ATTENTION:
BEFORE
YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000
ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
INVESTIGATION
INTO THE IMPACT OF ORPHANAGES HOME ON VULNERABLE CHILDREN PERSONALITY
DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1BACKGROUDN
TO THE STUDY
In 2007, an
estimated 145 million children 0 to 17 years old were orphaned, having lost one
or both parents (UNICEF 2008). Many millions of other children can be described
as vulnerable, due to the effects of illness and poverty. There are many
reasons for this situation, including conflict, disease, and accidents.
However, in
recent times, a new and significant cause of the increase in children in orphanages
home and vulnerable children has been the impact of the HIV pandemic.
Worldwide, 15 million children have been orphaned due to AIDS, with 11.6
million orphans due to AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa alone (UNICEF 2008b). AIDS is
also unique in its impact on double orphans, or children who have lost both
parents. If one parent is living with HIV, there is a high likelihood that the
other parent is as well and that a child will lose both parents in a short
period of time. Children who are orphaned are more likely to suffer from
detrimental health and nutritional outcomes; orphaned children are more likely
to be stunted compared to non-orphans. Paternal orphans are also more likely to
have suffered from recurring sickness in the past month compared to non-orphans. Additionally, caregivers of double and
maternal orphans are less likely to report that the child has been sick in the
last 12 months although maternal orphans are more than twice as likely to
report being treated worse than other members of the household, compared to
non-orphans (UNICEF 2006).
Estimating
the number of children in orphanage homes and vulnerable children depends in
large part on how orphans and vulnerable children are defined and on different
methods used to project future levels of factors that cause children to be
orphaned and made vulnerable, including the course of the HIV and AIDS
pandemic.
Orphans tend
to be defined as children aged under 18 who have lost their mother, father or
both parents (UNAIDS et al. 2004).
Vulnerable
children can be defined as children whose safety, well-being or development is
at significant risk. Amongst others, such children can include children
orphaned due to AIDS, children infected with HIV, children caring for
terminally sick parents with AIDS, fostered children, children in poor
households which have taken in orphans, disabled children, street children,
children exposed to excessively hazardous labour, children involved in the sex
industry, children affected by conflict, migrant children and children out of
school. The extent to which such children can be said to be vulnerable will
vary from place to place and community to community.
Children
move in and out of various groups of vulnerability as their life circumstances
change. It can be observed that while orphanhood often imposes a heavy burden
on children, not all children orphaned are needy or poor. Similarly, there are
many children who are not orphans but who are needy or vulnerable. Other
factors, such as quality of parental care, the presence of conflict and
families’ needs for children to work, can also act strongly to affect
children’s vulnerability. Many such factors are not readily quantified or
recognized, as a result, common understandings or definitions of vulnerability
are difficult to achieve. While anecdotal evidence of the experience of orphans
and vulnerable children exists, the extent of the ‘invisible’ causes of
vulnerability remains unknown.
Rapid
advances in biological and behavioural research show early childhood as a time
of tremendous brain growth. It is during a child’s first few years that the
neural connections that shape physical, social, cognitive, and emotional
competence develop most rapidly and show the greatest ability to adapt and
change. Connections and abilities formed in early childhood form the foundation
of subsequent development. As a result, providing the right conditions for
healthy early development is likely to be much more effective than treating
problems later in life (centre on the Developing child 2007).
Just as
strong foundations provide the basis for positive and healthy adaptations, weak
foundations create physiological disruptions that can undermine subsequent
learning, behaviour, and lifelong physical and mental health. This biological
evidence explains how, in the absence of nurturing and supportive
relationships—the type of environment in which many orphans and vulnerable
Children live— adversity can create “toxic stress” that undermines all aspects
of a child’s subsequent development, creating significant, physically based,
and long-term obstacles to positive outcomes for these children. Centre on the Developing child (2010);
Shonkoff (2010).
Vulnerability
is a complex concept to define, as is illustrated in local/community
definitions of vulnerability, which often include disabled or destitute
children; in policy and support provision definitions, which list categories of
children; and in working definitions, which are used in various.
A major
concern is that the orphan estimates do not reflect children who are vulnerable
but still living with parents, or children vulnerable due to other causes or in
addition to AIDS. Countries seeking to quantify the current and future burden
of orphan and vulnerable children (OVC) may need to supplement their data on
orphans with information from a situation analysis that covers all vulnerable
children.
There is a
body of evidence that challenges the assumption that orphans are the most
vulnerable children. Using non-enrolment and non-attendance rates in schools as
proxies for vulnerability, studies by Ainsworth and Filmer (2002) and Huber and
Gould (2003) found that in many countries poor children (rather than orphans)
were most likely not to be enrolled in or to be out of school. Though
generalizations across countries (28 countries in four regions in the Ainsworth
and Filmer study) can be challenged, the link between poverty and vulnerability
seems well established, suggesting that policies to raise enrolment among the
poor will also have a positive impact on disadvantaged OVC. These findings seem
to suggest that poverty at the community level is a main factor driving the
conditions in which vulnerable children find themselves, and that if poverty is
addressed, the quality of many children’s lives would be improved.
The future
of any society depends on its ability to foster the health and well-being of
the next generation” (2007), ensuring a strong start for orphans and vulnerable
children is especially” important in societies facing high levels of HIV
infection, where illness and death erode the ability of the adult generation to
nurture children.
A child’s
“environment of relationships” refers to the day-to-day interactions between
the child and the people in the child’s world. This includes family members or
caretakers in the home or institutional setting, as well as the people who
interact more broadly with children, such as individuals and groups within a
community, in school, and in health facilities (Shonkoff 2010). A large body of
research documents that loving, supportive care and secure attachments are
critically important for positive child development. The consistent presence of
stable, caring adults is one of the most, if not the most, important protective
factor in mitigating toxic stress of the kind that many orphans and vulnerable
children(OVC) face (center on the
Developing child 2010; Shonkoff 2010).
Intellectual development of children growing
up in orphanages is thought to be at risk. Because of care in large groups and
poor environments, brain development may become delayed during the formative
period after birth (Chugani et al., 2001), and the lack of challenging stimuli
and stable attachments may impair the intellectual development of
institutionalized children (Gunnar, Bruce, & Grotevant, 2000; Johnson,
2000; Miller, 2005; Van IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2006).
More than 30 years ago, Dennis (1973)
addressed the question of how large the cognitive delay of children in
orphanages was compared to children
adopted into
families. He studied children who were abandoned immediately after birth and
were reared in children’s homes in Lebanon.
Some of the
children were adopted around their third birthday, and others remained in
children’s homes. Dennis found that at age 11, the average IQ
of the adopted
children was within the range of normally developing children, whereas the
non-adopted orphans were diagnosed as mentally retarded. In a meta-analysis on
six studies, including 253 participants, we found strong evidence for Dennis’s
finding, as the adopted children outperformed their siblings or peers left
behind in terms of their performance on an IQ test with more than one standard
deviation across studies (Van IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2005; Van IJzendoorn,
Juffer, & Klein Poelhuis, 2005).
The intellectual development of
institutionalized children has been studied for more than 60 years. Between
1930 and 1950 the first wave of studies documented that children in orphanages
often showed a low IQ and severe language delays (Crissey, 1937; Durfee &
Wolf, 1933). In later studies
similar
delays were observed in the intellectual as well as the socio motional domains of development
(Ainsworth, 1962; Bowlby, 1952; Ferguson, 1966; Freud & Burlingham, 1944;
Provence & Lipton, 1962; Rheingold, 1956; Schaffer, 1965; Skeels, 1966;
Spitz, 1945; Yarrow, 1961).
Children’s
homes have been considered natural experiments into the necessary conditions
for intellectual growth (Kaler & Freeman, 1994; MacLean, 2003; Sloutsky,
1997).
Recent
research keeps showing the continuing negative influence of residential care on
children’s development (Ahmad &Mohamad, 1996; Harden, 2002; Sloutsky, 1997;
Sparling, Dragomir,Ramey, & Florescu, 2005; St. Petersburg-USA Orphanage
Research Team,2005; Vorria et al., 2003; Yagmurlu, Berument, & Celimli,
2005; Zeanah,Smyke, Koga, & Carlson, 2005).
It is
because of the detrimental developmental effects that in many Western countries
the number of orphanages has steadily decreased during the past half a century.
In the past few decades many studies on orphanages have come from developing
countries (Frank, Klass, Earls, & Eisenberg,1996). Nevertheless, children’s
homes still exist in the United States of America (http://www.orphanage.org) as
well as in Europe. Browne et al.(2005) asked health care officials in more than
30 European countries about the number of children under 3 years of age growing
up in children’s homes 342 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly in 2003. They found that
throughout Europe 11.2 children per 10,000 resided in children’s homes, with
the Czech Republic having the largest number of young children in residential
care, namely 60 per 10,000. In Africa the number of children’s homes is
currently increasing because of the many AIDS/HIV orphans who cannot be cared
for anymore by members of the extended family (Kodero, 2001; Madhavan, 2004;
Nyambedha, Wandibba, & Aagaard-Hansen, 2003).
When rearing
children in orphanages remains or becomes necessary because alternatives are
lacking, the crucial issue is which conditions might
relieve or
decrease the negative impact of institutional care. Depending on the type of
explanation for the intellectual delays, one may have different ideas about
more or less favorable conditions in children’s homes. The maternal deprivation
concept (Bowlby, 1951) states that a stable and continuous attachment
relationship with a sensitive caregiver is essential for
socio
emotional as well as for intellectual development. If this is true, children’s
homes with more sensitive caregivers and smaller groups might be less damaging
to intellectual development. The stimulus deprivation theory (Casler, 1961)
suggests that the lack of physical and social stimuli of any kind may be the
most important cause of intellectual delays, and enriching the orphanage environment would result in
better intellectual development.
Of course,
these theories are not incompatible, and they both may point to
important
components of more favorable children’s home environments. The study on Metera
children’s home in Greece by Vorria and her colleagues (2003) showed the
relevance of caregiver sensitivity for the children’s development. It also
showed the lower sensitivity of caregivers compared to parents and the
discontinuity in care arrangements in a 24-hour residential care setting,
sometimes with toddlers having experienced more than 50 different caregivers.
In an earlier study in the same institution,
Vorria et
al. (1998a, 1998b) showed that siblings were able to derive comfort
from each
other’s presence in the group. In a groundbreaking intervention
study,
Groark, Muhamedrahimov, Palmov, Nikiforova, and McCall (2005) demonstrated that
promoting caregiver sensitivity leads to better socioemotional and cognitive
development of the children involved and a better atmosphere in the groups
consisting of children of differing ages. Caregiver-child ratio might also be
important. Groark and colleagues (2005) managed to decrease the number of
children per caregiver, which promoted children’s development significantly.
Cognitive
stimulation may be another important factor in children’s homes. Morison,
Chisholm, and Ames (1995) showed that with increasing amount of play materials,
developmental delays decreased in children adopted from orphanages (see also
Kaler & Freeman, 1994). Intervention IQ In Orphanages 343 studies by
Hakimi-Manesh, Mojdchi, and Tashakkori (1984) and Hunt, Mohandessi, Ghodssi,
and Akiyama (1976) demonstrated the reversibility of intellectual delays when a
more stimulating and enriched environment was offered. Similar findings emerged
from correlational studies in wellequipped orphanages (Klackenberg, 1956;
Tizard & Rees, 1974). Enhanced cognitive stimulation might have also been
the working ingredient of the Groark et al. (2005) intervention, as their
intervention changes pertained to almost all aspects of group life.
Age of the
children and the duration of their stay in the orphanage may also play a role
in the degree to which group care affects children’s intellectual development.
One would expect that younger entry into the orphanage (Sloutsky, 1997) and a
longer stay (Sloutsky, 1997; Spitz, 1945) would be more detrimental, but the evidence is
equivocal. For example, Vorria et al. (1998) and Kaler and Freeman (1994) did
not find an association between age at entry and intellectual development.
Aboud and colleagues (1991) reported even positive effects: younger children
performed better on cognitive tests. With equivocal and sometimes contrasting
findings, the field of research on the effects of orphanages on intellectual
development is ripe for a quantitative review of the available evidence. In the
current article we report on a series of meta-analyses of the extant empirical
studies published
during the
past seven decades.
The
following hypotheses were tested. First, we addressed the question of whether
children reared in children’s homes were delayed in their intellectual
development compared to children growing up in families and how large this
delay on average would be. Second, we examined some factors that may influence
the delays. Besides some characteristics of the studies involved, such as year
of publication, type of publication, kind of comparison group, and the type of
cognitive test, we explored the influence of sample characteristics.
We also
tested whether gender plays a role in affecting the size of cognitive delays
(Vorria et al. [1998] found that girls suffered less from their stay in a
children’s home) and whether the age of the children was important, not only at entry in the children’s home but also
at time of assessment. Our hypothesis was that earlier entry into group care
would lead to larger delays
later. Also,
the future prospects of the children—whether they were to be adopted or
not—might be relevant because the children to be adopted might
be
relatively less deprived to begin with (Van IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2005).
Lastly, some characteristics of the children’s homes were studied, in
particular caregiver-child ratio and economic level of the country of
residence, with the hypothesis that orphanages in richer countries and homes
with more favorable caregiver-child ratio’s may provide better cognitive
stimulation and lead to less cognitive delay of the children in their care.
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Poor health
and little stimulation resulting from inadequate care can affect the orphans
and vulnerable children’s ability to think, learn and function effectively. As
the HIV pandemic continues to expand, the impact on children cannot be
overstated. Children who are orphaned by HIV/AIDS become vulnerable to a whole
host of dangers in the name of supporting themselves and their siblings. This
paper investigate a summary of impact of orphanage homes on vulnerable children
personality development in selected primary schools in Lagos state and examines
some of the factors responsible for orphanhood and vulnerability.
1.3 PURPOSE
OF STUDY
The purpose
of this study is to share the practical experiences of humanitarian and
government agencies and civil society organizations in seeking to address the
educational rights and needs of orphans and vulnerable children in orphanage
homes. By raising important questions that emerge from those experiences, it is
hoped that practitioners will be able to consider the relevance of different
approaches to their own contexts and needs. We hope that the lessons learned
from these case studies may illuminate the design of future interventions aimed
at assisting orphans and vulnerable children to realize their right to
education and personal development.
By recording
practical experiences of existing interventions, this Research aims to inform decisions taken by people and
organizations working towards he personal development of children in orphanage
homes and goal of universal primary education from a human rights-based
approach. As we have found with previous books following this format, the
information is particularly valued by education practitioners in formal and
non-formal venues, programme managers and planners, and government
policymakers.
Every child
has the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and
the right to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental,
spiritual, moral and social development. It is good to recognize that children
have a wide range of needs – including, love, safety, nutrition and play – that
are fundamental in and of themselves, and that only in concert with these can
the right to education enable them to reach their fullest potential. The
inattention to any of these needs puts a child at a disadvantage, limiting his
or her opportunity to grow physically, cognitively, socially and emotionally.
To achieve
this, the researcher intends:
1. To investigate the impact of orphanage home
on vulnerable children personal development
2. Explore the influence of caregivers’
attitude on vulnerable children personal development.
3. Determine if environment factor will have a
significant effect on vulnerable children personal development
4. Determine if Child factor will significantly
influence personal developmental.
5. Determine if Nutrition will have an effect
on vulnerable children personal development.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Will orphanage homes have an impact on
vulnerable children personal development?
2. Will caregivers’ attitude influence
vulnerable children personal development?
3. Will environment factor have a significant
effect on vulnerable children personal development?
4. Will Child factor influence vulnerable
children personal developmental?
5. Will Nutrition have an effect on vulnerable
children personal development?
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount
(#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after
we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE
Comments
Post a Comment