Even after the 1989 revolution, families still felt free to aban- don an unwanted infant to a state-run institution. Social scien- tists had long suspected that early life in an orphanage could have adverse consequences. A number of mostly small, descriptive studies that lacked control groups were conducted from the 1940s to the 1960s in the West that compared children in orphanages with those in foster care and showed that life in an institution did not come close to matching the care of a parent—even if that par- ent was not the natural mother or father. One issue with these studies was the possibility of “selection bias”: children removed from institutions and placed into adoptive or foster homes might be less impaired, whereas the ones who remained in the institu- tion were more disabled. The only way to counter any bias would require the unprecedented step of randomly placing a group of abandoned children into either an institution or a foster home.
Understanding the effects of life in an institution on children’s 64 Scientific American, April 2013
early development is important because of the immensity of the orphan problem worldwide (an orphan is defined here as an aban- doned child or one whose parents have died). War, disease, pover- ty and sometimes government policies have stranded at least eight million children worldwide in state-run facilities. Often these chil- dren live in highly structured but hopelessly bleak environments, where typically one adult oversees 12 to 15 children. Research is still lacking to gain a full understanding of what happens to chil- dren who spend their first years in such deprived circumstances.
In 1999, when we approached Cristian Tabacaru, then secre- tary of state for Romania’s National Authority for Child Protec- tion, he encouraged us to conduct a study on institutionalized children because he wanted data to address the question of whether to develop alternative forms of care for the 100,000 Romanian children then living in state institutions. Yet Tabacaru faced stiff resistance from some government officials, who be- lieved for decades that children received a better upbringing in institutions than in foster care. The problem was exacerbated because some government agencies’ budgets were funded, in part, by their role in making institutional care arrangements. Faced with these challenges, Tabacaru thought that scientific evi- dence about putative advantages of foster care for young chil- dren over state institutions would make a convincing case for reform, and so he invited us to go ahead with a study.
Even after the 1989 revolution, families still felt free to aban- don an unwanted infant to a state-run institution. Social scien- tists had long suspected that early life in an orphanage could have adverse consequences. A number of mostly small, descriptive studies that lacked control groups were conducted from the 1940s to the 1960s in the West that compared children in orphanages with those in foster care and showed that life in an institution did not come close to matching the care of a parent—even if that par- ent was not the natural mother or father. One issue with these studies was the possibility of “selection bias”: children removed from institutions and placed into adoptive or foster homes might be less impaired, whereas the ones who remained in the institu- tion were more disabled. The only way to counter any bias would require the unprecedented step of randomly placing a group of abandoned children into either an institution or a foster home.Understanding the effects of life in an institution on children’s 64 Scientific American, April 2013early development is important because of the immensity of the orphan problem worldwide (an orphan is defined here as an aban- doned child or one whose parents have died). War, disease, pover- ty and sometimes government policies have stranded at least eight million children worldwide in state-run facilities. Often these chil- dren live in highly structured but hopelessly bleak environments, where typically one adult oversees 12 to 15 children. Research is still lacking to gain a full understanding of what happens to chil- dren who spend their first years in such deprived circumstances.In 1999, when we approached Cristian Tabacaru, then secre- tary of state for Romania’s National Authority for Child Protec- tion, he encouraged us to conduct a study on institutionalized children because he wanted data to address the question of whether to develop alternative forms of care for the 100,000 Romanian children then living in state institutions. Yet Tabacaru faced stiff resistance from some government officials, who be- lieved for decades that children received a better upbringing in institutions than in foster care. The problem was exacerbated because some government agencies’ budgets were funded, in part, by their role in making institutional care arrangements. Faced with these challenges, Tabacaru thought that scientific evi- dence about putative advantages of foster care for young chil- dren over state institutions would make a convincing case for reform, and so he invited us to go ahead with a study.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..