Kenya has long earned regional and international acclaim for its progressive humanitarian and development leadership. With landmark milestones such as the Refugees Act 2021, the Refugees (General) Regulations 2024, and the pioneering Shirika Plan, the nation has clearly signaled a strategic shift from traditional encampment toward sustainable socio-economic inclusion for refugees and host communities.
Shedding light on this, a recent comprehensive Legislative and Policy Indexing study, conducted by the Refugee Consortium of Kenya (RCK) through the DANIDA Inclusive Refugee Response Programme, subjects to test the critical question of whether good policies on paper translate into better lives for the people they are intended to serve.
In Kakuma Refugee Camp and the Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement located in Turkana County, the real measure of refugee and host inclusion is not found in policy documents or speeches. It is experienced on the ground at local water points, inside hospital queues and within classrooms.
It is measured by whether a family can access sufficient water, whether a sick person can receive timely treatment, and whether a child can attend school without being held back by documentation or financial barriers. The Policy Index study highlights a vital takeaway; that Kenya’s policy framework has moved forward admirably, and the primary focus must now turn to strengthening implementation, financing, and institutional coordination by, for instance, aligning sector specific laws and county level implementation plans to keep pace with the primary refugee frameworks such as the Refugees Act 2021 and the Shirika Plan.
To ensure these visionary frameworks deliver their intended impact, we need to ask fundamental questions stemming from Kenya’s primary law which disapproves undermining the promise of inclusion.
Access to clean and safe water is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, yet operational hurdles occasionally test this guarantee in the refugee settlements. In the refugee camps, some households reportedly go for months without piped water. In some cases, residents resort to informal payments to water operators to obtain a service that should be accessible fairly and affordably.
For refugees, water may be free, but free does not necessarily mean adequate. A household of seven people could receive only three jerricans expected to last three days. Meanwhile, members of the host community complain about inadequate access and the financial burden associated with obtaining water. The problem is compounded by vandalism of water infrastructure, reduced donor funding, and declining pumping hours. The report notes that pumping has fallen from 18 hours to 12 hours a day, further reducing water availability.
This exposes the danger of Kenya’s transition from humanitarian funded services to government-led systems. If the transition is not properly financed, regulated and coordinated, communities that have depended on humanitarian support could find themselves caught between a declining humanitarian system and a government system that is not yet ready to take over.
Healthcare presents an equally serious warning. Only eight health facilities serve approximately 310,000 refugees and the host population in both camps. Some facilities operate only between 8am and 3pm, while long queues and delays in laboratory results can prevent patients from receiving medical services.
For refugees to access health services outside the camps, they need to have a manifest. In the event they lack documentation, the only option they have are the health facilities at the reception centre. As such, refugees have the perception that host communities have better access to health care since they can move freely to seek specialised services which is not the case for the refugees.
Turkana County is in phase 3 of Taifa Care in alignment with the Social Health Authority (SHA). SHA registration rates were reported to be low among both refugee and host communities in Turkana, and those registered struggle to pay premiums due to the high poverty index. Low awareness of the registration process has led to the low SHA registration rates. It was noted that there is a significant number of local people without national identification cards.
The low SHA registration compounded the under-financing of health services at the facility-level with research indicating that there is little information to locals on why they needed to register. The information gap is a challenge in integrating refugees into the county’s health system as many refugees are unaware of key policies, including SHA.
Moreover, due to insufficient funding to the health programmes and systems, the refugee populations put a strain on the health system. Regulation 19 of the Social Health Insurance General Regulations does not explicitly direct the inclusion of non-citizen residents in government-paid indigent household premiums.
UNHCR continues to finance health bills for refugees who lack documentation and need to access specialised services, providing a backstop against exclusion. However, this inclusivity is contingent on continued humanitarian financing rather than legal entitlement, creating fragility in service continuity. In the refugee camps, the doctor to patient consultation ratio is 1:130 and in some cases, such as during a surge in malaria infections, the ratio is 1:150.
The education sector presents both progress and a warning. There has been significant movement towards converting refugee schools into public schools, with the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) already posting head teachers to some institutions. Yet refugee teachers remain largely excluded from formal employment because they are not recognised by the TSC.
In both Kakuma and Kalobeyei, 55 learning centres serve approximately 73,901 learners while 673 of the 770 teachers are refugee teachers who are not registered by TSC.
The numbers tell a story of a system under enormous pressure. Teacher-to-student ratios can reach 1:100 to 1:150 in refugee schools and as high as 1:300 in some Kalobeyei primary schools. This is not merely an administrative problem. It is a question of the quality of education that Kenya is providing to displaced children.
The Policy Indexing report raises a bigger question: What does refugee inclusion actually mean if refugees are included in policy but excluded from the institutions responsible for delivering services? The answer must go beyond legislation. The report recommends that national government amends sector-specific laws to explicitly recognise refugees, while strengthening coordination between it and counties, humanitarian agencies and development partners.
Mr Ambasu is Field Coordinator, RCK. Mr Kuyoh is Manager, Research and Knowledge Management, RCK
