The Refugee Coalition of East Africa (RefCEA) is a refugee-led community organization based in Nairobi, Kenya to advocate for and improve the livelihoods of LGBTQI refugees who have fled their home countries due to homophobic violence. Although recognized by international law, this community still faces intersecting stigmas of being a refugee and being a sexual and/or gender minority in their host country of Kenya. Like all refugees, they have significant barriers to stable employment and receive little if any financial support which results in extreme poverty, and frequent food or housing insecurity. Furthermore, as members of a highly stigmatized group living in the slum areas on the outskirts of Nairobi, violence, harassment, and discrimination from the surrounding community is commonplace. These factors contribute to very poor mental health as well as feelings of despair and hopelessness.
With over 650 known LGBTQI refugees in Kenya, with several hundred more in other East African countries, and due to prevalent homophobia in East and Central Africa, many LGBTQI individuals are forced to flee their homes, seeking safety and anonymity. According to a 2017 study out of Oxford University of MSM cis men and transgender women, the unemployment rate for recent migrants and refugees in this population is greater than 50%, while the average number of dependents of these same individuals is nearly 14 per person (Smith & Clark, 2017). In 2014, a local civil society organization launched Utunzi, a web-based tool, to report and view experiences of violence and discrimination by sexual and/or gender minorities, including refugees. Reports have increased sharply in recent years, from 17 to 136 per 1000 monthly (NGLHRC, 2020). HOYMAS, a health clinic geared towards LGBTQI and sex workers, has noted extreme disparities in depression reported by refugees they serve (Gathiawa, 2019).
In response to these findings, RefCEA conducted an experiment in 2018 called the SPARK Fund (Sustainable Programs for Autonomous Refugees in Kenya). This fund provided financial support of refugees struggling with economic insecurity within LGBTQI communities in East Africa to facilitate sustainable, autonomous sources of income. The aim is to help these individuals get out of the cycle of poverty through their own direction and ingenuity. Funding will be delivered through online promotion of these business ventur es to RefCEA's global supporter base under the auspices of All Out, a UK-based human rights organization.
Successful applicants were paired with experienced local business and tribal leaders who will provide guidance and support to further develop their business. Furthermore, participants received training on business development and personal goal setting. Through these small cash grants, paired with training and mentorship, RefCEA hoped to foster self-reliance, alleviate poverty, reduce stigma, and ultimately improve mental health of participants.
THEORY OF CHANGE
The intersecting stigmas of being refugee and LGBTQI in a homophobic foreign land leaves few opportunities for employment, resulting in poverty, depression, and despair. By providing small cash grants of $2000 to start a small business, in addition to goal setting workshops and mentor guidance, participants will be able to form relationships with tribal leaders and elevate their community respect, which, in turn, reduces stigma. With focus on defined business and personal goals, a modest income can be generated which reduces food/housing insecurity, contributing to improved mental health. Entrepreneur skills further enhance mental health by suggesting a more positive future.
This theory of change is loosely based on Bourdieu’s Social Capital Theory (1979). He conceptualized social capital as ‘‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’’. Economic (money), cultural (education, taste) and social (networks, power) are forms of capital that are transferable and interchangeable. Elevating one form of capital can influence acquisition of others. Elevated capital increases opportunities for improved health outcomes (Link & Phalen, 1995).
SIMILAR APPROACHES
Although this model has been successfully demonstrated in the arena of international development, the use of behavioral economics and microenterprise initiatives are relatively new to public health. Jennings Mayo-Wilson (2020) has shown microenterprise development is an effective tool for HIV prevention among Black urban youth in Baltimore. Tingey, et al (2020) found significant reductions in depression and reported violence for participants of an entrepreneurship intervention RCT among Native American Youth. In Uganda, Bermudez (2018) showed interventions addressing economic insecurity bolstered health outcomes, such as HIV viral suppression, among vulnerable young adults living in low resource environments. Finally, the SPARK Fund is very similar to Project Come-up, a program based on cash grants for young adults of color.
STAKEHOLDERS
The stakeholders for this intervention are LGBTQI refugees in Nairobi, RefCEA and their refugee leadership, community and tribal leaders, civil society organizations in Nairobi advocating for the LGBTQI or refugee community (such as HOYMAS and Utunzi), fiscal sponsor All Out, and funders who primarily consist of individual donors from around the world.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Specific programmatic activities and indicators are detailed in the attached Appendices. Following successful completion of the program, RefCEA hopes to show reduced depression, reduced hunger and homelessness, and reduced community harassment and violence. Success of the program will be gauged on the following questions:
TARGET POPULATION
The target population for this group is young sexual and/or gender minority refugees or asylum seekers who have been living within 50km of Nairobi for at least 6 months and show moderate to severe clinical depression. Participants must be registered and mandated by UNHCR and not receiving stipends more than 5,000 Kenyan shillings (approximately $50 USD) monthly, nor can they be scheduled for resettlement within the next 12 months. Qualification to participate is open to anymore meeting the aforementioned criteria and have prepared a suitable business idea covering points defined in the Call for Proposals posted on the RefCEA website.
EVALUATION DESIGN
Following successful completion of the program, RefCEA hopes to show reduced depression, reduced hunger and homelessness, and reduced community harassment and violence. Success of the program will be gauged on the following questions:
What percentage of intervention participants report a reduction of severe to moderate depression after completing the compared to those that did not receive the intervention?
To what extent did the program improve housing security of intervention participants compared to those that did not receive the intervention?
To what degree does receiving the intervention result in reduced incidents of discrimination from the surrounding community compared to those in communities that did not receive the intervention?
The evaluation design for this project is to gauge the effectiveness of the SPARK Fund program. Therefore, a pre/post design with two comparison groups will be employed. The first comparison group will receive unrestricted one-time cash grants of an equal amount as the intervention group, but not the business and goal setting workshops, nor will they be required to start a business. The second comparison group will act as a control and receive no cash or training; simply the pre/post testing. This design will allow a more complete understanding if the observed change can be attributed to simply the infusion of funds or if a more systemic change occurs when the cash is paired with business mentorship and personal goal setting. Having an intervention group plus two comparison groups should minimize threats to validity. However, selection bias will still be a concern. Participants who have the motivation and drive to submit a business plan and start a business may be more likely to succeed even in the absence of the program.
Due to financial and resource constraints, the evaluation is not going to be terribly rigorous because it will be conducted by an Evaluation Team (ET) of two RefCEA staff who are not formally trained in public health or evaluation, under the remote guidance of a trained Lead Evaluator (LE). The ET will be trained by the Lead Evaluator to follow a standard script with a checklist to record progress on indicators. Some components, such as the discrimination and violence reporting, will be conducted by a separate organization who will be providing data to the Lead Evaluator. Both could be considered limitations. Additionally, determining causality, particularly for objective 3, may be a challenge as violence and discrimination are community-level indicators, based on individual-level intervention.
The feasibility of this evaluation design is moderately high, as it only adds pre/post testing to a program that has previously been implemented. Although time and money are always an issue, with proper training and guidance, two dedicated evaluation staff will conduct the necessary assessments upon program enrollment and completion.
The evaluation team in Nairobi will work remotely with the lead evaluator to develop the pre/post test assessments and scripts for administration. The survey tools will be web-based, and the evaluation team will use mobile tablets to conduct assessments. The evaluation will be conducted in three waves (indicated in the shaded boxes in Figure 2): pre-test at enrollment; halfway through the program at Month 6; and post-test at the completion of the program. The intervention group and both comparison groups will all receive the same assessments.
WORK PLAN
The Lead Evaluator will work remotely with 2 Evaluation Team members who will be gathering the data. Following initial assessments, the collected data will be reviewed by the LE to ensure accuracy and completeness. During the evaluation cycles, the LE and ET will be in daily contact and the ET will be the primary liaison with the program staff. Each evaluation cycle will be followed by a detailed debrief meeting with program staff, evaluation team, and the lead evaluator. Outside of the evaluation cycles, the LE will compile secondary source data from program partner organizations and cross-check it for discrepancies with the data collected by the ET.
Evaluation Questions
What percentage of intervention participants report a reduction of severe to moderate depression after completing the compared to those that did not receive the intervention?
To what extent did the program improve housing security of intervention participants compared to those that did not receive the intervention?
To what degree does receiving the intervention result in reduced incidents of discrimination from the surrounding community compared to those in communities that did not receive the intervention?
Process
Process #1 Objective: 4 business and personal development workshops conducted for intervention participants during the first month
Indicator: # of workshops performed
Source: Determined by facilitator logs
Process #2 Objective: Local tribal leaders having met with 90% intervention participants and program staff by end of third month
Indicator: # of tribal leader meetings conducted with intervention participants and program staff
Source: Determined by program staff agendas
Short-Term Outcomes
ST Outcome #1 Objective: Within first 30 days, 75% of intervention participants understand basic business principles
Indicator: # of intervention participants who understand basic business principles
Source: Determined by knowledge test following workshops
ST Outcome #2 Objective: By Month 4, 75% local tribal leaders have increased awareness of intervention participants and business initiatives
Indicator: % of tribal leaders who indicate awareness of intervention participant businesses
Source: Determined by program staff call or visitation logs
Medium-Term Outcomes
MT Outcome #1 Objective: Participants reporting severe to moderate depression will have reduced 50% within 12 months
Indicator: # of participants <=14 score on PHQ9
Source: Determined by PHQ9 test
MT Outcome #2 Objective: Tribal leaders influence community for 50% reduction of reported experiences of stigma and discrimination towards participants
Indicator: # reported incidents of violence or discrimination
Source: Determined by third party data collection in Utunzi
Long-Term Outcomes
LT Outcome #1 Objective: Two years following program launch, community discrimination and violence has reduced
Indicator: % change in violence or discrimination
Source: Determined by reports to Utunzi tracking website, police reports, RefCEA records