In this chapter of Global Perspectives, Stephen Ucembe uses his personal experiences and his experiences as a social work professional to discuss institutional care in Kenya. This chapter covers the factors that influence institutional care of children in Kenya, international aid, volunteerism, and the negatives of institutional care.
Ucembe states that Kenya Demographic Health Survey estimates that there are 2.4 million orphans and vulnerable children living in Kenya. The Kenyan government estimates 30-45% of the 2.4 million orphans and vulnerable children in the country end up in charitable children institutions. A government commissioned reports notes there are 1200 institutions in Kenya with approximately between 30,000-200,000 children. Ucembe further states that the “majority of orphans and vulnerable children are supported within non-formal kinship arrangements.”
Ucembe further notes that Charitable Children’s Institutions (CCIs) are part of the dominant model of care in Kenya because CCIs are prioritized as the first steps towards adoption or foster care in Kenya.
Per Ucembe, the UNCRC model of prioritizing family groups as the fundamental model of child development is idealistic at best. Several social variables in Kenya make this ideal nearly impossible. Ucembe states that poverty, which sits at 46% is the leading factor contributing to the institutionalization of children. Additionally, there is a lucrative adoption market in Kenya that makes institutional care a profitable endeavor. Ucembe continues to say that these reasons are not satisfactory explanations for the state of institutional care. He points out that the “saviour mentality” by donors helps to disguise actual circumstances.
The history of institutional care in Kenya is poorly documented, notes Ucembe. He further notes however that there are certain historical events that stand out as encouraging the proliferation of institutional services. He specifically points to Kenya’s independence in December 1963, and the West’s desire to invest in Africa. Kenya was loaned money and due to the OPEC price hikes in 1970, rates raised and Kenya went into debt. This debt led to unemployment, which led to households unable to meet their basic needs.
Ucembe also points to voluntourism as a reason for the “intensification of institutional care.” Due to scarcity of historical experience, Ucembe pulls from his life experience, wherein he says as a child he lived in institutional care, and he was often brought out for display. He said he felt no better than an animal in a zoo. In addition to the local tourists, the rising middle class in Kenya also provided financial support to these institutions.
Ucembe then shares his story of how he ended up in care after his mother’s brutal murder. He discusses how he grew up in a “cold and callous place” surrounded by barbed wire, concrete walls, and thorny bushes. He also discusses how he saw the government round up children on the street and take them into institutional care. In his recollection, he says he lived in a dormitory surrounded by 50 children. Life was very regimented and predictable. He notes how the dormitory was always full, and once a child left, another one was immediately put in that child’s place. Visitors, volunteers, and staff were constantly taking photos. Younger children were preferred over older ones, and as Ucembe grew older, he received less attention. After he turned 18, he was dropped off into the community. He was a left with a tremendous sense of abandonment.
Ucembe notes that new research outcomes have painted institutional care as a negative influence on children. This has caused a rush to de-institutionalization. Ucembe notes that this is being done without considering that many children have no other option. He also states that research arguments that support de-institutionalization are Eurocentric, and Kenya focused research should be considered.
In reflecting on what’s wrong with institutional care, Ucembe notes how careleavers are virtually ignored. He also notes that some institutions start as a rescue facility without the financial or physical capacity to care for the children in their charge. These children are often unable to explore family-care or other alternative care options.
