Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The recent investigations into Syria's "stolen children" have uncovered a bleak truth. Documents and testimonies indicate that children "disappeared" under Bashar al-Assad were hidden in so-called orphanages, including facilities run by the global charity SOS Children's Villages. Many were not orphans, but the sons and daughters of detainees and regime opponents.

The centres were used to extort and punish their families. Reporting by Lighthouse Reports, the Observer and the BBC details mothers denied answers, records altered, and children's identities changed. The Syria scandal demands answers, but what SOS truly needs is a reckoning with the very foundations of its model of care.

SOS is not a small organisation. It is a federation operating in more than 130 countries which presents itself as the world's largest provider of care for children without parental care. With revenues of €1.64 billion in 2023, the organisation operates with a level of power and influence comparable to some governments. That same year it claims to have provided "a range of care options" to about 69,000 children, while supporting 103,500 families to prevent separation, according to its own impact data.

At the heart of its system are the "villages", clusters of houses where one SOS "mother" cares for up to ten children. Marketed as "family-like care", these villages are essentially residential institutions. The idea is not new. A century ago, Barnardo's in the UK built "cottage homes" on the same model, later abandoned because children were stigmatised and segregated from community life. SOS has repeated this model for many decades on a global scale. With tens of thousands of children in its care, it holds enormous influence yet operates without democratic oversight.

The Syria scandal is not the first time SOS has faced serious questions. In 2021 SOS commissioned independent reviews of historical abuse after allegations surfaced across the federation. The organisation issued apologies and pointed to stronger safeguarding, but survivors and whistleblowers continue to ask who has been held accountable and how decisions were made. The federation highlights reforms including a revised child safeguarding policy, a strengthened code of conduct and the creation of a global ombuds system. Yet these measures raise questions about whether they represent genuine cultural change or reactive crisis management.

How Trump's Gaza Peace Plan Could Quickly Crumble

The President's America-first, Palestine-last plan for Gaza risks collapsing under its own contradictions, argues Rana Sabbagh

Rana Sabbagh

The notion of the villages "family-like" care also falls apart under scrutiny. SOS villages are often built on the outskirts of towns, hidden behind walls and fences that cut children off from everyday community life. However well-intentioned, this segregation reinforces stigma and marks children and young people out as different. Inside the houses, a single adult is usually responsible for eight to ten children, and when one caregiver is stretched so thin, older children frequently take on the parenting of younger peers. Evidence shows it piles stress on children and harms their long-term outcomes. A recent review of studies comparing foster and residential care underline what practitioners already know: children thrive best in families rooted in their communities rather than in institutions by another name.

In my own research in Thailand, we interviewed children living in children's village settings, some run by SOS and some by the Government. Children described both the strengths and the strains of this model. They appreciated the stability of house mothers, but also spoke about the stigma of village life, feeling marked out at school as being different from their peers. Boys were separated at the age of 14 int...