I had a trip to Ghana planned for April 2020. It was my best friend’s idea. She had done the research and found an organization where we could volunteer for two weeks at an orphanage in a village there. We were going to add a week on the tail end of that trip to explore the destination, since neither of us had been there before. But, that trip was canceled…because of COVID.
You have seen the clips in your feed, just like I have. Travelers drop into an orphanage for the afternoon. There are hugs, games, maybe a dance performance. It feels heartwarming. It looks like charity. And me and my friend were going to be a part of that, too.
We were excited. Our privilege gave us a very cushy life, so it was the least we could do.
But in many countries, the “orphanage visit” is part of a business model that was birthed and now relies on the Western tourists’ desire to visit poor orphans and to “give back”. But without realizing it, travelers who do visit, can help fuel an industry tied to child trafficking and emotional harm.
This is what child-protection groups have warned about for more than a decade.
What is orphanage tourism
When most travelers hear the term “orphanage tourism,” they picture a well-meaning volunteer spending time with children who have no one else. But the definition is much broader.
Orphanage tourism refers to any situation where visiting or volunteering in an orphanage becomes part of a travel experience. It can be as casual as a quick stop arranged by a tour guide or as organized as a multi-week volunteer program marketed as “giving back.” In many destinations, these visits are promoted just like cooking classes or temple tours.
Here is the part most travelers never realize: once tourists become part of the business model, the existence of the orphanage itself becomes tied to tourism demand. Child-protection experts have documented that in some countries, the number of orphanages increased not because more children needed care, but because more tourists wanted to visit them. When institutions rely on donations from travelers, they have an incentive to keep beds filled. And that can lead to children being separated from families who, with proper support, could have safely cared for them at home.
In other words, orphanages can expand not in response to child welfare needs but in response to tourism trends. That shift transforms what feels like charity into a system built to satisfy visitor expectations rather than serve children.
The statistic that shocks most people
One of the most widely misunderstood facts about global child welfare is the number of children who are actually orphans. Decades of research from UNICEF, Save the Children, Lumos, and government studies all point to the same finding: the majority of children living in orphanages are not, in fact, orphans.
Global estimates suggest that roughly 80 percent of children in residential care have at least one living parent. This pattern repeats across countries with high levels of orphanage tourism. In Haiti, many of the children in institutions were found to have families. In Cambodia, studies showed a surge in orphanages in tourist hubs even as the number of actual orphans declined. In Nepal and Ghana, assessments revealed that large majorities of children in care had parents or close relatives.
If the children have families, why are they in orphanages?
The answer is almost never parental death. The top driver is poverty. Families struggling with school fees, food insecurity, or medical expenses are vulnerable to promises from orphanage operators who claim they can provide a “better life” for the child. Some parents believe their child is temporarily going away for schooling or safety. Some are pressured or misled. Others feel they have no choice at all.
This creates a dangerous feedback loop: the poorer the families, the easier it becomes to funnel children into institutions — and the more tourists believe they are helping “orphans,” the more the system grows.
What looks like a humanitarian visit often sits on top of a much larger story about global inequality, family separation, and how good intentions can be used to sustain an industry built on children.
How children become “paper orphans”
Once you understand that most children in orphanages have living families, the next question is how they end up classified and treated as orphans at all.
This is where the term “paper orphan” comes in. A paper orphan is a child who is recorded as orphaned or abandoned on official documents, even though their parents are alive. The label exists for administrative or financial reasons, not because the child has no family.
Here is how the process works.
In countries where orphanages depend on donations from tourists and volunteer programs, institutions need children to justify their funding. To maintain those numbers, some operators rely on intermediaries who travel to remote or impoverished areas and identify families under severe economic strain. The family’s vulnerability has already been explained — what changes here is what happens after the child leaves home.
Once children reach the institution, the documentation begins.
Birth certificates may be altered. Background forms may be fabricated. Records may list a parent as deceased or “unknown.” In some cases, parents discover years later that their child was registered as abandoned, even though they were sending letters or visiting when allowed.
These manipulated records serve a purpose: they make the child fundable. When a child is recorded as orphaned, institutions can solicit more donations, appeal to more volunteers, and appear more urgent in their requests for support. The child’s true family ties — the very relationships the system should protect — are erased on paper to fit a narrative that attracts foreign aid.
This is the point where child-protection experts identify a clear form of exploitation. When children are recruited, moved, and reclassified to meet the financial needs of institutions, the institution is no longer responding to child welfare needs. It is manufacturing them.
The result is a child who grows up disconnected from their own family, a family who may not know how to get their child back, and a tourism-driven system that depends on that separation to survive.
Why your short-term visit on vacation actually causes emotional harm
Even in facilities that are not intentionally exploitative, the steady stream of tourists and short-term volunteers can cause real psychological harm — especially for young children.
Human development research is clear: children build their sense of security through consistent, stable relationships. In institutional settings where caregiver turnover is already high, adding weekly volunteer cycles only magnifies instability. A traveler arrives with enthusiasm, affection, and attention. Both the volunteer and the child bond quickly. But then, just as quickly, that adult disappears.
This cycle repeats over and over.
For the traveler, the moment becomes a cherished memory.
For the child, it becomes another loss.
And it compounds each week as a new group of volunteers are ushered in.
Studies in child psychology show that repeated disruptions in attachment can lead to long-term emotional and behavioral challenges. Children may struggle to form secure relationships. They may become withdrawn, overly trusting of strangers, or reactive to abandonment. Some develop coping mechanisms that mask distress but complicate healthy development later in life.
There is also the issue of boundaries. When strangers can walk into an institution, take photos, pick up children, or post them online, it creates an environment where children’s privacy and dignity are routinely overlooked. Many of these children have histories of trauma, neglect, or displacement to start. So, this exposure to strangers and their tourist behavior deepens that harm.
This is why many child-safeguarding guidelines explicitly warn against short-term, unskilled volunteering with children. It may feel compassionate, and a good opportunity to give back; but the emotional cost is carried by the child long after the traveler boards their flight home.
Why travel companies are pulling away from orphanage visits
The good news is that this issue has moved beyond just advocacy circles. Major travel brands and associations have received the word on the harm of this kind of tourism and no longer offer orphanage visits entirely from their itineraries. Their reasoning is straightforward: if tourism contributes to the demand for institutions, reducing demand is a direct way to reduce harm.
Travel associations have also issued guidance urging companies to eliminate orphanage tours and to adopt formal child-safeguarding policies. Some organizations now train staff and partners on identifying harmful practices, preventing exploitation, and supporting alternatives centered on family and community care.
This shift marks a major acknowledgment within the industry: travelers want experiences that do good, but the industry has a responsibility to ensure those experiences do not create or reinforce systems that harm children.
Red flags travelers should watch for
But, not all volunteer opportunities are bad. If you have a love for children and have a significant amount of time to dedicate—minimum six months, but ideally at least a year—there can be ways to ethically volunteer at an organization that truly helps children. Because orphanages vary widely in structure and transparency, travelers need practical tools to assess whether a visit or volunteer program is part of a harmful model.
Here are the most telling warning signs:
• You can drop in with no background check or training. Reputable child-centered organizations require screening, training, and long-term commitments.
• Children perform for visitors. If dance routines, singing, or emotional speeches are scheduled for tourists, it signals theatrical fundraising rather than care.
• Information focuses on sadness, not systems. Heavy emotional messaging without clear operational details is a red flag.
• No mention of reunification work. Ethical organizations prioritize returning children to safe family care when possible.
• Pressure to give money immediately. Especially cash, without receipts or transparency.
• No integration with national child-welfare authorities. Legitimate care centers operate under strict regulation and oversight.
The key thing to remember is that children are not tourist attractions.
If children are being marketed as part of your itinerary, the experience is already compromising their rights.
What travelers can support instead
Opting out of orphanage visits does not mean you are heartless and don’t care to help. It means you can redirect your support toward models proven to protect children and strengthen families.
-
Family reunification and preservation programs: These organizations provide counseling, food support, healthcare, school assistance, and economic tools so parents can safely care for their children at home.
-
Community-based services: Instead of funding new institutions, your support can enhance local schools, clinics, social workers, and disability services — reducing the pressures that push families toward separation.
-
Ethically structured volunteering: Short-term, unskilled volunteer work with children is harmful, but skilled volunteers (teachers, doctors, legal experts, IT specialists) can help support local staff — when they are invited and supervised by local organizations.
-
Local NGOs with transparency: Look for clear child-protection policies, audited finances, and leadership that is grounded in the community.
-
Ask the hard questions before donating or visiting
• How did the children arrive here?
• How many have living parents?
• Does the organization work toward family reunification?
• Is this project aligned with national child-welfare policy?
Your questions alone help shift the system. When travelers signal they want ethical, community-based solutions, organizations feel pressure to adapt. And if you truly want to help, support organizations working to keep families together. That is the kind of travel impact that lasts.