Thematic Learning Programme:
Mainstreaming sexual diversity in SRHR and HIV programmes of seven NGOs in Kenya
Report of baseline study
May 2012
Isaac K. Nyamongo – Institute of Anthropology, Gender and African Studies, University of Nairobi
Winny Koster – Centre for Social Science and Global Health, University of Amsterdam
Eva Vernooij – Centre for Social Science and Global Health, University of Amsterdam
Acknowledgements
We want to thank the management and staff of the seven participating organizations – the Centre for the Study of Adolescence (CSA), Africa Alive!, Support Activities in Poverty Eradication and Health (SAIPEH), the Great Lakes University of Kisumu (GLUK), NairoBits Trust, the African Medical and Research Foundation Kenya Country Office (AMREF KCO), and the Network of Adolescents and Youth of Africa (NAYA) – for their enthusiastic input and willingness to share their views and experiences in this study. Specifically we would like to acknowledge the assistance of CSA for coordinating the research activities, and thank Albert Obbuyi and Martin Omondi for their technical support. Furthermore, we would like to thank the LGBT activist organizations – the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya (GALCK) and the Nyanza Rift Valley and Western Kenya Coalition (NYARWEK) – for their valuable input in designing the research tools and their enthusiastic commitment throughout the research process. The contributions of Benson Maina and Daniel Peter Onyango have been instrumental in the design of the study, and W. Onyango-Ouma and Jared Siso made very valuable contributions to tools development. Finally, we greatly appreciate the work of the data collectors Ronnie Okoth and Delphin Nyabuti, and data entry by Ronnie Okoth.
Acronyms
AA Africa Alive!
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
AMREF KCO African Medical and Research Foundation Kenya Country Office
CSA Centre for the Study of Adolescence
DRH Division of Reproductive Health
GALCK Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya
GLUK Great Lakes University of Kisumu
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HR Human Resources
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IEC Information, Education, and Communication materials
IDI In-Depth Interview
LGBT(IQ) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, (Intersex, Queer/Questioning)
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSM Men who have Sex with Men
NASCOP National AIDS & STI Control Programme
NAYA Network of Adolescents and Youth of Africa
NCDP National Council for Population and Development
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NYARWEK Nyanza Rift Valley and Western Kenya Coalition
PFB Population Reference Bureau
PO Partner Organization
SAIPEH Support Activities In Poverty Eradication and Health
SD Sexual Diversity
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SRHR Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
TLP Thematic Learning Programme
UNGASS United Nations General Assembly Special Session
UoN University of Nairobi
UvA Universiteit van Amsterdam [University of Amsterdam]
WPF World Population Foundation
WSW Women who have Sex with Women
Executive summary
This baseline report describes the development and outcomes of the first step of the Thematic Learning Programme (TLP) ‘Mainstreaming Sexual Diversity in SRHR and HIV Programmes’ in seven SRHR Alliance partners in Kenya – the Centre for the Study of Adolescence (CSA), Africa Alive!, Support Activities in Poverty Eradication and Health (SAIPEH), the Great Lakes University of Kisumu (GLUK), NairoBits Trust, the African Medical and Research Foundation Kenya Country Office (AMREF KCO), and the Network of Adolescents and Youth of Africa (NAYA) – which are all indigenous not-for-profit non-governmental organizations operating in Kenya.
Study objectives and methods
The objectives of the baseline study were to: (i) assess the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of staff related to sexual diversity (SD) and the mainstreaming of sexual diversity in NGOs’ regular programme activities; (ii) assess how sexual diversity is addressed within the organizations in terms of policies, perceptions, regulations, awareness raising for staff, and plans for such (internal mainstreaming); (iii) assess how sexual diversity is addressed in programmes for target groups (external mainstreaming); (iv) identify existing information, education, and communication (IEC) materials on sexuality and sexual diversity within NGOs; (v) identify the institutional linkages with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, (intersex, queer or questioning) (LGBT(IQ)) organizations and individuals; and (vi) explore NGOs’ advocacy and lobbying activities related to sexual diversity.
Data were collected at three levels in each of the seven organizations. First, data were collected from fifty-five staff members (56.4% male and 43.6% female) working in the organizations using a questionnaire developed through consultation with the partner organizations. The second and third levels of data gathering focused on the organizational level and the institutional frameworks respectively. In order to collect the relevant information for these levels, an in-depth interview (IDI) topic guide was developed and administered to seven senior management level staff members representing the organizations.
Main findings
Knowledge and attitudes
A high proportion of staff are aware of the existence of LGBT people. Their knowledge of these various groups ranged from 68.5% (knowledge of women having sexual relations with women and men) to 100% (knowledge of women having sexual relations with women). More than half of staff members reported that they personally know someone who is lesbian (50.9%), while close to half (49.1%) know someone who is gay. On the other hand, only about one-third of the staff know someone who is transgender (35.8%) or bisexual (30.9%). More women than men know a person who is gay, lesbian, or transgender.
A majority of the respondents reported that the generally held opinions on same-sex relations in Kenya are negative. The most frequently mentioned opinions were that it is ‘unacceptable,’ ‘un-African,’ ‘unnatural,’ and ‘illegal.’ Overall, four in five of the respondents reported that their religion and culture are intolerant of same-sex relations; a similar proportion of respondents agreed with the position of their culture or religion. Nonetheless, some participants reported that same-sex relations are ‘tolerated.’ Respondents revealed that same-sex relations are also viewed by society as ‘unnatural’ from a procreation standpoint; the purpose of sex is seen as procreation and therefore society considers only sexual activities that result in pregnancy as desirable. Deviating from this norm is seen as ‘killing society.’
Three management level respondents perceived their NGO’s staff members as generally having a positive attitude towards LGBT people. Reasons given for this perception related to staff members’ previous experience of working with LGBT groups, or because staff appear accommodating to SD issues.
(Anticipated) behaviour
About two-fifths of the staff respondents said that they would go on as usual if a friend told them that they are gay or lesbian. More respondents would stop their friendship with a male gay friend (21.8%) than with a female lesbian friend (11.1%). Whether the friend is of the same sex as the respondent seemed to influence their reaction: more females (17.4%) than males (6.4%) would stop their relationship with a lesbian friend, and fewer men (38.7%) than women (45.9%) would continue their relationship with a male gay friend. However, if a close friend of the same sex would ask them to be in an intimate relationship, the majority of respondents would disapprove (58.5%), about a quarter (26.4%) would act in a neutral or positive way, while 15.1% would feel uncomfortable. Men generally had more negative reactions than women.
More than half of the respondents indicated that they would have no problems working with an LGBT person in the same organization. The greatest tolerance (more than two-thirds) was for working with a lesbian person in the same organization, followed by working with a transgender person (61.1%), and a bisexual person (60%). More women than men indicated that they would not have a problem working with an LGBT person in the same organization. Nonetheless, staff would be less comfortable sharing an office with an LGBT person. Men felt most uncomfortable with a gay person, women with a lesbian.
Internal mainstreaming
None of the NGOs have specific policies addressing sexual diversity. Most of them reported that LGBT issues fall under other organizational policies such as the human resources policy, the HIV/AIDS workplace policy, the gender policy, and the child protection policy. Three organizations have plans for a sexual diversity policy while the remaining four have no immediate plans. Barriers for developing a sexual diversity policy were mainly related to cultural and religious values, which are negative towards sexual diversity, and/or because of some staff or board members being against such policies.
No NGO has specific regulations to protect the privacy and rights of LGBT staff. However, it was reported that any infringement on the rights of LGBT staff would be met with consequences, including in some cases dismissal from duty, for infringing on the rights or discrimination of any staff.
Three NGOs have held awareness raising session(s) on LGBT groups for staff. The content addressed attitude change and management of LGBT issues as well as integrating LGBT issues into programmes, though done in ways that are not seen to advocate for sexual diversity. The other four NGOs have held no such awareness raising sessions. One of these NGOs does have plans for training their staff, while the other does not have immediate plans. Even though most NGOs are open to having awareness raising for staff, the managers foresee problems, mostly related to the negative attitudes of staff.
Eight staff members reported having received specific LGBT related training in the workplace; forty-four indicated that they had acquired knowledge on sexual diversity issues in another way. Overall, the main source of information was through personal/individual sources such as books and other media. Some obtained information through interaction with friends, LGBT persons, or at school.
External mainstreaming
No NGO had specific programmes targeting LGBT persons. Four NGOs thought that specific programmes for or addressing LGBT issues could be relevant for their organizations; the reasons given for this mainly related to the presence of LGBT persons in target groups, risks of HIV transmission, and general lack of knowledge about such issues. For various reasons three NGOs thought that special programmes would not be relevant, mainly because of stigma surrounding sexual diversity and due to LGBT people not disclosing their sexual orientation.
Five NGOs address LGBT issues in some of their regular programmes, as managers in the IDIs explained. They also reported that the programmes and messages are adjusted to different target groups.
All NGOs said that they acknowledge that LGBT people exist and that NGOs have to take care of their welfare, just as with any other target group. They acknowledged various opportunities to develop such programmes, including the fact that increasing attention is being paid to LGBT issues by the Kenyan government, such as with the National Curriculum on Sexuality and Sexual Health Training for Health Service Providers, produced by the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation and Ministry of Medical Services, and the National AIDS and STI Control Programme’s (NASCOP) focus on reducing HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM). Identified threats and barriers to mainstreaming LGBT issues were: many LGBT people are not willing to disclose their orientation; lack of tolerance in communities for LGBT people; and lack of awareness and skills of staff to deal with these issues. Nonetheless, 81% of the staff respondents felt it was important to address sexual diversity within their programmes.
Only one NGO manager thought that staff are sufficiently equipped to deal with sexual diversity issues in their programmes. The remaining managers considered their staff unequipped and unskilled, because they had not been sufficiently sensitized on SD issues. Even the two NGOs which are already addressing SD issues in their programmes said that to some extent their staff are not sufficiently equipped. Fourteen staff members reported coming across issues of sexual diversity in their work; only three felt skilled to handle these issues.
Information, education, and communication (IEC) materials
Three NGOs have some IEC materials on sexual diversity. None of the NGOs provide information on sexual diversity through their website. Four of the surveyed organizations have social networks (websites/forums) where some discussion of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) issues, including sexual diversity, may take place. The general feeling among the staff in these four organizations is that it would be important to actively engage in such discussions using these social networks, with the help of a dedicated moderator, as this would provide a good avenue for discussion of sexual diversity issues.
Institutional linkages
Three NGOs already have (sufficient) linkages with LGBT organizations. The remainder indicated that they either have plans for (more) linkages with LGBT organizations or would like to have them. Two NGOs do lobbying work and advocacy for LGBT issues.
Recommendations
The study findings indicate a number of critical areas that should be addressed by the partner organizations. The areas that might require specific attention are summarized below.
· Partner organizations should endeavour to address the knowledge and attitudes of staff members towards LGBT persons, as a way of increasing staff accommodation of related issues within the organizations.
· The finding that culture and religion are of great influence in shaping people’s views and attitudes towards sexual diversity should be of great interest to the SRHR Alliance. We recommend that awareness raising and skills building regarding sexual diversity should be carried out by Kenyans aware of the cultural and religious roots of sentiments related to sexual diversity. Furthermore, SRHR partners could liaise with traditional and religious leaders to increase dialogue about sexual diversity in Kenyan society past and present.
· Partner organizations should address the knowledge–skills gaps of their staff and programmes by exploring ways to be supportive of LGBT persons, while taking into account prevailing religious and cultural norms about sexual diversity.
· There is an opportunity for organizations to develop policies to specifically address issues relating to sexual diversity. However, such policies must be cognizant of prevailing cultural and religious biases, which appear to be strong within the partner organizations. To promote a more accepting organizational environment for the inclusion of sexual diversity issues within their programmes, efforts should be made to challenge these biases by promoting dialogue about cultural and religious views on sexual diversity, moderated by a qualified person who is conversant on the topic within the Kenyan context.