We Do Not Play With People’s Lives: The Hidden Harm of Orphanage Performance Tours

Years ago, Dan Hope from Strengthening Families and Children traveled with me to Sierra Leone to do some capacity building with the case management team at Child Reintegration Centre, our allies in Sierra Leone. In many informal conversations we had with Dan while there, he said many things to me that I found personally convicting—particularly around the responsibility we all take when we step into the space of vulnerability that surrounds a child separated from parental care, and assume the responsibility to care for that child.

"These are people's lives," he said. "And we do not play with people's lives."

Many of us started orphanages out of an abundance of good will and good intention. We're smart, educated, compassionate people. But when we step up and say "I will care for this child/these children, I will protect them and ensure they have the things that they need," we need to feel the full weight of what that commitment means. It is not just to feed and protect, and give them access to healthcare and education. This is the minimum of what a child needs. Would you be satisfied if that is all your own child received?

Children—all children—must have, and rightly deserve - love, attachment, someone to belong to, identity, personal history, culture, and connection.

To presume that we can provide all of these things to children living in another country, in an institutional setting, is put simply and candidly - hubris.

Those of us who have stood up to say that we will lead in the protection and care of children must band together to help the world understand that the best way to do that is to ensure a loving and permanent family for each and every child that finds him or herself on our roster of care. And we must guard against any activity that leads to the exploitation of these children or their stories - even "in their own best interest."

Recently, Kelly Strong, a good friend and the Chief Executive Officer of SAFE in Kenya, wrote an incredible piece highlighting a growing danger to vulnerable children—being trafficked and exploited as fundraising tools through efforts that bring them from their homes in the Global South to perform for audiences in the Global North with song, dance, and personal stories that exploit their trauma on huge stages to goad Western audiences into donating money.

Shortly after Kelly posted this courageous story on LinkedIn, Hope and Homes for Children launched an equally courageous campaign calling out the problems with these orphanage performance tours. Orphanage performance troupes bring children living in orphanages in the Global South to perform in churches and sometimes even larger venues in the UK and the US.

As Hope and Homes writes: "While performances from such children’s performance groups are presented as charitable, cultural and often religious outreach exchanges, they are raising alarm bells for how they commodify trauma, disrupt education, blur legal lines, and prop up a model of care long discredited by international standards."

What's even more alarming is that these groups aren't just popping up in Western churches—but on TV talent shows as well. Children in these shows don’t just sing and dance; they’re encouraged to share their often traumatic stories in order to "tug on the heartstrings (and the purse strings) in order to raise funds to continue the support of damaging models of care (i.e., orphanages)."

It’s not my intention to add anything new to this dialogue—I'm not sure that I could—but whatever weight I have to put behind these two important conversations shared by Kelly and Hope and Homes, and shine a light to bring others to them, I intend to. To that end, I encourage you to read both Kelly’s posts and that of Hope and Homes, and I'll share some highlights from each here, but I highly recommend you read each of the pieces linked in this post.

As Kelly writes, "Because when children are flown across borders to sing, dance, and share traumatic stories to raise money, we must ask hard questions, not just about logistics or legality… but about dignity, consent, and power."  As Kelly rightly points out, the beneficiaries in such scenarios are not the children, but "organizations, the donors, the marketing team, and even the emotional payoff donors seek."

But, as she points out, the cost is high:

• "Children being objectified as tools for income generation"
• "Performances that blur the line between culture and exploitation"
• "Narratives that reinforce harmful stereotypes and create donor dependency"
• "The unseen emotional and psychological impacts on children, including relived trauma"
• "The perpetuation of a model of fundraising that others copy, thinking it must be okay.

As actors in child protection and child welfare, we MUST adopt a first do no harm approach to this work, and our highest priority MUST be the protection of every child we serve.

As Hope and Homes points out, these orphanage performance models that "encourage [children] to recount personal trauma, often repeatedly and without proper psychological support, can cause lasting harm. Rehearsed performances risk re-traumatisation, while the children’s agency and dignity are sidelined in favour of donor and congregational appeal."

The child protection risks abound when children are removed from one setting and transported to places where they're to perform. Children often stay in the homes of church members while abroad— and what screening and child protection measures are put in place in these cases? As Hope and Homes highlights, there is an alarming lack of standardization or transparency around these practices.

Likewise, issues of consent are often not addressed at all. These performances and the advertising around them typically make extensive use of images, names, and personal stories. Since we know that 80% of children in orphanages have a living parent, and many more have extended family—were the children and their families or guardians informed or given the opportunity to refuse? Or even felt they had the right to say no?

As Kelly says: "Children are not fundraising tools. They are human beings, worthy of safety, dignity, and respect!"  And again, from Dan, "we do not play with people's lives."

When we assume the awesome and fearful responsibility to care for a child, it is our duty to honor that above all else.