|   In this excerpt, 
              a well known pediatrician made the case against orphanages and for 
              family foster care. Henry 
              Dwight Chapin began with statistical findings about infant mortality, 
              but also suggested that institutional child care was damaging even 
              for those children lucky enough to survive it. At risk, according 
              to Chapin, was the long-term mental and emotional development of 
              children in orphanages or asylums. Especially interesting is his 
              emphasis on infants’ need for affection, which anticipated 
              later research on attachment and loss, such as Harry 
              Harlow’s monkey love experiments. 
            According to my experience, the earlier the age the greater the 
              undesirability of handling children in mass. While it is often difficult 
              to get exact figures, there is a heavy mortality and morbidity in 
              most institutions caring for babies. It is of comparatively recent 
              date that any really intelligent investigation of this problem has 
              been attempted. 
             Mortality in Institutions 
            The information given in the reports of infants’ institutions 
              is usually meager and unsatisfactory. In 1914 the then American 
              Association for Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality attempted 
              a study of this question. In their review the New York State Department 
              of Charities is quoted as presenting the statistics from 1909 to 
              1913 of eleven institutions in the State in which the death rate 
              for babies under two years, during this period, based on the total 
              number of children cared for, varied in the different institutions 
              from 183 to 576 per 1,000, with an average mortality rate for the 
              eleven of 422.5 per 1,000. During these same years the death rate 
              for children under two years, based on the estimated population 
              for the state at that age, was 87.4 per 1,000 or about one-fifth 
              of that in institutions. . . . 
            Very little accurate study has been made as to what effect the 
              institution has upon the mental development of children. Three years 
              ago the Bureau of Jewish Social Research undertook a careful and 
              exhaustive study of this subject. It was made in connection with 
              the children of the Hebrew Home for Infants, the Hebrew Orphan Asylum, 
              and the Hebrew Sheltering Guardian Society, the first an institution 
              for infants, the two latter for older children. In a study of mental 
              development as determined by school grade among 311 children that 
              had been done at one time or another under the care of the Hebrew 
              Home for Infants it was found that about 20 per cent were retarded 
              three terms or more in school. Against this, it was found that among 
              the children of the Hebrew Orphan Asylum and the Hebrew Sheltering 
              Guardian Society who had not previously been under the care of the 
              Hebrew Home for Infants only about 12 per cent were retarded three 
              terms or more. . . . 
            While the numbers concerned in this investigation are limited, 
              they certainly show a distinct trend. There has never been as careful 
              and exhaustive a study, as this of the Bureau of Jewish Social Research. 
              As far as its findings go, they show that a longer residence in 
              an asylum for infants may have an effect on the later mental life. . . . 
            It may also be noted that the very young infant craves and responds 
              to affection, which seems to have a stimulating effect, particularly 
              when there is drooping and lack of vitality. That close human observer 
              Jane Addams, with sympathetic vision, puts it thus, 
            
               We are told that the will to live is aroused in each baby by 
                his mother’s irresistible desire to play with him, the physiological 
                value of joy that a child is born, and that the high death rate 
                in institutions is increased by the discontented babies whom no 
                one persuades into living. 
             
            Such persuasion to life runs all through nature. This is one of 
              the reasons why the young thrive best under individual care and 
              attention. We have here a biological law: all animals respond to 
              affection. . . . 
            Most workers in this field. . .have found that carefully 
              regulated boarding out is the best method of handling abandoned 
              babies. In 1902 the writer started the Speedwell Society, the method 
              of which consists in boarding out babies in carefully supervised 
              units. . . . 
            There are few studies that statistically show the comparative results 
              of institutional care and boarding out, especially with babies of 
              the atrophic type. One of the most illuminating comparisons is found 
              in a report of studies made ten years ago by the Sage Foundation 
              and Dr. Josephine Baker of the New York Department of Health. A 
              number of babies were taken from the marasmus [malnutrition] ward 
              of the New York Foundling Hospital. This ward receives only the 
              chronic cases of extreme atrophy that in spite of the best care 
              have always ended in death. In boarding out a number of these babies, 
              an extra bonus was given to selected women and a doctor and a nurse 
              furnished for every ten babies. As a result there was an eventual 
              mortality of 46 per cent. Thus nearly half of the babies were saved 
              in the home who in spite of the greatest care were bound to die 
              in the institution. This is the method employed by the Speedwell 
              Society. . . . 
            The magnitude and importance of the problems raised by abandoned 
              children have not been sufficiently realized. In New York state 
              alone over 30,000 dependent children are being housed and trained 
              in institutions. Are these little lives being warped by unnatural 
              surroundings? . . . 
            Children are brought into the world singly and not in droves and 
              their physical, mental and moral health should be conserved in the 
              family unit. . . . The institution as a stop gap 
              represents a failure along the normal lines that development should 
              take place in child life. This truth must be spread abroad in the 
              hope that wealthy and well-meaning people will lose the common obsession 
              of endowing asylums. 
            Is the family or the institution best suited to conserve the child 
              as a valuable asset? To ask such a question is to answer it in favor 
              of the family. In the past much unselfish work has been done in 
              institutions and there is no reason for trying summarily to close 
              them all. But their future work should lie in the direction of clearing 
              houses or centers where the dependent child may be studied and classified 
              as to the direction of future effort. In the future let the family 
              and home be stressed while institutions take a secondary and retiring 
              place.  |