A Family Style Orphanage: Hogar Dulce Hogar, Home Sweet Home
The Finca del Niño is an orphanage organized in a way that is somewhat unfamiliar to the Western world. When one thinks of an orphanage, they often think of children living in a dormitory type setting – of bed after bed after bed, of eating in a cafeteria, or the like. Even though this is not the most nurturing environment, it seems to be the lesser of two evils.
The Finca, however, has a different structure. The children are raised in what is considered a family-style orphanage. They live in six houses on the Finca property, grouped by age and gender. The two youngest niños’ houses (one for girls one for boys) are for kids around 3-7 year olds, the middle aged houses for 8-12, and the oldest houses for 12-17. In these houses, either house parents or tías raise the children. The house parents are a couple ideally Hondurans or at least from Latin America. The tías are single women who live in the houses. Both house parents and tías spend for a year, or several years, living with and raising the kids.
There are multiple benefits to this type of orphanage setting. To begin, this setting more or less provides stability. Every day, the children return home to the same people – the same pseudo siblings and parents, the same room, the same house. Having a home, and everything this word encompasses, is something we all too often take for granted. When so many children in Honduras are not so fortunate, these children to have a stable, secure, place to come home to every single day.
The stability not only comes from the constant, physical structure of the house, but also from the community that forms within it – what I saw make the house become a home for them. The house parents and tías are the main caregivers in their lives. When the adult caregiver in a child’s life is healthy and able to provide them with emotional support, the child is better able to process and cope with their difficulties and vulnerabilities.[1] These children are no longer being “raised” by alcoholics or abusive parents. The caregivers at the Finca truly give care to these kids. They love them and raise them as their own – occasionally alongside one of their own biological children as well.
The community in the houses has other functions as well. All of the children have aseos, chores, that they must complete each day. It is common to walk past a house and see one or more of the children starting a fire, making tortillas, or cooking something else on the fagón. In having these responsibilities, the children learn what it means to live in a family. They see first hand how each member of this community builds upon the other, and how interconnected these relationships are. The children in the houses spend all day long with each other. They go to morning prayer together, go to school together, spend the afternoon playing soccer together, have meals together, and spend the evening at Finca activities together. There are arguments and disputes, just like any other family. But they learn how to navigate these relationships. These children come from such dysfunctional family settings that this model is not only crucial, but life changing for them. They can now see what it means to have people that care for you, love you, and also, rely on you.
Another relationship that is highlighted through this family-style model is the house parents. In the houses with house parents (which, during my time at the Finca were only the middle aged and oldest boys houses), the parents are a married couple. Both couples had a biological child living with them. These parents serve as role models to the children. In Latin America, the idea of male dominance – machismo – is very prevalent. Many of the boys, especially the youngest ones, try to imitate this in their interactions with girls. There were many times when a little boy would run up to me and start hitting me or doing something to try to show me how fuerte, strong, he was. Or, a crowd favorite, was when my students would start impromptu arm wrestling matches. While most of the time it was all fun and games, the machismo* attitude was underlying all of it. This is where the house dads play a huge role. Most of these boys have not had strong, male figures in their lives. Their image of a male head of a family is all too often one who drinks, wastes money, and abuses women (and often children as well). The house dads, however, are respectable, supportive fathers and husbands. In simply being a presence at the Finca and in the houses, they are an example to all of the boys that is desperately needed. The difference between the youngest boys house (where they are raised by two single women) and the middle aged and oldest boys houses (where they are raised by a married couple) is sometimes startling. The difference in aggression and overall attitude is very noticeable. The house dads help to keep the machismo in check. They are not only loving fathers, but they also show the boys how a woman should be treated, and in the process show the girls what they should be able to expect from a man.
The most important aspect, however, of the family style orphanage is the way in which it allows the children to receive so much affection and support. Individual children have different needs and should be attended to as such.[2] In having 5-7 children in a house with two caregivers, the attention they receive is obviously much greater than the 12:1 ratio of children to caregivers found in several institution type orphanages in Latin America.[3] This same study by Groark, McCall, and Fish, found that caregivers in that type of setting tend to interact with the children in an impersonal manner, lacking warmth or any real support. Their main goal seems to be keeping the children under control, not developing them as individual children.
While the family-style model obviously has incredible benefits, no system is without its flaws. The ultimate goal of this model is to provide a safe, secure, stable, environment for the children to grow in, a family environment in which the child has a place to truly become who they are to their truest human potential. Unfortunately, the encargadas of this environment are not as stable as desired. The house parents and tías leave after a few years, and return to their own families. Additionally, as the children grow up, they move on to the older houses, and thus their environment changes a little. Perhaps the most heartbreaking, however, is that due to the nature of the houses (separated by gender) several families of children are separated as well. The children are separated in this manner due to issues with inappropriate behavior among house siblings in the past, so this is understandable, but it is still difficult to see. One boy, who has two younger sisters living at the Finca, was heard saying, “At least when we lived on the streets we lived together…”
Obviously, no system is perfect. There will always be things we wish to change. However, in spending so much time being a part of this system at the Finca, I cannot help but think that the benefits of the family style setting outweigh the negatives. For the first time in a long time, if not for the first time ever, these children have a place to call home. It is a home that will never be taken away from them. They will be provided for and loved as long as they live there, and they will be supported in their futures as well. This gift to them is truly a home, sweet, home.
*Machismo refers to a Latin American ideology of male dominance.
[1] Richter, L., Foster, G. and Sherr, L. (2006) Where the heart is: Meeting the psychosocial needs of young children in the context of HIV/AIDS. Bernard van Leer: The Hague, The Netherlands.
[2] Wakhweya, A, Dirks, R, and Yeboah, K (2008). Children thrive in families: family centered models of care and support for orphans and other vulnerable children affected by HIV and AIDS. Joint Learning Initiative on HIV/AIDS JLICA.
[3] Groark, C. , McCall, R. , & Fish, L. (2011). Characteristics of environments, caregivers, and children in three Central American orphanages. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32(2), 232-243.