by Mwangi Mwaura

Social scientists and policymakers alike have shown that youth empowerment programmes can act as a catalyst to social inclusion and consequently help reduce youth violence. However, data from research done by the Centre for Human Rights Policy Studies (CHRIPS) and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) shows that the top-down conceptualization and implementation of the Kenya Youth Empowerment and Opportunities Project (KYEOP) missed to capture youths at ‘most risk’ of joining crime. Youth currently enrolled in KYEOP have expressed their disappointment over the planning process which did not include their views. In interviews held by CHRIPS, chiefs from various locations tasked with implementing the project had opposing views stating the issues affecting the youth were adequately addressed in the design despite their exclusion from the planning phase. Such sentiments reveal initial exclusion of youths in designing programmes that are which study participants described as not tailored to how young people consume information. Most learnt of the programme through links shared on WhatsApp and Facebook, they however questioned their legitimacy due to the rise of fake news on social media. Enrollment to the programme was also communicated through the chief’s camp. This failed to take into account the fear and animosity which most have towards the government and its institutions.

Youth from Kondele and Kawangware stated that the chief’s camp was not a place they just walk into unless they have pressing matters. Furthermore, the programme’s aim to capture youths from crime and violence becomes unattainable as they are already profiled as ‘bad guys’ and are likely to keep away from the office which is a symbol of governmental authority. with children, to afford time to constantly visit the premises.

The age requirement of 18-29 and the Identification card requirement further excludes certain youths from applying. Firstly, many youths, especially from informal settlements, often experience numerous challenges while applying as they lack the required supporting documents. Additionally, communities such as the Kenyan Somali youths are constantly discriminated against in the ID acquisition process. Exclusion further trickles down to the actualization stages. First the monthly stipend of KES. 6,000 considering the economic situation is too small. Most youths explained the need to travel to the training centres or to their mastercrafts which costs them more than the stipend. Moreover, the stipend was seen as too small in comparison to what youths already in crime ‘earn’ thus ultimately failing to capture them from violence and crime as envisioned.

As an added benefit the youths qualified for a business grant which was however only geared towards supporting already established enterprises. KYEOP beneficiaries, most of whom were happy with the soft and hard skills gained, were excited to put them into practice but ended up disappointed with the grant’s specificity. This then begs the question why train them on starting a business and not support them to overcome the next big hurdle of starting one, capital.

In summation, the study exposed the exclusion of youths in the planning and actualization of the program. The study’s analysis further affirms that for proper inclusion the involved youths need to experience an environment of safety, closeness and appreciation while they engage in activities that are meaningful to their individual growth and helps them experience and exercise power. Above all, better understanding of youths as a diverse group is needed to avoid sieving certain youths from enjoying full benefits of social inclusion, youth programmes such as KYEOP promise.

Mwangi Mwaura is a research intern at the Centre for Human Rights and Policy Studies. This opinion piece was published in the Star Newspaper on 21 st October 2021