In the world of international child development and orphan care, it’s not uncommon for children with families to declare themselves orphans. In fact, this practice can be traced back to precolonial times in Kenya.
Andreana Prichard has done research on the practice in Kenya. We asked her to share her insights into it.
Why do some people in Kenya assume the identity of ‘orphan’?
We often think of “orphans” as children who have lost both parents and who lack kin networks. One might ask why someone would “opt in” to orphan status when they do not fall within the classical definition of the term.
In my paper I look at the issue of orphanhood over the last 160 years. Case studies from Kenya I examine illustrate that the practice I define as “opting in” to orphanhood has precolonial roots. I define “opting in” as choosing to take on the label of being an orphan. This can be done by parents, relatives or even, in some instances, the child. This is because the label “orphan” has come to confer unique opportunities.
The practice became increasingly popular in the mid-1990s, when parents in eastern and southern Africa who had contracted HIV began to die in large numbers. Activists feared many children would be left without caregivers.
In response, the number of orphanages proliferated as humanitarian actors, churches and states inundated east Africa with orphan-focused NGOs.
In 2020, officials in Kenya estimated that there were at least 910 residential institutions for children in the country (of which 581 were registered), housing between 26,198 and 85,733 Kenyan children.
The predicted “orphan crisis” never materialised, partly because families and communities stepped in to care for newly parentless children. But the idea of an “orphan crisis” remained, and so did the funding and infrastructure.
This phenomenon occurred across the continent, not just in Kenya. However, its effects were felt particularly acutely in eastern and southern Africa where HIV/Aids prevalence rates were higher and where there was more western tourism.
Today, many African families see orphan-focused NGOs as a path to access education and improve their lives. My research shows that children themselves sometimes affiliate with an institution that provides shelter, food and schooling. Children facing abuse from caregivers may also prefer the relative anonymity and safety of an institution.
In some cases, receiving orphan services actually raises the status of the “orphan” child above that of other children. They have access to more material resources than they might have had in their villages or at home. They might have more leisure time and less work. They may have access to better bedding, shoes and clothing. They are also likely able to attend school more consistently and have a real opportunity to attend university.
Does ‘opting in’ have a long history?
Yes, it does.
In the precolonial period, most parentless or vulnerable children were cared for through lasting community support systems. Orphanhood, as it exists today as a child lacking support, protection, or care from kin, was largely avoided.
However, the late 19th to mid-20th centuries brought new actors to the east African region. The practice of “opting in” became a strategic, temporary option used by families to access services from western humanitarians.
The earliest example of this shift I found in my research is from the 1890s. Fearing their children would be caught in the Indian Ocean slave trade, African parents sometimes chose to send their children to British missions until the region was safe. They knew the missionaries opposed the slave trade and knew they offered food and medical care.
African parents thought they were making temporary arrangements to keep their children safe. Missionaries, however, understood parents to have abandoned their children. When parents returned to repay the debt – with agricultural produce or trade goods – and to reclaim their children, missionaries refused them.
In another example from Kenya in the 1950s, the British colonial government opened “reform schools” for young men. The Wamumu Approved School was renowned for the relative quality of education it provided. But the state admitted only the “most vulnerable” for a free education. Feeling they had no way to access Wamumu, students claimed to be orphans.
What have been the negative effects of Kenya’s orphan system?
There are several problems with creating a situation in which people present themselves as vulnerable just to gain safety or improve their social and economic standing.
First, research has shown that building orphanages in poor communities incentivises parents to abandon their children if they’re not also given the help to remain together.
Second, research shows that children are often put at risk in these institutions. Institutionalisation exposes children to risks such as sexual abuse, gender-based violence and neglect.
Third, orphanages have become so lucrative that African orphanage owners will go to great lengths to fit African children into the categories westerners wish to fund. The phenomenon of “paper orphans” is a prime example. “Paper orphans” are children who are recruited from their homes by proprietors (or middlemen/brokers) of orphanages and residential-care facilities. Fraudulent documentation is created for them – often including false death certificates of parents and new identity registration documents – rendering them orphans on paper, and vulnerable in practice.
What should be done?
Governments in Europe, Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean are trying to phase out orphanages, as are some African countries.
Based on my research I believe that working with families to support vulnerable children in their homes of origin or with extended families is a better option. This can be done through assistance programmes for vulnerable families as well as child welfare programmes. These allow families to remain intact when experiencing hardship.
Kenya is taking steps to do this by replacing orphanages and other forms of residential children’s homes with family-based, foster and community-based care and other forms of assistance. Family strengthening approaches include positive parenting instruction, life skills training, and income-generating activities, as well as supportive supervision.
In addition to this, missionary and voluntourism trips to orphanages and residential care facilities should be banned or limited.
