I am sometimes asked this question. My response is, “It depends”.

Depends on what, you ask? On a number of factors which I will list later. But first, a quick historical recap:

Orphanages were common worldwide until some pivotal triggers. The 1950s in the United States witnessed a number of public scandals involving the abuse of orphans. A few decades later, in Romania, Nicolae Ceaucescu’s regime established a large number of ill-managed orphanages.

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP), a randomized controlled trial of foster care as an alternative to institutional care for young children conducted between 2000 and 2005, found that infants and children need more than just four walls and nourishment; they also need loving attention. This powerful study opened the floodgates to new studies, many (but not all) which validated the BEIP findings.

The resulting sustained criticism of child institutionalization led to policy decisions to move away from large-scale orphanages and to alternative orphan care models such as fostering and adoption. Major charities that took up the cause of deinstitutionalization include UNICEF, Save the Children, and Lumos Foundation.

It is to be noted that the above findings are not universally accepted. For instance, research by Duke University concludes in favor of institutional care in the United States in the 20th century. SOS Children’s Villages has successfully been running loving family homes for orphaned children. Experts have noted critical distinctions between large institutions and small group homes, as well as between developed and developing countries.

The answer to the subject question is, therefore, nuanced. The next question, then, would logically be: what variables need to be considered before arriving at a conclusion?