On 24th September 2025, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) published its 3rd management progress report which contains the design of the Gender Based Violence (GBV) and Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (CSEA) Response and Prevention Support Program (the Program), developed to remediate children who survived child sexual abuse as students at Bridge International Academies at the time when IFC had invested in Bridge schools.
Accountability Counsel, Inclusive Development International, Oxfam, and Wangu Kanja Foundation, as representatives of four women who are complainants in this case and survivors of child sexual abuse in Bridge during IFC’s investments, welcome this Program in accordance with IFC’s obligation under the Bridge-04 Management Action Plan (MAP). We further acknowledge the IFC’s improved engagement with the Complainants, particularly in the latter stages of the program design, which enabled more effective and inclusive consultations, as well as the extended engagement with other survivors and their networks. We also note with appreciation the IFC’s offer in April 2025 to provide immediate support to the four Complainants pending finalization and operationalization of the Program.
However, despite progress in several areas, significant unresolved issues remain, resulting in a program that falls short of the remedy owed to the four Complainants and survivors of child sexual abuse who attended Bridge International Academies. We urge the World Bank Board, Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), and civil society to remain vigilant in monitoring the implementation of this Program to ensure that Bridge survivors are prioritized and benefit from the support services promised.
Background
In October 2023, IFC’s Compliance Advisory Ombudsman (CAO) published the findings of its self-initiated compliance investigation of the IFCs investment in Bridge International Academies in Kenya, known as Bridge-04. The CAO found that the IFC was inadequate in its supervision of Bridge International Academies and identified failures in IFC's handling of child protection and safeguarding, determining that the IFC's failure to ensure Bridge complied with Environmental and Social (E&S) risk mitigation policies likely contributed to the harms suffered by students at Bridge.
In August 2024, CAO merged the Learn Capital 1-4 complaints, that alleged child sexual abuse of the Complainants at Bridge schools, with the ongoing Bridge-04 case process. As such, the four Complainants of the Learn Capital cases became formal Complainants in the Bridge-04 case, and the harm they suffered was expected to be satisfactorily addressed by the Bridge- 04 MAP. The four Complainants have long been clear on how they envisioned remedy, which they documented as a wishlist and shared with the IFC, the World Bank Board and the CAO a year ago. Throughout the consultation and development of the Program, the Complainants, through their representatives, expressed concerns with the MAP implementation process, including the stakeholder consultations and earlier drafts of the Program design where it fell short of centering the voice and needs of Bridge survivors.
Continued pressing concerns
- IFC has not included any compensation for harm in the program design
- The proposed timeline for the program is too short
- The role of the Advisory Committee remains unclear
- The program might not reach additional Bridge survivors
Despite the Program’s commitment to provide a range of services, including counselling, healthcare support, community reintegration, funding for education/training, and referrals to legal services, it continues to fail to provide direct financial compensation to Bridge survivors. Despite the World Bank President Ajay Banga’s admission of IFC failings, apology for the trauma experienced by the abused children, and his call for an independent investigation into IFC’s interference in the CAO investigation; and despite clear communication from the Complainants that financial compensation is a key demand, the IFC continues to deny direct financial compensation to the survivors. As we have previously outlined, the demand for financial compensation is in line with international law and global good practice, despite IFC’s claims to the contrary.
IFC argues that, as a minority investor without operational control, it is neither responsible for environmental and social outcomes nor liable for harm caused by criminal acts outside its direct involvement. However, the CAO compliance investigation outlined the IFC’s failings and contribution to harm in this case, which this remediation program should address. Given the IFC’s challenges around responsible exit in this case and apparent lack of interest from their former client, Bridge, to contribute to providing remedy, the IFC shoulders a responsibility and should include compensation as an essential part of the services offered under this Program. While IFC may be exempt from legal liability, it maintains a moral responsibility to meet the remedy demands of those who were harmed by its investments. The recently approved Program should therefore be adapted to include a secure claims process to enable self-identified Bridge survivors to seek financial redress, as was recommended by the CAO in its compliance investigation report. The IFC should ensure that the service providers and implementing partners selected under this Program have sufficient funds and capacity to pay compensation as part of their service to those who come forward to self-identify as Bridge survivors.
We also have concerns about the 3-year timeline of the program. Given the prevailing context and impacts of aid cuts affecting existing service providers supporting survivors of GBV and CSEA in Kenya, and given the current scale of the program, survivors without representation will likely struggle to access and benefit from the support they need. We have already observed some challenges and delays in the provision of immediate support to the 4 Bridge Complainants. Although the four Complainants first engaged with the service provider six months ago, they have not yet been referred to the appropriate support services. Having raised and discussed this matter with the IFC, we hope that the lessons learnt will help prevent undue delays in the implementation of the Program and demonstrate a commitment to adjusting timelines to address current barriers to access for survivors.
While the Advisory Committee members’ names have now been disclosed, their role in the Program implementation remains unclear. The Progress Monitoring report acknowledges their role in the Program’s design but does not clarify their function in the Program implementation, including how they provide oversight and ensure accountability to external stakeholders. This lack of clarity raises questions including conflicts of interest and expectations around what they should deliver.
The implementation of the Program, set to begin in January 2026, will be crucial to translating the commitments made in the IFC MAP and Program’s design into tangible remedies. Currently framed as a good public community-wide program, it lacks a specific component that caters to Bridge survivors and therefore cannot guarantee specific access or benefits to this group. While the IFC has committed to strengthen their outreach efforts, there is a significant risk that Bridge survivors will not hear about this program or, if they do hear about it, will not know that it was developed to address their needs (as IFC has refused to publicly describe the program in outreach materials as related to its investment in Bridge). Measures should be put in place to monitor the extent and efficacy of IFC’s outreach efforts in reaching Bridge survivors, as well as the engagement of any self-identified Bridge survivors, with a view to ensuring that they are provided with services that are tailored to their needs.
As representatives of the four brave and determined Bridge survivors in this case, we continue to support them in their quest for remedy, to ensure that IFC is held accountable and fulfills its responsibility to provide remedy where it contributes to harm through its investments.
