Orphanages are not the solution.

• Author: McLaughlin, Megan E.

Historical evidence shows that institutionalizing children did not solve the problems of poor families in the past and will not do so today.

In 1994, during the early days of the public debate on welfare reform, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich ignited a media firestorm by suggesting that orphanages are better for poor children than life with a mother on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Responding to blistering criticism, he first defended the proposal by invoking the idyllic orphanage life of the 1938 film "Boys Town," finally retreating, at least rhetorically, from the entire controversy. Orphanages became just another blip on the nation's radar screen, or so it seemed.

In fact, the plan to revive orphanages is embedded in the Personal Responsibility Act, the Republican plan for welfare reform, and is a major piece of the Republican Contract With America. The Republicans' pledge promised to balance the budget, protect defense spending, and cut taxes, targeting programs for the poor--cash assistance, food, housing, medical, and child care--as the big areas for major budget savings. Parents who are poor, it has been predicted, will have little or no choice but to watch their children board the orphan trains in search of shelter and food. The political question remains: Are orphanages the solution--or part of the solution--to the welfare problem?

Orphanages for poor children are not a new proposal. They originated in England in the 17th century and were adopted in the U.S. in the early 18th century out of concerns and biases similar to those driving current proposals. Though the word "orphan" is defined as "a child deprived of parents," American orphanages always have housed youngsters who had parents--usually poor mothers--as well as those who did not.

Earlier in 17th-century America, even though no child welfare system existed, orphans as well as children of the poor were presumed to require attention from the public authorities.

The care of poor children has been a recurring theme and concern in this country. The assumptions of those early years continue to prevail today. If mothers and fathers can not provide adequately for their kids, they are assumed to be inadequate parents; are perceived as bad role models because they do not work, and their children should be saved from them; should be stigmatized and made social outcasts; and should lose their right to plan for their offspring.

The nation is in the midst of a welfare debate that integrates many of these assumptions. The Personal Responsibility Act approved by the House in March, 1995, denies AFDC benefits to children born to unmarried women under age 18; those born to women of any age after their AFDC case is opened; kids whose paternity has not been established; legal immigrants; and to all after a maximum of 60 months receipt of benefits, whether or not they can obtain a job.

The act cuts welfare spending by $69,000,000,000 over five years. It replaces the Federal AFDC program with capped block grants to the states--lump-sum payments that do not expand with changing needs of the population and the inevitable downturns in the economy. This dramatically alters the status of AFDC. It eliminates the entitlement to benefits even to those who are eligible. If the state runs out of money or has different priorities, the needy will have to find other support systems, primarily through private charity. The act allows states to determine their own eligibility requirements. Additionally, it cuts food stamp programs by 14% over five years and combines various food and nutrition initiatives into block grants, making the state provision of school breakfast and lunch programs optional. At the same time, the act provides no assistance to parents for obtaining employment, training, or child care. It is the savings from these restrictions that Gingrich proposes to return to the states for the development of orphanages to care for youngsters whose parents are made...