IFC pledges progress in Bridge case, but transparency debates endure

Two years after allegations of child sexual abuse at Bridge International Academies schools in Kenya exposed serious gaps in the International Finance Corporation’s oversight of a company it helped fund, the institution is still working to deliver on promised reforms and support for survivors. But civil society groups say two questions remain: Why haven’t survivors been directly compensated? And why does IFC — the private sector arm of the World Bank Group — refuse to release the full findings of an independent review into its handling of the case? Since the scandal came to light in 2023 — and saw more than 20 students allegedly abused at Bridge schools backed by IFC’s $13.5 million investment — IFC has launched new programs and policy reforms to strengthen child-protection and gender-based-violence safeguards across its investment portfolio. This includes a three-year $12 million program, funded by IFC, aimed at identifying and supporting all victims of child abuse and gender-based violence — not just those from Bridge schools — with a range of services including medical care, legal aid, shelter, and psychosocial support. The program also funds NGOs to deliver prevention programs through education and skills training around consent, preventing abuse, reporting and accessing services, and challenging harmful norms and practices. The work will be carried out across all Kenyan counties where Bridge schools are, or were, present. The World Bank’s independent watchdog, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), is monitoring implementation of these reforms as outlined in IFC’s Management Action Plan — which was drawn up in response to CAO’s Bridge investigation findings — and recently gave IFC a broadly “satisfactory” review. However, civil society groups have raised serious concerns about IFC’s transparency and accountability. While IFC’s new Kenya program may strengthen general survivor services, “it does not satisfy IFC’s obligation to provide remedy to those who were abused whilst in the care of an IFC-financed client,” according to Coleen Scott, senior legal and policy associate at Inclusive Development International, which has been working with Bridge complainants since the beginning. Advocates have also called for an independent review of the case to be made public. Bridge, a for-profit school chain operating across Kenya and other countries, runs low-cost private schools that have drawn both praise and criticism for their model. The case comes at a pivotal moment for the World Bank’s accountability system, which is under discussion for potential reforms — including a possible merger of its private- and public-sector oversight mechanisms, the Inspection Panel, and CAO — as part of World Bank President Ajay Banga’s push for greater integration across the World Bank Group. But civil society groups — already frustrated by the Bank’s handling of Bridge and other cases — warn that the proposed changes could further weaken oversight and restrict access to critical information. Calls for transparency At the center of the controversy is an independent review by the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, which was commissioned in 2024 by Banga following allegations that IFC and Bridge interfered with CAO’s investigation. Banga also apologized to the affected children and admitted that “mistakes were made.” The Bank released a summary of the Freshfields review in March. It concluded there was “no evidence that IFC intentionally obstructed the CAO’s investigation” but identified “areas for improvement” in IFC’s responsiveness and coordination. It also recommended that the Board “more clearly define the parameters of CAO’s independence.” The full report has never been made public — and, according to sources inside the World Bank, has been seen by very few people. Civil society groups led by Accountability Counsel, a San Francisco-based advocacy nonprofit focused on supporting communities harmed by internationally financed projects, have repeatedly requested access, including through IFC’s Access to Information mechanism. But their appeals have been denied, with the Board citing attorney-client privilege and confidentiality concerns. The NGOs are now preparing another appeal. "The Freshfields investigation was commissioned to restore trust and confidence in the governance of the IFC, following allegations of a sexual abuse coverup. A secret report cannot do that. A secret report begs the question: what are they still trying to hide?” Lani Inverarity, director of programs and strategy at Accountability Counsel, told Devex. Devex contacted IFC for comment. It said that Freshfields had advised the Board not to release the full report and that this was in line with IFC’s Access to Information Policy. IFC emphasized that it had disclosed the main findings in the summary and said it has already implemented several of Freshfields’ recommendations. IFC’s progress report: programs, reforms, and limits IFC outlined what it has done so far in its third progress report to the World Bank’s board on the Bridge case, released last month. Key among its actions is a three-year, $12 million “Kenya GBV and CSEA Response and Prevention Program,” paid for by IFC and designed with input from UNFPA, UNICEF, Bridge survivors, and local civil society partners. According to IFC, the program has also been presented to other Bridge investors — including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Omidyar Network, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. But while several expressed support, none have contributed financially. IFC was a minority investor in New Globe, Bridge’s parent company, investing $13.5 million between 2013 and 2016. As a public investor with a formal accountability mechanism — the rest were private organizations — IFC is the one that survivors could try to seek a remedy from. The program provides psychosocial and legal support to survivors and funds community-based prevention initiatives. In coming forward, Bridge complainants had also sought direct financial compensation from IFC, legal aid to pursue court cases in Kenya, and IFC’s participation as an observer in those proceedings. While IFC “carefully considered these requests,” according to the progress report, it is unwilling to get involved, arguing that the “process of determining and paying compensation carries significant risks, such as potentially increasing survivors’ vulnerability to further harm or exploitation, retraumatizing them, or compromising their confidentiality.” “Nonetheless, IFC is making a significant financial commitment to address the widespread issue of abuse in Kenyan schools through its response and prevention program,” the report states. In parallel, IFC says it has strengthened its global approach to gender-based violence and child protection through a review of 2,000 clients, new due diligence standards and legal covenants, and expanded training and staffing on GBV issues. The CAO’s first monitoring report on IFC’s compliance with the Bridge action plan, published in July 2025, acknowledged progress on several actions but cautioned that implementation “remains at an early stage” and that IFC “will need to sustain engagement” to ensure lasting results. Criticisms from civil society Civil society organizations working with survivors say IFC’s efforts, while notable, fall short of true remedy. They argue that the investor’s consultation process was not transparent or inclusive of Bridge survivors beyond the four formal complainants who triggered the original CAP investigation back in 2020. “It’s true that there are real risks of retraumatization, and that any outreach or consultation must be done in a sensitive, trauma-informed, and survivor-centered way,” Inclusive Development International’s Coleen Scott said. “But by not taking more proactive measures to reach Bridge survivors, and creating secure mechanisms to receive their feedback, IFC may have ended up denying those who wished to have their voice heard the opportunity to do so,” she said. “Bridge survivors (beyond the four complainants) will likely have no idea that this program has been developed and launched, supposedly for their benefit.” However, IFC told Devex it has led extensive community consultations, including with the original Bridge complainants, to shape its remedy program. Furthermore, in response to civil society’s feedback, these consultations were extended, reaching 55 more individuals.