Complementarity of formal and informal actors and their networks in support of vulnerable populations in informal settlements: Governance diaries approach

Abstract

IntroductionBeyond several interests and speculations on the relationship between formal and informal actors and their networks in support of vulnerable populations, most studies do not conclusively establish whether the two types of support are substitutes or complements. While informal care and formal care may be substitutes in general, they are complements among the vulnerable groups. Despite how some studies have described complementarity, further insights on the synergy between formal and informal actors and networks are needed to pinpoint how to maximize policy and interventions to alleviate the challenges facing vulnerable groups in informal settlements.MethodsWe conducted an ethnography using governance diaries with 24 participants in Korogocho and Viwandani informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. The governance diaries approach involved conducting bi-weekly governance in-depth interviews (IDIs) with study participants for 4 months, complemented with observations, reflections, participant diaries and informal discussions. We used framework analysis approach.FindingsInformal actors identified include family, neighbors, friends, community groups and community members, and their direct networks. Formal actors on the other hand included government institutions, individuals and authorities that make policies and rules and their desired and possible networks. Both the formal and informal actors and their networks had complementary roles that were beneficial to the vulnerable populations living and working in informal settlements. The complementarities between formal and informal actors and networks in supporting vulnerable groups were portrayed in roles and responsibilities to the vulnerable groups; rules, regulations and governance in supporting vulnerable groups; knowledge, skills and dynamic workforces among formal and informal actors and their networks; information flow on health and wellbeing to the vulnerable populations; transition of actors in supporting vulnerable groups; availability, access and involvement of formal and informal actors and networks to support vulnerable groups. The complementarities allowed for maximum support of the vulnerable populations than otherwise.ConclusionWe conclude that informal social support is needed regardless of the availability of formal social support. Moreover, a combination of formal and informal actors and related networks are essential to support vulnerable persons. Formal actors should establish, support, or maintain the informal actors and related networks through goodwill and sundry incentives as a vital dimension of building with local community structures and enhancing inclusion, participation and ownership of policy and program interventions by marginalized and vulnerable groups.

Voices and challenges of marginalized and vulnerable groups in urban informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya: building on a spectrum of community-based participatory research approaches

“…While the goal is leaving no one behind, the solution of inequity may also involve leaving no stakeholder and service provider behind. Study participants highlighted the need for formal actors working closely with the community actors as a strategy that could help formal structures to understand the community better as formal structures were perceived to be distant from the community and consequently perceived as inefficient (46). The participatory wellbeing and governance analysis and priority setting, using the photo-voice approach, confirm that vulnerability and marginalization were driven by individual experiences together with other community level factors that affected informal settlement residents of all categories.…”

Social inclusion of persons with disability in employment: what would it take to socially support employed persons with disability in the labor market?

“…The sectors included education, health, water, sanitation, and solid waste management. Through a stakeholder mapping exercise, we developed a stakeholder database that depicts actors/service providers with employed PWDs and were re-defined and confirmed by PWDs interviewed during governance diaries data collection process ( 13 ) and during community advisory study consultation ( 10 ). From the service providers identified, we purposively selected four education providers, two healthcare providers, four water providers, four sanitation providers, and four solid waste management providers in each of the study sites.…”

“…Informal settlements (i.e., unplanned sites that are not compliant with authorized regulations) are characterized by residents seeking available opportunities ( 12 ). Notably, there are few formal opportunities ( 13 ), and residents end up relying on the private and informal sectors for labor ( 14 , 15 ). Under such circumstances, many residents have unmet needs ( 16 ), therefore leaving communities including PWDs to find ways of fulfilling their own needs by seeking employment opportunities.…”