{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021667760998030205, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007222586999343401, 'mean_word_length': 5.568965517241379, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
‘Tear down your institutions’. Empirical and evolutionary perspectives on institutional care in SOS Children’s Villages

Typical large-group institutions for abandoned children or orphans are bad for the development of children. From an evolutionary perspective 24/7 institutional care by professional caregivers is outside any ‘Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness’. Hamilton’s rule makes clear why nevertheless institutional care emerged. A central question is whether small-group care in institutional settings is the exception and provides good-enough care? SOS Children’s Villages use small group housing and try to mimic a family-like child-rearing environment to promote child development. In a narrative and quantitative synthesis, the scientific evidence on the associations between growing up in SOS villages and child development in various domains is reviewed. Searches in Web of Sciences, PubMed and Google Scholar yielded 8 eligible empirical studies on N = 1,567 children (including 914 SOS children). Random effects meta-analyses were conducted on physical growth and mental health comparing SOS children with children growing up in typical institutions and in families. Results showed developmental delays of SOS children compared with their peers in families. Compared to children in typical institutions SOS children do better on mental health but worse on physical growth. The preliminary evidence suggests that SOS Children’s Villages should move away from institutional arrangements to family care.