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