Was the state really ready for Policare?
A Policare centre at the Nairobi Area Traffic Police headquarters on January 11, 2022. Policare was to be situated in every major police station to offer a safe haven for victims of gender-based violence to report cases, and seek medical assistance and refuge.
What you need to know:
- As captured in the Policare Policy, they are supposed to 'promote the concept of a friendly caring police service as opposed to a police service that scares'.
- But the only operational centre since 2021 is the one model facility in Nanyuki, with a referral one in Nairobi.
In 2021, the National Police Service (NPS) launched Policare centres with a lot of fanfare presided over by the then First Lady Margaret Kenyatta. Coined from ‘police’ and ‘care’, the word denotes what the centres are meant to deliver.
As captured mnemonically in the Policare Policy, they are supposed to “promote the concept of a friendly caring police service as opposed to a police service that scares”.
These centres are modelled to provide in one location the full range of services needed by survivors of gender-based violence (GBV).
Protection, medical, psychosocial and legal professionals converge there so that survivors are spared the agony and inconvenience of moving from one place to another retelling the story, in the process getting re-traumatised. They are also to increase victim safety and perpetrator accountability, as well as consolidate client data.
They would thus ensure the dignity of survivors, expedite investigations and prosecution and contribute to justice by collection of forensic information that would increase conviction rates for cases litigated in court hence reverse the trend of being dismissed for inadequate evidence.
The Policare policy dated June 2021 focuses on the following five key areas: providing holistic services; enhancing collaboration and synergy within the criminal justice system; eliminating victimisation and interference with survivors and witnesses; facilitating expeditious justice and closure for clients; and ensuring knowledge management and capacity building for effective victim support and justice.
Basing the policy on the Human Rights Based Approach is commendable as this provides a framework in which rights holders and duty bearers, and their respective entitlements and obligations, form the foundation upon which services are provided.
Services are thus a right and not a favour. They can, therefore, be demanded and duty bearers held accountable. The policy also talks of a “preventive approach”, which is a bit of a stretch given that Policare centres are basically response mechanisms.
Under the first policy objective, NPS is required to establish fully equipped and resourced centres; develop capacity of officers to provide psycho-social support; sensitise staff to the handling and storage of forensics; and develop a database of pro bono lawyers, paralegals and volunteer counsellors.
The second one deals with partnerships, while the third dwells on elimination of interference with victims and witnesses. The fourth is about case management, investigations and prosecution, the fifth centres on capacity building and resourcing and the sixth on sustainability.
Besides receiving resources allocated by the National Treasury, Policare is also expected to attract funding from other agencies. Disappointingly, the section on sustainability is populated with rather peripheral ideas, betraying a fuzzy understanding of the concept.
Cost-effective
Policare centres are essentially cost-effective and sustainable as they do not need to employ fresh staff but rely on existing human capital that is only redeployed. In this regard, the main expenses to be incurred are on setting up the physical space and structures to house service providers, furniture and equipment, plus staff retraining.
The policy prescribes various implementation structures. In ascending order, these are the National Steering Committee, Inter-agency Steering Committee and National Technical Committee.
The proposed membership of these committees is top-heavy with bureaucrats, most of them from line ministries and NPS itself. Very little scope is given for inclusion of non-state actors, except vaguely under the technical committee.
But are all these layers of committees really necessary? Should government initiatives always be padded with entangled structures that basically create inertia in decision-making and implementation?
Various stakeholders are also outlined in the envisaged implementation framework. Conspicuously missing are the Children’s Department and academia.
The anticipated roles of some of the actors are also rather minimalist. For instance, the media is only expected to raise awareness about Policare and adopt gender-sensitive coverage of GBV interventions. What about holding Policare accountable?
The idea of one-stop ventures can make a significant difference in providing services as evident from Rwanda where the government initiated a similar scheme in 2009 through a pilot at Isange. Rwanda has since established 44 centres serving close to 50,000 survivors.
Unlike in Kenya where the centres are domiciled in the police, Rwandan ones are located in district hospitals, based on experiences from the pilot project. Contiguous to the centres are shelters for survivors who need temporary repose.
For Kenya, the only operational centre since 2021 is the one model facility in Nanyuki, with a referral one in Nairobi. This elicits questions: Was the government really ready for Policare? Does it recognise that the launch raised a lot of expectations, which are rapidly dissipating because of lethargy in establishing other centres nationwide? Is this an indication of the priority given to GBV? Will this excellent idea end up being just another good intention consigned to the dustbin of failed government projects?
The writer is an international gender and development consultant and scholar ([email protected])
