Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

Richard B. McKenzie

he History of Orphanages Reconsidered has its genesis in the intense but shortlived orphanage debate of late 1994. In early November of that year, just after the

Republicans won a majority in the U.S. House, then-Representative Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House. In a speech shortly after his new post was assured, Representative Gingrich made an off-hand comment to the extent that many children then ensnared in bad families and neighborhoods and in the public welfare system would be better off in private orphanages and proposed that states be allowed to use savings in welfare benefits to set up orphanages.1 Representative Gingrichs comments and proposal set off a media and political firestorm with all the major news magazines running cover stories on orphanages in the nations past.2 The covers were typically of pictures of turn-of-the-century orphanage waifs. One memorable magazine cover had a black-and-white picture that extended to all four edges of the cover showing young orphanage girls wearing dresses made from feed sacks. Their hands were stretched outward and upward as if they were pleading for more gruel.3 These images, judged by both the living and childcare standards of the 1990s, were a none-too-subtle commentary on the widely believed sordid history of orphanages. Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman denounced the Gingrich proposal in no uncertain terms, "These orphanages [in the early part of this century and before] were not only Dickensian institutions where children were literally lost, but they were expensive."4

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

Then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton declared the Gingrich proposal to be "unbelievable and absurd."5 Virtually all child welfare experts interviewed for the orphanage stories in late 1994 condemned the childcare records of orphanages through history, usually without qualification.6 Given the onslaught of negative media reaction to his initial orphanage comments, Representative Gingrich retreated, suggesting that he meant that the children of welfare mothers should be placed in modern-day group homes, not anything similar to the (widely imagined) orphanages of the past.7 * * * * *

I took note of the childcare experts orphanage comments because I grew up in an orphanage Barium Springs Home for Children -- in North Carolina in the 1950s. While I certainly could point to the care limitations of my orphanage upbringing, I never thought I was as badly damaged as the experts claimed with confidence and often without the usual qualifications found in scholarly pronouncements. No, many experts policy recommendations were unequivocal: Bringing back orphanages was a bad idea, period because of orphanages uniformly poor historical record. Throughout my life, Ive heard any number of people who knew orphanage life only from the way orphanages were portrayed in novels and movies condemn them, but the experts public testimonials in late 1994 piqued my interest because I was then hard pressed to think of many, if any, of my orphanage cohorts who had been as badly and completely damaged as the quoted childcare experts suggested. Indeed, I could only point to alumni (aside for maybe one) who had done reasonably well, if not very well, in life. But I also had to think at the time of the orphanage debate, maybe my orphanage

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

home was different. Maybe it was special within a sea of bad orphanages. Maybe the record of my orphanage in my era (the 1950s) was different from its record in earlier times. Maybe most other orphanages in earlier eras did indeed live down to the Dickensian hellholes portrayed in movies and literature. There were lots of maybes that went through my mind as I witnessed the onesided media debate. In late 1994, the only historical issue worthy of debate seemed to be that of just how bad the childcare records of orphanages were. Few reporters seemed to be willing to entertain the prospect that there might have been some (or many) good orphanages through history, or orphanages that did reasonably well by the children in their care. In spite of the many maybes, I did something in the middle of the Gingrichinspired orphanage debate that I had not done before -- I went public with my orphanage upbringing through a column I penned for the Wall Street Journal8: At the start of the movie "Annie," Miss Hannigan -- the decadent, overbearing house mother of twenty or so little girls -- wonders in obvious exasperation, "Why any kid would want to be an orphan is beyond me." The stark contrast between the movie version of life in the orphanage and the life Annie came to know with her adopted father, the extravagantly wealthy Daddy Warbucks, probably left many movie goers convinced that Miss Hannigan was right, no one in their right mind would ever want to be an orphan. I've spent a lifetime quietly listening to others disparage orphanages as cold and loveless institutions where every child longs to be adopted. I know that the popular description of homes for children is distressingly out of date and out of whack, and should have no bearing on the debate of how to help some of the least fortunate children among us. I grew up in a home with 150 or so other girls and boys in North Carolina in the 1950s -- and I'm damn proud of it, and thankful. Life in my Home was no picnic. When we were young, we got two baths and changes of clothes a week, regardless of whether we needed more. We worked hard for long hours on the farm and in the shops, and we lacked a lot, not the least of which were the daily hugs other children take for granted.

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

Critics of orphanages stress what the children there did not have. Those of us who were there have a different perspective. We were, and remain, able to draw comparisons between what we had at The Home with what we would have had. If any one of us had had a choice between growing up with Ozzie and Harriet or in The Home, each would surely have taken the former. However, we either didn't have parents or left parents behind who were not worthy of the roles they had assumed. Few of us would have entertained adoption, and virtually all of us today shudder at the foster-care option. We understand that we have not always set the world on fire. At the same time, we realize that we would not be where we are today had we not had the opportunity to grow up the way we did. With all the current talk about "family values," critics must never forget that some families value very little. With unforgettable pictures of Miss Hannigan, I know many people harbor fears about workers in homes for children. They, however, could not have known Mrs. Mac, one of the many house mothers with big hearts, who, after I left The Home, sent a birthday card every year until her death in the late 1980s. The critics have never had the opportunity to sit in Francis Moore's seventh grade class. By her unbounded force of character, she made us believe what then was surely a myth that it was us, not our circumstances, that would ultimately determine how far we would go in life. Last year, she sent one of the best Christmas gifts I have ever received, a two-by-three-foot framed set of original verses in needlepoint on what it means to be successful -- not the money kind, but the kind that affects the heart and soul. Square that with the likes of Miss Hannigan. Most critics would like the public to believe that those of us who went through orphanages were throttled by the experience. No doubt, some were. However, most have charged on. In many ways, we represent the best of what this country is about, plumbers and nurses, ministers and managers, teachers and baggage handlers -- in the main, good well-meaning Americans who have answered the call to rise above expectations. Most might be surprised to learn that of the boys and girls who graduated from high school in the late 1950s more than 80% now have college and advanced degrees, no minor accomplishment for kids who supposedly grew up the "hard way." Miss Hannigan, you should have asked a real orphan, not the ones cast in Hollywood or Washington. Life in a home for children cannot be perfect. However, people should understand that homes for children must remain a viable option for many children. Those of us who were there share an array of

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

experiences that, when the balance is struck, children from many traditional families can only envy.

I was astounded by the volume of responses to that column. The morning it appeared, my phone truly did ring off the hook. My email inbox lit up with responses. Later my university mailbox was jammed with letters. Publishers called to ask if I would write a memoir, which I had finished the previous summer without intending to publish but which, because of the column, was published a year later (The Home: A Memoir of Growing Up in an Orphanage9). I even had, much to my surprise, a Hollywood producer drive out to my university to take me to lunch and to discuss the development of a sitcom based in an orphanage (an idea that was intriguing but went nowhere). Through all the contacts made, I was mainly struck by the large number of orphanage alumni who emailed, called, or penned letters to tell me in some detail that they had also had a good (but imperfect) orphanage experience. I began to doubt whether the childcare experts who had been interviewed for the magazine cover stories in late 1994 knew what they were talking about. With the help of about thirty childcare academics and practitioners and people skilled in surveys (whom I enlisted to work with me to ensure that my personal views on orphanages did not color the way the survey was written and distributed and the data was evaluated), I undertook two separate surveys of orphanage alumni, with more than 2,500 alumni taking the time to fill out the detailed nine-page survey instrument. The general conclusion from both surveys stood in marked contrast with the claims of the experts during the 1994 orphanage debate: As a group, the orphanage alumni, grouped by age, outpaced their counterparts in the U.S. general population on almost all social and economic measures, not the least of which were

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

education, income, and positive assessments of their life experiences, both during their stays at their orphanages and afterwards. I did indeed receive responses from orphanage alumni who had hard feelings about their orphanage days, and I do not want to bury such responses with any sweeping suggestion that all orphanages did well by all the children in their care. However, the negative assessments were a tiny minority (less than three percent). Nonetheless, a major finding of my surveys defied conventional wisdom, given that a substantial majority of the alumni (upwards of 85 percent) recalled favorable or very favorable childhood experiences at their orphanages. The rest of the survey respondents (11 to 12 percent) had mixed experiences.10 As I began to talk about the orphanage issue around the country, I began to understand that there were a range of questions about orphanages that needed to be addressed, not the least of which are: Why did the orphanage system of yesteryear fade from the child welfare scene so rapidly after 1950? What happened to the cost of orphanage care over the decades? How sound were the findings of the academic child welfare articles and books that were cited so frequently during the 1994 debate and that, according to orphanage critics in the debate, panned orphanage care so severely? These and a number of other questions were addressed in my first edited volume on orphanages, Rethinking Orphanages for the 21st Century.11 In this volume, scholars from several disciplines were asked to address the type of questions raised above. Rethinking Orphanages has, apparently, proved useful to many student and academic researchers and to groups who have wanted to investigate the development of modernday orphanages in their communities.

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

Still, academic research can only reach so many people, and most people interested in the child welfare debate could care less about dry statistics and intense scholarly arguments. When I gave talks in the mid-1990s on the orphanage issue, my audiences were often struck by my comments that my home had a homecoming every year with hundreds of alumni and their families attending. Indeed, many orphanages had homecomings all over the country, a fact brought home to me by alumni from different orphanages who contacted me, several of whom asked me to speak at their homecomings. With audiences who knew very little about orphanages, the very fact that orphanages had homecomings to this day seemed to be an important message: If the orphanage alumni still gather for reunions, decades after their homes closed or radically changed missions, maybe orphanages of yesteryear might not have been as bad (across the board at least) as experts claimed in late 1994. To reach a larger audience, in 1996 I set out to develop a documentary film through which aging orphanage alumni could, with personal stories and in vivid color, relate the good, the bad, and the ugly of orphanage life in the 1950s and before. The film could convey what articles could not, the emotional content of personal childhood experiences. Because I had little knowledge of the complexities and expenses involved in filmmaking, the film project took ten years to complete, but it would not likely have been completed at all without the help of Gary Byrne, a savvy businessman and good friend, and George Cawood, the director. Cawood assembled a group of Burbank-based filmmakers including Sheila Moreland, the film editor; Adam Hauck, producer; and Jeffrey Hepker, along with many others who devoted more than 20,000 pro-bono hours to

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

the project -- and produced a beautiful and emotionally powerful film: Homecoming: The Forgotten World of Americas Orphanages. The film was selected for screenings in four film festivals and won Best Documentary in one festival in 2005. By the time this book has been published, Homecoming will have aired on over 220 PBS stations.12 * * * * *

When I engaged in the orphanage debate with my Wall Street Journal column in late 1994, I did not expect to spend the next dozen or more years working on the orphanage issue. I had a justified suspicion back then that the conventional, widely held and parroted view of orphanages that they all matched the desperate conditions of the orphanage that Charles Dickens described in Oliver was not likely to hold up under careful scrutiny. There were too many orphanages through history and across the country (San Francisco alone had over 40 orphanages in the early part of the twentieth century) to not suspect that at least some of them did reasonably well by many of their charges. There were also too many alumni from different homes who have contacted me to explain why their homes were better than mine for me to accept the experts broad brush claims. Then too, I had my own experience, which was pretty good, to fall back on. I knew my home did not fit the Dickensian mold. But at every turn in the ongoing debate I had with various childcare experts from 1994 forward, it became obvious that the perceived perception of the history of orphanages, constructed and pervaded by political interest groups, had a stranglehold on the contemporary debate over what to do with the disadvantaged children in our society. The perceived history also had a stranglehold on public consideration of any proposal that modern-day orphanages (or childrens homes or academies or boarding schools

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

for disadvantaged youth whatever they are called) should be considered anew as one of several childcare options. It became obvious that the history of orphanages needed to be reconsidered as an open academic question, with the answer drawn not from deferring to perceived conventional wisdom, which had long escaped critical academic scrutiny, but from actual hard-nosed scholarly research. Fortunately, in the 1990s, without connections to the political debate ignited by Representative Gingrich, academics from history, political science, and economics began revisiting the history of various orphanages across the country, the history of the overall orphanage movement both in its ascendancy and decline, and the history of childcare alternatives to orphanages, such as placing out and orphanage trains. A number of academic researchers had by the mid-1990s published whole books on their topics. In a number of cases, the academics started their research assuming that they would find Dickensian conditions in the orphanages studied. However, they often ended their research with a different perspective: that orphanages throughout history were all imperfect institutions but that they were often or more frequently than conventional wisdom on orphanages would have it pretty good childcare solutions given the living conditions of the times and the dire circumstances of the children in need of out-of-home care. Several of these academic researchers have contributed to this volume. In developing The History of Orphanages Reconsidered, I asked contributors to condense their larger scholarly works into manageable chapters for readers who might not have time to plow through a set of weighty volumes and for other readers who, after reading the chapters in this volume, might want to turn to their longer histories that can be found

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

10

in libraries and bookstores. I assured the contributors that I wanted them to relate their histories the way they found them, not the way they or I might want the histories to be. But then, the contributors to this volume and I understood that orphanages were realworld institutions almost always struggling to deal with very difficult social problems under serious financial and resource constraints. Under such constraints, institutional imperfections were to be expected.

Summaries of the Chapters In Chapter 1, Duncan Lindsey and Paul Stuart, in their overview of Orphanages in History and the Modern Child Welfare Setting, have provided a review of the history of orphanages in the context of the development of social welfare in the United States. Orphanages played an important role in the development of the modern child welfare system but were largely rejected by expert opinion in the twentieth century. This chapter, and book, extends the Lindsey/Stuart review by providing a much broader examination of the history of orphanages and the evolution of the institutional model of child care over the course of the last millennium. In Chapter 2, Timothy Miller discusses the inception and early history of orphanages. Going back to the first century, The Early History of Orphanages: From Constantinople to Venice examines the development of Christian group homes and orphanages in Greco-Roman society. These institutions, which evolved from Jewish traditions preserved in the Torah, were constituted as a matter of faith, and served as the foundation of the orphanage concept as it evolved over a thousand years.

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

11

In Civic Charity in a Golden Age: Orphan Care in Early Modern Amsterdam (Chapter 3), Anne McCants provides an overview of orphanages as the product of the social-historical phenomenon known as charity which is as much a matter of conscience as it is of faith. She examines richly endowed charitable institutions, which were a source of great pride during the Golden Age of the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. These institutions, she argues, served as the genesis of social welfare as a manifestation of government policy. The focus of Mooseheart: The Child City (Chapter 4) by David Beito, is the role of fraternal organizations in the development of orphanages in the early part of the twentieth century. It is his contention that mutual aid was at the heart of social welfare, surpassing the efforts of both government and charitable organizations. Fully one-third of the adult American population were members of lodges in the 1920s, and those fraternal orders built many of the orphanages of that period. In A Home of a Different Kind: An Orphanage in the Middle of Chicagos Elite (Chapter 5), Anne Duggan interprets and summarizes the work of her late husband, Kenneth Cmiel, who examined the Chicago-based orphanage Chapin Hall, which was once a residential treatment center, but now serves as a monitoring agency and major research center. Engaged in building knowledge to improve the health and well-being of children, Chapin Hall strives to provide focus on meeting the real-world needs of those who are working directly with the programs and institutions that affect the daily lives of children. In The Fate of Orphans in Antebellum Charleston (Chapter 6), John Murray discusses the fates of children who had lived in Americas first public orphanage in

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

12

Antebellum Charleston. Looking at the different paths taken by children who had once resided in the Charleston Orphan House, Murray focuses on the economics and postorphanage outcomes of the alumni and the light the outcomes shedit sheds on societys attitudes towards its children. Placed in an historical context that dates back to the Civil War era, the chapter is most enlightening with regard to harsh verses gentle practices of child rearing. In The Transformation of Catholic Orphanages: Cleveland, 1851-1996 (Chapter 7), Marian Morton reviews the transformation of St. Vincents Orphanage in Cleveland. During the its first 150 years St. Vincents went from a Catholic charitable institution serving an all white population of impoverished boys, to a publicly funded family services center responding to the needs of children and families regardless of race or creed. Much of the chapter is focused specifically on Catholic charities, which, in the 19th and 20th centuries, were among the most used, and least studied non-secular, institutional responses to impoverished, homeless, and emotionally disabled children. In Chapter 8, Nurith Zmoras focuses on Baltimores Nineteenth-Century Orphanages. Discussing three childcare institutions born of ethnic and religious communitiesin contrast to the publicly funded orphanages that existed at that time in other American citiesprovides valuable context for the examination of the orphanage concept and its relationship to religious institutions. Interestingly, all of the Baltimore orphanages existing during the time period addressed were segregated according to religion or nationality. One of the most important developments to impact the development of orphanages in the nineteeth century were the orphan trains. In The Orphan Trains as an

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

13

Alternative to Orphanages (Chapter 9), Marilyn Holt examines this principal alternative to turn of the century orphanages in her depiction of what has come to be known as Orphan Trains. Believing that home placement was the most desirable means to care for indigent and abandoned children, various religious organizations in the early nineteenth century took hoards of city-dwelling children and shipped them to the midwest for placement with especially religious families. Child relocation, as it was often referred to, is one of the most interesting aspects of the history of child social welfare. In the final chapter, Orphanages as a National Institution: History and Its lessons Timothy Hacsi examines the rapid growth of orphanages during the several decades before the Civil War (1830 to 1850). During the 1930s more than a thousand orphanages were functioning and represented the major form of out of home care for children. With the growth of foster care, there has been a decline in the number of large orphanages coupled with increased use of residential institutions. But with the heavy criticism of the foster care system, Hacsi demonstrates that the history of orphanages provides some important lessons about the options society has available to help disadvantaged children who lack stable homes. Taken together these chapters provide a compelling picture of the potential for orphanages to meet the needs of the many children who currently languish for years in the modern foster care system. Studying the history of this original model to care for children who are unable to return home is essential to progress in child welfare.

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

14

Nonpartisan History of Orphanages If you think that you will find in these pages a partisan history of orphanages, you will be sorely disappointed. Contributors were not chosen by their partisanship. Indeed, partisanship was never a consideration, and Ive never asked about the politics of the contributors. After all, the core concern the care of disadvantaged children should not have partisan boundaries, contrary to the way the orphanage issue was framed in Washington, D.C. in late 1994. We the contributors and I -- agreed that the histories had to be real, warts and all, and the histories had to be, where possible, set in the context of comparative data on living and childcare standards outside of orphanages for their time periods and geographical locations. The value of this volume will ultimately emerge from its academic intent and approach, containing the reviews of orphanages histories by academics solely interested in scholarship, not any partisan or ideological orientation of the contributors or their contributions. If you think that you will find in these pages the final word on the history of orphanages, you will also be disappointed, on two counts, one of which is the obvious: this volume provides only a sample of the histories of orphanages. There have been innumerable orphanages that emerged in communities across this country (there were forty-four orphanages in San Francisco alone in the 1930s) and the world, almost all of which have closed, for a variety of reasons, with a number of those reasons covered with reference to the orphanages covered in this book. Many orphanage histories remain to be told. Sadly, some of those histories will go unrecognized and recorded. The other notso-obvious reason this book will not provide the final word on orphanage histories is that

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

15

orphanages never disappeared in this country or anywhere else in the world. Many orphanages have continued to serve disadvantaged children, admirably. They continue to extend their histories. I have two favorite homes that have continued to serve disadvantaged children for either close to or more than a century, the Connie Maxwell Childrens Home in Greenwood, South Carolina and The Crossnore School in Crossnore, North Carolina (deep in the mountains of North Carolina). My third favorite home is Happy Hill Farm, Academy, and Home in Grundy, Texas (outside of Fort Worth). To those who say it cant be done today at reasonable cost, I say go to Connie Maxwell. Go to Crossnore. Go to Happy Hill. And be prepared to be amazed. Moreover, any number of communities around the country have begun to recognize that they need a menu of childcare options, with modern-day orphanages (not just treatment facilities for troubled children, but long-term care centers for disadvantaged children). Homes have emerged in San Diego County, California (San Pasqual Academy); Minneapolis, Minnesota (Marys House); and Sonoma County, California (Sonoma County Childrens Village). The Worlds Children Center, which plans to care eventually for five hundred children, is being built outside of Atlanta, Georgia; and homes are being planed for Santa Barbara and Orange Counties, California all as this book was being finalized for publication At least once a month I hear from some group someplace that is plotting the development of a modern-day orphanage. These homes will have histories that someday will be recorded, perhaps in a volume such as this one. I doubt that all homes now under development will be successful, but should we not expect any number of these new

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

16

homes to have histories no less successful than the histories of the homes covered in this volume? * * * * *

For me, this volume completes a circle or sorts. I have written my own personal orphanage story. In Rethinking Orphanages, I have asked academics to address a number of key academic issues on the operation of orphanages of the past and future. I have had the good fortune of enlisting George Cawood in the development of a film that conveys the emotional side of orphanage life. And I have been able to bring together in these pages a reconsidered history of the orphanages in our past. All of these projects have been completed with the hope that readers and viewers will have a more informed view of orphanages and a more informed reaction to widely and glibly made claims that orphanages have never been a solution to childcare problems and, hence, can never be in the future. * * * * *

This book project could not possibly have been completed without the support and encouragement of others, including the contributors to this volume who firmly agreed on the value of making this book widely available. While I have edited several books over my career, I have never edited a volume that needed less editing, or criticisms and comments for improvement, than this one. Readers will find the chapters of this book very well written, as well as informative. On all of my orphanage-related projects, I have been indebted to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation for its considerable financial support. The Bradley Foundations support on this project is acknowledged with great gratitude. I am also

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

17

thankful to Bill Podlich for his financial support that has indirectly helped in the development of this book. The UNTIL Foundation, headed by Mark Nix, was invaluable in helping me bring this book project to fruition. Finally, but hardly least, I am indebted to my wife Karen McKenzie, who edited the following chapters. Irvine, California July 2007

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

18

See Gingrich (1994). Representative Gingrichs orphanage proposal became embedded

in the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 (H.R. 4. 1995). The Act allowed states to use any savings from reducing teen pregnancy and unmarried teens welfare benefits to set up orphanages. The Republican sponsors of the bill eventually replaced the word orphanage with group facilities in the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995, most likely because of the stinging criticisms heard in the orphanage debate of late 1994. However, according to the Congressional Research Service, nothing in H.R. 4, as passed by the House, would limit the ability of the states to use [welfare] funds to support foster children in residential or group facilities, which are the modern equivalent of orphanages (Spar 1995).
2

For academic reviews of journalistic reports on the orphanage issue, see Fineman

(1995) and London (1998). See, for example, Newsweeks cover and story on orphanages in late 1994 (Morganthau 1994).
4 3

Goodman (1994). As quoted in Purdum (1994). Dean of Columbia Universitys School of Social Work Ronald Feldmans exact words

in late 1994 were, Children raised in custodial care [meaning orphanages] are more likely to have serious problems adjusting to society when they leave. Children reared in supportive, family-like environments [meaning foster care] will become better adults, parents and taxpayers all things that Mr. Gingrich says we want. (Feldman 1994).

Richard B. McKenzie. Preface and Overview for The History of Orphanages Reconsidered

19

Given all the problems with the foster care system that have continually received media attention since 1994, we must wonder if the choice Dean Feldman suggested in 1994 was not a false one. Mary Ford and Joe Kroll, writing for the North American Council on Adoptable Children during the orphanage debate, also found in their review of the historical and child welfare literature nothing but negative outcomes from orphanage care: Institutionalized children are denied the opportunity to form a consistent relationship with a caregiver in their early years and are at serious risk for developmental problems and long-term personal disorders. . . Many insecurely, institutionalized children lack empathy, seek behavior in negative ways, exhibit poor self-confidence, show indiscriminate affection toward adults, are prone to noncompliance, and are more aggressive than their non-institutionalized counterparts (Ford and Kroll 1995).
7

As reported by Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory (1994). McKenzie (1994). McKenzie (1995 and 2006). McKenzie (1997 and 2003). In both journal articles, I lay out the potential upward

10

biases in my generally positive findings. However, I had a response rate in excess of 60 percent (an extraordinary response rate for a survey instrument that was nine pages long). If conventional orphanage wisdom is to be believed, I should not have been able to find anywhere near as many alumni with positive outcomes as I did.
11

McKenzie (1998). Homecoming (2006). The film can be purchased through the sponsoring PBS station,

12

KVIE in Sacramento, California (www.KVIE.org).