Responses to intimate partner violence in Kakuma refugee camp: Refugee interactions with agency systems
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been recognised as a significant problem amongst forcibly displaced communities, and great progress has been made by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in responding to IPV and other forms of sexual and gender based violence. However, they have not always effectively engaged refugee communities in these activities, with potentially negative consequences for the health and protection of women. This study was conducted in Kakuma refugee camp, north-west Kenya. Eighteen focus group discussions were conducted with 157 refugees from various nationalities, including Sudanese, Somali, Ethiopian, and Congolese. They focused on the nature and consequences of IPV in Kakuma. The aim of this paper is to explore how refugees in Kakuma talk about the ways that IPV is dealt with, focusing particularly on the ways that community responses are said to interact with formal response systems established by UNHCR and its implementing partners. Refugees talked about using a 'hierarchy of responses' to IPV, with only particularly serious or intransigent cases reaching UNHCR or its implementing agencies. Some male refugees described being mistrustful of agency responses, because agencies were believed to favour women and to prioritise protecting the woman at all costs, even if that means separating her from the family. Whilst community responses to IPV might often be appropriate and helpful, the findings of the current study suggest that in Kakuma they do not necessarily result in the protection of women. Yet women in Kakuma are reported to be reluctant to report their cases to UNHCR and its implementing agencies. A more effective protection response from UNHCR might involve closer co-operation with individuals and structures within the refugee communities to develop a co-ordinated response to IPV.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 70 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:1:p:160-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.