Numbers Matter

May we each strive to provide complete and accurate information as we diligently advocate for international adoption, lest the devil be in the detail we omit.

Grandma and The Mission. Grandma recently came across a photo of the first girl that she sponsored through *** Mission, a charity that has provided care and training to destitute women and children in India for over 100 years. Laughing, she explained that as a poor college student and later struggling teacher, she looked forward to the annual updates from the girl that she pinched pennies to support. After several years, however, she noticed that the girl never seemed to age as much as one would expect.

Grandma realized that the idea that she was supporting a particular girl was a fundraising myth, although the *** Mission itself was real and the good that it was doing in the community was real. She started donating to the *** Mission generally, giving up the idea that a particular child, whose picture she could put on her fridge and whose letter she could read, was being helped by her particular dollars. Forty years later, she continues to support the *** Mission.

Bad means to a good end. That memory led to a discussion of the challenges and temptations that charities face when fundraising. Every organization has overhead expenses, and most of its activities are carried out by “workmen worthy of their hire,” not volunteers. Yet donors are just ordinary people with the usual weaknesses, often motivated more by a particular idea than the overall charitable activity. It is more gratifying to donate to “send Mary to school for a year” then to “pay for the postage on our fundraising materials” or “pay our accountant.” For Mary to go to school, however, all of the expenses must be paid, and expenses are not easily broken down by individual. An organization’s overhead may average out to $500 per child, but each additional child helped does not add $500 in incremental expense.

So it is that good charities have given in to the temptation of having multiple donors sponsor the same child, or presenting one child as a caricature of many other children who do not have as compelling of a look, story, or letter. It would be easy to stop donating to a charity that is caught in a lie, but in the end Grandma showed compassion and understanding, and has helped support countless other children who she will never receive letters from.

Other charities have found a way to balance presenting information in a way that motivates people to give, while at the same time disclosing how funds are pooled and that your particular dollar does not go to a particular child or a particular item.  For example, we love Heifer International and the practical, helping-people-help-themselves assistance that they provide. In their Gift Catalog, one may check a box and send money for a particular animal, like "$120 for a goat" for a family in Ethiopia, or "$5,000 for Noah's Ark,"  pairs and trios of every animal on the list, to be shared with families around the world.  This motivates people. In the fine print, however, I found the disclosure that I was looking for: "Gifts made through this catalog represent a gift to the entire mission. . . . We use your gifts where they can do the most good by pooling them with the gifts of others to help transform entire communities."  

The truth matters. A lie, no matter how well-intentioned or justifiable, undermines the credibility of the entire organization and can be the death of a good charity. Likewise, numbers related to orphans matter. Using inaccurate numbers, even inadvertently, strengthens the position of opponents to international adoption and puts at risk the very thing that we are working so hard to support. One writer describes the misuse of statistics as creating a “myth of a world orphan crisis,” even as he himself admits that there are thousands of children (albeit not 160 million orphans) in need of a loving home. By perpetuating inflated numbers, we are buying into the same worldview: that it is the many that matter, not the few.

Personal bias. Before I go any further, I should confess my bias. My father passed away when I was eight. As the oldest of four children, I was acutely aware of how hard my mother worked to provide a stable, loving home despite our circumstances, which were (in hindsight) sometimes heartbreaking, often challenging, and always tougher without Dad. I am very proud of my mother, and all the more defensive when I see other widows in similar positions overlooked or dismissed despite the love and care that they are providing for their children.

160 million orphans… or not. UNICEF defines an orphan as anyone who has lost at least one parent. This definition can be helpful in a certain context: in developing countries, where life is fragile in the best of circumstances, children who have lost at least one parent are statistically more vulnerable, and single-parent households need our particular love and support to thrive.  Well-meaning people and organizations, however, often equate a child that is technically an “orphan” as a child in need of a loving home, and that is simply not the case. Most orphans have a surviving parent, and most continue to live with a parent, grandparent or other family member. Every time I read something like “147 million children need someone to tuck them in at night,” I am offended on behalf of every widow and widower out there who sacrifices daily to provide a loving home for their children.

Accurate numbers. UNICEF estimates that 13% of the orphans in developing countries (21 million) have lost both parents. Of these “double” orphans, most (over 90%) live with surviving family members. This means that there are still tens of thousands of double orphans in need of a home, not to mention the many more children whose surviving parent(s) have relinquished or abandoned them because they are unable to care for them. One child in need of a home is one child too many.  1%  (not 15%) of the population in Ethiopia is HIV positive; that is still too many.  4% (not 25%) of women die in childbirth; that is still too many.  The life expectancy of Ethiopians is 55 (not 45); that is still too short.  The most accurate statistics about Ethiopia are still heartbreaking, and help to describe the desperate circumstances facing the average Ethiopian family and explain why in-country adoption is not yet a viable option for children who are in urgent need of a home.

Christ loves the one. Throughout the Bible, there are examples of how much God cares for each individual child of His. Examples that come to mind as I type this at 2 a.m.: Abraham’s discussion about Sodom and Gomorrah, that ends with Abraham asking if God would spare the city if there were but one righteous man, the parable of the prodigal son, whose individual return is celebrated, and the shepherd who leaves his flock to search for the one sheep that is lost. We should be just as motivated, just as eager, to seek out the one child in need of a home, regardless of whether the total number is in the tens of thousands or hundreds of millions.

One family, one child. I am not advocating adoption from Ethiopia because of the five million children who have lost at least one parent. I am advocating adoption because of the one child left on a street corner who needs a loving family rather than a life that ends in prostitution or suicide.  International adoption, while not ideal, is that one child’s best option given the current challenges facing Ethiopia. 5% of Christians do not need to adopt to solve a world crisis of 160 million orphans, mythical or otherwise. One family needs to adopt – internationally or domestically, love knows no borders - to bless and be blessed by the one child in very real need of a loving family that he may otherwise never have.

For some of the most up-to-date orphan statistics, including those above, see The State of the World’s Children, 2010, UNICEF. For many other statistics, interpretations and extrapolations, please see my July 1 post labeled “Statistics,” which has over fifteen source citations.