Part I of this article previously discussed the Kenyan government's decision to shut down all children's homes in the country and the consequences this would have on vulnerable children. In this article, we explore how the academic literature provides ample psychosocial arguments both for, and against, the existence of children's homes.
The most common arguments against children's homes include concerns about the misuse and embezzlement of donor money, sexual exploitation of children (also a consequence of 'voluntourism'), failure to provide appropriate medical attention to children and hosting children who are not orphans and have living, extended family. Many Kenyan-based homes are also unregulated and not legally registered and are often kept in poor condition and housing more children than they can hold.
Using children's homes to commodify children has become a growing concern. On misuse of donor funds, a chief in Kenya's Murang'a County says, "Orphanages realised that if they had more children, they could get more donations… They receive donations from people and misuse the resource, buying the most expensive cars for themselves while the children remain isolated from their families." Proposed solutions to prevent the commodification and exploitation of vulnerable children entails government involvement, where government-sanctioned programmes are established to support at-risk families to ensure that no child is placed in an orphanage of any kind.
The East Africa Institute's Kenya Youth Survey Report 2016 indicates that family is integral when it comes to developing bonds. A total of 60 per cent of youth respondents claimed that they value family first while 94 per cent felt they held the most trust in family. A Kenyan news article argues that institutionalised environments hinder children from creating meaningful attachments with an adult or caregiver as they normally would in a family dynamic. This lack of attachment can result in poor cognitive development, poor moral development, lack of empathy, autistic tendencies, self-stimulation and self-harming behaviour amongst others.
On the flip side, Kevin Wanga, a social worker at First Love Kenya Children's Home, works with children to foster an environment where this isn't the case. Wanga states, "The children [at First Love Kenya Children's Home] are in contact with their guardians. We organise visitation days and in December, we send kids back for about two-three weeks to allow them to bond with their family so they don't lose track of where they come from. We want the kids to be able to recognise their family members when they grow up." According to field research conducted at the University of Nairobi on the safety and provision of care to institutionalised children, staff and caretakers at the home felt akin to family because they were reliable, communicative, warm and sensitive. Almost all interviewees expressed that they could identify a caretaker at any time to whom they could turn to for help.
New empirical research on models of care for orphaned and separated children found that "Children in institutional care (95 per cent) were significantly more likely to have their basic material needs met in comparison to those in family-based care (17 per cent), and institutions were better able to provide an adequate standard of living." Another Kenyan study not only supported this finding, but cautioned that if children were returned to their biological families without significant and routine improvements in care and protection, reintegration could prove detrimental.
Similarly, an Al-Jazeera article on the closure of children's homes in Rwanda discusses how children who leave orphanages are still orphans because "[n]obody really wants to care for them. People are too poor. They can't feed them, they can't send them to school," and they could eventually end up on the street. An unstable and under-resourced family life could catalyse a cycle of "poverty, stigma, lack of educational resources, and exposure to physical and sexual violence."
The key differences between regulated and unregulated children's homes were discussed with the founder and director of First Love Kenya Children's Home, Chris Okuna. When asked why First Love stands out from other homes, he responded:
"We walk the talk. We do what we say we're going to do. Transparency is key. We accept constructive criticism and take it to heart. It is our way of learning. If you come to First Love and wanted to know how much money we have received, we keep receipts, checks, and statements to prove our financial accountability. We are very open to sharing our financial information. When the Children's Department inspectors came for an evaluation, they gave us a clean bill of health and told us, 'you've done very well'. In fact, government officials have been here and they have told me, 'Chris, you are spoiling these children. They live far better than our children in our own homes.'"
To conclude, not all children's homes in Kenya – especially those successfully protecting and caring for vulnerable children – should be shut down because of the neglect and shortcomings of failed homes. At the end of the day, it will be the children who will have to bear the brunt of closed homes, failed policies, embezzlement and out-of-context solutions.
The debate on whether children's homes in Kenya should or should not exist must consider the country's current socio-political context and factors like the role of a child's extended family, a family's ability to provide financial and emotional stability, and social stigma around adoption.
Ultimately, Kenyans must think through uniquely Kenyan solutions that will destigmatise vulnerable children and create training and awareness on how to protect and provide adequate physical, mental and emotional support to institutionalized children.
Ashnar Dholakia is an EAI research assistant conducting research on water, sanitation, and hygiene within the context of urban informal settlements.
