college and can confirm that you don't get out of there without a serious look at the evils wrought by the church.

Regarding the tiny orphanage size...it is what it is as a result of dialogue with government and local church. No we don't need more large orphanages. Quite rightly, my friends could not begin a bigger institution even if they wished to. Anyone suggesting that local government has been obliged to get on board for funding purposes is mistaken. This model is helpful to them because it's flexible and it facilitates longer term placements.

To those suggesting my friends get on board with a more established agency-they would,but that is to assume that there is something already in place that would work even better if more volunteers arrived. That's not always so. It may look like world vision or wherever has everything covered but there are needs that established charities haven't got to yet and probably won't now for a while. That leaves pockets which is a rather small word for it.

To anyone still with this...how much of all this would have to change for it to win your support? If there was a clear drive towards handing it over to local leadership? If my friends were willing to forgo spelling out their faith? If it helped an overwhelming number of kids?

Just as an aside, I also feel satisfied giving to organizations that promise to do amazing things with a pound. I agree that investing heavily in just a few children is impractical and wasteful from that point of view. But there is a difference between helping a child to survive and helping them to thrive. Both have merit and I suppose we have to give as we want to. The style of project being discussed here has been approved by a government committed to best practice but without the budget to apply it to match the scale of the need. It may come across as self indulgent naive unprofessional Christian aid...but it actually reflects best practice because kids do better in families. Could it be done more cheaply? I don't know but will be messaging the poster with links to a comparable project in Zimbabwe.

One last thing. Having a constantly changing six kids is not the same thing as having six troubled kids so that number could seem lower than the reality in terms of children helped per year.

Sand berry you're too quick to dismiss this, somewhat understandably because you I didn't specify the country in question. You should be aware that not all Christians have the approach you describe or are as poorly informed that.

There are small charities out there that don't have a Christian background where your friends could help.

PM me if you want to know more.

Constantly changing six kids is not the same as the same six kids sorry.

Also sandberry please note that this project is in conjunction with childcare facilities for mothers who work and promotes family preservation by providing crisis care.

I'm leaving this thread now. Starting to wind me up.

The poster who described the programme in Zimbabwe is not describing a 'comparable' project to yours. That is a locally developed initiative which is fully sustainable. Your and your friends' initiative is about thirty years out of date in terms of development practice.

You don't appear to have listened to any of the 200 or so posters on here who have expressed concerns.

Finally, your basic knowledge is wrong. What your friends are doing is not 'humanitarian' aid. Look up the definition. And listen to those who do have experience of aid work, and know how it works.

I just want to wade in and ask if they're taking their own children with them - I suspect they are.

To completely project my own experience onto this those children have my complete and utter sympathy.

They willl find that other peoples children will always come before their own children - as "we have so much more than they do" [I never quite got this argument as we had jack sh*t becuase we lived in a hell-hole, with no money etc].

My parents now live in the UK and all their money goes back to the country they were missionaries in. One of my siblings really needs some cash - but they can't have it as its going to child x who really really needs it ... child x, y z have all had their education paid for by my parents, yet I and another sibling both had to pay for all our own education.

I know i am not alone in this kind of experience too.

They seriously need to consider their own children and their needs - education, friendship, culture and their complete and utter lack of choice and get the expectations about where lines are drawn - their children will always come first etc etc.

Were you expecting this thread to go:

Oh yes, what a lovely idea, we'll PM you with a PayPal donation?

Because clearly that's not how it's going. Perhaps you could try another forum who are more likely to think that this is a cause that is worthy exactly as your friends wish to do it.

I would respect your friend's compulsion to help much more if they could witness their faith simply by doing the job that needs to be done without forcing it on the children in their care. No community prayers and songs about Jesus.

Yeah and finally....'supporting family preservation' is common parlance for: right wing religious agenda that seeks to persuade women to stay in difficult or even abusive relationships for the sake of 'family preservation'. Would you preach that in the UK, Op?

Going for a wine, it being the day of rest, an' all.

Do your friends speak the local language.
Do they have experience working with traumatized children.

DO they have a trustworthy- REALLY trustworthy- local on the ground who understands the local government, riles, regs, property laws, employment laws etc.
Do they have an understanding of the level of corruption in the local government in their target area.

Do they have aback up plan for when things don't work out.
Do they have funds to live on themselves for at least a year in target location. NOT money given to them for charitable purposes.
Is there really no local organisation in target location who they can work alongside?

I have a family member who decided that they had been "called to serve the lord" in a developing nation by "saving " orphans and raising them in a large family house... They ignored ALL the above , wellied into their project with great enthusiasm. Moved lock stock and barrel to target location. Discovered that no one locally trusted the chap they were trusting to introduce them, they were seen as as rich westerners and many people wanted to fleece them. After 6 weeks they ran out of money and had to leave the country. To, no job, no home, no savings, and a bad taste in the mouths of people who had given them charitable donations.

To anyone still with this...how much of all this would have to change for it to win your support? If there was a clear drive towards handing it over to local leadership? If my friends were willing to forgo spelling out their faith? If it helped an overwhelming number of kids?

It's a tough question to answer, OP, but it would have to change almost beyond recognition before I could support it. Yes, the faith-based element would have to come out, in my view. (That doesn't mean that they should hide their faith, but it should be a personal thing for them and not part of the project.) But that alone wouldn't be enough.

In my experience (and I do have some first-hand experience), local communities usually know what is needed themselves, and just need funding and/or specific expertise/training from outside to make their ideas a reality. The idea of your friends going out to do run an orphanage doesn't really make sense to me - there will be people in the local community who could care for the children according to their own culture and traditions, and I would prefer to see a charity that supported local people to do this. Grass roots initiatives are always best in my view. I would want to see evidence from the local community as to why your proposed model was the best possible approach under the circumstances, and I'd want to know how your friends would go about raising the children according to a culture that is completely different from their own.

I would also have serious doubts about the cost-effectiveness of sending a western family out there to do a job that could be done exclusively by local carers, and this would be a disincentive for me to give. Even if they live simply, I'm sure that your friends will incur costs that local carers might not. This would be problematic for me, unless they were just going out there to share specific knowledge and skills that could be passed to the local carers within a reasonable timescale.

I would want to see evidence that the project was sustainable in the long term. What would happen when your friends decided to leave? What if one of their children were to fall ill and they needed to return unexpectedly early to the UK? What would happen to the orphans then? Also, where would the core funding come from? What would happen if they suddenly ran out of money? How would the project continue to be funded after they had left?

I would want to know whether having 3-4 carers for six children was really the best model, or whether more children could be helped to survive and thrive under a different model. I'd want to know how children would be "selected" for the orphanage, and to whom your friends would be accountable. Who would be checking their suitability for this kind of work, for example, and who would be monitoring the quality of the care given.

And many, many more questions that I can't list now. You might guess that I'm not the most likely donor for this project OP. I'm sorry. I think your friends mean well, but there's something slightly self-indulgent about it all. It strikes me that it's more their own need to feel that they're making a difference over and above the actual (very real) needs of the people they're trying to help. And while I'm sure that they will make a difference, I'm not at all convinced that it's the best difference that they could make.

What I found breathtakingly arrogant was the assumption that it would be impossible to find anyone already part of this culture unable to care for these children "to our standards". Right, so Westerners are the only ones who know how to look after children? Because other cultures don't have any experience in that field, do they?

In fact, all the questions asked by Jinsei. What is it that these people have that the locals do not? How would the project be sustainable longterm? What happens if they have to return home?

I don't think it is riling against Christianity specifically but basing help to vulnerable people - in this case extremely vulnerable children - on the back of an evangelical mission of any religion is actually revolting imo.

These children need consistency and a great deal of complex care - not evangelising. If that is the primary goal then your friends should absolutely not do it. If it is not the primary goal then your friends should remove that completely from their agenda and have a complete rethink of their approach.

Yes indeed, cory. It's as if the "natives" couldn't possibly do such a good job as an educated Western couple. The whole project seems very neo-colonial in its outlook.

I would be worried about the long term viability of this project. I think the fact that the 'friends' have children of their own to be a potential problem.

I used to live in South Africa and visited several orphanages around Johannesburg. Most, if not all, of them were quite religious, I didn't see this as a big problem (and I am 100% atheist ). The fact the kids were loved and looked after was much, much more important. A lot of African countries are already very Christian (not that we know where the OP's 'friends' are going)

The 'friends' would potentially be able to achieve more by working in the UK and donating money to an existing organisation and by visiting during holidays to give advice and to work.

Yes obviously, Dont, if they were going to a "very Christian" country, the religious aspects would be less of an issue as this would be the cultural norm for the children in any case. However, the OP said that the children would come from mixed backgrounds, so I don't think that's the case in this scenario.

I agree that the couple's own children pose an additional problem.