Journal of Global Social Work Practice, Volume 4, Number 2, November/December 2011
|
Home-Based Care as a Model for Social Development This paper reviews research related to best care options for vulnerable children and their families in Africa and makes a case presentation of one international best practice from a social development perspective. Buckner Kenya responds to multiple household needs with a range of services including a Home-Based Care Program that offers merry-go-round funding, a version of a rotating savings and credit association (ROSCA), for the development of microenterprises. The case is presented in light of the social and economic development potential of the program. Programs such as this one will be shown to protect orphans and vulnerable children by promoting social and economic development for families and their communities. Keywords: Africa; Kenya; Buckner Kenya; social development; economic development; community development; home-based care; rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCA); microenterprise; orphans and vulnerable children Contents Introduction and Literature Review Case Study Design and Findings Introduction and Literature Review The Situation Facing Vulnerable Children and Families The impact of extreme poverty and the AIDS pandemic is felt in African families where death, separation of children from their parents, loss of income, and the need for child protection and care are on the rise. Preventable diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis claim the lives of approximately 30,000 children every day (World Health Organization, 2008). The HIV/AIDS pandemic, in particular, is unprecedented in the enormity of its impact on children, families, and communities in Sub-Saharan Africa (United Nations' Children's Fund (UNICEF), UNAIDS, & USAID, 2004, 2006). AIDS has claimed almost 20 million lives worldwide and an estimated 40 million people are currently living with the illness (UNICEFet al., 2006). In the wake of this humanitarian crisis, children, already one of the most vulnerable segments of society, have been forced to bear much of the brunt of the disease. It is estimated that sub-Saharan Africa is home to as many as 50 million orphaned children, and more than a third will have lost one or both parents to AIDS, according to a biennial report published by UNICEF, UNAIDS and USAID, entitled "Children on the Brink" (2004). In light of the growing AIDS pandemic in Sub-Saharan Africa, UNICEF, UNAIDS, and USAID (2001) worked together to develop 12 principles to guide programming for vulnerable children worldwide. UNICEF (2004) continued to develop these principles and published five key strategies in The Framework for the Protection, Care and Support of Orphans and Vulnerable Children Living in a World with HIV/AIDS. Finally, the Firelight Foundation published the Faith to Action Initiative's From Faith to Action, a guide for faith-based organizations built on the input of more than two dozen international agencies. This guide, endorsed by 23 international organizations including UNICEF, highlights "Twelve Strategies for Supporting Orphaned and Vulnerable Children" (Olsen, Knight, & Foster, 2006). As we consider how to care for children deeply affected by the global AIDS pandemic and extreme poverty, we know we must respond in ways that demonstrate best practices and practices that are in the best interest of children while strengthening their families. This article builds on common understandings about the risks of institutional settings (e.g., orphanages) and highlights a community-based social development model that provides better forms of care for orphans, vulnerable children, and their families in central Africa (Singletary, 2007). For the purposes of this article, the term orphan includes children who have lost one or both parents. Most international definitions of orphan include children who have lost one parent but still have a living parent. As a result, millions of orphans benefit from efforts that strengthen families (Tolfree, 1995; Williamson, 1994). The goal of family and community-based models of care is for orphans and vulnerable children to be supported by familiar adults (as far as possible) and to remain within their own communities. Family and community-based care programs, particularly those with an economic component, seek to strengthen the familial households where vulnerable children live so that they may provide adequately for the children's care and protection. From these programs, 5 key strategies from The Framework for the Protection, Care and Support of Orphans and Vulnerable Children have been identified to improve the safety and well-being of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), to protect their rights, and to provide for their family's social and economic needs (Olson, Knight, & Foster, 2008). Examples of the strategies include focusing on the most vulnerable children not only those orphaned by HIV/AIDS, strengthening the ability of caregivers to earn livelihoods, providing material assistance to those who are too old or ill to work, and strengthening the capacity of families and communities to care for children. This paper presents elements from a case study of a Home-Based Care Program offered by Buckner International in rural Kenya that protects orphans and vulnerable children by demonstrating these strategies through the promotion of social and economic development for families of OVC. Approaches to Orphan Care The historical response for many humanitarian organizations that engage in caring for OVC has been to build orphanages. Orphanages, in whatever form, whether planned as children's homes or child villages, whether named residential setting or institutional setting, often appear at first glance to provide a promising way to care for large numbers of children in an efficient and effective manner. However, the long-term results are not so promising (Dunn, Jareg, & Webb, 2003; Viner & Taylor, 2005; Zeanah, Smyke, Koga, & Carlson, 2005). Institutional forms of care involve large numbers of children living in an artificial setting which effectively detaches them not only from their own immediate and extended family and community of origin, but also from meaningful interaction with the community in which the institution is located. Even institutions that implement household models, using house parents remove children from their communities and families. This creates an alternative culture that has no relevance to the lives of the children once they are old enough to leave. Most residential models address the symptoms by seeking to 'rescue' orphans, but unlike development-based approaches, they do little or nothing in the way of addressing the root causes of why children are orphaned or abandoned. What would it look like for social workers to respond to the call to care of orphans in a manner that is attentive to complex social problems, respectful of African culture, and seeks to engage in social and economic development for impoverished families and children? Home-based care in a community is not only more likely to meet the developmental needs of OVC, but also more likely to equip them with the knowledge and skills required for independent life in their communities. By remaining within their own families and communities, children retain a sense of belonging and identity and also benefit from the continuing support of social networks. Furthermore, these approaches benefit from being potentially far less expensive than institutional care and hence more sustainable (Tolfree, 1995, 2005). Foundations for Family and Community-Based Models of Care Family and community-based models of care best serve to meet the needs of children affected by HIV/AIDS and extreme poverty in Africa and other international contexts (Williamson, 1994). Such approaches rely upon keeping children with a family setting (e.g. a living parent, kinship care, foster care) rather than in children's homes, children's villages, orphanages, and large institutions. These models provide economic, educational, health care, and social support for families and communities. Provision of care that is in the best interest of a child most often occurs when children remain in the care of their immediate or extended families (recognized as their key safety net) and when community capacity is developed in order to strengthen vulnerable children and their families (UNICEF et al., 2006). The goal of family and community-based models of care is for orphans and vulnerable children to be supported by familiar adults (as far as possible) and to remain within their own communities. First, programs of this type seek to strengthen the familial households where these children live so that they may provide adequately for their care, protection, and education. Examples include schools, daycare/childcare, and community development centers. Alternative care is the second option being encouraged by agencies and advocates alike and this includes local foster care, kinship care, or adoption. Institutional care is seen only as a last resort for these children, particularly the most vulnerable, yet even then it is suggested that residential care be provided on a short-term basis (Dunn etal., 2003; Tolfree, 1995, 2005; UNICEF et al., 2004; Williamson, 2004). In many ways, the support is consistent with what is valued in the United States (Barth, 2002; Crenson, 1998). Americans go to great lengths to preserve families, even when a child loses a parent. Great efforts are made to prevent a child from being institutionalized. African parents and leaders feel the same way (IATT, 2008). Community responses vary in the scope and scale of their services. The services are offered by community-based organizations with voluntary membership, local non-governmental organizations employing paid staff, as well as churches, religious groups and networks. They include clinics and nutrition programs, child care and educational programs, income generating activities, extended family supports, orphan care committees, and respite-care programs for caregiving adults (Williamson, 2004). Responding to the needs of OVC requires comprehensive efforts to improve their safety and well-being, protect their rights, and provide for their basic needs. Social development represents a practice perspective that integrates efforts to improve social welfare with an emphasis on economic opportunity. Home-Based Care (HBC) seeks to reduce the burden on households that provide care to OVC and families affected by HIV. Typically HBC workers make home visits, provide case management, and secure resources such as food and medicine for families and children (Olson, Knight, & Foster, 2006). Most programs in this category seek to reduce the risk that OVC will be neglected, abandoned, or placed in orphanages. The HBC program offered by Buckner Kenya provides care and relief for families through provision of a food supplement, school fees/supplies and making connections for necessary medical care, but they take a step further by engaging in social and economic development with families and their communities. Following a discussion of social development, we will turn our attention to the details of this HBC program. The Response of Social Development Social development acknowledges the importance of social factors in ensuring that community development improves human well-being through holistic processes that integrate social and economic factors. Chitereka (2009) writes: "It is widely accepted that a social development paradigm is both appropriate and necessary for the African context, and social development has significantly influenced social work theory, policy and practice on the continent" (p. 152). He adds, "Although the curative or remedial approach which hitherto has been the major form of intervention is still needed, social workers need to adopt the social development paradigm if they are to effectively confront the various problems currently facing the continent. Social development leads to an improvement to people's quality of life." (p. 154). Development not only influences social theories, policies and practice, but also provides a foundation from which programs can successfully serve the people who need them. So, what is social development? This approach to development "enhances solidarity and promotes social and economic well-being" (Midgley & Livermore, 2005, p. 165). Paiva's (1977) early definition states, "the goal and substance of social development is the welfare of the people, as determined by the people themselves, and the consequent creation or alteration of institutions so as to create a capacity for meeting human needs at all levels (especially those at the lower levels) and for improving the quality of human relationships and relationships between people and social institutions" (p. 329). Omer (1979) defined social development as "a goal and a process that aims to achieve an integrated, balanced and unified (social and economic) development of society" (p. 15). Midgley (1995) defines social development as "a process of planned change designed to promote the well-being of the population as a whole in conjunction with a dynamic process of economic development" (p. 25). Midgley & Sherraden (2000) state that social development is a practice perspective that "stands in contrast with income support or social service approaches to practice" (p. 435). It seeks to transcend the debates about government involvement in institutional social welfare and promotes programs that enhance capacities of people to participate in the economy rather than programs that provide social services. The Economics of Social Development Social workers and other community practitioners often engage poor communities with an eye toward the social rather than the economic side of the issues at hand. Social development has, in the past, emphasized nonmaterial well-being with a focus on actualization, participation, and conscientization (Midgley, 1997). Community solidarity, however, is a concept of social development that links the material and nonmaterial goals of this perspective. Midgley (1995) insists on the inclusion of economic factors to promote a community's material well-being through increased incomes and enhanced standards of living as well as its non-material well-being. Rubin and Sherraden (2005) describe social development as a form of "humane capitalism" (p. 475) that addresses poverty through social and economic forces. Using the broad category of community economic and social development (CESD), they suggest that these approaches "work to provide the poor with the very assets that enable them to escape from cycles of poverty" (p. 476). CESD integrates social and economic development, encourages social change and strengthens families by building capacity and expanding social capital, and building assets. To promote economic development, Rubin and Sherraden (2005) describe how "government agencies, foundations, and sometimes banks make available a lump sum loan or grant to a community group, which sets up a revolving loan fund" (p. 478). One formal approach to revolving funding for social development is called Rotating Savings and Credit Associations (ROSCAs). They were first described in Indonesia by Clifford Geertz in 1962 and are now commonly referred to as merry-go-rounds. ROSCAs allow participating members and/or supporting organizations to make contributions to a shared savings fund, a pool, at various times and in varying amounts (Ardener & Burman, 1995; Geertz, 1962). The pool money is then given to one member on a rotating basis until everyone has received the lump sum. Rutherford (1999) describes this example in Nairobi: Every day, day-in day-out, each [member] saves 100 shillings. So each day a total of 1,500 shillings (about $40) is saved. Each day one of the fifteen women takes the full 1,500 shillings. After each of the fifteen women has taken the 'prize' in turn - which takes fifteen days - the cycle starts again. Mary was 'serial number 7' in the cycle. So seven days after the start of the first cycle, and then every fifteen days, she gets 1,500 shillings in return for putting in 100 shillings each and everyday. Mary told me she had been in this merry-go-round with the same fellow-members for two and half years. Many people participate in ROSCAs throughout Kenya, especially women, and many participate in multiple ROSCAs through schools, churches, NGOs and other small groups and organizations (Gugerty, 2007). Buckner, as an NGO, provides the capital to the families they serve through a ROSCA, a merry-go-round approach, that finances the entrepreneurial activities of the families in their programs. These activities include microenterprises such as selling eggs, produce, or meat. This case study of the Buckner's Home-based Care Program presents their approach to the use of a ROSCA for supporting small businesses among families in their rural context in Western Kenya. Case Study Design and Findings Case studies offer an empirical research design that answers why and how questions about contemporary events utilizing in-depth investigation of a specific phenomenon in its context (Yin, 2009). The sources of data for this case study include participant observation, namely the participation of two staff members and the observation of a researcher who collaborated on the project. This case study is theoretical in nature given that the case is presented in light of its application of social development principles. The data for this study comes first hand from the two participants who designed and implemented the case being investigated, while the third researcher conducted an evaluability study of Buckner Kenya programs, which considers best practices for supporting orphans and vulnerable children (Mears, Singletary, & Rogers, 2011; Olson et al., 2008). From that study and our own participation, we offer this case study of Buckner Kenya's work at Seed of Hope in Kitale to provide some background for what social and economic development mean in this context. Data sources include participation in and observation of administration and service delivery in the programs offered by Buckner Kenya throughout their 10 year history. In addition, 11 ninety-minute face-to-face interviews were conducted with the staff of Buckner Kenya in Spring 2010 by the third researcher. Each researcher assisted with the data analysis, including constant comparison of the data and contribution to this final case report (Rodwell, 1998). We now turn to the case report findings of Buckner's Home-Based Care Program and ways it functions as a model of social and economic development. Buckner's Home Based Care as Social Development For over a century, Buckner International has served orphans and vulnerable children in the United States and for the past decade their services have expanded internationally to 16 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Buckner is a faith-based international NGO that serves OVC and their families through international orphanage support, humanitarian aid, short-term missions, foster care and adoption. Buckner programs offer a range of social services such as community schools, clinics, water wells, and support groups for men, women, and children. Examples of topics addressed by these informal support groups include living with HIV and serving as foster parents. Buckner International provides residential care in Kenya and other settings, but their services are transitioning to focus on community-based care in most contexts, such as Kitale, Kenya, the focus of this study. While their official mission statement does not include development, more and more resources have been invested in economic and social development programs in recent years. In 2002, Buckner Kenya, was formed as an NGO in Kenya (affiliated with Buckner International) for the purposes of providing health care, nutritional support, education, and social support for OVC in the context of family and community. Buckner Kenya assumed responsibility for a residential care facility, a home-based care program, a K-6th grade school, a health clinic, and a church. Immediately, plans were made to expand the school to run from preschool to 8th grade, to expand to another village in Kitale with a community center and school, and to implement a kinship/foster care program with social support services as a key component throughout the region. These services included food supplements, access to health care and education, and income generation opportunities for the foster families. Buckner Kenya identifies justice for children as core to their mission and sees the future of care centered around family and community-based care. The Seed of Hope Home-Based Care Program (HBC) that Buckner Kenya operates is an innovative social development program organized by the staff and client families of this rural village near Kitale, Kenya. The HBC program promotes small businesses or entrepreneurial microenterprise projects, and at the same time offers medical care and a food supplement for the families, and education for the children. Currently, HBC serves two populations, including eight adolescents who have attended the Seed of Hope School (that Buckner administers in Kitale) and who now live in the community after their parents have died of HIV/AIDS and twelve families with HIV+ members who are involved in merry-go-round support, or ROSCA, funding for microenterprise projects (see Merry-Go-Round Support). History of Buckner Kenya and Seed of Hope In 2000, a German social entrepreneur established Seed of Hope (SOH) as an orphanage in Liyavo, a village outside of Kitale Town in Western Kenya. The vision of this founder was to care for the orphans and destitute young children in the area. By 2003, about 20 children were living in institutional care. Enrollment reached its peak in 2007 with a capacity of 70 children, but the costs were high and the administration had become burdensome. In addition, needs of the children overwhelmed the staff of the small organization. In response, the programs of SOH expanded to include a school and a Home-Based Care Program with home visits and financial support for families affected by HIV/AIDS. At the same time, Seed of Hope founder realized the costs were rising and not sustainable. The organization sought funding partners and in 2007 became a program site for Buckner Kenya. In the early years of recruiting children to live in the orphanage, local officials from public schools were presenting other dire situations to the SOH staff and founder. These were mainly children of single parents, poor families, and malnourished children. In certain incidents, the families were homeless - such families depended on working on other people's farms in exchange for living in a small hut. In the face of the HIV epidemic, families were commonly too ill to work for a living. These situations presented overwhelming needs that caught the attention of school officials. Children from these families could not be admitted into the orphanage because they were past the admission age. At some point, the home reached its capacity and there was no room for additional children. This called for an alternative solution that could be responsive to the needs that were being encountered among families in the community surrounding the orphanage. In 2005, the idea of home-based care offered a timely answer to this problem that was gradually incorporated into SOH orphan care programs. The HBC program began by offering in-home support to people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS, malnourished children, homeless families and single mothers from economically impoverished backgrounds in an attempt to help them meet basic needs related to health, nutrition and education. The intention was a shift to services that were more preventative in nature, seeking to strengthen families and give them hope for a future despite the difficulties they were going through. To this end, the families were to receive monthly financial aid to meet needs related to nutrition, health care, and education. The founder's vision for HBC was generous, and while prevention was his goal, the focus was on relief rather than development. Furthermore, there were no specific policies on how long the monthly financial or educational support would be provided. Also, there was no uniformity in the distribution of financial support as it was offered in an informal and inconsistent manner. While there were 19 HBC families being served in 2006; by 2007, there were only 3. In addition, there were no clear records of the amounts of financial support being provided. In 2008, Buckner Kenya began to manage the SOH programs and made home visits, as part of the HBC, to evaluate and identify current and prior families and the help they needed. In part, due to the continued involvement and funding of the founder, the program continued in an improved manner based on assessed needs. Improvements were made with practices that were in the best interest of the child, and new procedures were implemented to assure consistency in care. However, little thought was given to sustainability for the families or the program. In 2008, 12 families referred by local officials would receive financial support, all at a consistent rate, with 7 also receiving educational support. However, there were many more families in need of similar supports rooted in a social development perspective. A year later in 2009, the main question that remained unanswered was how to move the families as well as the program toward sustainability. The monthly support the families received was too little to enable them do anything substantial. In addition, there remained the possibility of support being terminated in the future if the founder withdrew funding. What happens when the support is withdrawn? Do these families have the capacity to stand on their own? These questions drove the current management to further refine the strategy while maintaining the founding vision of giving hope to these families. The possibilities were discussed with families in order to gather their input for a redesign of the program. The families expressed a great need for help in earning steady income. In addition, they expressed a need to develop and encourage a spirit of responsibility, unity, sacrifice and support for one another. Buckner Kenya made a shift from relief efforts that served families in an inconsistent manner to a social development strategy based on support services enhanced by microeconomic practices. This provided a more holistic approach to caring for children and families. Buckner Kenya is a case management example that utilizes two specific development efforts of the program: merry-go-round funding and table banking. These social development efforts emphasize economic well-being for families, sustainability for the organization, and demonstrate innovative approaches to enhance the livelihood of families. Merry-Go-Round Support While Buckner was continuing HBC and other services to children and families in the Liyavo region of Kitale, it was also developing a foster care/kinship care program across town in the Cherangani region of Kitale. Foster families in Cherangani suggested and implemented a merry-go-round financial support program, or ROSCA, in 2007. In 2008, Buckner staff encouraged HBC families in Liyavo to do the same thing: to invest a portion of the monthly financial support that Buckner provides each family into a common merry-go-round account that would be allocated to one family each month. The allocation was to be used as an investment in economic activity. In 2009, each of the 12 families received approximately 1,000 shillings (about $12) to be deposited into the merry-go-round account each month. One family each month was then given the lump sum of 12,000 shillings, but had to decide how they would use it to improve their economic situation. The advantage of merry-go-round funding is that more capital is received at one time to invest in a family business. The investment can help members begin or strengthen a small informal business or do some small-scale farming. To add to the accountability, all members meet together each month with a trained social worker who teaches basic entrepreneurial skills. One month prior to receiving the financial support, the family visits with the social worker to discuss the use of the investment with guiding questions such as: What business activities will you engage in? How will financial records of expenses and income be kept? How will you deal with the unexpected challenges? Then, after the investment, a closing follow up and monitoring is offered and any challenges are noted. This follow-up continues monthly throughout the year after they receive their allocation. In the second year, steps are taken to prepare to exit from the program to give room for a new group of families as funding allows. June 2010 marked the end of the first year of service with families having made the following investments: 5 families purchased dairy heifers, 2 families planted approximately an acre each of maize, 3 families bought supplies for roadside sales (of fruits and vegetables, and fish), 1 family opened a salon, and 1 family bought a bicycle to provide rides. Table Banking In the course of the first year in the merry-go-round component of the HBC program, families have been introduced to another new concept that will be further developed in the coming years, commonly referred to as table banking. Merry-go-round support refers to a ROSCA; table banking is more similar to an Accumulating Savings & Credit Association (ASCA) (Grant & Allen, 2002; Rutherford, 1999). In a ROSCA, each member invests the same amount and each month the same total amount is taken out by one member (e.g. five members put in $5/wk, one member receives the full $25 every five weeks. In an ASCA, each member invests the same amount, but members borrow from the fund as needed, often allowing the investment to accumulate over time. In the table banking approach used by Buckner Kenya, families give to the group 1 share, an equivalent of $1 US, at each monthly meeting. Each family's share is collected and put on the table for sale at 10% interest. Interested and able persons within the group buy the shares and use them as capital for their small businesses. The principal amount of capital is then brought back to the group after one month and sold again while the family keeps any profit they have earned. After buying the money, members are encouraged to invest it in their businesses. At the end of the year, members share dividends but the shares remain within the group and they continue building on them again. This accumulation of shares allows for a growth in capital not seen in the merry-go-round approach. The initial success of this program has led participants to register the table bank, or ASCA, with the Kenyan Ministry of Social Services as a community-based self-help group. The group has rules to abide by including payment of penalties for defaulters. The idea behind table banking is for members to expand the microfinance practice so they can buy shares, or borrow money, at low interest rates from the table rather than from the difficult to access and utilize local banks. While there is excitement about the financial opportunity found in both the merry-go-round (ROSCA) and table bank (ASCA) programs, the authors want to conclude by reviewing specific strategies for social development and highlight ways that Buckner Kenya is practicing these principles. In addition, the authors use this theoretical discussion of strategies to highlight the role of international social workers interested in practicing social development. Strategies for Social Development Evident in Buckner's HBC In making sense of the Buckner Kenya efforts to promote these social and economic development activities, we discuss them in light of Midgley's (1995) three social development strategies. The first type, the enterprise approach, places primary responsibility upon the individual while the second, a communitarian approach, stresses the role of local communities in fostering social development. The third type, the statist approach, relies on the role of governmental interventions and is the subject of most social development historically; it is the least relevant to the efforts of this NGO. We will, however, discuss a combination of the first two strategies that we see at work at Buckner Kenya. For Midgley, this combination of the strengths results in what he describes as an institutional strategy that seeks to combine communitarian and enterprise elements. An institutional perspective in social development is comprehensive and pragmatic, emphasizing an organizational capacity to foster development with holistic benefits to community members (Midgley, 1995). These enterprise and community components are at the core of this discussion. We then turn to the role a social worker plays in social development strategies, within Buckner and beyond. The Enterprise Component of Institutional Social Development Based on the values of modern capitalistic economics, the enterprise approach to social development assumes that when individuals strive to promote their own welfare, all of society is enhanced. Typically least popular among social workers, this approach places less emphasis on intervening in social affairs that affect individuals. While not as extreme as a pure laissez-faire approach to the economy, this approach to development suggests that helping people become self-reliant participants in the market economy is central to economic success. Individual development, largely through microenterprise and other small business activity, was shown to be central to the Kenyan economy in a study of the "informal sector of small enterprises" conducted in the 1960s and 1970s and is consistent with practices in Kenya today. In 1972, the United Nations' International Labor Organization (Sabot, 1973; Plant, 1983) identified a small proportion of the Kenyan labor force in regular wage employment. The rest of the population was not idle, but rather was participating in a large informal sector of microenterprise and small-scale businesses. Backyard repair shops, street vendors, front room hotels and restaurants, and open-air market stalls provided income informally to millions of Kenyans. The size of the informal economy is estimated to be between 50% and 95% in Kenya, similar to other developing nations. A pastor who is involved in microenterprise development believes that 90% of the population still depends on this informal sector (Edward Simiyu, personal communication, 21 May 2010). Microenterprise "offers promising opportunities for individuals to apply their entrepreneurial skills, generate income, and enhance their welfare" (Midgley, 1995, p. 108). In the International Labor Organization's report, Sabot (1973) noted, "the bulk of employment in the informal sector, far from being only marginally productive, is economically efficient and profit making" (p. 5). The programs of Buckner Kenya support this informal sector and multiple families who participate in it. One example of a family who benefits greatly through participation in the informal sector is that of a widowed step-mother who supports her foster children through what she is able to grow on a small piece of land she owns. In addition, she has added an indoor crop of mushrooms that she is able to sell in the local market of her rural village. Furthermore, she started to produce a simple dishwashing liquid that she sells in recycled water bottles. She doesn't own a small business in any formal sense, but through simple home-based production is able to provide for her family. She learned the skills for growing mushrooms at a community workshop, pointing to the value of a communitarian approach, but her enterprising spirit has made her microenterprise ventures a success. Seasonal labor supplements subsistence farming in many rural regions, but the microenterprise activities of an informal economy also serve to support households. Buckner Kenya helps participants in the HBC program to be entrepreneurial - to use their financial support in merry-go-round funding to promote informal small businesses selling milk, eggs, meat, maize, and a variety of fruits and vegetables (and at least one person selling fungi!) - mostly at roadsides and out of their homes. In addition, one family has a hair salon and another operates a boda boda, or bicycle taxi. Buckner Kenya provides direct support for entrepreneurial opportunities, but does so as part of community efforts to strengthen the capacity of families. The Communitarian Approach of Institutional Social Development Buckner's approach to social development values an enterprise strategy, but only does so in the context of strengthening community. A communitarian approach, likewise, does not promote an extreme notion of common ownership as an economic norm, but recognizes the value of shared resources in encouraging "collaboration with others to promote their own interests within community settings" (Midgley, 1995, p. 114). Community development has been a central strategy in social development as seen in the historical role that religious organizations played in using local villagers to build churches, schools, and hospitals. The role of community leaders in fostering economic activity is the purpose of this communitarian strategy. In addition, material community development outcomes such as schools, and nonmaterial outcomes result from the social participation and empowerment of community members working together. Community identity is strengthened as people work together. Consciousness-raising results when individuals share common stories together of their struggles and successes. Economic outcomes are not always clearly demonstrated in community development practice; social development, with its clear commitment to economic objectives, seeks to correct this. Buckner Kenya programs provide these material and nonmaterial supports with the hopes of moving from community development to social and economic development by including explicit economic goals for families and, in Kenyan tradition, communities of families. After a year, a portion of the capital available through the merry-go-round in Kitale was used to create a farming cooperative to purchase chickens that are able to provide eggs for additional income to the families. Buckner Kenya strengthens individual families, but also offers an economic practice whereby families use their investment to earn income that is shared among the entire group participating in the merry-go-round. While there are material benefits to group members, families meet monthly to discuss business ideas and make decisions about ROSCA/ASCA funding. These meetings function as support groups where families receive nonmaterial benefits as well. They receive the financial capital they need to succeed in business, but they invest and receive social capital as they discuss hardships and life lessons learned from the others in the group. Some members have felt like outcasts in their villages due to the role of HIV in their lives. Now, they are starting to feel accepted as a result of their economic activities, and acquired financial and social skills. They are becoming active participants in their communities by learning the importance of saving and budgeting. They are feeling empowered by starting a business and realizing their strengths, since they feel that they have something to offer their families and community. The families are learning basic social and networking skills. Finally, they are beginning to receive recognition as valued community members and leaders. These material and nonmaterial benefits reflect, going well beyond, the program's outcome objectives that have recently begun to be measured as reflected in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Program Outcome Objectives
Table 1. Summary of Program Outcome Objectives The social and economic outcomes of this program are clear and they reflect both enterprise and community social development strategies. As a result, Buckner exemplifies the institutional model of social development. Role of Social Worker Evident in Buckner's HBC A question from earlier in the article asks about the role of social work in these efforts: "What would it look like for social workers to respond to the call to care of orphans in a manner that is attentive to the complex social problems, respectful of African culture, and seeks to engage in social and economic development for impoverished families and children?" It is the authors' opinion that the Home-Based Care program of Buckner Kenya in Kitale supports families and children in such a manner. Buckner Kenya has few professionally trained social workers on staff. However, they are seeking to strengthen a social work presence. To this end, social work interns studying advanced community practice from the Baylor University School of Social Work have served at this program in a teaching and learning capacity where they are able to underscore a social work role. Social workers have always sought to help economically disadvantaged individuals and families through promoting self-sufficiency and empowerment to increase economic participation and social well-being (Midgley & Conley, 2010; Midgley, 1995). Social work support for community functioning often comes through practices of community development. Community development has led to the creation of material outcomes such as community centers, schools, clinics, roads, water projects and job development and nonmaterial outcomes that include self-worth, dignity, and improved social relationships. At Buckner Kenya, social workers contribute to several such outcomes in the HBC program. They use community practice skills such as planning and organization, and they support families who participate in the merry-go-round and table banking models with critical-thinking and decision-making skills related to investing their merry-go-round or table bank capital and what microenterprises might be profitable. In a study of social work in Africa, Chitereka (2009) quotes the founder of an Ethiopian NGO, "If you have to solve the problems of people, you have to work for development as well as for social work... People have to be self-autonomous, they have to help themselves, and that is development. So for me, social work is another side of development" (p. 151). This reflection indicates the value placed on social work skills that empower and promote the strengths of families using a development perspective. In such contexts, social workers have to understand the social context, including its economic issues, of families. Here, social work practice requires an understanding of the local economic market as well as the skills and resources a family possesses to participate in such a market. In Kitale, Buckner staff helped an older sibling with a motorcycle to identify a taxi route to earn income providing transportation to villagers. They also helped a widow with land to identify crops that could be used by her family and sold for profit. Each time a family's situation improved through a merry-go-round investment in a family business, a broad range of social work skills can be seen and the role of social development can be made clear. With Buckner Kenya, this is clear not only in the lives of the families served, but in the achievement of the organization's program goals. Whether through the building of financial skills among clients, the increased effectiveness in handling money, making appropriate financial decisions or the strengthening of relationships among other families served, the objectives in Table 1 are being accomplished and the social work role in social and economic development is enhanced. The first few years of activity suggest Buckner Kenya and the families they serve are well on their way to demonstrating the effectiveness of social and economic development in impacting the lives of children and families made vulnerable by HIV (Mears, Singletary, & Rogers, 2010). In part, this is true because of the institutional approach of Buckner Kenya that fosters the synthesis of different social development strategies. Individual and community development goals are incorporated into Buckner programs in Kitale, Kenya. While some programs focus on the child welfare goals of Buckner Kenya, the merry-go-round and table banking components are committed to strengthening the livelihood of families in the HBC program. One institutional concept of development is when an organization promotes the capacity of individuals to participate in the economy by earning an improved wage. To this end, Buckner seeks to strengthen families by helping them engage in best practices such as activities that promote economic livelihood. The modern emphasis on large-scale industrial development of wage employment has not increased to the scale needed in rural and developing regions. The social development strategies employed in this setting, however, promote improved economic participation through an emphasis on small-scale enterprises. Buckner's efforts reflect a social development perspective that promotes creative entrepreneurial activities generating material and nonmaterial supports to families in the community they serve. These activities provide material resources allowing the families to better address health care, nutrition, and education. At the same time, families have shown their commitment to one another by offering encouragement, empowerment, and advice and by simply supporting each other's businesses whenever possible. These social and economic outcomes are increasingly common in other settings where microloans are shown to be effective, but this model ties the effects of microenterprise to the service of orphans and vulnerable children as well as their families and communities. It is our hope that the services offered in this program are able to be replicated in other settings where orphans and vulnerable children are being served. In addition, we hope that programs such as this one will be shown to reduce the risk that children will be neglected, abandoned, or placed in orphanages while at the same time promoting the social and economic development of families and their communities. Ardener, S. & Burman, S. (1995). Money-go-rounds: The importance of rotating savings and credit associations for women. Oxford, UK: Berg. Barth, R.P. (2002). Institutions vs. foster homes: The empirical base for the second century of debate. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina School of Social Work, Jordan Institute for Families. Chitereka, C. (2009). Social work practice in a developing context: The case of Africa. Advances in Social Work, 10(2), 144-156. Crenson, M. A. (1998). Building the invisible orphanage: A prehistory of the American welfare system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Dunn, A., Jareg, A. & Webb, D. (2003). A last resort: The growing concern about children in residential care. International Save the Children Alliance. London, UK: Save the Children Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.savethechildren.net/alliance/resources/last_res.pdf Geertz, C. (1962). The rotating credit association: A "middle rung" in development. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 10(3), 241-263. Grant, W. & Allen, H. (2002). CARE's Mata Matsu Dubara (Women on the Move) Program in Niger. Journal of Microfinance, 4(2), 189-216. Gugerty, M. K. (2007). You can't save alone: Commitment in rotating savings and credit associations in Kenya. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 55(2), 251-282. Inter-Agency Task Team (IATT) on Children and HIV and AIDS Working Group on National Plans of Action. (2008, August). National responses for children affected by AIDS: Review of progress and lessons learned. Retrieved from http://www.crin.org/docs/National_Response_For_Children_Affected_by_AIDS_August%202008%20.pdf target="blank Sabot, R. (1973). Employment, incomes, and equality: A strategy for increasing productive employment in Kenya. World Development, 1(6), 78-80. Mears, M., Singletary, J., & Rogers, R. (2011). Strategies for supporting orphans and vulnerable children: An exploratory study of an exemplary model of care in Kenya. Paper submitted for publication. Midgley, J. (1995). Social development: The development perspective in social welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Midgley, J. (1997). Social welfare in a global context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Midgley, J. (1999). Social development in social work: Learning from global dialogue. In C. Ramanathan & R. Links (Eds.), All our futures: Principles & resources for social work practice in a global era (pp. 193- 205). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Midgley, J. & Livermore, M. (1998). Social capital and local economic development: Implications for a new century. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(3), 573-585. Midgley, J. & Sherraden, M. (2000). The social development perspective in social policy. In J. Midgley, M. Tracy & M. Livermore (Eds.), The handbook of social policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Olson, K., Knight, Z. S., & Foster, G. (2008). A resource for faith-based groups and donors seeking to help children and families affected by HIV/AIDS. From faith to action: Strengthening family and community care for orphans and vulnerable children in Sub-Saharan Africa. Retrieved from http://www.fireflight.org/pdf/fromfaithtoaction-ed1.pdf Omer, S. (1979). Social development. International Social Work, 22(3), 11-26. Paiva, J. F. X. (1977). A conception of social development. Social Service Review, 51(2), 327-336. Plant, R. (1983, January). A short guide to the ILO World Employment Programme. Geneva, CH: International Labor Organization Rodwell, S. (1998). Internationalization by indigenization of education management development? Some issues of cross-cultural transfer. Comparative Education, 34(1), 41-54. Rubin, H. & Sherraden, M.S. (2005). Community economic and social development. In M. Weil, The handbook of community practice. (pp. 475-493). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rutherford, S. (1999). The Poor and their money: An essay about financial services for poor people. University of Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management. Singletary, J. (2007). Community and family models of care for orphans and vulnerable children in Africa. Social Work and Christianity, 34(3), 298-316 Tolfree, D. (1995). Roofs and roots: The care of separated children in the developing world. Hampshire, UK: Arena. Tolfree, D. (2005). Facing the crisis: Supporting children through positive care options. London, UK: Save the Children Fund. UNICEF, UNAIDS, & USAID. (2001). Principles to guide programming for orphans and other vulnerable children. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/lifeskills/files/PrinciplestoGuideProgrammingforOrphansandOtherVulnerableChildren.doc UNICEF, UNAIDS, & USAID. (2004). The framework for the protection, care and support of orphans and vulnerable children living in a world with HIV and AIDS. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/aids/files/Framework_English.pdf UNICEF, UNAIDS, & USAID.. (2006). Africa's orphaned and vulnerable generations: Children affected by AIDS. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Africas_Orphaned_and_Vulnerable_Generations_Children_Affected_by_AIDS.pdf UNICEF, UNAIDS, & USAID. (2004). Children on the brink: A joint report on orphan estimates and program strategies. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/cob_layout6-013.pdf Viner, R., & Taylor, B. (2005). Adult health and social outcomes of children who have been in public care: Population-based study. Pediatrics 115 (4), 894-899. Williamson, J. (2004). A family is for a lifetime. USAID Office of HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from http://allafrica.com/download/resource/main/main/idatcs/00010585:e55ff62e9d18115021f6a702f0533f5b.pdf World Bank. (2005). Empowering people by transforming institutions: Social development in World Bank operations. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Social Development Department. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1164181732580/SDStrategy-Full.pdf World Health Organization. (2008). Data and statistics. World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/research/en Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zeanah, C., Smyke, A., Koga, S., & Carlson, E. (2005). Attachment in institutionalized and community children in Romania. Child Development, 76(5), 10-15. Dickson Masindano is the Director of Buckner Kenya. He earned a B.A. at University of Nairobi and his M.A. in Counseling from Hardin-Simmons University. Mr. Masindano returned home to Nairobi to charter this affiliate of Buckner International in 2001, where he began the first nationally recognized foster care program in Kenya. Rosemary Wasila serves as the Regional Director of Buckner Kenya. Mrs. Wasila earned her B.A. and an M.A. in Educational Psychology from Moi University in Eldoret Kenya. She began Buckner's foster care programs in the rural regions of Busia and Kitale. Mrs. Wasila currently oversees more than a dozen programs serving children and families in Kitale, Kenya. Jon Singletary is the Associate Dean for Baccalaureate Studies in the Baylor School of Social Work and the Diana R. Garland Endowed Chair of Child and Family Studies. He has served as field instructor for student social work interns in Kenya for Buckner and has facilitated service learning mission trips in Sub-Saharan Africa for the past decade. |