Kenya Embraces Refugee Integration – and Citizens are on Board

“We’re human, and it’s not good to see your fellow human suffer or bleed. You have to care about the other’s life like you care about your own.”

The Kenyan government has officially launched its Shirika Plan, an initiative to turn the country’s two refugee camps – Dadaab and Kakuma – into self-reliant integrated settlements, allowing refugees and host communities to live and work side by side and access donor and government services. 

The Shirika Plan follows a similar pattern to other large refugee-hosting countries in the Global South – notably Jordan and Ethiopia – adopting policies that allow refugees to integrate into host communities and labour markets. This comes on the back of commitments made through the 2018 Global Compact for Refugees and World Bank financial support for refugee rights reforms. 

The Shirika Plan has been lauded as a major step forward in securing durable solutions for Kenya’s 800,000 refugees, the majority of whom are from neighbouring Somalia and South Sudan. 

Finding solutions for these communities – many of whom have lived in Kenya since the 1990s – has become even more pressing in the wake of recent US aid cuts, which threaten the livelihoods of refugees receiving material assistance from donors. 

But what do host country citizens think of the Shirika Plan? Are Kenyans in support of integrating refugees – which has the potential to affect them in their jobs, access to services, and community life – or will there be a backlash against it? 

In late 2023, we – a group of researchers from the Immigration Policy Lab at Stanford University – set out to answer this question. We asked over 3,300 Kenyan citizens from across the country what they thought of the integration initiative, and here we share the key findings from our working paper, now under peer review. 

Support for the Shirika Plan

We found widespread backing among Kenyans for integrating refugees: 67% said they supported greater access to work permits and financial inclusion; 69% supported refugees gaining access to government services; and 57% supported refugees having the right to move freely throughout the country. 

Giving refugees full rights to work and move freely in Kenya was four times more popular than keeping refugees in camps – Kenya’s long-standing status quo policy. 

Why are Kenyans supportive of refugee integration? We found the major reason was they feel a humanitarian obligation towards refugees, who are their “neighbours”, their “brothers and sisters”, and “Africans like us”. As one person told us, “We’re human, and it’s not good to see your fellow [human] suffer or bleed. You have to care about the other’s life like you care about your own.”

Many Kenyans said they had no problem with refugees, as many had lived in the country for decades. Others said they welcomed refugees because they could someday become refugees themselves. For example, one person said, “They’re humans and they’re supposed to be helped. The same way it might [become] worse in Kenya and we run to their country. It’s brotherhood.”

We also found that Kenyans perceived refugees as bringing positive benefits to the economy. Contrary to the narrative in countries like the United States, many people discussed refugees bringing new businesses and jobs, increasing trade and tax revenues, and greater demand for goods and services.  

One respondent told us: “Most of the refugees are blooming in business more than Kenyans. The interaction they bring to our country will help us upgrade by bringing new ideas and different ways of managing business. You’ll find most refugees are very successful.”

This echoes academic research which shows that refugees often benefit rather than burden host communities economically, including in Kenya and Uganda – though it should be noted that many refugees are not entrepreneurs and still struggle to support themselves and their families.

Others applauded the Shirika Plan’s extension of work rights to refugees because, as another respondent said, “Refugees will now be in a position to feed themselves so it will reduce dependency [on the government and international aid]. It will help them earn something for themselves.”

The highest support for refugee integration was among the communities living near Kenya’s two refugee camps – Dadaab in Garissa county and Kakuma in Turkana. 

In Dadaab, this was due, in part, to ties with Somali Kenyans. However, especially in Turkana, locals seemed to experience firsthand the advantages of refugee-hosting. As one person said, “We are benefiting from the refugees. We get employment from the camp. Turkana ladies work there and get money.” Locals also benefit from access to healthcare and schools in Kakuma and the nearby Kalobeyei refugee settlement. 

Concerns among Kenyans

While we found widespread support for the Shirika Plan, some citizens were concerned that refugee integration would lead to conflicts with locals because of resource constraints.

As one respondent said, “We already have issues with resource management. We have seen many people fighting over resources, water, and even land. [If there is free movement, refugees] will go where there is reliable rainfall, good transport, and facilities... definitely now people will want to fight over resources.”

While research suggests that a refugee presence does not lead to increased violence, some Kenyans worry that more open refugee policies would increase the risk of insurgent attacks from the Somali extremist group al-Shabab. Successive governments have tried to link the Dadaab camp to high-profile terrorist incidents in 2013, 2015 and 2019, but have not provided evidence to back up these claims.

Concerns were greatest with respect to freedom of movement. When asked what they thought the impact of giving refugees freedom of movement would be, 31% of responses mentioned negative security impacts, and 9% specifically mentioned terrorism.

Despite recognising potential economic benefits, some respondents were concerned about job and business competition. As one respondent said, “If we allow [refugees] to start doing business, most of us will lose jobs because most Kenyans do their business with small [amounts of] money.” 

Others were concerned about the government providing additional support to refugees instead of focusing on poverty and unemployment among Kenyans.

Concerns among refugees

Refugees in Kakuma and Dadaab have also weighed in on the Shirika Plan. Many refugee leaders view it as a promising step towards greater dignity and inclusion. They are hopeful that increased access to employment, government services, and freedom of movement will soon become a reality, and they note that the Kenyan public has generally been welcoming.

At the same time, refugees voiced important concerns. Chief among them are frustrations with delays in implementation and the lack of clear information about how the plan will be rolled out – especially regarding access to documentation, government services, and movement rights. 

Some are concerned that the Shirika Plan does not expand movement outside of Garissa and Turkana, and that it may end the ability of refugees to resettle to third countries like the US and Canada. Many also expressed disappointment over the limited involvement of refugees in shaping the policy and their ongoing lack of political representation.

As one leader of an urban refugee-led organisation put it: “Refugees need access to timely documentation that facilitates education, work, health, and financial services. We need this not only on paper, but in actual implementation. The only way to achieve this is through meaningful inclusion and accurate representation of real refugee issues.”

Lessons to learn

There is an urgent need for durable solutions to the global refugee crisis, particularly in the wake of US aid cuts. Our research provides hopeful evidence that the Kenyan public, contrary to fears of a backlash, supports extending greater rights to refugees. This sentiment reflects deeply held humanitarian values and hopes for the impact of refugees on Kenya’s economy.

Yet, as promising as these findings are, they also come with caveats. Genuine integration requires meaningful consultation with refugees themselves. Moreover, the Kenyan government must demonstrate its commitment by implementing promised reforms, addressing potential sources of community tension, and proactively countering misinformation.

Our study offers a valuable lesson for other countries grappling with protracted refugee situations and declining international aid: that there can be broad public support for allowing refugees to work and integrate.  

This article originally appeared in The New Humanitarian