Tuesday Terms: 147 Million
Welcome to our first recurring Tuesday feature. This column will be the discussion of a term that is used in child welfare or adoption.
Adoption ministries and those in the adoption industry are constantly linking “147 million” to adoption. Well, they’re wrong to do so. This is only a marketing term. Allow us to repeat. This is only a marketing term.
The term “orphan” has been defined by UNICEF, UNAIDS, and USAID to be a child who is missing one or both parents. Each year, this estimated number grows. In 2005, the estimate was 132 million. By 2006, the number being used was 143 million. Products are being sold and businesses with this term prominently displayed are being formed. It is being brazenly used to falsely draw prospective adoptive parents into considering adoption by making them believe that now there are 147 million children sitting around waiting for foreign parents to adopt them. In fact, this figure is so prominently and erroneously featured by the adoption business that its use and its proponents are cult-like.
So read carefully as the truth does not appear to be obvious to many: There are NOT 147 million children that need to be adopted! The truth is, there are millions of people (yes that includes adults) that live in poverty with minimal health care and opportunities.
People needing assistance does not equal children needing international adoption.
But what about the children that have lost both parents? UNICEF describes the reality with the 2005 estimate as follows “Of the more than 132 million children classified as orphans, only 13 million have lost both parents. Evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of orphans are living with a surviving parent grandparent, or other family member. 95 per cent of all orphans are over the age of five.” http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45290.html
This multi-million number stems from an estimation of children affected by AIDS in the USAID collaborative report from 2002 called “Children on the Brink http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Publications/docs/childrenbrink.pdf.
Excerpts from page 36 tell how this information should be used. Guess what? International adoption is not mentioned at all. Yet the US adoption industry has seized upon this 147 million figure and twisted it for its own selfish use.
Of course there are children worldwide who legally qualify for adoption. We are not saying that you shouldn’t adopt or only adopt children older than age five. It’s just that we are SICK of hearing the 147 million LIE…especially by those who espouse religion (and please note that all owners of this blog adhere to religious beliefs and traditions so this is not a dismissal of faith… it pains us).
Page 36 of the collaborative report lists “the following 12 principles developed by UNICEF, UNAIDS, and USAID.
1. Strengthen the protection and care of orphans and other vulnerable children within their extended families and communities.
2. Strengthen the economic coping capacities of families and communities
3. Enhance the capacity of families and communities to respond to the psychosocial needs of orphans, vulnerable children, and their caregivers.
4. Link HIV/AIDS prevention activities, care and support for people living with HIV/AIDS, and efforts to support orphans and other vulnerable children
5. Focus on the most vulnerable children and communities, not only those orphaned by AIDS
6. Give particular attention to the roles of boys and girls, and men and women, and address gender discrimination.
7. Ensure the full involvement of young people as part of the solution
8. Strengthen schools and ensure access to education
9. Reduce stigma and discrimination
10. Accelerate learning and information exchange
11. Strengthen partners and partnerships at all levels and build coalitions among key stakeholders.
12. Ensure that external support strengthens and does not undermine community initiative and motivation.
Donors, governments, and NGOs should recognize that families, communities, and children themselves are the front-line of response to HIV/AIDS. Community ownership of interventions is of paramount importance. Outside assistance should accordingly focus on engaging in long-term partnerships to support, strengthen, and sustain ongoing grassroots initiatives through training and technical assistance, organizational development, and sustained financial and material support.”
Wow! We couldn’t have said it better! If you want to “save” a child, focus on these 12 things. Don’t twist someone else’s words to give yourself a mission.
Most of all, don’t accept or believe everything the adoption business tells you. Get out there and look up these figures and do your own homework. You may be surprised at what you find.
REFORM Puzzle Piece
I am sick of this statistic, too. My father passed away when I was seven, so by this definition, I was an orphan. However, I still had my mom, my grandparents (on both sides), aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. We didn't have a lot of money and my mom had to work a lot, but I had no shortage of family. Living in the US, it would have made headlines if someone from another country swooped in and determined that I would be better off living with some family I did not know in another country.
Thanks for the insightful comment! Rally's grandma was single-orphaned at age 9. She lived rurally when the economy was really tough but she had a lot of extended family. If she had been adopted to another country, Rally wouldn't be here!
UNICEF is not an organization that is a proponent of International Adoption. We are currently on a very very long waiting list for another adoption from China, which UNICEF is also not a proponent of. I would take any information from UNICEF with a grain of salt as they too have an agenda.
Last time we checked, Unicef was not in the international adoption business. Maybe because they care more about family preservation than making money?
If you want to make sweeping claims, feel free, but please back them up with evidence.
Also please give us evidence of the transparency of the Chinese adoption system. Where are all your funds going?
I noticed that the definition mentioned above (UNICEF, UNAIDS, and USAID) mentions "missing" one or both parents – I wonder if anyone knows whether this only relates to children whose parent(s) are deceased?
Or does it also include those children who have been removed from their parents' custody & placed in state care or those children who have been abandoned or surrendered by their parents?
Perhaps a better measure would be the number of children in care (or living on the streets) as this would exclude those children in the care of 1 parent or other relatives.
Then again, I suppose the size of the problem isn't really the issue at all – one child devoid of parental or familial care is one too many!
Given what UNICEF's business is, if they are incented to lie about how many children need help, they are incented to INFLATE the number to make their mission seem even more critical. So while I don't agree with everything that they say and do, I will take these numbers as accurate. They did not come up with these numbers with IA in mind; they came up with them for their own purposes. Therefore, I think the grain of salt is not needed here.