Defining vulnerabilityA case study from Zambia

Katie Schenk, Lewis Ndhlovu, Stephen Tembo, Andson Nsune, Chozi Nkhata, RAPIDS

Interagency Task Team on Children and HIV and AIDS

Washington, DC23-24th April 2007

ECR

Reaching AIDS-affected People with Integrated Development and Support

Outline• Introduction

– Aims, methods• Results

– Quantitative and qualitative• Lessons learnt

– Implications for programs

Study Aims• To explore community

conceptualizations of vulnerability• To examine vulnerability factors –

characteristics and prevalence• To discuss implications for

community-based care and support interventions

Methods• 6 sentinel sites• Quantitative approaches:

household surveys• Qualitative approaches: focus

group discussions and in-depth interviews

• Ethical issues

Results

SociodemographicsTable 1: Description of household respondents

District name

Chongwe (n = 241)

%

Kalomo (n = 259)

%

Mazabuka (n = 236)

%

Mpika (n = 279)

%

Ndola (n = 195)

%

Petauke (n = 293)

%

Total

(n = 1,503) %

Sex of head of household Male 77 77 80 72 81 72 76

Female 23 23 20 28 20 28 24

Respondent age (mean, in years) Male 43 39 39 42 43 43 41

Female 42 37 39 43 40 41 40

Respondent marital status Males Single 4 10 3 9 5 4 6

Currently married 86 84 92 84 86 91 87 Divorced/separated 4 3 2 3 6 2 3

Widowed 6 3 3 4 3 3 4

Females Single 8 11 6 3 1 8 6 Currently married 42 56 50 48 61 54 52

Divorced/separated 15 9 16 10 11 10 11 Widowed 35 24 28 39 27 28 30

% of currently married who are in polygamous marriages

Males 7 13 17 4 4 10 10

Females 14 14 25 10 2 13 13

Household Composition

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 adult 2 adults 3-4 adults 5-6 adults 7+ adults

Number of adult members

Num

ber o

f hou

seho

lds Female-headed

Male-headed

73%

13%

22%

22% 29%

Problems• LACK OF FOOD• health problems (adult and child)• increasing number of orphans• agricultural production problems (esp lack

of farming inputs)• lack of money, material goods, earning

opportunities• insufficient schooling support for children

Which Households?• Female-headed households• Elderly-headed households• Widow-headed households• Households with a member who is

chronically ill or disabled• Households with a child member who

has been orphaned or taken in• Households headed by children• Households that are simply poor

Orphanhood and Fostering

Child-headed Households• Qualitative vs quantitative data

– “My parents died 4 years ago and being the eldest I look after 6 siblings. I have to put food on the table and pay school fees, especially for those in secondary school.”

– “I have taken up responsibility of looking after my siblings. I like school but attending school won’t put food on the table or pay for the much needed school fees. I would rather work on the farms and earn an income for my family.”

Female youths, Chongwe

Vulnerability Characteristics

All 6 sites (n = 5,009)

% Maternal orphan (mother dead or unknown) 4 Paternal orphan (father dead or unknown) 11

Orphaned (% of all children)

Double orphan 7 Child lives with a parent who is chronically ill 3 Child lives in a hh with anyone who is chronically ill 17 Child has been taken in from another hh 30 Child lives in a hh that has taken in children 53 Child lives in a female-headed hh 22 Child lives in an elderly-headed household 10

Vulnerable (% of all children)

Child lives in a widow/er-headed household 14

Vulnerability Prevalence

32% 46% 22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

neither

vulnerable,not orphaned

orphaned

Vulnerability Distribution

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 1 2 3 4 5-7

Number of characteristics of vulnerability

Num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n

orphanednot orphaned

Lessons Learnt

Implications for Programs• Importance of community input• Targeting • Data requirements

• Further research– Clustering, thresholds– SES– Link to outcomes

Thank you

kschenk@pcdc.org

www.rapids.org.zmwww.popcouncil.org/hivaids/orphans.html

www.popcouncil.org/horizons