See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233024102
Circumstances and motivations for fostering children in Zambia
Article in Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies · April 2008
DOI: 10.1080/17450120801918785
CITATIONS
READS
6
119
7 authors, including:
Katie D Schenk
Lewis Ndhlovu
George Mason University
University of the Witwatersrand
32 PUBLICATIONS 529 CITATIONS
17 PUBLICATIONS 323 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Charlotte Watts
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
307 PUBLICATIONS 29,044 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Uganda OVC View project
Addressing domestic violence in antenatal care environments (ADVANCE) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Katie D Schenk on 06 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
This article was downloaded by: [Schenk, Katie D.]
On: 5 September 2008
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 792726653]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t724921266
Circumstances and motivations for fostering children in Zambia
Katie D. Schenk ab; Lewis Ndhlovu c; Stephen Tembo d; Andson Nsune e; Chozi Nkhata d; Batuke Walusiku f;
Charlotte Watts b
a
Population Council, Washington, DC, USA b Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK c Population Council, Johannesburg, South Africa d RuralNet
Associates Ltd, Lusaka, Zambia e WorldVision/RAPIDS (formerly Rural Net Associates), Lusaka, Zambia f
RAPIDS Program Management Unit, Kabulonga, Lusaka, Zambia
Online Publication Date: 01 April 2008
To cite this Article Schenk, Katie D., Ndhlovu, Lewis, Tembo, Stephen, Nsune, Andson, Nkhata, Chozi, Walusiku, Batuke and Watts,
Charlotte(2008)'Circumstances and motivations for fostering children in Zambia',Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies,3:1,78 — 84
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17450120801918785
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450120801918785
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, April 2008; 3(1): 78–84
SHORT REPORT
1745-0136 Children and Youth Studies
1745-0128
RVCH
Vulnerable
Studies, Vol. 0, No. 0, Jan 2008: pp. 0–0
Circumstances and motivations for fostering
children in Zambia
KATIE D. SCHENK1*, LEWIS NDHLOVU2, STEPHEN TEMBO3,
ANDSON NSUNE4, CHOZI NKHATA3, BATUKE WALUSIKU5, &
CHARLOTTE WATTS6
Fostering
K.
D. Schenk
children
et al.in Zambia
Downloaded By: [Schenk, Katie D.] At: 15:59 5 September 2008
1
Population Council, Washington DC, USA and Department of Public Health and Policy, London School
of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, 2Population Council, Johannesburg, South Africa,
3
RuralNet Associates Ltd, Lusaka, Zambia,, 4WorldVision/RAPIDS (formerly Rural Net Associates),
Lusaka , Zambia, 5RAPIDS Program Management Unit, Kabulonga, Lusaka, Zambia, and 6Department
of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygine and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
(Received 5 July 2007; final form 6 December 2008)
Abstract
This short report explores motivations and circumstances of fostering children at six sites in
Zambia. Cross-sectional community household surveys using multistage random sampling (totalling 1503 households, reporting on 5009 children) and participatory qualitative research (focus
groups and in-depth interviews) with adult and youth community members were conducted as part
of baseline research for the US-funded RAPIDS (Reaching HIV/AIDS Affected People with
Integrated Development and Support) programme. Interviews and discussions with community
members revealed the complexity of fostering patterns and decision-making, considered from the
dual perspectives of fostering household and fostered child. Programme implementers need to recognize the complexity of fostering in intervention design, including the possibility of introducing
perverse incentives.
Keywords: Fostering, orphanhood, Zambia, HIV, AIDS
Introduction
Fostering children has long been common in sub-Saharan Africa to facilitate schooling
access and to enable parents to migrate in search of work, and remains a common response
to recent increases in family vulnerability due to AIDS (Bledsoe & Brandon, 1992; UNICEF
2006). With the overwhelming majority of orphaned and vulnerable children living in the
care of family members, the growing impacts of HIV have led to the emergence of new
household types, including child-headed households and elderly grandparents caring for
*Correspondence: Katie D. Schenk, Population Council, 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC 20008,
USA. E-mail: kschenk@popcouncil.org
ISSN 1745-0128 print/ISSN 1745-0136 online © 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17450120801918785
Fostering children in Zambia
79
Downloaded By: [Schenk, Katie D.] At: 15:59 5 September 2008
many orphaned grandchildren (Foster et al., 1995, 1997; Phiri & Tolfree, 2005).
Foster caregivers of children are disproportionately elderly, female and poor (Howard et al.,
2006). Despite increasing recognition of the importance of fostering to support children
affected by HIV, empirical investigation of its underlying motivations and programmatic
implications has, to date, been limited. Research is needed to explore the circumstances
and consequences of fostering in order to design and implement community-based interventions to best support children and families.
In Zambia, national adult HIV prevalence is 16% [Central Statistical Office (Zambia),
Central Board of Health (Zambia) et al., 2003]. By 2003, an estimated 19% of Zambian
children aged under 18 years had been orphaned (UNICEF et al., 2004). This paper
presents an analysis of qualitative and quantitative data on fostering in Zambia as part of
a wider study (Schenk et al., in press). Data were collected as part of baseline evaluation for
the US-funded RAPIDS (Reaching HIV/AIDS Affected People with Integrated Development and Support) programme (Population Council, 2006; RAPIDS, 2006).
Methods
Definitions
Based on local input, children were defined as unmarried individuals aged 18 years or
younger. An orphan was taken to be any child with at least one parent dead or with
unknown survival status, as a parent of unknown survival status is clearly not playing an
active parenting role. Distinctions were made between maternal, paternal and double
orphans. Children were defined as having been ‘taken in’ or fostered if they had moved
from their original home into the care of another household. Household members were
defined as those eating from the same pot.
Household survey
A cross-sectional household survey was conducted during May 2005 among 200–250
households in each of six districts [Chongwe (rural), Kalomo (peri-urban), Mpika
(rural), Ndola (urban), Mazabuka (rural), Petauke (rural)] selected purposively by
implementers for sentinel data collection to represent the range of programme settings,
totalling 1503 households. In each district, communities were selected randomly for
inclusion in the survey using a multistage cluster sampling design. First-level clusters
were selected randomly from all programme sites in the district. Up to two further levels of clusters were selected using local geographical boundaries. Because detailed
availability of household data at this level was incomplete, clusters relied on predefined
administrative boundaries and were unweighted. Households with at least one resident
child aged 10–18 years were eligible for participation using systematic sampling.
Results are designed to represent the six districts being used as sentinel sites for the 53
districts in which the programme is being implemented nationally, in all of Zambia’s
nine provinces.
Survey instruments explored demographic characteristics of the household head and all
resident children, access to support services and livelihoods. Further details of data collection
methods are available elsewhere (Schenk et al., in press).
Data were entered by trained clerks, some of whom had also worked as interviewers.
A 10% subsample was double-entered for a quality check. Quantitative data analysis was
conducted using SPSS version 14.0.
80
K. D. Schenk et al.
Qualitative methods
Downloaded By: [Schenk, Katie D.] At: 15:59 5 September 2008
Qualitative research was conducted in four of the six study sites (Chongwe, Kalomo, Ndola
and Mpika, chosen for the local presence of implementing partners). Fieldwork was led by
skilled Zambian researchers, who moderated focus groups and in-depth interviews, and
participated in instrument development and results analysis. Programme implementers
were closely involved in instrument development and results interpretation. Focus group
discussions (FGDs) were conducted among male and female adult and youth (aged 15–24
years) service recipients (five male adult groups, six female adult groups, three male youth
groups, two female youth groups). Community leaders and programme staff selected
participants known to be in contact with the programme, aiming to ensure diverse representation of recipient household types. Themes explored included attitudes towards fostering
and access to support services. Interviews and focus group discussions were tape-recorded,
translated and transcribed. Transcripts and interviewer notes were imported into ATLAS.ti
for analysis. A framework analysis approach was employed (Green & Thorogood, 2004).
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was granted through the review boards of University of Zambia,
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Population Council. Sensitive
to the delicate position of young people and families affected by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the study was designed to meet high standards of ethical compliance (Schenk & Williamson, 2005), including the key involvement of a local psychologist
specializing in working with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-affected
children.
Results
Among the 5009 children covered in the sample, between 14% and 27% in each of the six
sites had been orphaned and 26–34% had been taken into another household (see [Schenk
et al., in press] for further description).
Figure 1 illustrates the occurrence of fostering and orphanhood among children in the
sample, and indicates the inaccuracy of assuming that fostering and orphanhood always
occur together. Across all six sites, 14% were children who had been taken in without being
6%
16%
14%
64%
children who have been orphaned
and not taken in
children who have been orphaned
and taken in
children who have been taken in
and not orphaned
all other children
Figure 1. Orphanhood and being taken in (fostered) among children (n=5009).
Downloaded By: [Schenk, Katie D.] At: 15:59 5 September 2008
Fostering children in Zambia
81
orphaned (i.e. living with foster caregivers while parents live elsewhere) and 6% of the sample
had been orphaned and not taken in (i.e. predominantly those still living in the household
of a surviving parent).
Children who had been orphaned were living most commonly in a household headed by
a grandparent (33%), surviving parent (29%) or an uncle/aunt (23%). Across the sample,
children who had been taken in were more commonly living with maternal relatives (65%)
than paternal relatives (25%) or other households (p< 0.01).
FGDs provided opportunity to explore the circumstances and motivations of fostering among households that had taken in children and among young people who had
themselves been taken in (Table I). Community members described fostering as a
strategy used to support vulnerable children through difficult times. They highlighted
that motivations for fostering non-orphaned children include the desire to support
households in which parents struggle to support children because of illness or poverty,
and to enable children to live closer to school. Community members described fostering as being associated both with both relatively better-off households (preferred in
advance in order to provide sufficient support to children) and with more impoverished
households (retrospective description, as a result of sharing finite household resources
among more members).
Participants at all sites described how the responsibility of caring for children following
parental death should fall traditionally to the extended family, most often grandmothers.
Male participants in Chongwe and Kalomo mentioned that maternal orphans with a surviving
Table I. Circumstances and motivations of fostering.
Responsibility of
extended family
Male adults, Chongwe
Participant 1: When a couple dies and leaves children behind, it is the responsibility
of the extended families to take care of those children.
P2: Each household head has a next-of-kin who will take care of their children when
they die.
P3: Because any other person who is not a relative and even a distant relative would
most likely abuse the children.
P4: They would use them for monetary gain.
P5: They would not give them proper care.
P6: If the children did not stay with relatives, they would not feel good.
Inability of extended
family to foster
Female youths, Chongwe
P1: It is very common in this community for relatives to show reluctance in keeping
orphans.
P2: Most of us orphans have no relatives to look after us and if they are alive, they
cannot take us in because we are too many.
P3: It is true that some orphans are too many to be looked after by a single family.
You find that orphans have no other option but to look after themselves when
their relatives fail to take up the responsibility of taking them in.
Material benefits of
fostering
Female youths, Chongwe
P1: Relatives can only keep you for a while, when parents left some assets behind.
Once the assets are finished orphans are kicked out of the relatives’ homes.
P2: Relatives have no time for orphans if deceased parents did not leave any finances
or other assets.
Female adults, Chongwe
P1: Some relatives are evil. They foster children in order to accrue benefits that are
given to orphans by organizations like World Vision. [Laughter . . .]
P2: [P1] is quite right . . . these things are happening in our village.
Downloaded By: [Schenk, Katie D.] At: 15:59 5 September 2008
82
K. D. Schenk et al.
father were especially likely to be fostered, as the father could not cope with caring for his
children. When asked which parent’s death was more detrimental to a child, male adults
consistently emphasized the loss of the father’s role in providing material support, while
female participants stressed that the more damaging loss was maternal emotional support.
Adult female participants described how sometimes the only surviving relative was faced
with no choice but to take in children who had been orphaned. However, in a discussion
among female youths, participants reported that relatives could not always be relied upon to
take in orphaned children, especially those with many siblings, leading to increases in childheaded households and street children. Community members also cautioned that not all
orphans were automatically vulnerable, and might receive good care from foster families.
Discussions also illustrated advantages and disadvantages of fostering both to fostered
child and to fostering household (Table II). Material gain was mentioned frequently as a
motivation for fostering: community members pointed out that orphaned children often
bring inherited assets (property or money) into the household, the parents of non-orphaned
children may send remittances, and children old enough to work increase the household’s
manpower. While some female participants mentioned motivations of love, sympathy and
pity, others felt that the material benefits that fostering children brings to the household,
including support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), provided greater motivation for fostering.
Adults (especially males) emphasized adult guidance, financial support, protection from
abuse and improved access to education as advantages to the fostered child. However,
youth participants reiterated that fostering was no guarantee of such benefits, and indeed
may even expose orphaned children to greater risks of abuse or overwork and being forced
to leave school. Adults pointed out that taking a child into the household may result in less
food and money for all members, while several youth participants described preferential
treatment favouring biological children in the fostering household. A male participant in
Kalomo took a long-term perspective, mentioning that the fostered child would eventually
support the fostering household when he/she was grown up and educated.
Discussion
Considering fostering from the dual perspectives of fostered child and fostering household
reveals multifaceted decision-making processes. Participants described how fostering children was not merely a matter of prospective financial gain, but also motivated by love and
responsibility. However, discussion also acknowledged awareness that fostering may make
households eligible for programmatic support: because NGO support eligibility criteria
were designed originally to relieve existing household stresses among fostering caregivers,
rather than to influence their initial decision-making around fostering, the possibility of
perverse incentives is introduced. Implementers of community-based support interventions
should therefore be cautious in setting rigid eligibility criteria, and recognize the complex
interplays between enablement and motivation of foster caregivers, the quality of fostering
care they provide and alternative care options for children who are fostered. Furthermore,
field staff must be alert to risks of inequitable intra-household resource distribution
between biological and fostered children.
These data begin to shed light upon the complex motivations governing fostering in a
high HIV-prevalence area. Better understanding of fostering decision-making and
consequences is needed to strengthen community-based intervention strategies supporting
children and families. There remains a need for further research exploring families’ and
children’s fostering experiences, and how future life courses are affected.
Fostering children in Zambia
83
Table II. Community perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of fostering.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Downloaded By: [Schenk, Katie D.] At: 15:59 5 September 2008
Female adults, Chongwe
To fostering household Female adults, Chongwe
P1: The orphans bring in additional assets in P1: Households become worse off as
little resources are split for many
the households. This is some benefit to the
household members.
household looking after the orphan . . ..
P2: We get to have less food in our
P2: Other households benefit from
households due to fostering.
the extra manpower for house
chores and farming activities.
Male adult, Chongwe
If the child grows and happens to
finish school and get a good job,
he will not forget you, he will repay
you in some way.
Female adults, Chongwe
P1: There is very little food in the
households to cater all people . . ..
P2: Families’ little resources are
split among many household members.
Female youth, Chongwe
Most households get to have extra
labour for the cultivation of fields
during the rainy season.
Female adult, Mpika
There is less food to eat in most of these
households.
Male adult, Chongwe
They [the household] also benefit, they eat
[food rations] in that child’s name.
Female youth, Chongwe
Most of the households that have taken
in children lack of money for food, user
fees at schools, and clinics.
Male adult, Chongwe
Many families benefit through receiving
support from NGOs which target
orphans. Some households keeping
orphans end up benefiting through
receiving food supplies.
To fostered child
Female adult, Chongwe
The positive part of fostering is that
orphans get to have parental guidance
and support. [Agreement]
Male adult, Kalomo
We take them in so that they can easily
forget about their situation because it
can lead to mental sickness if they are
left alone and thinking about what has
happened to them.
Female adult, Chongwe
Orphans get to have parental guidance
and financial support when taken in.
Female adults, Chongwe
P1: Orphans are stopped from going to
school so that they can do all the chores
at home and tend to the fields. . ..
P2: As a result of lack of food in the
households, orphans are psychologically,
verbally, and physically abused in these
households. [Agreement]
Male youths, Mpika
P1: They even put you under pressure such
that you go to school without eating and
if you come a bit late you don’t find
food, so in the end you stop even going
to school.
P2: . . . Sometimes you’re sent to draw
water at awkward times – maybe it is
time to eat – you just have to go and
leave them eating and go to draw water.
Also being accused of doing wrong even
when there is nothing wrong. [Laughter]
Female youth, Chongwe
There are differences in ways the food
is shared in the households. Orphans
get less or no food at all.
(Continued)
84
K. D. Schenk et al.
Table II. (Continued)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Female adults, Chongwe
P1: Children below 8 years are sent out
in the night to draw water or sent to
work in the field.
P2: Other orphans are told to drop out
of school to earn extra money for the
family or to herd cattle which the
household does not keep or own.
Downloaded By: [Schenk, Katie D.] At: 15:59 5 September 2008
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Ellen Weiss (Horizons/ICRW) for helpful review comments and to the
programme implementers of the World Vision-led RAPIDS consortium, including
colleagues from Africare, Care, Catholic Relief Services, Expanded Church Response,
Salvation Army and World Vision. Special grateful thanks to community leaders in
Chongwe, Kalomo, Mazabuka, Mpika, Ndola and Petauke for working with the research
team. This study was made possible through support provided by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief through the Office of HIV/AIDS, US Agency for International
Development. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of USAID.
References
Bledsoe, C., & Brandon, A. (1992). Child fostering and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: Some preliminary
questions and answers. In E. Van de Walle, G. Pison, & M. Sala-Diakanda (Eds), Mortality and Society in
Sub-Saharan Africa, pp. 287–302. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Central Statistical Office (Zambia), Central Board of Health (Zambia), et al. (2003). MEASURE DHS+ORC
Macro. Zambia demographic and health survey, 2001–2003. Lusaka, Zambia and Calverton, MD, USA,
Central Statistical Office: Central Board of Health. Measure DHS + ORC Macro, xxvi, 375.
Foster, G., Makufa, C., Drew, R. S., & Kralovec, E. (1997). Factors leading to the establishment of child-headed
households: the case of Zimbabwe. Health Transition Review, 7(Supplement 2), 155–168.
Foster, G., Shakespeare, R., Chinemana, F., Jackson, H., Gregson, S., Marange, C. et al. (1995).
Orphan prevalence and extended family care in a peri-urban community in Zimbabwe. AIDS Care, 7(1), 3–17.
Green, J. M., & Thorogood, N. (2004). Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage Publications.
Howard, B. H., Phillips, C. V., Matinhure, N., Goodman, K. J., McCurdy S. A., & Johnson, C. A. (2006). Barriers and incentives to orphan care in a time of AIDS and economic crisis: a cross-sectional survey of caregivers
in rural Zimbabwe. BMC Public Health, 6, 27–38.
Population Council (2006). RAPIDS Impact Assessment Baseline Report. Lusaka and Washington, DC.
Phiri, S. N., & Tolfree, D. (2005). Family and community-based care for children affected by HIV/AIDS: Strengthening the frontline response. In G. Foster, C. Levine & J. Williamson (Eds), A generation at risk: The global impact
of HIV/AIDS on orphans and vulnerable children, pp. 11–36. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
RAPIDS (2006). About RAPIDS. Lusaka.
Schenk, K. D. & Williamson, J. (2005). Ethical approaches to gathering information among children and adolescents in
international settings: Guidelines and resources. Washington, DC: Population Council.
Schenk, K. D., Ndhlovu, L., Tembo, S., Nsune, A., Nkhatu, C., Lusiku, B. W. et al., (in press). Supporting
orphans and vulnerable children affected by AIDS: Using community-gererated definitions to explore patterns of children’s vulnerability in Zambia. AIDS Care, [accepted October 2007].
UNICEF (2006). The state of the world’s children 2007: Women and children – the double dividend of gender equality.
New York: UNICEF.
UNICEF, USAID, et al. (2004). Children on the brink: Updated estimates and recommendations for intervention.
Washington, DC: USAID.
View publication stats