Most ‘orphanages’ are not true orphanages but rather foster homes or education and medical facilities. In many cases, children in these institutions have families but were placed there due to poverty. Recognizing this, we focused on solutions that facilitate family reintegration. This approach offers individualized support crucial for a child’s long-term well-being – something orphanages cannot scale while maintaining personalized care.
Our efforts specifically targeted foster children sheltered at orphanages due to poverty and economic hardship. Due to our limited project timeframe, we did not address other root causes such as family violence, war displacement, abuse, and abandonment.
It’s worthwhile mentioning that family reintegration goes beyond physically returning children home. It also involves strengthening community support family systems, so families have the resources to care for their children effectively. Indirect interventions, such as improving healthcare access, help alleviate financial burdens that might otherwise lead to family separation.
1. Family reintegration programs
We sought programs that directly or indirectly achieved family reintegration outcomes. Using a diversified, portfolio-based approach, we identified the following candidates:
| Program | Location | Approach | Main Aim | Allocation ($AUD) |
| Snehalaya Family-based Care Program | Ahmednagar, India | Direct | Reunite children with their families by developing a strong base of family-based services | $1500 (GPB$745) |
| SOS Children's Villages of India Family Strengthening Program | New Delhi, India | Direct | Help vulnerable families to become self-reliant by generating sustainable income to afford quality care for their children | NA |
| Humanitarian Services for Children of Vietnam (HSCV) Blossom Program | Hanoi, Vietnam | Indirect | Strengthen family relationships through targeted parental engagement | $2420 (VND$38.4m) |
| Bali Kids Healthcare Clinic | Bali, Indonesia | Indirect | Provide accessible healthcare to families with children experiencing poverty | $1243 (IDR$13m) |
We determined fund allocations based on two key criteria: past success in family reintegration and/or alignment with our values in cases where no reported metrics were available. Snehalaya’s program met both criteria, reporting that over 40 children had been reintegrated with their parents or extended families at a 60-70% success rate. It was also welcome news to hear that Snehalaya aims to establish its program as a replicable model, leading efforts in India to promote family-based care in a nascent landscape where Western-style foster care is not yet widespread.
For Bali Kids’ Healthcare Clinic and HSCV’s Blossom Program, we contributed to these initiatives because their operators (Brenton Whitaker/Komang Kusala and Annetta DeVet, respectively) shared our belief that the ultimate goal is to keep children with their families or extended family and to continue strengthening the relationship between a parent and child.
Unfortunately, despite reaching out, we were unable to connect with the operators of SOS India’s Family Strengthening Program in a timely manner, preventing us from contributing to their program.
Regardless of whether these programs directly or indirectly prevented family separation (for non-orphans), we were encouraged to find that their operators shared our perspective. Given the financial incentives of housing non-orphans to attract funding, this level of alignment with our views was not necessarily expected.
2. A thought experiment on family stipends
In the future, with more resources, we may experiment with directly supporting families in poverty with stipends. Given that our income is in a high-purchasing-power currency, we can leverage exchange rate advantages in South/Southeast Asian countries to maximize impact. However, before implementing direct financial support, we required on-the-ground data on living expenses to assess how far family stipends could go in preventing children separation.
As a reference point, we sourced data from Living.org, assuming a family of 3-4. Alarmingly, these estimates were significantly inflated compared to locally reported expenses – off by a factor of 51x in Bali and 10x in Hanoi. Other sources, such as Numbeo, also showed inconsistencies. We do acknowledge that these databases may reflect expatriate lifestyles rather than local living conditions. Nevertheless, this underscores the necessity of acquiring ground-truth data.
| Country | Estimated Living Costs ($AUD) (Livingcost.org) | Approximate On-the-ground Living Costs ($AUD) | Deviation |
| Indonesia (Bali) | $5100 (IDR$53m) | $100-300 (IDR$1-3m) | 51×-17× |
| Vietnam (Hanoi) | $3049 (VND$49m) | $310 (VND$5m) | 10× |
| India (Bangalore) | $2273 (INR$123000) | NA | NA |
Assumptions: monthly costs for a family of 3-4 inclusive of rent. Livingcost.org costs retrieved on 25th March 2025. On-the-ground living costs obtained from local sources including locals and Grab drivers during October 2024 to January 2025.
If we allocated half of our $6000 fund, then a single-family stipend in Bali or Hanoi could theoretically sustain a household for approximately 10 months.
3. Superseding the family re-integration strategy
To achieve successful reintegration, it might be prudent to assess the home environment and ensure that it is safe and conducive to the child’s wellbeing. But this process risks reducing parents and their homes to a checklist of metrics, stripping the situation of human empathy – something we adamantly will not impose. This is why a key part of family-integration involves educating parents as well as the children.
While direct stipends (as discussed above) could help, long-term reliance on financial aid is neither scalable nor desirable. A more effective solution is to prevent family separation by addressing its root causes, or improving self-reliance (e.g. HSCV provides livestock, such as a brood of chickens, to foster self-sufficiency).Naturally, given our limited time, resources, and experience, we were unable to pursue these approaches. But we are particularly inspired by Tara Winkler and her team’s philosophy at Cambodian Children’s Trust, which seeks to ‘dismantle the structural root causes of poverty’ by building a public social protection system rather than creating a dependency on charity.
This approach is counterintuitive but logical – it aims to break the cycle of reliance on aid but comes at the likely expense of her and the philanthropy’s redundancy in order to enable a family’s and community’s agency. It takes courage to design a system that intentionally eliminates your own role, which is why we deeply respect Tara Winkler and her philosophy. We are enamoured by the dedication of other founders, like those of Bali Kids, who uphold the same core values.
Reintegration may not be a quick fix, but it’s the more ideal and sustainable solution that offers children the opportunity to thrive, grow, and receive the individualized love that institutional care cannot provide at scale. By focusing on family reunification (whether that be immediate, extended, or foster) and the prevention of family due to poverty, we move closer to a world where every child can feel the warmth and security of home - no matter the circumstances of their birth.