Upload
megan-richarson
View
54
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
PROVISION OF CARE FOR ORPHANS IN POST-‐1994 RWANDA To what extent has the provision of care for orphans in post-‐1994 Rwanda
changed?
By
Megan Richardson 10247696
A Dissertation Submitted to Plymouth University, in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Masters of International Relations: Global Security and Development
Supervisor: Dr Rebecca Davies
2
Declaration
I, Megan Richardson the undersigned candidate, declare that the content of this
dissertation is my own original work and has not previously submitted to any other
University for the award of a degree, either in part or in its entirety.
Signature…………………….
Date……………………………
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the overwhelmingly kind support, assistance and
patience that a number of individuals have given me whilst I have undertaken this
project.
First, and foremost, I express my sincerest thanks and gratitude towards my
supervisor, Rebecca Davies, for her patience, understanding and continual and
invaluable encouragement. Your knowledge and passion for your subject field has
inspired me.
To my beautiful family: Bridget, Martin, Andrew, Phil and Nathan, for supporting me
through the tears, torment and tough days in Rwanda. But, even more so for your
unending confidence in me; continuously supporting me through my education.
Lastly, I thank all those who participated in this piece of research, your time and
honesty will always be appreciated.
4
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to all the children and staff at Noel Orphanage. Your
smiles in the face of struggles and hardship have changed my life beyond measure
but particularly, IMANATURIKUMWE Buduki. You turned my world upside down, and
taught me that poverty does not always amount to a life of unhappiness -‐ and to
think so is dehumanising.
5
Abstract
The Rwandan child has experienced suffering due to bad governance and ignorance,
which has encapsulated the country before, during and after colonisation. The
colonial history of Rwanda, and the subsequent genocide has shaped the perception
of the international community; the surviving children have been deprived of the
environment necessary to grow, and develop to their full potential. The success of
the traditional system of care for orphans was reflected in the lack of policy and
minimal government intervention prior to the genocide. As chaos encapsulated the
country in 1994, nearly 200 NGOs stepped in in an attempt to stabilise and rebuild
Rwanda. Orphanages became common features of the country, and although
institutional care is often criticised for its adverse effects on the development of
children, in a country steeped in poverty it becomes increasingly difficult to evaluate
the shifting paradigm between adequate living conditions and the love of a family,
and assess which gives an optimal balance for the overall development of the child.
The orphan crisis in Rwanda is predominantly a result of the violence and brutality of
the genocide; the systematic mass rape of women in Rwanda led to impregnation,
and a dramatic increase in the HIV prevalence. Through qualitative methods, this
piece of research has critically evaluated the role of the government and NGOs in
addressing the needs of orphans in Rwanda, assessing the continuities and
differences in government policy pre-1994 and post-1994. Through a series of
interviews, combined with the examination of past academic literature, it became
evident that despite the strides forward, the situation for orphaned and vulnerable
children in Rwanda is far from sufficient. The Government published a national
strategy to close all orphanages and reunify all children with family/extended family,
which was met with indignation. The lack of time given for this reform was
detrimental to the immediate success and continues to have a long-term impact on
the orphans and vulnerable children that reside in Rwanda.
This paper examines how these past catastrophes led to the breakdown of traditional
methods of care and how outside organisations stepped in to fill the void created by
government policy. The Government of Rwanda are taking steps to ensure that all
orphaned children can be placed within family units, but is the practice their pursuing
at the detriment to child development, and are their best interests really at heart?
6
Acronyms AC African Charter on the Rights and the Welfare of the Child AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ARV Antiretroviral CNLS National Commission to Fight Against AIDS CRC The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child DI De-‐Institutionalisation DRC Democratic Republic of Congo EDPRS 2 Second Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy HHC Hope and Home for Children HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus IBRD The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IFI International Financial Institutions ILO International Labour Organisation IMF International Monetary Fund MIGEFASO Ministry of Gender, Family and Social Affairs MINAFASO Ministry of Gender, Family and Social Affairs MINALOC Ministry of Local Administration and Social Affairs MINIREISO Ministry of Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration MINITRASO Ministry of Work and Social Affairs MRND National Revolutionary Movement for Development NCC National Commission for Children NFPP National Family Planning Policy NGO Non-‐Government Organisation PF Point Foundation RPA Rwandan Patriotic Army RPF Rwandan Patriotic Front SAL Structural Adjustment Loan SAP Structural Adjustment Program SSA Sub-‐Saharan Africa UN United Nations UNAMIR United Nations Mission to Rwanda UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund USAID U.S Agency for International Development
7
Table of Contents Declaration…………………………………………………………………………… i Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………………iii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………iv Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………..v Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................. 10
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 10 1.2 Research Questions ............................................................................. 11 1.3 Methodology ......................................................................................... 11
1.3.1 The Research Topic ...................................................................... 11 1.3.2 Research Approach ....................................................................... 13 1.3.3 Research Data Collection .............................................................. 14 1.3.4 Ethics ............................................................................................. 14 1.3.5 Limitations ..................................................................................... 16
1.5 Structure of Research .......................................................................... 17 Chapter 2: Historical Context/ Literature Review ........................................... 19
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 19 2.1.2 Defining ‘orphans’ ............................................................................. 19 2.1.3 The Creation of Orphans ................................................................... 21 2.1.4 SSA specifically ................................................................................. 23 2.2 Traditional Care of Orphans in Africa ................................................... 26
2.2.2 How has it changed? ..................................................................... 27 2.2.3 Neo-patrimonial state .................................................................... 31
2.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 32 Chapter 3: The case of Rwanda .................................................................... 34
3.2 Setting the scene ................................................................................. 34 3.3.1 Rwandan Genocide ........................................................................... 36 3.3.2 Gender and the Genocide ................................................................. 39 3.4 Orphans in Rwanda ............................................................................. 41 3.5 How Rwanda policy addresses orphans .............................................. 42
3.5.1 Indirect policy ................................................................................. 42 3.5.2 Direct policy ................................................................................... 43
3.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 47 Chapter 4: A Brief History of the Treatment of Orphans in Pre-Genocide Rwanda .......................................................................................................... 49
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 49 4.2 Creation of orphans .............................................................................. 49
8
4.3 Disabled orphans ................................................................................. 50 4.4 Care for orphans .................................................................................. 51 4.5 Policy on care of orphans ..................................................................... 54 4.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 54
Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Treatment of Orphans in Post-Genocide Rwanda .......................................................................................................... 56
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 56 5.2 Creation of Orphans post -1994 ........................................................... 56 5.3 Care for orphans in Rwanda (community based) ................................. 59 5.4 Creation of Orphanages in Rwanda ..................................................... 61 5.5 Provision of Services ............................................................................ 62 5.6 Policy on care of orphans ..................................................................... 66 5.7 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 69
Chapter 6: De-institutionalisation and reunification process (2012-2014) ..... 71 6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 71 6.2 Strategy ................................................................................................ 71 6.3 Process ................................................................................................ 73 6.4 Noel Orphanage: The Reunification Process ....................................... 74 6.5 Follow up .............................................................................................. 76 6.6 The Story across SSA .......................................................................... 78 6.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 80
Chapter 7: Conclusions ................................................................................. 82 7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 82 7.2 Role played by the GoR and NGOs in addressing the needs of orphans in Rwanda .................................................................................................. 82 7.3 The current issue of orphans in Rwanda and the strategies in place to cope with this ............................................................................................. 83 7.4 Further suggestions and improvements ............................................... 83 Bibliography ............................................................................................... 86 Appendices .............................................................................................. 102 Appendix A ............................................................................................... 103 Appendix B ............................................................................................... 105
Appendix B1 ......................................................................................... 105 Appendix B2 ......................................................................................... 110 Appendix B3 ......................................................................................... 115 Appendix B4 ......................................................................................... 117 Appendix B5 ......................................................................................... 120 Appendix B7 ......................................................................................... 126
9
Appendix B8 ......................................................................................... 130 Appendix B9 ......................................................................................... 136 Appendix B10 ....................................................................................... 140
Appendix C ............................................................................................... 146 Appendix D ............................................................................................... 147 Appendix E ............................................................................................... 148 Appendix F ............................................................................................... 149 Appendix G .............................................................................................. 150 Appendix H ............................................................................................... 151 Appendix I ................................................................................................ 158
List of Figures
Figure 1: Safety nets for orphans and vulnerable children
Figure 2: Estimated costs: Annual costs of orphanage care
Figure 3:Key Rwandan child care reform stakeholder
10
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
According to a 2012 Report by UNAIDS, there are approximately 151 million
orphans in the world, of whom, 57.5 million reside in Africa (UNAIDS, 2012).
Whilst there have been orphans in Africa for a long time, in part due to a
comparatively high incidence of conflict, AIDS has increased the proportion in
many countries. Natural disasters, HIV/AIDS epidemics and conflict are 3 of
the main contributors to the dramatic increase in the number of orphans within
a country; the tsunami in Indonesia in 2007 left 150,000 children orphaned
(Save the Children, UNICEF, DESPOS, 2007), in South Africa the HIV/AIDs
epidemic is still responsible for over half the countries orphans (UNAIDS,
2013), and in Rwanda the genocide in 1994 orphaned almost 100,000
children (UNICEF, 2012). The gradual decay of the traditional care system,
which has absorbed and cared for most of sub-Saharan African (SSA)
orphans for decades, has resulted in growing pressures on alternative types
of care; namely institutional care, formal foster care, or child headed-
households.
Rwanda is a country with a notoriously strong centralised state, meaning all
political power and governmental responsibility is held in the hands of a
central authority. The Rwanda central authority exercises all governmental
power, and localised units of government are only able to exercise limited
power. This form of governance, coupled with the neo-liberal ideology
reflected through Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) implemented
throughout Africa in the 1990s, inevitably ended in a reduction in state
spending on provisions such as social welfare in Rwanda.
In 1990 the Government of Rwanda (GoR) signed the United Nation’
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), through this ratification, Rwanda
promised to provide all rights for every child under the state’s jurisdiction. Like
11
a plague, the genocide swept across Rwanda in 1994 impeding the
implementation of the convention, as the country became entrenched in 4
years of civil war. A plethora of international assistance saw the reformulation
of governmental ministries in order to coordinate protection and care
strategies for an enormous number of newly orphaned and vulnerable
children.
Even thought the country emerged from a state of emergency in 1998,
Rwanda still remains a challenging environment to ensure the rights and
adequate care are provided to the estimated 400,000-500,000 children
lacking family support (Reyntjens,1996). The orphan crisis has only continued
to grow since the genocide begging the question: have the GoR provided a
satisfactory amount of attention or funding to ensure an adequate level of care
can be provided to both prevent, and accommodate the growing needs of
orphans in Rwanda?
1.2 Research Questions
The researcher seeks to address the following questions:
• What role has the GoR and NGOs played in addressing the needs of
orphans pre-1994 and post-1994?
• What are the continuities and differences in government policy pre-
1994 and post-1994?
• How is the issue of orphans in Rwanda being addressed currently?
• How can the GoR improve service provision to orphans?
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 The Research Topic
12
At the time of writing, there are 24 orphanages within Rwanda. The GoR
continues to strive to close all orphanages in Rwanda by 2015. This aim looks
both achievable and realistic. To this end, the provision of care and the
treatment of orphans in Rwanda are changing drastically. The primary
purpose of this research is to examine the development of the services and
care Rwandan orphans receive. This study will review the care provided as a
whole to orphans residing within institutions in Rwanda, and at Noel
Orphanage, Nyundo more specifically.
The research aims to be primarily qualitative, collating a series of semi-
structured interviews and the foundation of literature presented within this
topic. Many research scholars (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Krueger 1994; Mason
1996), in regards to qualitative research, conclude that research questions
should be designed to generate useful data relative to the desired research
approach. Qualitative data also provides data collation that is ‘flexible and
sensitive to the social context in which data is produced’ (Mason, 1996; 4).
Qualitative approaches to research are uniquely suited to uncovering and
exploring new areas of the selected research topic (Marshall & Rossman,
1999). The aim of the study was to be exploratory; obtaining facts, opinions,
views and information that would be applied more generally in analysis. The
subsequent purposes of the interviews are to form viable and rich data,
relating to the literature and previous research conducted on the care of
orphans and the related services provided (Barriball & While, 1994). This style
of research has been used in little-known fields of study where there is
relatively little work done (Patton, 1990). Minimal research has been
conducted surrounding the change in care of orphans in Rwanda, therefore
the most appropriate methodological approach to employ is a qualitative one,
making it possible to gather research on this topic in more depth and detail.
To achieve this aim, an in-depth case study and a range of semi-structured
interviews were carried out in Rwanda throughout the months of June and
July 2014.
13
1.3.2 Research Approach
There are no rules for sample size in qualitative enquiry (Patton, 1990).
Qualitative methods generally produce a wealth of detailed data on a smaller
number of individuals and cases; hence, qualitative research generally
focuses on relatively small samples selected purposively because of their
relation to the research (Patton, 2002). The intentional selection of
participants yields insight and understanding rather than empirical
generalisations otherwise expected from random sampling and quantitative
data (Ibid). Selective sampling was therefore used to provide varied
perspectives from different viewpoints and areas of knowledge (Saunders,
Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
The first sample group was from the government, in order to gain an insight
into policy and policy implementation. This included workers employed by the
local governments, selected primarily for their knowledge and involvement
within the community, and directors of the implementation of government
policy from the National Commission for Children (NCC). The next sample
group was selected from non-government organisations (NGOs): the in-
country director of the Point Foundation (PF), a PF trustee, the programme
manager of a local feeding programme, No.41 and the programme director of
Save the Children International. The penultimate area was made up of
grassroots participants, people who (presently or previously had) worked for
orphanages in Rwanda. Although Noel Orphanage, Nyundo was the primary
case study for this piece of research, the Executive Director and Director of
Imbabazi Orphanage, Kabali, were also interviewed for a contrasting
perspective. The final sample group was from a religious charity, in which one
respondent, who had lived in close proximity to and worked consistently with
Noel Orphanage for the previous two years, was interviewed.
Morse (1991) identifies the particular qualities of a good informant to involve
being knowledgeable about the topic, able to reflect and provide detailed
information about the area under investigation. There is merit to the in-country
placement of the researcher; not only was the researcher aware of cultural
14
barriers, but her prior knowledge of the country, Noel Orphanage and the
surrounding community had ensured a good rapport with the local people and
relative ease in highlighting knowledgeable and trustworthy participants.
Each interview contained a short list of questions specific to the area of
expertise and employment. To meet the research aims of this study, open-
ended questions were used to gather in-depth, rich data; allowing participants
to discuss a situation in detail thus achieving the results needed to meet the
research objectives (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). Bryman & Bell
(2011) highlight that it is beneficial to use a varied style of questioning, hence
specific questions, follow up questions and indirect questions were used
throughout all interviews. Each interview was carried out in a relaxed manner,
allowing the participants the ability to talk freely on the subject matter without
any interruption, thus ensuring no influence upon their answers (Bowen,
2005).
1.3.3 Research Data Collection
Data analysis was tackled thematically; the themes for discussion were taken
from the data obtained through interviewing and the questions asked
(Aronson, 1994). The themes of discussion concentrated on the research
question and the transcribed interviews, correlating information, patterns and
experience were divided into sub-themes and themes (Appendix C and D)
within the following chapters. The findings followed socially constructed
explanations with exploration of corresponding views, relationships and
common themes among participants, including the paraphrasing of common
ideas from the transcript, direct quotes and relevant policy (Saunders, Lewis &
Thornhill, 2009).
1.3.4 Ethics
15
‘All research has ethical implications’, this is especially true when the research
surrounds a vulnerable group of persons, identified as orphans within this
study (Horn, Kruger & Ndebele, 2014). It is important to highlight that at no
point during this research were any such vulnerable groups of persons
approached or interviewed1.
When addressing the nature of the study, it is important to acquire informed
consent from each participant in the study. Informed consent can be defined
as when a ‘participant’s consent is given freely and based on full information
about participation rights and use of data’ (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill,
2009). Due to the nature of the country and the sensitive topic of some of this
research, it was important to highlight the participants’ right to privacy prior to
their interviews, ensuring they did not feel pressured or obligated to
participate. Participants were made aware that they had the right to withdraw
from the study, and that their responses would be destroyed. Further,
participants were informed beforehand of their right to request anonymity
and/or request a copy of their transcribed interview and/or of the finished
research.
Rwanda currently ranks 162nd out of 180 countries in the World Press
Freedom Index; four people were unwilling to participate in this study, and one
member of local council, after consenting to interview and being thoroughly
informed on the topic in question, decided it was in the best interest of the
researcher and himself to withdraw from the study. Further, 33% of
participants requested their right to anonymity (Reporters Without Borders,
2014). These participant’s names, job titles and background information has
been edited out of the attached appendices (Appendix B) to ensure
participants cannot be identified.
Due to the political nature of the country, there was significant reluctance to
participate; consequently, at times it proved difficult to find willing participants.
1 Ethical approval consent form, please see Appendix A
16
1.3.5 Limitations
Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill discuss and then conclude that no proposed
research project is without limitations, adding ‘there is no such thing as a
perfectly designed study’. It is imperative to consider the numerous research
limitations that could influence the data collected. Bias and validity are the
main limitations that the researcher has considered due to the time previously
spent in the country, and relationships that have built with some of the
participants subsequently. Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2009) state that
‘validity is concerned with whether the findings are really about what they
appear to be about’. To ensure that the data collected was free from the
aforementioned limitations, the researcher will insert the full transcripts from
each interview into the appendices.
Conducting interviews face to face, presents less limitations than other
formats. However, there is the possibility that the pressure of being recorded
inhibited some participants’ responses. It is hoped that this limitation was
alleviated by the option of anonymity. Each interview was recorded and
transcribed verbatim directly after the interview took place, thus ensuring no
tainting of the researcher’s recollection.
The volume of literature of pre-1994 care for orphans in Rwanda proved
minimal. Although some literature and academic discussion could be
accessed the volume was not adequate. This became a limitation when
attempting to broaden the scope of the argument to encompass past
academic literature on the role of the Catholic Church, the GoR and NGO’s in
the provision of care for orphans.
17
1.5 Structure of Research Chapter One serves as an introduction to this piece of research, it highlights
the purpose and aims of the study. An overview of the research design,
methods of data collection and analysis are provided within this chapter.
Chapter Two offers an in-depth discussion of the literature consulted in order
to ground the enquiry academically. This chapter explores the difficulties in
defining orphans and vulnerable children, surveys the predominant causes for
the creation of orphans and considers the traditional care structure for
orphans in Africa and how this has developed and changed over time.
Chapter Three examines the case of Rwanda. This chapter looks at
Rwandan history, particularly at the catastrophic genocide of 1994. Looking
further into the idea of gender within the genocide, especially at sexual
assault, and its effects as a war crime. Moreover, the creation of orphans will
be explored in the context of Rwanda, and a brief overview of the direct and
indirect policy Rwanda has published or become signatories of in regards to
the treatment and provision of care to Rwandan orphans.
Chapter Four explores the primary reasons that children were orphaned prior
to the Rwandan genocide. The chapter looks to examine how the traditional
care structure, and the impact increasing number of orphans had on this.
Additionally, this chapter introduces Noel Orphanage, the case study that will
be referred to throughout.
Chapter Five aims to explore post genocide Rwanda and the way in which
institutions and policy were formed through the analysis of the provision of
services provided by the Government and NGOs nationally, and the direct
effects these contributions had had on the development of the children
residing at Noel Orphanage. This chapter evaluates the policy leading up to
the creation of a pilot de-institutionalisation scheme.
18
Chapter Six discusses the current National Child Care Reform, especially the
reunification and DI policies. Exploring the strategy implemented and the
effect it had on Noel Orphanage, and the perceptions and opinions of
interviewees.
Chapter Seven summarises this piece of research as a whole. It also
provides suggestions to enhance and improve the provision of care to
orphans in Rwanda.
19
Chapter 2: Historical Context/ Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to explore the changing situation of orphans in SSA. African
culture depicts that orphaned children should be cared for and absorbed
within the traditional system of care, such that the community and extended
family take responsibility for the provision of care to a child. However, across
SSA, and in Rwanda, the growing number of orphans created due to conflict,
poverty and disease, and HIV epidemics has left this system of care under
pressure. This chapter will explore the traditional care system; how it works,
how it is progressively changing and the differences and similarities displayed
across SSA.
Poverty increased throughout Africa in the 1960s and 1970s leading to the
economic mismanagement that continues to characterise most African states.
The neo-liberal economic theory that encompasses all Bretton Woods
institutions, claims that the socioeconomic and the spatial inequalities
displayed across this region are a result of temporary aberrations, further
promoting SAPs as mid-term fix which would lead to poverty reduction. This
section of the chapter looks to evaluate the effect the cuts in social spending
had on the care of orphans across a wider global context, and then at a more
local context – discussing the familiar characteristics that define most African
states, neo-patrimonialism.
2.1.2 Defining ‘orphans’
The definition of an orphan varies widely depending on the required use of the
political and humanitarian actors using it. In most industrialised countries the
most common concept of an orphan is a child who has lost both parents. In
the mid-1990’s, the AIDs pandemic led to the birth of an increasing number of
children without the care of one or more parents. At this time the UN, UNICEF
and numerous other international organisations deemed it appropriate to
20
define an orphan as a child who has lost ‘one or both parents’ (UNICEF,
2008).
There are further subcategories of orphans. A ‘true orphan’ or ‘double orphan’
refers to a child who has lost both parents, whilst the term ‘single orphan’
refers to a child who has experienced the death of one parent. However,
many maternal or paternal orphans are virtual double orphans, who lost the
care of both of their parents when one died; traditions of patrilineage may
dictate that paternal orphans remain with paternal relatives rather than with
the mother (Wardle, 2005). Further cultural factors can play a role in
determining definitions of orphans, as perceptions of orphans can differ and
be influenced by local, cultural and social norms (Veale et al.,2001). Also, re-
marriage and migration among widows and widowers may also result as
children becoming virtual double orphans.
A ‘social orphan’ is a child who may have living parents, but who is not
currently residing within the care of those parents. The term is employed with
frequency in the former Soviet Union within a range of contexts, but is
basically defined as “a child who lives in an orphanage and whose parents
have been denied their parental rights because of alcoholism, neglect, child
abuse, etc. Parents can also bring their children to orphanages due to a
variety of other reasons including economic hardship” (Russian Orphan
Opportunity Fund, 2006). The causes of social orphanhood are often social,
cultural and economic factors, or a combination of these factors. There are
millions of social orphans across the world, with proportionately more in
poorer developing countries.
The implications of the above facts are unprecedented, African communities
have grappled with the absorption of large numbers of orphaned children for
decades. But with the prevalence rates of HIV/AIDS rising and conflict
continually breaking down communities, the provision of care for orphans is
changing dramatically, from care within the communities to institutional care
and foster care to reunification.
21
When a child is orphaned or resides outside of family care, the available
options open to them generally reflect national child welfare policy (Ibid).
Holistically, as stated in CRC below, all children should be provided with
alternative care if the care they are currently receiving is non-existent or
inadequate:
“States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure
alternative care for such a child […] When considering solutions, due
regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s
upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic
background.”
(CRC, 1989; Article 20)
In addition, the possible outcomes for such children can include family
reunification, extended family care or guardianship within the extended family
or community, or a more ad hoc and undesirable option, such as living on the
street (Dillon, 2009). Social orphanhood can be perceived as dangerous and
traumatic for a child, and therefore provokes debate about ‘best practices’ and
how to preserve the rights of the child (Marx, 2007).
2.1.3 The Creation of Orphans
In most African countries, the two main causes of the proportionally high
number of orphans are AIDS and conflict; AIDS will be the cause of 30 million
child orphans in the next decade alone. By comparison, poverty and closely
related drug and alcohol abuse are the main cause of children becoming
orphaned in countries such as Russia (Orphan Coalition, 2008).
The number of children becoming orphans is constantly increasing. Specific
data on the number of orphans in very inconsistent and varies dramatically
between sources. However, most of this increase can be explained by
HIV/AIDS induced adult mortality (Abebe & Aase, 2007). UNICEF estimate
that 17.8 million children under 18 are AIDS orphans. Around 15.1 million, or
22
85 percent, of these children live in SSA (UNICEF, 2013). Further, in SSA
countries badly affected by the epidemic, a large percentage of orphans are
AIDS orphans; 74 percent in Zimbabwe, and 63 percent in South Africa
(UNICEF, 2013). It has been reported that before AIDS, approximately 2
percent of children in developing countries were orphaned; the figure has
doubled, or even tripled in some countries (Hunter & Williamson, 1997; 4). A
USAID commissioned report on orphans in Africa notes:
‘Historically, orphaning on a large scale has been a sporadic, short-
term problem, caused by war, famine and disease. HIV/AIDS has been
transforming orphaning into a long term, chronic problem... the serious
social and economic dislocation that will result from the large and
growing proportion of children who are orphaned will require
comprehensive, creative and long-term solutions’
(USAID, 1998)
Botswana reportedly has the second highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS
worldwide, with a prevalence rate of 17.6 percent. The people who are
affected most globally are between the ages of 15-49, the age range that has
most influence over societal development. Being a family disease it is likely
that both parents are likely to be dead during the life child of the
uninfected/infected child (Jacques, 2000; 93-108). Further, the likely age of
death coincides with the time that citizens are making the biggest impact on
the society around them, be it passing on skills or educating the younger
generation. AIDS in Africa is referred to as ‘the grandmother’s disease’
because, in a large number of cases, it is the elderly women who have to
attend to ailing children and also provide financial and emotional support for
grandchildren (Nampanya-Serpell, 2002; 278-291).
Outside of Africa, most AIDS orphans live in Asia, where the total number of
children orphaned to AIDS exceeds 1.1 million (UNICEF, 2013). It is proven
that the best way to protect children orphaned by AIDS is to place them in the
care of relatives or extended family members in their own community.
However, in 2005, UNICEF alerted the international community that
23
thousands more children are living with sick and dying parents or relatives
and are at risk of losing their care givers, also potentially becoming orphaned
to the HIV/AIDS (UNICEF, 2005).
In Ethiopia, there are 1.5 million AIDS orphans, but a further 70 percent of
orphans are non-AIDS orphans; often orphaned to famine, malaria,
abandoned due to poverty (social orphan) and conflict (UNICEF, 2003). A
defining characteristic of modern warfare is the disproportionally high ratio of
civilian deaths as a result of changes in the nature of warfare and little to do
with the advancement of weaponry (Rupesnghe, 1998; 2). The fast
development of military weaponry has little meaning in most of the world’s
conflicts, and although they have made a considerable impact on the media,
they are not representative of the majority of wars and conflicts in Africa (Flint,
2001). Small arms, weapons and machetes are the resounding weapons of
choice, and are cruelly effective in savage killings, nowhere more evidently
that in the Rwandan genocide (Hawkins, 2009). Further, in Africa especially,
the vast majority of conflicts are not fought between professional armies on a
battlefield. Dunnigan, (1993) suggests that such conflicts ‘do not even
deserve to be classified as war, and are simply dismissed as large-scale
disorder, banditry or worse’.
Violent conflicts have devastating consequences for entire populations, but
affect woman and children most severely (Ross, 2013). There is currently an
estimated 800,000 orphans are living in the DRC as a result of the on-going
instability and conflict within the country; these children comprise almost 15
percent of the population under 18 (UNICEF, 2012; Bloemen, 2009). Further,
a survey in Iraq found that between 800,000 and 1,000,000 children lost one
more parents to Iraq’s unrelenting violence (Hawley, 2012).
2.1.4 SSA specifically
In 2001, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) held a Special
Session on HIV/AIDS, during this time UNAIDS researchers highlighted that
nearly 40 percent of the countries suffering from a generalised AIDS epidemic
24
lack a national policy to support children (Joint United Nations Programme,
2003; 12). While SSA accounts for 10 percent of the world’s population, it
accounts for 64 percent of global HIV infections and 80 percent of the world’s
orphans2 (Kandiwa, 2011). Large numbers of African orphans are raised
among their extended family, however new forms of orphan care have
emerged: formal child adoption, institutionalisation (orphanages) and new
family structures (child-headed households (CHH)).
Across Africa some traditional roles of the extended family have been
modified, whilst others have disappeared; coping mechanisms regarding
caring for orphans are complex and vary across SSA according to differing
cultural, geographic, economic and social settings although, in general, the
extended family system of care is maintained in rural communities where
traditional and cultural values remain prevalent (Foster, 2000). In countries
that are more westernised, extended family safety nets are weakened, and
are replaced by alternative safety nets (see Figure 1). When the alternative
safety net fails, orphans are vulnerable and then become open to formal child
adoption, institutionalisation, or new family structures. Traditional care for
orphans will be discussed in depth in the sub-section below.
Formal adoption statistics are hard to obtain, UN data suggests that
international adoption is extremely rare; only 12 out of 100,000 children are
2 Most of these orphans reside within Eastern and Southern African Countries: South Africa, 2.5 million; Tanzania, 2.4 million; Kenya, 2.3 million; Mozambique, 1.5 million; Zimbabwe, 1.4 million; and Zambia, 1.2 million.
Figure 1: Safety nets for orphans and vulnerable children: (Foster, 2000)
25
adopted internationally each year (Menozzi, 2008). Further, these numbers
are lower in SSA, where less than 25 children a year are adopted
internationally (Ibid). The majority of African societies regard formal adoption
as culturally foreign. In Zimbabwe, the extended family system is built within
the limits of traceable lineage along totem lines (Chitiga, 2008). Further,
adoption in SSA generally lacks political support. In Rwanda, international
adoption is currently closed, as they try and bring their adoption framework up
to the standards of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and
Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Bureau of Consular Affairs:
US Department of State, 2013).
Another type of orphan care across SSA is institutional care in the form of
orphanages. African orphanages differ widely according to their source of
funding; the 3 most common financial contributors are the State, NGOs and
Faith-Based Organisations (namely the Catholic Church). Even with an
increase in the number of orphans, it is unlikely that this form of care will
increase in SSA. Figure 2 shows the cost per child per year for institutional
care. It is widely thought that institutional care is the most expensive and most
detrimental to the development of a child (Phiri & Webb, 2002). In South
Africa, orphanages cost 6 times more than foster care, 9 times more than
community-based support and 8 times more than traditional care systems
(Kandiwa, 2011).
Figure 2: Estimated Costs: Annual Costs Orphanage Care: (Kandiwa, 2011)
26
Foster care is temporary. A child with no parental support is placed with an
adult caregiver and the state covers the financial costs, with the expectation
that the family treat the foster child as their own with regard to food, housing,
clothing, and education. It is very rare in Africa, but has been documented in
South Africa and Burkina Faso (Phiri & Webb, 2002). Little academic literature
or political support has been published or shown surrounding this area, but
the progression of this form of care would appear desirable as it allows
cultural values to be maintained while children continue to reside within family
structures.
Child-Headed Households do not contain adults, and have no precedent in
African culture. Rehman & Eloundou-Enyegue (2007) recognise 3 types of
CHH; those who live alone, those who live alone with contact from the
community, and those who live alone and receive financial and other support
from NGOs and FBOs. Accurate data is exceedingly difficult to collect. Some
CHH may downplay their family ties in order to receive additional help from
NGOs and FBOs. The concept of CHH’s defies the traditional African culture
of the concept of family, and the NGO and FBO support is beginning to allow
a new form of existence whereby children raise themselves. The question in
this case is not whether it is viable or cost-effective, but whether or not this
concept should morally be allowed to grow.
2.2 Traditional Care of Orphans in Africa
2.2.1 How does it work?
African culture, in most aspects, has a strong emphasis on family, kinship,
and support networks. In keeping with this cultural tradition, close relatives,
and to a certain extent the surrounding community, were expected to assume
responsibility in the care of struggling family members and vulnerable
children; to assist those in need (Suda, 1997). This system of care ensured
that the death of one, or both, parents did not automatically mean a life of
destitution for orphans (Kilbride & Kilbride, 1990). This ensured that children
27
were not left to cope on their own or were not instantly condemned to a life on
the streets or residing in an institution (Abebe & Aase, 2007). Kalule, (1986)
during a study on Kamba, Eastern Kenya, reported that ‘in traditional Kamba
society, children were highly valued[…]and were not only brought up by the
extended family but even by the clan in which the nuclear family was
embedded’. In traditional African cultures children were seen as a mark of
wealth, power and prestige as well as well as a blessing from God. Children
were also symbols of the ties between couples and families. Marriage was
seen as an alliance between two families, and divorce was extremely rare
because of the involvement between the respective families (Suda, 1997).
The majority of literature regarding traditional care systems within African
society emphasises the merits, however few scholars take a critical approach.
Although rare, divorce does occur, and cooperation between new
wives/husbands and parents over childcare often results in conflict, tension
and violence. ‘During times of food shortage, the mother looked after only her
own children […] while the father tended to “disappear” until the worst was
over’ (Kilbride & Kilbride, 1994). This range of family relationships and marital
form allows potential for instability, neglect and child abuse, often left
undetected or ignored by the surrounding communities (Suda, 1997).
2.2.2 How has it changed?
The extended family support systems that traditionally would absorb a large
number of orphans within a country are weakening (Rose, 2005). This system
of childcare withstood much resilience to major social changes, including
rapid urbanisation and extensive economic restructuring, which otherwise
would weaken traditional social ties and obligations (Therborn, 2004).
However, Mokomane (2012) expresses concern that the extended family
network is reportedly narrowing. Further, Gwebu (2007) reaffirms this belief
suggesting that the African family structure is being transformed from an
extended one to a nuclear one. HIV/AIDS and conflict have altered the family
28
and community structure and subsequently the care of orphans (Mathambo &
Gibbs, 2009).
There are two stance points in existing research on the sustainability and
ability of the extended family system in absorbing orphans. The first suggests
that although once effective, the traditional care of orphans is now over
stretched because of the rising number of orphans as a result of AIDS and
conflict, and is potentially collapsing. Kaleeba (2004) suggests that AIDS and
conflict have stolen members of society in their prime age, piling responsibility
onto the elderly, who themselves will soon die; the traditional social safety of
the system, has been exhausted to breaking point. The capacity of absorption
has ‘become saturated and its complete failure is imminent’ (George,
Oudenhoven & Wazir, 2003). Many other scholars (Foster, 2000; Ayieko,
2000 and UNICEF, 2003) hold the same pessimistic views. The huge
economic stress that the extended families are placed under because of the
responsibility of accommodation orphans is deeply embedded in African
cultural norms and traditions (Guest, 2003). Guest continues to suggest that a
worthwhile solution could include the promotion of external interventions of
care in foster homes and orphanages across the African continent.
The second stance proposes that the traditional care system still has the
capacity to support large number of orphans despite the economic burden
and threat placed by the AIDS epidemic (Abebe & Aase, 2007). In
comparison, this view is largely optimistic and challenges the idea of social
disintegration, opposing the idea of a lapse of breakdown of traditional social
support systems (Chirwa, 2002; Bray, 2003). Chirwa, (2002) insinuates that
there are innovative and complex strategies of orphan care within the existing
family structure, adding that the extended families, in many cases, are
adapting and transforming social relationship patterns revealing new systems
of care. Kalipeni et al., (2004) also point to adaptable capacities of different
indigenous coping mechanisms that have proven resilient in finding ways to
deal with the increased number of orphans. This view emphasises the
necessity in maintaining the strength of the traditional care responsibilities and
suggests the promotion of culturally relevant orphan care interventions.
29
Both theories on traditional care are generalisations across a whole continent
where there is striking geographical disparity in the prevalence of AIDS,
ranging levels of conflicts and subsequently a wide variety in the proportion or
number of orphans residing within a country. The ability of the traditional care
system to continue sustainably, and the change in this care system between
countries, also depends on the historical factors rooted in country and family
history which are often tied closely to the colonial past of a country
(Madhaven, 2004).
Although the traditional care system is the primary option in most African
countries due to their norms and cultures, it often results in the placement of
orphans in unprepared families, ‘to the detriment of the children’s physical and
social well-being’ (Abebe & Aase, 2007). Further, the implementation of
external programmes without thorough evaluation of the potential of extended
families could result in the wastage of critical resource, and unnecessary child
placements away from their family.
During the mid to late 1970s neo-colonial factors began to dominate Africa
once more. The weakening of local efforts at industrialisation created large
numbers of unemployed workers (Riddell, 1997). In Sierra Leone, the
government assembled an extensive development plan in 1974, however a
few years later the plan was ceased as it became recognised that the state no
longer controlled the economy, and the landscape was beyond the control of
the country in the form of multinationals, foreign aid, the volatility of currency
exchange rates and the demand exported products (Riddell, 1985). This
control continued into the 1980s and 1990s but came in the form of SAPs
implemented by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank
(IBRD) and international financial institutions (IFIs); in 1980 the IMF undertook
15 programmes in Africa, and subsequently another 156 agreements
throughout the 1980s, and 64 in the 1990s (Easterly, 2003). The
conditionalities attached to the structural adjustment loans (SALs) aimed to
adjust the economies of recipient countries allowing them to resolve negative
30
balance of payment problems, stabilise countries and help them grow
(Riddell, 1992).
Although many countries experienced unprecedented socioeconomic growth,
they also experienced uneven development, decreased standards of living, an
increase in poverty and reduced access to basic services (Konadu-
Agyemang, 2001). Inequalities increased throughout the 1960s and 1970s,
and became worse as the economies deteriorated in the late 1970s; ‘the
worsening poverty and increasing socioeconomic and spatial inequalities
have been linked to the economic mismanagement that has characterised
African countries since the 1960s’ (Konadu-Agyemang, 2001; Riddell, 1997).
Structural inequalities perpetuate childhood poverty and marginalisation.
However, according to the neo-liberal economic theory that forms the basis of
the Bretton Woods institutions, socioeconomic and spatial inequalities are
temporary, short term aberrations that come as a result of structural factors,
emphasising that SAPs invariably lead to poverty reduction and bridge the
gap between the rich and the poor (World Bank, 1998). The IMF states that
economic problems in developing countries happen as a result of endogenous
factors, which are at the detriment of development and need to be removed;
obstacles such as exchange control, state ownership of manufacturing
enterprises and investment in social welfare (Green, 1987). The
implementation of SAPs in Ghana was recorded to improve the national
economy at a macro level, but at a micro level the ‘SAP-derived
improvements’ resulted in 300,000 public sector workers unemployed and
huge cuts in state spending on public services and social welfare, plus the
introduction of fees for health and education (Konadu-Agyemang , 2001).
During the first phase of the SAP (1983-1986) 5 percent of funds were
allocated to social services, inclusive of health and education (Ibid). Funds
were distributed similarly for the next 15 years at the serious detriment of
vulnerable groups and children, who were adversely affected by the
accelerated level of poverty and hardship as a direct result of SAPs. To a
large extent Ghana's struggle depicts the story of most African countries that
undertook the SAPs.
31
The role of the government in the care for orphans and other vulnerable
children in most of Africa was minimal as a result of the conditionalities
implemented under the neoliberal hegemony; there was an emphasis on the
need to promote private markets (Fowler, 1991). The new world order gave
prominence to the growth of NGOs; the principle justification behind this was
the failure of the state (Bebbington & Farrington, 2000). NGOs stepped in in
an attempt to counteract the effect of the enforced government budget
restraints; it was deduced that the state and public sector were not able to
deliver development, and development agencies would have to step in and fill
the gap (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Garutsa, 2010). NGOs have the advantage
of greater public trust and are in most instances best suited to provide high-
quality services at low costs to citizens; they are able to expand their services
beyond those offered by firms and governments (Brinkerhoff, 2003). Further,
NGOs are well positioned to listen to the needs of the citizens, particularly
when government regimes are seen as too weak or resource strapped to
provide for marginalised sections of society (Keck & Sikkink, 1998). However,
holistically, the lack of compatible policy and communication between NGOs
saw the reliance on the traditional family systems for social security.
2.2.3 Neo-patrimonial state
Weber defines Patrimonialism as a specific form of authority and source of
legitimacy. It focuses on the forms of traditional domination, centred around
family structures and in particularly projections of patriarchy onto a wider set
of social relationships (Weber, 1946). Patrimonialism, as coined by Weber, is
characterised by a top-down structure, whereby the ‘ruler’ rules on the basis
of his own legitimate authority through traditional bureaucratic officials
(Pitcher, Moran & Johnston, 2009). The neo-patrimonial nature of most
African states is important in explaining the high levels of autonomy and low
levels of capacity that define them.
32
A constitutive feature of systems of neo-patrimonialism are high levels of
clientelism, corruption and rent-seeking; it is widely thought that neo-
patrimonialism is incurably bad for economic development (Kelsall, 2011).
The SSA state can be characterised through the dichotomy of strength and
weakness; strong, as the neo-patrimonial style leadership continues to fight
and supress people to control resources, weak, as the state generally
struggles to help its people in terms of welfare (Chabal & Daloz, 1999; 9). It
can be argued that Africa is poor as a result of its corrupt rent-seeking system
of governance; lifting its citizens out of poverty is not at the forefront of the
African leaders agenda (Mills, 2010).
Africa has historically been subjected to large amounts of marginalisation,
both by economic and socio-political institutions. It is heavily marginalised in
terms of its ability to achieve and obtain power within the international system,
and at the same time remains heavily influenced by the international
economic conditionalities created by the IFIs.
2.3 Conclusion
This chapter provided a brief analysis of the social and cultural changes that
have had an effect on the care of orphans in SSA. This analysis helps to
contexualise the study, as the cause of creation, and method of care for
orphans, especially in such a poor yet developing region, continues to
undertake significant changes. Notwithstanding the resilience of the traditional
family care system which are predominant across SSA, this system, or break
down of this system, necessitates a huge problem of growing orphanhood
amongst vulnerable children.
The following chapter examines the unique case of Rwanda, briefly exploring
the tragic history of the country and the legacy that the genocide has left –
specifically on the HIV/AIDS prevalence and creation of orphans. The
literature on Rwanda is conspicuously thin on its post-genocide period. Few
programs or opportunities existed for most of Rwanda’s youth.
33
34
Chapter 3: The case of Rwanda
3.2 Setting the scene
Rwanda is a small landlocked country located in East Africa; a country of
breathtakingly beautiful rolling hills, made up of three ethnicities, the majority,
Bahutu (Hutu), second largest, Mututsi (Tutsi), and the minority, Batwa (Twa).
The land is generous, and also protective, a bastion against horrible tribes,
Rwanda always remained free of foreign interference till the coming of the
Muzungu (Kumar et al., 1996). The Germans arrived in Rwanda at a time of
political upheaval, King Kigeli IV had just passed and his son, Rutalindwa, had
been named heir to the throne. The German newcomers, completely ignorant
to local politics, were open to manipulation and only maintained a very light
presence when governing Rwanda (Prunier, 1995). After losing control of
Rwanda at the end of WWI, the Belgian’s dominated.
The Belgian colonisation took effect after the 1916 military conquest. Their
system of reign was extremely similar to the Germans during the first years;
the real Belgian colonisation came later, between 1926 and 1931, and was
referred to as ‘les reformes Voisin’ (Newbury, 1988). Hereafter began the
process of segregation, oppression of the Hutus and the implementation of
Tutsi rule. One of the key reforms under ‘les reformes Voisin’ was the
upheaval of the traditional Rwandan system of hierarchy. Previously, there
were three chiefs on any particular hill, one of whom a Hutu, Chief of the
Land; these three positions were condensed to one, the role overtaken by a
Tutsi. The rule of the hill, almost always fair, was now dominated by a Tutsi
rule, and the now ‘Hutu peasants’ were tightly controlled. The Belgian reforms
had created modern Rwanda; centralised, efficient, neo-traditionalist and
Catholic, but also brutal – the burden of taxation and forced labour borne by
the native population increased considerably, those who did not comply with
these strict regimes were abused and brutally beaten (Prunier, 1995). Group
identities were promoted with the introduction of ethnic identity cards; the
Roman Catholic Church who at this time were the primary educators in the
35
country implemented separate education systems for Hutus and Tutsis, but as
the richer, more superior race, the majority of students were Tutsis.
During the 1950s and early 1960s anti-colonial sentiment rose throughout
central Africa, and equality for all Africans was strongly promoted. Hutu
resentment of the reigning Tutsi population increased, tensions were high and
in 1959 the Tutsi population were rumoured to have attempted to assassinate
a Hutu politician. Retaliation hit quickly, with an estimated 20,000-100,000
killed and thousands more displaced in Uganda. There hereafter, Tutsi were
revoked from any positions of political power and violence escalated. After a
complete restructure of the working of the country and the system of rule and
hierarchy, the Belgians granted Rwanda, a now unrecognisably different
country, independence in 1961.
A referendum was held in September 1961, citizens voted that Rwanda
should remain a republic and the first president of the transitional government
was elected. The shift from Tutsi rule to Hutu, also saw the shift of the sense
of ethnic aristocracy, the Hutus resumed the same views the Tutsis had
installed within themselves during their reign, supremacy over the opposing
ethnic group. In both cases the ethnic elites approved and reinforced the
delusions of their followers; the Belgians had created the aristocratic myth, but
the citizens had ended up believing, and living it. The period of time between
1962 and 1973 was marked with ethnic confrontations, there were cycles of
raids by Tutsi exiles, and repression and massacres of Tutsi and Hutu
dominated government and military (Kumar et al., 1996).
In 1973, Habyarimana came to power by coup. He formed the National
Revolutionary Movement for Development (MRND) and was deemed
relatively successful, serious about development and seen as a good steward
of international assistance. However, the apparent progress concealed
unresolved political and social tensions; the development policies were
characterised by a lack of vision, there was increased regional and ethnic
bias, further, large mixes of development assistance contributed to bolstering
36
a system of patronage, reinforcing the perception of the state as the employer
and enabled a massive military build-up (Human Rights Watch/Africa, 1994).
The Rwandan Patriotic Force (RPF), created in 1987 by Tutsi refugee
diaspora in Uganda, launched an offensive from Uganda in 1990 (Kuperman,
2004). The Rwandese Army, with assistance from the Zairian, French and
Belgian military resisted the attack. This resulted in a drawn out period of
fighting and negotiation until mid-1992. There was a cease-fire and
subsequently in 1993 the Arusha Peace Accords were signed (Storey, 2012).
As the Arusha negotiations were proceeding, the opposition parties began to
split along ethnic lines. On 6th April 1994, during the continued negotiations on
power sharing, President Habyarimana’s plane was shot down and the
genocide began.
3.3.1 Rwandan Genocide
Almost immediately after the plane was shot down military and militia groups
began rounding up and killing Tutsis and eliminating political moderates. In
the first few days, political and ethnic killings and fighting between
government forces and RPF took place, largely within Kigali with the eventual
spread to all corners of the country. Expatriates and the United Nations
Mission to Rwanda (UNAMIR) peacekeeping troops were all evacuated from
the country, and the hunt for Tutsi continued to grow rapidly. By the beginning
of July 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. The advance of the
RPF continued ostensibly to stem the genocide. The RPF advancing and
stopping the extermination of Tutsi and the Hutu controlled military and militia
determinedly set on the annihilation of their enemy (Kuperman, 2004).
The international community, aware of the onslaught, were reluctant to
intervene. The United States, the most influential actor in the international
arena, were still reeling from the fiasco of the disastrous operation in Somalia
in 1993, wanted above all to avoid any entanglement in Rwanda (Prunier,
1995). According to the 1948 International Convention on the repression of
37
genocides, it would have been mandatory for any of its signatories to take
immediate action to cease the genocide had it been clearly identified. To this
end, the Government of The United States released a statement on June 10
stating:
‘Although there have been acts of genocide in Rwanda, all the murders
cannot be put into that category’
(Shelly, 1994).
The UN were somewhat more honest when identifying the situation in
Rwanda as a genocide, however Secretary-General Boutros Ghali voiced an
inaccurate portrayal of the events, sitting that Hutu were killing Tutsi, and
Tutsi were killing Hutu (Barnett, 2002). The restricted mandates allowed
peacekeepers to watch all but helplessly as people were being slaughtered.
However the symbolic impact that the international organisations made when
they voted to reduce the size of UNAMIR military mission by 90% was still
nonetheless disastrous (Caplan, 2009). On 29th April, the idea of a new UN
armed intervention was put forward and received US support; the new
international force was not deployed until 3 months later. Kofi Annan
displayed his opinion on the situation:
‘Nobody should feel he has a clear conscience in this business. If the
pictures of tens of thousands of human bodies rotting and gnawed on
by the dogs…do not wake us up out of out apathy, I do not know what
will’.
(Annan, 1994)
Similarly, the Secretary-General went on to say:
‘We are all to be held accountable for this failure, all of us… It is
genocide… I have failed… It is a scandal!’
(Ghali, 1994)
38
As the enormity of what had happened in Rwanda began to really dawn on
the rest of the world, the response became increased dramatically. The vast
majority of resources went to maintain refugee populations in asylum
countries although the genocide of the Tutsi and the massive killing on
moderate Hutu took place with the complicity of many of the refugees. In
reflection on the allocation of humanitarian aid and efforts, or lack of, to call an
end to the genocide, Brauman, President of Medicins sans Frontieres, said:
‘The humanitarian intervention, far from representing a bulwark against
evil, was in fact one of its appendages… The social and political role of
humanitarian aid was simply to stage manage goodwill, to organise the
spectacle of compassion’.
(Brauman, 1994)
The Tutsi RPF took control of the government, and Kagame formed a
government of national unity; appointing a Hutu president, Bizimungu, and
himself becoming Minister of Defence, and Vice-President. Following the
genocide and the emergency situation3 that followed caused huge population
movements, with further social and political instability, and disrupted social
relations and organisations; child and adult mortality rose steeply and poverty
broadened (Justino and Verwimp, 2013). In the years after the genocide, the
country still experienced high levels of instability. According to a large number
of allegations, the RPF is said to have killed tens of thousands of unarmed
citizens, particularly after the end of the genocide; some claim it amounted to
a second genocide (Reyntjens, 1996).
Kagame’s new government set out a Declaration of Principles in 1994,
outlining medium term principles for social, political and economical
development; emphasising reduced state roles and liberalising the market,
these goals were closely aligned to those of the previous SAPs.
3 There were massive inflows of donor funds, most did not pass through the government and was not coordinated or strategic.
39
3.3.2 Gender and the Genocide
The genocide contained an important gender component, with much of the
propaganda that lead up to the killing was being directed at Tutsi women;
radio and newspaper stations escalated messages in regards to Tutsi
women’s supposed promiscuity and their feelings of superiority toward Hutu
men (Carpenter, 2000). One Tutsi woman expressed that:
‘No military man could marry Tutsi women, or they would have to leave
the military. Tutsi women were considered more beautiful, which bred
hate against them. The Kinyarwana word used was Ibizungerezi about
Tutsi women [which means beautiful and sexy]. It led to jealousy, to a
hate that I can’t describe… I was told that I couldn’t work in certain
places because as a Tutsi women I would poison the others’ (Human
Rights Watch/FIDH interview, 1996)’.
Largely due to the propaganda, mass rape was a critical part of the Rwandan
genocide. It is estimated that at least 90 percent of Tutsi women and girls who
survived the genocide were sexually molested, principally and systematically,
by extreme Hutus (Rinaldo , 2004). Survivors of the genocide described how
their assailants remarked on their ethnicity before, during or after they were
raped. Some remarks included:
‘We want to see how sweet Tutsi women are’
‘You Tutsi women think you are too good for us’
‘We want to see if Tutsi women is like Hutu women’
‘Now the Hutu have won. You Tutsi, we are going to exterminate you’
The then National Minister of Family and Women’s Affairs, was sent to
continue the genocide campaign, while rounding up the women for slaughter
she commanded the militias to be sure they raped the women before they
killed them (Landesman , 2002). Rape was used to reward soldiers for their
killings; the systematic rape that took place during the widespread killing was
undertaken with the express purpose of degrading, humiliating, punishing and
40
torturing Tutsi women4. Rape was used as a mechanism to take life, nearly 70
percent of the women raped contracted HIV, ‘we knew that the government
was bringing AIDS patients out of the hospitals specially to form battalions of
rapists’ (Kagame, 2002). Survivors were told they were being allowed to live
so they could ‘die of sadness’ (Nowrojee , 1996). A professor of Law and a
lobbyist for women’s rights at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
explained how the use of rape as genocide differed in Rwanda:
‘In Yugoslavia, for example, it was used as- sexual violence was used
as ethnic cleansing, too. The Serbian was trying to have children from
Muslim women. Here, it wasn’t used like that. Pregnancy was a
consequence, but not aimed to have children through them. But the
goal of the men… was to weaken, to destroy, in this case the Tutsi, in
Rwanda. That’s the main difference.’
(Karekezi, 1998).
HIV/AIDS epidemics are commonly fuelled by conflict. The genocide in
Rwanda powered the HIV epidemic in Rwanda. Despite the intended purpose
of the mass rape campaigns, a massive number of children were born as a
consequence, as many as 10,000 children in Butare alone (Wax, 2004).
Children born of rape in Rwanda, like many other war torn countries; suffer
awful violations of their human rights. Often labelled as ‘unwanted children’ or
‘genocidal children’ (Nowrolee, 1996). As a result of the stigma attached to
these babies, infanticide rates were extremely high, and many mothers
abandoned their children, leaving them as orphans (Shanks and Schull,
2000). Further, these children then grew up to become aware of who their
fathers are, and the identity that they have gained because of this. One rape
victim told the courts, ‘When people kill your family and then rape you, you
4 According to one study in Butara province alone has more than 30,000 rape survivors. Frequently rape was a prelude to death. Some of the women were penetrated with tools ranging from spears to gun barrels, bottles to stamens of banana trees. Women’s sexual organs were mutilated with machetes, boiling water, and acid, and their breasts were cut off (Degni-‐Segui, 1996).
41
cannot love the child’ (Minkley, 1996). The genocide, through rape alone,
created a magnitude of orphans.
3.4 Orphans in Rwanda
Rwanda’s orphan crisis is like no other; it presents a more complex story than
most other countries in SSA, and the world. Orphans are one of the biggest
legacies of the genocide, and due to the sudden exponential influx of orphans,
the now broken communities were not able to, or severely struggled to,
absorb children into extended and non-kin families. Communities in Rwanda
are weak, fragmented and lacking in trust; families have struggled to rebuild
their social and economic capacity (Veale, Quigley, Ndibeshye and
Nyirimihigo, 2001). Statistics on the number of children orphaned as a direct
result of the genocide is conflicting, however a widely acknowledged figure of
400,000 children is commonly used (Reyntjens ,1996) .
The majority of the population in Rwanda do not have adequate access to
basic healthcare, much less coping with the costs of AIDS treatments, tests
and hospitalisation (Basinga et al., 2011). UNAIDS estimate that only 28
percent of people infected with HIV are able to access healthcare or ARV
treatments (UNAIDS, 2001). The GoR report that between 11 – 13 percent of
people are living with HIV, a higher figure of 17 percent in Kigali
(UNAID/WHO, 2002). The National Commission to Fight Against AIDS
(CNLS) was established in 1986, with the first plan implemented in 1988.
Since then, NGOs, multilateral and bilateral donors have attempted to expand
prevention, care and treatment services within the country. However, many
acknowledge that the healthcare system is weak, full of management
problems, there is difficulty changing the behaviour of citizens and there are
capacity limitations, all of which pose great challenges in reducing the
prevalence rates (Spiegel, 2004). The genocide survivors living with HIV
complain that defendants awaiting trial receive ARVs, meanwhile, women who
survived the atrocities committed against them, lack access to adequate
medical treatment (Ibid). The fate of the children whose parents have HIV is
42
bleak Parents are often too sick to provide adequate care for their children, so
they are forced to fend for themselves. The stigma that is attached to HIV
means that families are often ostracised from the communities. Without
adequate health care, 7-15 years after infection the patient dies, the children
becoming orphaned, and the community reluctant to absorb the child into the
community and provide care for them.
Civil conflict in 1997/1998 in Gisenyi and Ruhengeri have added to the large
number of orphans already created through conflict in Rwanda; it is estimated
that 50,000 people were killed during this period of conflict and more than
100,000 people were displaced. After the genocide, and during more recent
times of conflict, the government, NGOs and multilateral and bilateral donors
have attempted to move children from refugee camps into community based
care (Veale, Quigley, Ndibeshye and Nyirimihigo, 2001). It is estimated that
70,000 children have been reintegrated with families since 1994, but this is a
fraction of the children who have been orphaned. However, the growing
number of orphaned children poses a threat to the traditional ways of
incorporating orphaned children into the extended family structure, paired
within weak communities as a result of the genocide the extended family care
system is failing (MINALOC/UNICEF, 2001).
3.5 How Rwanda policy addresses orphans
3.5.1 Indirect policy
As a result of the housing crisis which grew as a result of the population
displacement of the genocide, land scarcity and the fragmented community,
an ambitious development programme was established with the aim of
diversifying the economy and establishing housing for returnees amongst
political and security (Isaksson , 2004). The Imidugudu policy was founded in
the Arusha Accords of 1993, which then stated that all refugees should be
resettled in sites modelled according to ‘village, grouped type of settlement to
43
encourage the establishment of development centres in the rural area and
break with the traditional scattered housing’ (Republic of Rwanda, 1993).
Further to this policy, the villagisation policy of 1996 specifies that all rural
dwelling should resettle into Imidugudu (Human Rights Watch, 2001). The
policy was put into place in 1996 but by 1999 the building of new sites
stopped due to wavering donor support (Republic of Rwanda, 2004). The
reconstruction and resettlement of these communities had ‘implications for the
social dynamics of the new communities and the integration of strategies for
orphan care’ (Veale, Quigley, Ndibeshye and Nyirimihigo, 2001).
In rebuilding communities and promoting reconciliation it was the hope that
extended family care systems would strengthen, however there was a lack of
uniformity in the execution, it was implemented hastily and it has been
suggested that there was no systematic selection process in identifying
candidates (Hilhorst and Van Leeuwen, 2000 & Jones, 2000). Isaksson
(2011) highlights that without the policy the housing shortage and conflict over
land may have resulted in continued violence and even more acute poverty,
but that the intended opportunities and development outcomes have failed to
materialise.
3.5.2 Direct policy
Rwanda signed CRC on 26th January 1990, and was ratified on 24th January
1991 (UN Treaty Collection, 2014). The CRC is fundamental to the ideal of
universal entitlements; there is clear cut political, moral and legal
responsibilities to ensure they are upheld. National governments have the
primary responsibility to ensure child rights are being fulfilled, respect and
protected (Tollfre, 2004).
Under the CRC it is imperative to highlight a few key articles in relation to the
care of orphans. In accordance with Article 20 of the CRC, the GoR are
obliged to protect children who are deprived of family care:
44
‘A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family
environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to
remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and
assistance provided by the State’ (CRC, 1989; Article 20).
Moreover, Article 19 states all State parties should take all appropriate
legislative, social and educational measures to protect the child from any kind
of abuse, injury, abuse, neglect, maltreatment or sexual abuse while within
the care of the parent, legal guardian(s) or any other person intrusted with the
care of a child. Also highlighting that:
‘Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective
procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide
necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the
child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification,
reporting, referral, investigation, reporting, referral, investigation,
treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described
heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement’
(CRC, 1989; Article 19).
Article 12 emphasises the child’s right to be involved in decisions affecting
them:
‘State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or
her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters
affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in
accordance with the age and maturity of the child’.
(CRC, 1989; Article 12).
The focus on participation is not reflected in actual goals set by the GoR,
there has been ‘top-down planning, top-down funding and upward
accountability which negates child participation’ (Garutsa, 2010). The rights of
orphans are largely violated as they are not able to participate in the programs
45
initiated for them, moreover they are unable to access pre-existing welfare
support grants on their own.
The obligations of the child are stipulated in the African Charter on the Rights
and the Welfare of the Child (AC) which Rwanda signed in 1992. The AC, like
the CRC covers civil, political economic, social, cultural rights. Further the AC
stipulates that the are obligations of the State under the Charter:
‘1. Any child who is permanently or temporarily deprived of his family
environment for any reason shall be entitled to special protection and
assistance;
2. States Parties to the present Charter:
(a) Shall ensure that a child who is parentless, or who is
temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family
environment, or who in his or her best interest cannot be
brought up or allowed to remain in that environment shall be
provided with alternative family care, which could include,
amongst others, foster placement, or placement in suitable
institutions for the care of children;
(b) Shall take all necessary measures to trace and re-unite
children with parents or relatives where separation is caused by
internal and external displacement arising from armed conflicts
or natural disasters.
3. When considering alternative family care of the child and the best
interests of the child, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of
continuity in a child's up-bringing and to the child's ethnic, religious or
linguistic background’ (OAU, 1981; Article 25)
Rwanda is also a party of the following principles in connection with the rights
of orphans:
• UNESCO World Declaration on Education for All
46
• UN Convention on the elimination of All Forms of discrimination
Against Women
• ILO Convention 182 on Worst Forms of Child Labour
• UN Resolution 48/96 on Standard Rules on the Equalisation of
Opportunities for Persons with disabilities
• Optional Protocol on the Convention on the Rights of the Child
on the involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
• Optional Protocol on the Convention on the Rights of the Child
on Child Trafficking, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
Further, in 2003 the Ministry of Local, Information and Social Affairs
(MINALOC) released a national policy specifically targeting the care of
orphans and other vulnerable children (OVC). MINALOC follow three strategic
directions:
1. The establishment of democratic decentralised structures;
2. The reinforcement of the capacity of the population to participate in
the identification and implementation of development interventions;
and,
3. To contribute to resolve social problems
(The Republic of Rwanda, 2003).
In regards to the care of social welfare, MINALOC’s involvement in, and
development of, policy follow two goals:
1. Develop and foster administration of programmes aimed at
improving the welfare of citizens so as to ensure social security to
all, including programmes for balances growth of the national
population;
2. Initiate and oversee programmes to protect the very vulnerable of
the national population with particular emphasis on juveniles,
handicapped, survivors of genocide, the ages and orphans, with the
aim to integrate them into the economic mainstream. (Ibid).
47
The vision of the aforementioned policy is that all OVC will be assisted to
reach their full potential and have equal opportunities as all other children,
including being involved in home and community life.
Further, the implementation of the Second Development and Poverty
Reduction Strategy (EDPRS 2) was launched in 2013, and coincides with the
tail end of a national policy, Vision 2020. Through the implementation of this
policy (EDPRS 2), the GoR have committed to placing the family at the centre
of development, the care and protection of children and as a prerequisite to
achieve equitable and sustainable development for women and men, girls and
boys (The Republic of Rwanda, 2013). They have stated that an innovative
child care reform process that aims to close all residential care institutions and
reintegrate vulnerable children into family environments and to provide quality
support to the most vulnerable families (Ibid). The reform insinuates a large
expansion of social services at a local level to mentor and support village
based childcare.
NCC is an independent organ under MIGEPROF, created to ensure the rights
of all children and preserved and promoted in Rwanda. NCC creates and
implements strategies tailored to the best interest of the child, and more
specifically to address the following 7 programs; Family and Alternative Care;
Survival; Health and Living Standards; Education; Protection; Justice; and
Child Protection (NCC, 2012). The establishment of NCC represents the
commitment President Kagame has made to the Rwandan child.
3.6 Conclusion
This chapter glanced over the pre-genocide history of Rwanda, and how this
catastrophic event was formed. It is evident that the international interference,
pre-genocide, played a predominant role in the segregation of the Hutus and
Tutsis and, was ultimately the driving force behind the death of approximately
1 million people. The instant death was only one terrible outcome, the
48
thousands upon thousands of women who were brutally and systematically
raped paved the way for a dramatic growth in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and
also to the birth of sizeable number of children with no identity, who also
lacked the love or comfort of a family. Additionally, the once strong traditional
care system, which was already diminishing, suffered greatly as a result of the
distrust that was now rife amongst communities.
This chapter highlights the conventions, charters, policies and ministries that
Rwanda is part of, or has published spanning pre and post genocide. The
next chapter discusses in more depth why orphans were created prior to the
genocide, and the way in which they were cared for; looking at the lack of
policy in place, and accessing how the traditional method of care for orphans
and vulnerable children had begun to break down, and the lack of provisions
to counteract this.
49
Chapter 4: A Brief History of the Treatment of Orphans in Pre-Genocide Rwanda
4.1 Introduction This chapter explores the main reasons that children were orphaned prior to
the genocide of 1994. HIV/AIDS was first recorded in Rwanda in 1983, the
rapid growth of the virus paired with a lack of education and severe poverty
led to the increase of orphans in Rwanda. The perception of, and lack of
education surrounding, children with disabilities, meant that a disproportionally
high number of disabled children were orphaned. Further, the communities
perceptions of how and why babies are disabled led to great prejudices built
against disabled children. Building upon the previous literature explored, this
section will discuss the community based care system that, similar to most
other SSA countries, is the primary method of care for orphans.
With the increase in the number of orphans within the country, the community
care system began to weaken and orphanages began opening across the
country. This chapter introduces Noel Orphanage, the case study that will be
referred to throughout the study, and will discuss the provision of care
provided by the GoR and NGOs.
The GoR published no policies directly affecting the care of orphans in
Rwanda prior to 1994, the last section of this chapter will evaluate why this
was and whether Rwanda was a reflection of other SSA countries at this time,
or in fact the architect of it’s own downfall.
4.2 Creation of orphans
Rwanda was characterised by Sommers as a country entrapped with:
‘grinding poverty, intense population pressure on land, pronounced
lack of education, social and geographic immobility, a dominant
50
controlling, authoritarian government with an extensive record of
human rights abuses, an unusually prominent Catholic Church, a small
and intimidated civil society, and influential yet frequently pliant
international development community and truly profound social
inequality and exclusion’
(Sommers,2006).
From a political viewpoint, the Rwandan system of governance is largely
centralised, subsequently there was an inadequate amount of resources and
finances at local administrative levels, which led to dislocated public service
systems and inconsistency in public spending. The GoR mandated that the
majority of Rwandans remain in rural areas, promoting the idea of village
living (Ibid). As a direct result of the severe poverty and high proportion of
extremely rural living, health care was virtually inaccessible and underfunded,
leading to a high rate of maternal death during childbirth and hence an
increased rate of orphans in Rwanda.
In 1983 the first case of AIDS was identified in Rwanda, and surveillance
efforts began in 1984. When the first nationally representative household HIV
sero-prevalence survey was completed in 1986, it was estimated that in urban
areas HIV prevalence was 17.8 percent and 1.3 percent in rural areas
(Kavirangwa, Hanson and Kabeja, 2006). Progressively, the rural prevalence
increased as the urban prevalence rate plateaued; between 1000-4000 new
cases were reported each year across the country (Ibid). With a growing
HIV/AIDS epidemic, coupled with poor healthcare, life expectancy in Rwanda
was dire. In 1984 life expectancy began to drop from 49.91 years, until it hit its
lowest point in 1993/1994 of 26.76 years (World Bank, 2014). The young age
at which people in Rwanda were passing away, further fuelled the increasing
number of orphans in Rwanda.
4.3 Disabled orphans
51
When interviewing UWAMBAJIMANA Viateur, the In-country Manager for the
Point Foundation (PF), the mistreatment and high proportion of disabled (both
mentally and physically) orphans became apparent. Highlighting the stigma
attached to the disabled in Rwanda, he went on to emphasis the shame a
child with disabilities brings to a family due to lack of education:
Having a child with disabilities in Rwanda brings shame on the family…
Really it is because of traditional beliefs. People have not yet
understood, especially in many rural areas the causes of disabilities.
Many believe that the child has been bewitched, or they believe it is a
punishment for anything sinful they did before conceiving the child so
they would like to hide the child so that they are not seen as sinful
things. People don’t want to show they have been sinful or have been
bewitched; they think that their ancestors have come and troubled the
minds of their children as a punishment.5
This common belief throughout areas of Rwanda is the primary reason that
disabled children become orphans, through abandonment due to shame and
embarrassment. At this point in time, no research or literature was published6
and there was no formal education to explain the reasons for disability.
4.4 Care for orphans
In nearly every sub-Saharan country, extended families assumed
responsibility for more than 90 percent of orphaned children; the extended
family has historically formed an ‘intricate and resilient system of social
security that usually responds quickly to the death of a mother or father’
(UNCIEF, 2003). Cultural traditions play a prominent part in the beliefs,
morals and actions of citizens in all African countries, and the approach to the
care of orphans is no different. Since long before colonial times, there was a
culture of treating every child as your own in Rwanda, ‘before the genocide all
5 Interview respondent G (see Appendix B7) 6 To the best of the researchers knowledge.
52
the families in Rwanda were united’ 7 . Orphans were children of the
community, when a mother died it was the responsibility of aunties,
grandparents or family friends to take care of the orphan. All interview
respondents highlighted that pre-1994, there was a strong emphasis on
community-based care for orphans in Rwanda:
‘Traditionally in Rwanda there was no orphanage, a community
existed and orphans were adopted amongst them’8
‘Normally in our culture in Rwanda before [the genocide] it was not our
culture for orphanages…even before the orphan when the mother died
in the hospital, when the baby is very young that was not to say this
baby must go to the orphanage. No. The family made a meeting to see
how and how they can help this little child’9
In this period of time, there were few policies surrounding orphans in Rwanda,
and similarly there were very few orphanages. Further, there was a lack in
government institutions to care for orphans and vulnerable children, because
almost all children were absorbed within the traditional care system:
‘Before the genocide there was no care of orphans because many
people died and their children stayed orphans but there was not much
care of them because there was no government policy’10
However, there were limitations to community care of orphans, a 1991 study
reported that over a third of a sample of HIV infected mothers were relied on
solely to care for their children, leaving them orphaned after death (Keogh,
Allen, Almedal, and Ternahagili, 1994). Furthermore, as the HIV prevalence
rate increased and the national economy worsened, so did the ability of
community based care programs in providing care and absorbing orphans
within the community. Speaking about the country developing and
7 Interview respondent B (see Appendix B2) 8 Interview respondent G (see Appendix B7) 9 Interview respondent E (see Appendix B5) 10 Interview respondent F (see Appendix B6)
53
modernising, Respondent F highlighted that new orphanages began to open
across Rwanda:
‘There were new orphanages that looked after children that were
thrown out by their mums – the people who got pregnant unwillingly, or
the babies of the Mummas who died in delivery - but there were not
many orphans in orphanages, that was not usually where they were
looked after’ (Ibid).
The first orphanage in Rwanda, Noel Orphanage, was built in 1954, finally
opening in 1955 for the sole purpose of looking after infants that had lost their
mother during childbirth. Funded by the local diocese, the orphanage cared
for and raised children until they were of an age where they could be
integrated back with their surviving family, and eat solid foods:
‘There used to be receiving children who had lost their mothers during
birth, we looked after for one or two years and then they returned to
their families’
‘ The oldest child was 5 years; you couldn’t find a child of 6 or 7 years
here. The orphanage had no older children, it was very small and
funded by the diocese, at a maximum of 50 children.’ 11
The government, not recognising the growing orphan crisis in Rwanda as a
need for attention, provided less than adequate funding or initiative to prevent
the situation from worsening. The orphanages that began emerging across
the country were set up and funded independently from the government. Noel
Orphanage was funded by the first bishop of Nyundo Catholic Bishop Diocese
and continued to be governed under the direction and governance of the
current Bishop of Nyundo. The involvement of NGOs and independent
donors was minimal at this point in time, the Catholic Church took the
predominant role in opening orphanages and providing a service of care:
11 Interview respondent A (see Appendix B1)
54
‘They [the church] helped open the orphanage which is a good thing’12.
‘Before the genocide they were treated and looked after by the Catholic
Church. It was the Catholic Church who helped the orphans’13
4.5 Policy on care of orphans
The GoR, and its institutions, published no policies directly affecting the care
of orphans in Rwanda prior to 1994. However, Rwanda is a signatory to the
AC and CRC, in which it is depicted that the government is obliged to protect
children who are deprived of family care, to take appropriate action to prevent
the mistreatment of a child and to take into account a child’s right to be
involved in decisions effecting them. To this end, it can be argued that the
provision of care, or lack of, provided by the GoR prior to 1994 was
inadequate. As the community based care system began failing to absorb the
increasing number of orphaned children, orphanages were scarce and there
was a severe lack of government presence in social services and in the
creation and/or implementation of policy to support the vulnerable youth.
4.6 Conclusion
The orphan crisis in Rwanda began to take shape in the early 1990s as the
community care based model of guardianship began to regress. The cultural
tradition of community based care waivered in the years leading up to the
genocide as land became scarcer and the economy worsened. Few members
of extended families and communities were interested in assuming
guardianship of orphaned children. Orphanages began to appear in Rwanda
from 1955, sweeping up the first of many orphans who could no longer be
absorbed into the community. Whether due to greed, poverty, HIV/AIDS or
abandonment, the orphan crisis was about to explode in Rwanda and there
was a lack of policy or strategy to prevent or deal with it. The next chapter
12 Interview respondent B (see Appendix B2) 13 Interview respondent D (see Appendix B4)
55
evaluates the effect the genocide had on the treatment of orphans in Rwanda
and the subsequent ministries that were formed to help manage the crisis.
56
Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Treatment of Orphans in Post-Genocide Rwanda
5.1 Introduction
Moving systematically on from Chapter 4, this chapter will evaluate both the
continuity and change in the provision of care for orphans. The genocide of
1994 changed the dynamic of Rwanda forever; communities broke down, over
1,000,000 people were tragically killed and thousands more adversely
affected. This humanitarian catastrophe, eventually labelled as genocide,
drew a plethora of attention and capital from the international community,
multilateral donors and NGOs.
A broken country, with little to no policy in place to help alleviate the crisis of
orphans opened their arms to NGO intervention. Rwanda soon published
policies on the care of orphans, and began implementing action plans and
strategies. This chapter will explore post genocide Rwanda and the way
government institutions and policy were formed through the analysis of the
provision of services provided by the GoR and NGOs nationally, and through
the direct effects these contributions, or lack of, have had on the development
of, in particular, Noel Orphanage and the lives of their orphans.
The GoR prohibited the opening of any new orphanages after the country
moved down from its state of emergency. Requesting the help of a UK based
NGO, Hope and Homes for Children (HHC) the government began closing an
orphanage in Kigali, and reunifying its children. The latter section of this
chapter looks at the policy leading up to the creation of the pilot scheme, and
the subsequent policy released as a result of its apparent success.
5.2 Creation of Orphans post -1994
57
‘The war and genocide of 1994, shredded the social fabric of Rwandan
society, decimated families and greatly reduced the capacity of communities
to meet their own needs’ (Veale, Quigley, Ndibeshye and Nyirimihigo, 2001).
One of the greatest legacies of this humanitarian catastrophe is the
considerable number of orphans and children who were left without parents or
adult supervision in Rwanda. The immediate aftermath of the genocide, and
the dire state the country was left in saw the number of orphans emerge at an
exponential rate:
‘Children emerged from the dead bodies and the streets, and can not
find anyone, so they are orphaned’14
A study carried out by the United States Agency for International
Development estimated the overall number of orphans from all causes was
767,386 in 1995 (Hunter and Williamson, 1998). In comparison, just 5 years
earlier there were 550,000 orphans in Rwanda, an increase of over 8 percent
of the population under the age of 18 became orphaned (Measure DHS,
2004).
The short-term effects were cataclysmic but the long-term effects of rape as a
weapon of war were nearly as damaging. Some 90 percent of Tutsi women
and girls who survived the genocide were sexually molested, both principally
and systematically; more than 10,000 babies were born as a consequence of
these rapes (Wax, 2004). There were two primary reasons behind the mass
rape of Tutsi women15, firstly, impregnation. The child of these rapes holds
the identity of the father; biology matters more than culture, in constructing
identity the maternal contributions are minimal (Weitsman, 2008).
‘Labelling a child a ‘genocidal orphan’ virtually negates his or her
existence. This abnegation of self gives rise to gross violations of
14 Interview respondent A (see Appendix B1) 15 The patriarchal structure of Rwandan society was critical in allowing the policies of mass rape to prevail; women were seen as the dependents of men and valued for the number of children they could produce. If a women was not ‘pure’ or was the victim of a sexual assault(s) their societal value became marginal, and they were rendered worthless.
58
human rights which dramatically undermines the quality of a child’s
life.’
These perpetuated ideas of identity frequently lead to pervasive discrimination
against specific social groups and neglect of children who are born of rape
during wartime. The families of these children are unable to disentangle them
from the circumstances surrounding their conception. Further, from Rwandan
societies point of view there is little sympathy for these women, for at ‘the
moment that men and children died without defence, these women used the
sex card, ‘selling their bodies’ to save their lives’ (Layika, 1996; 40). Women
that chose to speak out, were ostracised from their communities and
remaining families.
Secondly, the deliberate transmission of HIV/AIDS was a unique component
of rape as a part of genocide in Rwanda. Hutu men known to be infected with
HIV/AIDS were let out of hospitals or prisons during the genocide solely to
cause fatal injuries. The extreme Hutus preferred to inflict a drawn out and
protracted death upon the Tutsi women rather than kill them swiftly (Nowrojee,
1996). At the time of the genocide, ARV treatment was not available in
Rwanda, and HIV left untreated is holistically certain to result in AIDS and
death within approximately 7-15 years (Sharlach, 2000).
It cannot be estimated how many women and girls were infected with HIV
during the course of the genocide, although an idea can be given. Before the
genocide, the infection rate in Rwanda was estimated at 25 percent, and 35
percent among the military. It is believed that every surviving female of the
genocide has been raped (Gordon and Crehen, 1999). Of all these females,
67 percent are estimated to have been infected with HIV (Amnesty
International, 2004). The shame associated with HIV subsequently means
that most men and women do not want to, or can not afford to, obtain tests
and treatment. Left undiagnosed many women and men went on to marry and
have children, creating a new generation of HIV infected children.
59
Thousands of women, men and children were displaced during and after the
genocide. Within refugee camps, the risk of infection was still high. Amongst
large populations of unemployed and traumatised men, rape is a common
occurrence (Sharlach, 2000). Additionally, in larger refugee camps across the
borders16 deaths were beginning to total 2000 per week as the population
increased and the access to clean drinking water and health services
worsened (Prunier, 2009). 50,000 people died in the refugee camps, adding
to an already astronomical death toll, orphaning yet more vulnerable babies,
children and teenagers (Ibid) ).
5.3 Care for orphans in Rwanda (community based)
Prior to the genocide, it was culturally traditional to absorb orphaned children
into families within a community, as explained in the previous chapters. The
dramatic increase in orphans coupled with the tragically broken communities
exceeded the capacity of the community care system.
Before, and as the genocide first began, it was widely accepted that Rwandan
families would send their children off to safer parts of the country to ensure
the survival of their children. During the genocide, unaccompanied children
were placed with neighbours, friends, strangers and soldiers of the RPA. In
controllable areas the RPA set up temporary centres for children, and
facilitated the placement of children with Rwandans living outside the country
(Dona, 2001). It is thought that of 93,480 unaccompanied Rwandan children,
28,300 were in foster families inside Rwanda, whilst 10,000 were fostered by
refugee families and 4,000 children were fostered by Congolese families
(Brown, 1995).
Community based care or foster care was made a government priority during
the transition. Both Government and NGO alike were discussing the
possibility of placing children with unrelated families, and by 1996 foster 16 800,000 Rwandans crossed from Gisenyi to Goma where their were five huge camps (Katale, Kahindo, Mugunga, Lac Vert and Sake), to escape persecution or to find refuge. In total, it is estimated that there were 2.1 million Rwandan refugees in neighbouring countries across 35 camps.
60
families were looking after related and unrelated children in Ruhengeri and
Gisenyi. A report from Save the Children highlights the worrying conditions
that orphans are fostered into:
‘Very little is known about the conditions in which foster children and
families live, as well as how the rights and responsibilities of foster
children and families are perceived within local communities.’ (Dona,
2001)
Further, the programme director of Save the Children Rwanda, commented
during an interview that:
‘The problem lies with the fact that fostering should be formalised
otherwise foster children will never enjoy the same rights as biological
children in the family’17
In Ngara, Tanzania, NGOs attempted to place children with extended families
or unrelated foster families coming from a similar region as the child. The
Tanzanian government discouraged this idea, however 109,000 children were
placed with refugee extended families (Dona, 2001). There was no continuity
of monitoring and a distinct lack of any follow up procedure; these children are
now lost within a larger category of otherwise spontaneously fostered
children, now nigh on impossible to trace or evaluate the condition of their
living (Ibid).
After the genocide, communities within Rwanda who previously worked
together to look after these children were struggling to look after themselves;
the community, home, families and friendships they had known were torn
apart. Now living in conditions of appalling poverty, a respondent who has
lived in Gisenyi for over 30 years, in response to a question asked on the
stigma attached to orphans in Rwanda, commented:
17 Interview respondent H (see Appendix B8)
61
‘There are many children who do not have family; people think this is
bad […] It is bad, the country does not love its children, the people in
my country still do not love each other like before. You know the
genocide is still bad; there are still things that cannot be fixed. This is
the reason the government want to bring the children back to families,
to fix this’18
5.4 Creation of Orphanages in Rwanda
Prior to the genocide there were 12 orphanages open across the country,
housing 4,800 children; within a year after the genocide had ceased 51 new
orphanages were erected across the country (see Appendix E) with 12,704
children residing within their walls in March 1995 (Greenwell, 2002, de Buhr,
2006)19.
‘After the genocide many children did not have parents, so the GoR
tried to look after all orphans that were survivors of the genocide […]
The government put the children together in different areas to look after
them’.20
‘Even before if people were poor they would work to look after the
children, but now the orphanage is full and no one wants to take the
children’21
Respondent A comments on how she remembers the drastic increase of
children arriving at Noel Orphanage:
18 Interview respondent D (see Appendix B4) 19 This is a rough estimate of the number of orphanages, and orphans living within them. Based on the most comprehensive study of orphans in Rwanda to date, Greenwell studied all MINALOC registered orphanages within the county. However, there are many orphanages across the country that are completely independently run and receive no government funding, these orphanages, and their statistics will not have been included within the study. 20 Interview respondent F (see Appendix B6) 21 Interview respondent B (See Appendix B2)
62
‘That is why today there is a big number in the orphanage, children
emerged from the dead bodies and the streets, and can not find
anyone, so they are orphaned’.22
In October 1996, 57 centres hosted 6,620 children; in November 1998, 38
centres received 5,343 children; and in April 2000, 27 centres accommodated
less than 5,000 children (Dona, 2001). In April 2002 24 orphanages remained;
the size of these orphanages differs from less than 50 residents to more than
50023. No new orphanages have been opened since the peak of March 1995,
this reflects the government’s position that children should not be placed in
institutional care and new centres should not be opened.
5.5 Provision of Services
The reunification process saw large numbers of NGOs working holistically in
Rwanda, or attempting to. The situation of orphans and vulnerable children
after the genocide greatly impacted on the development of the country and
the provision of services available to orphans and vulnerable children in
orphanages. These NGOs were namely UNICEF, Save the Children, ICRC
and smaller NGOs who had a large impact on Noel orphanage such as the
Point Foundation and His Chase. The international community had more
disposable resources than the entire annual budget in Rwanda, and the role
of the GoR, in this instance, was slowly whittled away as NGOs took the
initiative that the government, at this time, did not have in regards to the care
of children:
‘The programmes and projects have been more the sum of the
programmes and projects that donors are prepared to finance than a
reflection of the Government’s priorities and policies. Because of this
weakness, the management of public resources has remained divorced
from the policies announced’ (Cantwell, 1997)
22 Interview respondent A (see Appendix B1) 23 For full graph of the number of orphans in orphanages in Rwanda, see Appendix F.
63
At least 200 NGOs were involved in the direct response to the genocide,
although their response was critical in the aftermath of the genocide, it has
been widely criticised by the lack of coordinated political strategy within the
international community for managing the crisis effectively (Eriksson, 1996).
NGOs ranged from experienced agencies to organisations who had little to no
experience in Africa, and in some cases were setting foot on the continent for
the first time.
Noel Orphanage received a huge influx of children immediately after the
genocide (numbers rising from 50, to over 500). As time passed it was
optimistically presumed that the majority of the children would be reunited with
parents and relatives as the tracing and reunification process and appeal was
widely spoken and known about:
‘The number remained crazy, there were so many problems outside
that adults would not take care of children who were not theirs, as they
did before 1994. Before we just looked after babies, and families or
village people would take the children back and care for them, but not
after the genocide, after the genocide everything changed’24.
Although widely criticised, the involvement of NGOs was imperative; Noel
Orphanage benefited hugely from the input and assistance from ICRC and
Save the Children:
‘This is when the help came from the NGO’s; you see after the
genocide war Save the Children and the ICRC they used to help us to
trace. They took photos of all our children, they put them on all the
poles everywhere on the streets, so they could recognise the child,
they could see where the child is and there is a number, they could
24 Interview respondent A (see Appendix B1)
64
then go to the Red Cross (ICRC) […], and you could go and claim your
child’25
Noel Orphanage, with the help of ICRC and Save the Children, reintegrated
1,500 children. They accomplished this without help or funding from the
government, although this policy was aligned with that of the governments.
Many children did not have a family that could be traced:
‘Those that had no trace, there was nothing we could do to find them a
family, so instead we made the decision to educate them, after their
education they could make their own family and be independent’26
Noel Orphanage has constantly been reunifying children since the genocide,
but the orphanage still remained at full capacity. Since the orphanage opened
in 1955, 3,137 children have passed through its doors, many remaining there
their whole lives.
The involvement and consistency of funding from outside organisations has
had a positive impact on the standard of living at the orphanage. In 2007
nearly 700 children were living at the orphanage in appalling conditions, the
children were seriously undernourished, surviving off one meal of low grade
maize a day, groups of toddlers slept on damp mattresses on the floor, there
was no plumbing, hygiene was abysmal and access to education was
seriously limited.
The government were rallying to shut orphanages down, and although they
were regularly supplying funding, it was not adequate:
‘The government did give funding, but not enough’27
25 Interview respondent A (see Appendix B1) 26 Interview respondent A (see Appendix B1) 27 Interview respondent B (see Appendix B2)
65
‘I don’t think [government involvement] has been totally adequate…
Maybe after a long time the care they provide could be adequate, but
not then, it wasn’t’28
The PF have had the biggest role within Noel Orphanage29 ; completely
revamping the dormitories, supplying food, building toilet blocks, providing
hygiene products, health care and access to education:
‘They [PF] have helped since it came into place, they have helped a lot
because they have created an environment where children and the
youth could be nurtured and care for’30.
Alongside the PF, an American based NGO, His Chase, partnered with Noel
Orphanage, providing education for the children who had previously not been
fortune enough to have received one. Primary schooling in Rwanda is
compulsory and ‘free’; however, each child is still expected to contribute
towards building maintenance at the school, as well as supplying school
uniform and supplies (e.g. books, pens, pencils etc.). In an economy that’s
average wage is $1.25 a day, it is often unrealistic that these provisions can
be met and, with minimal funding from the government, it was not unusual for
a large proportion of the children at Noel not to attend school, until the PF and
His Chase began supporting the orphanage:
‘The orphans, they don’t have enough access to education, because
they don’t have the funds’31
‘People help the orphanage with education, there are donors that
help’32
‘Before people paid for the childrens’ educations, the children just sat
around doing nothing, waiting for something to happen, waiting for
somebody to help them. It was so bad; many kids did not go to school
28 Interview respondent F (see Appendix B6) 29 A timeline of the resources and help provided by the PF can be found in Appendix G. 30 Interview respondent G (see Appendix B7) 31 Interview respondent B (see Appendix B2) 32 Interview respondent B (see Appendix B2)
66
because we didn’t have the school fees. Without this help, all these
things would not have been bought. Can you even imagine how bad
that would be?’33
The intervention and assistance from these two NGO’s in particular, has
enabled children to receive an education. Further, food supplies were often
low, and sometimes non-existent. Primarily an NGO, The Presence Ministry,
identified the urgent need to provide baby formula for the newborn babies;
soon, both the PF and His Chase were also assisting with funding:
‘You remember when the formula was bought, there was none at the
orphanage, without that money the babies would have not eaten. How
can you say the government funding was enough when children could
have starved?’34
Without the support and perseverance of the PF and other NGO’s, Noel
Orphanage, and most others around the country, would be in a much worse
off state. The government’s investment into the living conditions, nutrition, and
development of these children was less than adequate.
5.6 Policy on care of orphans Rwanda has gone through different childcare reform policies over the past few
decades. The 1994 genocide led to the largest response, the ICRC and Save
the Children actively engaged in helping to identify, trace and reunify children
residing within orphanages with their displaced families. In 1994, the
MINIREISO began to discuss formal fostering because of the vast numbers of
separated children in orphanages. MINITRASO, along with relevant NGOs
started to realise the necessity to regulate fostering; MIGEFASO was
established in 1997 and published a draft policy and regulations on the
functioning of orphanages, and in 1998 draft guidelines were produced on
reunification and fostering procedures; MINAFASO was created in 1999 for a 33 Interview respondent D (see Appendix B4) 34 Interview respondent B (see Appendix B4)
67
short period and was tasked with drafting a legitimate law on fostering, though
this was never created. Most of the services provided by MINAFASO were
transferred to MINALOC upon its creation in 2000. MINALOC, who produced
all policy on the closure of orphanages the promotion of fostering, and the
Strategy for National Child Care Reform35.
After the genocide the government did not want to formalise childcare in the
hope that spontaneous solidarity could take place, but over the course of time
it has become a legal necessity to clarify the child’s status, to ensure that
living conditions are adequate, and the child’s best interests are being
protected. A committee made up of officials from Save the Children, World
Vision, UNICEF and two local NGOs, alongside MIGEFASO was established
in 1997. This new committee drafted the guidelines on fostering and family
reunification and was made available by MIGEFASO. The reunification work
was, overall, deemed quite successful as the ICRC and Save the Children
reunified an estimated number of 56,000 children over a period of 6 years
(1994-2000)36.
Vision 2020 is a ‘reflection of our aspiration and determination as Rwandans,
to construct a united, democratic and inclusive Rwandan identity’ (Kagame,
as cited in Republic of Rwanda, 2000). The vision comes as a result of a
national consultative process conducted between 1997 and 2000 and aims to
primarily transform Rwanda’s economy into a middle-income country. The
Vision identifies that economic growth alone will not be enough to bring the
necessary rise in the standard of living needed to achieve this aim; to alleviate
hunger and poverty the growth must be pro-poor, allowing all Rwandans the
chance to gain from the new economic opportunities the Vision should create
(Ibid). Vision 2020 ties in with the Economic Development and Poverty
Reduction Strategy (EDPRES) for 2008-2012; both strategies recognise the
impact that rapid population growth will have on socioeconomic development.
Further, the government have highlighted their commitment to reducing high
rates of fertility through family planning and the National Family Planning 35 See Appendix H 36 See Appendix I for a breakdown of government ministry’s and their formations.
68
Policy (NFFP) between 2006 and 2010. Although neither policy addresses the
issue of orphans directly, the vision and strategies to pull Rwanda out of
poverty are predicted to lead to an increase in human resources development,
encompassing education, health, and ICT skills for both the public sector,
private sector and civil society. Subsequently, these improvements should
directly decrease the number of orphans created as a result of poor health,
poverty (social orphans) and death through preventable diseases
(HIV/AIDS/Malaria/Cholera).
Hope and Hopes for Children were invited, by the GoR, in 2010 to help
implement a long-standing policy, the DI policy (HHC, 2012). HHC signed a
memorandum of understanding with MIGEPROF to begin a pilot DI pilot with
Mpore Pefa orphanage in Kigali.
The pilot reunification process differs considerably from the previous attempts
at tracing and reunification as it follows a clear outline, documented in the
Strategy for National Child Care Reform (see Appendix H). Receiving active
support from UNICEF, NGOs (especially HHC), faith-based organisations and
the government who had 5 key areas in which to focus the pilot reunification
process:
1. Operationalising the legislative and policy framework for child care
reform
2. Strengthening the human and technical capacities of structures at the
national and district levels to administer child care and protection and
oversee the system
3. Creating a national framework for care
4. Building a strong professional social welfare workforce
5. Developing efficient information management systems on child
protection and monitoring and evaluating systems
(Republic of Rwanda, 2000)
The pilot scheme was considered successful when the orphanage closed in
early 2012, and President Kagame took a bold step in announcing to the
press that the Government’s ambition was to become the first African nation
69
to close all of its orphanages in the short time frame of two years (HHC,
2012).
Since 2011, Rwanda has developed a strong legal and policy framework to
include a focus on the primary role of the family, family based alternative care
and poverty reduction. Through the passage of 2 laws, the Child Rights and
Protection Policy and 3 national strategies which encompass child care
reform, family promotion and poverty reduction, form an all-encompassing
framework that includes preventative and response components in support of
the newest reform effort37 (MIGEPROF, 2011a; MIGEPROF, 2011b).
5.7 Conclusions
The sudden influx of orphans in Rwanda is a specific and unique example of
the creation of orphans in SSA. Although other countries have been riddled by
violence and HIV, none experienced such a dramatic increase in the number
of orphans or such a sharp rise in HIV prevalence; all this at a time when
traditional care for orphans and community trust was already on the brink of
breakdown. The mindless killing alone birthed 400,000 new orphans, in a
country that had no policy or strategies to provide care to them. Further, rape
was used to draw out a long and painful death and shame women. This
shame and alienation couple with less than adequate access to healthcare,
treatment, testing and ARV treatment, meant that HIV was often left
undetected, the death toll as a result of the genocide objectively continued to
rise years after the violence had ended. With the exception of Bosnia, rape
has never been used as such a powerful weapon of war with such specific
goals in doing so. The impregnation of these women left at least 100,000
women pregnant and consequently, nearly as many children orphaned.
Orphanages were erected quickly in the days and weeks after the genocide
and nearly 200 NGO’s stepped in in an attempt to rebuild a largely broken 37 Approval of Law 22/2011 establishing the National Commission of Children Approval of Law 54/2011 Law on Rights and Protection of Children Adoption of the Strategic Plan for the Integrated Child Rights Policy
70
country. ICRC and Save the Children played a large part in the initial tracing
and reunification process, and although it was optimistically believed that the
majority of the children residing in orphanages would be reunified with their
parents, as time passed it became more and more apparent that this would
not be the case. Many adults had fled to neighbouring countries; others saw
the orphanages as a safe-haven. With high funds from NGO’s, it was often
believed that children would have a better standard of life inside the
orphanages than they would living in worse poverty with family and/or
extended families; to this end children continued to arrive at a more increased
rate than previously. Although allowing children to leave the traditional family
care system was against the Rwandan, and in fact African, culture, the
genocide stripped the country of a large number of its social norms its people
previously lived by.
The input from the international community and NGO’s paved the way for a
variety of different ministries to be formed; a few of these ministries were
concerned predominantly with community care, childcare, gender equality and
healthcare. Although new policy was published, there were still very limited
investment levels. On its face, it appeared to be both counter-intuitive and a
startling state of affairs. The surviving children of the genocide, and the
children orphaned in subsequent years have been deprived of the
environment necessary for their harmonious development.
Noel orphanage has been a prime example of lack of government
intervention. Through discussion in this chapter, it is plainly evident that
without the continual support from international NGO’s the facilities provided
would have been far less than adequate. With pressure from the government,
the pilot reunification began in 2010, and was unsurprisingly successful. The
next chapter explores the reunification process in more depth, and discusses
the perceptions, and willingness, of Noel Orphanage and the surrounding
community to participate in the programme.
71
Chapter 6: De-‐institutionalisation and reunification process (2012-‐2014)
6.1 Introduction
At the time of writing Rwanda is going through one of the largest childcare
reforms in the last few decades. With the support of a UK charity HHC for
Children (HHC) and a governmental institution, the National Commission of
Children (NCC), the GoR are attempting to close all the orphanages within the
country, and place all orphans who were residing in these centres into their
extended families, unrelated families, or in independent living. A tall order,
nowhere more so than at the countries largest orphanage, where the DI policy
and National Childcare Reform 38has been met with resistant by the children
and staff at Noel orphanage. This chapter will evaluate the strategy and how it
has been implemented.
The follow-up procedure has been another controversial part of the
reunification process, a portion of the children who have been placed in
families have often been found undernourished, mistreated, been left on the
streets, or have returned to the orphanage due to a lack of care. The last 2
sub-sections of this chapter examine the follow up procedure in more depth,
and examine the perceptions of the reunification process and closure of Noel
Orphanage.
6.2 Strategy
The strategy for National Child Care Reform promotes and encompasses both
the CRC and AC that the GoR are prior signatories of.
38 Here on after referred to as, the strategy
72
When President Kagame announced the closure of all orphanages and
reunification of all children, he did so within an ambitious time frame – two
years39. The five overarching aims laid out for this period of time are
highlighted in Appendix H.
In order to achieve these aims, it was a necessity for the government to
combine a variety of different organisations, and skill bases. Figure 3
highlights the sectors in which the professionals came from, and a description
of the way in which they enhanced and helped the strategy. Although, the
GoR are making steps in the right direction by employing new staff, studies
have shown that inexperienced staff or staff with high caseloads of work
reportedly impede reunification (CWIG, 2011).
Figure 3 1: Key Rwanda Child Care Reform Stakeholders : (Bunkers, Gross & Chevrel, 2013)
As seen in appendix H, the government identified the need for the human
resource development of professionals. A capacity building assessment was
carried out to determine the approach to strengthen social welfare and social
work professionals, and a Program Coordination Team comprised of NCC,
39 A report by Child Welfare Information Gateway (2011) highlights the importance of timelessness within the reunification programme. The amount of time spent on each reunification is directly proportionate to its level of success.
73
UNICEF, HHC officials was formed. Subsequently, senior social workers were
employed for each of the nineteen districts that would be affected; a further
social worker and physiologist were employed for each of the orphanages.
The government have expanded social work programmes, and 3 universities
across Rwanda now offer degree programmes; the departments of social
work are involved in the reform process allowing practice placements of B.A
and M.A students.
As the decentralisation process in Rwanda continues, it was recognised that it
is imperative to produce a supportive environment for the participation of civil
society within the reform. The government are supporting the role of NGOs,
and this has been apparently demonstrated by the provision of services to
children and families.
6.3 Process There are eight steps in the reunification of a child to their family/extended
family, in brief these are:
1. Initial Assessment
2. Family tracing to explore options
3. Family assessment to assess needs and risks
4. Placement decision to determine the right family to match the best
interest of the child.
5. Intensive child and family preparation to address needs and risks
identified during assessment phase.
6. Care plan developed in partnership with the caregiver and community
to ensure suitable future monitoring and support needs can be
measured and adjusted as needed.
7. Placement of the child into family or family alternative
8. Post placement support support/follow-up for monitoring and support.
(Appendix H).
74
Both NCC and HHC are responsible for implementing and adhering to this
policy.
6.4 Noel Orphanage: The Reunification Process
During 2011, government officials approached Noel Orphanage and
assembled a large meeting with the children and staff to officially break the
news of the imminent closure of the orphanage, and their reunification. Upon
hearing the news, the officials gave the children a chance to voice their
opinions. Amongst other remarks, a teenage girl highlighted that her family
had abandoned her and that they would have to be forced to take her back;
another boy expressed worry about their education, and suggested that the
orphanage shut its gates to new arrivals, and closed once the current
residents finished their education – the officials responded saying the teens
had nothing to fear (Murdock, 2011). The fears of the teenagers were
reiterated throughout the interviews:
‘You know you cannot make somebody love a child, you cannot make
them care for a child’40
‘The families they can be so poor, they can have no love, but they are
still pressured to take the children to please the big people’41
As the reunification process took off in 2012, 1,051 children left residential
care through a mixture of both spontaneous reintegration as well as planned
integration. HHC first entered into Noel Orphanage on 19th September 2012
and by Christmas the first children were being reunified with their families. To
mark the occasion a ceremonial party took place. This event included all the
children from the orphanage, the children about to reunified, their families, the
Minister of State Infrastructure, Minster of Gender, Minister of Precedence,
the President of Rwanda and his wife, the Bishop of Nyundo and many people
from the local community.
40 Interview Respondent D (see Appendix B4) 41 Interview respondent B (See appendix B2)
75
The news of the reunification programme was not received warmly at Noel
Orphanage, the children were concerned and often in a state of dismay:
‘‘They have to know what’s going on properly. Some of the children do
have families[…] but the children need to understand why they are
living in an orphanage.’42
During the reunification process the family is evaluated to ensure they are
capable of looking after the child in a safe environment. Any risks or problems
with the family are identified and reconciled. Although the process does claim
to focus on the psychological needs of both the family and child, there is very
often not an adequate amount of care and attention to the long-term
psychological damage this sort of realisation can have on the child:
‘Taking the kids back to the families, that does not solve the problem.
They solve the family’s problems but not the kid’s problems. Can you
understand how hard it is for a kid to be in an orphanage all their life
and then find out they have family who could have cared for them? It is
so hard… there is a lack of love.’43
A common theme appeared throughout the interviews, no participants thought
that a children being reunified was a bad idea, however, they all identified the
way in which it was being implemented was detrimental to the development
and success of the reunification:
‘The kids grow up in families, that is good. I know it is better for kids to
grow in families, everybody loves that. But the people who are
reunifying them, they need to know deep down what they are doing. I’m
not against the reunification, but the people who are reunifying them
need to know the kids better and know the families. They do not know
42 Interview respondent B (See appendix B2) 43 Interview respondent B (See appendix B2)
76
them well enough […] there isn’t enough care to follow up what is
happening to these kids, a lot of them are not being treated with love’44.
Noel Orphanage was created upon the identification of a void within the
community that needed filling, ‘what they do not know, Noel is our
communities response to the crises’. That need was initially due to poor and
restricted access to healthcare. Maternal mortality during childbirth was, and
is, high in most parts of the developing world, especially in rural areas – such
as those in Nyundo. The need for the orphanage shifted after genocide, and
as the number of children increased, so did the funding from NGOs. Although
these children are not living in a family, the support that they receive in the
form of food, shelter, etc. is more than the majority of families would be able
to provide in this poverty-stricken area. It is at this point that the government
should evaluate the extent at which the idea of a family is more, or less,
important than the provision of care in the form of shelter, food, health and
education. A shifting, and complex, paradigm that is near impossible to
deduce a single answer from, but none-the-less deserves more attention and
evaluation.
6.5 Follow up
Some centres reported that not infrequently children who had been reunified
have later returned to live in the centres. These reports collaborate a similar
finding in Veale et al.’s (2001) report that a proportion of child reunifications
and family placements have failed. According to the report, some children
became head of households, other children did not remain with the same
guardian, and some children experienced severe impoverishment and
malnutrition (Veale & Quigley, 2000).
‘From the reunification, there is really no follow up, and then the
orphanage will shut, and then what if families do not want these
children, there is nowhere for them to go. They do not know what will
44 Interview respondent B (See appendix B2)
77
happen in the time after the children go back to their families […] You
know, these are children, everyone thinks they are just numbers’45
A study by Child Welfare Information Gateway highlights two dimensions of
family engagement, which are fundamental to a successful reunification:
1. The relationship between the caseworker and the family, and
2. Parent-child visitation
The frequency and nature of the caseworker’s contact with the family is
important, and stages 3-8 should facilitate as much caseworker contact as
possible (Littell & Shuerman, 1995). However, the sheer number of children
that HHC are attempting to reunify at Noel Orphanage does not allow enough
time for each case to be properly evaluated:
‘There are just too many kids […] to follow up on, too many kids to fall
through the cracks. It’s just an overwhelming process’.46
Research supports the significance of visitation of parent/extended family as a
predictor of the success of family reunification; it gives an opportunity to build
improve the interaction and relationship between the child and family
(Leathers, 2002; Haight, Sokolec, Budde & Poertner, 2001). The children at
Noel Orphanage meet their new families once before they leave the
orphanage; after a life in the orphanage, one visit should not be considered
adequate before everything these children have known is removed.
Nearly two years since the first reunification, all bar 193 47children have been
reunified, and the attitude and perceptions of the reform have barely
improved. The lack of time invested in gaining the interest and commitment
towards the reform process is the primary reason for this resistance. Further,
the orphanage staff, children and surrounding community have not reacted
well to the government initiative to close the orphanage. Even at this late 45 Interview respondent B (see appendix B2) 46 Interview respondent C (see Appendix B3)
78
stage, with the orphanage on track for closure in December 2014, babies are
still being abandoned at the orphanage gates:
‘The children of one month, they are still arriving. If they shut down,
where will they go? The mothers that die at birth or from HIV or malaria
[…] It is not good; they will be on the streets’48
The international community have further commented on the process of
reunification within Rwanda. The Committee on the Rights of the Child
highlighted in 2013:
‘The committee is further concerned that there are cases of
‘spontaneous reintegration’ of children without adequate preparation or
proper assessment, monitoring and follow-up’.
(CRC, 2013)
Additionally, the CRC committee recommended that Rwanda:
‘Review the National Strategy for Childcare Reform, with a view to
expanding the time frame from its implementation, introduce monitoring
mechanisms with clear indicators to measure the outcomes and
provide follow-up procedures. The Committee further recommend that
the state party increase the number of professional working with or for
children and provide them adequate training and vocational training
and supervision’
(Ibid)
6.6 The Story across SSA
The story of DI is currently playing a leading role across most of SSA. The
attitudes towards institutional care in Ethiopia are shifting dramatically, and
have been over recent years; recognising that institutional care should be the
47 Correct at time of interview 28/06/2014 48 Interview respondent B (see appendix B2)
79
last resort, and that strategies need to be implemented to prevent the need for
this type of care (Save the Children, 2010). Ghana, in 2007, carried out a
survey on the number of orphans living in institutional care within the country,
subsequently the government decided to phase out institutional care in favour
of foster care and adoption (Department of Social Welfare, 2014). In Malawi
there are 101 orphanages, there is a government driven programme to close
all orphanages, but currently only a few orphanages are in cooperation
(Ministry of Gender, Children and Community Development/UNICEF, 2011).
There has been a large body of academic work carried out surrounding the
implication and detrimental nature that institutional living can have on the
development of a child (UNICEF, 2004a; UNICEF, 2004b). Save the Children
published a report in 2003, in which they stated, ‘Save the Children argues
that many features of residential care are an abuse of children’s rights…’.
Additionally, studies have demonstrated the ill effects of being an orphaned
child, concluding that institutional care is damaging to the development of
infants and children relative to foster care (Tizard, 1978; UNICEF, UNAIDS &
USAIDS, 2004; Woff, 2005).
The CRC, as previously mentioned, outlines the basic human rights for a child
which include: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from
harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family,
cultural and social life (CRC, 1989). The CRC sets standards in health care,
education, and legal, civil and social services (Ibid). Although it has been
largely thought that institutional care is detrimental to the child, families and
communities often have difficulty in providing food, shelter, health care, and
education (International H Alliance, 2003; 24). The policy that is sweeping
across SSA with regard to the closure of orphanages, largely does not
recognise that in some cases, a family setting is either not an option or
possibly a worse option that living in an institution. Such policy movements
limit care options without assurance that community environments will be
safer or more supportive than the institutions from which the children are
moved (Whetten et al., 2009).
80
6.7 Conclusion
The primary aim of the Strategy for National Child Care Reform is to safely
reunify as many children wherever possible and appropriate, continually
bearing in mind the child’s best interests. This chapter discusses the process
behind the reunification process, and draws on examples from Noel
Orphanage. The short time frame within which this strategy has been
implemented has been nothing but detrimental to the success of this project.
As highlighted in previous chapters, a large proportion of the children at Noel
Orphanage are social orphans, they have been orphaned due to social and
economic reasons. Although institutional living is commonly said to have a
detrimental effect on the development of a child, in the situation that most
families find themselves in, especially in the rural area of Nyundo, Noel
Orphanage is able to offer them better living conditions, a sustainable supply
of food and access to education. As highlighted in Appendix B10, ‘The
orphanages can offer material support but not emotional support’. In regards
to the best interest of the child, the shifting paradigm between living conditions
and the love of a family makes it extremely difficult to comprehend which
gives better weight to the overall development of the child.
Additionally, nearly all respondents picked up on a common theme during
interview; families displayed a lack of love and compassion for the children.
Families are taking children under pressure from officials, not due to love or
humanity. This raises questions about the sustainability of the strategy, and
concern over the follow-up procedure. As highlighted within this chapter, The
Committee on the Rights of the Child raised concern over the monitoring and
follow-up procedure; similarly so did five interview respondents.
Rwanda now has a robust legal framework regarding orphans, vulnerable
children and the prohibition of opening new orphanages. A continued strong
government leadership paired with active engagement and participation of
civil society49 are, and will continue to become, important in the childcare
49 In coalition with the decentralisation process that is continuing in Rwanda currently.
81
reform. As described above, the implementation of the reunification and DI
process, especially at Noel Orphanage, has been implemented with the best
intent. However, the short time frame and restrictive follow-up measures upon
which this policy is based have been harmful to the success and community
acceptance of the program. Having discusses the empirical evidence
gathered within this study, the following chapter will conclude this piece of
research and recommend future best practices.
82
Chapter 7: Conclusions
7.1 Introduction
This chapter will condense the findings from previous chapters drawing on key
themes in relation to the overall research question and aims in order to put
forward the outcomes of the study. The rationale behind the research was to
investigate the provision of services provided to orphans in post-1994 Rwanda.
The methodological framework established in Chapter 1, helped in gaining an
understanding of how the treatment of orphans has changed as a result of the
genocide, and development within the country. Interviews allowed the
researcher to gain a deeper understanding of the workings of the traditional
family care system, the creation of orphanages, the services provided as a
whole to orphans in Rwanda, and the DI/reunification process. Empirical
evidence from the study revealed that, although the government now has a
National Child Care Reform Strategy and a legislative framework aimed at
orphans and vulnerable children, the state had previously failed to adequately
address the needs of orphans. This resulted in a gap in social service provision
for orphans, prior and for a period after the genocide.
7.2 Role played by the GoR and NGOs in addressing the needs of orphans in Rwanda
Prior to 1994 the traditional family care system was predominant in the care for
orphans; there was next-to-no policy in regards to orphan care, and only twelve
orphanages were open across the country. This was mirrored in the majority of
all other SSA countries. Although other factors played a part, the genocide was
the primary reason in the sudden influx of orphans and opening of numerous
new orphanages. Orphanages were set up and funded largely by NGOs.
Whilst it is difficult to talk holistically about all orphanages in Rwanda, the case
of the longest and largest orphanage in Rwanda portrays a picture of perhaps
83
of an orphanage, which received less than average funding from the
government, and higher than average funding from NGOs. Before the continual
funding and strategic coordination of the PF and His Chase, Noel Orphanage
was struggling to provide a liveable space for the children residing within it. The
conditions were appalling, and the abysmal environment that children were
expected to live in were acknowledged, but widely overlooked by the GoR; as
signatories to both the CRC and AC the GoR did not sufficiently protect the
rights of their children.
7.3 The current issue of orphans in Rwanda and the strategies in place to cope with this
More recently (2011), the GoR and the appropriate associated ministries
launched a Strategy for National Child Care Reform in which the primary aim of
reunifying all children residing in orphanages, and subsequently closing such
centres down, has nearly achieved its goal. In haste, the strategy specified its
completion within two years; this short time frame has been detrimental to the
successful long-term reunification of many of the children, especially at Noel
Orphanage. It is apparent that the country is attempting to move away from the
stigma that is attached to large numbers of orphanages, but what the policy
makers fail to see is the devastation this has caused many of the children, and
families who are pressured to take them. Although initial assessments and
home visits are made, these are merely a formality.
7.4 Further suggestions and improvements
Although it is evident that in a number of instances the reunification has led to
an overall positive outcome, for many the strategy has been detrimental. There
have been a number of challenges. The deinstitutionalisation policy was
launched in haste in reaction to President Paul Kagame’s public declaration to
close all orphanages within two years. Although this displayed an increased
level of commitment to the vulnerable younger generations, it resulted in a
rushed and for many an ill-fitting placement with relatives who did not have the
capacity to provide adequate care. There have been concerns raised by the
84
international community in regards to spontaneous reunifications, and the lack
of a thoroughly thought through follow-up procedure. It is important to recognise
the necessity for an adequate time scale, the use of professional staff and
coordination and communication between ministries, HHC and orphanage staff
and children. It would have been advisable to promote a public awareness
campaign with the predominant focus on family life and the importance of
reunification.
In regards to the follow-up procedure, a stronger emphasis on promoting links
between social protection and the care reform, directly targeting families in the
‘at risk’ category or who have been highlighted as in need, or living in severe
levels of poverty, would have paved the way for a more successful and
sustainable reunification process. Currently, HHC at Noel Orphanage
specifically seem to be focused on reunifying as many children as possible
before the two-year period comes to an end. The intent behind the reform is
holistically good, but as chaos ensued the professionals involved in the process
have lost sight of the primary goal, to give orphans and vulnerable children a
better and more stable upbringing. There has been great resistance towards
this reform at Noel Orphanage; it is recommended that strategies be put in
place to gain the interest and commitment of donors, orphanage staff and the
surrounding communities.
Shutting the orphanages down so soon after the reunification of all the children
appears on many levels to be an error of judgement from policy makers. The
follow-up procedure, as mentioned several times, has been identified as less
than adequate. It is therefore inevitable that a proportion of all reunifications will
be unsuccessful resulting in the displacement of large numbers of children.
Further, there will be no place for the children to reside if their family placement
falls through; consequently, Rwanda could be facing a generation of street
children. There is currently no law on abandonment of children, given that most
abandonment is due to poverty, and largely children were initially orphaned due
to poverty it should be strongly recommended that a law be reviewed and
provisions in place to prevent abandonment from becoming a persistent
problem.
85
86
Bibliography Abebe, T. & Aase, A. (2007). Children, AIDS and the politics of orphan care in
Ethiopia:. Social Science & Medicine. 64 (1), 2058-2069.
Amnesty International. (2004). Rwanda: “Marked for Death”, rape survivors
living with HIV/AIDS in Rwanda. Available:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR47/007/2004/en/53d74ceb-d5f7-
11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/afr470072004en.pdf. Last accessed 24/08/2014.
Aronson, J. (1994). A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. The Qualitative Report. 2 (1), 105-147.
Ayieko, M. (2000). From single parents to child-headed households: The case
of children orphanaed by AIDS in Kisumu and Siaya Districts. New York:
UNDP HIV & Development Program.
Barnett, Michael N. 2002. Eyewitness to a genocide: The united nations and
rwanda. London; Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Barriball, K & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-strutucred
interview: a discussion paper, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19 (2). 328-335.
Basinga, P., Gertler, P., Binagwaho, A., Soucat, A., Sturdy, J. &
Vermeeersch, C. (2011). Effect on maternal and child health services in
Rwanda of payment to primary health-care providers for performance: an
impact evaluation. The Lancet. 377 (1), 1421–1428.
Bebbington, A. and Farrington, A. (2000). Reluctant partners: NGOs, the state
and sustainable agricultural development. London: Routledge.
Bloemen, S. (2009,). Protecting orphans and vulnerable children in the DR
Congo. UNICEF.
87
Bowen, G.A. (2005). Preparing a Qualitative Research-Based Dissertation: Lessons Learned. The Qualitative Report. 10, 208-222.
Brauman, R. (1994). Devant le Mal. Rwanda, un genocide en direct. Paris:
Arlea.
Bray, R. (2003). Predicting the social consequences of orphanhood in South
Africa. Africa Journal of AIDS research. 2 (1), 39-55.
Brinkerhoff. A. (2003). Negotiating Room for Manoeuvre: Reflections
Concerning NGO Autonomy and Accountability within the New Policy Agenda.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brown, M. (1995). Family tracing and reunification case study: Rwanda. In Brown, M., Charley, H. & Petty, C. (1995). Children separated by War: Family Tracing and Reunification. Conference report, Save the Children. Bunkers, K., Gross, P. & Chevrel, S. (2013). Rwanda Country Profile. Maestral International/UNICEF/Better Care Network. Bureau of Consular Affairs: US Department of State. (2013). Rwanda.
Available:
http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_info.php?count
ry-select=rwanda. Last accessed 22/08/2014.
Bryman, B. and Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cantwell, N (1997). Starting from Zero: The Promotion and Protection of Children's Rights in Post-Genocide Rwanda July 1994- December 1996. Florence: Italy: UNICEF. 71-80.
Caplan, G. (2009). Learning from History: The lessons of Rwanda and Darfur.
Peace and Conflict Studies. 1 (1), 4-20.
Carpenter, C. (2000). Surfacing Children: Limitations of Genocidal Rape
Discourse. Human Rights Quarterly. 428 (2).
88
Central Statistics Office. (2008). Botswana HIV/AIDS Impact Survey III.
Gaborone, Botswana: Central Statistics Office.
Child Welfare Information Gateway (CWIG). (2011). Family Reunification:
What the Evidence Shows. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Chirwa, W. (2002). Social exclusion and inclusion: Challenges to orphan care
in Malawi. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 11 (2), 93-102.
Chitiga, M. (2008). The Major Influences of the Boundless-Extended. Faculty
Working Papers from the School of Education, Fayetteville State University.
Paper 25, 1-20
Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, Annex, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/44/25 (Nov. 20, 1989)
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? New York:
Zed Books.
de Buhr, E. (2006). Estimating the Number of Orphans in Rwanda: A Methodology Assessment. DI Working Paper Series, 2 (1). Department of Social Welfare, Accra, Ghana. (2014). WHY NOT
ORPHANAGES?. Available:
http://www.ovcghana.org/why_not_orphanages.html. Last accessed
22/08/2014.
Dillon, S. (2009). The Missing Link: A Social Orphan Protocol to the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Legal Studies Research Paper
Series. 1 (2), 1-36.
Dona, G. (2001). The Rwandan Experience of Fostering Separated Children. Save the Children. Dunnigan, J (1993). How To Make War. 3rd ed. New York: William Morrow
and Company. 585.
89
Easterly, W. (2003). IMF and World Bank Structural Adjustment Programs
and Poverty. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1 (1), 361-391.
Eriksson, J. (1996). The International Response to Conflict and Genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda Experience. Synthesis Report: Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda. Flint, K. (2001). Institutional ecological footprint analysis. International Journal
in higher Education. 2 (1), 48-62.
Foster, G. (2000). The capacity of the extended family safety net for orphans
in Africa. Psychology, Health and Medicine. 5 (1), 55-62.
Fowler, A. (1991). The Role of NGO is Changing State-Society Relations:
Perspectives from Eastern and Southern Africa. Development Policy Review,
9 (1).
Garutsa, T. C. (2001). The role of Non-Governmental organizations in
addressing the needs of orphans and vulnerable children in Marondera district
Zimbabwe.
George, S., Oudenhoven, N. & Wazir, R. (2003) Foster care beyond the
crossroads: Lessons from an international comparative analysis. Childhood.
10 (3), 343-261.
Gordon, P. & Crehen, K. (1999). Dying of sadness: Gender, Sexual Violence and the HIV epidemic. HIV and Development Programme, UNDP. Green, R. (1987). Stabilisation and Adjustment Policies and Programmes.
Country Study 1: Ghana. Annankatu, Finland:WIDER.
Greenwell, K. (2002). A Profile of Children in Rwanda’s Unaccompanied Children Centres: A report based on statistical indicators for 24 UAC centres in 2000. UNICEF- Rwanda/MINALOC. Guest, E. (2003). Children of AIDS: Africa’s orphan crisis. Pietermaritzburg:
University of Natal Press.
90
Gwebu, D. T. (2007). The gendered configuration of low-income urban
household space in response to AIDS: Perspectives from Botswana.
Norwegian Journal of Geography, 61 (1), 13–24.
Haight, W. L., Sokolec, J., Budde, S., & Poertner, J. (2001). Conducting
parent-child visits. Urbana- Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Children’s
Research Center.
Hawkins, V. (2009). Orphan Conflicts : Africa and the UN Security Council.
Osaka University Knowledge Archive. 6 (1), 141-158.
Hawley, C. (2012). Iraq Conflict : Crisis of an Orphaned Generation. Available:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20461110. Last accessed
25/7/2014.
Hilhorst, D. and M. Van Leeuwen (2000) “Emergency and Development: the
case of Imidugudu, Villagisation in Rwanda”, Journal of Refugee Studies,
13(3), pp. 264-280.
Home and Homes for Children. (2012). Making History in Rwanda. Available: http://www.hopeandhomes.org/news/news-2012/making-history-in-rwanda. Last accessed 21/08/2014. Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF). (2013). Orphans and Vulnerable
Children Defined. Available: http://hgsf-global.org/en/ovc/background/263-
orphans-and-vulnerable-children-defined. Last accessed 22/07/2014.
Horn, L Kruger,M and Ndebele,P (2014). Research Ethics in Africa: A Resource for Research Ethics Committees. Stellenbosch: Sun Press. 220-244.
Human Rights Watch (2001) “Uprooting the rural poor in Rwanda”, Human
Rights Watch Publications, available at:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/rwanda/ Last accessed: 06/08/2014
Human Rights Watch/ Africa. (1994). The aftermath of genocide in Rwanda:
Absence of prosecution, continued killings. New York.
91
Human Rights Watch/FIDH interview, member, Association of women heads
of families, Kigali, March 1996.
Hunter & Williamson, (1997). Children on the Brink: Strategies to support
children isolated by HIV/AIDS. US: United States Agency for International
Development.
Hunter, S. & Williamson, J. (1998). Children on the Brink: strategies to support Children Isolated by HIV/AIDS. United States Agency for International Development. I.L.M 58 (1982). Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3630.html.
Last accessed: 01/08/2014
International H Alliance, IHA. (2003). Forgotten families: older people as
carers of orphans and vulnerable children. Brighton, England..
Isaksson, A-S. (2011). Manipulating the rural landscape: Villagisation and
income generation in Rwanda. Working papers in economics: University of
Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
Jacques, G. (2000). Orphans of the AIDS pandemic: The sub-Saharan
experience. In K. R. Hope (Ed.), AIDS and development in Africa: A social
science perspective . London: Haworth Press.
Jones, L. (2000) “The evolution of property use in Rwanda”, Refugee Survey
Quarterly, 19(3), pp. 130-150.
Justino, P. & Verwimp, P. 2013, "Poverty Dynamics, Violent Conflict, and
Convergence in Rwanda", Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 59, no. 1, pp.
66-90.
Kagame, P. as quoted in Landesman, P, (2002). A Woman’s Work. NY
Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/magazine/a-woman-s-
work.html. Last accessed: 24/07/2014.
92
Kaleeba, N. (2004). Excerpt from we miss you all: AIDS in the family. In
Oppong, J. & Ghosh, J (eds.), HIV and AIDS in Africa: Beyond epidemiology.
Malden: Black-well. 259-278.
Kalipeni, E., Craddock, S., Oppong, J. R., & Ghosh, J. (Eds.). (2004). HIV and
AIDS in Africa: Beyond epidemiology.
Kalule, H. (1986). Marriage and Related Customs. In: Kitui District Socio-
cultural Profile. Were, G & Akonga, J (Eds.). 113-130.
Kandiwa, V. (2011). Caring for African Orphans: A Compatative Review of
Existing Institutional Arrangments. Available:
http://paa2010.princeton.edu/papers/100920. Last accessed 24/08/2014.
Karekezi, A. (1998). Interview in: Special Monitor for Women’s Human Rights
at the ICTR, Arusha, Butare, Rwanda, November 12, 1998.
Kayirangwa, E., Hanson, J. & Kabeja, A. (2006). Current trends in Rwanda's
HIV/AIDS epidemic. Sex Transmitted Infections. 82 (1), 27-31.
Keck, M. E., and Sikkink, K. (1998). Analyzing the effectiveness of
international environmental institutions, in R. O. Keohane and M. A. Levy,
eds., Institutions for environmental aid: Pitfalls and promise. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Kelsall, T. (2011). Rethinking the Relationship between Neo-Patrimonilaism
and Economic Development in Africa. IDS Bulletin, 42 (2), 76-87.
Keogh, P., Allen, S., Almedal, C. & Ternahagili, B, (1994). The Social Impact
of HIV infection on women in Kigali, Rwanda: a prospective study. Social
Science & Medicine. 38 (8), 1047-1052.
93
Kilbride, P & Kilbride, J. (1990). Changing Family Life in East Africa: Women
and children at risk. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kilbride, P. & Kilbride, J. (1994). “To have and to share: Culturally constituted
fostering in family settings.” In J Blacher (ed.). When there's no place like
home: Options for children living apart from their families (321-329).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 1994.
Konadu-Agyemang, K. (2001). "Structural adjustment programmes and the
international tourism trade in Ghana, 1983-99: Some socio-spatial
implications." Tourism geographies 3.2 : 187-206.
Kumar, V., Dooley, D. M., Freeman, H. C., Guss, J. M., Harvey, I., McGuirl, M.
A., Wilce, M. C. J. & Zubak, V. M. (1996). Structure, 4, 943-955
Kuperman, A.J. (2004). Explaining the Ultimate Escalation in Rwanda:.
Journal of Genocide Research. 1 (1), 228-505.
Landesman, P, (2002). A Woman’s Work. NY Times. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/magazine/a-woman-s-work.html. Last
accessed: 24/07/2014
Layika, F. 1996. "War Crimes Against Women in Rwanda", in Reilly, N. ed.
Without Reservation: The Beijing Tribunal on Accountability for Women's
Human Rights. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for Women's Global Leadership,
40.
Leathers, S. J. (2002). Parental visiting and family reunification: How inclusive
practice makes a difference. Child Welfare, 81(4), 595–616.
Littell, J. H., & Schuerman, J. R. (1995). A synthesis of research on family
preservation and family reunification programs. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.
Madhavan, S. (2004). Fosterage patterns in the age of AIDS: Continuity and
change. Social Science & Medicine, 58(7),
94
Marx, M. (2007). Whose Best Interests Does It Really Serve - A Critical
Examination of Romania's Recent Self-Serving International Adoption
Policies. Emory International Law Review. 373 (1).
Mathambo, V., & Gibbs, A. (2009). Extended family child care arrangements
in a context of AIDS: Collapse or adaptation? AIDS Care, 21(1), 22–27.
Measure DHS. (2004). HIV/AIDS indicators country report, Rwanda 1992-2000. Report generated from the HIV/AIDS Survey Indicator Database. http://www.measuredhs.com/hivdata/start.cfm. Last accessed 19/08/2014 Menozzi, C. (2008). What Do We Know About Adoption. Presentation to the
Population Association of America (PAA) Annual Meeting, Louisiana.
MIGEPROF, Republic of Rwanda. (2011a). National Integrated Child Rights Policy. Available: http://www.unicef.org/rwanda/events_9616.html. Last accessed 21/08/2014. MIGEPROF. (2011b). Strategic Plan for Integrated Child Rights Policy. Available: http://www.unicef.org/rwanda/events_9616.html. Last accessed 21/08/2014 MINALOC/UNICEF. (2001). Struggling to Survive: Orphan and Community
Dependent Children in Rwanda, 2001. Ministry of Local Government,
Information and Social Affairs
Ministry of Gender, Children and Community Development/UNICEF. (2011).
All Children Count: A Baseline Study of Children in Institutional Care in
Malawi.
Ministry of Local Government, Information and Social Affairs (MINALOC).
(2003). National Policy for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children. Rwanda.
Minkley, J, (1996). Legacy of Rwanda Violence: The Thousands Born of
Rape. NY Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/23/world/legacy-
of-rwanda-violence-the-thousands-born-of-rape.html. Last accessed:
29/07/2014.
95
Mokomane, Z. (2012). Social protection as a mechanism for family protection
in SSA. International Journal of Social Welfare.
Murdock, H. (2011). Rwanda's Orphanage Free Plan Leaves Children Fearful
. Available: http://www.voanews.com/content/rwandas-orphanage-free-plan-
leaves-children-fearful-128387098/144310.html. Last accessed 20/08/2014
Nampanya-Serpell, N. (2002). Global implications. In D. Joslin (Ed.), Invisible
caregivers: Older adults raising children in the wake of HIV/AIDS . New York:
Columbia University Press.
Newbury, C. (1988). The Cohesion of Oppression: Clientship and ethnicity in
Rwanda (1980-1960), New York: Columbia University Press.
Nowrolee, B (1996). Shattered Lives: Sexual violence during the Rwandan
genocide and its aftermath. New York: Human Rights Watch/Africa. 78-81.
NYIRAMATAMA, Z. (2012). Welcome Message. Available:
http://www.ncc.gov.rw/spip.php?article1. Last accessed 23/08/2014.
Morse, Janice M. (Ed), (1991). Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc, 127-145.
Organisation of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on human and people’s
rights (“Banjul Charter), 27 June 1981, Article 25, CAB/LEG/67/3rev.5, 21
Orphan Coalition. (2008). How are orphans created?. Available:
http://www.orphancoalition.org/global-crisis/how-children-become-
orphans.php. Last accessed 25/7/2014
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
96
Phiri, S. & Webb, D. (2002). The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Orphans and
Programme and Policy Responses. In: Giovanna, A.C AIDS, Public Policy
and Child Wellbeing. Florence: UNICEF-IRC.
Prunier, G. (2009). Africa’s World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe. Oxford University Press. Rehmen, A & Eloundou-Enyegue, P. (2007). Minding the Orphans: African Crises, Rescue Institutions, and the Economy of Orphanhood. The Cornell Public Policy Journal of the Cornell Institute for Public Affairs. 11 (1).
Republic of Rwanda (1993) “Protocol of agreement between the Government
of the Republic of Rwanda and the
Reyntjens, F. (1996). Rwanda: Genocide and Beyond. Journal of Refugee
Studies. 9 (3), 240-251.
Riddell, B. (1985). Beyond the geography of modernisation: The state as a
redistribution mechanism in independent Sierra Leone. Canadian Journal of
African Studies, 19 (1), 529-545.
Riddell, B. (1992). Things Fall Apart Again: Structural Adjustment
Programmes in SSA. Journal of Modern African Studies, 30 (1), 53-68.
Riddell, B. (1997). Structural Adjustment Programmes and the City in Tropical
Africa. Urban Studies, 34 (8), 1297-1307.
Rinaldo, R, (2004). Women Survivors of the Rwandan Genocide Face Grim
Realities. IPS News. Available:
http://www.ageis.com/news/ips/2004/IP040404.html. Last accessed:
22/07/2014
Rose, L. (2005). Orphans’ Land Rights in Post-War Rwanda: The Problem of
Guardianship. Development and Change. 36 (5), 922-936.
97
Ross, S. (2013). Conflict Orphans in the DRC. Available:
http://blog.cstoneglobal.com/?p=63. Last accessed 24/07/2014
Rupesinghe, K, (1998). Civil Wars, Civil Peace: An Introduction to Conflict
Resolution. London: Pluto Press.
Russian Orphan Opportunity Fund (ROOF). (2006). Glossary of Terms.
Available: http://www.sector3.org/glossary/4#letters. Last accessed
22/07/2014.
Republic of Rwanda: Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, (2000).
Rwanda Vision 2020. Kigali, Rwanda.
Rwandese Patriotic Front on the repatriation of Rwandese refugees and the
resettlement of displaced persons”, in Peace agreement between the
Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front
(the Arusha Peace Accord).
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009), Research methods for business students (5th ed) , Pearson, Harlow. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012), Research methods for business students (6th ed), Pearson, Harlow. Save the Children. (2003). A Last Resort: The Growing Concern About
Children in Residential Care. London: SC.
Save the Children. (2010). Improving Care Options for Children in Ethiopia
through Understanding Institutional Child Care and Factors Driving
Institutionalization. Available:
http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/improving-care-options-
children-ethiopia-through-understanding-institutional-child-care-and. Last
accessed 23/08/2014.
Shanks, L & Schull, M, (2000). Rape in War: The Humanitarian Response.
163 Canadian Med. Association. 9.
98
Sharlach, L. (2000). Rape as Genocide: Bangladesh, the Former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. New Political Science, 22 (1), 89-102. Smith, S, (1996). Rwanda: Survey of Terror. Liberation. 1-5.
Sommers, M. (2006). Fearing Africa's Young Men: The Case of Rwanda.
Social Development Papers . 32 (1), 5-7.
Spiegel, P. (2004). HIV/AIDS among conflict-affected and displaced
populations: dispelling myths and taking action, Disasters, 28 (3), 322-339.
Storey, A. (2012), Structural violence and the struggle for state power in
Rwanda: What Arusha got wrong, African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 12
(3), 7-32.
Suda, C. (1997). Street children in Nairobi and the African cultural ideology of
kin-based support systems. Change and Challege. Child Abuse Review, 6 (3),
199-217.
The Republic of Rwanda. (2003). National Policy for Orphans and Other
Vulnerable Children.
The Republic of Rwanda. (2013). Economic Development and Poverty
Reduction Strategy 2013-2018: Sharing our development.
Tizard B, Hodges J (1978) The effect of institutional rearing on the
development of 8-year-old children. Journal of Child Psychology, Psychiatry,
and Allied Disciplines, 19 (1), 99–118.
Tollfre, F. (2004). Whose children? Separated children’s Protection and
Participation in emergencies Stockholm. RaddaBarnen: Save the Children
Sweden.
99
UN Treaty Collection. (2014). CHAPTER VI HUMAN RIGHTS: 11. Convention
on the Rights of the Child. Available:
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=IV-
11&chapter=4&lang=en. Last accessed 08/08/2014.
UNAID/WHO. (2002). Epidemiological Fact Sheet on HIV/AIDS and Sexually
Transmitted Diseases, Rwanda.
UNAIDS. (2001). Paying for HIV/AIDS Services: Lessons from National
Health Accounts and community-based health insurance in Rwanda 1988-
1999.
UNAIDS. (2012). UNAIDS - Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.
Available: http://rconline.undg.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/UNAIDS_InfoBrief2012.pdf. Last accessed
25/08/2014.
UNAIDS. (2013). Global Report: UNAIDS report of global AIDS epidemic
2013. Available:
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/epidemiolog
y/2013/gr2013/UNAIDS_Global_Report_2013_en.pdf. Last accessed
28/08/2014.
UNICEF, (2012). At a glance: Congo Statistics.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/congo_statistics.html Last accessed:
24/7/2014
UNICEF, Family Health International & Save the Children UK. (2005). New
HIV/AIDS data reveals gravity of situation for children in Asia and the Pacific.
Available: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_27554.html. Last accessed
23/07/2014
UNICEF, UNAIDS &USAIDS. (2004). Children on the Brink: A joint report of
new orphans estimates and a framework for action.
100
UNICEF. (2003). Africa’s Orphaned Generations. New York: UNICEF.
UNICEF. (2004). The Framework for the Protection, Care and Support of
Orphans and Vulnerable Children Living in a World with HIV/AIDS. New York:
UNICEF.
UNICEF. (2004b). Children in Residential Care: The Zimbabwe Experience.
UNICEF
UNICEF. (2008). Orphans. Available:
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45279.html. Last accessed 18/08/2014.
UNICEF. (2013). Towards an AIDS-Free Generation – Children and AIDS:
Sixth Stocktaking Report, 2013. New York: UNICEF.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2013). Concluding
Observations Rwanda. CRC/C/ISR/CO/2-4. Available:
http://www.crin.org/docs/CRC-C-RWA-CO-3-4.pdf. Last accessed:
21/08/2014.
USAID Commissioned Report, as cited from Kent (1998) Care and protection
of children and young people affected by HIV/AIDS. New York Headquarters:
UNICEF Programme Division.
Veale, A. & Quigley, P. (2000). In-depth assessment into the situation of
orphans in Rwanda.MINALOC/UNICEF. Kigali: Rwanda.
Veale, A., Quigley, P., Ndibeshye, T., Nyirimihigo, C. (2001). Struggling to
survive: Orphan and community dependent children in Rwanda. Ministry of
Local Government and Social Affairs and UNICEF.
Wardle, l. (2005). Parentlessness: Adoption Problems, Paradigms, policies,
and Parameters. Whittier J. Child & Fam: Advoc. 323-324
101
Wax, E. (2004). Rwandans are Struggling to Love Children of Hate.Available:
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/rwanda_gen2.htm. Last accessed
25/07/2014.
Weitsman, P. (2008). The Politics of Identity and Sexual Violence: A review of Bosnia and Rwanda. Human Rights Quarterly. 30 (3). 561-578. Whetten, K., Osterman, J., Whetten, R., Pence, B., O’Donnell, K., Messer., L.
& Thielman, N. (2009). A Comparison of the Wellbeing of Orphans and
Abandoned Children Ages 6-12 in institutional and Community-Based Care
Setting in 5 Less Wealthy Nations.
Wolff, P & Fesseha G, (2005) The orphans of Eritrea: What are the choices?
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 75(4): 475–484.
World Bank. (2014). Data: Rwanda. Available:
http://data.worldbank.org/country/rwanda. Last accessed 18/08/2014.
World Bank. (1998). Rwanda Poverty Note. Rebuilding an Equitable Society.
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management, Africa Region. Report No.
17792-RW.
Zikmund, W. (2003), Business research methods, Thomson/South-Western,
Mason, Ohio.
102
Appendices
103
Appendix A PLYMOUTH BUSINESS SCHOOL MA in IR Research Ethics Sub-Committee
APPLICATION FOR ETHICAL APPROVAL OF RESEARCH: UNDERGRADUATE/POSTGRADUATE PROJECTS & DISSERTATIONS
1. Name of Student: Megan Richardson 2. Supervisor: Dr Rebecca Davis 3. Dates & duration of the research project: 24/06/14 – 28/06/2014 4. Aims and objectives of research project: To explore how the provision of care for orphans in Rwanda has changed post-1994, looking broadly at Rwanda but also more narrowly at Noel Orphanage, Nyundo, Gisenyi. Throughout my research I will be evaluating the roles of NGO’s, churches, the community and the government in the care for orphans in institutions and in the community, how the provision of care has changed and thoughts for sustainable improvement in the future. 5. Brief description of research methods and procedures:
Specify subject populations and recruitment method. Please indicate also any ethically sensitive aspects of the methods. Continue on additional sheets if required.
(a) Participants – inclusion/exclusion criteria Through in country experience I have been fortunate enough to build up reliable sources with residents who are considered reputable and trustworthy. Further, whilst working at the orphanage I have built up connections with NGOs and institutions; they have consented to interviews. I have also contacted larger organisations such as Save the Children and UNICEF, they have put me in contact with the relevant people within the organisations and have agreed to be interviewed. I will not be interviewing any vulnerable groups of people. I will also be keeping some interviewees anonymous, as they feel that some of the things they may disclose could be sensitive.
104
(b) Method of recruitment Recruited through contacts made here in previous years, and through email and phone calls for requests for interviews. (c) Details of research methods I will be using a series of semi-structured interviews, recorded and then transcribed.
6. Declaration
To the best of our knowledge and belief, this research conforms to the ethical principles laid down by Plymouth University.
Student: Megan Richardson Signed: M Richardson……………Date 24/06/2014:… Please print Supervisor:……………………………..Signed:……………………………..……Date:…….……..
Chair of Ethics Sub-Committee: Signed: ....................................... Date: .......................
105
Appendix B
Appendix B1 Interview: Respondent A
- When did the orphanage open?
1955
- Who opened the orphanage?
The first bishop of Nyundo Catholic Bishop Diocese.
- Who funded the orphanage?
A province in Rubavu helped support the orphanage, but the bishop funded the
building at the beginning.
Afterwards I am not sure, the diocese has always been involved.
But after 1994, the government is involved, they contribute acc
ording to their budget and and their income and they give us the money they can.
But mostly, it is through donors.
His Chase came late, but when they arrived the helped when times were hard,
putting the children in primary and secondary school. And point foundation, they
started earlier, they fed the children, educated the children and made places for
children to sleep and stay. It wasn’t enough but it was a lot. The children were never
starving, we always fed them. They were always educated, we educate them.
Sometimes it is not enough, but it is good. Food, beds and education.
Many people who passed here to visit, asked for our account number and gave
money to help us, many people have kind hearts and helped. Many other people did
106
not help, and we needed help. But children here, they have more than most children
around. They have a bed, and food, always food and an education.
And Megan also, you were always involved to help, you are among the donors who
always helps and makes things okay.
- Thank you, I love to work here. You will come back, even when the orphanage is no more, and help the children that
placed in poor homes and can not care?
- Of course
- How many children live at the orphanage (at its fullest)?
Today, I can’t tell you the exact number. Wait, the exact number registered 3371
children since the orphanage opened.
There used to be receiving babies who lost their mothers during birth, we looked
after them for one or two years and then they returned to their families. Whereby,
before 1994 the genocide war, the number was always below 50, because we were
caring for their kids until they could eat food and return.
But after the genocide the number increased, the number went from 50 to 600. That
is why today there is a big number in the orphanage, children emerged from the
dead bodies and the streets, and can not find anyone, so they are orphaned. This is
when the help came from the NGO’s, you see after the genocide war, Save the
Children and an IRCR they used to help us to trace. They took photos of all
children’s, they put them on the poles everywhere on the streets, so that they could
recognise the child, they could see where the child is and there is a number, they
could then go to the Red Cross and say that’s my child and then they direct you to
the orphanage where your child is, and you could go and claim your child. The
number of children should have decreased, but it increased, many children who were
in the foster families decided they couldn’t and didn’t want to care for the children so
they went and passed them to the authorities and they brought them to the
107
orphanage. The number remained crazy as there were so many problems outside
that adults would not take care of children who were not theres, as they did before
1994. Before we just looked after babies, and families or village people would take
the children back and care for them, but not after the genocide, after the genocide
everything changed.
Before the oldest child was 5 years, you couldn’t find a child of 6 or 7 years here.
This is the lesson because of the genocide, many children lost their families and the
community will not look after them, they have no trace and that is why there was a
big number.
The orphanage had no older children, it was very small and funded by the diocese,
at a maximum 50 children. But when the children came back from Goma and the
streets there were about 600 children here.
We have 1500 children have been integrated since 1994, we did that alone, without
HHC. We had no power, or means of doing it, because we had no finances, we were
not able to travel far. We could only do local integration.
HHC can take the child to see the family, so see how that is, but we could not do
that. Moving around, we are not able.
Before after the genocide we made tracing and integration, but we had to stop when
HHC came because we could not mix our efforts.
Those that have no trace, there was nothing we could do to find them a family, so
instead we made the decision to educate them, after their education they can make
their own family and be independent.
But this one, they make them independent now, by renting their home, but this is all
before the end of their studies.
We were not able to do this, we did not have the money to buy them homes and
make them independent, but we did make sure they had an education
108
The old children they had no parents, and their families refused to take care of them,
the situation changed after 1994. Even before if people were poor they would work to
look after the children, but now the orphanage is full and no one wants to take the
children. So now, they help the families if they take the children, if they have no
house, or a destroyed house or it is not good, they help them to reinvent the house
and give them capital to do a small business to they can look after the child.
The next thing, they do follow ups.
- What does that involve?
They do follow ups to see what is happening with that family, whether there is
something good happening or if the care is okay, they make for them the small
capital. They try and make follow up and see if the child is safe in that family, well
that is what they are telling us.
- So, there are…
193
- 193 children left here, if they have no family, what will happen to them
when the orphanage shuts?
That’s a problem, I am not sure what they will do after. It is NCC, who are part of
them government and HHC, they will decide. They are making the integration and
will help. I am not sure, for the younger ones I hope they will be placed in foster care,
but for the older ones they will be independent, from 18. They are placing them
independently, they will rent for them a house, like Unity Club but that is finished,
with the ones with sisters and brothers they will put them together, put them in a
house, give them an account and small, very little money, in so they can learn to live,
for 6 months they will provide.but after 6 months what will they do? For the education
I am not sure what they will do, they will not have the money. You know secondary
school in Rwanda is expensive, very expensive, maybe 50000 to 70000.
109
- A year?
A term, there are 3 terms Megan, that is too much money. Poor people can not
afford it.
- Is primary school free in Rwanda?
No, yes it is. But you have to pay for uniforms and for building maintenance, that is
not free and many poor people can not pay that, the government do not know how
poor people here are.
- How much does it cost?
It will depend on the school, some very expensive, some not so expensive, but it is
still money. It is always money. But you know Maranta, a private school, all the
children Mark (Founder of His Chase) are in schools like Maranta, they are very
good schools and will help the children, it costs between 70-100,000 for a child there
for one term, for primary and secondary. It is 50-70,000 for secondary school here,
people can not afford it. There are schools, 9 education, like at where no.41 is
(Kanama Catholic) is can be free from Senior 1- Senior 3, they have to pay for
building maintenance and that is all. But there are only 9 schools in the district like
that. 9 schools are easily full. It is hard for people with no money to go to school,
they have to go to the 9 schools, but it is very hard.
Interview Ends
110
Appendix B2 Interview: Respondent B
-‐ What are your perceptions of orphanages in Rwanda?
According to the people over there, some are poor and some are not educated, they
do not know how to care for their kids, so the orphanages try and help them. Even
these orphanages do not have the right facilities they are still better than the facilities
most parents can provide. Some of the kids the orphanages try and educate and
control them.
-‐ Before 1994 there were not many orphans because the communities and extended families used to assume guardianship of orphaned children within the community, why has this changed?
You know, before the genocide all the families in Rwanda they were united and then
after what happened in that time it was really hard for the families and communities
to be strong like before because of the memories of what has happened. So after the
genocide people were poor they were sick and then there were big problems, they
had lost all love. A lack of love that was a big problem.
-‐ So, many of the children at the orphanage they have family, but their parents take them to the orphanage to get a better life. Why will the care provided by the families these children are being reunified with be better than it was when they first bought them to the orphanage?
That’s a big problem. If the family took the kids to the orphanage that means they
were poor or they lacked in love, these are the two problems. They are poor they
cannot help him or educate him, or they do not have the love to care for the child. So
they when they try and take them to the family, they have to find out why they first
took those children to the orphanage, th3ey have to solve that problem before they
put them back in the family. You understand? They have to solve this problem before
they try again to this family. If this problem is still there it means these children will
111
have many problems. The orphanage will not be there and so there will be no place
to take these kids if the families don’t want them anymore.
-‐ So what do you think about the reunification process?
I can say that it is good and bad. But worse, they haven’t spent long enough talking
to the family or talking to the kids. For them they have the contract of a certain
amount of time to get it done. But they kids that live there for say 15 years have
serious problems; you cannot solve the problems of 500 children in a short time.
They have to know what’s going on properly. Some of the children do have families
maybe a dad or mum, but the children need to understand that they have this family,
and then understand why they are living in an orphanage, that needs to be
understood and solved. Taking the kids back to the families, that does not solve the
problem. They solve the family’s problems but not the kid’s problems. Can you
understand how hard it is for a kid to be in an orphanage all their life and then find
out they have family who could have cared for them? It is so hard Megan. That is
what I mean, there is a lack of love.
-‐ Do you think they are solving these problems while they are reunifying children?
The kids grow up in families and that is good. I know it is better for kids to grow I
families, everybody loves that. But the people we are reunifying them, they need to
know deep down what they are doing. I’m not against the reunification, but the
people who are reunifying them need to know the kids better and know the families.
They do not know them well enough. I am not against it, but there are not people or
not enough care to follow up what is happening to these kids, a lot of them are not
being treated with love.
-‐ Do you think that to date, the government has provided adequate care for children living within orphanages?
112
You know that people help the orphanage with education, there are donors that help.
The government do give funding but not enough, and now especially they don’t give
funds like before.
-‐ What will happen to children who cannot be reunified within a family?
That really is the hard part, and I don’t know what the plan is. No one knows the
plan.
-‐ What is the involvement with NGO’s and Noel orphanage?
About how NGO’s have helped Noel. Point foundation provided lots of money,
provided beds for the kids, and refurnished the bad dormitories. His Chase paid for
the education of the kids. There is also another NGO that buys formulas for the kids;
they are called the Presence Ministry. If these people did not help there would not
have been enough money for the children to survive.
You remember when the formula was bought, there was none at the orphanage,
without that money they babies would not have eaten. How can you say the
government funding was enough when children could have starved?
Before people paid for the children’s educations, the children just sat around doing
nothing waiting for something to happen, waiting for somebody to help them. It was
so bad; many kids did not go to school because they didn’t have the school fees.
Without this help, all these things would not have been bought; can you even
imagine how bad that would be?
You know some people they forgot their ambition like their parents, the government
have to remind them that they need to take care of their kids. It takes a long time to
educate them, the people doing the reunification need more money and more
training otherwise they will never know how to look after children properly. Somehow
these children (from Noel) are different, the families need to know that it is difficult
and learn how to treat them properly, the children (from Noel) will behave differently
because they have never been in a family situation before. And also the kids they
have to know that their life will be different and not to have shame that they feel for
not being in the family that has looked after other children.
113
-‐ How have the conditions changed because of the support for NGO’s?
You know that now there are more than 5 boys and girls that have graduated from
University and there are many students have graduated from high school and so
many children studying at schools and are doing well. The children have confidence
now because they are studying well. Also you know how important formula is for
babies; they cannot go for time without the formula. It is so important that there has
been help from outside people. The children would not be doing so well, or eating
properly if it was not for them, the orphanage without them cannot provide many
things.
-‐ What is the churches involvement in the orphanage?
Not so much. Really not much at all. They helped open the orphanage which was a
good thing, but since then, really not much. They haven’t helped with anything.
-‐ Did the church used to provide funding?
Sometimes the friends for the church donated to the orphanage, but the church, not
it didn’t help.
-‐ Do you think it is good that the orphanage is shutting down?
You know, it is not good. There are children for one month, they are still arriving. If
they shut down, where will they go? The mothers that die at birth or from HIV or
malaria, if they shut down the orphanage where these babies will go? It is not good;
they will be on the streets.
From the reunification, there is really no follow up, and then the orphanage will shut,
and then what if families do not want these children, there is nowhere for them to go.
They do not know what will happen in the time after the children go back to their
families, they need a plan, when it goes wrong and the orphanage is closed they
need a plan. You know, these are children, everyone thinks they are just numbers.
On some levels the reunification can be successful, but on most it is unsuccessful,
everyone knows that. The families can be anywhere, they can be so poor, they can
114
have no love, but they are still pressured to take the children to please the big
people. Please remember these are children.
Interview ends
115
Appendix B3 Interview: Respondent C
-‐ What do you know about the reunification process?
Currently the government is shutting down the orphanages, most of the kids are
social orphans which means they have family but the family are too poor to take care
of them. The government are placing them back with relatives who are alive and
giving them assistance to care for the kids instead of the kids living in institutions.
-‐ What is your experience of the reunification process?
The families are not equipped to take back the kids, there is no bonding at all as
most of the families have not made the effort to come and meet the child at the
orphanage as they have been pushed out of sight and out of mind for so long now. It
all depends on the circumstance, for example it is very culturally relevant that if the
mum dies and the father remarries that the children from the first marriage are
pushed out and away, the government are then forcing the children back into the
home where the step-mother does not want the child or does not want them to inherit
what they would inherit as being his first child and oldest so would inherit everything
when the father dies. These children are treated badly especially because the step-
parent does not want them to inherit anything, she wants her own children to inherit.
-‐ Do you think the follow up procedure is adequate?
I think in some circumstances it has been, but for the majority I don’t think so. Just
for the Noel Orphanage there are just too many kids, too many kids to follow up on,
there’s too many kids to fall through the cracks. It’s just an overwhelming process to
try to follow up on all of them, and of course, too when they follow up on them when
the government shows up they are going to show them what they want to see, not
what is reality.
116
-‐ What do you think the subsequent effects of this reunification is going to have on the surrounding area of Noel or the surroundings in general?
It’s gonna cause a whole new generation of street children and also right now there’s
no place to bring kids when the family can’t care for them. I know there’s… well two
of the Noel babies that were abandoned, one that died because nobody wants to
pick ’em up because they’re going to be responsible for that kid, that baby because
there’s no one to take them.
And another one was someone took them into the house and is taking care of them,
but who can afford formula, who can afford the diapers? Who can afford to pay for
that when it’s not their own kid, it’s just a baby that is left on the side of the road or by
the river or in a field. People are afraid to even report it cos they’re afraid they’re
going to be responsible.
Interview ends
117
Appendix B4 Interview: Respondent D
-‐ Before the genocide were orphans in Rwanda looked at in the same way, in comparison to now?
No, before genocide they were treated and looked after by the Catholic
Church. It was the Catholic Church who helped the orphans. But now, it is
with help from the government.
The genocide created many orphans, and it was hard to look after them, big
family [extended families] did not want them anymore. The big family fell
apart, and trust was gone.
-‐ Was there any orphan crisis in Rwanda before the genocide?
Not like now. It was not orphanages everywhere and street children
everywhere. The children were in homes, they were looked after by
community. Not anymore, as I said, there is not trust anymore.
-‐ How do you think orphans are cared for in Rwanda at the moment?
The orphans they don’t have enough access to education, because they don’t
have the funds. There is no affection for the children. They do not know they
are loved.
It has changed from before because after the genocide in Rwanda many
many orphans were created. They cannot be looked after by families.
-‐ Is there a stigma attached to orphans in Rwanda?
118
There are many many children who do not have the family, people think this is
bad. Before children were in families, now they are not. It is bad, the country
does not love its children, the people in my country still do not love each other
like before. You know the genocide is still bad, there are still things that can
not be fixed. This is the reason the government want to bring the children
back to families, to fix this.
-‐ Were you aware of the government’s campaign to promote foster families in Rwanda?
The campaign for the government, because the government want to develop
children and develop the children. This campaign is good because the
orphans will have a house and they can be educated and understand things
better when they are in families. On the other side, there is a challenge again,
some of them can not look after the children, they will not get education, they
will not be looked after. You know you can not make somebody love a child,
you can not make them care for a child.
-‐ Do you think the provision of care provided by the GoR for orphans in Rwanda is adequate?
80% adequate
-‐ What do you think the government’s hope behind the reunification campaign is?
The government and the organisations that help they find the family, then they
try and make them accept the children. If they don’t accept they give them
money or cows to make them want to care for the children. When they accept
willingness the children go to the families. It is good, but I said you know you
can not make them love the child. It is a good idea, child should have family,
but how do you make this work well? I do not know.
119
-‐ Do you think the reunification campaign is the best way for orphans in Rwanda to be looked after?
I think it will be good, if they can make it work well. But I do not see how, the
children will go to live on the streets, because there is nowhere else.
-‐ Do you want to add anything else?
Reunification it should be better to be kept in the orphanages, and the
government can offer more aid and other institutions can help. Then when a
child or children’s from the orphanage should have the choice to go out the
orphanage because they are responsible. But the government are forcing
them and pushing them out the orphanage, it will create a big problem. The
families who have taken children won’t treat the children as well as their own
or as well as they were treated in the orphanage. So this will be somehow a
problem, because the thing they are doing is good, but they way they have
chosen to do this is not good, there is much that needs to be done, and much
that should have been thought about.
Interview ends
120
Appendix B5 Interview: Respondent E
- Please tell me about your work in Imbubazi
Imbubazi started in 1994 in September after the genocide. It was started by
Mrs Rosemary Carre, they call her Mrs Carre. She is American; she died in
December 29th 2006. After the genocide in December, she was in America but
it wasn’t so secure in Rwanda. She saw on television how children in Rwanda
were lacking people to take care of them, so she made the decision to come
back because in Mudenda, Rubavu she had about 53 hectors, it was her
home from 1957. So she started the orphanage in December 1994, to help
children without people to take care of them. From that time it was about 20
children in the beginning and they continued to come in the orphanage, but
other children they were finding their families so they were leaving the
orphanage.
In 1998 the orphanage moved into Gisenyi town because in Mudenda it was
unsafe because of the rebels from the Congo. When she took children from
the orphanage, there were not enough rooms for children; she was using the
house for drying periferum. When the orphanage moved to Gisenyi, she tried
to have the rooms rebuilt so when they returned to Mudenda they would have
enough rooms for the children SO when they went back in November 2005,
after that time, in September 29th 2006. Before she died I was he assistant.
Before she died she made a team to help her run the orphanage, she
continued them to prepare the orphanage for after she was gone, it was made
up of Americas, relatives and friends. After her death the made the decision
for me to become director of Imbubazi Orphanage in 2007.
In 2007 there was kind of programme, I called it the Kituschutza - it is a word
in Kinyarwanda that means, when you make a baby, after making the baby
we call it Kituschutza, no more milk. So the programme at Imbubazi was to
prepare a child after school, after training school, after university, how a child
121
can be independent at life. So when the GoR made the decision to say it is
not good or children to stay in the orphanage a long time because if a child is
in a family they have the opportunity to leave, and be safe, and be in a family,
which is better than to stay in the orphanage. For us in Imbubazi it was no big
problem because we had already been trying to prepare children with our
programme. It was to sit down, talk with child, ask him if he has a friend from
school or somewhere, and if he can visit his friend in the family. After the visit
we asked hi or her if that family is good or him or for her, if he says yes,
Imbubazi could go with the child to visit the family and to see if the child could
live with that family. Also, the children went to live back with their relatives, we
went to see the relatives to see if they could accept the children. Of course
Imbubazi could help the families, continuing to pay the school fees for the
child, support the family, pay medical expenses. Some families accept to take
the child in the family but are then not able to pay school fees, or medical fees
so Imbubazi could try to support the families. If not, the families would not
have accepted the children because they are very poor, they don’t have
everything to help the child within their families. Normally after visiting the
children in families, the children from Imbubazi orphanage, we didnt see a
problem because they were prepared enough and the families also because
of that support they didn’t show any problems. Even he children who left eh
orphanage after they finished the training school they preferred to go back to
school to continue because in family they tried to open their eyes and see
what is good in the others. SO training school for them is a little training, but if
you continue school you can continue even to university. So our children are
away in families and others are in independent life after to finish school we try
to help them how they can go to internship, after the internship some of them
go to jobs or if it’s a raining school we give them tools according to what
they’re training and they started to do or to have association with other who
have enough experience in that way. SO in general the children from
Imbubazi orphanage are well within their families.
-‐ How is Imbubazi funded?
122
Imbubazi had sponsors who connected. Almost ever child had a sponsor.
When the children were in the orphanage, sponsors were sending money
through to the orphanage. Imbubazi managed all money together for the
children so all children were the same, because some were poor some were
rich sponsors. The children were all together at the orphanage, Imbubazi is
like a family so you can’t take children differently, and they have to say. You
have to put money together and manage them the safe, manage them rich or
poor, children must be the same, they must go to school the same. Not to say,
hey your sponsor is rich you’ll go to a special school.
The government was also helping with money to help with food. It depends, at
the beginning of the year the budget for the orphanages goes to the district.
The orphanages sign a contract with the district saying how they will use the
money. So the money from the government you can say will go to school
fees, the money will help for food for the children, it’s a contract telling them
how you will use the money item by item.
-‐ Did Imbubazi partner with any organisations to help with the reunification process?
No, ourselves, we did it all ourselves because the MIGEPROF called all
orphanages several times, to train them and have meetings with them to train
them how to put children in families. So, because that idea from the
government was my idea before the government so for me it was no problem.
I can share my experiences with other orphanages if they have difficulty to put
children in families. It is good for a child to be in a family, because, let me give
you an example, at my home my child and my kid know how to prepare their
bed, if they have no tie to home, they don’t know how to get water. If they will
live in the village they know how to take care of other children if they are the
oldest and the parents aren’t home, the oldest knows how to manage the
children. Something good for a child is to know how to take responsibility, but
at the orphanage they think there is someone to prepare the bed, to make
food for him or thinks there is someone who will do everything for me, which is
not good.
123
-‐ When did Imbubazi start preparing to put children back into their families, and when did you implement this theory?
After Mrs Carre’s life was taken, maybe 2008 I think. I tried to start to show
the children how easy it was to be in families, slowly by slowly. Some of them
tried to understand, others were thinking ‘how can this happen, it is
complicated, how can I live without the orphanage?’ But slowly by slowly they
began to understand.
-‐ What was the capacity of Imbubazi, at its fullest how many children resided there?
-‐
All the time, there was never a fixed number, many children were coming and
going between their relatives and Imbubazi. But, the big number was 120
children.
-‐ What’s your follow up procedure to the reunification process?
WE have at Imbubazi there is the [muffled] programme, there are staff
specifically for that programme, they visit the children in the families. We
support the families, when the children are off school that is when we go and
visit and see how children are getting on in the families and give the families
the support I told you about. When it is time to go back to school, Imbubazi
prepares the children, gives them school fees, money for transport and
everything. So we are always in contact with the children, even the schools
know that we are the parent of these children; if there is problem at the school
they call Imbubazi not the family. So Imbubazi visit the children at the school
even when they are in their new families.
-‐ Why do you think now there has been a big push by the government for the reunification process?
124
It depends on, all orphanages are not the same. Let me give you an example
for Noel orphanage. Noel orphanage if I remember well has 600 maybe 700
children. You see how they are many children. They are in different ages. So,
this is why the government sent the psychologist and someone from social
affairs to come and prepare the families, the relatives for those children
because in the orphanage you can have children and you don’t know where
they are from. You see how it is hard to find the family. Imagine yourself how
to prepare family until they are willing to accept to take the child into the family
it is not something easy that the orphanages and the government they are
trying to work as a team. Normally in our culture in Rwanda before [the
genocide] it was not our culture for orphanages. They started after the
genocide. Even before the genocide it was the orphan when they mother died
in the hospital, when they baby is very young that was not to say this baby
must go tot the orphanage, no. The family made a meeting to see who and
how can help this little child. It was a good culture; we can use it again to
prepare Rwanda to have the love as before. Today, it is not good to let
someone take responsibility of the child from your family, you must be
responsible, see what you can do. Not just put them in an orphanage to look
after the child. This is why the government has made the decision to say the
children should live in families.
-‐ Do you think there is a stigma attached to orphans and orphanages in Rwanda?
I can say that yes there is a stigma and yes it is a bad thing. If there are many
orphanages in Rwanda. There are some girls who can have babies without
making a plan,’ I have this baby, and I have everything to help this baby’. So
you see these babies on the road and you don’t know who it belongs to, so
they orphanage must take that child to the orphanage. But if there are no
orphanages in the country, you will see the baby on the road and you will
think how to help how to fix the problem without having to go to the
orphanage. People will have to take responsibility to take care to look after the
children; they will have to stop the bad behaviour.
125
As the director I am very proud, I did what I was supposed to do to help the
children, work with the government, work as a team – children, director,
government. We work like a team, in Rwanda you are meant to work like a
team, and then one day you hope to get success.
Interview ends
126
Appendix B7 Interview: Respondent F
- What was the perception of orphans before the genocide?
Before the genocide there were no care of orphans because many people
died and their children stayed orphans but was not much care of them
because there was no government guidelines for orphans. There was also no
government campaign for orphans.
- How were orphans looked after before the genocide?
Before the genocide, a short moment before, there were new orphanages that
looked after children that were thrown out by their mums – the people who got
pregnant unwillingly – but there were not many orphans in the orphanages,
that was not usually where they were looked after.
-‐ Was there an orphan crisis before the genocide?
I don’t really know about that. But I think there was.
-‐ After the genocide what was the perception of orphans?
After the genocide, in Rwanda many children did not have parents so the GoR
tried to look after all orphans that were survivors of the genocide, and some
other children who did not have parents because they were missing or they
died from illness. The government put the children together in different areas
to look after them easier.
-‐ Do you think there is a stigma attached to orphans in Rwanda?
Now, maybe it is possible because I don’t think Rwanda needs to be seen as
a country that is full of orphans, that is full of many problems. This is the
127
reason they take some children that were inn orphanages and find them
families to look after them.
-‐ Were you aware of the governments campaign to promote foster care/families in Rwanda?
Yes, there is a campaign run by maybe Unity Club who tries to look after
orphans from orphanages to different families that are not theirs, to reunify
them to a home.
-‐ What do you think about the reunification campaign?
I think on one side it can be good to have parents who look after the children
who did not have parents before because of education you receive in a family.
The children in the orphanage did not have basic education that can carry
them into different careers in life. But also, I don’t think it will be easy because
not all parents will like the reappearance of the children. I think there will be
some problems between the children and the parents that adopted them
because, first of all, the children know that they have other parents, not the
people they are being reunified too. Second, they were in a group of children
who had any different behaviour, and some parents can not support this. I
think that this is not easy.
-‐ Before 1994, the community and extended families usually assumed guardianship of orphans within their community, why do you think that changed after the genocide?
I don’t know what happened in Rwanda, before the genocide people looked
after all the children; they treated them as his or her own. But after the
genocide there was a mixtures of behaviours that were in different people that
came out, and because of the history of the genocide many orphans are of
the children that died during the genocide, so the people that were left to look
after them are the ones who were contributed to the killing of the parents to
128
these children. So, I think that this changed because the community has been
mixed or ruined because of the genocide.
-‐ Do you think, to date, the provision of care provided by the GoR has been adequate?
I don’t think it has been totally adequate because it is a long process. It is not
easy to take the decision in one moment and reach a final result at another
moment. Maybe after a long time the care they provide could be adequate,
but not now, it isn’t.
-‐ What do you believe the best method of care for orphans in Rwanda would be?
-‐ I think there should be provided houses for orphans, and all education should
be free, also there should be jobs provided for them. For example, the study
and they don’t find jobs, they steal, it is a bad life, they keep behaving like
orphans, and they have nothing to lose.
-‐ Do you think the reunification provides the best way of life for orphans in Rwanda?
It depends on the age of the children who are being reunified because for
example between 14-20+ years old, it could maybe be good. But not now,
they are used to being given everything so they are now going to be
responsible for themselves. The government campaign is for reunification,
which is supposed to help them so they can gradually reach the level of
helping themselves. For children who are under 14 years old it is not good. I
don’t think it is not good because they are not responsible for themselves and
it is not easy for them to be looked after from other parents because they
have the behaviours that they have already developed which are different
from where they are now being looked after. I think that it is not good.
129
-‐ Do you have anything else to add about the treatment of orphans in Rwanda?
Yes, what I can say is that orphans in Rwanda should be looked at like people
who need support, people who need to be with everyone in the community.
My suggestion is that governments should look after them well while they are
in the orphanages and then the children who are older could benefit from
houses and gaining responsibility for themselves. But children under the age
of 14 should be kept in the orphanages and looked after the government and
other people who will help them develop and achieve sustainability in their
everyday life.
Interview ends
130
Interview B8 Interview: Respondent G
-‐ What is your role within the Point Foundation (PF)?
I work for the point foundation as the in country and manager for Rwanda.
-‐ How has the PF aided in the de-institutionalization policy since it was implemented in March 2012?
They have helped since it came into place, they have helped a lot because
they have created an environment where children and the youth could be
nurtured and cared for so they can be more successful in the future.
Therefore I can say that they have paved the way for successful reunification.
-‐ To your knowledge when will the orphanage be closing or when will all the children have been reunified?
I think it will be closed at the end of the year
-‐ Will the disabled children be reunified? And if not, what will happen to them?
A few of them, the lucky ones, they will be reunified but most of them will be
reintegrated into the community. We are planning to rent houses in Gisenyi
where they can live near the services that they need. They will be in their own
houses, a type of family house. Each house will shelter 4-6 people and the
houses will be located in Gisenyi town. Not in the same place as the
orphanage to avoid the misconception that another institution is being formed.
It will ensure that the disabled children will keep receiving the same services
that have been getting including medical services, social services.
131
-‐ How will this be funded?
At the moment, it is only the PF that are willing to fund. HHC for Children are
helping in the reunification process and in the training of the careers, as we
will need a double number of careers, but PF will be paying the salary of the
careers. As well, we will need a double number of food, water and electricity
as we are helping people in separate houses. It is a long-term project, the
disabled children will not return to the orphanage, as it will be shut.
-‐ Will the government help with the funding of this programme?
The government will not help. They have no awareness of the children and
youth who have disabilities within Noel. Their sensitivity is low because they
don’t know, we hope that in the future the government will help financially with
this project, but at the moment they will not.
-‐ Do you think there is a stigma attached to people and children with disabilities in Rwanda?
Yes, of course. There is only a narrow body of research in Rwanda
surrounding disabilities. A 2005 paper showed that people with mental or
psychiatric disabilities were judged worse than people with physical
disabilities. So ours, many of them have mental disabilities and it is a
challenge that has to be tackled fiercely. We need to sensitise the community
so that we can decrease the level of stigma in the community.
-‐ Does this stigma affect the number of disabled children who are reunified within families?
Yes, but as well as less families taking them because of the stigma there is
also the shame, having a child with disabilities in Rwanda brings shame to the
132
family. Also, the families fear the burden of caring for a child with disabilities; it
has financial implications and is time consuming.
-‐ Why does it bring shame?
Really it is because of traditional beliefs. People have not yet understood,
especially in many rural areas the causes of disabilities. Many believe that the
children have been bewitched, or they believe it is a punishment for anything
sinful they did before conceiving the child so they would like to hide the child
so that they are not seen as sinful things. People don’t want to show they
have been sinful or have been bewitched; they think that their ancestors have
come and troubled the minds of their children as a punishment – these
traditional beliefs still exist.
-‐ It’s awful that there is such a lack of education surrounding disabilities.
Yes there is a desperate need to educate these people.
-‐ So, asking about the reunification process. What is the procedure of reunification, to your knowledge?
Well it depends. For children who have got families or relatives, reunification
starts by the preparation of families, they trace their families. When they find
the families they sensitize them to get their informed consent and agreement
of receiving a child. After getting this informed consent the family members,
they bring the family to visit the child at the orphanage where they will talk to
the child, and familiarize themselves. The last step is the actual reunification,
when they come and collect the child and take them back to the family or
community.
-‐ If the provision of care for the child from the family is has been
reunified with is not adequate then what is the protocol?
133
Home and Homes for Children in Rwanda has been mandated by the GoR
who monitor and evaluate the quality of life of the children who are reunified.
They can sensitize the parents again or they can bring in the people and
officials who are in charge of human rights abuses against children to again
sensitize the parents. Otherwise the child can be placed in another family, a
foster family.
-‐ So they decide where the child will stay based purely on the best care of the child?
Yes, they decided what is best for the child. But it is also based on the
willingness of the family members to receive the child. They also have to
access the livelihood of the family to see if it is suitable to what the child
needs.
-‐ Some children will not have any family or extended family that can be traced, or perhaps the family they do have expressed they are not willing to assume guardianship of the child, what then happens? What is the situation?
Traditionally in Rwanda there was no orphanage, a community existed and
orphans were adopted amongst them. This system does still exist, but not as
much now. In French we call this Angigarda, which means families who
accept to adopt a child. The law does not accept international adoption; it is
actually prohibited by the law for children who are under the age of 18 to be
adopted internationally. So it is the internal adoption that Home and Homes
wants, they want the families to receive him or her.
-‐ Do you think that traditional care of orphans has transformed since the genocide?
Well, there is a difference now because there is an improvement in the
conditions of life for people both socially and economically, so children should
feel better in the families that aren’t their own. But I think many people do not
134
take and look after these children, they have to be asked. People are
educated on child abuse, the level of child abuse that I know of is much lower
than before 1994 – this is because of education and the development of the
country at many levels. Education is translated to people more now; they have
easy access to Internet on their phones and through the TV. Before have a
TV was privilege but now more people have them, everyone can see a TV is
they want to. Education and information is easily accessible.
-‐ To your knowledge why has there been such an increase in the importance and emphasis on the reunification process in the last few years?
I think it is because now NGO’s are supporting the government to implement
the policy, although the policy was already there to support vulnerable
children and widows, implementation was the problem because the
government did not have a necessary number of staff to implement it. Now
NGO’s have got their own budgets and staff and are autonomous in
management. The government comes in to an institution and carries out
monitoring and evaluation hand-in-hand with the NGO’s – when I say NGO’s
in the case of Noel I mean Home and Homes for Children in Rwanda.
-‐ Do HHC for Children implement reunification only at Noel Orphanage or are the present at other orphanages around Rwanda?
They do it at all other orphanages in Rwanda. They strive for rights of all
children, they don’t just work on orphanages they work with street children
and abused children, whatever goes against child rights.
-‐ Do you believe this current policy is what is best for orphans in Rwanda?
The policy that is being applied now is best, it takes into consideration the lack
of family love witnessed by youth that grow up at orphanages and also lack of
135
social skills from the children that grow up here. These could have been
acquired if they were educated in families.
-‐ There have been cases of any children in Noel who are now living in worse conditions than they were at Noel, they have love but their quality of life is worse. Do you believe that is better for the children?
I can’t confirm that as no solid studies have been carried out. When you say
many you should know that is has been measured. I can’t confirm that. All I
say is that as far as I know all the children who have been reunified are living
a normal life and there is no exception for them so far of a child who has been
abused. In general the reunification has gone well.
Interview ends
136
Appendix B9 Interview: Respondent H
- What is your role within Save the Children?
Programme Director, SCI Rwanda
- To your knowledge, how many orphanages there are currently in Rwanda?
The child care reform is addressing the issue of orphanages. Three years ago
there were approx 30 of them, as of today the number is scaling down.
- What are your perceptions of orphanages in Rwanda?
Overall, institutional care for children is considered to be detrimental for their
development.
- Is there a stigma attached to the number of orphanages that reside within a country?
It depends on the Government and communities’ perceptions.
The GoR now is pushing for increasing the awareness of communities that
orphanages are not the best option for children without appropriate care.
- To your knowledge, have the government implemented any additional services within orphanages in Rwanda? (e.g. Vocational training, access to secondary education etc)
No – as the aim is to close them down and push for foster care alternatives
137
- Do you believe that to date, the provision of care provided by the GoR to children living in orphanages has been adequate?
See above
- What is Save the Children’s role within the tracing and reunification process?
SC is not engaged in tracing and reunification at the moment.
HHC for children is mandated by the National Children’s commission and
UNICEF to deal with tracing and reunification of children currently in
institutions.
- Is the tracing and reunification process you implement in agreement with the government’s reunification process?
Not applicable
- How has the treatment and perception of orphans in Rwanda changed post-1994?
Rwanda has always had a tradition of fostering. The problem lies with the fact
that fostering should be formalised otherwise foster children will never enjoy
the same rights as the biological children in the family.
- Are there any checks or procedures in place to ensure the family/extended family can provide adequate care?
Yes, through the child care reform – I will attach a number of documents.
- What follow up measures are in place to ensure the successful integration of children into their family/extended family?
See the child care reform and other documents.
138
- What is the motive for families/extended families to assume guardianship of orphans?
Positive: Goodwill. Negative: an extra hand for work / houseboys and
housegirls.
- Are families/extended families more willing to assume guardianship of orphans with land rights?
Extremely delicate issue. Orphans often get denied of land rights or it is
extremely difficult for them to be
- In general, does a family’s/extended family’s financial circumstance influence their decision to assume guardianship?
Not sure
- Do you believe that the way in which the government and HHC have implemented the DI/reunification process across Rwanda has been successful? (Please elaborate on your answer, highlighting areas for improvement)
I think that a lot of focus has been put to de-institutionalization which is
commendable but at the same time losing a bit the focus on the bigger child
protection system strengthening which would support addressing broader CP
issues for children, other than DI.
- Please feel free to add any other information you may see as necessary or informative.
Will share some documents
139
Interview ends
140
Appendix B10 Interview: Respondent I Please note: partial transcription only as recording corrupted
-‐ What is NCC’s role in the tracing and reunification process in Rwanda?
The role of NCC, well it has a major major role. NCC is the national
commission of children it is a governmental programme to benefit children.
The tracing and reunification of children is part of the government’s initiative
for child care and child protection. So NCC is the one branch of the
government initiative, here in Nyundo we have 50 staff.
-‐ What are the government and NCC’s hope behind the reunification process?
The end goal is that each child has the right to live within a family, this is our
end goal. We know that, from official documents they can offer food, and
education and can offer shelter and clothes but the government is comparing
the number of children and the amount of care that can be given for the
children. The orphanages can offer material support but not emotional
support. They lack many many things. If you consider the life of a child, child
needs many things to grow up normally, in a normal way they have different
dependencies to make a future, but within an institution the children don’t
achieve those primary necessities , and skills you know, that help them
become independent in the future. This is also a response to a big problem of
children coming out of an institution without any way of knowing how to live
without an institution which leads them to different behaviour, they are
becoming bad and that can not happen. People live in different ways you
know they fight, research tells us that it is bad.
141
The outcome is that children need to live in the family, second is that children
need to be developed in a way that a way that they need to explore different
possessions they have, which is not happening to children in an institution.
The care, it is a group setting it is not personal, that is the major outcome
within this procedure.
-‐ Can you explain the process of reunification from beginning to end?
It is a very very long process which begins at initial assessment. This is the
assessment of the family, we have to know the children, we have to have the
professionals that know the children. WE have to have all the data about their
whole family. With the children we have to know their behavioural, social,
social skills, personal and independent skills. The family need to know about
the child and another thing is during the initial assessment we look for all
other details we can get from the information has been given when the child
was admitted into the institution. When we finish the initial assessment, we
begin family tracing which starts with the information from the initial
assessment. We explore, for example, the child can be here for the initial
assessment we can find that the child has a lost the mother in delivery but the
child still has the father, but for the period of 10 years they have never been in
contact. So we do stuff like that. To trace the family there are 3 steps, to trace
the family, to look at the family, to meet the family. So, when we meet the
family, it is when we have found them and communicated with them.
Sometimes we get there are realise they have moved to another place, so we
have to go and explore and find other traces to find them. And another thing
is, when we find the family we go onto another stage, child and family
preparation. Child and family preparation, the strategy depends on the age of
the child but we, we prepare the child and family to reconnect because
sometimes they have never met, so we prepare them to connect because
sometimes there are different times of fear and frustration as they facing
children they have never seen before, and the children they are facing adults
they have never seen before. Sometimes the children were brought here
142
when they were new born so they have never seen the child before, so they
have to reconnect and that can take some time. Even if they have met the
family before, they have to prepare. They know the child was in the institution,
but you get used to what you have you know. Sometimes the relatives, they
have put the child in the institution and then they come to meet the child, they
come once, they come every week to see the child, and then they come every
six months, and then they stop coming at all, you get used to what you know.
They know the child has somewhere to sleep, food to eat, a shelter over their
head, and they know that they cannot give the child anymore than that. In this
culture, you have to bring something every time you come to see the child, but
these people they don’t have anything to bring, it is not possible so they do
not come anymore. This is one of the factors why they lose contact with the
child. And after one year they may forget about the child, they know they are
eating and sleeping and it is okay, and they lose contact. With time you can
think of the impact of this. So this reconnecting stage is very important, they
are encouraged to come and meet the child, have assessed contact, it is good
for the child to meet the father, or the family, to see he has a family, he can
see where he is living and it is an opportunity for us to raise any questions we
have before. When they come here we can raise some different options. The
parents can raise concerns for example, I don’t have a job, I don’t have
sleeping materials, I don’t have food. Because we have plenty of resources
out there to be responsible for the questions we have. We connect the family
and the child and the resources, even to school.
We also have community workers who have been trained doing the
programme to support the children in the families. They identify something in
English you call, friends of the family. It is 2 people in the community, they are
volunteers, and they help the family during the transition of the child moving
into the family. And there is also community support workers we connect the
child and the family and they follow up. We put in all this preparation so that
after wards there should not be problems, everyone is prepared. It is so that
when we do this operation.
143
We do what you call family assessment, the aim is to support the family to see
the different areas, how do they live? Do they have furniture? How many
family members? What are their jobs? Do they own the land? Do they own a
house? How do they survive? Are there any family members with a disability
that needs to be followed closer? Is there a broken relationship between the
family that needs to be addressed? Do they live in a good community? It is so
that we can think about preparation for the family and checking all the risk
factors. Even if we find some risks, that is fine, it is so we know how to
address them. We are putting the risk factors away. When we finish the
assessment, we establish what you call an intervention plan. The intervention
plan is in the form of 5 areas in which we work. Living condition – do they
have enough things for the child to live, is the house proper and safe,
comfortable? It depends on the area though, living in Rwanda is not like living
in America, the conditions are different so we think how can they live
comfortably? When we sit with them and discuss with them, there are
problems, many problems. Many they don’t have enough space to cultivate
their land. We try to listen to the family an hour, two hours, time is okay. The
relationship if they are in conflict, we look at how to resolve it, who can be
involved.
We also see people conditions for living, this should already by identified in
the initial assessment, we see what we can give economical resources to help
them. If there is a problem, we try and help. The living condition of the family
though, can they feed the family and is the relationship okay. It sort of comes
from the family assessment, that is where we identify the problems and risks,
and now in the intervention plan is were we solve them.
Kind of the same as family assessment, but now we work on that in the family
plan. If the house needs to be renovated, we take charge. If the child needs
transport or clothes or sleeping arrangement, we can help with this. If they
need sleeping things, for example they have 3 sleeping mats for the family,
but they need an additional 2 for the child then we will give them that. If they
don’t have enough chairs, we provide that. We discuss this with the family and
144
with the child. Some do not have family so they go to independent living.
Some children are going into independent living, we give them a house, we
equip the house, and provide the food if necessary, if they don’t have any
sponsorship. We follow them through this process for them to be free and
independent outside.
The work is not financial. Food you can not give child food for only 3 months
and then not be there again. People have been here for a long time, they
have no idea of what is out there. They have never worked, they never
worried about anything, and now they have to do this. We have been dealing
with children who are going to school, if they can find a school out there, and
being badly behaved, and being kicked out because they think, oh they can
find me another school out there, its not a big deal. They have been given
things. We are trying to open their eyes.
We are dealing with many different types of children and the approach is
different for each. For some independent living, for other foster family, if you
are young you are going to family; we have to look case by case. There are
500 children living here, each case is unique, so we follow each case like they
are unique and different treatment is used there depending on the child. So
then after the family and personal relationship we look at education. Is the
child studying, is this move detrimental to the studying, what needs to be
done. Do we need to wait until they finish their term and then try and connect
them with things? Or do they live here but are they at school at boarding
school where we can just reunify them when they are back form school, so
they can finish their term and then go to their families. So the situation is
according to each case and each situation. For example there is a child here
who is about to sit his exams, we thought if he goes now it can be tough for
his studies. So we stopped now until they are finished and another school is
ready to receive him. So when you finish education you have to have any
opportunities.
And we think about medical treatment. What treatment do they need? Is that
treatment available where he is going? If not what needs to be done. Do we
145
need to make sure each month he has a monthly provision, each month they
have to get transport fees. When we meet the family, we don’t consider the
child as the child, we consider the child as the family. Within the family is
there anyone else who is sick, what is being done and who is involved, is
there anything being done? If not, what needs to be done now. All this goes in
the plan. When we think about the sleeping arrangements, if there is five
children, we don’t just think about the child to give a mattress, as this will
create conflict within the family. We provide mattress for everyone in the
family. When we finish the help we think of other things. Are there any other
family members in the extended family, if so he needs to be connected with
them, this is what we call the integration plan.
After finishing this plan, we start what you call the implementation integration
plan where the child is placed with the family. Once the child is placed then
we begin to see how the plan works. How have we planned this? Do they
have food, because sometimes we get in the family and they don’t have food,
sometimes they don’t have food, or have different food, so we provide
transition food, and the first days can be hard as he is not used to this kind of
food, so we provide the food for transition to help the child slowly get used to
what is going on. So after
Interview continues…
Recording corrupted
146
Appendix C
Theme Sub Theme Category
Perception/treatment of orphans (A)
Pre-‐1994 (A1) Post-‐1994 (A2) Disabled (A3)
Provision of services (B) Government (B1) NGO(B2) Catholic Church (B3) Education (F)
Orphanages (D) Creation (D2) Future (D1)
Noel (E) Imbubazi (G)
Reunification/ DI policy (D) Process (C1) Follow up (C3) Opinions (C2)
147
Appendix D
Respondent Name Overview A Anonymous • Educated to senior school
• Accounts and administration
B Anonymous • Educated degree level
C Anonymous • Missionary • Close ties to reunification
process • Lived in Rwanda 2+ years
D Damien • Educated to degree level
• Head teacher at local school
E MAHAGARARA Emmanuel • Director of Imbubazi since 2007
F Jean D’Amour • Educated to degree level (2 degrees)
• Programme manager, No.41
G UWAMBAJIMANA Viuteur • Educated to Msc level • In country director, PF
H Graeme Loten • Executive Director of Imbubazi
• Previously worked as a diplomat
I Olivier • Director tor NCC at Noel Orphanage