Home on Gorham Street and the Voices of Its Children, The

Congressman Newt Gingrich's comments in 1994 about reestablishing orphanages forced the issue back into the public's consciousness after a hiatus of more than 40 years. Liberals were horrified by Gingrich's ideas on two levels: their distrust of Gingrich's motives and the prospect of returning children to a system of institutionalization that had been all but abandoned by the late 1950s. In the public's mind, orphanages were places where society's unwanted were housed in a Dickensonian-like warehouse. By the 1950s, this uncomfortable relic of a dark and ignorant social past had been replaced by a modern and supposedly more humane system of foster care.

By the 1960s, foster care had become the predominant form of care for children who required out-of-home placement. By the 1970s, however, the demographics of child placement had dramatically changed. Orphans, abandoned children, or children whose parents were unable to care for them were replaced by many children who were severely neglected or were victims of sexual and physical abuse. Increasingly, children were involuntarily placed in foster care because families were rendered dysfunctional by drug or other addictions. By the time many of these children arrived in foster care, they were so psychologically damaged that prospects for their achieving a normal adulthood were slim.

Despite the promise of foster care, the dream of replacing orphanages with a stable home-like environment was never realized. In fact, some children in foster care may be moved to 10 or more homes in a 10-year period. Nor did foster care prove to be a less costly alternative to orphanages. Currently, the cost of foster care in California has eclipsed the cost of funding the entire University of California system. According to some observers, the foster care system in some areas is so overwhelmed that it is at the verge of grinding to a halt. The crisis facing foster care has led some traditional child welfare advocates, including Goldstein, to rethink the benefits of institutional care, at least on a restricted basis. Goldstein argues that orphanages served an important social role in terms of housing and socializing children who were orphaned, abandoned, or who as a result of illness (their own or that of a family member) were unable to be properly cared for at home. Goldstein's book could not have appeared at a better time.

The Home on Gorham Street is an ethnographic study of the Rochester Jewish Children's Home in Rochester, New York. Now defunct, the home was undistinguished in terms of innovations and is relatively typical of early 20th-century religion-based orphanages. For Goldstein, however, the home gave rise to and held important stories of its inhabitants and served as a microcosm of the society around it. His book gives a face to both the institution and to the residents who lived there.

In chapter one, Goldstein looks at the beginnings of the home, including the physical, cultural, and religious character of Rochester's Jewish immigrant community. The second chapter examines the history, origins, philosophies, and ideas that served as the foundation for the home. In particular, Goldstein looks at the changes in child care that marked the Progressive Era. Chapter three investigates the kinds of cataclysms affecting immigrant families that led to the creation of the home. The fourth chapter examines facts relating to the home (e.g., admissions and procedures, data on kids and families). In addition, Goldstein examines some of the important individuals (e.g., community leaders and philanthropists) who influenced the children's home. Chapter five analyzes the paradoxical views of the home shared by former residents. Specifically, although most former residents viewed the home as harsh, they also saw it as their home. In a sense, Goldstein examines how sternness coexisted with benevolence. The sixth chapter focuses on the subjective recollections of the former residents in terms of what life was like there. These recollections involve issues such as discipline, routines, religious demands, and the positive aspects of friendship, group identity, and belonging. Chapter seven covers the subsequent lives of former residents. Chapter eight discusses why the home closed in 1947. Goldstein contrasts the official view with insider views. Additionally, the chapter looks at the strengths and limitations of the research methods used in the study.

Goldstein's study is unusual in several respects. First, his methodology is a blend of historiography and ethnography. Although Goldstein carefully examined agency records, he also depended heavily on the reminiscences and impressions of former residents about what it was like to grow up in the home. In particular, Goldstein used history to describe the events at the home and ethnography to illustrate the theme that context informs meaning. Because Goldstein knew many of the residents (he grew up on the block) it was also a personal investigation into his past. In fact, Goldstein was a participant observer to the extent that his memories were used in the study. These conditions are not generally found in formal social science research.

An ethnography is generally one of the most difficult studies to undertake. An ethnographic study like this, in which the investigator was (and in this case, still is) involved in the life of the subjects, could be a sure-fire recipe for disaster Not so with Goldstein. He handles this study with adroit precision, fairness, and a large measure of compassion. Goldstein accomplished what he intended-providing readers with a study of a children's home through the lens of his own past. The study instructs all of us about strength, wisdom, courage, and dignity. Apart from telling the story of the Rochester Jewish Children's Home from the perspective of the former residents, Goldstein also looks at the message the home can provide for child welfare services in the United States. For example, Goldstein recommends that institutions not only be judged on their structure but also on the opportunities they provide for learning and change. He posits that resilience is a more important concept in the struggle for self-attainment than a pathologically based framework of human development. Finally, Goldstein argues for a reexamination of group child care as an alternative to the present child welfare system. To assist this reexamination, he discusses important features that should shape child care.

The Home on Gorham Street is a powerful book. In fact, the book isn't simply well-written, it is exquisitely penned. Goldstein writes with a rich and vibrant prose that is uncharacteristic of academic writers. The images, the wisdom, the compassion, and the eloquent prose leap out at the reader. One can't help but become teary while reading about the personal triumphs and tragedies of former residents. In short, this book is a wonderful mixture of passion, compassion, wisdom, and scholarly inquiry. The Home on Gorham Street deserves a wide readership. In fact, it should be mandatory reading for all social workers.

Howard Goldstein. Tuscaloosa, AL: Universit of Alabama Press, 1996.

Copyright Family Service America Sep/Oct 1997
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved