In Kenya, the topic of orphanages, or ’children’s homes’, is highly contested. Drafted by the Kenyan Parliament,
defines a children’s home as: “a home or institution which has been established by a person, corporate or unincorporate, a religious organisation or a non-governmental organisation and has been granted approval by the [National Council for Children Services] to manage a programme for the care, protection, rehabilitation or control of childre
There are several reasons why children are brought to an orphanage, even if they have living parents or family members. Some include: poverty, HIV, family conflict, outdated cultural practices, domestic neglect, the fear that children born out of
incest would be treated as social outcasts; and teenage pregnancies where mothers may face stigma and lack the resources or the will to keep their child.
There are an estimated 40,000 to 45,000 children in over 700 children’s homes and shelters in Kenya. According to the
Aga Khan University’s East Africa Institute Youth Report, about 80 per cent of Kenya’s population is below 35 years old and political participation plays a vital role in youths’ understanding of identity, values, integrity and future goals.
Following suit with
Rwanda’s consequential decision to shut down all of the country’s orphanages in 2014, in late 2018, Kenya’s government decided to close all of the children’s homes in Kenya, with the exception of rescue centres, which will operate as care facilities for children in emergencies. According to Kenya’s Treasury Cabinet Secretary Ukur Yattani, this decision is grounded in the country’s objectives of achieving family reintegration and deinstitutionalisation where children in homes will either be reunited with a living parent (as not all children are truly orphans), a family member, or put in foster care where they can live in a long-term family dynamic.
Based on the philosophy that children require the guidance and warmth of family to support their psychological and emotional well-being,
Yattani states that, “Once you put them [children] in homes, you isolate them from the society. So, that is the psychological stigma that they will experience when they grow up. Re-integrating them to the society is not very easy if they are kept in institutions. It is because of that that we are no longer registering children’s homes.”
The government’s plan will require diligent efforts to track down children’s’ relatives and any slip-ups could result in vulnerability and precarious living situations. A
vulnerable child is at risk of ending up on the street, suffering abuse, being trafficked, abandoned and ultimately put in harm’s way without adequate shelter, protection and guidance. The government plans on enacting a community cohesion and national solidarity policy to counteract backlash.
Yattani’s announcement was met with adverse reaction, as the Kenyan community has made several arguments supporting the existence of children’s homes. Some have argued that no child is willfully brought to a home by stable parents or relatives, and a biological relationship is not necessary for providing a child with love, resources and a good quality of life.
Some argue that the existence of children’s homes signifies a failed state where citizens are not granted the socio-economic support they require from the government. The social and financial responsibility of caring for vulnerable children, and tracing a child’s background, family and community, falls on children’s homes that operate independent of the state. The government barely has a budget for social services for children, nor is it a source of income for Kenyan children’s shelters. Additionally, it is questionable for bureaucrats, who are not all well-versed with on-the-ground realities involving orphaned and neglected children, to create a vision for family integration. Similar criticism has been made of Rwanda’s decision to shut down all children’s homes. According to
Filip Reyntjens, a Belgian political scientist, professor at the University of Antwerp and author of Political Governance in Post-Genocide Rwanda, the country’s decision to deinstutionalise was more a superficial tactic, more so than anything else, because orphans and “looking poor” was bad for the country’s image.
Jacqueline Herrera, co-founder of Kitechild, a non-profit that partners with orphanages to carry out sustainable micro-projects to improve quality of life for children, states: “…many orphanages are serving a crucial role in their communities. They do save the lives of many children, and they provide services to help families in times of need. As for the long-term strategy, at what point does the burden of care and alternatives continue to be placed on NGOs and the orphanages themselves? When will local governments step up to the plate and start providing the social services and resources that their communities desperately need?” Eliminating children’s homes can only happen if the political system is intensely reformed from within to tackle the country’s corruption, extreme poverty, unemployment, lack of access to sex education and family planning, and the prevalence of exploitative cultural practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation
This concludes Part I (of II) of this blog post. Part II will discuss the pros and cons in the social and psychological literature concerning the existence of children’s homes. Additionally, we will gain insight on transparency, financial accountability, government relations and children’s homes initiatives from an exclusive interview conducted with Chris Okuna, founder and director of First Love Kenya Children’s Home for the past 15 years.
Ashnar Dholakia is an EAI Research Assistant conducting research in water, sanitation, and hygiene within the context of urban informal settlements.
