On October 23, 2025, the International SOS Children’s Villages revealed that its founder, Hermann Gmeiner, had committed sexual and physical assaults over several years prior to his death in 1986. Eight cases were documented internally, and compensation was paid to the affected individuals between 2013 and 2023, while investigations are still ongoing in some of the organization’s centers in Austria regarding the abuse of children.

In the same context, the organization’s International Council decided to suspend the membership of the Austrian branch (SOS-Kinderdorf Österreich) in the federation, as well as that of its representative, Andreas Kovar. The council also recommended convening an extraordinary general assembly to consider revoking Austria’s designated seat on the International Council.

These measures expose a deep crisis within the organization, not only as an institution providing services to children separated from family care, but as a broader ideological and institutional system whose very structure now demands dismantling, especially as scandals continue to unfold, reaching all the way to its founder.

These scandals cannot be viewed as isolated incidents or individual mistakes. What the investigations have revealed points to systemic and institutional dimensions rooted in the organization’s founding mindset. The issue here is not merely one of mismanagement, but of an institutional culture that produced silence and cover-ups, harming children’s rights and dignity.

The problem goes beyond Austria or sporadic cases of sexual abuse. In Syria, reports have shown that children were separated from their families under pressure from the regime, then transferred to the organization’s centers under unclear circumstances, with some later returned to the authorities without any follow-up to determine their fate. These incidents raise a fundamental question about the value of financial compensation or symbolic apologies in the face of violations that strike at the heart of the institution.

What ties these cases together is a recurring pattern of silence and politicization in child-care management, something that cannot be repaired through cosmetic measures. The issue lies in the approach itself: in how a child’s needs are understood, in the  alternative care setting, and in the values upon which it is built.

Historically, experience has shown that separation from family does not always mean protection; it can, in fact, be harsher than remaining within the family itself. Hence arises a crucial question: why not invest in supporting families and communities instead of replacing them with institutions?

Between 2002 and 2009, I worked with SOS Children’s Villages in Lebanon and several other countries around the world. During those years, I observed a kind of institutional veneration that went beyond care provision, manifested in the hanging of Hermann Gmeiner’s portraits in every home, creating the sense that the organization itself was a savior, and that the children owed it gratitude. I call this the “gratitude syndrome”: the constant expectation that children must express deep thanks to the institution, even when they experience harm within it.

In such a culture, abuse grows in silence. How can a child dare to disclose harm when they are constantly told that the institution “saved” their life?

This is not an isolated incident, but an institutional crisis. When an institution is regarded as sacred, criticism becomes almost impossible, creating a fertile environment for abuse to persist.

Rethinking this issue cannot be limited to administrative or legal reform; it requires redefining the relationship between institutions and children. We need care models that empower families and communities to be sites of protection, rather than replacing them with institutional care that risks reproducing pain.

All these scandals are connected by a single thread: the culture of silence. When silence is imposed on children, and when a halo of gratitude is built around the institution, it becomes easy for children to disappear, as in Syria, or for sexual assaults to be “resolved” through financial compensation, without accountability or justice.

The conclusion is clear: the problem does not lie only with individuals, but with the structure and ideology that govern the institution.

These scandals are not isolated events; they are symptoms of a global institutional crisis. Addressing them requires a radical reimagining of the role of such organizations. What if the funds allocated to institutional care were invested instead in supporting families before they are broken apart?

A simple question, but one that could end the “gratitude syndrome” and protect children from a long silence.