Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to everyone who provided advice and cooperation during the course of
this research, especially the hundreds of children, parents, directors, staff members, and others
who shared their personal experiences and impressions of residential child care facilities in Haiti.
Jean Louis Roosevelt at IBESR provided insightful and steady guidance at every stage of the
project, from the development of the research strategy to the development of the survey
instruments to the completion of the research and analysis. The investigators are also grateful to
Arielle Jeanty Villedrouin, director general of IBESR, for her support and commitment to the
study. Numerous other people at IBESR also provided welcome assistance, including Abraham
Joseph in Nippes, Marie Garlene Dupoux in Grand’Anse, Enel Andre in the South, Jacques Greguy
Regis in the Southeast, Cinedais Jean in the Artibonite, Anostal Justin in the Northwest, Louis-
Mary Petit-Frere in the North, Occean Remy in the Northeast, and Abbe Bernard in the Center
Department. Pierre Ferry of UNICEF provided direction, and helped the research team through
difficult moments with his understanding and guidance. Jules Hans Beauvoir at UNICEF was
instrumental in enriching the methodology. Kristine Peduto, also of UNICEF, made significant
contributions to the questionnaires.

The team also wishes to express its appreciation for the contributions of the members of the
original steering committee, including Tessa Marks of Rescue International for her contributions
to preparing and insights, as well as Islande Georges and Camilla Dogliotti of Terre de l’Homme,
and Claire Perrin Houdon of Handicap International, whose contributions were critical to the
success of the research. The staff of Save the Children, including David Marcelin, Stephen
Vaughan, and deputy director Denise Rocks, also provided their thoughts and reviewed the
questionnaire. Rachel Whetten, Kate Whetten, lead author of “A Comparison of the Wellbeing of
Orphans and Abandoned Children Ages 6-12 in Institutional and Community-Based Care Settings
in 5 Less Wealthy Nations,” and Anna Koons, Karen O’Donnell, Lynne Messer, Kyle Hamilton,
and Amy Hobbie of Duke University reviewed the questionnaire and shared valuable reflections
on residential child care, orphans, and survey methodology.

We also are indebted to journalist Kathryn Joyce, author of “Child Catchers,” and Professor Karen
Rotabi, an expert on international adoption, for invaluable suggestions. Professor Gerald Murray
and Glenn Smucker, anthropologists and authors of numerous articles and reports on Haitian
society in general and children in particular, generously shared their insights in lengthy and
rewarding exchanges. Missionary and filmmaker Corrigan Clay made extensive contributions
during the development of the questionnaires, which were greatly enhanced by his depth of
understanding and patient guidance. Jacob Sangster, director of CorLuv children’s home in
Gonaives, deserves our heartfelt thanks for his insights and inside knowledge, as does former sub-
minister of MSPP Patrick Delorme, who wrote lengthy notes that were included in this report.
Isabel Munroy, a French nurse with 20 years of experience in Haiti, also contributed notes cited in
the report, as did Thor Burnham, PhD in history. Missionairies Gregory and Barbara Van Schoyck
also contributed written commentary. John Bickel, a U.S. missionary and co-director/founder of
God’s Littlest Angels provided invaluable help, as did missionaries Carol Anne and George
Trulelove, who spent 40 years and raised 22 Haitian children as their own. Business woman, school
director and former adoption agent Yoland Mackey also shared insights from her work in the
adoption process. Shasta Grimes and Tamara Palinka provided crucial insights into the
international adoption process in Haiti from the view of prospective parents, and Michelle Reed
of America World Adoption and Debra Parrish of European Adoption Consultants helped explain
the process from the view of adoption agencies.

RCCI Residential Child Care Institutions

l’IBESR (l'Institut Du Bien-Etre Social Et De Rechercches),

The following is an update

The Government of Haiti’s Child Welfare Service. l’IBESR (l'Institut Du Bien-Etre Social Et De Rechercches),
was founded in 1958 as part of the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs (Ministère des Affaires Sociales et
du Travail). It has the specific mandate of “responding to the many and varied social afflictions that plague
disadvantaged sectors of the Haitian population” and is especially focused on vulnerable women,
prostitution, unemployed youth, the physically disabled and, most important of all with respect to the
present study, “children in difficult circumstances.”

Any issue, organization, or social situation that touches on the lives of Haitian children is, by implication,
of interest to IBESR. The mandate to oversee the welfare of Haitian children extends to Residential Child
Care Institution (RCCI), the subject of the present study. Within this framework l’IBESR commissioned the
present investigation of Residential Child Care Centers. The objective is to develop profiles of the
institutions with respect to staff and infrastructure, the individuals and organizations that run the
institutions, the families whose children live in the institutions and not least of all, the children themselves.
 Review of the Literature

Executive Summary

1) Residential Child Care Institutions (RCCIs) are hospices where children live 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week. They include boarding schools, orphanages for parentless or
abandoned children, group homes for disabled children, therapeutic rehabilitation centers
for addicts and psychologically troubled youth, and detention centers for delinquents. The
definition is sometimes limited to a residence housing 30 or more children.

2) L”IBESR 2012 study of RCCIs in Haiti identified 723 institutions, over 80% of which were
defined as “orphelinats.” The remainder was crèches, institutions specifically for disabled
children, and those identified as serving street children including the recently inaugurated
government’s 400 bed Welcome Center at Delmas 3. We also know that 3 institutions exist
in Haiti specifically for youthful delinquents.

3) To understand RCCIs in Haiti, it helps to know that prior to the 19th century abandoned,
neglected and delinquent children in contemporary developed countries were frequently
apprenticed to craftsmen and wealthier households as domestic servants. Residential Child
Care Centers only became a significant feature of Western society in the 18th and 19th
centuries. They came about as a reaction to an explosion in the number of street children,
a process linked to urbanization and a decline in dependency on labor intensive craft
production and agricultural strategies. i

4) Since WWII, evolving official and scholarly interpretations of the impact of RCCIs on
child growth and developed has been driven by the division of value systems. On the one
side was the educated liberal, largely secular movement. They also were associated with
increasing tolerance of alternative life styles, single motherhood and same sex marriage
and parenthood. On the other side were the conservative social values typical of the
Catholic Church and traditional protestant denominations. The divide between the two
value systems crystalized in the debate over abortion. In the late 1960s and throughout the
1970s a series of laws legalized abortion in most developing countries. In the US Roe vs
Wade decision was a catalyst in bringing them together the formation of organizations such
as the 1976 Moral Majority and the Family Movement. The evangelicals US citizens who
belonged to this movement have been most responsible for the recent emergence tens of
thousands of RCCIs in developing countries, not least of all those in Haiti. The extent of
their power and influence cannot be understated. As a politically active block of voters,
they are credited with the success of the Reagan and Bush presidencies in the United States.
5) In developed countries adoption was a focal point in the ensuing value struggle. Prior to
the legalization of abortion was an era of adoption known as “baby scoop” where “unwed
mothers homes” linked to adoption agencies pressured young mothers to relinquish custody
of their newborns for adoption into “whole families,” most often middle and upper class
Christians. The US, Britain, Spain, Canada, France, Australia and Argentina all had their
own versions of baby scoop eras. It occurred within these countries rather than across
international border and it later became associated with unethical practices of lying to
mothers, closed abortion and falsification of paperwork. With the legalization of abortion,
liberalization of reproductive rights, tolerance of alternative marriage and single
motherhood, open adoption became the norm, women were significantly less inclined to
give up their babies. The era was been remembered as oppressive and government officials
in most of the developed countries were it occurred have recently issued public apologies
for their complicity. But more importantly for the present research is the impact it had on
developing countries and the eventual emergence of RCCIs

6) One consequence of the end of the baby scoop era and open adoption was that domestic
adoption plummeted. There was a corresponding increase in demand for babies from
overseas. Paraguay, Brazil, Guatemala, Nepal, Colombia, Vietnam, Cambodia, and many
former Eastern Block countries all became significant sources of adoptees. With them
came the first widespread appearance of RCCIs in these countries. Although originally
linked to international adoption they would become sustainable orphan tourism and ###
even after international adoption was restricted in these countries.

7) The impact on developing countries of what some have construed as developed world
battle of values systems fought carried to developing world battle field cannot be gainsaid:
The massive emergence of secular NGOs endeavoring to alleviate world poverty, unfair
government practices, abuse, and environmental degradation has been termed the ‘boom
in civil society’ (SustainAbility2003:2), the rise of the “fifth estate” (Eizenstat 2004), a
social change equated in impact with the rise of the nation State (Salamon et al. 2003:6-7).
In the first decade of the millennium there were an estimated 9 million NGO workers and
ten million NGOs annually spending 1.1 trillion dollars. Many are secular. Buried in those
figures are groups like WANGO, The World Association of United Nations Non
Government Organizations, with core of religious leader that tried to present itself to the
United Nations as an umbrella organization for all NGOs, what some scholars interpreted
as an attempt to hijack the international civil sector. Even more importantly for the issue
of adoption and RCCIs is that embedded in organizations such as WANGO were
evangelical alliances such as the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, a US
religious order second in size only to the Catholic Church. In the wake of Roe vs. Wade
they became champions of what Kathyrn Joyce calls the “evangelical contagious call to
adopt,” periodically asking members to “prayerfully consider whether or not God was
calling them to adopt.” There was also the Christian Alliance for Orphans, a pro-adoption
coalition of eighty US-based Christian ministries with 6,300 radio facilities in 164
 countries speaking 15 languages, reaching a daily listening audience of 220 million people.
These organizations have, in a very big way, been responsible for such transformations as
the protestant population in Brazil going from 5% protestant in 1970 to 22% in 2010.
Guatemala went from less than 10% to estimates as high as 40% over the same period of time.
With the growth in the number of protestants came the concomitant emergence of
thousands orphanages in impoverished countries such as Guatemala, Ethiopia, and Haiti.

8) It merits emphasizing that prior to the 1980s most developing countries outside of the
Eastern Block had only a few state run institutions, reform schools, boarding schools, and
a smattering of Catholic orphanages. In this way they resembled pre 19th century developed
countries in terms of RCCIs.

9) Similar to the baby scoop era, high profits that came with adoption services were ripe
ingredients for unscrupulous business practices. With even weaker government regulatory
agencies and impoverished officials inclined to accept bribes, it was not long before news
of a rash scandals were coming out of developing countries targeted as hospitable to
international adoption. A minority of adoption agencies and child recruiters participated in
cajoling, tricking, misleading, and outright lying to parents in efforts to gain custody of
their children. Journalists uncovered significant wrongdoing associated with international
adoption. In Guatemala there were credible reports of babies stolen and suspicion that
soldiers even killed parents and sold their babies. In more than one country journalists were
intimidated. With the support of UNICEF and through the Hague Adoption Convention,
over the past decade governments in these countries have imposed tighter controls resulting
in restricted international adoption and a decline in frequency of more outrageous
international adoption scandals.

10) It is at this juncture that we see an evolution in developing world RCCIs. While most
residential care centers appear to have originated in association with adoption, restrictions
on international adoption have been succeeded, not by a reduction in the number of RCCIs
in developing countries, but rather an explosion in number. Cambodia is an example. After
a series of high profile scandals Cambodia restricted international adoption. In 2006 the
US and Britain suspended adoptions from Cambodia. Yet, UNICEF found that that from
2005 and 2010 the country experience a 75 per cent increase in the number of residential
care facilities, (hosting 11,945 children in 2010). The financial basis for the institutions has
been overseas sponsorship humanitarian tourism

11) The ideological rational and substance for donor drives on behalf of both evangelicals,
traditional faith based aid organizations as well as the non-faith based humanitarian sector
is disease, hunger, poverty, illiteracy, and environmental devastation rampant in the
developing world. But the institutionalization of children is more specifically underwritten,
in an ideological sense, by the portrayal of equally rampant child abuse, violence, and
domestic slavery. Captured in slogans such as “143 million,” the conviction widespread
 among evangelicals that there are at least 143 million orphans in the world who are
desperately in need of a family, these are misleading and highly questionable figures that
scholars have assailed but that a litany of evangelicals books--out numbering 10 to 1 non-
evangelical literature on orphans—reaffirm. The books peppered with stories of
infanticide, abandonment and neglect among third world mothers. While generally against
the institutionalization of children, child protection agencies such as UNICEF and Save the
Children have lent credibility to the RCCI claims by overemphasizing issues such as child
slavery, and defining “orphans” as children who have lost or been abandoned by only one
parent

12) The best place to begin in understanding the impact of the developed world value
campaigns on people in poor countries—and hence the emergence and role of RCCIs-- is
by understanding that among people dependent on pre-industrial livelihood strategies the
notion of an abandoned child typically does not exist. Parentless or abandoned children are
cared for by kin, friends, or neighbors. Grandparents often assumed the role that middle
class Western kinships and value systems assign exclusively to mother and father. Even
the primacy of the nuclear family is challenged by 4 % of the world’s societies who practice
avunculocality (child residence with mothers-bother). Informal adoption and fosterage
occur in many preindustrial societies at rates exceeding 50% of all children.

13) The value of child labor—what Lindsay argues is criminalized in UN Charters-- is also the
basis for much of the child exchange described above. The importance of child labor in
non-industrial agricultural, pastoral and fishing societies articulates with semi-formal
patron-client relationships in which children is everywhere apparent. They are also
significant currency and link among households that must share labor and seek gender
parity if they are to be productive and their members survive.

14) With modernization, rapid urbanization, and the importance of education as a means of
social mobility, impoverished families use fosterage as a means of extending their own
subsistence oriented networks and allowing children to obtain educations. This was a
prevailing pattern in pre-20th century Europe and the US. Throughout Africa and the
Caribbean impoverished families strategically place their children with better off families.
“Crianza” in Spanish Latin America, “School Children” in the British Caribbean,
“Criacao” in Brazil, and “restavek” in Haiti are all domestic service in exchange for
education. These type of family coping strategies of impoverished families were all
considered highly appropriate to the grandparents and great grandparents of people in the
contemporary developed world. But as anthropologist Leinaweaver (2007:163) noted after
reviewing Peruvian adoption procedures and documents, “adoption lawyers
conscientiously define as inadequate the very kin-building practices that remain essential
for the hard-working migrants I knew.”
15) Anthropologists argue that what often seems to have been overlooked in the heavily class
and culture bound prism through which the governing and international elites view the
coping strategies of the poor is the importance of child labor, sibling and peer care, how
they use child sharing to expand opportunities for the child and for the parents and other
members. Legally codified in procedures for adoptions, some scholars argued, have more
often been mechanisms for silencing and disenfranchising birth mothers and impoverished
foster parents rather than empowering or protecting them. Perhaps more telling of all, is
not recognized by legal authorities in developing countries.

16) Godparentage is an example of the neglect or trivializing of developing world child care
strategies. Child protection agencies and proponents of international adoption alike seldom,
if ever, even mention the institution. Yet, it is taken seriously in Latin America and the
Caribbean. It defines a child’s substitute parent shortly after birth, a type of shadow family
or developing world child care insurance policy, a principal feature of which is to anticipate
the death or hard times parents may encounter.

17) The child protection agencies and developed world evangelicals have also typically
blanked out the role of child agency in so called “trafficking”, with children as young as 7
years of age reporting having actively sought out urban families and moving across
international borders to offer their services in exchange for access to education, language
skills, and more vibrant economies. They have criminalized as traffickers the very people
who take these children in and help them attain better lives.

18) And they have often overlooked the role of people in the developed actively exploiting
opportunity. Regarding adoption, “active agency” manifests itself in various ways. One
way is that, despite the fact that investigations by virtually all the major intelligence has
yielded no substantial, urban myths of organ theft are common in all poor countries where
adoption is prevalent. At times this has been more than a quaint urban myth. In Guatemala
reached is height in the 1990s with attacks on foreigners erroneously suspected of stealing
children, such as environmental consultant June Weinstock who had the misfortune of
being the closest gringo in sight when a Guatemalan peasant family momentarily lost track
of their child. A panic swept through the village and before it was all over a mob of 500
people attacked Weinstock, ripped her clothes off, stoned her unconscious, and then raped
her with a stick. At another level examples abound in newspaper accounts of developing
world parents admitting to have given their children over to adoption agencies to go with
strangers to the US or France but later claiming they had been tricked. Most accounts
explain specifically that they had expected the children to return when they had finished
their education and were legal adults. The agency is evident in the fact that adoption or no
adoption, at 18 the children can decide to do what they want to do. In effect, there is very
good reason to suspect that what the parents are protesting are the advantages they expected
to accrue to them as a result of their children’s migration. In some cases, the parents have
specifically explained to journalists that they expected rewards that were not forthcoming.
 Secular child protection agencies have sometimes held such cases up as examples of
misdoing and exploitation on the part of the adoption agencies when clearly what the
parents resent is not the migration of their children but the fact they did not themselves
sufficiently benefit from having strategically relinquished custody of the children.

19) RCCIs are part and parcel of the international adoption phenomenon. Both are
overwhelmingly associated with developed world evangelicalism, proselytization, and
saving bodies and souls. But unlike adoption, there seems to be less ambiguity among the
poor. They are seen as mechanisms of accessing education, particularly for impoverished
people in rural areas were schools are scarce. They provide an alternative to international
adoption, one where parents can maintain contact with children. And they provide an
alternative to domestic servitude that protection agencies have rallied against.

20) Notwithstanding, most literature put out by secular child protection organizations have
brought with them the developed world perspective of the RCCIs as iniquitous to child
development. The argument rings true as there is clear and unambiguous relationship
between stunted intellectual development and institutionalization of children in the 0 to 3
year age range. The rise of multi-culturalism and tolerance also figure into the anti-RCCI
climate. The evangelical will to convert and assimilate people in the developing world
resembles the massive early to mid 20th century US, Canadian, and Australian aboriginal
boarding school programs that government officials have been recently officially
apologizing for. But there are real advantages to the poor with the new RCCIs and they
appear not to be viewed with the same suspicion as international adoption. In this way the
evangelicals who are on shaky ground when they say, in the context of international
adoption, ‘UNICEF may be not working in the interest of children,’ may indeed have the
support of the poor when it comes to RCCIs

21) Critics of Child Protection agencies point to the fact that while scholars disparage them
for the poor, many developing world elites send their own children to boarding schools and
Residential Treatment Centers. Moreover, in the endeavor to discredit RCCIs UNICEF and
Save the Children frequently conflate the impact residential care has on the 80% of child
residents who are 4 years and older with the impact they have on the 20% who are infants
and toddlers. The distinction in needs between the two age groups is so obvious to make
some observers suspicious of the motivations behind the anti-RCCIs campaigns. If we
eliminate infants and toddlers from the debate, there is evidence that well managed
“orphanages” produce adults significantly more successful in the work place than their
non-orphanage counterparts. This case has been made for both the developed world and
developing countries. Another point is that in both developing and developed countries,
studies consistently find that children prefer RCCIs over foster care. Taking the argument
even further, children in at least one Kenya study RCCIs saw themselves as advantaged vis
a vis their counterparts who remain with biological families.
22) In summarizing what we know from outside of Haiti, several fundamental differences exist
between Residential Care for Lower Class children and families in the developed world
versus those in the developing world:

a) In the developed, world Residential Care centers evolved in situ and were related to
urbanization and the diminishing dependency on labor intensive livelihood strategies.
In the developing world they have largely been imported as a mechanism of evangelical
humanitarianism and proselytization.

b) The movement is almost entirely driven by evangelicals and, to a far lesser extent,
secular humanists from overseas working on behalf of the poor but getting financial
support from sympathetic donors in the developed world.

c) While adoption is often viewed as the driving force behind RCCIs, both are better
understood as part of Christian or monotheistic struggle against evil, in particular
paganism and Satan. Whether Satan exists or not, the battle is very real. It impinges on
the material world in terms of massive exchange of 100s of thousands of Christian
missionaries, 100s of millions of dollars invested in education and infrastructure, not
least of all residential children care centers, as well as visas and university scholarships.

d) In the developed world Residential Child Care centers are often the place of last resort
for parents or state enforced mechanism of rehabilitation (some would say punishment)
for wayward and criminal youth. They are mostly state sponsored institutions where
difficult and austere living conditions prevail; and the most common scenario in recent
decades has been, not parents relinquishing or placing their children in the institutions,
but unrelated state officials intervening and arresting the children or removing them
from dysfunctional homes. In the developing countries the situation is vastly different.
RCCIs are almost entirely sponsored by overseas charities, particularly those
associated with evangelicals. Where and when they function well, even middle class
families my look to them as coveted places of first resort. They represent a gateway to
education, jobs, developed world sponsors, and visas.

23) Haiti exhibits all the features of RCCIs discussed above. There are only three state
sponsored RCCIs vs. an estimated 723 private institutions almost all of which are supported
by US evangelical protestants. Child sponsorship is a major source of funding. There is
also a vibrant industry of “teams”, what some call “orphan tourists,” who come to
participate in construction of schools and residences and to commune with the “orphans.”
The entire endeavor is underwritten by an ideational rationale that a large portion of
children in Haiti suffer extreme abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Child protection agencies
such as UNICEF, PADF, ILO and Save the Children have unwittingly reinforced this image
with what some see as seriously flawed studies placing 15% to 25% of Haitian children in
the category of “child slaves.” The extent of misuse of information to support the industry
 came with the 2010 earthquake where original claims of one million orphaned lost and
separated children helped unleash massive donations from the developed world. It was an
image enthusiastically repeated in the press and evangelical media outlets. Ten weeks after
the earthquake UNICEF modified the fervor, but still reported that there may be as many
as 50,000 children still lost and separated from their parents. We now know there may not
have been more than a couple hundred children lost, orphaned or separated as a direct
consequence of the earthquake.

24) As found in other countries, the reality of many children living in RCCIs in Haiti may be
substantially different than that implied by claims of massive suffering and neglect: 80%
have at least one living parent, many are not poor but see it as part of a coping strategy
similar to the motivations for “restavek”; meaning a mechanism of social mobility and
access to education, particularly for rural children, something lent credibility by a report
from French Child Protection agency Terre de l’Homme which found that the number one
reason parents place children in Port-au-Prince RCCIs is “scholarization.”

25) Despite the existence of IBESR (the Haitian State’s Bureau of child welfare) since 1958,
and the presence of UNICEF in Haiti since 1949, and Save the Children since 1976, the
faith based RCCIs have until recently been allowed to function with no monitoring or
regulation. This appears to be in a process of changing. IBESR and UNICEF have recently
been part of pushing through legislation that limits international abortion and are now
turning their attention to RCCIs, hence the 2012 inventory of RCCIs and the present study.
-
Qualitative

During the qualitative phase of the research we contacted a host of experts in the field of
international adoption and Residential Child Care Institutions. The informants included people
involved in Child Protection organizations, significant scholars in the field, including a team of
professors at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, internationally renowned author and
adoption specialist Karen Rotabi, anthropologists and Haitian specialists Gerald Murray and Glenn
Smucker, as well as missionaries and health-care specialists with decades of experience in Haiti.
Most of the findings from contact with international scholars and specialists are included in the
review of the literature section (below). The present section on Qualitative Research covers the
remainder.

The most important point that comes from the literature review is that overseeing Haiti’s RCCIs
requires IBESR to interact with and manage the often competing interests of a host of actors,
including the owners and managers of the centers, adoption agencies, NGOs, foreign and domestic
religious organizations, and, of course, birth parents and the children themselves. The give-and-
take among these groups is perhaps the most important factor in determining whether RCCIs
safeguard the interests of children as intended. And there is a complex recent history behind the
relationships among these groups and their sometimes incompatible goals.

Clash of the Child-Care Titans

On January 22, 2010, only 10 days after a powerful earthquake had devastated greater Port-au-
Prince, UNICEF’s Jean Luc Legrand announced at a press conference that, “UNICEF had
documented...15 cases of children disappearing from hospitals and not with their own family at
the time.” Legrand went on to say that,

“it's better for aid workers to help identify and make the effort to locate those kids' relatives
— and place them in temporary foster-style care with network-monitored and supported
families — than to hand them over to orphanages.”

In making this declaration UNICEF had the firm support of the International Red Cross, Save the
Children, World Vision and seemingly much of the Haitian Government. The Statement was made
in the context of a documented history of child sex trafficking and domestic service that many of
the cited institutions as well as journalists have labeled “slavery.” On January 28, 2010, the claim
seemed to be verified when 10 U.S. Baptist missionaries were caught trying to illegally cross the
border into the Dominican Republic with 33 undocumented Haitian children. In the week that
followed, Frantz Thermilus, then-chief of Haiti’s National Judicial Police, announced in a press
conference that,

“There are many so-called orphanages that have opened in the last couple of years that are
not really orphanages at all. They are fronts for criminal organizations that take advantage
of people who are homeless and hungry. And with the earthquake they see an opportunity
to strike in a big way.”
Notable in this respect is that while there has never been any documented evidence of organ
trafficking there is nevertheless widespread suspicion among the Haitian political elite that organ
trafficking occurs and that it is linked to RCCIs. Then-Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive told
CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour, “There is organ trafficking for children and other persons
also, because they need all types of organs.” When the American Baptists were arrested, residential
child care centers in Haiti got a flood of unflattering media attention. In describing the institutions,
the New York Times reported:

“Many are barely habitable, much less licensed. They have no means to provide real
schooling or basic medical care, so children spend their days engaged in mindless activities,
and many die from treatable illnesses.ii

While admitting there are some poorly run and exploitative RCCIs, directors of the institutions —
the most prominent of whom, as seen in the review of the literature, are US Christians with links
to politically powerful evangelical and Catholic institutions – maintained that UNICEF and the
Child Protection agenices were behind the critiques, critiques they saw as unfair. Orphanage owner
Doug Phillips of Rescue Haiti's Children (a project of Vision Forum Ministries), epitomized the
reaction in a February 26th blog post entitled, “Haiti's children held hostage by UNICEF's agenda.”
He accused UNICEF officials of “harassing Christian orphanages”, of making “official visits
without the authority of the Haitian Government,” of “mounting an international publicity
campaign to shut down international adoptions” for which the UNICEF officials “teamed up with
the Hollywood actors.” Perhaps most damning of all, Phillips accused UNICEF of making “the
emotionally charged claim that adoptions lead to child sex-trafficking,” a thought, Phillips says,
“so repugnant that the mere mention of the charge is sometimes enough to shut down debate.”
Yet, “to date, there have been no documented cases of child sex-trafficking connected with
American adoptions.”

The tension exploded into open conflict that played out in major television, internet and newspaper
media. Dixie Bickel, director of the God's Littlest Angels orphanage – which had hosted post-
earthquake news crews from CNN, CBC, and ABC – went on the US television show Larry King
Live and called UNICEF “the only organization that isn't working for the good of the children.”
In the weeks that followed, US Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana declared to her fellow
lawmakers on the Senate floor that, “Either UNICEF is going to change or have a very difficult
time getting support from the US Congress.”

None of this is to say that there was not an urgent need to help children after the earthquake. Both
sides were trying to do just that. Reports erupted maintaining that as many as 1 million children
had been left orphaned by the earthquake, with as many as another million separated from their
families. The reports seemed imminentally logical. On January 28, 2010, then-Prime Minister
Max Bellerive and First Lady Elizabeth Preval added their concern as well. The first lady said
that, "The children, unless they get help, they will have lost their childhoods, their innocence. It is
them we must go to first."
However, IBESR should take note that most of these reports were wrong. While there is trafficking
in Haiti, critical analyses have revealed that the numbers are grossly inflated and misunderstood
(Fafo 2002). In the five years leading up to the earthquake, the only international sexual predators
apprehended in Haiti were linked, not to evangelical organizations, but to some of the very
organizations that were sounding the alarm after the earthquake. The year before the earthquake,
soldiers working for the UN had been accused of systematic rape and having sex with young
adolescents girls. And the Catholic Church – which was proposing to airlift tens of thousands of
the children out of Haiti to their Miami Diocese for “safe keeping” – had a string of it's own
embarrassments. In 2007, the Canadian police arrested Canadian Catholic clergy Denis Rochefort
and Armand Huard, the latter once called “a veritable Father Teresa”-- but known to the Haitian
“orphans” he was having sex with as “Papi.” -- In 2009, Catholic priest John Duarte was charged
in the Canada for allegedly having sex with nine Haitian boys he was “helping.” He would plead
guilty to three of the charges. The same year, American Douglas Perlitz was arrested in the US for
abusing 23 boys while he ran a Catholic-funded “street kids” organization in the North of Haiti.
He would subsequently plead guilty as well.

As for the numbers, ten weeks after the earthquake Marie de la Soudiere, the head of UNICEF's
Haitian Children Registry Program, estimated in an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes that the
number of orphaned, lost or separated children at “upwards of 50,000.” At that time all the children
protection agencies combined had only registered 600 children who were separated from their
families. Of these only 20 had been reunited. Moreover, SOS child protection agency lamented at
the time that, albeit impoverished, most children who were being taken into « orphanages » were
arriving thanks to the active attempts on the part of their parents to exploit the opportunity to get
free food, medical care and education for their children.

UNICEF’s 2010 annual report showed that of 430 “institutions” a total of 4,948 children “orphaned
or separated from their parents” had been registered in the 12 months following the earthquake.
Of that figure, only 1,265 had been reunited with their families. Another 506 of them had nothing
at all to do with the earthquake: they were separated from their parents before January 12, 2010.
Disgusted with similar findings regarding children with parents but kept in RCCIs, and having
nothing to do with the earthquake, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said “yes” when asked about
aiding Haiti’s “orphans,” but he added: “As long as they are true orphans and not children who are
taken away from their families”

In summary, IBESR should recognize that it is the most signficant decision making organization
in the middle of this clash between powerful and determined institutions. On the one hand there
is UNICEF. On the other are the RCCIs and adoption agencies. As will be seen in subsequent
summaries of the survey findings, Haitian families have their own expectations regarding the
centers, as do the children who live in them. Managing this web of relationships deftly, and with
great sensitivity, is critical to ensure that the children are protected.
 Institutional Survey

As discussed in ## above, the Institutional Survey drew information from 51 centers. With the exception
of those serving disabled children (4) and those serving street children (6), the centers were randomly
selected from IBESR list of 716 institutions. For logistic and cost constraints, the selection was confined to
six of Haiti’s ten departments: Artibonite, North, North East, North West, West, and Central Plateau. The
target respondent was the director of the institution. In those cases where we were unable to locate the
director on the initial visit, questions were confined to infrastructure and other readily available
information. We subsequently returned and completed dossiers for all but three institutions. Thus the
total sample size was 51 centers; for half of the questions data is available for only 48 institutions.
 Profiles of the Children
From Table ##, of the 51 institutions, the average number of children per institution, was fifty-six (56).
Not all children sleep in the institution; some sleep with their own or other families near the facility. The
size of the institutions ranged 11 to 290 children. Boys outnumbered girls with an average of 35 boys to
20 girls per institution. Four institutions were exclusively male and one exclusively for girls. Ages ranged
from several months to 29 years of age. The average age of the youngest child in a given institution was 4
years with range from several months to a minimum age of 7 years. Directors reported an average of 60%
of the children as being full orphans with an average of 4 former child domestic servants per institution.
These were highly questionable figures in view of findings from the child survey where only 3% reported
having been placed in the center because of deceased parents (see ##). Twelve of the institution claimed
to accept HIV positive children and 23 had at least one disabled child. However, with the exception of the
four institutions specifically serving the needs of disabled children, the actual numbers of disabled and
HIV positive children were low: Of the 295 disabled children in the 51 centers visited, 228 were in the four
centers specializing in disabled children. The remaining 47 institutions housing 2,642 children had only 66
with a disability.

Table ##:: Demographic Profile of Centers from Institution Survey (N=51)

Variable Average Minimum Maximum

Total number of children 56 11 290

Number of girls 20 0 90

Average of boys 35 0 290

Total number of children sleeping at the Center 51 11 290

Number of girls sleeping a Center 20 0 60

Number of boys sleeping in a Center 34 0 290

Age of the oldest child 18 7 28

Age of the youngest child 4 0 15

Percentage of Children directors claim as full orphans 60% 10% 90%

Children who are former “restaveks” 4 0 50

Children of director, spouse, or employees in center 1 0 7

Children with HIV accepted 23%(12)

Presence Disabled children 44%(23)

Physical 18
 HIV positive 11

Blind 10

Do not learn well 8

Types of Disabilities per
Psychological disability 8
institution
Deaf 5

Other physical disability 2

Other illness 0

Other 0
 Child Placement
Table ## presents data on the primary reason directors gave for accepting a child. Forty-one percent of
the directors (20) cited that the children do not have parents (an interesting contrast with the estimation
seen in Table ##, that 60% of the children are full orphans); 29% (14) cited poverty, 13% (6) abandonment
or neglect; only 4% (2) cited handicapped (an interesting contrast in that four of the institutions specialize
in handicapped children); 4% (2) said they primarily accept the children based on IBESR referrals; 8% (2)
street children (an interesting contrast in that 6 were listed in the IBESR directory as specializing in street
child). One director simply said that the parents decide. Secondary reasons for accepting children follow
a similar patter with poverty or 28% (14), neglect (27% or 13), abuse (25% or 12), and absence of parents
(13% or 6) being most commonly cited reasons. These reasons for placement are in notable contrast to
data institutionalized children themselves (see page), where “poverty” and “to go to school” covered 68%
of all reasons given and abandonment, abuse and parental death combined only accounted for 7% of the
explanations that children gave.

Table ##: Child Placement Policies from Institution Survey (N=48)

Primary condition for accepting children Secondary condition accepting Children

Variable Count Percent Variable Count Percent

Do not have parents 20 41% Family is too poor 14 29%

Family too poor 14 29% Neglected or abandoned 13 27%

Abandoned or neglected 6 13% Family abuses them 12 25%

Handicapped 2 4% Do not have parents 6 13%

IBESR sends them 2 4% IBESR sends them 5 10%

Street children 2 4% Parents decided 4 8%

Parents decided 1 2% For decent education 2 4%

No conditions 1 2% Cannot respond 1 2%

Handicapped 1 2%

Street Children 1 2%

De-Institutionalization
Table ## presents reports from directors for first and second most common reasons that children leave
the centers. The three most common reasons, each approximately equal in importance and far more cited
than any other reasons are that parents retrieve the children (20 0f 48, or 14%), they are expelled for bad
behavior (12 of 48 or 25%), and they come of age (12 of 48 or 25%) --which in most, but not all cases
means 18 years of age. The next most common response was that the children do not leave. The same
three responses were almost the second most important reasons given for children leaving, only in a
different order of importance, expelled or bad behavior (15 of 48 or 31%), parents retrieve them (13 of
48 or 23%), come of age (10 of 48 or 21%),

Table ##: De-Institutionalization:

Most common reason children leave the center -- from Institution Survey (N=48)

Most common Second most common reason

Response Count Percent Response Count Percent

Parents retrieve them 14 29% Expelled for bad behavior 15 31%

Expelled for bad behavior 12 25% Parents retrieve them 11 23%

Comes of age 12 25% Comes of age 10 21%

Poor school performance 1 2% Adoption 1 2%

Runaway 1 2% Finish university 1 2%

Treatment 1 2% People came to get them 1 2%

Discovered parents lied 1 2% Poor school performance 1 2%

Do not leave 4 8% Runaway 1 2%

Cannot respond 2 4% Turns 18 years of age 1 2%

Cannot respond 5 10%

Visitation Policies
Table ## presents the results for policies the centers have regarding when children are allow to go visit
their families and when family members may come to the center and visit the children. By far the most
common policy was for children to be allowed to visit families during summer vacations, 40% directors
said so (19); 27% directors (13) said that children could return home to visit whenever the family wanted
them to come; 10 directors said the children could never return home, and the remaining responses were
once per week, month, year or in case of emergency. When asked when the families were allowed to visit
the children, the most common response was when the family wants (54%) followed by summer vacation
(15%). The rest of responses were weekends, twice per month, once every two months, once every three
months, once per year. One director said that most of the children in his institution had no family.
 Table ##: Visitation Policies from Institution Survey (N=48)

When are children allowed to their visit their When are blood relative families are allowed
blood relative families to visit their children

Responses Count Percent Responses Count Percent

Summer vacation 19 40% When family wants 26 54%

When family wants 13 27% Summer vacation 7 15%

Never 10 21% Weekends 2 4%

Each Sunday 1 2% Twice per month 1 2%

Once per month 1 2% Once per month 4 8%

Once per year 1 2% Once every 2 months 2 4%

Family emergency 1 2% Once every 3 months 2 4%

Most have no family 1 2% Most have no family 1 2%

Do not know 1 2% Once per year 1 2%

Other 1 2%

Do not know 1 2%
 Infrastructure

Sleeping Facilities
The average number of beds was 50, almost identical to the number of children and indicating that most
children have their own bed. The typical institution had 7 rooms; in no case did boys and girls reported
to sleep in the same room together; and although it was not clear what was the institutions age
segregation protocol, in only a few cases were older children reported to sleep in the same room with
younger children.

Sanitation and Water

The average number of toilets per institution was 8: 6 toilets per child; 49 of the 51 (96%) centers had at
least one flush toilet; in 30 cases these toilets were located within and in 19 cases outside of the main
facility. Two institutions had only latrines and 27 of those with flush toilets also had latrines. Piped water,
well water, and water purchased from trucks were the primary source of general purpose water. Only two
institutions reported relying exclusively on rain water, something that should not be considered
problematic as both institutions were located in high altitude high rainfall areas and had large cisterns. In
100% of the institutions the water source was located in the yard or building, something that, as seen in
section ##, is a significant advantage over the ## % of the Port-au-Prince population that has to go outside
the yard for water, a chore overwhelming assigned to children. Congruently, as seen later in the Child
survey section, 100% of children reported having bathed within 24 hours of the interview. For drinking
water, 25 of the centers (49%) purchase treated water; another 25 (49%) purchase purified water; and
only one institution reported not treated the water at all.

Recreation
Regarding recreation, 48 of 51 institutions (92%) had some sort of outdoor space (“field”) on the premises
for the children to play; 31 (60%) had a slide. Not listed in table (##) is that the centers tended to have
ample. The smallest institutions had ~516 m2; but 12 had between 1,290 and 100 m2; 38 of the centers
are built on more than 2,000 m2, a respectable amount of land in Haiti. Twenty-five percent (49%) of the
centers reported having some sort of library on the premises. On average an institution had 2.1
televisions, 2.5 radios, and 1.9 vehicle. Only 4 institutions had no television, 7 had no radio, and 11had no
vehicle.

Range of Wealth, Resources and Children.

Notable is that while the averages and percentages given above provide a useful profile of the typical RCCI
in Haiti, they obscure the wide range in size and wealth among the institutions (see right column in Table
##). The number of beds from 11 to 264, bedrooms from 1 to 44, toilets from 1 to 33, televisions from 0
to 10, radios from 0 to 30, and vehicles from 0 to 12.
 Table ## : Infrastructure from Institution Survey (N=51)

Range

Percentage
Number or
or
Category Measure Variable Average Low High

Number of children per center 56 11 290

Number Average per Number of Girls per center 20 0 90
and Ages institution Number of Boys per center 35 0 290
of Age in years of the youngest child per center 4 0.1 12
children Age in years of the oldest child per center 18 7 29
Institutions All Female 1 - -
All Male 4 - -
Average Number of beds 50 11 264
Sleeping
Rooms for sleeping 7 1 44
facilities Shared rooms for boys and girls 0 0 0
Institutions
Shared rooms for youngest & oldest children 0.2 0 1
Average institution Average of Stoves/burners 7 3 20
Cooking
Institutions Has cooking fuel reserve 50 - -
Functioning toilets 8 1 33
Institutions with Flush toilet 49 96%
Sanitation
Indoor Flush toilet 30 58%
at least one per
Outdoor Flush toilet 19 37%
Outdoor Latrine 29 56%
Source General Piped 17 33%
Well 17 33%
Purpose Water Purchase trucked water 14 27%
per Institution Rain 2 4%
Other 1 4%
Water Location of spigot In the building 3 6%
per Institution In the Cistern 2 6%
In the yard 46 88%
Source Drinking Treat the water 25 49%
Water per Purchase Treated Water 25 49%
Institution Do not purchase or treat the water 1 2%
Field for children to play 48 92%
Amuseme Swings, slides 31 60%
Average per
Library 25 49%
nt and institution
Televisions 2.1 0 10
Recreatio Radios 2.5 0 30
n Vehicles 1.9 0 12
Institution with No televisions 4 8%
none
No radios 7 13%
of these items No vehicles 11 21%
 Staff
Twenty of the 51 directors are female, 31 male, 48 are Haitian nationals, one American, and two are
Canadian. Illustrated in Table ##, staff per institution included an average of 17.8 caretakers, 5.1 teachers,
4.6 cleaning staff, 4.1 watchman, 3.4 cooks, 1.6 nurses, 1.3 social workers, 0.8 doctors, and 5.1 other
miscellaneous staff for an average total of 43.8 staff members per institution. The overall average of staff
to child ratio in the institutions was 1 staff member to every 1.6 children. But once again the ranges for
all categories were rather dramatic. Number of caretakers ranged from 2 to 84, teachers from 0 to 40,
cleaning staff from 0 to 42, watchmen from 0 to 50; cooks from 1 to 14, nurses from 0 to 11, social workers
0 to 17, and doctors from 0 to 5. The range of staff per child ratio ranged from one staff member for every
6.7 children to more than two staff members per child. More relevant in terms of actual child care is that
ratio of childcare staff to children: overall 1 staff member to every 4.7 children; at the weakest extreme 1
staff to 16.7 children; and in the best staffed institutions slightly less than two childcare workers per child.
Even considering that, to be meaningful, these ratios must be conditioned by the fact that all the staff is
not present 24 hours per day, the figures compare favorably to UNICEF (2008) and Save the Children’s
(2008) minimum recommendations of 7 to 15 adult care givers—depending on the age of the children.

Table ##: Staff from Institution Survey (N=51)

Variable Average Minimum Maximum

Average Number of Child Caretakers 17.8 2 84

Average Number of Teachers 5.1 0 40
Average Number of Cleaning staff 4.6 0 42
Average Number of Watchmen 4.1 0 50
Average Number of Cooks 3.4 1 14
Average Number of Nurses 1.6 0 11
Average Number of Social workers 1.3 0 17
Average Number of Doctors 0.8 0 5
Average Number of Other staff 5.1 0 107
Average Number of Total Staff 43.8 5 273
Average Children/Caretakers 1 to 4.3 1 to 16.7 1 to 0.6
Average Staff/Child 1 to 1.6 1 to 6.7 1 to 0.4
Centers with at least one staff specially trained in childcare 77% (40) - -
Average Number of Staff Specially trained in childcare 4.0 0 3.975
Institutions where adults are present in the rooms at night 92% (48) - -
 Accounting and Record Keeping
The Institutional survey also focused on how the institution was managed and to what degree it had
established and codified its policies. Slightly more than half the directors (54%) reported having
computerized accounting systems; 42% kept records on paper; 2 of the institutions (4%) had no means of
keeping records. Thirty-four of the directors (71%) reported have a written code of conduct where
everyone in the institution could read it; but upon further inquiry only 22 (46%) in fact had one. Fully 100%
of the directors reported having a list of all the children in the institution; 5 (10%) were unable to find the
list. Forty-two of the directors (88%) said that they had a dossier for every child in the institution; two of
them were unable to find the dossiers. Only 28 (58%) said that they kept a record of the exact conditions
and reasons under which the child was accepted into the institution; 22 (46%) were able to show us the
records. Forty-five directors (94%) stated that they had a standardized method to verify that a child should
be accepted into the institution: of these 25 (56%) cited witnesses, 15 (33%), claimed to visit the child’s
home, and 12 (27%) said the primary means was a signature from the parent. Only 24 (50%) said they had
a written code for the conditions under which a child could be discharged from the center; only 17 (35%)
could find the code

Table ##: Policies and Practices from Institution Survey (n=48)

Category Variable Count Percent

Computer 26 54%
Method of accounting
Paper 20 42%
None 2 4%
Code of conduct written and posted where Reports "yes" 34 71%
all can read it Code of conduct verified 22 46%
List of Child in the facility Reports "yes" 48 100%
List verified 43 90%
Dossier on every child in the facility Reports "yes" 42 88%
Dossiers verified 40 83%
Records on the exact conditions under Reports "yes" 28 58%
which children are accepted Documents verified 22 46%
Witnesses 25 56%
Purported means of verification if child Visit the home 15 33%
should be accepted in Center Signature of parent or guardian 12 27%
No verification 5 10%
Cannot respond 1 2%
Written code for conditions under which Reports "yes" 24 50%
children can leave the center Document verified 17 35%
 Contingency Plans

Table ## presents responses from directors regarding Contingency plans in the case that the institution is
forced to close or loses support. Seventy-one percent of the Center directors said that they would either
call the state, send the children home or they simply did not know what they would do. In short, most
directors appear to have not contingency plans. In short, most appear to have no contingency plan.
Twenty-three percent said they would turn to another center. Asked about what they would do if they
lost assistance, 11 (23%) said they would ask the State for help and 10 (21%), suggesting that these
institutions also lacked a financial contingency plan. Ten of the organizations said they would call a
partner organization, one said he would close the institution and 2 said they did not know.

Table ##: Contingency Plans if Center Closes.

Category Variable Count Percent

Anticipated course of action regarding Call the state 17 35%
Give to another institution 11 23%
children if director if obligated to close the
Send them to their homes 10 21%
center Do not know 7 15%
Other 3 6%
Ask the state for assistance 11 23%
Borrow money 10 21%
Reported course of action if director lost
Call a partner organization 10 21%
financial support Close the institution 1 2%
Do not know 2 4%
Other 12 25%
 Preparing Children to Leave the Center
Table ## summarize institutional protocols for preparing children to leave the centers and follow-up after
they have left. Twenty-eight of the directors (58%) report giving some type of special preparation for
children before they are de-institutionalized: of these 17 () say that preparation begins as soon as they
enter the center (suggesting that they did not really understand the question or the surveyor did not pose
the question appropriately); 8 said one year before the children leave, suggesting that this was the true
number of institutions that provided special preparation; 3 (4%) did not adequately answer the question.
Regarding follow-up after the children have left, 23 (48%) said there was none; 18 (38%) said they
provided financial assistance; 10 (21%) have special homes for the children when they just leave the
center; 8 (17%) place them with a family or a job; and 7 (15%) reported paying their school tuition. Only
7 directors cited any means of staying in contact with children after they had left the center completely.

Table ##: Preparing Children to Leave the Center from Institution Survey (n=48)

Category Variable Count Percent

Children receive preparation before leaving Reports "yes" 28 58%
Type ofcenter
preparation Career Training 24 86%
Special instruction 16 67%
(n=28) Other special preparation 2 7%
Time they begin receiving preparation Since they enter the center 17 61%
One year before they exit 8 29%
(n=28) Cannot answer 3 4%
Types of follow up with children after they Provide financial assistance 18 38%
leave the center Have special homes 10 21%
Place family or in a workplace 8 17%
(n=48) Pay school tuition 7 15%
None 23 48%
Means of maintaining contact with children Children visit center 1 2%
after they leave center Church 1 2%
Internet 2 4%
(n=48) Telephone 2 4%
Visit children at home 1 2%

Medical Care, Education, and Meals

Medical Care
In Table ##, it can be seen that fully 48 of the 51 institutions (94%) have a first aid kit on the premises.
Only four of those the surveyors classified as in poor condition. For medical care, 28 (54%) depend on
publics clinics and hospitals; 23 (46%) on private clinics, hospitals or doctors. Twenty (20) of the
institutional directors or sub-directors (39%) reported that the children had undergone a medical
examination within the past 3 months; 17 (34%) reported within the past four to six months; ten (20%)
from seven months to one year past; one institution claimed more than one year past and 3 (6%) admitted
that the children had never been medically examined.

Education
All the centers reported that the children have access to both primary and secondary school education.
Twenty-five of the primary schools were state accredited and 12 of the secondary schools. In section ##,
these figures are emphasized with the finding that only two of 159 children (1.25%) reported not being
enrolled in school. Access to education was, as will be seen in these later sections, also a common reason
for children being in the centers.

Meals
Of the 51 institutions, 44 of the directors or sub-directors interviewed (86%) reported feed three vs. two
meals per day; 69% (35) reported providing meat with the main meal.

Table ##: Medical Care, Education and Meals from Institution Survey (N=51)
Number of Institutions
or Average
Category Variable Count Perc
Primary access to First aid kit present 48 94%
general and emergency First aid kit in poor condition 4 8%
medical care Public Dispensary, or Hospital 28 54%
(N=51) Private Dispensary, Hospital, or doctor 23 46%
1 to 3 months past 20 39%
Last time the children 4 to 6 months past 17 34%
had medical check-up 7 months to 1 year past 10 20%
(N=51) More than 1 year past 1 2%
Never 3 6%
Access to Primary School 51 100%
Access to education Access to Secondary School 51 100%
(N=51) Access to State Accredited Primary School 25 48%
Access to State Accredited Secondary School 12 23%
Institutions feeding 3 meals per day 44 86%
Meals Institutions feeding only 2 meals per day 7 14%
(N=51) Institutions providing Fruit or juice with meals 25 49%
Institutions providing Meat at main meal 35 70%
Punishment and Abuse
When asked what was the worse form of abuse that could occur in the center, 25 of the 48 directors or
sub-directors who responded the question (52%) cited sexual abuse, 8 (17%) cited psychological abuse, 7
(15%) cited violent abuse and 6 (13%) said that there was no ‘worse’ abuse, meaning that all abuse was
bad/ When asked about the last incident of abuse in the center 38 of 48 of those who responded (79%)
said that there had never been a case; another 7 (15%) said they did not know; 2(4%) refused to respond.
Only one respondent said that there had ever been a case of abuse and this had occurred more than 3
years in the past. When asked about punishments, 25 of the 48 respondents (52%) reported that among
the most common forms were restricted playing, 18 (38%) reported kneeling, 10 (21%) reported spanking
the hand, 9 (19%). Other lesser reported forms of punishment including restricting food, spanking on the
backside, work detail and various forms of standing. Four of the respondents said that the children are
not punished. Note that the punishments of choice that directors reported here vary significantly from
those of children, see page ##, 75% of whom reported corporal punishment being most common and only
17% of whom reported restricted playing as among the most common.

Table ##: Abuse and Punishment from Institution Survey (N=48)*

Category Responses Count Perc

Sexual abuse 25 50%

Directors Opinions on worse form
Psychological abuse 8 19%
of abuse
Violent abuse 7 17%
(n=48)
There is no worse abuse 6 15%
3 years ago 1 2%
When last instance of abuse Cannot respond 2 4%
Occurred (n=48) Do not know 7 15%
Never 38 79%
No playing 25 52%
Kneel 18 38%
Institutions Employing Various Spank hand, legs or backside 16 33%
Types of Punishment Stand in corner or on one foot 13 27%
(n=48) Put to work 4 8%
No food 3 6%
Nothing 4 8%
*There were 3 questions questionnaires for which a director was not located and hence responses many of the most specific operational
questions are not available.

Knowledge of the Laws

As seen in Table ##, only 20 (42%) of the respondents reported knowing what is written in the Haitian the
laws governing child abuse. Of those, 11 (55%) said that adults were not supposed to hit children and 9
(45%) said adults could hit children, but not too hard. Regarding what should be done in cases of abuse,
all respondents cited contacting a State agency. When asked whether or not they had ever heard of the
United Declaration of the Rights of the Child, fully 47 of the 48 directors or sub directors who were asked
the question (98%) said yes; 32 (67%) claimed to know the laws regarding child labor. Most of these
responded to subsequent questions suggesting they did know the law (see Table ##), but 14 subsequently
added, despite seeming to know, that they really did not know the law.

Table ##: Knowledge of Laws from Institution Survey (N=48)

Category Count Percent
Knows law about punishment and abuse 20 40%
What directors who report knowing Not supposed to hit children 11 22%
law believe the law to be (n=48) Not supposed to hit children too hard 9 19%
What center is supposed to do accord Contact the police 10 61%
to the law (n=20) Contact IBESR or BPM 10 36%
Has Heard of Have you heard the Declaration of the Rights of the Child 47 98%
Knows the law regarding child labor 32 67%
Do not prevent a child from attending school 29 91%
What they think the laws Do not place a child in danger 16 50%
include (n=32) Do not make him expend too much effort 16 50%
Do not really know 14 44%

Foreign Affiliation, Partners, and Religious Orientation

Table ## illustrates the extent to which the centers are linked to foreign organizations and support. Thirty
(63%) of the institutions report having foreign partners, the average number is two per institution; only
18 of which (60%) report children on sponsorship. The most numerous partner organizations are located
in the US (33 of 52 organizations or 58% of all); followed by Canada (12 of 30 or 23%), France (5 of 30 or
9%), and Ireland (1 or 2%). Almost perfectly reflecting the religious affiliation of the centers, 34 (71%) of
the foreign partners are protestant, eight (17%) Catholic, and four (12%) say they have no specific religious
affiliation.

Table ##: Foreign Orientation, Assistance, and Sponsorship from Institution Survey (n=48)
Category Responses Countuency Percent
Nation of origin for total US 34 63%
number of foreign Canadian 12 23%
partner organizations French 5 9%
Irish 1 2%
Religious(n=52)
orientation of Protestant 34 71%
principal partner Catholic 8 17%
None 6 12%
Religious(n=48)
orientation of Protestant 31 65%
Center Catholic 10 21%
None 5 10%
(n=48) Other 2 4%
 Sponsorship
Of the 18 institutions reporting children on foreign sponsorship, the average number of children who have
sponsors is 40, or 71% of the children. There is at least some reason to be skeptical of the candidacy of
the report. In the Child Survey, 65% of children claim to have one or more foreign friend, 83% of whom
send them gifts (see page ##). Moreover, seen in Table ## below, 45 of 48 institutions (94%) receive
foreign visitors, 42 (92%) have sleeping facilities for them, all 42 of which have received foreign visitors in
the past 6 months. The average number of visitors over this period of time is 92; 98% of them stay for
less than 3 weeks and 47% return for additional visits.. The primary reasons for the visitations is to see
the children (71%) followed by bring money, gifts, or supplies (67%). In comparison to foreign
sponsorship, only 3 organizations (6%) reported having any sponsors who live in Haiti; the average number
of children for these three institutions was 11.

Table ##: Foreign Orientation, Assistance, and Sponsorship from Institution Survey (n=48)

Category Responses Countuency Percent

Affiliation with Foreign Partnered with foreign organizations 30 63%

Average number of foreign Partners (n=30) 2 4%
Partners (n=48) Institutions with children on foreign
18 38%
sponsorship
Foreign sponsorship Average of Number children with foreign
40 -
sponsors per institution
(n=48)
Institutions with child sponsors living in Haiti 3 6%
Average of Number of children with sponsors 11 -
in Haiti per institution
Center receives foreign visitors 45 94%
Center has sleeping facilities for visitors 42 88%
Average of Number of rooms for visitors 4 -
Average of Number of foreign visitors
92 -
received in past six months
Foreign visitors Received foreign visitors in the past 6 42 88%
Average
months of Number of foreign visitors 92 -
(n=48) received in past six months
Percentage of visitors who stay for less than - 57%
1 week
Percentage of visitors who stay for less 3 - 98%
weeks
Percentage of visitors directors say return a - 47%
second time
Institution directors Visit children - 71%
citing these reasons as Bring gifts, supplies, or support - 67%
principal motivation for Train staff - 33%
foreigner visitation Evaluate the Center's work - 33%
Build up infrastructure - 24%
(n=48) Adoption - 4%
Other - 33%
 Adoption
We know from studies elsewhere that there are cases of Haitians, specifically middle and upper class
Haitians adopting children (Smucker 20??). However, it is a phenomenon distinct from adoption found in
association with the centers, it tends to follow less formal legal process, and the children are
overwhelming if not entirely relatives of the adoptee or children who grown up in the adoptee’s
household. Adoption associated with the centers is international. Only 9 of the 48 centers reported
involvement in adoption. These 9 reported a total of 281 adoptions immediately following the 2010
earthquake, when the government temporarily allowed children already in the adoption process to leave
the country and before they halted adoptions. Since the earthquake these nine institutions have
facilitated the adoption of 156 children; seven of nine institutions report the USA as principal destination
for adopted children; six of them only allow Christians families to adopt the children. Two of the nine were
unaware that the Haitian government had based new adoption legislation in the past year.

Table ##: Adoption from Institution Survey (n=9)

Responses Institutions
Centers that report facilitating adoption 9
Average estimated time for adoption process 2 years
Total children adopted in wake of earthquake 281
Total children adopted since the earthquake 156
Centers that only allow Christians to adopt 6 of 9
USA 7 of 9
Argentine 2 of 9
Countries to which adopted children
Canada 2 of 9
principally have gone
France 1 of 9
Haiti 0 of 9
Knows the Convention on Protection of Children and
Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption 6 of 9
Knows that Haitian government passed new laws on
adoption in the past year 7 of 9
 Monitoring and Communication with IBESR
In Table ##, we see that 24 (50%) of the institutions reported that a IBESR representative visited in the
past one to three months; 86% reported a visit with the past year. Thirty-six percent had received a visit
from a UNICEF official in the past year. The primary means IBESR staff communicates with the centers
telephones (75%), meetings (40%), and letter (29%).

Table ##: IBESR and UNICEF Inspections from Institution Survey (N=48)
Last time an IBESR inspector visited Last time a UNICEF inspector visited
Response Count Percent Response Count Percent
1-3 months 24 50% 1-3 months 7 15%
4-6 months 9 19% 4-6 months 4 8%
7 months -1 years 8 17% 7 months -1 years 6 13%
1 years-2 years 6 13% 1 years-2 years 7 15%
3 years 0 0% 3 years 1 2%
4 Years 0 0% 4 Years 4 8%
5 years 0 0% 5 years 1 2%
Do not know 1 2% Do not know 18 38%

Table ##: How IBESR Communicates with Center from Institution

Survey (N=48)
Mode of Communication Count Perc
Telephone 36 75%
Meetings 19 40%
Mail or letter 14 29%
Radio 0 0%
Newspaper 0 0%
Other 3 6%
Center reporting no communication 0 0%

Child Survey
As discussed in the methodology section (pages ##), the Child Survey interviews were conducted with 159
children from 30 randomly selected centers. Teams of two to four surveyors and a team leader visited
each center. In some centers the field coordinator performed a magic show to win the interest of the
children. Children were subsequently invited to draw a picture of where they would like to live. A random
sample of five pictures was selected and the children interviewed using the Child Questionnaire (see
Annex ##). The questionnaire was programmed into a Samsung Galaxy Tablet using ODK Platform
software. A video of “The Three Little Pigs” was spliced in to hold the child’s interest. After every 10 to 15
questions the surveyor shared another stage of the video with the child. The average age of the children
interviewed was 13 years (ages ranged from 7 years old to 20 years old).
 Child Placement
In Table ##, it can be seen that on average children arrived in the center at eight years of age and had
spent 5 years there. Thirty-two (20%) of the 159 children interviewed had lived in another center prior to
their arrival. Seventy-one (45%) had two living parents, 124 (78%) had at least one living parent, 8 (5%)
did not know. Fifty-six (46%) of the parents live in rural areas, 37% live in Port-au-Prince or another Haitian
city, 11% live in the Dominican Republic, Canada or the US; the remaining 6% live in Haitian towns in the
provinces. Seventy-one of the children (42%) reported that they were brought to the center by their
mother, father or both; 56 (46%) were accompanied by another close relative; 18 were brought by an
IBESR official, aid worker, religious cleric, or someone from the center; one came on his own volition; and
6 (3%) were too young to remember (the categories of adults who accompanied children to the centers
are not mutually exclusive, and therefore add up to more than 100%).

Table ##: Profile of Children Interviewed for Child Survey

Category Responses Count Percent
Boy 80 50%
Sex of respondents Girl 79 50%
Average of Age of child 13
Age of children Minimum age of child interviewed 7
Maximum age of child interviewed 20

Uncle, aunt, sibling, grand or god parent 56 46%

Mother 46 29%
Father 22 14%
Mother and father 4 3%
Who placed the child in
Person from the center 6 4%
the Center
IBESR 5 3%
Own volition 1 1%
Other authority, cleric, or aid worker 13 8%
Do not remember 6 4%
* Missing for this variable = 34 due to an error in recording. Figures extrapolated from data collected
 Table ##: Placement from Child Interviews (N=159)
Category Responses Count Percent
Average Age of arrival in center 8
Time in Center
(n=159)
Average Years in Center 5
Ever lived in another center 32 20%
Both parents alive 71 45%
One living parent 53 33%
Mother only is alive 39 25%
Status of parents
Father only is alive 14 9%
(n=159)
Both parents are deceased 27 17%
Those with two parents still living together (1 missing) 34 21%
Does not know 8 5%
Countryside 56 45%
Port-au-Prince 32 26%
Location of parents Province City 13 11%
(n=120) Province Town 6 5%
Dominican Republic 4 4%
Other country 9 7%
In Table ##, it can be seen that 72 (45%) children explained their placement in the center as a consequence
of poverty, 36 (23%) said it was so they would have access to school, and only 12 (7%) said their placement
was because of abandonment, abuse, or death of one or both parents.

Table ##: Why Children were Placed in Center from Child Interviews
Responses Count Percent
Destitute 72 45%
To go to School 36 23%
Abandoned or abused 7 4%
Parent or parents died 5 3%
Delinquency 2 1%
For a better life 2 1%
Home destroyed in Earthquake 1 1%
Brother is in center 1 1%
First center closed 1 1%
Foreigner who care for me returned to France 1 1%
I was not happy 1 1%
Mother work in center 1 1%
Father owns center 1 1%
Runaway (elaborate story about not finding his way home) 1 1%
Do not know 27 17%

Fear and Punishment

One-hundred-forty-six of the 159 children interviewed (92%) rated the adults in the center as “nice” or
“very nice.” Only 13 (8%) rated them as “not nice” or “mean”—six of those came from two institutions.

One-hundred-five of the children (60%) said that they were afraid of no one in the center; 50 (31%) said
they were afraid of the director, a nanny, or the spouse of the director. Of those, 41 (76%) explained that
the adult spanked or beat him or her, 15 (28%) said that the adult scolded harshly, 3 cited sexual
harassment. Although only two children said they were afraid the adult would send them home, notable
is the comment form one child who, when asked to explain what scares her about the director she said,

I'm afraid because the director is always noting everything we do so that he can tell the foreigners
that we have been bad. I'm afraid that he will send me home because things are not good right
now for my family

When we asked who the children were afraid of in general we got almost identical responses (see Table
##).

Table ##: Affinity and Fear of Staff and Others from Child Interviews
Category Responses Count Percent
Mean 2 1%
Rating of adults in Not nice 11 7%
the center (n-159) Nice 80 50%
Very nice 66 42%
No one 105 66%
Director 21 13%
Who the child is Nanny 18 11%
most afraid of in Husband/wife of director 11 7%
the center (n = 159) One of the other children 1 1%
Watchman 1 1%
Other 10 6%
Beats/spanks him/her 41 76%
Speak harshly 15 28%
Why (n=54) Sexually harasses him/her 3 6%
Afraid he will send me home 2 4%
Other (Missing =6) 3 6%
No one 99 62%
Director/supervisor 16 10%
Nanny 9 6%
Mother 6 4%
Father 6 4%
Husband/wife of director 4 3%
Who the child is
One of the other children 2 1%
most afraid of
Parents, Sister, uncle… 3 2%
anywhere (n=159)
Doctor 1 1%
Other staff 3 2%
Directors son, daughter, or mother 3 2%
Police 3 2%
Demons 2 1%
God 2 1%
Punishes him/her 38 63%
Speak harshly 9 15%
Why (n=60) Takes his/her belongings 7 12%
Sexually harasses him/her 4 7%
Other 2 3%
 Infrastructure Table ##: Infrastructure from View of Child from Child Interviews
Questions regarding infrastructure reflected (N=159)
those seen in the Institutional survey. One Category Responses Count Percent
hundred fifty-three (96%) of the children Today 153 96%
Last time bathed (n=159)
reported having bathed the day of the Yesterday 6 4%
interview and all children had bathed with Bed 151 95%
the past 24 hours; 151 (95%) slept in a bed; Blanket 2 1%
Bedding (n=159)
131 (82%) slept alone in the bed; and 49 Mat 1 1%
(31%) felt they worked more in the center Other 5 3%
than they had at home. Alone 131 82%
Who child shares bed Other children 24 15%
with (n=159) Nanny 4 3%
Sibling 2 1%
Thinks he/she works more in the center
49 31%
than when at home (n=159)

Recreation
In Table ##, it can be seen that 96% of the 159 children interviewed (all but six) had a favorite activity or
sport, including soccer, jump rope, basketball, and singing and dance; however, only 44 (28%) had played
or performed the activity within the past 24 hours, and for 55 (35%) of the children more than one month
had passed since they engaged in the activity.

Table ##: Sports and Activities from Child Interviews (N=159)

Category Responses Count Percent
Soccer 69 43%
Jump rope 17 11%
Basketball 16 10%
Singing & Dance 12 8%
Favorite sports
Running 9 6%
(n=159)
Marbles 5 3%
Volley ball 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Nothing 6 4%
Today 30 19%
Last time Yesterday 14 9%
engaged in This week 38 24%
sport (n=155) Last week 18 11%
More than one month past 55 35%
 Contact and Visitation
It can be seen in Table ## that 89 (56%) of the children interviewed lived with their mother before living
in the center, and 50 (31%) lived with their father (many lived with both, as children were able to register
more than one response). Twenty-eight (18%) lived with an aunt or uncle, and 13 (8%) with their
grandmother and/or grandfather. Seventy-one (45%) of the children lived in a provincial town before
going to the center. Forty-six (29%) came from Port-au-Prince, and 20 (13%) from a provincial city. Fifty-
two (33%) of the children had never visited their home since arriving at the center, 20 (13%) had visited
their home in the last month to one year, and 20 (13%) had visited their home in the year before that.
Seventy-six (48%) of the children said they missed their home but only 46 (30%) said they wanted to return
home. One hundred nine (70%) of the children said they did not want to return home. When explaining
this 79 (72%) said they have better conditions and comfort in the center and 32 (29%) said they did not
want to return home because they wanted to finish school.

Table ##: Contact and Visitation from Child Interviews (N=159)

Category Responses Count Percent

Mother 89 56%
Father 50 31%
Aunt or uncle 28 18%
Grandmother 11 7%
Significant people who child was Grandfather 2 1%
living with before coming to Brother or sister 2 1%
Center (respondents = 159 but Godmother 6 4%
more than one response Already in Center 4 3%
possible from each respondent) Myself 2 1%
Stepmother 1 1%
Cousin 1 1%
Unrelated family 1 1%
Do not know 2 1%
Child misses home 76 48%
Family comes to the center 104 65%
This week 6 4%
In the past month 9 6%
Last time the child visited home 1 month to 1 year past 20 13%
Last year 20 13%
(n=159)
Never 52 33%
Other 2 1%
Do not remember 9 6%
Countryside 18 11%
Location of child's family home Provincial Town 71 45%
Provincial city 20 13%
(n=159)
Port-au-Prince 46 29%
None or center 4 3%
Wants to return home to live 46 30%
Does not want to return home to 109 70%
Desire to return home (n=155)
Children
live who have ever tried to
return home 6 4%
I live good here, bed, cloths,
Reasons given for not want to
comfort 79 72%
return home (n = 109 but
School only 32 29%
 Table ##: Contact and Visitation from Child Interviews (N=159)
multiple responses accepted, Food only 7 6%
meaning that the data I have family, abusive parents,
represents respondents neglect 6 6%
mentioned category) My family is poor 5 5%
Enjoys activities in the center 5 5%
Friends 3 3%
My mother insists I stay and finish
school 2 2%
I want to help the other children 1 1%
Do not know 2 2%
Nothing 7 6%
Misses family 27 59%
So that I can begin to work 4 9%
Reasons given for wanting to Misses friends 2 4%
return home (n = 46) There is a person who is mistreating 1 2%
Does not like the center
me here 1 2%
Nothing 11 24%

Opinions about the center

The 159 children interviewed were asked about what they liked and didn't like about the center they lived
in. Their responses are shown in Table ##. The most positive comments about the center were regarding
activities in the center (84), access to school (77), having other children there (68), having access to
television and radio (55) and food (54). Fifty-four children said there was nothing they didn't like about
the center and the most common negative opinions about the center were regarding the punishments
(63), stealing (23) and gossip (20).
 Table ##: Things that Children Like vs. Do Not Like About the Center from Child Interviews
Like Count Do Not Like Count
Food 54 One of the adults 4
School 77 Gossip 20
Activities outside the center 30 Other children 3
Activities in the center 84 Stealing 23
Library 23 Punishments 63
Television and radio 55 Corn and Millet 1
Other children 68 Fighting, arguing, children being mean 10
Staff 12 When adults scold us 5
Foreigners who visit 1 The neighborhood 2
Bed 1 Taking the gifts that my mother brings me 1
Bicycle 1 Not enough toys for us to play with 1
Camera 1 No wood to make food 1
Church 3 Punishments 2
Cinema 2 They only send a couple child to learn profession. 2
Cloths 3 When I am sick they do not care for me. 1
Computer 4 When it is night 1
Everything 3 Vacation when don't go anywhere 1
Games 1 Where we are located 1
Going for walks 1 Not enough to eat 1
Going to the beach 1 I like everything 8
Yard to play in 2 There is nothing I don't like 54
Feeling safe 1
I like the director 2
I sleep well 1
I'm happier here 1
Ipad 1
Toys 2
Making food for the other children 2
Learn to speak English 1
Learning 1
Learning a trade 4
Learning morality 1
Music and singing 6
Playing soccer 2
Freedom from beatings 1
The house 2
Swimming pool 3
Dance 1
Washing dishes, the yard 1
Everything I find here I had at home 8
 Family placement vs. Center
Table ## shows children's responses to questions about living in the center compared to living with family.
Ninety (57%) said that a child would live best in the center than family in the countryside or in a town.
However, only 65 (41%) said a child would live better in the center as opposed to living with their family
in Port-au-Prince. This shift is consistent with the finding (see above in Table XX) that 36 (23%) of the
children said they were sent to the center for access to school, something more readily accessible for
those who were already living in the capital before entering the center. The allure of opportunities that
were scarce in the countryside is also evident in the widely shared desire to pursue a professional career
and to live abroad (see Tables ## and ## below). The majority of the children, 154 (97%) said that a child
with no family would live best in the center instead of living with a family that is not his/hers. One hundred
twenty-two (92%) of children also said that if a child has to leave the center and return home they should
feel sad about that decision.

Table ##: Children’s Opinions About Family Placement vs. Center from Child Interviews
Category Responses Count Percent
A child who lives with his/her family in the Center 90 57%
countryside vs. one living in the center, who lives Family 53 33%
best Cannot say 16 10%
Center 91 57%
A child who lives with his/her family in a town vs.
Family 52 33%
one living in the center, who lives best
Cannot say 16 10%
Center 65 41%
A child who lives with his/her family in Port-au-
Prince vs. one living in the center, who lives best Family 71 45%
Cannot say 23 14%
A child with no family who lives in a house with a Center 154 97%
family that is not his/hers vs. one living in the Family 3 2%
center, who lives best Cannot say 2 1%
Sad 122 92%
If a child has to leave the center and return home,
Happy 24 18%
should that child be happy or sad
Do not know 13 10%

Table ##: Hunger, Meals and School from Child Interviews (N=159)
Home Center
Categories and Responses Count Percent Count Percent
Never 37 23% 80 50%
Hungry Often 42 26% 4 3%
(N=159) Rarely 17 11% 42 26%
Sometimes 59 37% 33 21%
Average of Meals per day (N=159) 2.1 2.7
School enrollment (n = 155) 118 153
 Hunger, Meals and School
Table ## shows that of the 159 children interviewed more children felt hungry at home than at the center.
Forty-two (26%) said they often felt hungry at home, compared to four (3%) at the center. Thirty-seven
(23%) never felt hungry at home; 80 (50%) said they never felt hungry at the center. The average number
of meals per day at home was 2.1 compared to 2.7 meals at the center. Of 155 children, 118 were enrolled
at school when they lived at home, while 153 were in school while living at the center.

Foreigners
As seen is Table ## children were asked about contact with foreigners. Of the 104 (65%) said they had a
foreign friend, 52 (50%) had five or more. Thirty-one (31%) had seen their friend in the month they were
interviewed, 16 (15%) had seen their friend the month before and 46 (44%) had not seen the friend for
two months or longer. Of those with a foreign friend, 86 (83%) said the friend sends gifts and 52 (50%)
said the friend writes them.

Table ##: Contact with Foreigners from Child Interviews

Category Responses Count Percent
Has a friend who is foreigner 104 65%
1 23 22%
Number of 2 10 10%
foreign friends 3 11 11%
(n=104) 4 8 8%
5 or more 52 50%
This week 12 12%
This month 19 18%
Last month 16 15%
Last time saw
Two to three months past 19 18%
friend (n=104)
More than three months past 27 26%
Do not remember 9 9%
Never 2 2%
Sends gifts 86 83%
Foreign friend(s)
Writes to him/her 52 50%
(n=104)
Says that he/she will come visit overseas on day 30 29%
 Work and Living
Table ##: What Children want to be when they Grow Up from Child Interviews
Aspirations (N=159)
The children were asked about
Occupation Count Percent
what job they would like when Doctor 32 20%
they grow up. As shown in Table Nurse 20 13%
## there were a range of Engineer 12 8%
responses, the most common Agronomist 11 7%
Pastor 7 4%
response with 32 (20%) was a
Soccer player 7 4%
doctor, followed by a nurse (20, Teacher 6 4%
or 13%) and an engineer (12, or Artist/painter 5 3%
7%). Mechanic 4 3%
Musician 4 3%
Secretary 4 3%
Pilot 3 2%
Police 3 2%
President 3 2%
Athlete 2 1%
Business person 2 1%
Driver 2 1%
Engineer 2 1%
Driver 2 1%
Lawyer 2 1%
Singer 2 1%
Tailor 2 1%
Accountant 1 1%
Computer programmer 1 1%
Cook 1 1%
Dance instructor 1 1%
Lawyer 1 1%
Businessman 1 1%
Journalist 1 1%
President 1 1%
Teacher 1 1%
Farmer 1 1%
Florist 1 1%
Glass maker 1 1%
Heavy equipment operator 1 1%
Journalist 1 1%
Missionary 1 1%
Priest 1 1%
Soldier 1 1%
Stylist 1 1%
Surveyor 1 1%
Other 2 1%
Do not know 1 1%
100%
Total 159
 Table ##: Where Children Want to Live when they Grow
As seen in Table ## children were also asked Up from Child Interviews (N=159)
about where they want to live when they are Place Count Percent
older. As seen in Table ##, the most common USA 61 38%
Canada 25 16%
answer from 61 (38%) of the children was the Brazil 14 9%
USA, followed by 25 (16%) Canada, 14 (9%) France 13 8%
Brazil, 13 (8%) France and 10 (6%) Haiti. Haiti 10 6%
Spain 4 3%
Argentina 3 2%
China 3 2%
Cuba 3 2%
Africa 2 1%
Britain 2 1%
Dominican Republic 2 1%
Puerto Rico 2 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Guadeloupe 1 1%
Iraq 1 1%
Israel 1 1%
Jamaica 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Saint Salvador 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Do not know 2 1%
Total 159 100%
 Family survey
Family Survey interviews were conducted in order to better understand what motivated parents
and other relatives to place children in centers. To reach a sample of geographically diverse
relatives, surveyors asked children who were interviewed to provide the locations and telephone
numbers of their parents or other close relatives. To accomplish the task of reaching the family
members despite limited time and resources, the relatives were then interviewed by telephone.
It must be noted that this process created a bias toward the inclusion of families who remained
in close contact with their children after their arrival in the institution, and had at least enough
financial resources to be able to afford a mobile phone. Sixty numbers were collected, but about
half on the list turned out to be wrong or disconnected numbers. Surveyors succeeded in
reaching and questioning 32 people for the survey.

Table ##: Family Questionnaire: Centers from Family Interviews (N=32)

Name of Center Location of Center Interviews
Ambrasse un enfant 1
Centre d'acceuil du bon berger 1
Centre De Formation Et De Nutrition Des Enfants 3
Centre de jeunes fondation J.A Clermont 1
Centre De Rehabilitation Sociale Des Gonaives et Ecole 1
Centre Vie Marie Immaculee 1
Divine Ministries in hope for children 3
Fondation Timoun Se Lespwa 4
Foyer de notre dame de fatima 4
Haiti Mission Service 1
Maison Fortune Orphanage haiti 1
Mason D'acceil bon berger 1
Mathieu 28 1
Project papillon 2
Recolte Humanitaire 2
Trinity house 1
Venez enfants et vivez mieux 4
 Profiles
As seen in Table ##, of the 32 family members of children living in centers who were interviewed, 17 (44%)
were the child's mother, 7 (22%) the child's father, 6 (19%) were a sibling, and the rest were other family
members. Three (9%) had post-secondary education, and one other had completed high school. Fifteen
(47%) had entered but not completed secondary school. The rest had either stopped attending after
completing primary school (5, or 16%), or never finished primary school (8, or 25%). The family members
were from a range of occupations but the most common were skilled laborers and market
women/vendors. One quarter of respondents had another child or children in centers.

Table ##: Respondent Profiles from Family Interviews (N=32)

Category Variable Frequency Percent
Sex of Female 19 59%
respondent Male 13 41%
Mother 14 44%
Father 7 22%
Brother 4 13%
Relationship to Sister 2 6%
child Uncle 2 6%
Family friend 1 3%
Grand mother 1 3%
Step mother 1 3%
Post Secondary 3 9%
High school diploma 1 3%
Educational
Incomplete Secondary school 15 47%
level
Primary 5 16%
Incomplete Primary 8 25%
Skilled labor 10 31%
Market woman/vendor 10 31%
Professional 4 13%
Occupation Farming 6 19%
Business 3 9%
Domestic 2 6%
Nothing 2 6%
Other Children Has other child(or children) in center(s) 8 25%
in Centers or Has 3 or more children in center(s) 4 13%
Fosterage Respondent has child who is a ‘restavek’ 2 6%
 Child placement
Table ## shows who placed the respondent’s child in the center, as well as why and how they did so.
Thirteen of the respondents (41%) said the child was placed in the center by the mother, 4 (13%) said by
the father, 4 by both parents, and 7 by other family members. The primary reason for children being
placed into care, from 21 respondents (66%), was financial or economic reasons. Fourteen respondents
(44%) said the child was placed in the center through a person who had influence there. Of those 14 only
4 thought they could have placed their child in the center without this contact. Just over half of family
members signed a release for their child when they were placed in the center.

Table ##: Placement from Family Interviews (N=32)

Category Response Freq Perc
Mother 13 41%
Both parents 4 13%
Who placed the child Father 4 13%
in center Other family 7 22%
God parents 2 6%
Non family 2 6%
Economic stress 21 66%
Education 2 6%
Death of mother or father 2 6%
Why they placed the Health of child 2 6%
child in center Mother neglect 1 3%
Step father/pregnant for other man 1 3%
No time for child 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Through a contact with influence in the Center 14 44%
Through other type of contact: Nun, police… 5 16%
How they placed the
I went and asked them and they took him 8 25%
child in center
They offered a place 4 13%
Other 1 3%
Thinks he/she could have placed the child without contact inside 4 of 14 13%
Parents/guardians who signed a release 17 53%

Visitation and contact

Table ## shows how much contact respondents have with their children living in the centers. The most
common form of contact was the respondent visiting the child in the center. Twenty of the 32 respondents
(63%) had spoken with the child on the phone at some time during the last year. Twenty-six (81%) had
visited the child at the center during the last year and eleven of the respondents said the child had visited
them during the last year.
 Table ##: Visitation and Contact I from Family Interviews (N=32)
Last time spoke Last time child
with child on Last time respondent visited the
Response phone visited child respondent
Yesterday 1 0 1
This week 4 0 0
Last week 7 5 0
Last month 7 4 0
3 months ago 1 11 3
More than 3 months 0 3 1
Last year 0 3 6
Do not remember 4 2 3
Never 8 4 18
As shown in Table ##, 28 of the 32 respondents (88%) said they missed the child. Most of the respondents
whose child had not visited them said they wanted the child to visit. However, only nine of all respondents
would have preferred the child to live at home. Nine (28%) respondents hoped the child would return
home, but after he or she finished school. This reflects the responses seen in Table ## which show that
one of the biggest benefits of the center reported by respondents is the access to education. If the child
were to be brought home, 29 of the respondents said they would find the child's godfather, and very few
said they would keep the child at home with them.

Table ##: Visitation and Contact II from Family Interviews (N=32)

Category Response Freq Perc

Says they miss the child 28 88%
Respondents desire
For those who the child has not visited (n=21), respondent 15 71%
to be with the child
For all child
wants respondents
visit (n=32), respondents who would prefer 9 28%
After finishes school
child lives at home 9 28%
Depends on Center 4 13%
When respondent
When I can care for him 4 13%
hopes child will
When reaches adulthood 4 13%
return home
ASAP 2 6%
Do not know 9 28%
Home/my house/with me 28 88%
Where does Ask help from the government 25 78%
respondent think To his godfather 2 6%
child will go if they Leave the country 1 3%
close the center Do not know 1 3%
Keep him 3 9%
What respondent Find his God Father 29 91%
would do if someone Look for another center 1 3%
brought the child Do not know 1 3%
Home/my house/with me 2 6%
home

Adoption and fostering

Table ## shows respondents’ attitudes towards centers, adoption and fostering. Twenty-five (78%) of the
respondents thought a child would be better off in a center than with another family. Only 6 respondents
said they would consider placing their child with another Haitian family if the center was not possible.
 Although, respondents said they would change their mind and would consider this option under certain
circumstances, including if the family took care of the child as their own, if the family put the child in
school, and if the family took financial care of the child. Twenty respondents (62%) said they would agree
to the child being adopted by a foreigner. Of these, 7 said they would still agree if they knew they would
never see the child again.

Table ##: Adoption, Foster and Restavek from Family Interviews (N=32)
Category Response Freq Perc
Much better to give child to a center 1 3%
What is best Better to give child to a center 24 75%
for a child:
Better to give child to family 1 3%
other family or
center Much better to give child to other family 1 3%
Do not know which one is better 5 16%
Would consider placing child with other Haitian family if they could not get child into center 6 19%
The family put him/her in school 4 13%
The family paid the child 1 3%
Would change
The family put the child in school and paid the child 10 31%
their mind if,
The family took care of the child as if their own 14 44%
Would still agree if they knew they would never see the child again 0 0%
Adoption by Would agree if a foreign family wanted to adopt the child 20 63%
foreigners Would still agree if they knew they would never see the child again 7 22%

Table ## shows reasons why a respondent would or would not allow a foreigner to adopt the child. The
most common theme that emerged for why respondents would agree to adoption by a foreigner was the
idea that it would be in the best interest of the child, that they can take better care of the child and that
the child would have a better future if they were adopted by a foreigner. A common theme for not wanting
a child to be adopted by a foreigner is that they don't know the person. Some respondents were worried
about the child being abused or mistreated after adoption.
 Table ##: Reason a Respondent would/would not allow a foreigner to adopt the child from Family Interviews (N=32)
Why Yes Why No
Because he will help me Because I heard they steal children
Because I can’t take of him He will be mistreated after he took him
Foreigners will help him get a better future He would not know his mother
Foreigners will take better care of him I don’t have money to travel to see my child
Haitian and foreigners are different. He will have a better future I don’t know the person
He will help me in the future I don’t know the person
I can’t do anything for her I don’t want to
If I can sit and talk with the foreigner I put him in the center because things were not easy for me
Only if I see him after They sometimes have them do prostitution
Only if the child will keep in touch with me Do not know
The child will visit other countries Many foreigners use children for bad things
They know me as their mother So he won’t forget me
Because I can’t take care of him
He would have a good life
It would be better for him
It would be better for him
It’s a good thing
It's a good thing for the child
This is an aid
When a child is adopted its better for him
 Financial support
Respondents were asked if they would keep the child if they were given money to support the child. Nine
(28%) said they would keep the child if given $50 per month in financial help. At $100 per month, the
number who would keep the child rose to 10 (31%). At $200 per month, the number increased further, to
13 (41%). The majority, 19 (61%), said they would still send the child to the center even if offered $200
per month in financial support to keep him or her at home.

Table ##: Respondents who would agree to keep the child if someone gave them
the following amounts of support from Family Interviews (N=32)
Category Response Freq Perc
US$50 per month 9 28%
Would agree to keep the
US$100 per month 10 31%
child if received:
US$200 per month 13 41%
Would not agree to keep child at $200 per month 19 61%

Quality of the center

Table ## shows the respondents’ opinions of the center in which the child was placed. Most respondents
(29, or 91%) agreed that the child was eating well in the center, and 20 (63%) said the child ate better at
the center than at home. Fourteen (44%) also said that the child got sick less frequently at the center than
in the family home.

The overwhelming majority found the center had greater benefits to offer the child than did the home.
With only one respondent citing affection, the majority cited food, access to good healthcare and
education, and security. Three simply said, “many things.” Some were more specific, saying:

creativity and traveling during the summer

play with toys they didn’t have home

playing music, speaking English

wisdom and discipline

Twenty-seven (84%) of the 32 respondents thought the child had a better future because they were in the
center, and 26 (81%) of the respondents thought the child was more fortunate than children who were
not in centers. Only 12 (38%) respondents said that they thought there was a better place for the child.
Of those, 9 (75% of the sub-group but just 28% of the total number of respondents) said the child would
be better off with them in the family home.
 Table ##: Opinion on Quality of the Center from Family Interviews (N=32)
Response Freq Perc
Child eats well in center 29 91%
Child eats better at center than at home 20 63%
Child was often sick when at home 13 41%
sick less often 14 44%
Rating of frequency of illness no difference 14 44%
sick more often 4 13%
School 19 59%
Food 12 38%
treated well/has good life 11 34%
Healthcare 3 9%
Things that respondents like
Security 2 6%
about the center (n=32)
Church 2 6%
contact with foreigners 2 6%
Everything 1 3%
discipline/control 1 3%
Thinks the child has better future because she is he/she is in center 27 84%
Child more fortunate than children not in center 26 81%
Respondents who say they are happy the child is in the center 25 78%
Respondents who said there was nothing they did not like about the center 23 72%
Respondent him or herself would live in center if permitted 10 31%
Respondents who think there is a better place for the child 12 38%
A good Christian family 1 8%
Another country 1 8%
What better place
At home with us 9 75%
With the foreigners he visited 1 8%
As shown in Table ##, when the relatives were asked what children have at home that they do not have
in the center, their typical responses were, “me”, “mother’s affection”, “family’s affection.” Just as many
said nothing.

Table ##: What Children Have in the Center that they do not
have at Home from Family Interviews (N=32)
Response Freq Perc
Nothing 17 52%
My, mother or family's affection 11 33%
Liberty 2 6%
Affection 1 3%
Tolerance 1 3%
Do not know 1 3%
As shown in Table ##, the few respondents who were not happy with the center highlighted specific
problems. Some specific comments illustrated points worthy of consideration. Five respondents said:

We miss him

Because they do not take good care of the him

The director is not nice to the child

I want my child to live with me

We did not mean for them to keep her

Our mother was not supposed to put him there

The uncle of one child also said:

"A friend has two kids in the orphanage; my brother had a child there who died. I only put him there for
a while. When we asked the pastor for him he said he will give him back when he turns 18".

Table ##: Problems with the Center from Family Interviews (N=32)
Category Response Freq
I want my child to live with me 1
Reasons
respondents Our mother was not supposed to put him there 1
are unhappy The director is not nice to him 1
the child is We did not mean for them to keep her 1
in the We miss her 1
center (n=9)
We miss him 1
Children are not allowed to visit their parents 2
Children prevented from contacting their parents. I want to talk to my child 1
Things that My child doesn’t tell me if anything is wrong 1
respondents
Misses school because of money 1
do not like
about the The children are always dirty 1
center (n=9) The children have too much liberty in the streets 1
The pastor is not nice to my child 1
Cannot answer 1
 General population opinion survey
To gauge the attitudes of the general public to the centers, eight surveyors were dispatched to conduct a
general population opinion survey. The total of 614 respondents were selected in urban and rural areas
across the country. Those interviewed were asked questions about their opinions of centers and adoption.

Demographics
Table ## shows the location of respondents’ homes. People from a number of geographical locations were
interviewed and there were equal numbers of respondents from different Haitian cities, various
countryside locations and towns.

Table ##: General Population Opinion Survey Sampled Respondents (N=614)

Where the person lives
Department City Countryside Town Total
Artibonite 23 22 8 53
Central Plateau 30 41 35 106
North 0 14 32 46
North West 0 31 37 68
South East 16 31 50 97
West 131 63 50 244
Grand Total 200 202 212 614

Respondents also represented people from differing educational backgrounds and occupational groups.
As shown in the graph below, higher education was low with the majority of respondents having not
completed or gone beyond high school. The most represented occupation within the respondent sample
was a merchant (226 respondents, or 37%). This was followed by farmer and tradesman (Table ##).
 Respondent Education Level (N=614)
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

Table ##: Respondent Occupations (N=614)

Occupation Freq Perc
Merchant 226 37%
Farmer 80 13%
Tradesman 61 10%
Driver 22 4%
Business 21 3%
Student 16 3%
Teacher Elementary 11 2%
Laborer 10 2%
Teacher High school 10 2%
Professional & Civil 26 4%
Other 18 3%
None 113 18%
Total 614 100%
 Knowledge and opinions of centers
The respondents were interviewed about their knowledge and opinions of centers. As seen in Table ##,
of the 614 respondents, 223 (36%) know at least one child living in a center. The general opinion of centers
was positive with nearly all respondents (96%) saying that they thought centers were overall more good
than bad. When asked about the reasons people place children in centers, over half (65%) of the
respondents said that it was in the child's best interest to help them advance. Forty-five percent of the
respondents said that a family should take a child to a center run by foreigners. The biggest danger of
placing children in centers as identified by 164 respondents was sexual abuse. However, just as many
(173, or 28%) said there were no dangers in placing children in centers.

Table ##: Knowledge of and Opinions or Centers (N=614)

Responses Freq. Perc.
Respondents who know at least one child living in a Center 223 36%
Respondents who think that Centers are More good than bad 591 96%
Equal 350 57%
Where respondent thinks that
Provinces 145 24%
most "orphans" originate
Town 119 19%
In who's interest respondent To help the child advance 398 65%
thinks families have in mind
when placing child in Center To help the family advance 216 35%
Center run by foreigners 278 45%
Where a family should place
Center run by Haitians 188 31%
their child if they cannot provide
for him/her Haitian family with more financial security 120 20%
Refused to respond 28 5%
Nothing 173 28%
sexual abuse 164 27%
bad life for children 141 23%
selling children 140 23%
Biggest danger in placing child in
a center Maltreatment 138 22%
stealing children's organs 117 19%
lack of education 97 16%
Do not know 95 15%
Never see the child again or forgets family 4 1%
 Directors of centers
Respondents were asked about their perceptions of why Haitian people and foreigners start centers.
Although the tendency slightly favored foreigner, as shown in Table ##, for both groups, the largest reason
was to help the children.

Table ##: Perception on Biggest reason directors start centers: Haitian vs Foreign (N=614)
Foreigners Haitians
Responses Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
To make money off the children 157 26% 233 38%
To help the child 446 73% 370 60%
They don't have orphanages 0 0% 4 1%
Other 11 2% 7 1%

Adoption
Table ## illustrates opinions of adoption. Over half of the respondents (62%) thought said it was best to
place the child in a center instead of placing the child with another family. Nearly all of the respondents
said that they believed most people place their children with other families when they cannot provide for
the child. With regards to adoption, 55% said they would let a Haitian adopt their child but fewer (35%)
said they would allow a foreigner to adopt their child and take them overseas.

Table ##: Opinions on Adoption=614)

Responses Freq Perc
Which is preferable: to give the child to a Another family 231 38%
family or place him/her in an Center Center 383 62%
Would let a foreigner adopt their child and
take him/her overseas 215 35%
Adoption Would you let a Haitian adopt their child 335 55%
Would let a foreigner adopt if it meant not
seeing him/her ever again 43 7%
A better off family that adopts a child as one of their own, should they also help the
family of the child 147 24%
What respondents believe is the primary Because they cannot provide 587 96%
reason that people place their children To help child go to school 20 3%
with other families Other 7 1%
Respondents were also asked about reasons for accepting or refusing adoption. As seen in Table ##, the
responses for both accepting adoption by foreign families and Haitian ones were similar. In both situations
the primary reason for accepting adoption was that it helps the child. The most common reason for
refusing adoption in both circumstances was that the person would miss their child. Forty-one percent of
respondents gave this as the primary reason for refusing adoption if those looking to adopt were foreign,
while 20% gave this as the reason for refusing adoption by Haitians. This correlates with the information
given in Table ## above that shows that more respondents would be willing to allow Haitian families to
adopt their child.

Table ##: Primary Reason for Accepting/Refusing adoption of Child (N=614)

Foreigner Adoption Haitian Adoption
Responses Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Because it advantages the child 126 21% 224 36%
Yes
To help the family advance 89 14% 111 18%
I would miss my child 253 41% 120 20%
Because they could abuse him/her 52 8% 48 8%
No
Because it's a shame 14 2% 20 3%
Other 80 13% 56 9%

Conclusions and recommendations

It is clear from the data gathered on centers, and from responses given by both children and families, that
the children living in the centers are better off, in terms of material wellbeing and education, even than
the average Haitian child. In 100% of the centers the children have access to power and water on
premises. Only ## % of households in Haiti have access to electricty and 7% have access to on premises
water source. The significance of having water on premises cannot be gainsaid as and the task of retrieving
water typically falls to children, cutting into time that could be better spent engaged in learning or
recreational activities. Only 31% of children report doing more work in the center than at home. Ninety-
nine percent of primary-school-age children in centers are enrolled in school vs. 76% of children of the
same age in the general population. Eighty-nine percent have their own beds in centers, compared to
28.9% in urban households and 10.6% in rural households. Twenty-three percent of children say they have
never felt hungry in the home, while 50% say they have never felt hungry in the center. Twenty-six percent
say they felt hungry frequently at home, while only 3% (four out of 159 children) say they often feel hungry
in the center. Children report receiving an average 2.7 meals per day in centers, compared to 2.1 meals
per day in the family household.

Moreover, the children overwhelmingly report preferring the centers. Seventy percent of 155 children say
they do not want to go home; 57% say a child lives better at a center than at home in the countryside or
a small town, and 92% say a child who has to leave a center and return home should feel sad. This is not
to say that all children were happy. Households
A minority (30%) do want to go Centers EMMUS-V 2012
home (usually because they missed Variables (N=51) (N=13181)
their family), and there are Sleeps in bed 95% 58%*
1
disturbing cases where directors of Sleeps in own bed/alone 89% 20%*
the centers are apparently Flush toilette 96% 8%
preventing children and parents Flush toilette or Latrine 100% 56%
from being reunited. There are also Water on premises 100% 7%
centers that seem to excessively Purchase or self-treated water 96% 68%
Electricity 100% 38%
restrict visitation. Nor is
Television in home 92% 29%
everything perfect with the
Radio in home 87% 55%
centers. While most centers
Car or truck 79% 5%
clearly have greater resources and Access to primary school 100% 77%2
are providing for the children Access to secondary school 100% 25%3
better than the average family *FAFO 2002
could, there are areas of neglect,
most notably when children leave the centers. Very few centers have policies of preparing children for
adult life outside of the center. Even fewer follow up with the children providing moral support, guidance
and since of identity and belonging as they begin their lives in the adult world. Moreover, in developing
standards, the fact that most institutions are materially far better off than the average Haitian household
should not limit IBESR in establishing minimum standards for the centers.

Recommendations
Any discussion of residential child-care centers should begin with recognition of the fact that, from the
point of view of most families and children, these institutions are not “orphanages.” They are not places
filled with children who have no family. They are centers where families send children so they will have
access to schooling, health care, nutrition, safe drinking water, and other basic needs their parents and
other relatives are unable to provide at home. They are, in the eyes of most parents and children, boarding
schools with a social services element, and they should be regulated as such. That means that standards
should be met in all of the categories critical to child development – education, health care, nutrition,
access to loved ones and other role models, etc. -- and families should be encouraged and supported
when they decide a child would be better served by returning to the home.

The centers, as well as IBESR and other institutions that exist for the benefit of children, such as UNICEF,
should provide returning reunifying families with some measure of support, which might include, for
example, counseling, training, or short-term tuition help, to help them bring their children home from the
centers. It should also be recognized that some of the children have indeed been orphaned or abandoned,

1
Number of children per centers : 56 average – Number of beds per center : 50 average
2
enfants de 6 à 11 ans
3
enfants de 12 à 17 ans
or come from families that have little hope of ever being able to provide for them. These children should
be provided with additional services to meet their higher level of need.

The regulation of the centers should include the following provisions:

• Every child living in a center should have his or her own bed
• Water should always be provided on premises; treated drinking water should be available
at all centers
• All centers should be required to offer access to education
• Centers should be required to meet a set of standards for nutrition (meals per day,
servings of meat per week, etc.), health care (minimal frequency of check-ups, etc.), and
other basic needs
• Parents should have a right to see children at least once per week
• Parents should have a right to reunite with children, subject to formal request and
approval process
• A uniform process for reunification of families should be adhered to, with follow up by
social workers, whenever children leave centers to return home
• IBESR should explore a mechanism for encouraging and supporting reunification of
families living in Port-au-Prince, where families are more likely to have access to
schools, water, and other basic needs without resorting to sending children to a center
• Institutions must provide children with preparations specific to living outside of the
institutions on their own
• Children identified as abandoned or truly orphaned (with no immediate or extended
willing and/or able to care for them) should be provided with additional services and
resources deemed appropriate by IBESR (counseling, supplemental nutrition and health
care, remedial education, etc.)
• Abandoned and orphaned children should be receive priority placement on lists of
potential adoptees
• Centers should have verified plan what will be done with the children if the center closes
1. Bibliographie
Aristide, Mildred (2003). L’enfant en domesticité en Haïti : produit d’un fossé historique. Henri
Deschamps. Port-au-Prince.

Beauliere, A. (2004). Pauvreté et Fécondité en Haïti, Centre d'Economie du Développement,

Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV
Bernat, J Christopher. 1999 Children and the Politics of Violence in Haitian Context: Statist
violence, scarcity and street child agency in Port-au-Prince
Bernier, Martine Et Françoise Ponticq (1999). Planification d’interventions utilisant les modes
d’organisation sociale et économique des enfants et des jeunes vivant et travaillant dans les rue
en Haïti et entre autres, de ceux et celles vivant dans la prostitution. Unité de Recherche sur les
Enfants en Situation Difficile (URESD)-UNIQ. Rapport final soumis à Aide à l’Enfance-Canada et
UNICEF.

Blazek, Barbara Eileen. 2003 Development of Training for Early Childhood Educators In
Haiti. M.A. Degree: The American University. MAI, 42, No. 04 (2003): P. 1118.
Bowie, Fiona. 2004 Cross-Cultural Approaches to Adoption. Routledge.
Browne Kevin (2009) The risk of harm to young children in institutional care
Save the Children available on: http://www.crin.org/docs/the_Risk_of_Harm.pdf
Eustache, Eddy. nd. Child Protection in Haiti. Report for Zanmi Lasante/Partners In Health (PIH)-
Haiti.
Garraud, André Paul. 2005 Etude de la situation des enfants de rues pris en charge par des
centres de réintégration sociale à Port-au-Prince Ronald Jean Jacques Jores Philippe, Jean
Jacques Ronald, Edwige Milien. Université d’Etat d’Haïti Faculté des Sciences Humaines.
Georges, Islande. 2000. Influence de la carence affective sur le développement des enfants de
3 à 5 ans (étude comparative entre enfants d'un orphelinat et ceux vivant en famille). Université
d’Etat d’Haïti Faculté des Sciences Humaines.
Girard, Philippe R 2008 Sleeping Rough in Port-au-Prince: An Ethnography of Street Children and
Violence in Haiti. Latin American Politics and Society, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 201 – 205
Gordon, David and Shailen Nandy. 2007. Absolute Child Poverty in Haiti in the 21st Century
Report for UNICEF Haiti.
Gupta, Jhumka and Agrawal, Alpna. 2010. Chronic aftershocks of an earthquake on the well-
being of children in Haiti: violence, psychosocial health and slavery
ICF International – United States Department of Labor (2012). Urban child labor in Port-au-
Prince (Haïti). Washington.

ICF International (2012). Chica labor in domestic service (“Restaveks”) in Port-au-Prince (Haïti).
Washington.

INURED 2012 Violence Against Children Survey (VACS).

Jean-François, Norah (2007). Législation haïtienne en vigueur sur les mineurs. Imprimeur II. Port-
au-Prince.

Joassaint, Foider. 2003. Evolution de l'agressivité chez les enfants de rues a Port-au-Prince
pendant la décennie 90. Université d’Etat d’Haïti Faculté des Sciences Humaines.
Lony, Jim. Haiti ‘Restavek’ Tradition Called Child Slavery. Reuters, 10 février 2010

Ministère De La Justice Et De La Sécurité Publique – UNICEF (2002). Compilation des instruments

internationaux relatifs aux droits de l’enfant et à la justice des mineurs. Éditions des Antilles S.A.
Port-au-Prince.
Ministère Des Affaires Sociales Et Du Travail – Institut Du Bien-Être Social Et De Recherche
(2007). Diagnostic institutionnel de l’IBESR. Une évaluation des capacités de l’IBESR au regard
de la lutte contre la traite et le trafic des personnes, en particulier les femmes et les enfants.
USAID/PADF, Port-au-Prince.
Ministère Des Affaires Sociales Et Du Travail (2002). Les fondements de la pratique de la
domesticité des enfants en Haïti. Projet de renforcement des capacités de collecte et d’analyse
des statistiques sociales. PNUD/OIT-IPEC/UNICEF/Save The Children
(Canada et UK). Haïti Solidarité Internationale.
Office De La Protection Du Citoyen (2006). OPC-MJSP-MAST-COHADDE-UNICEF. Manuel guide
en matière de législation applicable à la protection des mineurs. Henri Deschamps. Port-au-
Prince.
OMCT (COMITÉ DES DROITS DE L’ENFANT) 2003 Droits De L’enfant En Haïti Rapport Sur
L’application De La Convention Relative Aux Droits De L’enfant
Par La République d’Haïti Comité Des Droits De L’enfant 32e Session - Genève, 13-31 Janvier
2003
République D’Haïti – Unicef. Plans d’opérations sectoriels. Programme de coopération 2006-
2008.
RNDDH (2008) Mineurs en conflit avec la loi : Qu’en est-il de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant ?
Novembre 2008 available on: http://rnddh.org/mineurs-en-conflit-avec-la-loi-
qu%E2%80%99en-est-il-de-l%E2%80%99interet-superieur-de-l%E2%80%99enfant/
RNDDH (2013) Le RNDDH plaide pour une prise en charge effective des mineurs en conflit avec
la loi October 2013 available on : http://rnddh.org/content/uploads/2013/10/Rapport-prisons-
2013-1.pdf
Robuste Yvonne. 2000. Etude des punitions corporelles graves et leurs incidences chez un
groupe d'enfants scolarisés de 9 ans. Université d’Etat d’Haïti Faculté des Sciences Humaines.
Sarkozy, Nicolas. 2010. Visit to Haiti – Statements Made by Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic,
During his Joint Press Conference with Rene Préval, President of the Republic of Haiti. Embassy of France,
London

Save the Children (2009) Keeping Children out of Harmful Institutions: why we should be
investing in family-based care available on:
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Keeping_Children_Out_of_Harmf
ul_Institutions_Final_20.11.09_1.pdf
Save The Children (Canada et UK). (2003). La problématique de la domesticité infantile en Haïti:
regard sur la réponse. Bilan sommaire des initiatives entreprises par les organisations et
institutions travaillant directement ou indirectement sur la question de la domesticité des
enfants en Haïti.
Save The Children (Canada)-Plan (2003). Les enfants de rue à Port-au-Prince: État des lieux. Bilan
démographique, sociologique et institutionnel de la situation actuelle des enfants de rue de la
zone métropolitaine de Port-au-Prince.
Save the Children 2008 Child Friendly Spaces in Emergencies: A Handbook for Save the Children
Staff
Schwartz, Timothy T. 2009. Sex, Family and Fertility in Haiti. Lexington Books
Secours Islamique France (2013) L’enfant à l’épreuve de la réalité haïtienne. Quelles actions
pour lutter contre la séparation familiale et l’abandon ?
Secours Islamique France 2013 L’enfant à l’épreuve de la réalité haïtienne Quelles actions pour
lutter contre la séparation familiale et l’abandon ? Secours Islamique France Analyse et
Plaidoyer Janvier 2013
Selman, Peter. 2011. Intercountry adoption after the Haiti earthquake Rescue or robbery?
Adoption & Fostering, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp. 41 – 49
Sloand E, Gebrian B, Astone NM. 2012. Fathers’ Beliefs About Parenting and Fathers’ Clubs to
Promote Child Health in Rural Haiti Qualitative Health Research, 04/2012, Volume 22, Issue 4,
pp. 488 – 498
Sloand, Elizabeth. 2010. The children of Haiti Journal of pediatric health care : official publication
of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp.
211 – 212
Smucker, Glenn R., Yves Francois Pierre, and Jean-Francois Tardieu 2009 Lost Childhoods in
Haiti: Quantifying Child Trafficking, Restaveks, and Victims of Violence Pan American
Development Foundation and USAID/Haiti Mission Port-au-Prince, Haiti
Smucker, Glenn R. 2005 Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Haiti: A Field Report The
Policy II Project The Futures Group, International USAID/Haiti Mission

Smucker, Glenn R. & Gerald F. Murray 2004 The Uses Of Children: A Study Of Trafficking In
Haitian Children USAID/Haiti Mission Port-Au-Prince, Haiti
Sommerfelt, Tone, ed. 2002. Child domestic labour in Haiti characteristics, contexts and
organization of children’s residence, relocation and work. A FAFO report to UNICEF, ILO, Save
the Children UK and Save the Children Canada.
Sur les régulations et initiatives de l’IBESR http://www.ibesr.net/pdf.html
Thompson, Ginger. Bleak Portrait of Haiti Orphanages Raises Fears. The New York Times, Feb. 06, 2010

Toutes disponibles au bureau de l’IBESR Référence à l’annuaire des centres résidentiels publiés
par l’IBESR http://www.ibesr.net/fichier/Annuaire%202012.pdf
Sur les enfants en conflit avec la loi / institutionnalisés Les Rapports des Droits de l’Homme sur
les chiffres des enfants en détention et sur les enfants souffrant de handicap
Juste en se rendant sur le site du Secrétariat d’Etat …
http://www.seiph.gouv.ht/category/associations/
UNICEF (2012) Partnering with religious communities for children available on:
ttp://www.unicef.org/eapro/Partnering_with_Religious_Communities_for_Children.pdf
UNICEF (2010) Les enfants d’Haïti. Etapes marquantes et perspectives à l’échéance des 6 mois
available on : http://www.unicef.org/haiti/french/FR_UNICEF_Haiti_-
_Rapport_des_Six_Mois.pdf
UNICEF (2011). Los niños y niñas de Haïti. Un año después-El largo camino del socorro a la
recuperación. Únete por la niñez.
UNICEF. Note d’information sur l’adoption internationale en Haïti. [s.e.]. [s.d].

UNICEF 2008 Benchmarks for early childhood services in oecd countries by John Bennett
Inocenti Research Center. Rome. IWP-2008-02

United Nations (2003). Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant-observations finales : Haïti.
Trente-deuxième session : examen des rapports présentés par les États parties en application
de l’article 44 de la convention.
USAID 2004 Management Sciences For Health Haïti Santé-2004 / USAID-Haïti Analyse des
besoins essentiels en santé et en services sociaux des enfants et jeunes vivant dans les
orphelinats en Haïti : « Orientations Stratégiques vers un Modèle de Prise en Charge Optimale
» Prof. Paul Adrien, MD, MSc Jules Grand-Pierre, MD, MPH Avec la collaboration technique de
l’Institut Haïtien de l’Enfance
Vandal, Jean, Andolphe E. D. Guillaume [sous la direction de]. (2012). La protection de l’enfant.
Législation nationale et internationale. IBESR-Presses Nationales d’Haïti, Mai 2012. Port-au-
Prince.

POST SEISME HAÏTI

Al-Kassim, Mohammad 2010 A young orphan in Haiti steals a volunteer’s heart March 2,
2010 http://worldfocus.org/blog/2010/03/02/a-young-orphan-in-haiti-steals-a-volunteers-
heart/9881/
Adoption restrictions separate Canadian aid worker from boy Published: Saturday, June 19,
2010 8:40 p.m. MDT By Rukmini Callimachi, Associated Press
Americans rush to adopt orphaned Haitian kids MSNBC, The Boston Globe, Denver Post
January 21, 2010
Autralia's Herald Sun Children ‘orphaned, petrified, in danger' after Haitian earthquake From:
AFP January 15, 2010 2:36AM
Bleak Portrait of Haiti Orphanages Raises Fears By GINGER THOMPSON Published: February 6,
2010
Child rescued from Haiti rubble is orphaned again by the Grio | June 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM AP
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.
Emma Wilkinson 2010 Haiti children face ongoing disease and trauma
Haiti Charges Americans With Child Abduction February 4, 2010, New York Times By MARC
LACEY
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/world/americas/05orphans.html?pagewanted=all&_r
=0
Interest soars on adopting Haitian orphans The Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2010
Kiran Randhawa 15 January 2010 Fears for two million children alone in Haiti earthquake
wreckage http://www.standard.co.uk/news/fears-for-two-million-children-alone-in-haiti-
earthquake-wreckage-6755389.html
Missionary Case Illuminates Plight of Haiti's Orphans Wall Street Journal February 3, 2010 By
DAVID GAUTHIER-VILLARS, JOEL MILLMAN And MIRIAM JORDAN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575043691704446642.html
Reuters Bleak Portrait of Haiti Orphanages Raises Fears
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8489738.stm
Ten U.S. missionaries charged over attempt to kidnap and smuggle Haiti 'orphans' The Daily
Mail 5 February 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248671/Ten-U-S-
missionaries-charged-attempt-kidnap-smuggle-Haiti-orphans.html#ixzz2SfFe1JfT
Tens Of Thousands Of Children Orphaned In Haiti NPR January 20, 2010
The Evangelical Adoption Crusade Kathryn Joyce April 21, 2011
The N.Y. Times 2/06/10
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/07/world/07trafficking_span-
CA0/07trafficking_CA0-articleLarge.jpg
The Telegraph, January 28th, “ Haiti Earthquake: Orphans for Sale for $50” or
The Times January 23, 2010 Call for halt to Haiti adoptions over traffickers Martin Fletcher in
Port-au-Prince Painful plight of Haiti's 'restavec' children
Traffickers targeting Haiti's children, human organs, PM says By Tom Evans, CNN January 27,
2010 10:21 p.m. EST
Two million orphan children at risk after Haiti earthquake The Mirror, January 15th 2010
US missionaries in Haiti charged with child abduction BBC News Friday, 5 February 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8499401.stm
Wall Street Journal February 5, 2010 Haitians, Parents Defend Arrested Americans JOEL
MILLMAN in Callebasse, Haiti and JEFFREY BALL in Twin Falls, Idaho
Worldnews.com on the 22nd of February, “Children in Haiti Sold for as Little as One Euro”).
 ANTHROPOLOGIE ET SOINS INFORMELS

Anderson, Jeanine 2009 Assembling and Disassembling Families The Journal of Latin American
and Caribbean Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 185–198.
Blum, Ann S. 2007 Abandonment, Adoption and Reproductive Disruption: Transitions in child
circulation in Mexico City, 1880–1910. Childhood 14: 321–338.
Bowie, Fiona, ed Cross-Cultural Approaches to Adoption.. New York: Routledge, 2005. 279 pp.
Burrows, E. G., and M. E. Spiro 1953 An Atoll Culture. New Haven: HRAF.
Caretakers, Child Care Practices, and Growth Failure in Highland Ecuador In Medical
Anthropology Quarterly 14(2):224-241.
Cooper, Elizabeth 2008 Children’s Homes to Children’s Villages In Anthropology News pp. 26-
27
Cultures of Transnational Adoption.Toby Alice Volkman, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 2005. 232 pp.
Esben Leifsen Adoption and the Governing of Child Welfare in 20th Century Quito: The Journal
of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology Volume 14. Issue 1. April 2009 (Pages 68 - 91)
Fonseca, Claudia 2002 Inequality Near and Far: Adoption as Seen from the Brazilian Favelas.
Law and Society Review 36(2): 397–431.
Goody, Esther 1982 Parenthood and Social Reproduction. New York Cambridge University
Press.
Goody, Jack 1969 Adoption in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and
History 2:55-78.
Goody, Jack 1982 Parenthood and Social Reproduction Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
If I Give You My Child, Aren’t We Family? A Study of Birthmothers Participating in Marshall
Islands—U.S. Adoptions
J. L. 1955 FISCHER Avunculocal Residence on Losap American AnthropoEog4st 57,
Keesing, Roger M. 1970 American Anthropologist 72(5):991 - 1019
Laura L. Betzig Adoption by Rank on Ifaluk In American Anthropologist Volume 90. Issue 1.
March 1988 (Pages 111 - 119)
Leifsen, 2009 The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1–
19.
Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. 2007 On moving children: The social implications of Andean child
circulationAmerican Ethnologist _ 34 (1):163-177
Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. 2008 The Circulation of Children: Adoption, Kinship, andMorality in
Andean Peru. Durham: Duke University Press.
Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. and Linda J. Seligmann 2009 Introduction: Cultural and Political
Economies of Adoption in Latin America In The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean
Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1–19. 1935-4940. &
Leinaweaver, Jessaca B. and Linda J. Seligmann Introduction: Cultural and Political Economies
of Adoption in Latin America The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, Vol.
14, No. 1, pp. 1–19.
Levy, Robert 1973 The Tahitians: Mind and Experience in the Society Islands. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Liliuokalani 1990 Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.
Lockhart, James 1968 Spanish Peru, 1532–1560: A Social History. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Lowie, Robert 1933 Adoption. In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. E. A. Seligman and A.
Johnson, eds. Pp. 459460. New York Macmillan and Company.
Lutz, C. 1980 Emotion Words and Emotional Developmenton Ifaluk Atoll. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.
Marshall, Mac 1977 The Nature of Nurture. American Ethnologist 4( 4):643-662.
Milanich, Nara 2004 The Casa de Huerfanos and Child Circulation in Late-Nineteenth-Century
Chile. Journal of Social History 38(2): 311–340.
Murray, Gerald Matthew McPherson and Tim Schwartz 1998 Fading Frontier: An
Anthropological Analysis of the Agroeconomy and Social Organization of
the Border Department of Anthropology University of Florida. Funded by USAID/Domincan
Republic.
Oths (1999:294) American Indians By the Numbers From the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 Read
more: American Indians: Census Facts | Infoplease.com
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmcensus1.htbml#ixzz2hNBFfGnC
Robert H. Lowie Adoption among the Gunantuna. Joseph Meier, M. S. C: American
Anthropologist Volume 32. Issue 1. January 1930 (Pages 178 - 178)
Roby, Jini L. 2011 Children In Informal Alternative Care. UNICEF
Rosman, Abraham and Rubel, Paula G. The Tapestry of Culture: An Introduction to Cultural
Anthropology. Mcgraw-Hill College, 1995
Seligmann 2009 The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.
1–19.
SILK, JOAN B. Adoption Among the Inuit Ethos, Volume 15, Issue 3 (September 1987) Pages:
320-330
Silk, Joan B. Adoption and Kinship in Oceania American Anthropologist, Volume 82, Issue 4
(December 1980) Pages: 799-820
Terrel, John, 1994 Anthropology and Adoption. American Anthropologist 96:155
The Circulation of Children: Kinship, Adoption and Morality in Andean Peru by Jessaca B.
Leinaweaver The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology Volume 14. Issue 1.
April 2009 (Pages 220 - 224)
Twinam, Ann 1999 Public Lives, Private Secrets: Gender, Honor, Sexuality, and Illegitimacy in
Colonial Spanish America. Stanford: Stanford University Press. BETZIC, LAURA L. 1988 Adoption
by Rank on Ifaluk In AMERICAANN THROPOLOGIST 90:112-119
Weismantel, Mary 1995 Making Kin: Kinship Theory and Zumbagua Adoptions. American
Ethnologist. 22(4): 685–709.

INSTITUTIONS POUR ENFANTS DE TYPE RESIDENTIEL (IERs)

Ah Ken, Patricia Lim 2007 Children without Parental Care in the Caribbean :Systems of
Protection. CARICOM

“With the best intentions: A study of attitudes towards residential care in Cambodia”, MoSVY,
2011, available at http://www.unicef.org/cambodia/

UNICEF 2004 Children in Residential Care The Zimbabwean Experience

Research team : G. Powell, T. Chinake, D. Mudzinge, W. Maambira, S. Mukutiri

UNICEF 2003 Children In Institutions: The Beginning Of The End? Innocenti Research Centre
Innocenti Insight

Williamson, John and Aaron Greenberg 2010 Families, Not Orphanages. Better Care Network
Working Paper
Ajayi, S.and Quigley, M.(2006) 'By Degrees: Care Leavers in Higher Education' in E. Chase, A.
Simon, and S. Jackson (eds.) In Care and After: A Positive Perspective. London: Routledge.
Aldgate, J. (2006) 'Ordinary Children in Extraordinary Circumstances'. In D. Iwaniec (ed.) The
Child's Journey Through Care: Placement Stability, Care Planning, and Achieving
Permanence West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Argentina’s Lost Decade, CLAE Working Paper No 0401 (August 2001), Dallas: Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas Center for Latin American Economics.

A Kendrick (2003): Abuse Of Children In Residential And Foster Care: A Brief Review, SIRCC
Research papers, Glasgow: Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care.

UNICEF (2003): Africa’s Orphaned Generations , New York: UNICEF.

Bergin, A.E. (1983) 'Religiosity and Mental Health: A Critical Re-evaluation and Meta-analysis'
in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 14, 2, 170-184.
Berridge, D. and Brodie, I. (1998) Children's Homes Revisited. London: JKP.
Biehal, N. and Wade, J. (1999) 'I Thought it Would be Easier: The Early Housing Careers of
Young People Leaving Care' in J. Rugg (ed.) Young People, Housing and Social Policy. London:
Routledge.
Biehal, N., Clayden, J., Stein, M. and Wade, J. (1995) Moving On: Young People and Leaving
Care Schemes. London: HMSO.
Borge, A.(1996)'Developmental Pathways of Behaviour Problems in the Young Child: Factors
Associated with Continuity and Change' in Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 37, 2, 195-204.
Bowlby, J. (1951) Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva: WHO.
Cashmore,J., Paxman, M. and Townsend, M. (2007)'The Educational Outcomes of Young
People 4-5 Years After Leaving Care: An Australian Perspective' in Adoption and Fostering 31,
1, 50-61.
Chakrabarti, M.and Hill, H. (eds.)(2000)Residential Childcare: International Perspectives on
Links with Families and Peer. London. JKP.
Children's Homes Revisited, David Berridge and Isabelle Brodie, London, Jes-. sica Kingsley
Publishers Ltd., 1998, pp. 190, ISBN 1 85302 565 8
Clough, R., Bullock, R. and Ward, A. 2006 What works in residential child care? A review of
research evidence and the practical considerations, London: National Children’s Bureau.
Dixon, J. and Stein, M. (2002) Still A Bairn? Throughcare and Aftercare Services in Scotland:
Final Report to the Scottish Executive. Available at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/health/stillabairn.pdf/. Accessed on 3 February, 2006.
Dziech, B.W. and Hawkins, M.W. (1998) Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: Reflections
and New Perspectives. London: Garland.
Emler, N. (2005) 'Life Course Transitions and Social Identity Change' in P. Levy, P. Ghisetta,
J.M. Le Goff, D. Spini, and E. Widmer (eds.) Towards An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the
Life Course. New York: Elsevier.
European Commission 2009 Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Transition from
Institutional to Community-based Care European Commission Directorate-General for
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Fletcher-Campbell, F. (1997) The Education of Looked After Children. Slough: National
Foundation for Education Research.
Fowler, R.D. (1996) 'Vulnerability and Resilience' in The American Psychology 51, 1, 22-27.
Francis, J. (2000) 'Investing in Children's Futures: Enhancing the Educational Arrangements of
"Looked After" Children and Young People' in Child and Family Social Work 5, 1, 23-33.
Frankel, B.G. and Hewitt, W.E. (1994) 'Religion and Wellbeing among Canadian University
Students: The Role of Faith Groups on Campus' in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
33, 1, 62-73.
Frost, N., Mills, S. and Stein, M. (1999) Understanding Residential Child Care. Ashgate: Arena.
Garmezy, N. (1993) 'Children in Poverty: Resilience Despite Risk' in Psychiatry 56, 1, 127-136.
Gilligan, R. (1999) 'Enhancing the Resilience of Young Children and Young People in Public Care
by Mentoring their Talents and Interests' in Child and Family Social Work 4, 3, 187-196.
Gilligan, R. (2005) 'Resilience and Residential Care for Children and Young people' in D.
Crimmens and I. Milligan (eds.) Facing Forward: Residential Care in the 21st Century. Dorset:
Russell House.
Gilligan, R. (2012) 'Children, Social Networks and Social Support' in M. Hill, G. Head, A. Lockyer,
B. Reid, and R. Taylor (eds.) Children's Services: Working Together. Harlow: Pearson.
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
W Goldfarb (1945), Effects Of Psychological Deprivation In Psychiatry, Vol 102, pages 18-33.
Harker, R., Dobel-Ober, D., Berridge, D. and Sinclair, R. (2005) Taking Care of Education: An
Evaluation of the Education of Looked After Children. London: National Children's Bureau.
Hayden, C. (1997) 'Children Excluded from Primary School: Children "in Need" and Children
with "Special Educational Needs"' in Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 2, 3, 36-45.
Horwath, Jan 2000 Childcare with Gloves On: Protecting Children and Young People in
Residential Care. In British Journal of Social Work 30:179-191
Horwath, Jan 2000 Childcare with Gloves On: Protecting Children and Young People in
Residential Care. In British Journal of Social Work 30:179-191
Howe, D. (2000) Attachment: In a Child's World. London: Department of Health.
Islam, Tuhinul 2012 The Experiences of Young People Leaving Residential Childcare
Institutions in Bangladesh PhD research and studies at the University of Edinburgh,

J Bowlby (1951): Maternal Care And Mental Health, WHO Monograph Series No 2, Geneva:
World Health Organisation. J Bowlby (1969):

Jackson, S. and Sachdev, D. (2001) Better Education, Better Futures: Research, Practice and
the Views of Young People in Public Care. Barnardos: Ilford.
Jayathilake, R.and Amarasuriya, H. (2005) Home Truths: Children's Rights in Institutional Care
in Sri Lanka. Colombo: Save the Children Sri Lanka.
Koenig, H.G. (1997) Is Religion Good for Your Health? Effects of Religion on Mental and
Physical Health. New York: Haworth Press.
Kroger, J. (2003) 'Identity Development during Adolescence' in G.R. Adams and M.D.
Berzonsky (eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Lalzallana, J. (2008) Home Truths: Children in Residential Institutions in Mizoram. Mizoram:
Human Rights and Law Network.
Martin, F. and Sudrajat, T.(2007) Someone That Matters: The Quality of Care in Childcare
Institutions in Indonesia. Jakarta: Save the Children UK/The Ministry of Social Affairs
(DEPSOS)/UNICEF.
Martin, Pearl Y. and Jackson, S. (2002) 'Educational Success for Children in Public Care: Advice
from a Group of High Achievers' in Child and Family Social Work 7, 2, 121-130.
McKenzie, Richard B. 2009 Home Away From Home: The Forgotten History of
OrphanagesHardcover – August 1, 2009
Mendes, P. and Moslehuddin, B. (2004) 'Graduating from the Child Welfare System: A
Comparison of the UK and Australian Leaving Care Debates' International Journal of Social
Welfare 13, 4, 332-339.
Pinkerton, J. and McCrea, R. (1999) Meeting the Challenge? Young People Leaving Care in
Northern Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Porter, R. (1984) Teenagers Leaving Care. Norwich: University of East Anglia.
Quinn, J. (1995) 'Positive Effects of Participation' in M. Rutter (ed.) Psychological Disturbances
in Young People: Challenge for Prevention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rutter, M. (1984) 'Resilient Children, Why Some Disadvantaged Children Overcome Their
Environments and How We Can Help' in Psychology Today, March 57-65.
Rutter, M. (1990) 'Psychosocial Resilience and Protective Mechanisms' in J. Rolf, A. Masten, D.
Cicchetti, K. Nuechterlein and S. Weintraub (eds.) Risk and Protective Factors in the
Development of Psychopathology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schofield, G., Beek, M., Sargent, K. and Thoburn, J. (2000) Growing Up in Foster Care. London:
BAAF.
Sedlak, Andrea J. and Karla S. McPherson 2010 US Detention Homes

Sedlak, Andrea J. and Karla S. McPherson 2010 Conditions of Confinement Findings From the
survey of youth in residential Placement U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice
Programs; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Shaw, Julie 2013 Why Do Young People Offend in
Children’s Homes? Research, Theory and Practice British Journal of Social Work (2013) 1–17
British Journal of Social Work Advance Access published March 13, 2013
Shaw, Julie 2013 Why Do Young People Offend inChildren’s Homes? Research, Theory and
Practice British Journal of Social Work (2013) British Journal of Social Work 1–17
Sinclair, I. and Gibbs, I. (1996) Quality of Care in Children's Homes: A Short Report and Issues
Paper. Social Work Research and Development Unit: University of York.
Sinclair, I. and Gibbs, I. (1998) Children's Homes: A Study in Diversity. Chichester: John Wiley.
Smith Mark 2009 Rethinking Residential Child CARE Positive perspectives. The Policy Press
University of Bristol

Stansbury, James P. And William R. Leonard Kathleen M. Dewalt 2000

Stansbury, James P. And William R. Leonard Kathleen M. Dewalt 2000 Caretakers, Childcare
Practices, and Growth Failure in Highland Ecuador Medical Anthropology Quarterly 14(2):224-
241.
Stein, M. (1994) 'Leaving Care, Education and Career Trajectories' in Oxford Review of
Education 20, 3, 349-360.
Stein, M. (1999) 'Leaving Care: Reflections and Challenges' in O. Stevenson (ed.) Child Welfare
in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Stein, M. (2002) 'Leaving Care' in D. McNeish, T. Newman, and H. Roberts (eds.) What Works
for Children? Buckingham: Open University Press.
Stein, M. (2008) 'Transitions from Care to Adulthood: Messages from Research for Policy and
Practice' in M. Stein and E.R. Munro (eds.) Young People's Transitions from Care to Adulthood:
International Research and Practice. London: JKP.
The Children's Aid Society. "Foster Care History & Accomplishments." The Children's Aid
Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2013.
Tizard, B. (1986) The Care of Young Children: Implications for Recent Research. London:
Thomas Coram Research Unit.
Tolfree, D. (1995) Roofs and Roots: The Care of Separated Children in Developing World.
Aldershot: Arena.
Triseliotis, J. (1973) In Search of Origins: The Experience of Adopted People. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Triseliotis, J. (1988) ‘Residential care from a historical perspective’, in J.E. Wilkinson and G.
O’Hara (eds) Our children: Residential and community care, London: National Children’s
Bureau.
UNICEF Alternative Child Care Services in Armenia: Costing Residential Care Institutions and
Community Based Services UNICEF Armenia July 2010 ISBN: 978-9939-50-133-8
UNICEF (2008) What You Can Do About Alternative Care in South Asia: An Advocacy Tool Kit.
Nepal: UNICEF.
UNICEF 2004 Children in Residential Care The Zimbabwean Experience Research Team: G.
Powell, T. Chinake, D. Mudzinge, W. Maambira, S. Mukutiri
UNICEF 2004 Children on the Brink: A Joint Report of New Orphan Estimates and a Framework
for Action United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
UNICEF 2006 Guidelines & Standards Residential Care For Vulnerable Children & Youth
Lesotho
UNICEF 2007 Women and Children the Double Dividend of Gender Equality
UNICEF 2012 Partnering with Religious Communities for Children
Whetten K, Ostermann J, Whetten RA, Pence BW, O'Donnell K, et al. (2009) A Comparison of
the Wellbeing of Orphans and Abandoned Children Ages 6–12 in Institutional and
Community-Based Care Settings in 5 Less Wealthy Nations. PLoS
ONE 4(12): e8169. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008169

Bissessur, Natasha 2009 Setting minimum standards for residential child care in Namibia

Youth Care. 1992. Bring back the orphanage? Child & Youth Care Forum, 06/1992, Volume
21, Issue 3, pp. 143 – 14

IERs DE EUROPE ORIENTALE

A Jones, W D Connor and D E Powell (Eds) (1991): Soviet Social Problems , Boulder:
Westview Press.
A Kendrick (2003): Abuse Of Children In Residential And Foster Care: A Brief Review , SIRCC
Research papers, Glasgow: Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care
C Barter (2003): Abuse Of Children In Residential Care, London: National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
Children’s Health Care Collaborative Study Group (1994): ‘The causes of Institutionalisation
of Romanian children,’ Child: Care, Health And Development Vol 20, pages 77-88.
D DeBell and R Carter (2005): Impact Of Transition On Public Health In Ukraine: Case Study
Of The Hiv/Aids Epidemic, British Medical Journal Vol 331, pages 216-219
D R Ransel (1988): Mothers Of Misery: Child Abandonment In Russia , Princeton: Princeton
University Press
D Tobis (1992) The Continuum Of Child Welfare Services: Principles And Practices For
Central And Eastern Europe, paper given at the Regional Seminar for East and Central
Europe, Sofia, September/October 1992.
D Tobis (2000), Moving From Residential Institutions To Community-Based Social Services
In Central And Eastern Europe And The Former Soviet Union, World Bank Regional Study,
New York: World Bank.
D Westhof (n.d.): Flow Model [Of] Institutionalized Children In Romania And The
Determining Variables , Geneva: UNICEF.
E Nemeniyi (2000): Assessment/Analysis Of Risks Leading To Deprivation Of Parental Care –
A Base For Design Of Prevention Measures , paper given at the First Regional Conference
on Children Deprived of Parental Care, Budapest, October 2000.
E Zamfir and C Zamfir (1996): Social Policy: Romania In The European Context , Bucharest:
Alternative Publishing House.
European Commission (2003): Proposal For A Council Decision On The Principles, Priorities,
Intermediate Objectives And Conditions Contained In The Accession Partnership With
Bulgaria , Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
European Roma Rights Center (2005): Stigmata: Segregated Schooling Of Roma In Central
And Eastern Europe, A Survey Of Patterns Of Segregated Education Of Roma In Bulgaria,
The Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, And Slovakia , Budapest: European Roma Rights
Center. Downloaded Jan 2005 from http://www.errc.org/db/00/04/m00000004.pdf
EveryChild 2005 Family matters: a study of institutional childcare in Central and Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union has been kindly sponsored by Burson-Marsteller
Brussels. www.bmbrussels.be
EveryChild (2000): Situation Analysis Of Children In Public Care In Azerbaijan For Unicef
Azerbaijan And The Ministry Of Education Of The Government Of Azerbaijan, 25 August –
15 September 2000, London: EveryChild.
F E Kydland and C E J M Zarazaga (2001), Argentina’s Lost Decade, CLAE Working Paper No
0401 (August 2001), Dallas: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Center for Latin American
Economics.
G Burhanova (2004): Recognition And Promotion Of Kinship Care In Kyrgyzstan On The Basis
Of Children In Institutional Care, Bishkek: EveryChild Kyrgyzstan
G Kligman (1992): The Politics Of Reproduction In Ceaus¸Escu's Romania: A Case Study In
Political Culture , East European Politics and Societies, Vol 6 No3, pages 364-418.
H Alt and E Alt (1959): Russia’s Children: A First Report On Child Welfare In The Soviet Union
, New York: Bookman Associates.
Jones, W D Connor and D E Powell (Eds) (1991): Soviet Social Problems , Boulder: Westview
Press.

K Lashkhi and N Iashvili (2000): Report For The Ministry Of Education Of The Government
Of Georgia On A Study Of 29 Children’s Residential Institutions , Tbilisi: Child and
Environment.
M A Burke (1995): Child Instituationalisation And Child Protection In Central And Eastern
Europe, Innocenti Occasional Papers Economic Policy Series No 52, Florence: UNICEF
International Child Development Centre.
M Elliott, K Browne, and J Kilcoyne (1995), Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders
Tell US. Child Abuse and Neglect Vol 19, No 5, pages 579-594.
Ois (2004): 2002 Yearbook Of Immigration Statistics, Washington DC: US Department of
Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics.
R F Carter (1999): Study Of Children’s Institutions In Osh Oblast, Kyrgyzstan, London:
EveryChild.
R F Carter (2001): Defying Prejudice, Advancing Equality – 1: Minorities In Central And
Eastern Europe And The Former Soviet Union, London: EveryChild.
R F Carter (2001): Defying Prejudice, Advancing Equality – 1: Minorities In Central And
Eastern Europe And The Former Soviet Union, London: EveryChild.
R Johnson (2004): Effects Of Institutionalisation On Development Literature Review For The
Eu Daphne Project Mapping The Number And Characteristics Of Children Under Three In
Institutions Across Europe , Birmingham: Birmingham University Department of Psychology.
A
R Vitillo (1992): Summary Of The Root Causes Of Abandonment, paper given at the Regional
Seminar for East and Central Europe, Sofia, September/October 1992
T G O’Connor (2002): Annotation: The “Effects” Of Parenting Considered: Findings,
Challenges And Applications , Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol 43, pages 555–
572.
T G O’Connor, M Rutter, C Beckett, L Keaveney, J M Kreppner and the English and Romanian
Adoptees Study Team (2000): The Effects Of Global Severe Privation On Cognitive
Competence: Extension And Longitudinal Follow-Up , Child Development Vol 71 No 2 pages
376-390.
UAFA (2000): Children’s Institutions In Azerbaijan: A Situation Analysis, Baku: United Aid For
Azerbaijan (UAFA).
UNAIDS (2004): 2004 Report On Global Aids Epidemic , Geneva: UNAIDS.
UNDP, UNDESA and World Bank (2000): Social Assessment Of Child Care In Bulgaria , Sofia:
United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Department for Economic and
Social Affairs and The World Bank.
 UNICEF (1995): Poverty, Children And Policy: Responses For A Brighter Future , Regional
Monitoring Report No 3, Florence: UNICEF International Child Development Centre.
UNICEF (1997): Children At Risk In Central And Eastern Europe: Perils And Promises

Regional Monitoring Report No 4, Florence: UNICEF International Child Development

Centre.
UNICEF (2004): TransMONEE Database 2004, Florence: UNICEF International Child
Development Centre
W L Pierce (2001): Incomplete International Adoption Data, Missing Context: One Reason
For Iavaan , International Association of Voluntary Adoption Agencies and NGOs.
W Moskoff (1980): Pronatalist Policies In Romania , Economic Development and Social
Change Vol 28 No 3, pages 597-614.
World Bank (1998): Project Appraisal Document On A Proposed Learning And Innovation
Loan (Lil) In The Amount Of Us$5 Million To Romania For A Child Welfare Project , Report
No 17465-RO, June 9 1998, Washington DC: World Bank.
IREs ET JEUNES DELINQUANTS

Barter C. Renold E. Berridge D. & Cawson P. (2004) Peer Violence in Children's Residential Care
Basingstoke Palgrave.
Bernat J (1999) Children and the Politics of Violence in Haitian Context: Statist violence scarcity
and street child agency in Port-au-Prince
Berridge D. (1985) Children's Homes Oxford Basil Blackwell
Berridge D. (1997) Foster Care: A Research Review London The Stationery Office.
Biehal H. and Wade J. (2000) ‘Going Missing from Residential and Foster Care: Linking
Biographies and Contexts’ British Journal of Social Work 30 211-225
Biehal N. (2005) Working with Adolescents: Supporting Families Preventing Breakdown
London BAAF
Biehal N. & Wade J. (2000) ‘Going missing from residential and foster care: linking biographies
and contexts’ British Journal of Social Work 30 211-225.
Brown S. (2005) Understanding Youth and Crime Second Edition Open University Press
Cliffe D. & Berridge D. (1991) Closing Children's Homes: An End to Residential Child Care?
London
National Children's Bureau
Department for Education and Skills (2007) Care Matters: Time for Change
Darker I. Ward H. & Caulfield L. (2008) ‘An analysis of offending by young people looked after
by local authorities’. Youth Justice 8 134-148.
Emond R. (2003) Putting the Care in to Residential Care: the Role of Young people Journal of
Social Work 3(3) 321-337
Garraud André Paul. 2005 Etude de la situation des enfants de rues pris en charge par des
centres de réintégration sociale à Port-au-Prince Ronald Jean Jacques Jores Philippe Jean
Jacques Ronald
Edwige Milien. Universite d’Etat d’Haiti Faculté des Sciences Humaines
Georges Islande. 2000. Influence de la carence affective sur le développement des enfants de
3 à 5 ans (étude comparative entre enfants d'un orphelinat et ceux vivant en famille).
Universite d’Etat d’Haiti Faculte des Sciences Humaines.
Girard P. (2008) ‘Sleeping Rough in Port-au-Prince: An Ethnography of Street Children and
Violence in Haiti’ Latin American Politics and Society Volume 50 Issue 2 pp. 201 -205
Joassaint Foider. 2003. Evolution de l'agressivité chez les enfants de rues a Port-au-Prince
pendant la décennie 90. Université d’Etat d’Haïti Faculté des Sciences Humaines
Hayden C. (2010) ‘Offending Behavior in Care: is children’s residential care a ‘criminogenic
environment’?’ Child and Family Social Work 15 461-472
Horwath J. (2000) ‘Childcare With Gloves On: Protecting Children and Young People in
Residential Care’ British Journal of Social Work 30 179-191
Lubin I (2007) Trajectoires d’enfants de la rue d’Haïti ayant bénéficié d’une intervention d’une
ONG visant l’insertion sociale. Que sont devenus ces enfants ? Thèse présentée à la faculté
des études supérieures de l’Université Laval
Muncie J. (2004) Youth and Crime Second Edition London: Sage
Murray S. Malone J. Glare J. (2008) ‘Building a Life Story: Providing Records and Support to
Former Residents of Children’s Homes’Australian Social Work 61 (3) 239-255
Sellick C. (2008) ‘The Use of Institutional Care for Children Across Europe’ European Journal of
Social Work 1 (3) 301-310
Shaw J. (2013) ‘Why Do Young People Offend in Children’s Homes? Research Theory and
Practice’ British Journal of Social Work 431-17
Utting W. (1991) Children in the Public Care: A Review of Residential Care London The
Stationery Office.
Utting W. (1997) People Like Us: A Review of the Safeguards for Children Living Away from
Home
London Department of Health.
Ward H. and Skuse T. (2001) ‘Performance Targets and Stability of Placements for Children
Long Looked After Away from Home’Children and Society 15 333-346
Wade J. Biehal N.Clayden J. & Stein M. (1998) Going Missing: Young People Absent from Care
Shaw, Judy 2013 Why Do Young People Offend in Children’s Homes? Research, Theory and
Practice In British Journal of Social Work (2013) 1–17

HISTOIRE

Ann-Louise Shapiro Housing the Poor of Paris, 1850-1902 Univ of Wisconsin Press, Dec 31,
1984 - Political Science - 224 pages
Harris, Rhian and Robin Simon 1997 Enlightened Self-interest: The Foundling Hospital and
Hogarth by Draig Press, London
Laslett, Peter, Parential Deprivation in the Past: A note on the history of Orphans in England
McClure, Ruth 1981 The London Foundling Hospital in the Eighteenth Century by (Yale, New
Haven 1981)
Oths (1999:294) American Indians By the Numbers From the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 Read
more: American Indians: Census Facts | Infoplease.com
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmcensus1.htbml#ixzz2hNBFfGnC
Smith, Andrea 2009 Indigenous Peoples and Boarding Schools: A Comparative Study by Andrea
Smith Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Eighth session New York, 18 - 29 May 2009
Prepared for the Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
The Foundling Hospital By Rhian Harris Last updated 2012-10-05 BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/foundling_01.shtml

ÉVANGÉLIQUES

Chesnut, R. Andrew. Competitive Spirits: Latin America’s New Religious Economy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003.
Christian History Magazine Protestantism Explode Interview with Samuel Escobar ISSUE
35 https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/protestantism-explodes/
Clifton L. Holland, Director of PROLADES 15 November 2012 The Growth of Protestant
Religions in Mexico and Central America Central America: Protestant Population Growth 1990-
2010 Compared To Poverty Levels In Each Country Produced by
Dow, James W. A paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Annual
Meeting 2003, Sheraton Norfolk Waterside, Norfolk, Virginia, October 23-26, 2003Oakland
[email protected] Draft of Jan. 1, 2005. Quotation permitted
Hofer, Katharina 2003 The Role of Evangelical NGOs in International Development: a
comparative case study of Kenya and Uganda In afrika spectrum 38(3):375-398
PewRearch Relgion and Public Life Project JULY 18, 2013 Brazil’s Changing Religious Landscape
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/18/brazils-changing-religious-landscape/
Protestants: Conversion in Latin America Friday, July 23, 1965 Protestants: Conversion in Latin
America -
TIME http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841922,00.html#ixzz2nLcBDP6
g
Steve Crabtree August 31, 2010 Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations United States is
among the rich countries that buck the trend by
Stoll, David. 1990 Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

AICAN (Australian Intercountry Adoption Network) Intercountry Adoption Statistics—by country

of origin
Briggs, Laura. 2012. Somebody's Children: The Politics of Transracial and Transnational Adoption.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Bunkers, K. M., Rotabi, K.S., Mezmur, B. 2012. Ethiopia: Intercountry adoption risks and
considerations for informal care.
Carr, Johnny and Laura Captari 2013 Orphan Justice: How to Care for Orphans Beyond Adopting.
B&H Publishing Group Nashville.

Davies, Miranda 2011 Intercountry adoption, children's rights and the politics of rescue. Adoption
& Fostering, , Volume 35, Issue 4, pp. 50 – 62
Dohle, Arun. 2009. Fruits of Ethiopia, Intercountry Adoption: The Rights of the Child, or the
'Harvesting' of Children? ACT published report Commissioned by: Wereldkinderen (N.I.C.W.O.)
Doyle, Joanne. 2010. Misguided Kindness: Making the right decisions for children in emergencies
Report written for Child Protection Technical Adviser, Save the Children UK.
Elliot, Diane Lynn. 2012. The Global Orphan Crisis: Be the Solution, Change Your World Paperback
Publisher: Moody Publishers; New Edition
Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society, 2004, Volume 2, pp. 638 - 640
Indian Orphanages. Marilyn Irvin Holt. New in paperback: October 2004
Gibbons, J. L. & Rotabi, K. S., 2012 Best practices in implementing the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption.
Graff, E.J. 2008 "The Lie We Love,"Foreign Policy magazine, Nov./Dec. 2008
Jociles, Maribel. nd. Construcción de los roles paternos en los procesos de adopción internacional:
El papel de las instituciones intermediarias / The Construction of Paternal Roles in International
Adoption Processes: the Role of Intermediary Institutions
Johnny Carr, Laura Captari. 2013. Orphan Justice: How to Care for Orphans Beyond Adopting
Publisher: B&H Books
Johnson, Dana. 2005 International Adoption: What Is Fact, What Is Fiction, and What Is the
Future? The Pediatric Clinics of North America, 2005, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp. 1221 – 1246
Joyce, Kathryn 2013 The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption
Good intentions?
Judith L. Gibbons (Ed.) and Karen Smith Rotabi (Ed.) 2012. Intercountry Adoption: Policies,
Practices, and Outcomes Publisher: Ashgate Pub Co.
Leventhal, Todd 1994 The Child Organ Trafficking Rumor: A Modern 'Urban Legend' A Report
Submitted To The United Nations Special Rapporteur On The Sale Of Children, Child Prostitution,
And Child Pornography By The United States Information Agency December United States
Information Agency
O'Connor, M.K. & Rotabi, K.S. 2012 Perspectives on child welfare: Ways of understanding roles
and actions of current USA adoption agencies involved in intercountry adoptions. Publisher:
Ashgate Press.
Parker, Roy 2012 International child adoption and national catastrophes Adoption & Fostering, ,
Volume 36, Issue 1, p. 4
Patricia Fronek and Denise Cuthbert 2012 History Repeating . . . Disaster-Related Intercountry
Adoption and the Psychosocial Care of Children Social Policy and Society, 07/2012, Volume 11,
Issue 3, p. 429
Pertman, Adam 2001 Adoption Nation How The Adoption Revolution Is Transforming America
Paperback: Basic Books; First Edition
Peter Selman, “Intercountry Adoption in the New Millennium,”; and “The Movement of Children
for Transnational Adoption: Tables for Paper Presented at The Globalization of Motherhood
Symposium,” Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, 14-16 October 2008
Smith Rotabi, Karen. 2012. Family Group Conferencing as a culturally adaptable intervention:
Reforming intercountry adoption in Guatemala.

_______2011. Force, fraud, and coercion in some Guatemalan adoptions: High-profile abduction
cases challenge the ‘best interests of the child’

_______2011. Intercountry adoption baby boom prompts new US standards: Practice declines in
the context of economic and social realities. Publisher: Immigration Law Association Press.

_______2011. In the era of reform: A review of social work literature on intercountry adoption.

_______Guatemala City: Hunger protests amid allegations of child kidnapping and adoption
fraud.

_______2012. Does the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption adequately protect

orphaned and vulnerable children and their families?

_______2010 Social Work and Intercounty Adoption-Waterloo Adoption Summit of 2010.

UN (United Nations) Le Rapport Mondial sur la Violence à l’encontre des enfants a été produit par
le Commissaire de la Commission Inter-Americaine des Droits de l’Homme, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro,
ainsi que le Rapporteur sur les Droits de l’enfant de la même institution, dans son étude sur la
Violence à l’encontre des Enfants au cours de son ancien rôle d’Expert au Secrétariat Général des
Nations Unies. Voir http://www.unicef.org/lac/Informe_Mundial_Sobre_Violencia_1(1).pdf
US Congress. 2010 Fourth Annual Report to Congress on Public Law 109-95, The Assistance for
Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005 A Whole-of-
Government Approach to Child Welfare and Protection 2005
 SCANDALES D'ADOPTION

(voir a Schuster Institute of Investigative Journalism)

http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/index.html

MISCELLANEOUS

Human Rights Watch, Fingers to the Bone: United States Failure to Protect Child Farm Workers 2
(2000)

Charles, Leon Derek and Sian Williams 2006 Early childhood care and education in the Caribbean
(CARICOM states) Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report
2007 Strong foundations: early childhood care and education
Annexe 1. Centres sélectionnés pour le questionnaire auprès des
enfants

Adresse Type
Nom actuelle d'institution Responsable Téléphone Statut Enquêté
1. La main tabarre 36 A Orphelinat Andre 3427-6861 / De √
tendre imp biata # ismaite 3671-6281 bonne
51 qualité

2. Projet Delmas 33 Orphelinat Jhon Louis 3424-0245 / de √

Papillon #5, rue Dieubon 3458-1474 / bonne
grenadia 3688-1517 / qualité
village 2943-
colofe 1757
(36881517)
3. Ambrassé 2, imp Orphelinat Delhomme 3624-7079/ de √
un enfant paciflor, rue sainte – 3690- bonne
Catalpa Thérèse/Max 7028/3704- qualité
Delmas 75 ean Atoine 7079

4. Organisati Carrefour, Orphelinat Celianie 3703-3977 / ? √

on pour Waney 87, # Valmond 3554-1868 /
l'Encadremen 466, 3464-6615 /
t des Demunis Institution 3554-1268
d'Haiti Mixte
(OEDH) Toussaint
Louverture
5. Centre de Fontamara Orphelinat Danielle 3709-4471 à √
la Mission par 43 # 7, Rue Celicourt amélior
la foi pour le Sassine pres er
secours des de l'Ecole
enfants par la foi
demunis

6. Orphélinat Petion-ville, Orphelinat Polinice 38049984 à √

thélusta pour rue borno varnia amélior
le bien-etre de prolongee er
l'enfants Mayaman
deminus
 Adresse Type
Nom actuelle d'institution Responsable Téléphone Statut Enquêté
7. Rose Mina Petionville, Orphelinat Sandra, 3445-5913, à √
de Diegue Route Rolande, 3462-4213, amélior
Freres, rue Marie 3623-1676, er
St-Louis Claude, 3797-8592
Jeanty # 11, Osvaldo
, pres de
l'Hopital de
la
Communau
te Haitienne
8. Maison Pétionville, Orphelinat Casimir 3664-6252 / de √
d'acceuil bon 54, pernier Hymler / 3414-3271 bonne
berger 40 prolongé Casimir qualité
wilfrid

9. Recolte Kenscoff, Orphelinat Narcisse Mie 3746-5124 à √

humanitaire 52, Duplan Evelyne amélior
/Harvest for 5, Fermathe er
humanites

10. Lakou Port-au- Orphelinat Perre 3421-3014 de √

Don Bosco Prince, Rue Lefhène bonne
salésiens qualité
#1, La saline
St Jean
Boscot
après le
carrefour
aviation.
11. Foyer Port-au- Crèche Mme Eveline 2234-1429 / de √
Notre-Dame Prince, Louis 3462- bonne
de la Nativité Fontamara Jacques, 5154/3449- qualité
27, Rue Stephan 2729, 848-
Douyon # 8 Louisa 448-6394,
bis 3462-
5154/3751-
3757/3723-
5260
 Adresse Type
Nom actuelle d'institution Responsable Téléphone Statut Enquêté
12. Foyer Tabarre 36, Orphelinat Emile 3817-8934 de √
Notre Dame Rue Sol Elisabeth (OK) mauvai
de Fatima Solon, Rue se
la Fleur #38 qualité

13. La Tabarre, Crèche Magaly 2812-6475. / de √

maison du Clercine 16, françois 3767-37-70 mauvai
partage se
qualité

14. Kay 28, BIS IMP Crèche Joseph Saline 3841-8624 / de √

Bone Timoun JEAN Montimor 3642-5183 mauvai
PHILIPE, se
PERNIER qualité

15. Boy's Carrefour, Orphelinat Gabriel 3462-7185 / de √

orphanage Ruelle Khan Molien, 3405-6865 mauvai
#10, rue Massolas 3894- se
charpentier, Klenor 8438/3689- qualité
mahotière 6866
79

16. Divine Diquini 63 Orphelinat Jean Daniel / 3705-7118/ à √

Ministries In prolonge Miguel 3746- amélior
Hope For Rue Theard Fenelus 5192/3431026 er
Children #36/ 8
Carrefour,
Mahotiere
75,
prolongee #
104/,

17. Hands Jacmel, Orphelinat Dr. Ken 3657- à √

and Feet Cyvadier, Pierce 9076/3173- amélior
Project rue 3215 er
canadienne
#11

18. Joy in Jacmel, Orphelinat Mangine 3878- de √

Hope Route de Nicholas 2886/3743- bonne
Meyer, Patrick 8858 qualité
 Adresse Type
Nom actuelle d'institution Responsable Téléphone Statut Enquêté
Entrée
Ballade
night club
19. Trinity Jacmel, Orphelinat Geilenfeild 3759-1408, à √
House route de Michael Petit 3650-1868 amélior
Wolf 3 Homme er

20. Centre Jacmel, Orphelinat Mirlene 3705-5973 de √

des jeunes Haut Bassin Vivens /3406-0311 bonne
fondation J.A Caïman/ qualité
Clermont Monchil II

21. VENEZ Carrefour, Orphelinat Mme 3691-2441 à √

ENFANTS Mon Repos Francoise S. (OK)/ 3931- amélior
ET VIVEZ 38 Rue # bastien / 0065 er
MIEUX 544 Frantz
Bastien

22. Centre Gonaïve, Orphelinat Jean Nadieul, 3780-2159, à √

de formation Route John Milo 3929-3036 amélior
et de nutritionnationale er
des enfants #1, 4e
section
communale
23. Centre Gonaïves, Oprhelinat de √
de #41, route Charlenor 3715-0747 mauvai
Rehabilitatio nationale Dieudonne se
n sociale des #1, qualité
Gonaives + Descahos
Ecole
24. Kay Gonaïves, Orphelinat Dufrene 3632-1206 à √
Espwa de Bretagne 1 Alfrene amélior
Imda # 12 er

25. Centre Haut de St Orphelinat Mme 3710-0284 à √

Vie Marie Marc Barbe Dieudonne amélior
Immaculee Batraville er
 Adresse Type
Nom actuelle d'institution Responsable Téléphone Statut Enquêté
26. Haiti Mirebalais, Crèche Patricia 3430-6924, de √
Children's Ruelle des Smith, Cenob 3724-6147 bonne
Home (HCH) enfants, Mathieu qualité
Artiboplage,
Chatulee

27. Mathie Lajeune - Orphelinat Paulius 3155-1759 mauvai √

u Vingt- huit Pignon Lucien se
qualité

28. Orpheli Lajeune - Orphelinat Pasteur 3713-9925 aucune √

nat Haiti Pignon Joseph informa
Mission Jeordany tion
Service
29. Maison Hinche, Orphelinat Jean Louis 3724-8504 / aucune √
Fortune Ruelle Lefort, 3915-8005/ informa
orphanage Veronique, Joseph 3655-1170 tion
Haiti Sheppa Petrice
Annexe 2 Questionnaire Appel et Directeur (version française)

1-Bonjour/Bonsoir. Nous travaillons pour le compte de l'IBESR. C'est une etude que nous menons
et nous allons partager les informations avec des organismes serieux qui peuvent aider les
enfants. Nous aimerions visiter votre local et aussi vous posez quelques questions. Tout ce que
vous direz restera secret. Nous vous remercions deja si vous etes d'accord, sionon pourriez-vous
nous introduire aupres d'une personne pouvant repondre a nos questions? S'il n'y a personne
nous allons considerer s=cela comme un refus.

2- Enqueteur*
3- Departement de residence du repondant*
4- Quartier ou se trouve le centre*
5- Quel est le nom de l'institution?*
6- Quel est le statut du centre?*
• fonctionne
• n'existe plus
• existe mais il n'y a pas d'enfants
• deplacer
• autre
7- Le repondant veut repondre ou pas?*
• Oui
• Non

INFRASTRUCTURE

8- Quel type de centre?*

• orphelinat
• creche
• pour les enfants de la rue
• pour handicape
• autre
9- Nom du directeur du centre*
9.9. Sexe du directeur du centre*
• Feminin
• Masculin
10- Numero de telephone du directeur du centre*
11- Numero de telephone du centre*
12- Second numero de telephone du centre*
13- Troisieme numero de telephone du centre*
14- Email du centre*
15- Sur combien de "centieme" est bati le centre?*

REPONDANT

16-Nom du repondant10.1- Sexe du repondant*

• Feminin
• Masculin
17- Quel poste occupez-vous au sein du centre?*
• directeur adjoint
• concierge/gerant du centre
• enseignant
• employe du centre
• autre
18- Quel est votre nationalite?*
• Haitien
• Americain
• Canadien
• Autre

ENFANTS

19- Combien d'enfants compte le centre?*

20- Combien de fille?*
21- Parmi les filles, combien d'entre elles dorment dans le centre?*
22- Combien de garcon?*
23- Quel age a le plus jeune des enfants?*
24- Quel est l'age du plus grand des enfants?*
25- Parmi les garcons, combien d'entre eux dorment dans le centre?*
26- Combien d'enfants au total dorment dans le centre?*
27- Y a-t-il des enfants handicapes dans le centre?*
• Oui
• Non
28- Acceptez-vous les enfants seropositifs ou atteints du VIH?*
• Oui
• Non
ENFRASTRUCTURE

29- Avec quel materiaux est bati le centre?*

• mur et plafond en beton
• mur et plafond de tole
• en bois et tole
• autre
30- Combien de toilette y a-t-il?*
30.1- Quel type de toilette?*
• WC
• toilettes en bois
• toilettes en beton
• aucun
31- Ou sont places les toilettes?*
• a l'interieur
• dans la cours
32- Combien de toilettes est en service en ce moment?*31- Ou trouvez-vous de l'eau pour
l'utilisation quotidienne?*
• tuyaux
• camion
• a la riviere/source
• pluie
• puit
• fontaine
• autre
•
33- Combien de temps prenez-vous pour aller chercher de l'eau?*
• dans la cours
• moins de 15 minute
 • moins de 30 minute
• 2 heures
• plus d'une heure
34 -Ou trouvez-vous de l'eau pour boire?*
• tuyaux
• camion
• a la riviere/source
• pluie
• puit
• fontaine
• nous l'achetons tout traitee
35- Traitez-vous cette eau?*

• Oui
• Non

36- Combien de television y a-t-il dans le centre?*

37- Combien de radio y a-t-il dans le centre?*
38- Y a-t-il une bibliotheque dans le centre?*
• Oui
• Non
39- Y a-t-il un espace de jeux (balancoires, bac a sable, etc…) pour les enfants?*
• Oui
• Non
40- Y a-t-il un/des terrain (s) ou les enfants peuvent jouer?*
• Oui
• Non
41- Le centre a-t-il une voiture a sa disposition?*
• Oui
• Non
42- Y a-til une trousse de premiers soins?*
• Oui
• Non
43-Dans quel etat se trouve la trousse de premiers soins?*
• mauvais
 • bien
• bon
• tres bon
44- Y a-t-il un code de conduite écrit et publié où tous les employes peuvent le voir?*
• Oui
• Non
45- Y a-t-il un lieu pour resevoir les visiteurs?*
• Oui
• Non
RESPONSABILITE
46- Ou les enfants vont-ils pour les soins medicaux?*
• hopital prive
• hopital public
• dispensaire
• clinique
• Medecin "feuille"
• Autre
47- En cas d'urgence, ou conduisez-vous les enfants?*
• hopital prive
• hopital public
• dispensaire
• clinique
• Medecin "feuille"
• Autre
48- Quand a-t-on fait un bilan de sante pour les enfants?*
• depuis un mois
• depuis 3 mois
• depuis 6 mois
• depuis 1 an
• depuis 1 an 6 mois
• depuis 2 ans
• jamais

DISIPLINE
49- Quel genre de punition?*
• a genou
 • a genou sur une grage
• corvee
• Interdiction de jouer
• Interdiction de manger
• debout sur un pied
• debout dans un coin
• taper
• donner une fessee
• donner une fessee
• autre genre de fessee
• rien
• ne peut repondre
• autre

NOURRITURE
50- Combien de grosses casseroles y a-t-il a la cuisine?*
51- Combien de casseroles de taille moyenne y a-t-il a la cuisine?*
52- Combien de petites casseroles y a-t-il a la cuisine?*
53- Y a-t-il une reserve de charbon ou de gaz pour la cuisson?*
• Oui
• Non
54- Combien de repas prennent les enfants par jour?*
• un par jour
• 2 par jour
• 3 par jour
55- PAM distribue-t-il de la nourriture?*
• Oui
• Non

56- D'autres ONG donnent-elle de la nourriture pour les enfants?*

• Oui
• Non
57- Donne-t-on des fruits aux enfants lors des repas?*
 • Oui
• Non
58- Est-ce qu'on leur donne du jus et de la viande a chaque diner?*
• Oui
• Non

DORMIR

59- Combien de chambre y a-t-il?*

60- Combien y a-t-il de lit au total?*68- Les filles et les garcons partagent-ils la meme chambre?*
• Oui
• Non
61- Est-ce que les tous petits dorment-ils avec des enfants plus grands?*
• Oui
• Non
62- Pouvons prendre une photo de la chambre ou dorment les enfants?*
• Oui
• Non
63- Y a-t-il un adulte qui dort dans la chambre avec les enfants la nuit?*

• Oui
• Non

TECHNIQUE DE SOIN
64- Combien de personne y a-t-il pour prendre soin des enfants?*PERSONNEL
65- Combien de gardiennes y a-t-il?*
66- Combien d'infirmieres y a-t-il?*
67- Combien de medecin y a-t-il?*
68- Combien de travailleur social y a-t-il?*
69- Combien de cuisiniere y a-t-il?*
70- Combien de menagere y a-t-il?*
71- Combien d'enseignant y a-t-il?*
72- Combien d'autre personne y a-t-il que nous n'avons pas citer?*
73.-Quel est le plus haut nivo atteint par le personnel le plus qualifie du centre?*
74-Quel est le plus haut nivo atteint par le second personnel le plus qualifie du centre?*
75- Y a-t-il du personnel ayant une formation special concernant la gestion des enfants?*
• Oui
• Non

76- Vous parlez au directeur ou a une autre personne pouvant repondre a toutes les autres
questions?
• Oui
• Non

SI NON, ARRÊTER

************
SI OUI, CONTINUER
77- Qui est le proprietaire du batiment?*
• pour le fondateur du centre
• pour l'organisation
• pour le directeur
• pour l'etat
• ne repond pas
• location
• autre
78- Qui a finance la constuction de l'institution?*
• partenaire etranger
• l'etat
• l'eglise
• la communaute
• les fondateurs
• ne sait pas
• autre
79- Qui est le proprietaire du terrain?*
• pour le fondateur du centre
• pour l'organisation
• pour le directeur
• pour l'etat
• ne repond pas
• location
• autre
80- Avez-vous des institutions dans d'autres pays comme partenaires?*
• Oui
• Non
81- Quel organisation est votre plus grand partenaire?*94- A quelle religion adherez-vous?*
• catholique
• adventiste
• protestant
• pencotiste
• aucun
• autre
82- A quelle religion adherez-vous?*
 • catholique
• adventiste
• protestant
• pencotiste
• aucun
EDUCATION

83- Y a-t-il une ecole primaire associee au centre?*

• Oui
• Non
84-Y a-t-il une ecole secondaire associee au centre?*
• Oui
• Non
85- Y a-t-il des enfants qui sont sponsorises par des etrangers?*
• Oui
• Non

ETRANJÈ
86- Combien?*104- Y a-t-il des enfants qui sont sponsorises par des haitiens?*
• Oui
• Non
87- Combien?*106- Eecevez-vous la visite de touriste parfois?*
• Oui
• Non
88- Quel est le principal objectifs de ces visites?*
• former le personnel
• visiter les enfants
• choisir des enfants a adopter
• apporter des choses aux enfants
• visiter l'organisation
• evaluer le travail qui est fait
• Travailler dans l'infrasturcture
• autre
89- Quel pourcentage de ces visiteurs reviennent une seconde fois?*
90- Quel pourcentage de ces visiteurs reviennent une troisieme fois?*
91- Est-ce qu'il y a une enquete pour determiner si ces visiteurs sont des criminels?*
• Oui
• Non
92-A-t-on l'habitude d'adopter des enfants dans le centre?*
• Oui
• Non
93- Connaissesz-vous la "Convention de la Haye sur la Protection des enfants et la coopération
en matière d'Adoption internationale "?*

• Oui
• Non
94- Vous rappelez-vous de la derniere fois qu'une loi concernant l'adoption a ete vote?*
• Oui
• Non
95- Quand les enfants ont-ils le droit de visiter leur parents?*
• quand eux ou leurs familles veulent
• en vacances
• autre
96- Quand les familles ont-elles le droit de visiter les enfant (famiile biologique)?*
o quand eux ou leurs familles veulent
o en vacances
o autre

PRISE EN CHARGE
97- Combien d'enfants compte le centre?*
98- Combien de fille?*
99- Combien de garcon?*132- Avez-vous une liste de tous les enfants du centre?*
• Oui
• Non
100- Avez-vous un dossier de tous les enfants du centre?*
• Oui
• Non
101- Acceptez-vous n'importe quel enfant?*
• Oui
• Non
102- Est-ce vous qui chechez les enfants ou c'est leur parent ou d'autres personnnes qui vous
amenent les enfants?*
• nous partons a leur recherche
• famiile ou d'autres personnes
• la meme
• ne peut repondre
103- Quelle est la premiere condition pour etre admis au centre?*

• leurs parrains sont morts

• leur famille les neglige ou les a abandonne
• leur famille abuse d'eux
• leur famille n'a pas de moyen
• pour une meilleure education
• ne peut repondre
• autre
104- Quelle est la seconde condition pour etre admis au centre?*
• leurs parrains sont morts
• leur famille les neglige ou les a abandonne
• leur famille abuse d'eux
• leur famille n'a pas de moyen
• pour une meilleure education
• ne peut repondre
• autre
105- Est-ce que ces conditions sont ecrites quelque part?*
• Oui
• Non

106- Quelle est la premiere raison pour un enfant de laisser le centre?*

• leur parrain a plus de moyen desormais
• trop age
• d'autres personnes les prennent
• ne peut repondre
• autre
107- Quelle est la seconde raison pour un enfant de laisser le centre?*
• leur parrain a plus de moyen desormais
• trop age
• d'autres personnes les prennent
 • ne peut repondre
• autre
108- Est-ce que ces conditions sont ecrites quelque part?*
• Oui
• Non
109- Apres combien de temps pouvez-vous reviser votre point de vue concernant l'admission
d'un enfant?*

• hebdomadairement
• tous les mois
• tous les 2 mois
• tous les 3 mois
• tous les 6 mois
• chaque annee
• plus que chaque annee
• jamais
• ne sait pas
• autre
110- Est-il necessaire de fournir une preparation speciale aux enfants qui quittent le centre?*
• Oui
• Non
111- Fournirssez-vous une preparation speciale aux enfants qui quittent le centre?*
• Oui
• Non

112- Suivez-vous les enfants apres leur sortie au centre?*

• Oui
• Non
113- Sur chaque 10 enfants, combien ont une mere ou un pere ou les deux parents?*
114- Combien d'enfants etaient en situation de "reste avec" avant d;etre admis au centre?*
115- Combien d'entre les enfants ont des employes comme parents?*
ABUS, CONNAISAINCE DE LOI
116- Selon vous quel serait le plus grave abus qui puisse survenir a un enfant dans un centre?*
• abus sexuel
• abus violence
 • abus psychologique
• rien
• autre
117- Quel autre abus selon vous?*

• abus sexuel
• abus violence
• abus psychologique
• rien
• autre
118- Quel est la derniere fois vous avez eu a faire face a des abus?*
• abus sexuel
• abus violence
• abus psychologique
• rien
• autre
119- Quand cela s'est passe?*
• cette annee
• l'annee derniere
• il y a 2 ans
• il y a 3 ans
• il y a plus de 3 ans
• ne s'en souvient pas
• ne peut repondre
• ne sait pas
120- Qu'avez-vous fait?*
• appel les casec et les asec
• contacter la police
• contacter l'IBESR
• ne peut repondre
• ne sait pas
• autre
121- Connaissez-vous la loi concernant les punitions affligees aux enfants?*
• Oui
• Non
122- Y a-t-il une recreation pour les enfants tous les jours?*
• Oui
 • Non
123- Les enfants ont-ils des devoirs a faire chaque jour?*

• Oui
• Non
124- Connaissez-vous la loi sur le travail des enfants?*
• Oui
• Non
125- Avez-vous jamais entendu parler de la "Declaration des droits des enfants"?*
• Oui
• Non
126- Quelle methode de comptabilite est mise en place?*
• calcul mental
• comptabilite informatise
• comptabilite sur papier
• ne peut repondre
• il n'y en a pas
• autre
127- Avez-vous l'habitude de voyager a l'etranger?*
• Oui
• Non
128- Quelle strategie d'urgence est mise en place en cas de manque d'argent?*
• emprunter de l'argent
• le remplacer par le directeur adjoint
• demander de l'aide a l'etat
• faire appel a une organisation partenaire
• fermer l'institution
• ne sait pas
• autre
• aucun
129- Que feriez-vous avec les enfants si vous deviez fermer le centre?*
• les donner a d'autres institutions
• les renvoyer chez eux
• faire appel a l'etat
• ne sait pas
• autre
130- Par quel moyen recevez-vous des informations du GDH ou de l'IBESR?*

• par mail
• par telephone
• par radio
• journal
• quand il y a une rencontre
• lettre
• autre
131- Le personnel du centre a-t-il recu une formation dans le cadre de ce tarvail?*
• Oui
• Non
• Quelque uns
132- C'est quand la derniere fois que vous avez eu la visite d'un representant de l'IBESR?*
• 1 jour
• 2 jour
• 3 jour
• 1 semaine
• 2 semaine
• 3 mois
• 6 ois
• plus de 6 mois
• ne peut pas repondre

133- C'est quand la derniere fois que vous avez eu la visite d'un representant agree?*
• 1 jour
• 2 jour
• 3 jour
• 1 semaine
• 2 semaine
• 3 mois
• 6 ois
 • plus de 6 mois
• ne peut pas repondre
134-C'est quand la derniere fois que vous avez eu la visite d'un inspecteur de l'UNICEF?*

• 1 jour
• 2 jour
• 3 jour
• 1 semaine
• 2 semaine
• 3 mois
• 6 mois
• plus de 6 mois
• ne peut pas repondre
135-C'est quand la derniere fois que vous avez eu la visite d'un inspecteur quelconque d'une
organisation de la protection de l'enfance?*
• 1 jour
• 2 jour
• 3 jour
• 1 semaine
• 2 semaine
• 3 mois
• 6 ois
• plus de 6 mois
• ne peut pas repondre

136- Coordonnees GPS*

• latitude (x.y °)
• longitude (x.y °)
• altitude (m)
• accuracy (m)
Annexe 3 Appel et Directeur (version créole)
Bonjou/Bonswa. N ap fe yon etud pou IBESR. Etud sa n ap fe ak oganis ki serieu epi ki vle ede ti
moun. Objektif se pou konpran institutsyon ki ede ti moun, sa yo manke, sa yo gen pou ofri.
Enfomasyon antretyen sa ap rete konfidansyel. Kelkeswa saw di IBESR pap itilize saw di yo kont
ou oubyen poul ka konplete yon lot anket. Siw paka reponn kesyon yo, silvouple refere nou yon
moun ki kalifye ki ka fe sa. Si pa gen lot moun, nap konsidere sa tankou yo refi.

1- Ankete*

1.2- Depatman kote repondan rete*

2- Katye kot sant la ye*

3- Ki non sant lan?*

5- Ki stati sant lan?*

7- Vle oubyen kapab reponn?*

Wi
Non

7.1- Ki tip sant li ye?*

ofelina
krech
pou ti moun lari
pou andikape
lot

8- Non direkte sant lan*9. Direkte se fi o gason?*

Fi
Gason

9.1- Telefonn direkte sant lan*

9.2- Telefonn sant lan*

9.3- dezyem Telefonn sant lan*

9.4- twazyem Telefonn sant lan*

9.5- Email sant lan*

9.6- Sou ki kantite santyem te sant lan ye?*

REPONDAN

10-Non repondan an10.1- Seks repondan an*

Fi
Gason

11- Ki pos ou okipe nan sant lan?*

direkte
epous direkte
direkte adjwen
konsyej/jeran sant lan
anseyan
Anplwaye sant lan
Lot

12- Ki nasyonalitew?*
ayisyen
ameriken
kanadyen
Lot

TIMOUN

13- Konbyen timoun ki genyen nan sant lan?*

14- Konbyen fi?*

15- Nan fi yo, konbyen ki domi nan sant lan?*

16- Konbyen gason domi nan sant?*

17- Ti moun ki pi piti a, ki laj li genyen?*

18- Ti moun nan ki pi gran, ki laj li genyen?*

19- Nan gason yo, konbyen ki domi nan sant lan?*

20- Konbyen timoun ki domi nan sant lan en tou?*21- Eske gen timoun ki andikape nan sant lan?*
Wi
Non
24- Eske nou akespte ti moun ki gen SIDA/VIH?*
Wi
Non

INFRASTRIKTI

26- A ki materyo batiman an fet?*

blok epi kouvri ak beton
blok epi kouvri ak tol
An bwa epi kouvri ak tol
lot

27- Konbyen twalet ki genyen?*28- Ki tip twalet yo ye?*

twalet modenn (WC)
twalet an bwa
twalet an beton
okenn twalet

29- Ki kote yo plase twalet yo?*

andedan edifis la
deyo nan lakou

30- Konbyen twalet ki fonksyonel nan moman an?*

31- Kote nou plis jwenn dlo pou sevis kay la?*
tiyo
nou achte kamyon dlo
nan rivye/sous dlo
lapli
pi
fontenn
lot

32- Konbyen tan ou pran pouw al pran dlo sa ?*

nan lakou a
mwens ke 15 minit
mwen ke 30 minit
1 ed tan
plis ke 1ed tan
33 -Kote nou jwenn dlo poun bwe?*
tiyo
nou achte kamyon dlo
nan rivye/sous dlo
lapli
pi
fontenn
nou achte dlo tou trete

34- Eske nou trete dlo nou bwe a?*

Wi
Non

36- Konbyen televizyon ki genyen?*

37- Konbyen radyo ki genyen?*39- Eske gen yon bibliotek nan sant lan?*
Wi
Non

41- Eske gen balanswa, glisad, espas ki rezeve pou timoun jwe?*
Wi
Non

42- Eske gen teren/lakou pou timoun jwe?*

Wi
Non

43- Eske gen machin pou sevis sant lan?*

Wi
Non

46- Si gen first aid kit la?*

Wi
Non

47- Eta first aid kit?*

pa bon ditou
ok
bon
bon net

48- Kod de kondwit ekrit epi byen plase pou tout anpwlaye we l*
Wi
Non
51- Eske gen kote pou resevwa vizite?*
Wi
Non

RESPONSABILITE

53- Kote timoun yo jwenn swen sante?*

swen sante
lopital prive
lopital piblik
dispanse
clinik
dokte fey
lot

54- Kote yo mennen timoun yo nan ka ijans?*

lopital prive
lopital piblik
dispanse
clinik
dokte fey
lot

55- ki denye fwa yo te fe bilan sante pou timoun yo*

depi yon mwa
depi 3 mwa
depi 6 mwa
depi 1 lane
depi 1lane 6 mwa
depi 2 lane
sa pa janm fet
 DISIPLIN

56- Ki metod de pinisyon nou konn sevi avek ti moun yo?*

ajenou
ajenou sou graj
kove
entediksyon jwe
entediksyon manje
kanpe sou yon pye
kanpe nan kwen
kale sou min
kale sou janm
kale sou deye
kale lot
anyen
pa ka repon
lot

MANJE: Al kanpe nan kwizin

57. Konbyen gwo chodye yo genyen nan kwizen?*

58. Konbyen mwayen choye yo genyen nan kwizen?*

59. Konbyen ti chodye yo genyen nan kwizen?*

60. Eske yo gen resev de chabon oubyen gaz pou kwit manje?*
Wi
Non

61- Konbyen repa timoun yo pran pa jou?*

youn pa jou
2 pa jou
3 pa jou

62- Eske PAM konn bay manje?*

Wi
Non

63- Eske lot ONG konn bay manje pou yo?*

Wi
Non
64- Eske yo ba yo fri (fig, pom, rezen, eks…) nan manje yo?*
Wi
Non

65- Eske yo ba yo vyann ak ji chak manje midi?*

Wi
Non

ZAFE DOMI: al kanpe nan yon nan chanm kot ti moun yo domi

66- Konbyen chanm domi ki genyen?*

67- Konbyen kabann ki genyen an total?*

68- Eske ti fi ak ti gason domi nan menm chanm?*

Wi
Non

69- Eske ti moun piti domi ak sa ki pi gran nan menm chanm?*

Wi
Non

70- Eske yo dako pou pran foto chanm kot ti moun yo domi*
Wi
Non

72- Eske gen yon granmoun ki domi nan chanm nan lannwit?*
Wi
Non

TEKNIK SWEN/ PESONEL

73- Konbyen moun kap travay spesyalman pou pran swen timoun yo?*
74- Konbyen gadyenn ki genyen?*
75- Konbyen enfimye ki genyen?*
76- Konbyen dokte ki genyen?*
77- konbyen travaye sosyal?*
78- Konbyen kizinye ki genyen?*
79- Konbyen menaje ki genyen?*
80- Konbyen anseyan ki genyen?*
81- Konbyen lot moun ki genyen ke nou pa site?*
82.-Nan tout moun nan sant, moun ki rive pi lwen nan zafe lekol la, ki nivo li fe?*
Kindergarten
1eme ane fondamantal
2eme ane fondamantal
3eme ane fondamantal
4eme ane fondamantal
5eme ane fondamantal
6eme ane fondamantal
7eme Seconde
8eme Sekonde
9eme Sekonde
3eme Sekonde
Segonn
Reto
Filo
Inivesite
Lekol pwofesyonel
Okenn

83-Epi apre moun sa, sak gen plis lekol, ki nivo li fe?*
Menm baga ke anvan

84- Eske gen travaye oubyen reskonsab ki gen fomasyon espesyal nan dirije ti moun?*
Wi
Non

86- W ap pale avek direkte o yo ka jwenn direkte o lot moun pou repon tout res kesyon yo?
Wi
Non

87- Ki met batiman an?*

fondate oganizasyon an
oganizasyon an
direkte a
leta
pa ka reponn
lwe
Lot
88- Kiyes ki te finanse konstriksyon enstitisyon an?*
Patne etranje
Leta
Legliz
kominote a
fondate yo
pa konnen
lot

89- Ki met te a?*

fondate oganizasyon an
oganizasyon an
direkte a
leta
pa ka reponn
lwe
Lot

90- Eske nou gen patenarya ak lot enstitisyon nan lot peyi?*
Wi
Non

93- Ki pi gwo oganizasyon ki patnew?*

94- Ak ki relijyon li mache?*

katolik
advantis
protestan
pankotis
okenn
Lot

95- Epi sant sa, ak ki relijyon li mache?*

katolik
advantis
protestan
pankotis
okenn
Lot
 EDIKASYON

96- Eske nou gen yon lekol prime ki asosye avek sant la?*
Wi
Non

100- Eske nou gen yon lekol segonde ki asosye avek sant la?*
Wi
Non

102- Eske gen timoun ki gen blan kom sponso ki voye ed bay yo?*
Wi
Non

103- Konbyen?*104- Eske gen timoun ki gen Aysiyen an Ayiti ki sponso yo?*
Wi
Non

105- Konbyen?*106- Eske nou konn resevwa vizite ki sot lot bo?*
Wi
Non

109- Ki prensipal objektif vizit sa yo?*

fe fomasyon pou pesonel
vizite timoun
chwazi timoun pou adopte
pote bagay pou timoun yo
vizite oganizasyon an
evalye travay kap fet
travay nan enfrastrikti
Lot

111- Nan chak 10 vizite, konbyen tounen yon dezyem fwa?*

112- Nan chak 10 vizite, konbyen tounen yon twazyem fwa?*

113- Eske gen yon anket ki fet sou vizite sa yo pou evalye si yo gen kriminal ladan?*

Wi
Non
114- Eske yo konn adopte timoun nan sant lan?*
Wi
Non

117- Eske ou konnen "Convention de la Haye sur la Protection des enfants et la coopération en
matière d'Adoption internationale "?*
Wi
Non

119- Eske ou sonje ki le te denye fwa leta pase yon nouvo lwa sou adopsyon?*
Wi
Non

125- Ki le ti moun gen dwa vizite fanmi yo (fanmi natal)?*

Le yo oubyen fanmi vle
Sou vakans
lot

127- Epi ki le fanmi gen dwa vin visite ti moun yo (fanmi natal)?*
Le yo oubyen fanmi vle
Sou vakans
lot

129- Konbyen timoun ki genyen nan sant lan anko?*

130- Konbyen fi?*

131- Konbyen gason?*132- Eske ou gen yon lis de tout ti moun ki nan sant la?*
Wi
Non

136- Eske ou gen yon dosie sou chak ti moun ki nan sant la?*
Wi
Non

141- Eske ou aksepte kinpot ti moun ?*

Wi
Non
142- Eske se nou ki plis cheche timoun yo, oubyen se paran oubyen lot moun ki vin kote nou avek
timoun yo?*
nou ki plis cheche yo
fanmi o lot moun ki pote bay nou
menm bagay
pa ka reponn

143- Nan lis anba di m ki kondisyon ou plis aksepte timoun nan sant lan?*
parenn yo mouri
fanmi neglije o abandone yo
fanmi ap abize yo
fanmi pa gen mwayen
pou bon edikasyon
pa ka reponn
lot

145- Nan lis anba di m ki dezyem kondisyon ou plis aksepte timoun nan sant lan?*
parenn yo mouri
fanmi neglije o abandone yo
fanmi ap abize yo
fanmi pa gen mwayen
pou bon edikasyon
pa ka reponn
lot

147- Eske ou gen sa ekri yon kote, egkzakteman anba ki kondisyon ou aksepte yon ti moun?*
Wi
Non

151- Pou ki primye pi gwo rezon ti moun yo kon sot nan sant la?*
paren vin gen mwayen
rive nan laj
lot moun pran yo
pa ka reponn
lot

153- Pou ki dezyem pi gwo rezon ti moun yo ka sot nan sant la?*
paren vin gen mwayen
rive nan laj
lot moun pran yo
pa ka reponn
lot
155- Eske ou gen ni ekri yon kote egkzakteman anba ki kondisyon yon ti moun sipoze sot nan sant
la?*
Wi
Non

158- Apre ou pran yon timoun, nan konbyen tan nou konn revize rezon li avek nou?*
chak semenn
chak mwa
chak 2 mwa
chak 3 mwa
chak 6 mwa
chak ane
plis ke chak ane
janme
pa konnen
lot

159 - Eske li nesese pou bay ti moun yon kalite de preparasyon espesyal pou soti nan sant la?*
Wi
Non

160 - Eske nou bay ti moun yon kalite de preparasyon espesyal pou soti nan sant la?*
Wi
Non

165 - Eske ou swiv ti moun yo apre yo sot nan sant la?*

Wi
Non

169- Nan chak 10 timoun ou genyen konbyen ou ta di gen maman oubyen papa oubyen toude?*

170- Konbyen timoun ki te restavek anvan yo vin nan sant lan?*

171- Konbyen timoun ki la ki pitit o fanmi youn nan anplwaye yo obyen fanmi direkte o epous
li?*

172- Nan opinyon pa w, ki kalite de abus ki pi grav ki ka fet nan yon sant?*
abi seksyel
abi vyolans
abi sikolajik
anyen
lot
174- E apre sa, , ki kalite de abus ki pi grav ki ka fet nan yon sant?*
abi seksyel
abi vyolans
abi sikolajik
anyen
lot

176- Epi denye fwa nou te gen yon ka de abus nan sant la, ki sa li te ye?*
abi seksyel
abi vyolans
abi sikolajik
anyen
lot

178- Ki le li te ye?*
ane sa
ane pase
2 an pase
3 an pase
plis ke 3 an pase
pa sonje
pa ka reponn
pa konnen

179- Ki sa nou te fe?*

rele asek o kasek
kontakte lapolis
kontakte IBESR
pa ka repon
pa konnen
lot

183- Eske ou konnen lwa ki govenen pinisyon ke gran moun ka bay ti moun yo?*
Wi
Non

191- Eske ti moun gen yon rekreyasyon yo fe chak jou?*

Wi
Non

193- Eske ti moun yo gen yon kalite de devwa yo sipose fe chak jou?*
Wi
Non
195- Eske ou konnen lwa de travay ti moun yo?*
Wi
Non

197- Eske ou janme tande de Declaration de Dwa Ti Moun?*

Wi
Non

99- ki metod kontabilite pwinsipal ki an plas?*

konte nan tet
kontabililte enfomatize
kontabilite sou papye
pa ka repon
pa genyen
lot

200- Eske ou konn vwayaje lotbo?*

Wi
Non

203- Ki strateji ijans ki genyen si ou mouri oubyen si ta manke lajan?*

prete lajan
mete direkte adjwen an nan plas li
mande leta ed
rele yon oganizasyon ki patne nou
nap femen enstitisyon an
pa konnen
lot
okenn

204- Ki sa ou t ap fe ak timoun yo si ou oblije femen sant lan?*

bay lot institusyon
voye yo lakay pa yo
rele leta
pa konnen
lot
205- Koman ou resevwa enfomasyon GDH oubyen de IBESR?*
pa mail
pa telefonn
nan radyo
nan jounal
le gen rankont
yo voye let
lot

206- Eske moun kap travay yo resevwa fomasyon espesyal pou travay avek ti moun yo?*
Wi
Non
kek ladan

209- Ki denye fwa yon reprezantan IBESR te vin vizite nou?*

1 a 3 mwa
4 a 6 mwa
7 mwa a 1 ane
1 ane a 2 ane
3 ane
4 ane
5 ane
plis ke 5 ane
pa ka reponn
Lot

210- Ki denye fwa yon reprezantan agree te vin vizite nou?*

1 a 3 mwa
4 a 6 mwa
7 mwa a 1 ane
1 ane a 2 ane
3 ane
4 ane
5 ane
plis ke 5 ane
pa ka reponn
Lot
211-Denye fwa yon inspekte de UNICEF vizite nou, ki le li te ye?*
1 a 3 mwa
4 a 6 mwa
7 mwa a 1 ane
1 ane a 2 ane
3 ane
4 ane
5 ane
plis ke 5 ane
pa ka reponn
Lot

212-Denye fwa kinpot inspekte de kinpot lot oganis te vizite ou, ki le li te ye?*
1 a 3 mwa
4 a 6 mwa
7 mwa a 1 ane
1 ane a 2 ane
3 ane
4 ane
5 ane
plis ke 5 ane
pa ka reponn
Lot

213 - Pran koodone GPS*

GPS coordinates can only be collected when outside.

Satellite
latitude (x.y °)
longitude (x.y °)
Annexe 4. Questionnaire « gens de la rue » (version française)

Questionnaire Pour Stratifié 600 Interview, Enquête Péri-Urbain, Urbain Et Rural

Bonjour/Bonsoir. Nous faillons une etude....

1- Enqueteur*
2. Departement de residence du repondant*
2.1. Quartier de residence du repondant*2
3.1. Sexe du repondant*
Feminin
Masculin
3.2 Occupation principale du repondant*
4. Niveau d'education*
5. D'apres vous, un orphelinat est-il benefique?*
plus de mal
plus de bien
6. Connaissez-vous des enfants qui sont dans des orphelinats?*
Oui
Non
7. Pensez-vous que la plupart des enfants dans les orphelinats viennent des provinces?*
province
ville
La meme
8- Tenant compte de ces deux raisons, quel serait la premiere raison pour laquelle les gens
envoient des enfants dans des orphelinats?*
plus a l'avantage des enfants
plus pour aider la famille a l'avenir
11. Si une personne a un enfant dont elle ne peut pas en prendre soin et n'a aucune aide pour le
faire, avec qui doit-elle confier cet enfant?*
famille riche haitienne
orphelinat appartenant a des haitiens
orphelinat appartenant a des etrangers
Refuse de repondre
12. Quel est le deux plus grands dangers pour les enfants dans les orphelinats en Haiti? (plusieurs
choix possibles)*
abus sexuel
vol d'organes
manque d'education
ils vendent les enfants
ils maltraitent les enfants
les enfants vivent mal
autre
14. Selon vous, qui possede plus d'orphelinat en Haiti?*
Etranger
Haitien
La meme
15. Quel est la principale raison pour laquelle les etrangers creent des orphelinats?*
pour aider l'enfant
pour gagner de l'argent
autre
16. Quel est la principale raison pour laquelle les haitiens creent des orphelinats?*
pour aider l'enfant
pour gagner de l'argent
Ils n'en font pas
Autre
17. Seriez vous ddu mem avis si on disait "Les orphelinats sont une affaire d'etranger"?*
Oui
Non
18. Seriez-vous pret a laisser un etranger adopter votre enfant et partir pour un autre pays avec?*
Oui
Non
22. Seriez-vous pret a laisser un Haitien adopter votre enfant?*
Oui
Non
28. En general, est-il preferable d'envoyer un enfant chez une personne au lieu de le placer dans
un orphelinat?*
Autre fanille
orphelinat
24.1 SI une famille accepte qu'une autre famille adopte un de ces enfants, penzez-vous que
l'autre famille doit supporter economiquement la famille de l'enfant adopte?*
Oui
Non
29. Quelle est la principale raison pour laquelle une personne accepte de placer son enfant chez
quelqu'un en "restavek"?*
parce qu'ils n'ont pas de moyen
pour aider les enfants a aller a l'ecole
autre
31. Nom du repondant*
31.2 Numero de telephone du repondant*
32. Coordonnees GPS*
latitude (x.y °)
longitude (x.y °)
altitude (m)
accuracy (m)
Annexe 5. Liste des familles sélectionnées pour le questionnaire
auprès des familles
Nom du/des
Nom du Nom des Adresse de parents ou
centre enfants la famille relatifs Téléphone Survey Explanation
Projet Makenson ? Crystinana (ti 48398302 No no answer
Ambrassé
Papillon un Pierre Louis
DESRAVINE BON REPOS Ketya
nana) 34562487 survey Upload
Ambrassé
enfant un Guervara
DAJCORINE
S ? Orelus
FABIENNE 48581814 No
ed wrong
Ambrassé
enfant un Charles
SALOMON Port-à- Marie
BAPTISTE 373778976 No no answer
contact
Projet
enfant Emmauella
NEHEMIE Leogane
Piment Magaret
SERVILIA
(cousin) 31454269
37557796 survey Upload
Projet
Papillon Wideline
Lolo Silo Kajuste 31552595 No
ed Number out
Papillon Joacine 38196328 of service
Projet Jesula Martissant Sivil 28107794 No wrong
Projet
Papillon Labossire
Ermilus Cite Soleil 28107794 No wrong
contact
Projet
Papillon Wood
Nahomie Croix des Guerda Clervil 47231547 survey Upload
contact
Maison
Papillon Auguste
Gerlin Delmas
Bouquets60 Dieula Louis 3619-3677 No
ed no answer
Maison
d'acceuil bon Frantzo
Viviana Cebonet Kafou fey,rue
(belle mere 3719-7952 No wrong
Maison
d'acceuil
berger bon Jean
Charles felix delmas
Charles 33 Jean
Sicot felix 3829-0150 survey Upload
contact
Maison
d'acceuil
berger bon Steevenson
Betina kafou fey Pierre bertha
Fritzner(parrai
prolongee 3468-1823 no
ed Tel no service
d'acceuil
berger bon
Recolte Ardouin
Erica Chery n)
Damercile 3824-4114 survey Upload
berger
Recolte
humanitaire Mahotiere morne a Jean
Chery Marie 3749-6439 survey
ed Upload
VENEZ
humanitaire
/Harvest for Moricette
Rebecca Rivière
bateau,Gres Moricette
Yolene
(manman) 38609550 survey
ed Upload
VENEZ
ENFANTS
/Harvest
humanitesforET Alexandre
Widlens
Sharon carrefour
Froide
sier Legrand
Exanor
(manman) James
(père) 3 944 00 05 survey
ed upload
VENEZ
ENFANTS
VIVEZ MIEUX
humanites ET Elisseau
Legrand PauP
feuilles Dukens 3 347 3783 survey
ed upload
VENEZ
ENFANTS
VIVEZ MIEUX ET Alexandre
Nehemie Rivière Benissaint
Joseph 3 191 survey
ed upload
Foyer
ENFANTS
VIVEZ MIEUX de
ET Carline
Ericson Unknown
Froide Pierre
JanelusDestin
(oncle) 3824-4916
0273 survey
ed upload
Foyer
Notre Dame
VIVEZ MIEUX de Dianetelle
Destin Unknown Fenel Surin 4841-4742 No
ed out of service
Notre
de Dame
Fatima
Foyer de Surin
Selene Unknown Monique 3630-1315 survey upload
de Fatima
Foyer
Notre Damede Guy Claude
Renezil/ Unknown Katiana 4693-8308 survey
ed upload
Trinity
Notre Dame
de Fatima Unknown
Joseph
Jefferson cayes Rice Fritza 338 116 no
ed parents own
Trinity
House
de Fatima Jean
RenzilClarens wolf,
jacmeljacmel Paul Cyprien 3 795 3787
129 survey upload
center
Maison
House Unknown
Cyprien Raymond Charles
Ricardo 3 115 1726 no
ed no answer
Maison
chrétienne Unknown marché
les bains, Duvivier
Roosevelt 3 712 2657 no no answer
Centre
chrétienne
de la Frantzo Kafou
geffrard,
jacmel Cebonet
Harold 3719-7952 no Father
Centre
d'Accueil
de du
nouvelle vie la Jean
Charles felix delmas
fey,rue 33
jacmel Sicot Jean
Charles felix 3829-0150 survey upload
doesn’t if
Centre
d'Accueil
bon Bergerdu
nouvelle vie Steevenson
Betina kafou fey
prolongee Pierre bertha
Fritzner(parrai 3468-1823 no
ed voicemail
child is living
Divine
d'Accueil
bon Bergerdu Marcelin
Ardouin delmas 19 Yolene
n) 38052765 survey upload
in center
Divine
Ministries
bon Berger in Altema
Saintubin Cayes Evelyne
Moncoeur 48326504 survey
ed upload
Divine
Ministries
Hope in
for Linda Mole Jean Daniel
Georges 37057118 no
ed unvailable
Divine
Ministries
Hope
children forin Faustin grand goave junior Faustin 39224168 survey upload
Fondasyon
Ministries
children in
Hope for Georges
Sophie Joseph Sonia 3476-9842 no
ed out of service
Fondasyonfor
Timoun
Hope
children se Josue
Dany Colas Francois 3698-0098
3167-0937 survey upload
Fondasyonse
Timoun
Lespwa
children Adma Adma
Mirlande 3109-8395
3725-9546 no
ed out of service
Timoun
Lespwa se Admasson Lucienne
Lespwa
 Nom du/des
Nom du Nom des Adresse de parents ou
centre enfants la famille relatifs Téléphone Survey Explanation
Fondasyon Edwins Elene Pierre 3769-3571 survey upload
Fondasyonse
Timoun Carlos
Petion Mona Orphee 3473-2732 no
ed wrong
Fondasyonse
Timoun
Lespwa Rene
OrpheeLucner Rene Maxo 3481-4487 no no answer
number
Fondasyonse
Timoun
Lespwa Maxi Wilner Rosana Maxi 3453-4117
4613-4811 no voicemail
Fondasyonse
Timoun
Lespwa Cindy Marie Lourde 3726-5037 survey upload
Fondasyonse
Timoun
Lespwa Degramond
Joseph Clermicia
Joseph 3673-6049 survey
ed upload
Maison
Timoun
Lespwa se Plaisimé
Wilbens Bois Verna Plaisimé
Exivil 4 216 survey
ed upload
Maison
Fortune
Lespwa Louis
SophiaMarie Bassin Zim Vital
WilfridTelose
(père) ( 48652040
0583 no
ed voice mail
Mathieu
Fortune
orphanage Pierre
Denise Louis La Pila Delouche
maman) 4 606 survey upload
Mathieu
Vingt-
Haiti huit
orphanage Pierre
Delouche Lajeune Lucien
Clermene Judna ( 3185
5318 no
ed wrong
Haïti
Haiti Mission
Vingt- huit Dany
OlandaJoizil ( Au cap Pierre
maman)Edwige
tuteur) 32946650
8360. no wrong
number
Haïti Mission
Service Bernard
père) PauP Bernard 32292458 Survey upload
number
Haïti Mission
Service Holy Kenley
Vinalda Lajeune, Hilaire
Vercius (père) 33330435 no
ed child of
Haïti Mission
Service Mercier La Pilat
Pignon Mercier
Nerlande ( 37400876 no left
owener
Haïti Mission
Service Antoine
Judes Ranquitte Pierre
Ismalene
maman) Lucknas( 36100180 survey upload
orphanage
Centre
Service de Pierre
Boadley Rte des Rails Pierre
père) Joseline
(maman) 36378553 survey
ed upload
Centre
formation deet Michel
Woodjina
kerven Pont
( Gonaives) Michel
(maman) 36281011 Survey
ed upload
Centre
formation
de nutritionde
et Erius
Valancia Tarasse ( Damis
Quenêpe Schneider Chalicia( 32773415 no
ed wrong
Kay Espwa
formation
de et
nutrition
des enfants Du Frantz
Christela Jean Rabel
Gonaives) Jean
(frère)
maman)Francois 44360606 no voicemail
number
Kay
de
desImdaEspwa
nutrition
enfants Tullien
Jean St Marc Joseph Marc (
Agira ( oncle) 3 688 no voicemail
Centre
de enfantsde
desImda Michel
Sadrack
Monode Mandrin Jean
oncle) Louis 37241128
3205 survey upload
Centre de
Rehabilitatio Cadet
Mona Descahos Pasteur
Fritz ( oncle) 37150747 no
ed voicemail
Centre Vie
Rehabilitatio
n sociale des Primé
Louvens PauP Primé
DieudonneMartha 3 715 1874 survey upload
Marie
n sociale des+
Gonaives Carlens (Chalenord
maman) ( (tante ed
Immaculee
Gonaives
Ecole + ami de la Chantale)
Ecole famille)
Annexe 6. Services d’adoption agréés contactés aux Etats-Unis

Organisations qui ont répondues à la demande d’information concernant l’adoption en Haïti :

• America World Adoption

• European Adoption Consultants
Organisations qui n’ont pas répondues à la demande d’information concernant l’adoption en
Haïti (par email et/ou téléphone)

• All Blessings International

• All God’s Children International
• Building Arizona Families
• Carolina Adoption Services
• Love Basket
• MLJ Adoptions Inc.
• Wasatch International Adoptions
Annexe 7. Liste des centres pour le questionnaire auprès des
directeurs
Date de
Nom du centre Département Commune Type de centre création
1 Eden Garden Orphanage Artibonite Saint-Marc Centre Mai
1998
2 Amis De Jesus Ouest Kenscoff Centre Mars 18,
2010
3 Boy's Orphanage Ouest Carrefour Centre Mai 16,
1966
4 Centre Chrétien De L'Enfant Ouest Delmas Centre Mars 17,
Haïtien 1987
5 Centre De Formation Et De Artibonite Gonaives Centre Mars 31,
Nutrition Des Enfants 1997
6 Centre De Réhabilitation Artibonite Gonaives Centre Mars 01,
Sociale Des Gonaïves Ecole 2003
7 Centre Vie Marie Immaculée Artibonite Gonaives Centre Janvier
10, 2010
8 Kay Espwa De Imda Artibonite Gonaives Centre Juillet
2010
9 La Maison Du Sourire Ouest Leogane Centre Février
1987
10 Lamb Centre Ministries Nord-Ouest Port-De- Centre Novemb
Children Home/Hope Vision Paix re 2012
11 Maison Des Enfants De Dieu Ouest Delmas Centre Awaiting
respons
e
12 Maison Fortune PlateauCentr Hinche Centre Février
al 19, 2000
13 Ministère D'Evangélisation Et Nord-Est Ouanamint Centre Janvier
De Secours Sans Frontière he 2000
14 Nous Et Les Autres Nord Cap Haïtien Centre Awaiting
respons
e
15 Orphelinat Thelusta Ouest Pétionville Centre Juillet
2011
16 Orphelinat Ledier Plateau Mirebalais Centre Octobre
Central 13, 2001
17 Orphelinat Le Foyer D'Enfant Nord-Est Ferrier Centre Octobre
Esprit De Vérité 22, 1982
18 Orphelinat Odasca Ouest Carrefour Centre Octobre
15, 1995
 Date de
Nom du centre Département Commune Type de centre création
19 Zanmi Lakay Ouest Pétionville Centre Juillet
2010
20 Orphelinat Les Enfants de Jésus Ouest Kenscoff Centre Août
2005
21 Fondation pour les enfants Ouest Delmas Centre Awaiting
d’Haiti respons
e
22 Foyer accueil Lasalien Nord-Ouest Port-De- Centre
Paix Octobre
4, 2008
23 Foyer des orphelins d’Haiti Ouest Port-Au- Centre Juin 12,
Prince 2007
24 Foyer d'espoir pour enfants Ouest Port-Au- Centre
d’Haiti Prince
25 Haiti children’s home PlateauCentr Mirebalais Centre
al
26 Haiti Mission Service Nord Pignon Centre
27 Harvest for Humanity Ouest Kenscoff Centre
28 Hope children home Nord-Ouest Port-De- Centre
Paix
29 Kenbe timoun yo nouvelle Nord-Ouest Saint- Centre
mission Louis-Du-
Nord
30 Foyer Lakay Ouest Cite Soleil Centre
31 Maison d'accueil bon berger Ouest Pétionville Enfants des
rues/délinquant
s
32 Maison l’Espoir Nord-Ouest Port-De- Centre
Paix
33 Mathieu 28 Nord Pignon Centre
34 North western children’s home Nord-Ouest Saint- Centre
Louis-Du-
Nord
35 Organisation pour Ouest Carrefour Centre
l'encadrement des démunis
D’Haiti
36 Crèche Ciel bleu Ouest Croix-Des- Crèche
Bouquets
37 Les Petits Anges de Dieu/ God's Ouest Pétionville Crèche
littlest Angels
38 Brebis de st. Michel de Ouest Pétionville Crèche
L'attalaye
 Date de
Nom du centre Département Commune Type de centre création
39 Children Of The Promise Nord Cap Haitien Crèche
40 Foyer Notre Dame De La Ouest Port-Au- Crèche
Nativité Prince
41 Rivers Of Hope Ouest Pétionville Crèche
42 Rose Mina De Diegue Ouest Pétionville Crèche
43 Wings of Hope Ouest Kenscoff Handicappés
44 Location Mefibrochet Ouest Croix-Des- Handicappés
Bouquets
45 Maison Des Benedictions Nord Quartier- Handicappés
Morin
46 Centre de la mission par la foi Ouest Carrefour Enfants en
pour le secours domesticité
47 Centre d'accueil de Carrefour Ouest Carrefour Enfants des
rues/délinquant
s
48 Centre D'Accueil Des Enfants Ouest Croix-Des- Enfants des
Démunis D'Haiti Bouquets rues/délinquant
s
49 Fondation Timoun Se Lespwa Ouest Leogane Enfants des
rues/délinquant
s
50 Foyer Lakay Nord Cap Haitien Enfants des
rues/délinquant
s
51 Kay Timoun Ouest Leogane Enfants des
rues/délinquant
s
Annexe 8. Echantillon original des institutions sélectionnées au
hasard pour le projet
Type
d'institution:
orphelinat,
creche, autre
Nom Adresse Actuelle (precisé) Responsable Téléphone
PauP 30. New Port-au-Prince, #261, route Orphelinat J. Jacob 3457-7989/
Life Link des Dalles, Fort Mercredi Bernard, 3862-0650/
(foyer d'espoir pres du Fort Mercredi/ Miltha St- 3103-6070
pour les bolosse, fort mercredi #80, Fleur
enfants carrfour feuilles
d'Haiti)
31. Little Port-AU-Prince Orphelinat
Children of
Jesus Home

32. Institu Lalue #128 Orphelinat Soeur Marie 3835-8857/

tion Notre Veronique 3556-8840
Dame Victor + Robious
Ecole
Oeuvre Notre
Dame des
Victoires

PV 33. Foyer Nouvelle Adresse d'apres Dr. Elcy Lubin 3555-7331 /

du Soleil Ambassade de France: Faucher 3401-2912
Thomassin 25, rue de l'eglise
n25, face a l'epicerie.

34. Foyer Route de Freres, dans les Pasteur 3709-9074 /

des Enfants Gallets Impasse Egal #27, Franckel 3465-0886
demunis Pres Pont Metallique/ rue la
pepinière prolongée bas
Duval imp, union #1

35. Orphél Petion-ville, rue borno Orphelinat Polinice varnia 38049984

inat thélusta prolongee Mayaman
pour le bien-
etre de
l'enfants
deminus
Delmas 36. Centre Delmas 65, Ruelle Jasmin Past. Luc 3744-4237 /
Chretien de Henec # 21 Bas Caritas, A Edma 3461-9774
l'Enfant droite
Haitien
 Type
d'institution:
orphelinat,
creche, autre
Nom Adresse Actuelle (precisé) Responsable Téléphone
37. Childr INEXISTANT (Delmas 19,
en fondation of 2eme Ruelle Jeune, # 34,
Haiti DEMENAGE (Enfants
evacues a SOGED)

38. Orphelinat Delmas 31, Rue Catherine Orphelinat Altenor Carole 3417-6940 /
Fondation Flon # 4 maintenant avant 3708-8439 /
rorm pour les Delmas 31 Rue magloire # 3417-6937 /
enfants 25. 3798-4227
miserables
FREM
39. Collectif des Delmas 18, Rue Gedelene 3667-3245,
enfants Dartiguenave et Candio #8 Henri, Jean 3677-4992
demunis Claude
Tiburon pour Cetoute
la ronde
Nationale
(CEDTRON)
Site Soley 40. Centre Cite Soleil, Village des Pasteur Phele 3654-6581 /
d'accueil pour Rapatries, Fontaine Rte Rolin: 3846-6193
les enfants Neuve, Cite Soleil, Cité soleil,
necessiteux village des rapatries 2eme
boulevard rue jean price
mars.
Kafou 41. Foyer du Bel Paloma Rue la Paix # 9, Orphelinat Laurie Agenor 34-51-98-35 /
Amour 3407-7838 /
3901-2102 /
3791-1843 /
3451-9825

42. Orphelinat Debrosse Prolongee Villa Orphelinat Osirius Austin, 3727-5651,

Odasca Jasmin Trutier #3, autre Wania Austin 3923-0077
indice Eglise Pasteur
Christian, Ecole Odascat
43. Des mains Diquini 63 a cote du lycee Orphelinat Aloude 3687-8300
unies pour Henry Christophe Jouissance
sauver les
enfants
deminus
Tabar 44. Nid d'Amour Tabarre, #8, Village Edith Salomon 3755-2380
Montfleuri, Tabarre 48
45. Orphelinat Clercine 22, Impasse Cenor, Pierre Richard 3759-3689
Gaira Pres Village Theodat Mirand, Prima
(Village Jordanie
Theodat)
 Type
d'institution:
orphelinat,
creche, autre
Nom Adresse Actuelle (precisé) Responsable Téléphone
Kenskoff 46. Grace Fort Jacques 4 #12, a Marc Hubert 3489-
Children's l'entrée du sous Georges, 1237/2246-
Home commissariat de Fermathe Renold Jean 5526, 3475-
(veriefier l'addresse 3,, Bazin: 2624/3802-
Plaza Port de Paix 3879
pharrington@c
ox.net

47. AMIS DE KENSKOFF97 IMP MALVAL Orphelinat Nicolas 36927709 /

JESUS #8 Maxilien / 3705-1003
Jean
Kwa de 48. Organisation Croix des Bouquets, Marin M. Emmauel 3841-6242 /
bouke pour le 16 # 5, Route de Bon Repos, Deronville 3590-4754
developpeme La Plaine. 3415-6059
nt de l'etre
humain
(ODETH)
49. Maison de la Lilavois 1, rue de la Paix # 15 Orphelinat M. Louissaint 3860-6456 /
Grace Lilavois 3, # 26 Joseph 3722-1775
50. Centre Rte Nationale #1, Lilavois Solange 3475-5520 /
d'accueil des 53, Carrefour Marassa entre Pierre, Esnel 3763-3326 /
enfants Famosa et Institution Mixte Auguste 3727-3452/
demunis MEGA, Carrefour Chada Dos 3419-8131
d'Haiti BNC #66
(CAEDHA)
51. bonafides Bon Repos, Entrée Lizon 22
# 36 Bis
Leogan 52. Lamb Center Ave St Mathieu Rte Jeannot 3775-9652 /
Ministries Nationale #2 Macombe #265 Desseus 3751-4139
Children
Home
53. La maison Leogane, Haut Mithon orphelinat Soeur Elianne 3780-9493
Notre Dame St Jacques
de la Charite
54. Operation Route nationale #2 avant le
Love the pont
Children
(OLTCH)
55. New Voice Gesner Nozil 37874582
56. Maison notre Saint Jacques
Dame de la Elianne
Charite
Gonaive 57. Centre de Route nationale #1, 4e Orphelinat Jean Nadieul, 3780-2159,
formation et section communale, John Milo 3929-3036
de nutrition Gonaive
des enfants
 Type
d'institution:
orphelinat,
creche, autre
Nom Adresse Actuelle (precisé) Responsable Téléphone
58. Centre de #41, route nationale #1, Orphelinat Charlenor 3715-0747
Rehabilitatio Descahos Dieudonne
n sociale des
Gonaives +
Ecole
59. Centre Vie Haut de St Marc Barbe Orphelinat Mme 3710-0284
Marie Dieudonne
Immaculee Batraville
60. Maranatha La Carenne # 79 Orphelinat Mackendy 3662-9346 /
Children Philogene, 3629-4815
Room Nordeus
Anoux
61. Kay Espwa Bretagne 1 # 12 Orphelinat Dufrene 3632-1206
de Imda Alfrene
Kap 62. Croix Rouge Max Laroche, Rue 12 ORPHELINAT Laurence
63. Maisons des Quartier Morin Centre Past Sadock 34614340 /
Benedictions d'Accueil Heriveaux 38916073
64. Foyer des Ruelle Casimir #48 Char ORPHELINAT M Gédéus
enfants de Hertz
Berhee
65. Nous et les Petite Anse ORPHELINAT Mgr Jacques 36567744 /
Autres Mary Charles 34616146
Ouanami 66. Orphelinat le Rue Marie Therese, Ferrier ORPHELINAT Martel 38205863
nthe foyer d'enfant Maxime
Esprit de
verite
67. Ministere Ouanaminthe, Quartier ORPHELINAT Altesse 3703-3035 /
d'evangelisati Manquette, SC de Savane Augustin 33684711
on et de Longue
secours sans
frontier
MESSEF
68. Eben Ezer Ruelle Zanna, Cite Planteau ORPHELINAT Nitelus Noel 3724-7359
69. Orphelinat Ferrier, Rue Marie Therese ORPHELINAT Pasteur Zénas 3643-7118
Bethanie Pierre
Mirabalais 70. Orphelinat Mirbalais Pasteur Yves
Ledier 1
71. Orphelinat Mirbalais Pasteur
Ledier 2 Benoit
72. Enfant Hinche Garry Aff.
arivage et sociales
Aff.sociales
73. Maison Hinche (Sheepa) Jean Louis
Fortune Lefort
 CRECHE
Nom Adresse Actuelle Responsable Téléphone
PauP 74. Foyer Notre Port-au-Prince, Mme Eveline Louis 2234-1429 / 3462-5154/3449-
Dame de la Fontamara 27, Rue Jacques, Stephan Louisa 2729, 848-448-6394, 3462-
Nativite Douyon # 8 bis 5154/3751-3757
[email protected],
[email protected]
PV 75. Brebis de st. Petionville, Route de Margareth St. Fleur et 3760-3915 / 3445-6262 /
Michel de Freres - Rue St. Louis Winer Henrique, Clairnise 3713-1358 / 3552-2099, 3400-
L'attalaye Jeanty, Impasse st. or Alberte/ Caroline Saint 979
(BRESMA) Cyr #13 apres le Cyr
pont/ Delmas 105 rue

Delmas 76. Faith-Hope- Rue Dalia #4 Delmas Doroty Pearce, Jesula 3529-1962 /36 19-4488 / 3412-
Love Enfant 75 Joseph/ Chery Samuel 5976
Rescue Emile

77. Foyer de Delmas 75 Jeune eddy, Luc Jeune 3720-1917 / 3892-1392

Sarah

Tabarre 78. Auberge de Tabarre 48, #39, Rue Jn Baptiste Murielle 3410-5460 / 3534-4113 /
la Fraternite Solidarite 3410-8466 / 3448-8466

Cape H 79. Children of Cap-Haitien Nick Stolgerg, Cenatus 38892447 / 36660633

the Promise Lagosette Herns

Montrouis 80. CANAAN, Montrouis, 1ere Gladys Mecklembourg, F. 3667-2864, 3730-6865

Les Section communale Henry R. Gaetjens
precieux St Marc
bigoux du
Seigneur
Jacmel 81. Petit Ange Breman a l'interieur a Wilbert Placide, Pascaline 3717-5170, 3824-2689
de Jacmel gauche du conseil L. Placide
communautaire

82. Foyer des Leogane, Chatuley Mme Morin B.Sherly 36743306

Petits
Demunis

FOYERS POUR HANDICAPES

 Institution Commune
CERMICOL Delma 33
Prison civile de Pétion-ville Petion Ville
CAC Centre d’Accueil de Carrefour Carrefour
Family Circle Boys Home Port-au-Prince
HSKI Complex Jacmel
The Haiti Micah Project Mirabalais
Zanmi Lakay Delmas
Fort National Port-au-Prince
Salesion Mission Cite Soleil
Fondation Timoun se lespwa Léogâne
Les petits démunis Léogâne
Foyer des Petits Démunis Léogâne
Greta Home Academy Léogâne
Kay Timoun Léogâne
La maison du sourire Léogâne
Ophelinat Chretien de Leogane Léogâne
La maison Notre Dame de la Charité Léogâne
Maison des Enfants de Dieu Delmas
Foyer Lakay Cap-Haïtien
St. Vincent's Center Port-au-Prince
Jacmel Port-au-Prince
Orphelinat Wings of Hope Kenskoff
The Miriam Center St Louus
Maison des Enfants Handicapés Petion Ville
Orphelinat Wings of Hope Kenskoff
FOYERS POUR ENFANTS DE LA RUE ET LES PRISONS POUR MINEURS

Nom Adresse Actuelle Responsable Téléphone

Foyer Notre Port-au-Prince, Fontamara Mme Eveline Louis 2234-1429 / 3462-5154/3449-2729,
Dame de la 27, Rue Douyon # 8 bis Jacques, Stephan 848-448-6394, 3462-5154/3751-
Nativite Louisa 3757 [email protected],
[email protected]
Au Bonheur Port-au-Prince, Canape Vert Andre Sonia 3462-2998/ 3436-8308
Des Enfants #53

Horizon de Port-au-Prince, Rue Carlstrain Katlelen Douyon 3454-8615 / 3550-1656/ 3705-

L'espoir # 25 - Bois Verna, ruelle 4242/ 3724-9457
Carlstroum #25

Foyer de Sions DEMENAGE a Fontamara 43, Mme Marjorie Mardy, 3720-9869 /3448-9192, 3747-
Rue Village Royale # 10 Pas 3138/ 3720-9869 sion-in-
loin de Royal Haitian [email protected]

Brebis de st. Petionville, Route de Freres - Margareth St. Fleur et 3760-3915 / 3445-6262 / 3713-
Michel de Rue St. Louis Jeanty, Impasse Winer Henrique, 1358 / 3552-2099, 3400-979
L'attalaye st. Cyr #13 apres le pont/ Clairnise or Alberte/
(BRESMA) Delmas 105 rue Caroline Saint Cyr
Rivers of Hope Petionville, Thomassin 32, Rachelle Danache 3402-4067
Impasse Namphy, suivre
route asphaltee a droite

Foyer de la Petionville, Rue Villate #105/ Mme audette Jn 3427-0309 / 3816-9482 / 3807-2525
Nouvelle Vie # 1 Laboule 24 #8 Baptiste/ rose Yva
Samedi

Rose Mina de Petionville, Route Freres, rue Sandra, Rolande, Marie 3445-5913, 3462-4213, 3623-1676,
Diegue St-Louis Jeanty # 11, , pres de Claude, Osvaldo 3797-8592
l'Hopital de la Communaute
Haitienne
Faith-Hope- Rue Dalia #4 Delmas 75 Doroty Pearce, Jesula 3529-1962 /36 19-4488 / 3412-5976
Love Enfant Joseph/ Chery Samuel
Rescue Emile

Foyer de Sarah Delmas 75 Jeune eddy, Luc Jeune 3720-1917 / 3892-1392

Boy's Carrefour, Ruelle Khan #10, Gabriel Molien, 3462-7185 / 3405-6865 3894-
Orphanage rue charpentier, mahotiere Massolas Klenor 8438/3689-6866
79

Maranatha Tabarre, Rue 6, Clercine 19 John Mc Houl/ Tlucek 3449-0668/ 3829-4913

Children's Byron
Home

Auberge de la Tabarre 48, #39, Rue Jn Baptiste Murielle 3410-5460 / 3534-4113 / 3410-
Fraternite Solidarite 8466 / 3448-8466
Nom Adresse Actuelle Responsable Téléphone
Kay Tout 2e Maison, Impasse EVENS SAINT LOUIS 3425-6167 / 3403-8556 / 3403-
Timoun Babeu, Bute boyer, Croix 7229 / 3420-5555 / 3734-
des Missions, impasse 9425/3458-9410
balève #3
Lecado Carffour Boileau

Children of Cap-Haitien Lagosette Nick Stolgerg, 38892447 / 36660633

the Promise Cenatus Herns

Creche Bon Route de Bassin, #9, Gatreau Inelus Luccene, Fleur 3437-6554, 3743-9232
Samaritain des Dieupere
Gonaives
(C.B.S.G)
CANAAN, Les Montrouis, 1ere Section Gladys Mecklembourg, 3667-2864, 3730-6865
precieux bigoux communale St Marc F. Henry R. Gaetjens
du Seigneur

Grace P-de-px, GriGris (Woast Rue Cindy Lachbrook / Past 3745-1834 (numeros sur liste
Children's de la Plaza #3) Ciloes Andy precedente: 3751-6112/ 3423-3077)
Adoption
Home/ Grace
Children
Petit Ange de Breman a l'interieur a gauche Wilbert Placide, 3717-5170, 3824-2689
Jacmel du conseil communautaire Pascaline L. Placide

Pemerle Pemerle, Zone Lycee Saint Emilien Amila 3720-8080

Joseph, Fond des Negres

Foyer Notre Route Nationale #2, Chalon, Sr. Luvia Joseph 3773-0153, 3886-8305, 3407-0303,
Dame du Miragoane 3746-5478
Perpetuel
Secours
Foyer des Petits Leogane, Chatuley Mme Morin B.Sherly 36743306
Demunis
Annexe 9. Meilleures pratiques sur les institutions existantes en Haïti –
IBESR 2012
Avec l'objectif d'inculquer les meilleures pratiques sur les institutions existantes en Haïti IBESR
(2012) a proposé les critères suivants

1) La pratique professionnelle
• Buts et objectifs de l’institution écrits
• Politique de protection de l’enfant, Code de Conduite, écrite, affichée et
connue de tous les employés et enfants
• Politique de protection de l’enfant, Code de Conduite, écrite, affichée et
connue de tous les employés et enfants
• Bonne pratique démontrée en matière de protection des enfants par les
employés
• Processus d’admission et de référence clairs
• Tous les enfants ont un projet de vie individuel
• Tous les placements sont revus régulièrement
• Les soins d’accompagnement existent pendant et après la prise en charge
(suivi)
2) Les soins personnels
• L’alimentation des enfants est adéquate, correctement prépare, nutritive et
saine
• Les enfants ont accès à des soins de santé préventifs et curatifs
• Les jeux et les activités récréatives sont encouragés
• Le droit des enfants à l’intimité des enfants est respecté
• Les enfants reçoivent l’appui nécessaire pour pouvoir faire des choix informés
• Les enfants sont traités avec dignité et respect en tout temps
3) Les employés responsables des soins
• Les relations et les attachements positifs des enfants sont encouragés
• Le sens d’identité des enfants est maintenu
• Les méthodes de contrôle et de sanctions sont définies
• Les enfants sont encouragés à exprimer leurs opinions et leurs idées
• Les enfants ont accès à l’éducation formelle, informelle et professionnelle
selon leurs besoins
• Les besoins spécifiques des bébés et des jeunes enfants sont satisfaits
4) Le personnel responsable de la prise en charge des enfants
• Les procédures de recrutement et de sélection assurent une prise en charge de
qualité et la protection des enfants
• Les employés reçoivent l’appui requis et sont supervisés régulièrement
• Le déploiement du personnel assure une prise en charge de qualité et la
protection des enfants
• La formation et le développement professionnels sont disponibles pour les
employés
5) Les ressources
 • Les services sont accessibles et appropriés pour leur objectif
• Le logement des enfants favorise leur santé et leur développement
11) La gestion
• Des dossiers appropriés de programme sont maintenus
• Les dossiers et les détails confidentiels des enfants sont respectés et maintenus
• Les propriétaires et les gestionnaires des programmes de prise en charge sont
imputables et redevables (à l’IBESR)
Annexe 10. Proposition technique
Cette proposition répond à un appel d’offre de l'IBESR relatif à une étude sur les enfants placés
en institution4 en Haïti. En collaboration avec le bureau régional de l'UNICEF pour l'Amérique
Latine et les Caraïbes (TACRO) et avec le soutien de la Commission Interaméricaine des Droits de
l'Homme (CIDH), l’IBESR souhaite conduire une étude de la situation et des conditions des
enfants placés dans ces établissements. Plus précisément, l'étude se concentrera sur les raisons
de l’institutionnalisation de ces enfants, sur le processus de placement dans les institutions, et
sur le type de soutien, de soins, et de protection qu'ils reçoivent dans ces établissements. L'étude
contribuera au développement de politiques et au processus de prise de décisions pour l'État
haïtien, et au-delà, pour l’ensemble des organismes de protection de l'enfance.

L'étude sera divisée en quatre phases : Revue de la littérature, Recherche Qualitative, Étude
Quantitative, Analyse et Élaboration du rapport final. À la fin de chaque étape, le consultant
présentera ses conclusions et plans de recherche pour la phase suivante au Comité Technique
composé de représentants de l’IBESR et de l'UNICEF.

1. Revue de la littérature (2 semaines): un examen des ressources écrites disponibles relatives

aux institutions pour enfants en Haïti : y compris les lois Haïtiennes et internationales, les
rapports de l'UNICEF et autres organismes de protection de l'enfance, traités universitaires,
enquêtes journalistiques, ainsi que d'un examen et une analyse du contenu des sites web des
institutions haïtiennes.
Résultat: La connaissance d'enquêtes passées et observations clés; l'histoire et le contexte
politique dans lequel se sont développées les institutions (maisons d’enfants en particulier)
en Haïti, relation à la demande d’adoption des pays développés, les agences d'adoption et de
parrainage d’enfants; recueil des définitions juridiques et des lois régissant les institutions;
développement d’un guide de recherche pour l’étude qualitative à suivre.

2. Enquête qualitative (6 semaines): Entrevues avec des spécialistes clés dans le domaine de la
protection de l’enfance : responsables et spécialistes du gouvernement, des Nations Unies et
des ONG. La méthodologie employée sera celle d’entretiens directs.
Résultat: mieux comprendre l'histoire des institutions en Haïti, leur relation avec l'adoption
et le parrainage; le système administratif existant pour la gouvernance, la surveillance et la
réglementation, les problèmes perçus et les plans pour l'extension d'un système de suivi et
de responsabilisation.

4
Par institution, on entend l’ensemble des centres prenant en charge l’enfant à temps plein tels que les maisons
d’enfants, les centres de détention, les établissements pour enfants handicapés, etc.
2.1. Le consultant visitera également un échantillon d'au moins 40 institutions (maisons d’enfants,
centres de détention (masculin et féminin) et centres pour enfants souffrant de handicaps) et
conduira des entrevues - avec l'aide d'un guide écrit - avec les directeurs des institutions, les
employés, les voisins et autres membres non-institutionnels de la communauté (maire, prêtre,
nonne, infirmière, médecin). Les entrevues seront suivies par une recherche menée sur internet
afin de vérifier les réponses faisant référence à des organismes extérieurs. Une méthode
d’entrevues directes sera utilisée, avec demande de documentation, suivi de la recherche via
internet, poursuite des contacts avec les représentants pour les institutions étrangères associées.
De manière à obtenir un point de vue comparatif de la part des informateurs dans les
communautés. La sélection des institutions pour l'échantillon qualitatif sera faite par
communauté et en sélectionnant plusieurs institutions situés dans cette même communauté ou
ses environs.
Résultat: comprendre les structures administratives et financières des organisations, leur
conformité avec les lois, leur sources de soutien, leur orientation religieuse, leur
infrastructure, leur lignes directrices et de pratiques pour l'alimentation, les soins,
l’éducation, la discipline, la provision d'activités récréatives pour les enfants et la visite des
familles. Et également essentiel, les avis, les observations et les idées des propriétaires et du
personnel concernant les enfants, leurs familles, et le rôle de l'institution dans leur vie.

2.2.Le consultant organisera des groupes de discussion avec des enfants plus âgés dans chacune
des maisons d’enfants et centres de délinquants. Des entrevues complémentaires seront menées
avec les enfants des rues et les enfants ou adultes ayant été institutionnalisés. La méthodologie
utilisée sera le groupe de discussion avec exercices d’amorce, écriture de lettre confidentielles,
et entretiens informels.
Résultat: bien comprendre les points de vue des enfants, les raisons pour lesquelles ils
pensent que les enfants sont envoyé dans des institutions d’accueils ; qui sont ces enfants ;
pourquoi certains refusent d'y demeurer ; les plaintes et les critiques générales ; les
perceptions sur les structures trouvées la recherche avec les directeurs; ce qu'ils apprécient
dans les institutions et les expériences positives ; leurs recommandations sur la façon de les
améliorer et le rôle qu'ils pensent que l'état devrait jouer.

3. Enquête Quantitative (6 semaines) :

3.1.Une étude quantitative sera développée en s'appuyant sur les résultats de l'examen de la
littérature et de l’étude qualitative. Les questions spécifiques seront déterminées après les
autres étapes de la recherche et en consultation avec le Comité Technique. Elles incluront le
nombre d’enfants et profils de population (sexe, âge), le type d’infrastructures de l’institution
(bâtiment, lits, salle de bains/latrines, source d'approvisionnement en eau, assainissement,
cuisine et installations de loisirs), la composition administrative (taille du personnel) ; les
services proposés aux enfants (l'éducation, les loisirs et les soins médicaux); l'origine et les
 qualifications des propriétaires de maisons d’enfants, leurs orientation face à l'adoption, leur
appartenance religieuse, les alliances intentionnelles internationales, et leur temps de service.

3.2.Un sous-échantillon stratifié des maisons d’enfants sera sélectionné pour une étude plus en
profondeur des enfants : y compris la filiation, le temps passé en institution, les raisons de leurs
institutionnalisation et niveau d'éducation.

3.3.Un autre échantillon aléatoire d’enfants sera sélectionné pour des visites et entretiens avec les
familles.
Sélection de l'échantillon: en fonction de la zone géographique et compte tenu de
l’opposition entre zones urbaines et rurales, un nombre restant à déterminer de maisons
d’enfants seront choisies de façon aléatoire parmi les 725 maisons d’enfants recensées par
l'IBESR. Un nombre supplémentaire de maisons d’enfants non recensées sera lui aussi
déterminé. Le consultant formera ensuite une équipe d’inspecteurs. Utilisant des téléphones
intelligents (tablettes) programmés sur plateforme ODK, l'équipe se rendra dans chacun des
centres sélectionnés et y conduire une analyse sur la base du questionnaire développé en
collaboration avec le Comité Technique.

4. Analyse et rédaction du rapport final (3 semaines)

L'analyse et la présentation comprendront différents points de vue, y compris ceux des
propriétaires étrangers/internationaux, du personnel, des enfants, des parents, des
responsables et des membres de la communauté. Des profils statistiques seront présentés.
Le rapport final se présentera approximativement de la manière suivante :

a. Orientation: Revue de la littérature, de l'histoire, du contexte politique et économique des

institutions en Haïti, liens avec les organismes religieux et avec l’extérieur, le parrainage,
l'orientation face a l'adoption, la surveillance du gouvernement et internationale, la conformité
aux exigences en matière d'inscriptions et normes juridiques, l'estimation du nombre
d’orphelinats non-enregistrés.

b. Profils des institutions : profils structures des institutions, type de services et de soutien aux
enfants (graphique et tableau résumé des institutions échantillonnées) ; fonctionnement interne
des institutions et vue sur les enfants des directeurs et du personnel ; profils des enfants, de
leurs origines, état et conditions actuelles; l'exploration des motifs de l’institutionnalisation des
enfants et, très important, le point de vue de l'institution et le point de vue des enfants sur eux-
mêmes, les autres enfants, et l'avenir ; présentation et analyse des bonnes pratiques ; l’analyse
comportera une comparaison des zones rurales et urbaines dès les enfants et une typologie des
institutions.

c. Recommandations
*****
Annexe 11. Contacts pour les entretiens qualitatifs
NOM PRÉNOM POSITION ORGANISATION EMAIL
BEAUVOIR Jules Hans Child protection UNICEF
BERNARD Abbe Regional coordinator, IBESR Bernardo230@yahoo.
Hinche fr
BICKEL John Founder of Haiti RCCI God's Littlest
Angels
BOHAN Coner Educational UHELP Founder [email protected]
specialists
BOURGET Elsa Staff Protection de elsa.bourget@diplom
l'Enfance et atie.gouv.fr
Adoption
Internationale
BROUDIC Caroline Ancienne URD caroline.broudic@wa
Coordinatrice nadoo.fr
BULLOCK Bill Volunteer Free the Kids 918-520-0039
BURNHAM Thor Historian PhD Haiti specialist thor.burnham@gmail
.com
CLAY Corrigan Missionary Apparent Fashion corrigan.clay@google
Filmmaker mail.com
CURTIS Margaret Art teacher, donor [email protected]
DALEXUS Serge Staff International serge.dalexus@rescu
Rescue Comm. e.org,
DEBROUWER Thomas Food Security ACF thomas_debrouwer@
Coordinator hotmail.com
DELORME Patrick Former sub-minister MSPP
DEPREZ Simon Consultant CARE simondeprez@hotma
il.fr
DOGLIOTTI Camilla Staff TDH Italie camilladogliotti@gma
il.com
FERRY Pierre Child protection UNICEF
FORTIN Isabelle Coordinatrice URD [email protected]
GEBRIAN Bette Anthro PhD Founder Haiti bette_haiti@hotmail.
Health com
Foundation
GEORGES Islande Staff TdH islandegeorges.cadet
@tdh.ch
GILREATH Gilreath Donor 828-859-9010
BEHRENDS Behrends
GRIMES Shasta Adoptive parent shastagrimes@yahoo
applicant .com.
GUTTON Caroline Directrice-pays Initiative caroline.gutton@gma
Development il.com
 NOM PRÉNOM POSITION ORGANISATION EMAIL
HARBOURY Isabelle Chargée de mission isabelle.haboury@dip
au pôle lomatie.gouv.fr
développement
HAMILTON Kyle Research assistant Duke University Kyle.hamilton@chpir.
org
HOBBIE Amy International sector Duke University [email protected]
program coordinator du
HOUDON Claire Disability Handicap coordo.handicap@ha
Perrin Coordinator International ndicap-international-
haiti.org
JEAN Cinedais Director, Gonaives IBESR
JEAN-LOUIS Roosevelt IBESR
JOYCE Kathryn Journalist Author of Child kathrynajoyce@gmail
Catchers .com
JUSTIN Anostal Staff IBESR
KOONS Anna Project coordinator Duke University [email protected]
LABATTUT Eleonore Service urbanisme & CIAT eleonore.labattut@ci
Habitat at.gouv.ht
MACKEY Yoland Former adoption
agent
MARCELIN David Save the Children

MARKS Tessa Staff International Tessa.Marks@rescue.

Rescue org
Committee
MESSER Lynne Duke University [email protected]
du
METZNER Tobias Programme Manager IOM [email protected]
Counter-Trafficking
METZNER T Staff IOM [email protected]
MUNROY Isabel Nurse
MURRAY Gerald Anthro PhD University [email protected]
Professor
NOEL Richener Sociologue Université d'Etat noel.richener@gmail.
d'Haïti com
O’DONNELL Karen Duke University [email protected].
edu
PALINKA Tamara Adoptive parent tamarapalinka@hot
applicant mail.com.
PARRIS Debra Director of Family European [email protected]
Recruitment Adoption
Consultants
 NOM PRÉNOM POSITION ORGANISATION EMAIL
PEDUTO Kristine Child protection UNICEF
PETIT-FRERE Louis- Regional coordinator, IBESR louismary.petitfrere
Mary Cap-Haitien @yahoo.fr
PURGUS Claire Managing Editor Schuster Institute [email protected]
Pavlik Journalism du
REED Michelle Haiti Program America World michelle.reed@awaa.
Director, Adoption org.
REGIS Jacques Regional coordinator, IBESR
Greguy Jacmel
REMY Occean Regional coordinator, IBESR [email protected]
Ouanaminthe m
ROCKS Denise Deputy Director Save the Children
ROTABI Karen Author and Professor United Arab [email protected]
Emirates
University
SANGSTER Jacob Orphanage Director CorLuv [email protected]
om
SELMAN Peter Author and Professor Newcastle [email protected].
University uk
SMUCKER Glen Anthro PhD Haiti [email protected]
specialist.consult
ant
SYLVESTRE Gladys Founder and CEO of Foundation pour [email protected]
Haiti RCCI les Infants d'Haiti m
THOMAS Yoland Founder of K-12 Evergreen 34011175
school Academy
TRUELOVE Carol Ann Clinic director Faith Medical geo_cat1986@yahoo.
Clinic com
TRUELOVE George Faith Medical geo_cat1986@yahoo.
Clinic com
VAN PARIJS Benjamin Directeur-pays ACTED [email protected]
om
VAN SCHOYK Barbara Missionary
VAN SCHOYK Gregory Missionary
VAUGHAN Stephen Save the Children
VILLEDROUIN Arielle Director General IBESR
Jeanty
WALSH Amber NGO coutntry UHELP Country [email protected]
director UHELP Director
WHETTEN Kate Professor Duke University [email protected]
WHETTEN Rachel International sector Duke University rachel.whetten@duk
director e.edu
Annexe 12. Les points de vue des experts
Pour conclure cette section qualitative, nous offrons les réflexions de 8 personnes ayant vécu et
travaillé en Haïti au cours des 20 à 50 dernières années. Leurs points de vue sont essentiels pour
bien comprendre le rôle des Centres Résidentiels pour Enfants en Haïti.

1. Glenn Smucker, PhD en Anthropologie, Citoyen américain, cumulant plus de 40 années

d’expérience en tant que chercheur et consultant en Haïti. Il est l’auteur de 3 rapports
important sur les enfants en Haïti: Haiti – The Uses of Children : A Study of Trafficking of
Haitian Children (2004); Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Haiti: A Field Report
(2005); et, Lost Childhoods in Haiti (2009).

Mon point de vue: La plupart des enfants placés en orphelinat ont une famille proche,
habituellement leurs parents sont vivants, les orphelinats servent d’alternative à une famille
d’accueil informelle ou au placement dans d’autres familles en but de fréquenter l’école, les
résidents d’orphelinat sont généralement plus scolarisés que leurs frères et sœurs vivant avec
leurs parents, l’admission à un orphelinat est communément perçue comme un privilège par la
famille, puisqu’on y voit la promesse d’une éducation et de l’acquisition de compétences de
travail, d’une meilleure alimentation qu’à la maison et d’un avenir plus prometteur. Les enfants
et les employés rencontrés à Fond des Nègres ont indiqué que les enfants disent souvent préférer
vivre à l’orphelinat plutôt qu’à la maison, parce qu’ils y sont mieux nourris et y reçoivent une
éducation. L’orphelinat renvoyait de nombreux enfants à la maison pour la période estivale. Les
enfants revenaient presque invariablement amaigris et revenaient avec plaisir à « l’orphelinat »
en automne. Il s’agit plutôt d’un pensionnat, même si on l’appelle orphelinat.

2. Gerald Murray, PhD, Professeur Emeritus, Département d’Anthropologie, Université de

la Floride. Citoyen américain. Cumulant plus de 40 ans en tant que chercheur et consultant
en Haïti. Co-auteur, avec Glenn Smucker, de The Uses of Children: A Study of Trafficking
of Haitian Children.

J’ai demandé à des villageois de m’expliquer le sens du mot créole ofelina et ils l’ont défini comme
un endroit où les parents pauvres envoient leurs enfants pour qu’ils reçoivent de la nourriture et
une éducation. Le mot anglais orphanage n’est pas une bonne traduction. Le concept de boarding
school est à propos, mais sous-entend une institution cossue fréquentée par des familles aisées.
Les revenus sont alors générés auprès des parents. Dans le cas d’un ofelina, ce sont plutôt les
familles des pays riches et les groupes religieux qui sont mis à contribution alors qu’on leur fait
croire que (1) les pensionnaires n’ont pas de parents et que (2) leur argent sera utilisé pour aider
les enfants. Ni l’une, ni l’autre de ces propositions n’est vraie.

Les orphelinats haïtiens que je connais bien ne s’occupent pas nécessairement des enfants en tant
que « résidents à temps plein ». J’ai constaté des cas où un certain « pasteur » qui s’occupait d’un
orphelinat financé par des familles chrétiennes américaines à coup de versements mensuels
prétendait supporter 50 enfants alors que seuls 9 ou 10 enfants fréquentaient l’établissement en
permanence. Quand le groupe de soutien blan (étranger) a annoncé qu’il y aurait une visite sur le
site, il s’est démené pour trouver 40 autres enfants à leur montrer. Un collègue de ma femme Loli
vit à Gainsville en Floride et a hébergé un enfant haïtien qui avait besoin d’une chirurgie très
onéreuse. Ces parents adoptifs bien intentionnés et généreux ont été choqués quand cet
« orphelin » s’est mis à leur parler de ses parents encore vivants. Il leur a aussi dit le plus
innocemment du monde que seuls quelques enfants vivent vraiment à « l’orphelinat » et que le
« pasteur » se démenait à remplir son établissement quand les blancs arrivaient. La mère
adoptive a fondu en larme et l’enfant est de retour chez ses parents en Haïti. Elle tente toujours
de lui venir en aide. En ce sens, je suis mal à l’aise devant le mépris que l’on manifeste souvent
aux familles d’adoption.

En me basant sur ma propre expérience anecdotique, j’aimerais apporter quelques contrastes.

Un don mensuel en argent pour un orphelinat en Haïti ou l’adoption d’un enfant haïtien ? Le
« pasteur » pencherait certainement vers le don.

o Une adoption charitable dans une famille ayant déjà des enfants ou une adoption dans une
famille qui n’a pas d’enfant et qui cherche à en avoir ? L’adoption d’enfants haïtiens tombe
sous la première définition. Je constate que la deuxième description concerne surtout des
parents qui se rendent en Chine ou en Russie plutôt qu’en Haïti.

Il serait facile d’y voir du racisme. Je ne suis pas partisan de ce genre d’anthropologie du mépris.

Il existe une criminalisation à saveur ethnocentrique de tous les services de placements d’enfants
antillais de la part de professionnels des « droits de la personne » qui qualifient ces enfants
d’esclaves. Dans le rapport que j’ai publié avec Glenn Smucker, j’ai écrit: « Le terme « esclave »
relève de la métaphore incendiaire et peut servir des fins militantes, mais il n’a pas du tout le sens
qu’on lui donne en Haïti, même lorsqu’on l’utilise en tant qu’épithète. Quand les haïtiens
qualifient un enfant restavèk de ti esklav, ils utilisent ce mot de manière métaphorique, un peu
comme on qualifierait un patron exigeant d’esclavagiste. L’enfant restavèk est un enfant dont on
abuse, mais ce n’est pas un esclave. Le concept de travailleur domestique non rémunéré a une
consonance moins dramatique, mais décrit beaucoup mieux cette réalité. »

Par contre, si vous désirez vous faire un nom en tant que militant pour les droits de la personne,
il vaut bien mieux pour vous de les définir en tant qu’esclaves, plutôt que de s’attarder à des
considérations secondaires, telles que la logique, la perspective ethnographique, ou le bien-être
de l’enfant qui est déplacé.
 3. Isabelle Monroy, citoyenne française, infirmière en médecine tropicale. Cumulant plus
de vingt ans de travail dans les provinces d'Haïti.

Tout d'abord, il y a 2 termes qui peuvent mener à une confusion: les crèches et les orphelinats.
D'après ce que j'ai compris ...

L’orphelinat: institut qui recueille des enfants dont les parents sont encore en vie. Ces enfants sont
scolarisés dans cet "orphelinat", y dorment, y vivent. Certains d'entre eux retournent chez leurs
parents pendant les vacances, d'autres non.

Je ne sais pas si ces structures sont payantes pour les parents. Elles sont parfois subventionnées
par des églises, souvent américaines. Mais il n'y a aucun contrôle. J'en ai connu 2 dans la
commune de Bombardopolis : un non accessible en voiture (j'y suis allée à la demande de l'OMS).
Il y avait des enfants malnutris (kwash), je n'ai pas vu un nombre de matelas correspondant au
nombre d'enfants... Dans une autre structure, les enfants se faisaient abuser par les responsables
(filles ou garçons)

Les crèches : reconnues par IBSER. Recueillent les enfants pour adoption internationale. Mais j'ai
rencontré une Française qui m'a raconté que le premier enfant qui lui a été attribué était mort.
Un employé de cette crèche lui a dit que les parents étaient revenus le prendre et que la directrice
avait dit non. Les parents auraient ensuite étouffé l'enfant.

Certaines crèches demandent aux parents adoptants une aide financière à donner à la famille de
l'enfant adopté. Parfois ils obligent les adoptants à rencontrer les familles biologiques.

J'ai connu plusieurs crèches et j'ai été "missionnée" par des parents adoptants pour visiter l'enfant
ou lui apporter un cadeau. Mais certaines crèches refusent les visiteurs (qu'ont-elles à cacher?).
Pour d'autres, il faut un rendez-vous et être très ponctuel. Si on arrive à l'improviste, ou vous
renvoie ou alors comme ça m’est arrivé, on vous fait attendre 3/4 d'heure .... L'enfant est arrivé
talqué, habillé ....

Une adoptante m'a dit qu'elle avait ouvert un placard dans une crèche et qu'elle avait vu,
entassés, tous les vêtements, peluches, etc. envoyés par les familles adoptantes, mais qui
n'avaient jamais été utilisés.

La plupart des crèches n'ont pas de financement pour nourrir correctement les enfants. Ils
mangent des bouillies dès leur plus jeune âge.

J'en ai aussi connu une qui mettait jusqu'à 3 à 4 nourrissons dans des petits lits. Lors des visites
des étrangers, mettaient les enfants en train d'être adoptés dans une autre chambre, plus
"Américaine". Ça fait mieux.

Pas ou peu de contrôle, pas de sanction ...

 4. Bette Gebrian, PhD en anthropologie médicale. Citoyenne américaine. Fondatrice de la
HHF (Haiti Health Foundation). Cumulant plus de 30 ans d’étude et de travail en Haïti.

Il est difficile pour un étranger de comprendre comment les enfants sont élevés en Haïti. Compte
tenu du haut taux de mortalité maternel et de l’absence de nombreux pères, les nouveau-nés et
les enfants sont pris en charge et éduqués par de nombreux adultes (et leurs frères et sœurs
ainés).

Un professionnel haïtien, lorsqu’on l’a interrogé en créole, a eu cette réflexion à propos des
orphelinats: « Certains d’entre eux sont surtout des entreprises! C’est un moyen de gagner sa vie.
Les besoins sont là et certains aident les enfants, mais ils gardent une grande part des dons…ils
ne sont pas réglementés ! »

Il ya quelques années, une analyse a été menée par le (gouvernement Haïtien) sur l’état des
orphelinats : salles de bain, modalités d’hébergement, rangement, réfrigération, etc.,... Les
établissements ont reçu une évaluation chiffrée et un laps de temps pour redresser la situation.
Je ne sais pas trop ce qui est advenu de ces efforts et de ce rapport, mais nous entendons dire que
les visites se poursuivent pour vérifier si des améliorations ont été apportées. J’ai même entendu
dire qu’un établissement a été forcé de fermer à Jérémie.

Il existe 4 pensionnats protestants (2 appartiennent à des Haïtiens, 2 nouveaux établissements

ont des propriétaires Etasuniens) et 3 pensionnats catholiques (1 prêtre haïtien, 1 prêtre canadien
d’origine haïtienne et un établissement hébergeant 53 filles appartenant aux Sœurs Haïtiennes
de Charité de Sainte-Hyacinthe). Le ministère de Mère Teresa de Calcutta opère des franchises à
travers le monde et se démarque de tout le reste. Ils opèrent en tous cas un centre de soins de
longue durée et des installations pour les malades.

J’ai eu une discussion auprès de Sœur Maryann à la HHF concernant la situation à laquelle nous
faisons face à Jérémie et dans les villages voisins depuis plus de 25 ans.

Voici nos réflexions:

Les vrais orphelins: Malheureusement, étant implantés ici depuis si longtemps, nous sommes vite
informés quand deux parents meurent. Le désastre du Neptune en 1993, le SIDA, le choléra et le
séisme de 2010 ont, par exemple, fait de nombreux orphelins. Dans presque tous les cas, des
membres de la famille de ces enfants les prennent en charge. C’est ce que font les Haïtiens. Les
fratries sont parfois séparées, mais tous se retrouvent chez des parents proches ou éloignés. Les
grand-mères deviennent souvent les principales responsables des enfants.

La HHF appuie des centaines de familles de ce genre à Jérémie. Sans exception, elles prennent en
charge des enfants dont les parents directs sont absents, parfois dès la naissance.
Les enfants abandonnés: Les Missionnaires de la Charité de Mère Teresa, l’Hôpital Saint-Antoine,
et même les cliniques de la HHF ont reçu des enfants sans jamais pouvoir savoir d’où ils
proviennent. Il s’agit parfois de nourrissons, parfois de jeunes enfants. Les fonctionnaires des
services sociaux s’en occupent. Ils peuvent être mis en adoption par le bureau des services sociaux
de Jérémie et, dans le cas des Missionnaires de la charité, envoyés à l’établissement de Port-au-
Prince pour y être adoptés.

Les enfants hospitalisés, puis abandonnés : Cela ce produit parfois chez les Missionnaires de la
Charité à Jérémie ainsi que dans l’hôpital du MSPP. Lorsque c’est possible, les religieuses se
rendent au lieu de naissance de l’enfant pour le réunir avec ses parents.

Les foyers d’accueil: Les services sociaux placent parfois des enfants dans des organisations qui
s’en occupent. Il y en a plusieurs à Jérémie. Il y a par exemple l’Orphelinat Yvrose (établissement
haïtien protestant fondé au cours des années 1980) et Notre Dame du Perpétuel Secours
(établissement tenu par une Haïtienne catholique depuis 2006 et opérant une école depuis 1998).
Leur support provient d’amis, de visiteurs et de la diaspora haïtienne. Les soins de santé pour ces
enfants ne sont pas dispensés par le gouvernement haïtien. Les groupes religieux qui appuient ces
institutions déplorent souvent l’état de santé des enfants et le manque flagrant de médicaments
et de vaccins. Les soins offerts sont irréguliers.

Pensionnats: Quand les familles sont incapables de s’en occuper, des enfants sont parfois confiés
au prêtre catholique Andeo de la paroisse. Ils n’opèrent pas d’orphelinat ou de centres de soins.
Il y a huit ans, un prêtre catholique a établi deux centres : un pour les garçons et un autre pour les
filles dans la ville de Jérémie où on les nourri et où ils sont scolarisés quand ils sont assez âgés (les
églises et les chapelles se trouvent en zone rurale.) Le centre que la HHF connaît bien est bien
administré et les enfants y sont bien traités. Ils reçoivent une aide d’une église catholique et
possèdent un magasin et une boulangerie pour générer des revenus dont les enfants profitent.

À la HHF, nous ne comprenons pas pourquoi une clinique gratuite pour les pauvres n’est
fréquentée ni à des fins préventives ni à des fins curatives. La plupart du temps, des travailleurs
des centres font leur propre diagnostic, achètent eux-mêmes des médicaments et traitent eux-
mêmes les enfants. Même quand des organisations missionnaires allouent des fonds aux soins de
santé, ils ne sont pas utilisés.

Nouveaux « orphelinats »: Des parents proches ou éloignés confient des enfants dont ils ne
peuvent plus s’occuper à l’un des « orphelinats » de la ville. Ceux-ci sont gérés par des étrangers.
Les visiteurs croient souvent à tort que les pensionnaires sont orphelins. Des groupes viennent les
visiter pour leur « donner de l’amour » selon eux. L’un d’entre eux a été frappé par le choléra et a
été sommé par le MSPP d’améliorer les mesures d’hygiène.
Pensionnat: Ils hébergent des enfants handicapés qui rentrent chez eux (peut-être) les weekends
et pour les vacances scolaires. L’école St-Vincent et une autre institution à Les Cayes en sont des
exemples. Ils reçoivent également des fonds de groupes missionnaires.

Quant aux plus jeunes, de nombreux Haïtiens recherchent des enfants qui peuvent se rendre utiles
à la maison et préfèrent les prendre en charge à 3 ans, alors qu’ils peuvent encore être « entraînés
à la loyauté ». Nombre d’entre eux ont commenté à Sœur Maryann que les enfants qu’on emmène
chez soi à 5 ou 8 ans sont déjà trop indisciplinés.

Nous avons aussi été témoins de nombreuses adoptions ; c’est un processus qui prend de
nombreuses années. Des familles américaines et européennes ont adopté des enfants atteints
d’handicaps mentaux ou physiques. D’autres ont adopté un ou deux enfants que l’on savait
orphelins. Ces familles affirment unanimement que c’est un processus long et coûteux…mais qu’ils
sont contents de s’occuper de ces enfants.

5. Couple de missionnaires anonymes. Citoyens américains. Habitent et travaillent depuis

plus de vingt ans en zone rurale haïtienne.

Orphelinats. Les orphelinats sont évidemment nécessaires. Il vaut mieux pour un enfant d’y vivre
que d’être à la rue. Par contre, il faut mettre un bémol, puisque certains orphelinats sont si
mauvais, qu’il vaudrait mieux être à la rue. Selon nous, l’orphelinat est un dernier recours. Les
enfants dont les parents sont vivants ne devraient pas être dans des orphelinats/foyers de
l’enfance. Si possible, les enfants dont les oncles, tantes ou grands-parents sont vivants devraient
habiter avec eux. Même chez des étrangers, leur sort serait plus enviable. Même s’ils sont traités
comme des citoyens de seconde classe et doivent travailler plus fort que les enfants biologiques,
ils seraient mieux traités qu’en institution. L’image qu’on se fait d’un orphelinat n’a presque rien
à voir avec la réalité haïtienne. Haïti est un endroit où il est difficile de survivre et les enfants qui
sont élevés dans un « très bon orphelinat » n’acquerront que très rarement les aptitudes
nécessaires à leur survie en dehors des murs de l’institution. Un « très mauvais » orphelinat est,
quant à lui, bien pire que la rue.

Nous connaissons des gens qui ont investi 500000$ dans la construction d’un foyer pour 20 filles
à Port-au-Prince. Ils ont mis tous leurs efforts à s’assurer de n’offrir des places qu’à de véritables
orphelines. Jamais personne n’a fondé d’orphelinats avec de meilleures intentions, mais nous
avions des doutes dès le début. Le premier problème est le suivant : plus on s’affaire à bien mener
une institution, plus les parents s’affairent à y faire entrer leurs « orphelins ». D’année en année,
nous avons appris que bien des filles avaient une famille et même des parents. Par contre, notre
plus grande inquiétude était plutôt que nous ne voyions pas comment des filles élevées dans un
milieu aussi « aisé » seraient en mesure de subvenir à leurs propres besoins vers le début de la
vingtaine.
Le principal, c’est que, même s’il s’agissait de la meilleure des institutions, l’orphelinat ne devrait
jamais être un premier recours. Sauf quand on a de bonnes raisons de croire qu’un enfant sera
battu ou abusé sexuellement, le meilleur lieu est toujours le foyer familial.

Selon nous, un bon orphelinat devrait remplir ces conditions :

Il devrait toujours y avoir une supervision rigoureuse de la part de personnes indépendantes qui
n‘ont rien à gagner en maintenant l’institution ouverte.

Présence de figues parentales : des gens très présents qui font office d’autorités parentales.

Il devrait y avoir un couple agissant comme figure parentale pour chaque groupe de 25 enfants
tout au plus.

Tous les enfants devraient être inscrits dans une école sanctionnée par l’État.

L’apprentissage d’un métier devrait être central dans l’éducation des, puisqu’ils ne pourront pas
se tourner vers leurs familles une fois en âge de quitter.

Une planification poussée devrait être consacrée à éviter les contacts sexuels entre les enfants.

On devrait offrir aux enfants des nourritures saines en quantités appropriées.

Les enfants devraient avoir des corvées quotidiennes à accomplir.

Nous sommes conscients que ce dernier point ne fait pas l’unanimité, mais nous croyons que les
enfants devraient connaître Dieu tel qu’il nous est révélé par la bible.

6. Thor Burnham, PhD en histoire. Citoyen canadien. Habite et travaille depuis plus de vingt
ans en Haïti.

Au début de 1996, après avoir travaillé dans le secteur privé en Haïti pendant un an, un ami haïtien
m’a proposé de se joindre à lui pour fonder un orphelinat. Il m’a dit qu’on pouvait gagner
beaucoup d’argent très rapidement. C’était la chose logique à faire. Mon réflexe initial a été un
refus poli, mais je m'en suis rendu compte avec le temps qu’il s’agit plus d’une opportunité
d’affaires que d’une mission altruiste.

Au cours des années subséquentes, peu de choses se sont produites qui auraient pu diminuer mon
scepticisme par rapport aux orphelinats. Ça ne veut pas dire qu’ils ne subviennent pas aux besoins
réels de vraies personnes. Pourtant, mon expérience auprès des Haïtiens en milieu urbain m’a
appris qu’ils entretiennent de profonds liens avec leurs contrées d’origine et l’idée qu’il puisse
exister tant d’enfants sans parent et sans famille étendue me semble très étrange. Les Haïtiens
semblent passés maîtres dans l’art de reconstituer des familles de manière harmonieuse.
Il ne fait aucun doute qu’il y ait de véritables orphelins et des orphelinats crédibles. Par contre,
l’idée qu’il y ait eu plus de 400000 orphelins en Haïti après le séisme de 2010 semble relever
d’autre chose que d’un besoin réel.

Sans se pencher sur les données, on peut affirmer que de nombreux organismes religieux ont pris
à charge des enfants dans le besoin, mais il faut se demander si la demande externe n’a pas
entraîné une montée de l’offre. En d’autres mots, la recherche d’orphelins a fini par causer leur
ubiquité. Étant donné le contexte de pauvreté extrême en Haïti, plusieurs groupes ont profité de
cette hausse de la demande pour manipuler et produire une offre d’enfants à héberger.

7. Gregory et Barbara Van Schoyck, Citoyens américains. Habitent Haïti et y prêchent

depuis plus de 20 ans.

Parlons des orphelinats... Laissez-moi penser tout haut. Faisons-le point par point….

* la définition haïtienne d’un orphelin ne ressemble ne rien à celle qu’en ferait un Nord Américain
– de nombreux orphelins ont un, voire deux parents bien vivants.

*C’est précisément pour cette raison que certains orphelinats ne procèdent à aucune adoption.

* les orphelinats, du moins en zone rurale, sont un concept relativement récent en Haïti. Je crois
que si nous remontons 20 ou 25 ans, il y avait très peu de demande pour des orphelinats. Une
combinaison du système maren/paren, d’une idée plus étendue de la famille et de ses supports et
même le système de restavèk permettait de s’occuper relativement bien des enfants que l’on
nomme aujourd’hui orphelins.

* en ce moment, un grand nombre de pasteurs haïtiens se rendent compte que les Nord-
Américains ont un faible pour le soin des orphelins et n’hésitent pas à verser de grandes sommes
d’argent à des orphelinats – sans pour autant leur demander des comptes.

* Cette situation a été créée de toutes pièces par des Nord-Américains et je trouve injuste d’en
jeter le blâme sur les pasteurs haïtiens.

* Nous avons eu vent d’un ou deux orphelinats qui, par le passé (peut-être depuis dix ans),
n’avaient aucun enfant en résidence, jusqu’au jour d’une visite planifiée d’un groupe étasunien
ou canadien. Les visiteurs étaient accueillis dans des dortoirs remplis d’enfants joyeux. Un fois
leur départ, les enfants retourneraient à la maison.

* Certains avocats de Port au Prince font fortune dans l’adoption d’enfants. De grandes sommes
d’argent ont été dépensées par des adoptants potentiels qui sont venus en Haïti de nombreuses
fois dans l’espoir de prendre la garde de leur enfant adoptif, pour apprendre qu’ils avaient omis
de présenter le formulaire 1063 C (ou n’importe quoi d’autre) au Gouvernement haïtien.
* Nous connaissons un orphelinat à Pignon qui est géré par des Étasuniens. Ils s’occupent des
enfants avec amour et compassion dans un environnement qui place les besoins des enfants en
priorité. Un environnement sain, des vêtements adéquats, des soins de santé, beaucoup d’amour,
une bonne scolarisation et de la formation professionnelle pour les plus âgés.

* Nous connaissons un orphelinat en milieu rural qui opère presque sans aucune aide
gouvernementale et dont le directeur et les employés sont haïtiens. Les conditions de vie y sont
spartiates et il est clair que les ressources financières de l’établissement sont à la limite de sa
survie. Pourtant, les enfants y reçoivent au moins un repas complet par jour et plusieurs d’entre
eux peuvent fréquenter l’école. Quand des Américains de passage se font inviter par le directeur
à visiter son établissement, ils sont outrés des conditions de vie des enfants. Par contre, si on
demandait à la communauté locale ce qu’elle en pense, le consensus serait que ces enfants sont
très privilégiés. Les Américains en jugent selon leurs standards aisés et les Haïtiens en jugent selon
des standards haïtiens et les alternatives qui s’offrent à ces enfants…rester avec leurs familles et
risquer de manger beaucoup moins bien, dormir à même le sol et n’avoir que très peu de chances
de fréquenter l’école.

8. Patrick Delorme, MD, MPH, Citoyen haïtien. Ancien sous-ministre haïtien de la santé
(MSPP).
Youn moune pa ka di ke pa gen kek bon bagay ki fet nan kek ophelina an Ayiti pou ede kek timoune
ki vreman pa genyen yon manman ou yon papa ou yon fanmi proch ki te ka okipe yo. Men pou
la majorite de ka, mwen panse ke li ta pi bon si yo ta vle vreman ede, pou yo ta cheche yon fanmi-
y ti moune sa yo pou ta okipe yo. Ti moune sila tap gen selon mwen, yon meye priz an chaj, meye
atansyon, plis lanmou e plis chans pou yon landemen miyo. Sinon, pi fo nan swa dizan ophelina
sa yo se kob yap fe sou tet ti moune sa yo. An kle pou mwen, meye solisyon an se pa ophelina. se
ta plito yon milye familyal kote ti moune nan ta santi li pi ankadre, pi an sekirite'.

On ne peut pas dire qu’il n’existe pas en Haïti d’orphelinat qui fasse du bon travail pour aider des
enfants qui n’ont vraiment ni père, ni mère, ni famille proche qui puisse les prendre en charge.
Mais dans la plupart des cas, je crois que le mieux serait de réunir ces enfants avec des proches
qui peuvent s’en occuper. C’est ainsi, selon moi, qu’ils seront le mieux pris en charge, aimés,
auront plus d’attention et pourront espérer un avenir meilleur. D’autre part la plupart des soi-
disant orphelinats ne font qu’amasser des profits sur le dos des enfants. Pour moi, en tout cas, la
meilleure solution ce n’est pas l’orphelinat, c’est plutôt un milieu familial où l’enfant se sentira
encadré et en sécurité.
NOTES
1) i
However, abandoned, neglected, and delinquent children were sent to domestic
agricultural institutions, rural frontier areas, and colonies where they were absorbed into
the domestic labor pool on family farms and enterprises. Examples include England’s
Children Migration Program, Frances “colonie pénitentiaire agricole. In the United States,
between 1854 and 1929 the Protestant Children’s Aid Society oversaw “orphan trains.” A
separate major trend in Western Childcare is what was happening to the children of those
aboriginal populations that European-model agro-industrial family farms displaced from
colonies and frontier lands. Between the late 1800s up until the 1970s millions of aboriginal
children were taken away from their families and institutionalized in aboriginal “boarding
schools.” The objective was to “civilize” them, typically in the sense that they would
become literate and productive members of the labor force and God fearing Christians. The
process was nothing short of massive in scope. In the United States, for example, at its
height in 1973, the US had 60,000 Native American Children in State sponsored residential
schools, representing 25% of all US Native Americans 7 to 18 years of age. At the same
time, another 25 to 35% of Native American Children were in Indian Orphanages. (As if
that were not enough, the US government had placed yet another 25 to 35 percent in foster
care with mainstream Euroamericans). Similar processes occurred throughout Latin
America, Russia, Asia, Scandinavia, East Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,
and Canada. Most of Western governments that supported the institutionalization of
aboriginal children have recently issued public apologies.

2) Yet, another parallel development was the institutionalization of child delinquents. Prior to
about the 1850s youthful offenders were imprisoned with adults or sent to “orphanages’
and colonies with abandoned and neglected children. In the late 1900s a shift to age and
sex segregated institutions began. By the 1930s “juvenile reform schools: existed
throughout developed countries. Despite what would later become scholarly view of
RCCIs as detrimental to child development, the growth in RCCIs for juvenile delinquents
has continued until the present such that the US, for example, has at any given time an
average 100,000 youths incarcerated in RCCIs

3) After WWII there was a significant shift in developed world values. With the mechanism
of agriculture, widespread dependence on factory production and the emerging service
sector economy, children were no longer economic assets in terms of labor. New laws
increasingly restricted the use of child labor as well as corporal punishment. Education was
state sponsored and made compulsory. The new developed world value systems where
crystalized in UN 1956 UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the
Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, and later in the the 1959
the Declaration of the Rights of the Child were anthropologists such as David Lancy’s
(2007: 280) “tantamount to a condemnation of the child-rearing beliefs and behaviors of
three fourths of the world’s parents.”