TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
1.2 Statement of Problem
1.3 Purpose of Study
1.4 Research Questions
1.5 Research Hypotheses
1.6 Significance of Study
1.7 Scope
of Study
1.9 Definition of Terms
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Why Children
End Up In Orphanages Homes
2.2 Cost of Care in an
Orphanage
2.3 Impact of Orphanages Homes on Children
2.4 Support
Organisation for Children in Orphanage Homes Children and Families
2.5 Categories
of Interventions to Reduce Vulnerability
2.6 Emotional Problems among Children
in Orphanage Homes
2.7 Child Psychologist: Causes of
Vulnerability in Children and Bereavement
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Design of the Study
3.2 Population of the
Study
3.3 Sample and Sampling
Technique
3.4 Research Instrument
3.5 Validation of
Research Instruments
3.6 Reliability of the
Research Instruments
3.7 Administration and
Collection of Data
3.8 Statistical Analysis
of Data
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction
4.2 Descriptive Analyses of
Respondents’ Biographic Data Based On Age, Sex, Experience, Qualification and
Marital Status
4.4 Summary of Findings
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Summary, Conclusion and
Recommendation
5.1 Summary
5.2 Discussions
5.3 Conclusion
5.4 Implication for the
Research Findings on Orphanage Homes
5.5 Implication for the
Research Findings for Future Research
5.6 Recommendations
APPENDIX
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 themost, 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
Orphanages343 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?
1.5 RESEARCH
HYPOTHESES
The following research
hypotheses will be tested in this study:
1. The
orphanage homes will not have an impact on vulnerable children personal
development
2. Caregivers’
attitude will not influence vulnerable children personal development
3. Environmental
factor will not have a significant effect on vulnerable children personal
development
4. Child
factor will not influence vulnerable children personal development
5. Nutrition
will not affect vulnerable children personal development
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE
OF STUDY
This study would
highlight the impact of orphanage homes on vulnerable children personal
development in selected primary schools. The findings of this study would be
useful for decision-making process on matters affecting early childhood
development programmes
1.7 SCOPE
OF STUDY
This study seeks to
investigate the relationship between orphanage homes and vulnerable
children personality development in primary schools in Yaba Local Government
Area of Lagos State.
The variable scope for
this study will include the physical environment, social environment,
caregivers’ attitudes etc.
1.9 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Orphans: tend to be defined as
children aged under 18 who have lost their mother, father or both parents
(UNAIDS et al. 2004).
Orphanage
Home: a special
or public institution for the care and protection of orphans.
Vulnerability: which often
include disabled or destitute children is defined as the susceptibility to
attack or injury, the state or condition of being weak, or poorly defended.
TOPIC: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE IMPACT OF ORPHANAGES HOME ON VULNERABLE CHILDREN PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT IN SELECTED PRIMARY SCHOOLS
Format: MS Word
Chapters: 1 - 5
Delivery: Email
Delivery: Email
Number of Pages: 65
Price: 3000 NGN
In Stock
No comments:
Post a Comment
Add Comment