Young People’s Experiences of Support, Belonging, and Freedom Before and After Leaving Residential Care Institutions in Kenya

Abstract

In Kenya, estimates suggest almost 60,000 children live in residential care institutions, also called orphanages and Charitable Children’s Institutions (CCIs). The Government of Kenya has undertaken reform efforts and aims to reunify children in residential care with families where possible. This study aimed to explore how young people in Kenya who have lived in residential care describe and conceptualize their experiences of life in residential care and life after leaving residential care. The study used qualitative data from focus group discussions with children ages 11 to 17 who had been reunified with family after living in residential care (n=41) and with young adults who exited residential care during young adulthood (n=29). The themes that emerged from the analysis fell under five themes: material resources, information and guidance, belonging, emotional support, and freedom. Young people tended to have better access to material resources in residential care than afterwards, but had both positive and negative experiences with emotional support and guidance in both settings. After leaving residential care, young people valued being able to be close to their families and having more personal agency and freedom, though some believed that increased freedom came at the cost of reduced safety. These results indicate the importance of family strengthening and individualized case management for children reunifying with families after leaving residential care.

1. Introduction

Residential care institutions, also called orphanages or Charitable Children’s Institutions (CCIs), have seen steady growth in Kenya in past decades. According to Chege & Ucembe (2020), the number of children in Kenyan residential care institutions has grown progressively since the mid-twentieth century, and it was estimated that around 57,000 children lived in residential care in 2020 (Desmond et al., 2020). Some researchers suggest that poverty and reduced spending on social services, among other factors, have driven this increase (Chege & Ucembe, 2020). Programs that reduced government spending in the 1980s likely led to the provision of social services to shifting from public to nongovernmental entities, including philanthropic and faith-based organizations from Western nations (Hearn, 2002; Chege & Ucembe, 2020), who may have imported the orphanage model of care from the West (Tolfree, 1995; Chege & Ucembe, 2020). The HIV/AIDS pandemic and political violence also caused large numbers of children to lose their parents (Tolfree, 1995; Lombe et al., 2019; Chege & Ucembe, 2020); such children would typically haåve been cared for in extended families and local communities, but economic forces weakened these networks, resulting in institutions taking their place (Lombe et al., 2019; Suda, 1997; Chege & Ucembe, 2020). Today, children enter residential care because of poverty, loss of parents, living on the street, being abused or neglected, being discriminated against due to HIV status or disability, and to escape female genital mutilation and early marriage (Chege & Ucembe, 2020; Kenya Department of Children’s Services, 2020; Republic of Kenya & UNICEF, 2022). Chege & Ucembe (2020) argue that the Kenyan government today relies too heavily on institutions to care for these children, rather than investing in services that would enable them to live with families, such as household economic support and child maltreatment prevention initiatives.

International human rights frameworks condemn over-reliance on residential care institutions for children. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states, “Where the child’s own family is unable, even with appropriate support, to provide adequate care for the child, or abandons or relinquishes the child, the State is responsible for protecting the rights of the child and ensuring appropriate alternative care,” which could include “foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children” (United Nations General Assembly, 1989, art. 21). Thus, the Convention creates a clear hierarchy of care for children: first, children should be cared for in their own families (with government-provided support if necessary); second, if that is not possible, governments must provide them with “alternative care,” which can include foster care and adoption; third, and only “if necessary,” children can be placed in “suitable” institutions as another form of alternative care. The 2010 UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children furthermore state that poverty should never be the sole reason for removing a child from the care of his or her parents and that governments must work to take children needlessly living in residential care institutions and reintegrate them with immediate, extended, or foster families (United Nations General Assembly, 2010). This process is often called “care reform,” and furthermore includes system-level reforms like social safety net investments, child protection policy adoption, and social service workforce development. Key to care reform is case management, whereby trained professionals assess children in residential care and their families to determine their readiness for reunification, identify supportive services (e.g., economic assistance, parenting education) which address the root causes of children’s entering residential care in the first place, and monitor the children’s and family’s progress over time, intervening with additional support as necessary (Cantwell et al., 2012; Kenya Department of Children’s Services, 2020; Republic of Kenya & UNICEF, 2022). In practice, the residential care institutions themselves often do the work of tracing children’s original families and carrying out reunification (Lumiti et al., 2016).

Following these frameworks and guidelines, the Kenyan government has been carrying out care reform in recent years. The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development’s Department of Children’s Services recommended a moratorium on the registration of new residential care institutions in 2008, and in 2017, the Government of Kenya barred any new ones from obtaining government-registered status (Chege & Ucembe, 2020). In 2021, Kenya’s National Care Reform Strategy was finalized, which aims to guide government systems for the next ten years in the continued transition from residential care for children to family-based care (Republic of Kenya & UNICEF, 2022).

The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children underscore the importance of policy development and care reform taking into account the voices of young people who were themselves affected by residential care and family reunification (United Nations General Assembly, 1989, 2010). However, research and data collection efforts often do not prioritize these individuals’ perspectives. Thus, the aim of this study is to explore how young people in Kenya who have lived in residential care describe and conceptualize their first-hand experiences of life in residential care and life after leaving residential care, so that their perspectives can inform care reform policy and practice.

1.1. Literature on Young People’s Experiences in Kenya

Qualitative research methods are uniquely suited to elucidating and documenting the personal accounts of such young people (De Bruin Cardoso et al., 2020). In Kenya, however, only a small amount of qualitative literature has explored the first-hand experiences of children who live in residential care, children who have left residential care to be reunified with their families, and young adults who left residential care at the brink of adulthood.

1.1.1. Living in Residential Care

Studies that highlight the voices of children currently living in residential care in Kenya have had diverse results—neither overwhelmingly positive nor overwhelmingly negative, but mixed—highlighting the varied quality of care in institutions and the ways in which institutional life carries both advantages and drawbacks. First, in terms of feelings of belonging, children often view their caregivers and peers in residential care as family, and draw a sense of belonging from these relationships, especially when the institutions are relatively small (Gayapersad et al., 2019; Johnson & Vindrola-Padros, 2014; Johnson, 2011). One photovoice study with Kenyan children in institutional care highlighted the high value children place on the friendships they were able to make within their institution (Johnson, 2011). On the other hand, those in larger institutions sometimes report lacking the one-on-one care needed to form such bonds (Gayapersad et al., 2019). When children are placed in institutions near their homes, they may continue to visit with their biological families, indicating how biological family ties may continue to persist for or be important to some children in residential care (Gayapersad et al., 2019; Johnson & Vindrola-Padros, 2014; Johnson, 2011). Family ties may be strengthened in cases where CCIs follow government-mandated policies to provide children with annual family visits (Gayapersad et al., 2019). Lacking biological ties may also be stigmatizing in the wider community setting; for example, in one study, children in residential care felt negatively singled out as “orphans” at school when they did not have parents who came to their school activities (Gayapersad et al., 2019).

Literature reveals children usually, though not always, have their basic needs better met after entering institutions compared to when they previously lived with family (Johnson & Vindrola-Padros, 2014; Johnson, 2011; Pouw et al., 2017). Many children who were old enough to have memories of family life when they entered residential care voice appreciation for having full bellies, getting their school fees are reliably paid, and not needing to do tiring chores in the institution, unlike before (Johnson & Vindrola-Padros, 2014; Johnson, 2011; Pouw et al., 2017). Similarly, research on a residential care institution specifically for HIV-affected children highlighted how the institution was able to meet the children’s unique health needs by adhering strictly to medical recommendations that were challenging for their original families (Johnson & Vindrola-Padros, 2014). On the other hand, another study noted that children in one small residential care institution had no food for days at a time (Johnson, 2011); like families, institutions are not monolithically well-resourced.

One potential downside of institutional life is the way it may constrict children’s autonomy and identity development. Some children in institutional care fail to develop their ethnic identities, having to speak English or Kiswahili in residential care instead of their mother tongue (Gayapersad et al., 2019). They report that life is relatively rigid, with limited freedom of expression and agency over their own lives (Gayapersad et al., 2019). For example, they may be required to have shaved heads, follow a strict daily schedule, stay within the confines of the institution, and follow other rigid rules. In an institution, children may not be able to simply ask to deviate from their routine or eat something new, the way they can with a parent (Gayapersad et al., 2019).

Though not revealed in these qualitative studies, quantitative surveys of children in residential care have indicated that there are relatively high levels of child maltreatment in Kenyan institutions (Morantz et al., 2013). At the same time, these surveys also found that institutional life is associated with better nutrition, educational completion, mental health, and fewer experiences of sexual violence, compared with reports of orphaned and fostered children living in families (Apedaile et al., 2022; Atwoli et al., 2014; Braitstein et al., 2013; Embleton et al., 2014, 2017; Omari et al., 2021; Sutherland et al., 2022).

1.1.2. Family Reunification During Childhood

Fewer studies have looked at the perspectives of young people who have been reunified with their families from institutions during childhood, especially in Kenya. Overall, children in Sub-Saharan Africa usually prefer life after reunification to life in residential care three-to-one (Frimpong-Manso et al., 2022; Mahuntse, 2015; Makau Mwende, 2023), and although children’s experiences are varied and diverse, they tend to value being close to their biological families after reunification (Walakira et al., 2022; Mahuntse, 2015) while lamenting that they no longer have the material resources that they did in their institutions (Walakira et al., 2022; Frimpong-Manso, 2018; Mahuntse, 2015; James et al., 2017).

Unfortunately, we could only identify two studies of children’s first-hand experiences of family reunification after residential care in Kenya (Abu et al., 2024; Makau Mwende, 2023). Abu et al. (2024) found that reunified children in Uasin Gishu county rated poverty as their biggest challenge after reunification, by far, while issues related to protection and maltreatment were much less problematic, and family conflicts were medium-level problems. Common poverty-related challenges were lacking adequate food, clothing, places to sleep, school fees, and school-related items (Abu et al., 2024). While the study found that challenges with family relationships were often negligible, and many children reported that they loved living with their family members, others had conflictual relationships with their parents or experienced emotional or physical maltreatment (Abu et al., 2024). Second, Makau Mwende et al. (2023) looked at two institutions dedicated to rehabilitating children in street situations. A third of these children were supported to join a foster family, while 59% rejoined their own family; some of the reunified children refused to go back to their own families because they had experienced poverty and maltreatment there, and some families refused to reunify due to the stigma associated with streetconnected children, because they did not wish to provide them with inheritance, or due to family feuds (Makau Mwende, 2023). The majority of reunified children (82%) were happy in their new placement due to feeling accepted and being able to go to school (Makau Mwende, 2023). It is important to note, however, that children who have been in street situations may have unique experiences compared to the wider population of children who have experienced residential care, and her study was limited to only one institution.

Studies examining children’s experiences of reunification after living in residential care institutions are more available from other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Like in Abu et al. (2024), it is common for children to report they have more challenges having their basic needs met after reunification than they did in residential care (Walakira et al., 2022; Frimpong-Manso, 2018; Mahuntse, 2015; James et al., 2017). They may report not having enough to eat, that their school fees are not paid, or that their chores and work interfere with their studies, and often describe life in residential care as easier in this regard (Walakira et al., 2022; Frimpong-Manso, 2018; Mahuntse, 2015; James et al., 2017). These challenges have been echoed in studies with practitioners (Kudenga et al., 2024). In Uganda, however, children pointed out a positive side to this, noting that doing chores at home was a way to gain useful life skills (Walakira et al., 2022). Another common theme is that reunified children value being close to their biological relatives and enjoy stronger family bonds after reunification (Walakira et al., 2022; Mahuntse, 2015), even if they miss their friends from the institution (Frimpong-Manso, 2018). On the other hand, there are also children who report their family or community relationships post-reunification are fraught with discord or discrimination (Walakira et al., 2022; Frimpong-Manso, 2018).

Qualitative studies with reunified children have not typically reported children’s experiences with violence, but one quantitative study found that reunified children formerly in street situations reported the highest levels of violence in their original family homes, followed by slightly lower levels on the street, and the lowest levels of violence after reunification (Olsson, 2016).

Overall, when asked whether they preferred life in institutional care or after reunification, 73% of reunified children in Ghana and 83% in Zimbabwe preferred being reunified (Frimpong-Manso et al., 2022; Mahuntse, 2015). Like the research on life in institutions, this literature highlights reunified children’s varied experiences, and points to the need for pre-reunification preparation and post-reunification economic and mental health services (Frimpong-Manso, 2018), a need that is echoed by social work professionals and government workers (Mumbuna, 2019; Muguwe et al., 2011; Abu et al., 2024). Professionals stress that when reunification lacks such planning and support, it “cannot really be called reunification” and is “a risk” for children (Mumbuna, 2019, p. 45), though unfortunately such situations do happen, and especially did in the immediate wake of COVID-19 (Wilke et al., 2020). More research is necessary to understand if Kenyan children’s experiences mirror those elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa.

1.1.3. Leaving Residential Care as Young Adults

Kenya’s Children’s Act of 2001 stipulated that children should leave residential care at the age of 18 (2001), although this requirement has been loosened by the Kenyan Children Act of 2022 (2022). There are still many young people who leave residential care due to their age, not as a result of care reform or reunification efforts; at this time, they may decide to go back to their biological relatives or live independently (Gayapersad et al., 2019; Muthoni, 2007; Le Mat et al. 2017). Their reflections on institutional life are an important complement to the insights into reunification offered by children, as maturity and the passage of time may cause their views on residential care experiences to evolve. In addition, since there is a larger body of research on children who have left residential care in adulthood than on child-family reunification, adults’ experiences moving across care settings can potentially be extrapolated to child reunification experiences.

In fact, Kenyan young adults’ experiences of transitioning out of residential care have many parallels with the experiences of children who undergo family reunification during childhood. One prominent challenge of leaving residential care at young adulthood, like the challenge of family reunification, is the loss of economic support, no longer having the institution to take care of one’s material needs, and struggling to make ends meet on one’s own (Ucembe, 2013; Le Mat et al. 2017). This is sometimes linked to not having received appropriate preparation or having developed life skills in the institution (Ucembe, 2013). For example, one study found that 44% of young people in Kenya felt unprepared to find employment after leaving residential care (Le Mat et al., 2017). On the other hand, some young people report that their institutions are able to equip them with good education and English skills that lead to future successes and provide motivation to continue working hard (Le Mat et al. 2017).

Belongingness and relational ties within residential care remain important for these young adults who have exited institutions. Some adults in Kenya report that they consider their caregivers and peers in their former residential care institutions to continue to be their families even after leaving (Gayapersad et al., 2019). They remain in contact throughout adulthood and consider their former caregivers to be the grandparents of their children when they become parents themselves (Gayapersad et al., 2019). Like reunified children, they note that it can be difficult to leave their institutional “family” when transitioning to adulthood (Gayapersad et al., 2019). On the other hand, some young adults recall having had conflict-fraught relationships with their institutional caregivers (Gayapersad et al., 2019). They also note that love and care in institutions is not always unconditional; for example, children can be sent away for poor grades or misbehavior (Gayapersad et al., 2019; Le Mat et al. 2017).

Stigma is another common theme for young adults with residential care experience, just as it is for children currently in residential care (Ucembe, 2013; Pouw et al., 2017; Gayapersad et al., 2019). Some individuals feel ashamed of being labeled an “orphan” or encounter discrimination in their communities, such as landlords not wanting to rent to people who come from an institution because they assume they will not be able to make rent (Ucembe, 2013; Le Mat et al., 2017). Young people can be frustrated by always being the objects of people’s pity (Le Mat et al., 2017). In one study, 41% of young people felt socially excluded due to their residential care background (Pouw et al., 2017). Not knowing one’s biological roots and ethnic identity, they expressed, could harm one’s self-acceptance and self-esteem (Pouw et al., 2017), and losing the ability to speak their mother tongue brought challenges to some in adulthood (Le Mat et al., 2017). This can lead to economic challenges as well; young people who are not connected to their local chief due to being raised in institutional care can lack access to scholarships or jobs (Le Mat et al., 2017).

Some adults report enjoying the newfound freedom and agency that comes with leaving the rigidity of residential care, although some find this freedom frightening as well (Ucembe, 2013; Le Mat et al., 2017). Even so, however, one quantitative study of this population found that their lowest domain of well-being—lower than the general population of Kenya—was “autonomy,” with these young adults scoring relatively low on measures related to sharing their views, forming their own opinions, and resisting outside influences (Ahmed et al., 2023); perhaps the lack of freedom in residential care contributes to a low sense of autonomy in adulthood.

1.2. Study Aim

This emerging body of literature on the first-hand experiences of young people who have lived in residential care in Kenya and across Sub-Saharan Africa overall indicates that they are typically happy to be reunified with family, and tend to be more satisfied with their opportunities for developing family relationships, cultural and personal identities, and personal autonomy after leaving residential care, while less satisfied with economic support than they were in the institution. Young adults describe how growing up in institutional care can prevent one from developing life skills and damage ties to community, family, and ethnic identity that are key to a successful adulthood, suggesting that child reunification may prevent such issues. These broad patterns, however, do not equally apply to every child, and quality of care and experiences varies in families just as it does in institutions. These insights are limited by the fact that most of the Kenyan literature is focused on those who left residential care in young adulthood, rather than those who reunified as children, and most of the literature on reunified African children comes from outside of Kenya. Only one peer-reviewed study to date has used qualitative methods to elicit the first-hand experiences of children in Kenya who reunified with family after living in residential care, and its qualitative sample size was only nine children (Abu et al., 2024).

Given these gaps, our aim for this study was to explore the question, “How do young people in Kenya who have lived in residential care describe and conceptualize their first-hand experiences of life in residential care and life after leaving residential care?” for the purpose of informing child reunification policy and practice. While capturing the first-hand accounts of reunified children is key to addressing this gap, we also explore the perspectives of young adults with lived experience as a complementary data source to triangulate children’s perspectives, as young adults’ relative maturity and additional life experiences can give insights into child reunification policy and practice that children may not yet have.

2. Method

The current study received ethical approval from the Boston College Institutional Review Board and the Maseno University Ethics Review Committee, and a research permit was obtained from the Kenya National Commission for Science, Technology, and Innovation (NACOSTI).

2.1. Sampling Context

Focus group participants were recruited within the context of Changing the Way We Care (CTWWC) Kenya, an initiative to support care reform, improve family strengthening support and alternative family-based care, and reunify children in residential care with families where possible (Catholic Relief Services, n.d.). CTWWC Kenya works with partners to support children in Kisumu, Nyamira, and Kilifi counties, which were chosen because of their different contexts, locations, sizes, and levels of investment in care reform, in order to demonstrate how care reform may operate in diverse counties with an aim of eventually scaling up to different regions of the country (Changing the Way We Care, 2021). CTWWC provides a range of services to support family reunification. While a child still lives in residential care, a case worker assesses the family’s needs, prepares them for reunification, and monitors the family after reunification until case closure. Case managers identify if families need CTWWC-provided services, which include cash transfers, small business start-up funds, positive parenting training, life skills training, and membership in savings and loans groups, or refer families to outside services.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 disrupted CTWWC programming when 60% of children in residential care in Kisumu, Nyamira, and Kilifi, were abruptly sent home to avoid disease transmission. In response, CTWWC worked in coordination with government actors to prioritize the cases of the most vulnerable families, develop case management plans, and provide emergency services like cash transfers, COVID-related supplies, and referrals to other service providers to support their reunification. Nonetheless, many of the reunified children and families included in this study received lower levels of pre-placement preparation given these circumstances.

The focus groups analyzed in the current study were part of a larger evaluation of CTWWC, and their primary purpose was to inform the development of a household survey (Neville et al., 2024). The researchers created a focus group protocol for this purpose, which received extensive feedback from in-country partners of CTWWC, and trained the facilitators on following the protocol.

2.2. Sampling Strategy and Participants

The focus group sampling strategy relied on maximum variation sampling (Miles et al., 2014) according to three strata (Figure 1), the first of which was county. The second stratum was whether the participant was (a) a child who had been reunified with family after living in residential care and was receiving CTWWC services, or (b) a young adult who lived in residential care during childhood and was not receiving formal CTWWC services. These three strata were selected to capture the perspectives of those who left residential care under varying circumstances and because their maturity levels and life experiences could lead to different insights that would be useful for the larger study’s aim of constructing a survey measure (Neville et al., 2024).

Figure 1.

Sampling strata

Reunified children were eligible to participate if they were aged 11 to 17 and had been enrolled in CTWWC’s post-reunification services for more than one month. A random number generator was used to select children from CTWWC’s enrollment lists to fill each sampling strata. These children had lived in a variety of facilities which all provided a different model and quality of care; typically, the institutions housed children and provided for their basic needs, education, and health care. Institutions’ reunification services varied widely in quality, but improvements in this area were a key goal of the CTWWC initiative. CTWWC provided family assessment, case planning, monitoring visits and case reviews. Children and their caregivers would receive guidance from their case workers and referrals to wider services (psychosocial, health, education, legal) as needed. Families could also access group interventions such as savings groups, parenting training, financial and agricultural training as appropriate.

Young adults were eligible if they were ages 18 to 29 and had exited residential care more than two years prior. Young adult participants within each sampling strata were chosen via convenience sampling from existing networks; part of CTWWC’s program design was to involve networks of young adults who had lived in alternative care as partners and advisors for their programming and further develop their capacity, including the Kenya Society of Care Leavers as well as smaller, less formal regional networks. Most residential care facilities in Kenya provide limited support to young people when they transition to adulthood and leave the institution. The young adults in this study were not receiving any CTWWC services beyond the support for their peer networks’ development, as CTWWC did not provide services to this population. We did not collect data on these adults’ living arrangements, but based on information they volunteered in the focus groups, some of them went back to live with relatives after leaving residential care while some went on to live independently.

For the third stratum, reunified children were divided by age range (about 11 to 13 years versus about 14 to 17 years), and young adults’ groups were divided by gender; this aimed to avoid group dynamics that could potentially discourage contributions, for instance from younger children or women. Children and young adults were not in the same focus groups.

To recruit adult participants, study staff from CTWWC called them and followed a recruitment script that explained the purpose of the study, noted that they would obtain their consent at the time of the group, and asked them if they were interested in participating. For child participants, a three-step process was used. First, the selected child’s assigned case manager called the caregiver and notified them that someone would be calling them to invite them to the study. This was done so that caregivers would be assured that the invitation was legitimate and not a scam. Second, to mitigate the potential coercive effect of the family’s case manager conducting study recruitment, a staff member who was not the family’s case manager called the child’s caregiver and followed a recruitment script similar to the one used with adult participants, which additionally noted that their decision to participate would not affect any services they received from CTWWC. If the caregiver was interested in their child participating, the staff then asked to speak to the child. If the child was available, the staff followed the same script, ending by asking the child if they were interested in participating in the study.

Ultimately, the 12 focus groups contained 75 participants, of which 32 (46%) were female (Table 1). Three young adults who had exited residential care less than two years prior were inadvertently included.

Table 1.

Characteristics of focus group participants (N [%] or M [SD])

	Reunified adolescents (younger) (n=19)	Reunified adolescents (older) (n=22)	Young adults (n=29)
Sex
Female	6 (32%)	13 (59%)	13 (45%)
Male	13 (68%)	9 (41%)	16 (55%)
Age	12.8 (1.8)	15.0 (1.2)	23.4 (3.6)
Age entering residential care	7.5 (3.3)	10.0 (3.1)	9.5 (3.0)
Age exiting residential care	11.5 (2.1)	14.1 (1.6)	18.6 (1.7)
Years in residential care	4.0 (3.3)	4.1 (3.8)	9.1 (3.3)

2.3. Procedure

The focus groups were facilitated in pairs, with one facilitator being a staff of CTWWC and the other a staff of a residential care institution. This composition was suggested by partners in Kenya, as these social workers were familiar with working with young people in residential care and skilled at handling any issues that could arise. We ensured that no focus group facilitator was assigned to a focus group that included a participant who had lived in the same institution by which they were employed. The lead researchers trained facilitators in a two-day workshop that included in-depth discussions of research ethics, facilitation techniques for reducing bias and enhancing free sharing, and protocols for referring risk of harm cases for immediate follow-up as well as referrals to local services.

The facilitators selected community buildings that would be accessible and nonintimidating for respondents, including churches, religious centers, and local government offices, as locations for the focus groups. The focus groups took place between July 14 and 17, 2021. On average, they lasted approximately two hours. Facilitators obtained informed consent from adult participants before the focus groups. For child groups, a two-step process was followed: (1) obtaining consent from caregivers for their child to participate, and (2) obtaining child assent, which was contingent on parental consent. In all cases, the consent information was read aloud to participants and caregivers before the focus group, the opportunity to ask questions about the study was given, individuals provided their consent or assent verbally, and it was then documented by making a mark on or initialing a paper consent form.

The focus group questions were the same for all groups. As part of this larger focus group procedure, participants were first asked to choose pseudonyms to protect their confidentiality. Then the facilitators led the group in an ice breaker activity, gave an overview of the planned focus group activities, and led the group in establishing group norms. Facilitators then said to participants, “I’d like to start by having a discussion about life in the CCI [i.e., Charitable Children’s Institution, the common term in Kenya for residential care] and life after leaving the CCI. If you’d like, you can make a drawing to help you tell your story. If you’d prefer not to draw, you can write a story or create a list. On the left side, draw a picture of what life was like in the CCI, or write about life in the CCI. On the right side, draw a picture or write about what life was like after leaving the CCI.” This allowed them to reflect on their experiences independently without the pressure of immediately sharing them with others, given the sensitive nature of the topic. Many of the child participants drew pictures, while almost all adult participants chose to write. Facilitators then said to participants, “Now let’s present our drawings or lists to each other. If you do not want to share, though, that’s fine too. Hold up your drawing like this so we can all see it, and tell us about your work.” The groups then proceeded with other activities to inform the survey tool development, but these are not included in the present analysis.

The focus groups were audio recorded. The groups were conducted in a mix of English and local language (Kiswahili, Dholuo, or Ekegusii), as is common in the highly multilingual context of Kenya, with facilitators and participants frequently switching between languages or using certain languages for certain words. The focus group guide was in English, and no formal forward or back translations were conducted. Rather, facilitators were selected according to their language abilities, including the ability to mix languages according to local norms. To ensure accuracy, facilitators were responsible for transcribing the groups that they conducted, which also entailed translating any non-English utterances into English. The participants’ verbal contributions were the focus of this study.

2.4. Analysis

This exploratory qualitative study falls under the umbrella of phenomenology, a type of inquiry that seeks to describe individuals’ shared lived experience and distill them into a description of the “essence” of the phenomenon they experienced (Creswell & Creswell, 2022; Creswell & Poth, 2018). The analysis followed many of the tenets of consensual qualitative research, which relies upon iterative approaches, multiple researchers’ analyses of the data, as well as discussion and consensus-building amongst researchers rather than calculations of interrater agreement statistics (Hill et al., 1997, 2005).

After the first author read all twelve transcripts, the first, second, and third authors conducted initial coding in a group (Saldaña, 2016). They open-coded transcripts with an inductive approach while at the same time being governed by the overarching research questions (Saldaña, 2016). The coders iteratively revised, combined, and split codes as they proceeded through the transcripts until they reached a point of saturation, i.e., when no new themes or codes were emerging (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). The coders organized the codes under five major themes as they finalized the codebook. The coders then coded all transcripts in NVivo using the codebook, with each transcript independently coded by the first author and then by the second or third author. Then the two sets of codes were combined for each transcript, and the team met to discuss their coding choices and reach consensus on the analysis (Hill et al., 1997, 2005).

2.5. Considerations for Ensuring Study Rigor

Several steps were taken to ensure the integrity and rigor of the research. First, the sampling strategy was designed to maximize the transferability of the findings by using maximum purposive variation sampling with several strata, which aimed to obtain the widest possible diversity of participants. This type of purposive sampling is considered a best practice for ensuring transferability (Hanson et al., 2019). Although time and logistical constraints did not allow us to follow the best practice of using data saturation as a stopping point for data collection (Hanson et al., 2019), we sought to mitigate this limitation by predetermining a rather large sample size, aiming for twelve focus groups of 4 to 8 participants per group (i.e., between 48 and 96 participants). In terms of credibility, knowing that one of the biggest potential barriers to credibility was particiants’ unwillingness to share their true feelings on such sensitive topics, we selected facilitators who were particularly skilled in child social work and experienced in working with individuals who had lived in residential care. Their skill at making participants feel safe and understood helped ensure the credibility of the data. We also ensured that facilitators who were present in each group were the same ones to conduct the transcription and translation in an effort to ensure data dependability. Having the audio recording available to check transcript and translation accuracy if necessary, and an audit trail of all decisions taken during the study process, also enhanced dependability. Finally, during the analysis stage, we relied on investigator triangulation (having multiple researchers code independently) as an additional measure of enhancing credibility (Hanson et al., 2019).

3. Results

Overall, participants talked about their experiences in terms of five categories: economic resources, information and guidance, belonging, emotional support, and freedom.

3.1. Economic Resources

Participants tended to compare and contrast the material things they had in residential care and after leaving residential care. Nicollete, age 15, summarized her experience by saying, “When I was in [the] orphanage, life was easier….You are provided with everything you ask for.” This sentiment was shared by many participants, both reunified children and young adults. They spoke of having better access to “basic needs,” like food, shelter, and clothes, in residential care than outside residential care. Shreya, a reunified 14-year-old, explained, “At the CCI we could eat breakfast, lunch, and supper. At home, sometimes you can eat in the morning but no lunch; you are forced to stay without food the whole day until evening.” Judah, a 21-year-old who had lived in residential care from ages nine to 19, also shared, “At times at home you can go without, but at least in the orphanage every meal was being provided.” Dorcus, age 18, speaking about her current living situation after reunification, noted, “Shelter and place to sleep is a challenge. If there are no rains, I can say it’s better, but [if] it rains the house leaks.”

A minority of children had a different experience: Sandra, age 11, said that, “life was hard in the orphanage…[I] did not have clothes; [I] did not eat well or attend school regularly… life at home is better because [I] dress better, and [I] eat better now.”

Reunified children often talked about having their school fees paid for when they lived in residential care, and having time to focus on their studies, while at home, their enrollment was more precarious. Dorcus noted, “After leaving [the] CCI, life has been difficult… I get sent home from school due to lack of school fees,” an experience shared by many children in the study.

Paid school fees were not the only thing that enabled educational achievement: many also needed time and space to study. Multiple participants valued that studying was the only “job” they had in residential care. Reunified 17-year-old Mbigo explained:

While at the CCI,…I used to study at a nice place with enough light and when I had a question or I’m stuck during my studies, it was easier to get assistance from my fellow children…. At home…light for studying during the night is a problem since we use very small tin lamps or candles.… After school at the CCI, I was only expected to wash my school uniform and go for my evening classes after eating supper. At home, I’m required to do a lot of tiring chores…. Thus I don’t get enough time to study at home.

On the other hand, there were a few children who mentioned that they did not attend school regularly when they lived in the CCI, or that their educational needs were being met at home, but this was less common. One child, Ronaldo, noted, “Life in the CCI wasn’t good or bad. It was in between. In the CCI, [I] was attending school…now at home things haven’t changed because [I am] attending school and [I am] happy because now [I] was able to choose the school that [I wanted] to study in.”

Many young adults recounted that their education was paid for while in residential care. However, several mentioned that this support stopped after exiting residential care, and they could not find similar sources of funding for continuing onto higher education. Tanisha, 19, explained,

After finishing my Form 4 [the end of secondary school] in 2021, I’ve been staying at home with nothing to do. From my experience, most of the children who stayed at the orphanage, after completing their Form 4 examinations, most of them are not taken to any college or university, and most of them come out of Form 4 with good grades.

Similarly, 21-year-old Serena noted,

At home I have to fight for my life because no one will fight for me. No one was bothering to take me to the next level, now that I had finished Form 4, I was waiting to go to the next level like in college, but I just stayed at home.

Young adults who left residential care as older teenagers spoke about needing to “hustle” and find ways to meet their material needs after leaving. This sometimes proved stressful but could also be meaningful to them. For example, 21-year-old Peter said,

My life when I was in [the] children’s home, I can say it was somehow better, comfortable…everything was being provide[d] there. But now when you see me, after [I] am out from [the] children’s home, now life begins there, I now learn how to hustle, how to look for what I want. Nobody is providing for me. So it’s kind of encouraging somehow… As we grow, we learn on how to depend on ourselves.

Similarly, Johnte, age 27, said,

I am happy to be home because as I become my own responsibility, I can buy my own things by working hard, I do not depend on anybody to get my own things, just my hustle and my God. In the institution, I depend[ed] on the management hundred percent to get needs… When I joined college, I started hustling and making friends, it made my life straight for me not to be dependent on anybody.

Reunified children did not usually need to work to provide for their own needs after leaving residential care, but continued to rely upon adults, some of whom could not provide for them. However, in one case, 15-year-old Nicollete spoke of relying on her own money:

At times you are out of sanitary towels, and you go to the house mother [in the CCI] who will provide. But at times at home, my mother does not have money to buy…At home you have to look for your own money.

3.2. Information and Guidance

Young people valued the advice and information they received in residential care and in their families. Two main types of information were mentioned: receiving psychosocial support and advice (“guidance and counseling,” as some participants called it), and being taught useful skills that would serve them later in life (“life skills”).

Young people, both reunified children and young adults, noted how important it was to have adults helping to guide them in life. Ravey, a 22-year-old who had lived in residential care from ages eight to 20, explained,

Our [house-]mother and [house-]father in the orphanage used to talk to us about being responsible for everything… I thank God they helped me, that’s why I am who I am today. I follow the advice given to me especially at the orphanage, the advice has made us live a good life, and because outside the orphanage, you never know what happens.

Similarly, 21-year-old Serena said, “The people at the orphanage used to look after us well, and we got advice from our elders like when you are stressed, you can talk to the caregiver at the institution and they give you advice.”

One young woman, 24-year-old Apple, did not find such guidance available after leaving residential care. “There were people who were hired to come and motivate us [in residential care], they did guidance and counseling to us on how to move on with our life,” she said. “At home…there were no longer…motivation people. The motivation we get only from parents, but there is no one that is qualified.”

However, many of the reunified children, who returned home while still minors, received this information and guidance from their parents as well. Reunified 15-year-old Zuchu explained, “At home I feel happy because I’m with my parents…so they advise me on some of the things I was not told in the orphanage…we have time to sit down and have a talk on things that affect girls.” Similarly, reunified 16-year-old Njoroge said,

In the orphanage, we had loving and caring staff who acted as parents and guardians. At home life is more free and you are allowed to share talks with guardians. They encourage us on how to carry on with life and solve problems that comes across our life situations.

Finally, some participants also valued the advice and support they received from peers in residential care. As Njoroge put it, “Life in the orphanage was good because we were there as youths and agemates, and we could share things concerning our lives, and again everybody could support one another even through studies at night.” Being able to study with peers was very important to some children, and was a highlight of residential care. Reunified 14-year-old Messi, who spent almost his whole life in residential care, said, “Life is different at home because…sometimes I lack friends or someone who can help me when I’m stuck during my evening studies.” However, 13-year-old Margaret was happy that she did not lack this at home: “Whenever I want to study with my friend, I just ask for permission from my mother…. There is nothing that I dislike about my life at home after leaving the CCI.”

Some reunified children mentioned they had been taught skills like cooking and washing utensils in residential care. But more frequently, these participants talked about learning life skills after reunifying with family. Reunified 14-year-old Zenah explained, “While in the orphanage, we did not know how to cook because everything was being done for us, but because now we are at home, you can help your mother with house chores like cook[ing], fetch[ing] water, and fetching firewood.” Reunified child Mbosso, age 14, also noted that “at home, one learns to do some chores, which will otherwise help him in future.”

Young adults who left residential care on the cusp of adulthood did not mention this topic as often. Some implied they lacked the life skills they needed to adapt to independent living; Karisa, age 25, noted, “I didn’t know how to support myself…. Life was tough because here I came while not knowing anyone and I didn’t know where to start.” On the other hand, April, age 25, said, “In the orphanage…they taught us how to deal with the real life and how life was outside the home.”

3.3. Belonging

Another prominent theme was belonging: participants spoke of how they valued simply being with certain people, usually their biological family members. Just being near family, being able to spend time with them, and knowing them was spoken of as a valuable in of itself, rather than being a way to access other types of support (e.g., material resources or emotional support). The children who reunified with their families as minors talked about this particularly often. Afro, a reunified child aged 14, explained,

Life is good in the orphanages, but there are other things which are lacking there, like for example you will know little about your parents and you will know little about your people, but if you stay with your family, you will get to know about them more.

Zenah, a reunified child aged 14, who lived in residential care from ages 12 to 13, wrote on her activity paper: “At home we…enjoy stories with my brothers and sisters, my mother is very happy to see me closer to her, and it’s so precious to be with my parents and family.” Reunified 15-year-old Nicolette wrote, “At home I am happy because I’m with my mother beside me who give[s] guidance in working hard in school for my future, plenty of clothes to wear, and I see my family every day who can help me in my studies.” One relatively reticent participant, 13-year-old Maria, only shared one sentence about life at home: “See cousins and grandmother every day.” (“Does that make you happy or sad?” followed up the facilitator, to which she responded, “Happy.”)

The young adults tended to speak about lacking belonging support when they were in residential care. As Kaboom, age 27, said, “Living in the CCI, the institution, I missed my relatives for sure. I missed the bond, though I still had another bond in the institution, but I missed my family and relatives.” Some missed being able to visit with family. Swalha, age 23, said, “Even if your family or your friends come, sometimes you will be allowed to only greet them and go back to your room.” Diox, 27, found it upsetting when “sometimes the guardians could come and visit people at the institution, and you find out that you had no one to come and visit you.” Kithi, age 27, explained, “We were given only two days in a year to visit home,” so when he came home he “didn’t know where to go, my siblings ha[d] married and moved.”

Multiple young adults struggled with this lack of connection outside of residential care. Johnte, 27, recounted, “I was like a visitor in my own village. I did not know my family members…so I found it hard adapting to that kind of environment…and lost in my own home, because I did not know people.” Ravey, age 22, found that her extended family stopped accepting her once she stopped bringing orphanage-provided food to them. “When we were in the orphanage, they used to send us to visit our relatives once schools close, and life was easy then and the relatives used to welcome us…. We used to come with our own food, maize flour, and clothings,” while on the other hand, “after leaving the orphanage they saw us as burdens.” Twenty-four-year-old Apple’s difficulties were with the wider community:

When I was taken back to my family, love was only [from] my family, and the nearby children and the neighbors also used to discriminate [against] me. I was like a paper to them since I did not know them, I did not grow up with them, I was a stranger to them.

Many of these young adults felt a sense of belonging with peers in residential care, creating family-like relationships there. Ravey, 22, said, “We were being taught to stay together as a family, so there is no messing with others because we are one,” and Clara, 21, appreciated that “when I was in the institution I was also taught how to stay with others, how to care for others and also how to love each other as brother and sisters.” Chief, 34, liked bonding with children from all over Kenya: “Others were coming from other places, like we have some coming from the Kalenjin, some from Western, so we interacted like family.” Sometimes the transition from this lifestyle to independence was difficult for them. Arani, age 17, said, “when you are in an institution you feel like you are surrounded by [a] big family but after leaving you feel lonely.” Similarly, at home, 21-year-old Serena “was too bored [at home] because I was used to staying with so many people.”

3.4. Emotional Support

Young people experienced emotional support by being treated with love and care, or lacked emotional support by being mistreated or harshly punished.

Some reunified children spoke of the love they received in residential care. Maximilia, a 14-year-old reunified child, said, “you are loved and treated with care”…”[we] respected everyone, we were not bullied by our elders or other children.” Boss Lady, reunified child aged 15, also reflected, “At the orphanage my life was good. I was shown love.” However, some experienced harsh punishment. Fifteen-year-old reunified child Masi said the children were treated unfairly, recounting,

Mostly you would not find the security guards around. The kids would fight a lot and harm each other and then when the guards would come back, they would just put you down and start beating you even without being sure if you were the one fighting or the one who started the fight or not. But at home there is more order because if kids fight, the guardians will first try to get to the root of the issue and then give us a punishment accordingly.

Some children also said there was bullying in residential care. Reunified child Benzema, age 14, said,

Life was not good in the orphanage. When we were eating, other kids would come and take our food away by force. If we follow them, they will beat us and threaten us that if we reported them, we would see. But at home it is better because if anybody bullies me, I will tell my dad and he would stop it.

Young adults spoke of both emotional support and mistreatment in residential care. In terms of support, Apple, 24, shared, “While at the [children’s] center, life was really enjoyable. There was a lot of love and support from those who took care of me, they did not mistreat me.” Kasimba, age 26, whose parents passed away in a fire, was able to find a parental figure in residential care: “There was one matron who I am really thanking her, she used to care for me as my own mother.” They also spoke of mistreatment, discrimination, and discord. Twenty-two-year-old Ravey recounted being beaten “using water pipes” for infractions such as “when you fail your exam” or “when you fight with others.” Twenty-seven-year-old Johnte recalled bullying taking place: “There were people who liked…bullying young children… They want you [to] wash their clothes, [or] fetch water for them for shower[ing].”

Some young adults spoke of mistreatment in their families after leaving residential care as well. Cheetah, 20, said, “Life in the orphanage is…better… At home…people are struggling to provide, but when they do not get that, it leads to frustration, so…you start becoming a baggage to him or her, so whenever anything goes wrong at home I am direct to it.” While 25-year-old April remembered receiving “parental and guardian care” in residential care, she said that at home,

most of us are neglected by our relatives… My uncle…is a drunkard. At times he comes home drunk and beats you up, but when you tell… aunties about it, they do not care and even wish you should [go] back to the orphanage. This leads to depression.

3.5. Freedom

Finally, both reunified children and young adults spoke about how they experienced personal freedom, agency, and decision-making power over their own lives before and after leaving residential care. Some reunified children found life in residential care very rigid and felt they could not make decisions about how they spent their time or where they could go. For example, reunified 17-year-old Mbigo said, “At the CCI, there was no freedom of movement as it was difficult to be allowed to visit family members. We were not allowed to move outside the CCI compound. We could only move out of the compound when going to school and when we [were] coming back to the CCI from school.” Many of the children’s comments about this rigidity were related to food. Mercy, reunified child aged 16, said that “in the orphanage…you may miss food, and nobody makes a follow up for that. At home there is parental care and if you miss food, like for example you were not there when they were eating, some food will be kept for you to eat later.” Fifteen-year-old reunified child Ings also valued this, saying, “in terms of food, at home it is better [than in residential care] because I can eat at any time when I get hungry, and it is better because I can go to the farm and cut down our own banana and cook for myself if am very hungry.” Maximilia, reunified child aged 14, remarked that in residential care, “you cannot make your own desire or change the food you want to eat,” and additionally, while at home, “your opinion is listened to and respected…[and] you can rebuke error in the house rule or change if you feel it’s not right.” However, Ings also saw a negative side to freedom: “At home there is a high chance of getting involved with bad groups and becoming bad mannered.”

On the other hand, some children valued increased opportunities for leisure in residential care. Boss Lady, reunified child aged 15, recounted, “while [we] were in the orphanage…we were playing and we were free, unlike home, where you come back from school and bathe, wash your clothes, and do other things.” Dorcus, reunified child aged 18, also liked that in residential care “we would go to watch TV every evening” and 15-year-old reunified Harmonize enjoyed having “enough time to play and tell stories with other children.”

Young adults shared similar perspectives on lacking freedom of movement in residential care, but also noted that freedom could come at the cost of safety and security. Twenty-three-year-old Swalha explained:

While in the orphanage, there is no freedom to decide on things because most of the times you find that things have already been decided…While at home, however, most of the times you have to decide for yourself, it’s either you decide to go and hustle so that you eat, or you will have to sleep without eating. Freedom given at the orphanage is you are not allowed to go outside the gate [laughter]… But after leaving the orphanage, you have freedom, you can do everything, but this freedom after leaving the orphanage [means] one does not also have security.

Other young adults echoed that there were benefits and drawbacks to increased freedom outside residential care. Serena, age 21, said, “At home there is also too much freedom, you can just go and there is no limited time when one has to stay outside. Like in the case of the orphanage, you can go out but you are given a specific time so that you come back before that time.” Dagaza, 25, preferred his freedom, describing that in residential care, “life was good, everything provided, but no freedom, you need something and you are not given, or they stop you from getting it. So for me, life outside the CCI is better than at the CCI, [where] I get everything but you are not free.”

4. Discussion

This is one of the first studies to examine the experiences of children in Kenya who reunified with family as minors after living in residential care institutions for orphans and vulnerable children (also known as Charitable Children’s Institutions or CCIs). This study was able to gather the experiences of 70 young people who had left residential care institutions, both within the context of care reform efforts and due to “aging out” of residential care at the cusp of adulthood. When these participants were presented with an extremely broad, open-ended invitation to share their experiences in residential care and after leaving residential care, they tended to speak about the types of support they received or lacked in both settings, as well as the levels of freedom and personal agency they enjoyed. As the analysis was inductive in nature, the results likely represent the experiences and aspects of life that participants found most salient and meaningful to them (rather than experiences commonly found in the literature). Across the 12 focus groups, there was a great diversity of experiences, with participants mentioning positives and drawbacks of both life in residential care as well as life after leaving residential care.

The themes and findings from this study of three Kenyan counties largely corroborate results of other studies conducted in Kenya as well as other Sub-Saharan African nations. First, this study, like studies in Kenya and elsewhere found that young people had better access to economic resources in residential care than after they joined families, either through reunification during childhood or after leaving residential care as adults (Walakira et al., 2022; Frimpong-Manso, 2018; Mahuntse, 2015; James et al., 2017; Ucembe, 2013; Le Mat et al. 2017). In our study, the lack of material resources that reunified children brought up the most were food and school fees; these were also common themes in literature from around the region. Residential care institutions almost always have more material resources than the families that children join through reunification, although there are outliers (e.g., Johnson, 2011). This is likely the most pressing issue that reunification policy and practice must address, especially because it impacts children’s educational outcomes. If reunified children miss school due to not having school fees paid for, or do not have a time or place to study, it will inhibit their ability to access higher education and training that are necessary for steady employment and financial stability in adulthood. Reunification efforts in Kenya should ensure that the families reunifying with children from residential care can receive household economic strengthening services to mitigate this problem and interrupt the multigenerational cycle of poverty. For participants who left residential care as young adults, poverty was also a large issue in their lives; they struggled to get good jobs because they lacked family connections to employment or because they had not received sufficient skills training while in residential care, mirroring findings from other literature in Kenya (Ucembe, 2013; Le Mat et al. 2017). In this case, childhood reunification may actually help address this issue, because family reunification can provide children with the social networks that these young adults missed out on. To investigate this possibility, future research should follow up with individuals who reunified with family during childhood to investigate their adult outcomes related to poverty and employment.

Our study also revealed the importance of information and guidance in the lives of children who have experienced residential care, like in Le Mat et al. (2017). “Guidance and counseling,” as it is often called in Kenya, was something children and young adults in our study were often grateful for when they thought back to life in residential care. After leaving residential care, their access to this sort of guidance was mixed; referrals to supportive youth programs or peer-to-peer counseling could assist reunified children who lack this support. In our study, like in Walakira et al. (2022), reunification could give children a chance to develop life skills that they would not have if they stayed in residential care until adulthood, as the institutions tended to do everything for the children. Entering the adult world directly from residential care means fending for oneself with little safety net to fall back upon, in contrast with children who have the chance to develop life skills in the safety and support of childhood, mirroring findings from Ucembe (2013). The exception to this phenomenon was when institutions made a concerted effort to teach children life skills before they become adults, but unfortunately this type of programming was not necessarily the norm.

Belongingness and kinship ties were also revealed to be extremely important to young people. Like in other studies from Kenya (Gayapersad et al., 2019; Le Mat et al. 2017), our young adult participants who left care at adulthood spoke about lacking these connections and how hard it was to reestablish them as adults. On the other hand, reunified children did not have as many challenges reestablishing these ties, and spoke appreciatively of being able to live with their families again (similar to Walakira et al. [2022] and Mahuntse [2015]). There were also young people who experienced discrimination from their own families after leaving residential care, however. These findings emphasize, firstly, that having ties to one’s family and kin are very important to young people’s well-being in the long term, and secondly, how reunifying with family early (in childhood rather than adulthood) is helpful to establishing this sense of belonging. At the same time, the relationships that children and young people developed within their institution were also very important to them, and children often grieved these tries after reunification (Frimpong-Manso, 2018), suggesting that service providers should provide support to young people to help them stay in touch with peers and caregivers if they wish to do so.

Our study found that children and young adults reported mixed experiences of emotional support in residential care. Just as in other studies in Kenya (Morantz et al., 2013; Embleton et al., 2017; Gayapersad et al., 2019; Gray et al., 2015), some young people report having loving caregivers and supportive peers in institutions, while others report mistreatment and bullying. While literature from the region shows that both children and young adults may be mistreated by family and lack emotional support after leaving residential care (Gayapersad et al., 2019; Ucembe, 2013; Le Mat et al., 2017; Walakira et al., 2022; Frimpong-Manso, 2018), it is notable that in our sample, no reunified children receiving CTWWC services reported that they were unsafe or mistreated in their family placements. This may be because CTWWC’s supportive reunification services were effective at preventing mistreatment and only reunifying children with family members who passed social work assessments. However, there is also a chance that it is because children were reluctant to share experiences of mistreatment with facilitators they knew were connected to CTWWC. Reunification must not happen without assessment and follow-up that ensures children are receiving care and are not experiencing maltreatment, including emotional abuse or neglect and discrimination.

Finally, our study reaffirmed existing literature that has found that children and young people are often dissatisfied with the rigidity of life in residential care (Gayapersad et al., 2019; Roche, 2019; Walakira et al., 2022). Walakira et al. (2022) even found that reunified children in Uganda, like the reunified children in this study, particularly appreciated being able to decide what and when to eat after they left residential care. On the other hand, the young people in our study pointed out that this lack of freedom had an upside, which is more safety and security. And while reunified children technically had more freedom after leaving residential care, their family’s poverty sometimes also took away some of their freedom, as they were required to spend more time on tiring chores and had less time for playing or studying.

4.1. Implications in the Context of Child Rights

The wide diversity of experiences reported by participants underscores the idea that children can receive varied quality of care and support in both residential care institutions and in family settings (Braitstein, 2015). Some researchers have used this finding, i.e., that residential care institutions do not universally harm children in all domains of well-being, to argue that care reform should not occur and that investments in institutional care should continue (Braitstein, 2015; Whetten et al., 2014). However, we maintain that it is important to consider data related to the provision of residential care and family reunification within the wider context of investments in social services which strengthen families’ capacity to care for children and reflect key human rights principles.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child asserts that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration” in all actions concerning children (United Nations General Assembly, 1989, art. 3). Legal scholars worldwide have been wrestling with the “best interests” standard for decades, however. Van Krieken (2005) points out that in the context of divorce, courts’ custody decisions deal with “the balancing of competing concerns−short versus long-term interests? emotional versus material needs? religious upbringing versus formal education? urban versus rural environments?−and there is no objective way to determine how that balance is to be struck” (p. 32). There is also no objective way to weigh any benefits of residential care (e.g., children’s material needs being met) against its drawbacks (e.g., severed connections with kin and community of origin). Some have tried, however: Embleton et al. (2014) used a human rights framework to advocate for residential care in Kenya, because they found that children in residential care often enjoyed their rights to health, education, rest and leisure, and an adequate standard of living, among others. However, other rights must also be considered, such as the right to identity and nationality, right to use their own culture, language and religion, and the right to involvement in decisions affecting them. Indeed, while it is possible to invest in supportive social services that ensure that children enjoy all of their rights within strong families, it will never be possible for residential care institutions to adequately ensure children’s right to “be cared for by his or her parents” (United Nations General Assembly, 1989, art. 7) or to “grow up in a family environment” (United Nations General Assembly, 1989, pmbl.). This is why the UN Guidelines for Alternative Care assert that

Financial and material poverty, or conditions directly and uniquely imputable to such poverty, should never be the only justification for the removal of a child from parental care, for receiving a child into alternative care, or for preventing his/her reintegration, but should be seen as a signal for the need to provide appropriate support to the family.

(United Nations General Assembly, 2010, para. 15)

The diverse, sometimes even completely opposite, experiences reported in this study, and the lack of any obvious patterns related to participants’ demographic characteristics, underscore the importance of investing in case management services. A case management approach is highly individualized and relies on thorough assessments of each family’s assets and challenges across many domains (e.g., economic, educational, health, psychosocial, protection), rather than assumptions about individuals’ surface-level characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, family composition), to ensure that children receive supports after reunification that are tailored to their family’s unique needs. Indeed, the UN Guidelines for Alternative Care assert that “[a]ll decisions, initiatives and approaches…should be made on a case-by-case basis” (United Nations General Assembly, 2010, para. 6).

Just because the theory of care reform is supported by human rights principles does not mean that it is always implemented well enough to protect children’s best interests. The experiences of reunified children in this study indicate many areas in which greater preparation and support should be provided to children and families before, during and after reunification, including help with school fees and household economic assistance—both short-term and in more sustained approaches for income generation. The stories of young adults leaving residential care show the need for continued follow-up by social workers after reunification in families and communities, so that if a young person is not receiving adequate love and protection in their family, a more suitable family situation can be found for them, and so that support for community reintegration and independent living can be given. This individualized case management approach entails comprehensive individual assessment of needs and strengths, and planning these interventions and services while a child is still living in residential care, and only carrying out reunification after adequate assessments, service planning, and preparation of both children and caregivers (Cantwell et al., 2012). Proper investment in these approaches and services, including the funding and legislation needed to scale and sustain them, can ensure that across Kenya, all children can live in “the natural environment for the growth, well-being and protection of children”: a family (United Nations General Assembly, 2010, para. 3).

4.2. Limitations

There were also limitations to this study. In an ideal situation, our maximum variation sampling plan might contain more strata, for example, disability status, reason for entering residential care, and family composition. This is because adding sampling strata would have expanded focus group sizes or numbers; we could not sample more reunified children for focus groups because this activity was part of a larger study (see Neville et al., 2024), and involving too many families in too many study phases would have been burdensome and potentially led to reduced response rates. However, we hope that a diversity of experiences might have been captured within the sample incidentally. In addition, while including three counties is a strength of the study, as these three counties represent varied regions of the country, the findings may not be generalizable outside Kenya, and may have limited generalizability to the rest of Kenya, which contains 47 counties. Collecting additional data about participants, such as whether the young adults lived independently or went back to their families after leaving residential care, and the specific types of services each participant received upon leaving their institution, could have led to enhanced insights from and understanding of our data. Finally, the young adult participants were recruited through networks of adults who had left residential care that CTWWC had connections with, and these participants may have been systematically different than young people who have left residential care but did not choose to participate in such groups.

4.3. Conclusion and Recommendations

The data from this study have important implications for social work and alternative care policy and practice in Kenya. First, since young people have diverse experiences with residential care and reunification, individualized case management is crucial. This case management process must seek to understand both needs and vulnerabilities as well as strengths and assets of children and families. National governments and international organizations must invest in systems that enable family care for children, through effective case management, development of a range of family-based care models, and improved family strengthening services. In addition, young people leaving residential care are at high risk of not having their basic, material needs met, even if they are reunifying with family or community. Linking to life skills, job training, housing, ongoing education, mentoring and other services becomes critically important to building strong and secure independent lives. Many children enter residential care due to poverty-related reasons, so these reasons must be addressed in order for successful and sustainable reunification. For all children, reunification must include special attention towards the protective factors that make families stronger, not the least of which is household economic strengthening, direct financial assistance for families, and ensuring children’s school fees are paid. Economic strengthening should, whenever possible, be coupled with case management, supported access to services, parenting skills training, and community connections. Governmental and non-governmental actors must invest in providing a social safety net that ensures families’ short- and long-term economic stability, without ignoring other areas that may need strengthening within individual families. Financial initiatives could include cash transfers and direct economic assistance to families upon reunifying with their child, but also more sustainable income generation interventions such as microfinance, savings and loans groups, financial literacy, and business start-up assistance (Chaffin & Ellis, 2015). Most importantly, all efforts, whether they be in practice, policy making, or research, must consider, if not center, the voices of young people who have personally experienced residential care, other forms of alternative care, and family reunification (De Bruin Cardoso et al., 2020).

Highlights:

• The Kenyan Government supports the reunification of children from residential back to family.

• Many young people appreciate the material resources in residential care.

• Many also value their freedom and spending time with family after reunification.