CHAPTER ONE

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

1.1Background of the Study

Socio-economic Status (SES) depends on a combination of

variables, including occupation, education, income, wealth, and

place of residence. It has been generally observed that people

are not equal in terms of status and achievements (Galobardes et

al., 2007). The existence of many strata in the society is thought

to be natural. It is believed that socio-economic status of the

parents has a great influence on their attitude towards objects

and phenomena of their children. Strohschein, (2005) emphasized

that socio-economic status of a person affects his or her

attitude and life chances (Barrett and Turner, 2005). SES of the

parents was determined by their education, job, income, political

power and prestige in society (Parson et al., 2001). Income was one

of the most commonly used attributes of a household to determine

its class status (Galobardes et al., 2007).

The relationship between incomes, which mostly arises from the

scarcity of a certain skill, however, proves to be more complex

than initially perceived (McLeod and Shanahan, 1996). A family's

socioeconomic status was based on family income, parental

education level, parental occupation, and social status in the

community (Demarest et al, 1993). Families with high socio-economic

status often have more success in preparing their young children

1

for school because they typically have access to a wide range of

resources to promote and support young children's development

(Akanle, 2007). Men and women tend to have different socio-

economic profiles within an economy in terms of the positions

they occupied, the activities they engage in and their overall

economic status (Corwyn and Bradley, 2000). Inequality was

especially in access to a wide range of economic, human and

social capital assets that comprises key poverty dimensions in

Africa (Capraro, 2000).

The World’s total number of vulnerable children does not exist,

yet approximations number of most vulnerable children in the

World is 428 million. Children age 0–17 years. 150 million girls

have experienced sexual abuse, 2 million children live in

institutional care, and 218 million children engage in various

forms of exploitative labor this due to many parents to be low in

socio-economic status (USG, 2009).

In United State of America (U.S.A) more than half (61 percent) of

the children (771,700 children) were victims of neglect, meaning

a parent or guardian failed to provide for the child's basic

needs (World Bank, 2006). U.S. Census Bureau, (2001) reported

that American children remained the poorest population by age

group. Of these approximately 12 million children, one third

lives in extreme poverty in families with incomes below 50% of

the poverty line. The problem of vulnerability in Louisiana was

2

the second highest in the United States (Hoff, 2002) and the

highest in the South at 29% (Bennett & Lu, 2000).

Data from 22 European countries suggest that greater inequality

in household income is positively associated with both self-

reported and measured child overweight prevalence. Moreover,

seven studies from four countries reported on the influence of

socioeconomic factors on the contribute of child vulnerability

over time. Where there is evidence of a widening social gradient

in child vulnerability, it is likely that the changes in

lifestyles and dietary habits involved in the increase in the

prevalence of overweight have had a less vulnerable impact in low

socio-economic status groups than in the rest of the population

(Bennett & Lu, 2000). Decreasing occupational status in Finland,

Belgium and Norway, while for Ireland the highest odds ratio was

found in the middle occupational status category while Hungry low

socio-economic status was found (World Bank, 2007).

In Asia there is high range of socio-economic status of the

parents, meanwhile, the number of vulnerable children among the

courtiers are positively differ. For instance, Bangladesh has one

of the highest rates of child-marriage in the world. 66 per cent

of women (aged 20 to 24) were married before they turned 18. 13

per cent of children are involved in child labor. Child laborers

are frequently denied an education and are vulnerable to violence

and abuse. Bangladesh has one of the lowest rates of birth

registration in the world. This makes it difficult to protect

3

children from trafficking, child labor and child marriage. In

India economic status has been classified as a low-income country

with majority of the population at or below the poverty line

(UNDP, 2009). The total number of vulnerable children in Haiti

was estimated at 1,210,000 or between 20 and 25%, among the

parents more than half have low socio-economic status (USAID,

2010).

In Australia found that there is increase of 50% of children who

need care out of home. Of whom more taken by government and

responsible agencies. There are more children removed from

unsafe homes, given that approximately 25% of Aboriginal children

living in remote communities are under-nourished according to

growth measures.

In sub-Saharan Africa the number of most vulnerable children was

high. This due to accounts for the highest HIV prevalence in the

world combined with structural risk factors, including high

poverty rates, low life expectancy, high infant and child

mortality. Meanwhile, low education levels and low socio-economic

status, of parents/guardians particularly among women and girls

was another factors (World Bank, 2007). Zambia is one of the

worst affected countries in the African continent. The percent of

most vulnerable children was 36.9%.

The 2005 Demographic Health Survey of the Rwandan government

found that 29% of children under the age of 18 surveyed were

4

considered to be vulnerable children (UNICEF, 2008). Uganda has a

total of 2.43 million out of 17.1 million children under age 18

who considered as most vulnerable (Kalibala and Elson, 2009). The

percentage of children considered as most vulnerable in Kenya is

estimated at approximately 60% (USAID, 2010). Kenya’s economic

performance was impressive up to the early 1980s, when it started

declining reaching negative growth rate of -0.3% in 2000. The

economy recovered significantly from a 2.9% growth rate in 2003

to 7.0% in 2007. The economy has slowly recovered to 2.6% and

5.3% in 2009 and 2010 (World Bank, 2010). National absolute

poverty levels in Kenya remain high, although it declined from

52.3% in 1997 to 45.9% in 2005/06. One in five Kenyans has

consumption levels that were inadequate to meet basic food needs

(Kalibala and Elson, 2009).

Tanzania's child population was extremely large, with more than

half of the total population roughly 21 million under the age of

18. Approximately two million were classified as Most Vulnerable

Children (MVC), and 40% were estimated to be orphans as a result

of HIV/AIDS. Nationally, more than a third of MVC live below the

basic needs poverty line (United Republic of Tanzania, 2010). In

Tanzania women experience lower socioeconomic status, with few

exceptions, women have a lower standard of living than do men.

Generally, boys were valued more than girls. Only women descended

from ruling tribal families, successful businesswomen, or women

politicians enjoy privileges equal to that of men (Inshengoma,

2010).

5

Children vulnerability in Unguja and Pemba were mainly due to

poverty, cultural practices and lack of systems to provide care

support and protection of the children. The Home Basic Services

(HBS) show that 49 percent of the Zanzibar cannot meet their

daily basic needs. The situation of Basic Needs Poverty was worst

both in rural and urban areas where the ratios were 54.6 and 40.5

respectively (Mhamba and Hemed, 2008).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The number of parents who are in low Socio-economic status in

North ‘A’ District continues to increase. In most cases the

parents are poor consequently; meeting the core needs of the

children at the household level remains a challenge. Socio-

economic status and vulnerability to a multitude of other risk

factors is primarily a result of weak human capabilities (Mhamba

and Hemed, 2008). The overall situation of Socio-economic status

and children’s vulnerability is complex and needs to be analyzed

within specific country and local contexts (Gilborn, 2001).

According to the Household Basic Services (HBS) 2004/05, it was

estimated that 49 percent of people in Zanzibar live below the

basic needs poverty line. (Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar,

2008). About 21.4 percent of all households in Zanzibar were

female headed. Poverty among female-headed households was

slightly higher than for male-headed households with 51 and 49

percent respectively. Poverty was related to household size and

6

the vulnerability of the children. The majority of poor

households have a larger number of dependents while the head of

the household has very low or no education at all (RGZ, 2009).

Therefore, the low socio-economic status of parents and the

vulnerability of their children is the driving force of this

study. The shortage of basic needs such as meals, casual clothes,

shelter, health care and educational services for many families

due to extreme poverty is among the reasons that initiated this

study.

Currently there is a number of parents in North ’A’ District who

live below the poverty line without the basic needs. Similarly,

this has caused high number of children to drop out from school

and suffer from malnutrition. Meanwhile, lack of existence

effort from the community to support the parents who have low

socio-economic status and their children has contributed to

increase the problem.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which

parent’s socio-economic status is related to children

vulnerability. The study was also give highlights on weaknesses

identified and recommended appropriate steps to be taken in the

elimination of the problems from the local to national level.

7

1.4 Research Objectives

i. To examine the Socio-economic Status of the parents in North

‘A’ District Zanzibar.

ii. To determine the level of vulnerability in North ‘A’District Zanzibar.

iii. To establish relationship between parent’s socio-economic

status and children’ vulnerability in North ‘A’ District

Zanzibar.

iv. Recommend the best methods which can help to reduce the

problem of children

vulnerability in the study area.

1.5 Research Questions

i. What are the socio-economic status of the parents in North

‘A’ District Zanzibar?

ii. What is the level of vulnerability in the North ‘A’ District

Zanzibar?

iii. Is there relationship between parent’s socio-economic status

and children vulnerability in North ‘A’ District Zanzibar?

iv. What are the methods can be used to reduce the problem of

vulnerability of children in the North ‘A’ District

Zanzibar?

1.6 Scope

1.6.1 Geographical scope

8

The study was conducted in North ‘A’ District Unguja, Zanzibar.

The district is about 211 square kilometers with three major

physical features; an extensive coral section of the North West,

the plateau and ridge areas of the central, straddled by the

valleys. It lies in the northern part of Ungula Island. It is

bounded by North ‘B’ district to the south and Indian Ocean to

the North, West and East.

1.6.2 Content scope

The research was examine parents’ level of education, nature of

job, family size, educational level of children, capacity of the

family, total income by all sources and nature of accommodation.

Among the key content areas covered in the study area were level

of socio-economic status of parents, occupational, income of the

parents, education of parents and children and children

vulnerability. Significantly, issues such as economic status,

income, and the impact of vulnerability in the study area were

examined.

1.6.3 Theoretical scope

This study was base on stratification theory developed by Karl

Marx and Max Weber (1920) and three classes theory of socio

stratification developed by Marx

and Engels in (1848).

1.7 Significance of the Study

9

The results of the study will be useful tool in establishing

policies, decisions making and strategic plan on the allocation

of resources towards the parents and their children who are below

poverty line and alleviate children vulnerability. Meanwhile, the

study is focused to help the International and Local Non

Governmental Organization (NGOs) which provide services to the

parent and children to improve the situation of socio-economic

status in the study area.

This study will help the Local, Central Government, and Internal

Organizations to know the situation of the socio-economic status

and children vulnerability in the study area and their priority

needs. This will be important for them to cheap in and contribute

to help and increase the S.E.S of people in Zanzibar especially

North ‘A’ District.

1.8 Operational Definitions of Key Terms

Parent/Guardian: The person, adult or child primarily responsible

for providing care, watching over or safeguarding to a child or

negotiating care or support on behalf of a child.

Socio-economic status: Socio-economic Status (SES) is the term

used to distinguish between people’s relative position in the

society in terms of family income, political power, educational

back ground and occupational prestige. OR Socio-economic status

10

refers to the social and economic position occupied by parents in

the society.

Education: Children of school age who ever attended and are

currently attending (by total children and by vulnerable

children) and the status education of parents/Guardians.

Children: A young person of either sex especial one between

infancy and youth; or biologically, a child is generally a human

between the stages of birth and puberty.

Vulnerability: A vulnerable child is defenseless; exposed to

behavior, conditions or circumstances that he or she is powerless

to manage; and is susceptible and accessible to a threatening

parent or caregiver. OR The term vulnerability is defined as “the

characteristics of a person or group and their situation that

influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and

recover from the impact of a natural hazard” (UNICEF, 2008).

According to this study vulnerability is situation whereby

children lack the basing needs such as food, shelter, casual

clothes, health services, psychosocial support and education.

This may general expose child to a powerless situation

(vulnerable child).

11

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction

This chapter was composed of the theoretical review and reviews

some of the works of different authors that related to this

study. The more consideration in the review was parent’s level of

socio-economic status, parent’s education level, income level of

the parents and occupational prestige. Meanwhile, it examines

children’s vulnerability at different aspects and educational

status of children.

2.1 Concepts, Opinions, Ideas from Authors/ Experts

2.1.1 Socio-economic status of parents

Socio-economic status refers to the social and economic position

occupied by parents in the society (McLeod and Shanahan, 1996).

SES it is a level made up of individuals who deem themselves

equal due to similarities in family background, level of

12

education, occupation, race and attitude towards social issues.

Socio-economic status is usually a measure of the income and

occupation of the individual, irrespective of his or her

educational or social standing (Guo and Harris, 2000).

Exposure to adverse social conditions has been proven to affect

the psychological health of children (McLeod & Shanahan, 1996).

To date, most studies have emphasized that the limited resources

and unequal distribution of wealth in a society act as a

mediating force to increase the risk of psychological effects of

people living within the lower socio-economic groups (Evans,

2004; McLeod & Shanahan, 1993, 1996).

World Vision International, (2005) noted that children with low

socio-economic status and their families were confronted with

severe threats to their well-being including isolation, loss of

income, educational access, shelter, nutrition and other

essential necessities. When families and children were forced to

focus on daily basic needs to decrease their suffering, attention

was diverted from factors that contribute to long-term health and

well-being (Duke, 2000). It was widely recognized that most of

the problems faced by children with low socio-economic status and

households result either directly or indirectly from the economic

impact of AIDS (Currie and Moretti, 2007).

2.1.2 The level of vulnerability of children.

13

UNICEF, (2008) reported that large number of children made

vulnerable by food insecurity, poverty, and high illiteracy

rates. Public health vulnerabilities were further increased by

polygamy and early marriage (Duke, 2000). The loss of parents

through death or desertion was an important aspect of

vulnerability.

The level of vulnerability between children in urban and rural

areas and between families to family was varied. Vulnerable

children in urban areas were significantly higher than in rural

areas (18 percent vs. 14 percent. While the level of

vulnerability tend to be higher in the rural areas (43 percent

moderately vs. 52 percent critically vulnerable (Entwisle, 1994).

Overall levels of vulnerability appear to be highest in the

Northern region, perhaps reflecting the long period of conflict,

combined with the violent cattle-rustling culture of Karamoja.

(Kalibala and Elson, 2009). There is some suggestion that

regional variation in vulnerability may correlate with wealth

distribution. Higher levels of poverty in the conflict-affected

North, and relatively more affluence in the Central region

(Kalibala and Elson, 2009).

Variation rates of vulnerability it shows that rates of

vulnerable children range between 11 percent of children in the

Eastern region and 17 percent of children in the Central region.

Meanwhile, the percentage of children categorized as “moderately”14

vulnerable ranges between 34 percent in the Central region and 54

percent in the North (Kalibala and Elson, 2009).

USAID, (2010) reported that Twenty-six point five percent of all

households were caring for orphans only, 36.7% were caring for

vulnerable children only and 36.9% were caring for both orphans

and vulnerable children. This varies by district with Livingstone

having the most households caring for orphans only (29.3%),

Lusaka caring for vulnerable children more often (42.6%), and

Mongu having the largest percent of households caring for both

orphans and vulnerable children (46.4%).

USAID, (2010) reported that vulnerability was an important policy

area that requires further work due to its causes of various

forms of socio-economic status and poverty. The extremely

vulnerable groups are likely to be members from the following

social groups: children, people with disabilities, individuals

carrying out high-risk jobs, elderly people, youths and women.

2.1.3 Relationship between parent’s socio-economic status and

children’s vulnerability.

Akanle, (2007) said that it is worth to note that the nature and

extent of vulnerability differs among different groups, depending

on the nature and character of impoverishing forces facing them.

For example, while children under 5 years of age are mostly

vulnerable to diseases, malnutrition, and inadequate care, young

15

women faces risks of early pregnancy, neglect, poor ante natal

care, etc.

UNICEF, (2008) reported that large number of children made

vulnerable by food insecurity, poverty, and high illiteracy

rates. Public health vulnerabilities were further increased by

polygamy and early marriage (Duke, 2000). The loss of a parent

through death or desertion was an important aspect of

vulnerability. Additional factors leading to vulnerability

included severe chronic illness of a parent or caregiver,

poverty, hunger, lack of access to services, inadequate clothing

or shelter, overcrowding, deficient caretakers, and factors

specific to the child, including disability, direct experience of

physical or sexual violence, or severe chronic illness (UNICEF,

2008).

Richter et al., (2004) states that the practice of older men

marrying teenage girls also contributes a lot to family

dysfunction. Due to an old age, such a man might not be able to

carefully raise his young children as he should and eventually

become vulnerable. The mother was also too young to have mature

motherly skills to lead the children in the right way, in the

process, these children end up being improperly raised up to know

right from wrong and end up hanging out with wrong people, or

drop out from school (Babbie, 1989).

Among adolescents, low SES is often associated with poor adaptive

functioning, an increased likelihood of depression, and

16

delinquent behavior (McLoyd, 1997). Data from Britain and

California show that low SES children are more likely to have low

birth weight than high SES children. Maternal reports of overall

child health from the U.S., Britain and Canada all show that the

health gap between high and low SES children continues through

early childhood and beyond (USAID, 2010).

Low-SES parents are less likely to purchase reading and learning

materials for their children, less likely to take their children

to educational and cultural events, and less likely to regulate

the amount of TV their children watch. As a result, low-SES

children more frequently experience school failure (even in the

early grades), which moves them on a trajectory of either conduct

problems or withdrawal behaviors (UNAIDS, 1999; Engle, 2008).

McLeod and Shanahan, (1996) reported that when families were

constrained by fewer resources and there were differences in boys

and girls access to resources, children’s livelihood was

consequently affected. Akanle, (2007) states that Parental income

not to be sufficient to sustain the daily life and personal

social life. This to a large extent affects the psychological

balance or homeostatic balance in home and in class room, which

causes low concentration, low perception, frustration, sickness

and emotional disability (Capraro et al., 2000).

It explained that in urban areas, most poor families can hardly

afford the cost of water, resulting in children from poor

17

families being sent on long treks in search of water, often

having to stand in long queues and consequently being late or

absent from school (Bugembe et al., 2005). USAID, (2010) reported

that 32.4% of poor children suffer from a chronic condition,

compared to 26.5% of non-poor children, a gap that would likely

be even larger if differences in diagnosis probabilities were

accounted for. In United State 82% of all households, 16% of

those in the top quintiles, had two income earners the

discrepancy between household and personal income was quite

considerable. In 2005 the top 95% of income earners made $12,500

or more, while 18% of households had incomes over $100,000.

Personal income was largely the result of scarcity (UNICEF,

2008).

Mhamba and Hemed, (2008) noted that Divorce was also another

factor for children entering into vulnerability situation

especially among the disadvantaged families. The problem becomes

even more severe if the divorced wife was a teenager below the

age of 18 year. It was estimated that around 21% and 22% of the

households in rural and urban areas respectively, were female

headed (Bennett and Lu, 2000).

2.1.4 The methods of reducing the vulnerability

Increased community mobilization and capacity building and

partnership between communities and key stakeholders including

government agencies, religious organizations, community leaders,

18

NGOs and other community groups are crucial in the response to

socio-economic needs of orphans, other vulnerable children and

their families (Akanle, 2007).

State-of-the-art microfinance programs have shown good potential

for increasing economic resilience among poor households in

sustainable, cost-effective manner (Mackenbach et al., 2000)

Village banking was perhaps the best known of such programs. One

of the critical elements in the use of these types of

interventions was that they were provided by established

microfinance organizations and geographically overlaps with

programs children with low socio-economic status (Galobardes et

al., 2007).

Psychosocial support helps children deal with grief and

bereavement and with the stigma, discrimination, and maltreatment

they may experience at the hands of foster caregivers and/or

members of the community (UNAIDS, 1999; Engle, 2008). The

psychological needs of these children include love, recognition

and acceptance, protection, being valued, encouragement, comfort,

and participation in important life events (Mhamba and Hemed,

2008).

Education for primary school children about their rights was

conducted by social workers on an annual basis through after-

school MVC clubs. Social workers further educate guardians and

19

community members about children’s rights during caregiver

support groups and community meetings (USAID, 2010).

To promote MVC education in schools, social workers train primary

school teachers in life skills education and encourage them to

lead after-school MVC clubs. These clubs serve as a forum to

disseminate health information, implement group counseling and

facilitate skills development relating to self-esteem and risk

reduction (Ainsworth and Filmer, 2002).

MVC guardians encouraged to participate in caregiver support

groups that provide social support and were often linked to

income generating activities. Guardians were further provided

with general household support during home visits including basic

counseling and help with household chores (Richter et al., 2004).

2.2 Theoretical Perspectives

This research was based on the following theories:-

2.2.1 Stratification theory: This theory was developed by Karl

Marx and Max Weber, (1920). According to Marx, people’s

relationship to the means of production was the sole factor in

determining their social class. They either belong to the

20

bourgeoisie (those who owned the means of production) or the

proletariat (those who work for the owners).

According to Weber, Marx’s typology was too limiting since, in

actuality, social class, as well as people’s social class

standing, consists of three interrelated components: property,

prestige, and power (Alisa and Gregg, 2012).

2.2.2 Three classes Theory” of social stratification: The theory

was developed by Marx and Engels in (1848). According to this

theory society was divided into three classes, the “upper class”,

“middle class” and the “lower class”. The upper class composed of

a relatively few individuals who hold the top most positions in

society; a middle class composed of persons of lesser status but

of relatively comfortable means; and a lower class was of persons

who have a bare existence when measured by the given society

standards (Avison, 2012).

“Three class Theory” of social stratification was very popular.

According to this theory society is divided into three classes,

the “upper class”, “middle class” and the “lower class”. The

upper class composed of a relatively few individuals who hold the

top most positions in society; a middle class composed of persons

of lesser status but of relatively comfortable means; and a lower

class was of persons who have a bare existence when measured by

the given society standards. The chief criticism of this theory

21

was that it does not draw a sharp dividing line between

individuals of different classes in society (Ajakaiye and Mwabu,

2009).

The middle class for instance, may run the whole range from

semiskilled workers to owners of relatively large business

enterprises as well as highly paid professionals. Such criticisms

have led to the five and six class theories of social

stratification. The six class theory holds that the upper class

was divided in to an upper-middle and a lower upper class, and

the middle class was divided in to an upper middle and a lower

middle class and that the lower class was divided in to an upper

lower class and a lower class. The five class theory generally

used to categories people in social classes. These classes were

named as upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower

middle class and lower class.

2.2.3 Diathesis–stress theory: This theory was developed by

Professor James Potesh (1982).This theory attempts to explain

behavior as a predisposition vulnerability together with stress

from life experiences. The term diathesis derives from the Greek

term for disposition, or vulnerability. However, the diathesis–

stress model was not introduced and utilized to describe the

development of psychopathology until it was used to explain

schizophrenia in the 1960.

22

Vulnerability makes it more or less likely that an individual

will succumb to the development of psychopathology if a certain

stress is encountered. Diatheses are considered inherent within

the individual and are typically conceptualized as being stable,

but not unchangeable, over the lifespan. They are also often

considered latent (i.e. dormant), because they are harder to

recognize unless provoked by stressors.

This theory explain that early life experiences such as the loss

of a parent, lack of psychosocial support, extreme poverty and

lack of education can be conceptualized as situational factors,

such as low socio-economic status or having a parent unwealth

depression as are major factors that leads vulnerability.

2.3 Related Studies

In this section, the researcher sought to know what other

researchers have found out about socio-economic status of

parents, parents level of education, income level and

occupational prestige in relation to children’s vulnerability.

Wilson et al., (2002) stated that access to adequate food and

nutrition was crucial for children’s physiological and emotional

development. According to the children response review carried

out by Tanzania Commission for AIDS (TACAIDS) in February 2004,

23

after education, caregivers and community leaders mentioned food

as the second major problem they face. Children often mention

their need for food before they mention education (UNICEF, 2008).

Kalibala and Elson, (2009) described that a large number of

children made vulnerable by food insecurity, poverty, and high

illiteracy rates. Lack of adequate rainfall and rocky soil

inhibit food production, contributing to high levels of poverty.

Public health vulnerabilities were further increased by polygamy

and early marriage (Bennett and Lu, 2000).

According to Subbarao et al., (2001) observed in Haiti that

children move in and out of various groups of vulnerability as

their life circumstances change. The number of children who were

placed in vulnerable situations, either through employment or

exposure to risky environments, was invariably increased.

According to Ainsworth and Filmer, (2002) in Zambia children from

lower income households were less likely to enroll at school,

regardless of their orphan status. Among children living in low

income households, double orphans were around 15% less likely to

have enrolled at school compared to either single parent orphans

(Thurman et al., 2007).

World Bank, (2006) reported that emotional, physical and sexual

abuse faced by children within the home was one of the main

reasons why children may be removed from family care (by State

authorities) or choose to run away from their family. World

24

Vision International, (2005) state that girls face increased risk

of sexual abuse, whilst boys face increased physical violence 88%

of the children in SOS Children’s villages in Croatia have

suffered physical or sexual abuse within their biological family,

75% in Belarus and 55% of children in Lithuania.

Capraro, (2000) states that the influence of socio-economic

status at the individual level was still prevalent expectations

had a somewhat stronger influence than did the economic

variables. Cultural effects of a race and gender interaction for

African American males among elementary school-aged children were

stronger than socioeconomic status in predicting reading

achievement (Diamond and Onwuegbuzie, 2001). African and American

children (33.1%) are more likely to live in poverty than white

children (13.5%). They were also more likely to have single

parents, and more likely to be welfare dependent (Rector et al.,

2001). African American children were also disproportionately

represented in title schools (Currie and Moretti, 2007). Racial

minority status was more likely to be correlated with lower

teacher qualifications such as certification and years of

experience (Darling-Hammond, 1999).

Duke, (2000) noted that poverty played a significant role in the

print environment and experience of children in first-grade

classrooms in the greater Boston area. Poor classes had less

exposure to and experience with extended text, and less time

engaged in activities in which students had a high degree of25

authorship. The reverse was true of classes with more financial

support (Subbarao, 2001).

Akanle, (2007) reported that identified Parental income in work

to be a cogent factor upon which the academic/vocational

successes of secondary school students lie. Parental income not

to be sufficient to sustain the academic and personal social life

of the student in sub rural school areas. To a large extent

affects the psychological balance or homeostatic balance in the

class room. This situation reported to causes low concentration,

low perception, frustration, sickness and emotional disability in

academic performance of the students (Diamond and Onwuegbuzie,

2001).

Therefore when a child is deprived of the essential needs he may

be found to perform poorly in his school work. In urban areas,

most poor families can hardly afford the cost of water, resulting

in children from poor families being sent on long treks in search

of water, often having to stand in long queues and consequently

being late or absent from school (Bugembe et al, 2005). UNDP,

(2009) stated that social and cultural factors influence high

rates of poverty and vulnerability. Vulnerability was often a

complex interplay of different factors, including gender rela-

tions, discrimination and power imbalance.

Gender inequality was pervasive in the region: the 2007/08

Gender-related Development Index (GDI) finds 12 WCA countries in

the 20 lowest ranking countries. Girls grow up vulnerable to male

26

violence, ill-health, early marriage and maternal death, and

faced limited work opportunities and persistent poverty due to

lack of education. Bradley et al., (2001), Corwyn & Bradley, (2000)

data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the

National Household Education Survey. Indicate that children from

poor families have less access to a wide variety of different

recreational and learning materials from infancy through

adolescence. They are less likely to go on trips, visit a library

or museum, attend a theatrical performance, or be given lessons

directed at enhancing their skills.

Access to such material and cultural resources mediates the

relation between SES (or family income) and children’s

intellectual and academic achievement from infancy through

adolescence (Bradley & Corwyn, 2001, Brooks-Gunn et al., 1995,

Entwisle et al., 1994, Guo & Harris, 2000). The impact becomes

greater as the number of negative life events (e.g., family

dissolution, loss of employment) and risk conditions (e.g.,

household crowding, presence of a mentally ill parent) increases

(Guo & Harris, 2000).

McLeod and Shanahan, (1996) noted that parents with $5,000 per

annum was regarded as high economic status parents, $2,000-

$5,000 as medium socio-economic parents and less than $2,000 as

low socio-economic parents. Generally, SES influences the life-

27

chances of people, affecting their social position in the society

and the access to the possibilities related to that position.

Access to financial services was critical for economic

empowerment of any population and it varies across gender. This

includes levels of savings, access to credit, insurance services

and remittances. Experiences and evidence from other countries,

for instance, point out that loosening of economic constraint

imposed on women can have immense consequences on development

(Rector et al., 2001).

Battin-Pearson et al., (2000) noted that low-SES parents are less

likely to purchase reading and learning materials for their

children, less likely to take their children to educational and

cultural events, and less likely to regulate the amount of TV

their children watch (Bradley et al., 2001a, Hess et al., 1982). As a

result, low-SES children more frequently experience school

failure (even in the early grades), which moves them on a

trajectory of either conduct problems or withdrawal behaviors

(Evans, 2004).

USAID, (2010) noted that income generation activities were

promoted among parents and children age 15 and older involved in

associations and caregiver support groups. Initially,

participants were encouraged to generate an informal rotating

savings and loans system (Strohschein, 2005). The groups are

28

encouraged to maintain a separate pool of money that was not

loaned to members, but used as a social fund in case of sickness

or family need (Advig, 2000).

In a vulnerable children’s project in two local government areas

in Benue State in Nigeria, 250 households with orphans and

vulnerable children were receiving support through income-

generating activities and microcredit schemes, and 350 orphans

and vulnerable children were receiving education and vocational

training (Desmond and Gow, 2001).

UNICEF, (2008) states that occupational prestige as one component

of SES, encompasses both income and educational attainment.

Occupational status reflects the educational attainment required

to obtain the job and income levels that vary with different jobs

and within ranks of occupations. Additionally, it shows

achievement in skills required for the job. Occupational status

measures social position by describing job characteristics,

decision making ability and control, and psychological demands on

the job.

Desmond and Gow, (2001) reported that social vulnerability is

partially the product of social inequalities those social factors

that influence or shape the susceptibility of various groups to

harm and that also govern their ability to respond. It is,

however, important to note that social vulnerability is not

29

registered by exposure to hazards alone, but also resides in the

sensitivity and resilience of the system to prepare, cope and

recover from such hazards (Andvig, (2000).

According to Jeremy Suizo, (2010) analysis of Lareau’s book,

‘Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life’, there is a

clear distinction between the parenting styles of the working

class families and the middle class. The middle class, practices

a method she dubs "concerted cultivation" while the working class

use a style called the accomplishment of natural growth.

Ainsworth and Filmer, (2002) observed that, middle class parents

had a greater presence in the lives of their children; primarily

through organizing the child's daily life. For middle class

families, there was a heavy emphasis on scheduling and

participating in various extracurricular activities and sports.

Middle class parents also encouraged their children to ask

questions and to be self-reliant. Children under the concerted

cultivation method tended to participate in sibling rivalry and

because of the heavy scheduling, middle class children rarely

visited extended family and had little free time (USAID, 2010).

Australian Commission on Social Determinants of Health, (2007)

states that socioeconomic position as an aggregate concept that

includes both resource-based and prestige-based measures, as

linked to both childhood and adult social class position.

30

Resource-based measures refer to material and social resources

and assets, including income, wealth, and educational

credentials. Terms they used to describe inadequate resources

include “poverty” and “deprivation”. Prestige-based measures

refer to individuals’ rank or status in a social hierarchy,

typically evaluated with reference to people’s access to and

consumption of goods, services, and knowledge (Currie and

Moretti, 2007). Educational level creates differences between

people in terms of access to information and the level of

proficiency in benefiting from new knowledge, whereas income

creates differences in access to scarce material goods. In

conducting this study, parents’ education level, income and

occupation were taken as the independent variables (Wilson et al.,

2002).

Kalibala and Elson, (2009) noted that lower parents’ occupations

prestige, the most vulnerable tends to be. The correlation

coefficient between parents’ occupation and children

vulnerability was found to be 0.875. Chauhan, (1996) states that

adolescents found out that a child’s particular socio-economic

inheritance may have a direct and important effect on the career

open or attractive to him that does his physical inheritance. The

economic and occupational level of the home affects the

vocational goals of youths by influencing their aspirations to be

similar to those held by their parents and by discouraging

31

aspiration to level much above or below the parental occupational

status (Duke, 2000).

The Jamaican socioeconomic system primarily emerging from slavery

and colonialism has created an arena for segregation and social

stratification of the Jamaican society (Bryan, 2000). This

stratification chiefly predetermined the privileges and benefits

afforded to each social group (Thompson, 1997). Consequently,

those living within the lower socioeconomic groups have less

access to social and economic benefits.

A substantial body of evidence reveals that there is a clear

demarcation between the various socioeconomic groups, such that,

parents of children with high educational attainment and

prestigious occupation was at a greater advantage of offering

their children opportunities for higher education, access to

wealth, use of stimulating resources (Brooks-Gunn et al., as cited

in Bradley et al., 2002; Galobardes, et al., 2007; Strohschien, 2005),

and homes in safer residential communities. Typically, the

privileges afforded to children of higher socioeconomic groups

magnify their chances of experiencing more wholesome life styles

than those of the lower socioeconomic groups (Brook-Gunn et al.,

1997).

Socioeconomic status affects both health care consumption and

health human capital (Ajakaiye and Mwabu, 2009). Better-off

people tend to be in better health (Thomas, 2009). As incomes

32

increase, individuals invest in better diets, improve sanitation

and allocate more resources to health care, thereby improving

their health human capital. As they become healthier, their SES

improves since they were less susceptible to diseases, more

energetic, more productive and worker longer and command higher

earnings (Thomas, 2009). At the individual level, health and SES

drive each other. Thomas, (2009) observes that there was a strong

inter-generational correlation in education and SES, such that

children born of parents with lower SES have lower educational

attainment in adulthood.

There were several indicators for socio-economic position, and

that the most important were occupational status, level of

education and income level. Each indicator covers a different

aspect of social stratification, and it was therefore preferable

to use all three instead of only one (Samms-Vaughan, 2006). They

add that the measurement of these three indicators was far from

straightforward, and due attention should be paid to the

application of appropriate classifications, for example,

children, women and economically inactive people, for whom one or

more of these indicators may not be directly available (Bryan,

2000). Information on education, occupation and income may be

unavailable, and it may then be necessary to use proxy measures

of socio-economic status such as indicators of living standards

(Rector et al., 2001).

33

Socioeconomic position as an aggregate concept that includes both

resource-based and prestige-based measures, as linked to both

childhood and adult social class position (Evans, 2004).

Resource-based measures refer to material and social resources

and assets, including income, wealth, and educational

credentials. Terms they used to describe inadequate resources

include “poverty” and “deprivation”. Prestige-based measures

refer to individuals’ rank or status in a social hierarchy

(Mackenbach et al., 2002). Prestige-based measure was linked to

occupational prestige, income, and educational level (Thompson,

1997). Educational level creates differences between people in

terms of access to information and the level of proficiency in

benefiting from new knowledge, whereas income creates differences

in access to scarce material goods (Bugembe et al., 2005).

Some sociologists consider the higher income and prestige of

higher ranked jobs to simply be incentives to encourage members

of society to obtain the skills necessary to perform important

work. This is an important mechanism in the economic theory of

capitalism, and is compatible with the notion that class is

mutable and determined by a combination of choices and

opportunities (World Bank, 2006). Status inconsistency was a

situation where an individual's social positions have both

positive and negative influences on his or her social status. For

example, a teacher may have a positive societal image (respect,

34

prestige) which increases their status but may earn little money,

which simultaneously decreases their status (Barrett at el., 2005).

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the major methodological aspects that were

used in this study on which results, interpretations, discussion,

conclusions and recommendations were based.

3.1 Research Design

The research used a descriptive research design and correlational

Research design in order to obtain information concerning the

current status of socio economic status of parents and children

vulnerability. Kajembe et al., (2004) notes that descriptive design

enables the researcher to obtain an accurate profile of the

people, events or situations. The descriptive design is

advantageous for the researcher due to its flexibility, this

method can use either qualitative or quantitative data or both,

giving the researcher greater options in selecting the instrument

for data-gathering (Ishengoma, 2004; Babbie, 1989). Correlational35

Research design was used to determine the relationship between

parents socio-economic status and vulnerability of their

children.

3.2 Research Population

According to the population and housing census of 2002; North

‘A’ (NAD) has a total of 84,147 people where by 40,580 were males

and 43,567 were females (NBS, 2002). The population is assumed to

have increased since 2002. The district occupies an area of 211

square kilometer with a population density of 399 people per

square. The district has a total of 36 wards (Shehia) with a

total of 17,415 households having an average household’s size

(person per households) of 4.8 persons (RGZ, 2009).

The mean household size of NAD rose from 4.9 members in 2002 to

5.3 in 2004/2005 and mean number of persons per sleeping room was

2.3 (RGZ, 2004; RGZ, 2008). Purposively eight (8) wards (shehia)

out of 36 were selected to give the target population. The eight

shehia has 5,149 households. Therefore, the total target

population of this study was 5,149.

3.3 Sample Size

The sample size of this study consisted of five hundred and

fifteen (515) households drawn from a total households of five

thousand, one hundred and forty nine (5,149) from eight wards

(shehia) of the North ‘A’ District. Table one (1) provides the

population and the sample size.

36

Table 1: Population and Sample size

District Shehia Population Sample size % of sample

size

Kilindi 505 51 9.9 North Kigunda 412 41 8.0 Kisongoni 265 27 5.2 South Kikobweni 1000 100 19.4 Mkwajuni 928 93 18.1 Central Kibeni 690 69 13.4 East Kijini 725 72 14.0

West Potoa 624 62 12.0 TOTAL 5,149 515 100

Source: Survey Primary Data 2011

37

3.4 Sampling Procedure

The study was conducted in eight wards (shehia) in North ‘A’

District. Stratified random sampling technique was adopted to

select two shehia in North namely: Kilindi and Kigunda, and two

shehia in South and Central each namely: Kisongoni, Kikobweni,

Mkwajuni and Kibeni respectively. One shehia from East known as

Kijini and one from West known as Potoa.

A representative sample for the study from each shehia was based

on Boyd’s formula n/N x 100 = C, whereby C represents a figure

greater or equal to ten percent (10%) of the shehia household

population, N is the total households in the shehia and n is the

number of selected households (Boyd et al., 1981).

A fixed whole number of the households was selected and

calculated by using Boyd’s formula resulting to 10% or closest to

10% (as long as it is above 10%) of the total households in the

shehia. Eventually we obtained 515 as our sample size. These

households were used to get the information needed in the basic

survey (data collection).

3.5 Research Instrument

The primary data were collected by using structured questionnaire

and observation. Before data collection preliminary survey was

adopted to obtain general information about the wards (shehia)

38

and for familiarization and introduction of the study objective

to the local government and villagers.

Questionnaires

The study used both structured and unstructured questionnaires.

The structured questionnaires were based on Likert five point

scale (i.e strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly

disagree) of which the respondents were to agree on the

statements related to the study. Unstructured questionnaires were

open ended whereby the respondents were required to give their

suggestion and opinion on what they knew and feel about the

questions given.

Research assistants were trained to administer an informed

consent procedure for both parents/guardians and children. A

survey was used to collect standardized information from a

carefully selected sample of households. Surveys often collect

comparable information for a relatively large number of people in

particular target groups (Advig, 2000; Kajembe, 2004; Ishengoma,

2010).

Observation

Observation was primarily used to tie together the more discrete

element of data collected by other methods. Thus, an iterative

process between observation and other methods occurred. The most

important tools during the observation were curiosity,

willingness to learn from other people and ability to adapt to

39

the rhythm and lifestyle of local people (Kajembe et al., (2004).

The The observed data on what was happening in the homes and

fields and general appearance of the area was noted in a notebook

for

additional information.

Secondary data

Secondary data were obtained from report, books, journals,

magazines and other documents from various offices within the

district.

3.6 Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

Validity of the instrument:

The main reason of test-retest was to identify any shortcomings

and assist in making modifications in some questions before the

actual data collection. Observation was done in advance to assess

the situation in order to achieve the objectives. The

questionnaires were given to experts who went through and made

some correction before the final copy was taken to the field.

Reliability of the Instrument:

The instruments that were used for data collection were test-

retested in order to ensure their reliability. An average of ten

questionnaires was given to respondents in each of the shehia.

The response to the questionnaires was analyzed first. After two

weeks, the same average questionnaires were re-issued to the

40

respondents in each of the shehia. After which the results were

analyzed. When we compared with the first and second results we

obtained a positive correlation of 0.89 in which we concluded

that the instrument was valid and reliable. Those questions which

were not well understood were corrected before the final copy was

made to be used in the field.

3.7 Data Gathering Procedures

The researcher was received the letter from School of

Postgraduate Studies and Research (SPGSR) to ensure that

authority and permission from the study area was obtained.

Meanwhile, the respondents and community was considered.

The leader of the Community members from each Shehia was

conducted and informed about the research. They were involved in

encouraging people to give in their responses. The researcher

assured them of that the information provided by them was meant

for academic purpose only. During the data collection the

villagers were involved full and emphasized to show their

boundaries of its shehia in order to enable the researcher to get

accurate data for each shehia.

3.8 Data Analysis

After data gathering the researcher analyzed the data to obtain

findings and conclusions. In order to obtain descriptive

statistical, the data was analyzed using the percentages,

41

frequencies, graphs, average, and range by the aid of Statistic

package for Social Scientist.

3.9 Ethical Considerations

As this study requires the participation of

human respondents, specifically human resource, certain ethical

issues were addressed. The consideration of these ethical issues

was necessary for the purpose of ensuring the privacy as well as

the safety of the participants. Among the significant ethical

issues that were considered in the research process included

consent and confidentiality. In order to secure the consent of

the selected participants, the researcher relayed all important

details of the study, including its aim and purpose. By

explaining these important details, the respondents were able to

understand the importance of their role in the completion of the

research.

The respondents were advised that they could withdraw from the

study even during the process. With this, the participants were

not forced to participate in the research. The confidentiality of

the participants also were ensured by not disclosing their names

or personal information in the research. Only relevant details

that helped in answering the research questions were included. 

3.10 Limitation of the Study

One of the major challenges in

collecting information was absence of compiled up to date

42

information in the District office. The solution to this problem

was met after a discussion with relevant Officers. Some of the

respondents were busy for their activities that did not have time

to respond to questionnaires. Much effort was done to reduce

these limitations like encouraging people and visiting them

during weekends and also was take in the evening. Another

limitation is that of the 36 wards (shehia) only stratified

selected eight wards were selected for the study. The findings

may be biased because not all the wards were selected.

CHAPTER FOUR.

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.0 Introduction.

This chapter deals with the presentation and analysis of the

major findings from the research instruments that were used for

collecting the data with specific emphasis on the parent’s socio-

economic status and the vulnerability of their children in North

‘A’ District Zanzibar. In order to conceptualize the situation,

the study represented the following tables as shown below. 43

Table 2: Number of head of households by gender and marital

status.

Married % Single %

Total %

Males 306 89.7 15

8.6 321 62.3

Females 35 10.3 159

91.4 194 37.6

Total 341 100 174

100 515 100

Source: Survey Field Data

Total samples of 515 households were surveyed. The majority

(62.3%) of the heads of households were males as shown in table-3

above. The mean age of the heads of households was 38.6 years;

the youngest head of household is 14 years while the oldest 87

years.

The number of female-headed households (37.6%) (n=194) was lower

than for male-headed households (62.3%) (n=321). However in

shehia level there was only one shehia that had higher number of

female-headed households (51.8%) where male-headed households was

(48.1%), this was Kisongoni Shehia. The result indicates that

there was significant different among the shehia level between

male-headed households and female-headed households.

44

Figure 1: Marital status of head of households.

Married Single0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

MalesFemales

A total of 342 (66.2%) head of households reported being

currently married and 174 (33.8%) were currently single (Figure-

1). Among the 33.8% who were single (n=174), the majority were

widowed. The mean age at first marriage was 21 years old for male

and 19 years old for females. Therefore, the result indicates

that there was a significant difference between married head of

households and single head of households in the study area.

45

Table 3: Educational status of parents/guardians

Level of education Males % Females

% Total % Post graduate 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.0

Bachelors degree 10 3.15 2.6 15 3.0 Diploma 23 7.311 5.7 34 6.6

Certificate 37 11.46 3.1 43 8.3

Secondary 68 21.230 15.4 98 19.0

Primary 92 28.797 50.0 189 36.7

Adult education 35 10.917 8.8 52 10.1

Not gone to school 56 17.428 14.4 84 16.3 Total 321 100

194 100 515 100Source: Survey Field Data

46

The result in table-3 indicates that majority of parents in the

study area have primary education level (28.6% for males and

50.0% for females). There were no parents with the levels of

education beyond first degree where by the percent of first

degree of males and females were 3.1% and 2.6% respectively.

Those with Diploma were 7.3% for males and 5.7% for females while

11.4% males and 3.1% females have got certificate education.

Those with of secondary education were 21.1% males and 15.4%

females while 10.8% males and 8.8% females have got adult

education. Those who have not gone to school were 17.7% males and

14.4 females. However, almost in all level female respondents

were dominant.

Table 4: Social classes of the parents/guardians

Shehia First class Middle class

Lower class M % F % M % F %

M % F % Total

47

Kilindi 4 8.1 1 14.3 10 10.1 4 6.7 20 11.4 12 9.4 51

Kigunda 5 10.2 0 0.0 8 8.0 6 10.3 12 6.8 10 7.8 41

Kisongoni 3 6.1 0 0.0 3 3.0 5 8.4 7 4.0 9 7.1 27

Kikobweni 14 28.6 3 42.8 20 20.3 13 22.0 30 17.2 20 15.7 100

Kijini 2 4.1 0 0.0 15 15.2 7 11.8 22 13.0 26 20.6 72

Potoa 6 12.3 1 14.3 11 11.1 10 16.9 19 10.9 15 11.8 62

Mkwajuni 11 22.4 0 0.0 18 18.2 9 15.3 36 20.7 19 14.9 93

Kibeni 4 8.2 2 28.6 14 14.1 5 8.6 28 16.0 16 12.7 69 Total 49 100 7 100 99 100 59 100 174

100 127 100 515Overall 56 158301 515 total Percent 10.9 30.7

58.4 100Source: Field study data

Note that F stand for female and M stand for male

48

The results obtained indicate that in the selected sample

parents/guardians 10.9% were from upper class, 30.7% were from

middle class and 58.4% were from low class. This indicates that

majority of the parents 58.5% (n=301) (i.e. 174 males and 127

females) belong to lower class (Table-4).

This implies that a high number of vulnerable children belong to

parents/guardians who come from lower social class. Results of

the study indicate that there is a statistical significant

difference between social classes of the parents/guardians. The

result implies that the children from lower social class were

more vulnerable compared to children who were in upper and middle

class.

Table 5: Occupation and common source of income of parentsShehia

Kilindi Kigunda Kisoni K/bweni Kijini Potoa M/juni Kibeni Total

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Occupation

49

Farming/L. keeping 14 27.5 15 36.6 21 77.8 14 14.0 27 37.5 9 14.5 26

27.9 14 20.3 140 27.2

Fishing 10 19.6 8 19.5 0 0.0 12 12.0 19 26.4 10 16.1 23 24.7 4 5.8 86 16.7

Trading 9 17.6 5 12.2 2 7.4 37 37.0 7 9.7 15 24.217 18.3 22 31.9 114 22.1

Employed/S.-employed 15 29.4 9 21.9 3 11.1 32 32.0 9 12.6 22 35.5 22

23.7 26 37.7 138 26.8

No work 3 5.9 4 9.8 1 3.7 5 5.0 10 13.8 6 9.7 5 5.4 3 4.3 37 7.2

Total 51 100 41 100 27 100 100 100 72 100 62 100 93 100 69 100 515 100

Source: Field Survey data

The result from table-5 above shows that out of 515 respondents

who were asked the question regarding sources of income, 27.2%

received income through farming/livestock keeping and another

26.7% through formal occupation such as teaching and self-

employed. Where 22.1% receive income through trading goods and

another 16.7% through fishing. Only 7.2% of the respondents

reported that they have no source of income. From the results,

indicates that the number of parents who have no work is high and

existed in all shehia.

50

Table 6: Average monthly income from income generating activities

Males Females Total

Av. Monthly income Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % in (TAS)Below 50,000 33 10.3 9247.4 125 24.3

100,000 - 150,000 67 20.9 37 19.1 104 20.2

150,000 - 200,000 65 20.2 28 14.4 93 18.1

200,000 - 250,000 56 17.4 11 5.7 67 13.0

250,000 - 300,000 28 8.7 13 6.7 41 7.9

350,000 - 400,000 22 6.9 10 5.2 32 6.2

450,000 - 500,000 21 6.5 31.5 24 4.7

550,000 - 600,000 14 4.4 00.0 14 2.7

600,0000 and above 15 4.7 0 0.0 15 2.9

Total 321 100

51

194 100 515 100

Percent 62.3 37.7 100 Source: Field survey data.

1 US $ is equivalent to about 1,600 TAS.

The table-6 indicates the mean monthly income for all respondents

was TAS. 165,213 (Equivalent to 103.25 US dollars).The average

monthly household income for male-headed households was TAS.

194,099 (Equivalent to 121.31 US dollars) and for female-headed

households it was TAS. 117,268 (Equivalent to 73.29 US dollars).

Table 7: Household’s members. Male

Female

Shehia Frequency % Frequency

% Total

52

Kilindi 175 12.0 198 11.8 373

Kigunda 135 9.2 105 6.2 240

Kisongoni 95 6.4 92 5.0 187

Kikobweni 303 21.0 32720.0 630

Kijini 210 14.3 228 14.0 438

Potoa 190 13.0 202 12.0 392

Mkwajuni 176 12.0 30218.0 478

Kibeni 179 12.1

219 13.0 398

Total 1,463 100

1,673 100 3,136

Source: Field Survey Data

53

The result on table-7 shows that there were a total of 3,136

household members 46.7% males (n=1,463) while 53.3% females

(n=1673). According the result the number of household members

was significantly difference among the shehia. Kikobweni shehia

has 20.1% (n=630) followed by Kijini 13.95% (n=438) where

Kisongoni and Kigunda the household members were 5.9% (n=187) and

7.7% (n=240) respectively. The average mean of the household

members was 392 and the range was 443. According to the result

obtained indicates that the ration between males and females was

differing significantly.

Table 8: Children under 18 years old.

Male Female

Shehia Frequency % Frequency %Total

Kilindi 139 12.0 14512.0 284

Kigunda 98 8.4 89 7.0 187

Kisongoni 46 4.0 56 4.4 102

Kikobweni 211 18.2 224 18.0 435

54

Kijini 176 15.2 207 16.4 383

Potoa 150 13.0 166 13.1 316

Mkwajuni 188 16.2 199 15.4 387

Kibeni 148 13.0 173 13.7 321 Total 1,156 100 1,259 100 2,415

Source: Field Survey Data

According to the result indicates that there was a total of 2,415

children under 18 years where by 47.9% (n=1,156) were males and

52.1% (n=1,259) were females (Table-8). This result shows that

there was high numbers of people in the study area above 18 years

who depend on their parents/guardians. Similarly the result shows

that there was a significant difference among the shehia on the

number of children less than 18 years.

Table 9: Critical Vulnerable children

Status of

Vulnerability

55

Male

Female

Shehia Frequency Percent Frequency

Percent Total

Kilindi 27 10.3 37 11.7 64

Kigunda 25 9.6 22 6.9 47

Kisongoni 9 3.4 16 5.2 25

Kikobweni 46 17.6 63 20.0 109

Kijini 57 21.8 49 15.5 106

Potoa 31 11.8 43 13.7 74

Mkwajuni 37 14.3 44 13.9 81

Kibeni 29 11.2 56

41 13.1 70 Total 261 100

315 100 576

Percent 45.3

54.7 100

Source: Field Survey Data

Out of 1,884 vulnerable children (VC) 30.6% (n= 576) were

critically vulnerable. Result in table-9 indicates that 45.3% of

respondents were males and 54.7% of respondents were females.

This result shows that there was significant different between

males and females on level of vulnerability.

Result shows that there were some differences in the distribution

of vulnerability among children in the study area. Almost in all

shehia females has high number of critical vulnerable children

except Kigunda and Kijini. This indicates that there was

significant different of vulnerable children among shehia in the

study area.

57

Table 10: Moderate Vulnerable Children Status of

Vulnerability

Male

Female

Shehia Frequency % Frequency %

Total %

58

Kilindi 86 12.4 7912.9 165 12.6

Kigunda 57 8.2 49 8.0 106 8.1

Kisongoni 35 5.0 28 4.6 63 4.8

Kikobweni 111 15.9 102 16.7 213 16.3

Kijini 122 17.6 113 18.5 235 17.9

Potoa 97 13.9 85 13.8 182 14.0

Mkwajuni 99 14.3 82 13.4 181 13.8

Kibeni 89 12.7 74 12.1 163 12.5

Total 696 100 612 100 1,308 100

Percent 53.2 46.8 100

Source: Field Survey Data

59

Result in table-10 shows that 66.4% (n=1,308) of children were

moderate vulnerable, of whom 53.2% were males and 46.8% were

females. According to the result number of moderate vulnerable

children was varied among the shehia the highest shehia was

Kijini that has a total of 235 (17.9%) of MVC while Kisongoni has

only 63 (4.8%) of MVC. This shows that degrees of vulnerability

tend to be higher in some shehia. Therefore, results indicates

that there was positive significant different of moderate

vulnerable among the wards.

Table 11: Shows educational status of children under 18 years

old.

Attending school Not

attending school

Shehia Frequency % Frequency

% Total

Kilindi 171 13.5 113 9.8 284

Kigunda 69 5.5 118 10.3 187

Kisongoni 45 3.6 57 4.9 102

Kikobweni 232 18.3 203 17.7 435

60

Kijini 151 11.9 232 20.3 383

Potoa 188 14.9 128 11.1 316

Mkwajuni 209 16.5 178 15.4 387

Kibeni 200 15.8 121 10.5 321

Total 1,265 100 1,150100 2,415

Source: Field Survey Data

The result on table-11 indicates that out of 2,415 children 52.4%

(n= 1,265) were attending school while 47.6% (n= 1,150) never

gone to school. Out of 1,265 children who were attending school

548 were males and 717 were females. Similarly, reported that

1,150 children never gone to school of whom 608 males and 542

were females. The result shows that there was significant

difference between children who were attending school and those

who never gone to school.

Meanwhile, table-11 shows variation of educational status among

the shehia. Some shehia has high number of children who were gone

to school, for instance Kikobweni were 18.3% (n= 232) whereby 107

males and 125 females. Meanwhile, Kisongoni has the lowest number

of children who were attending school that was 3.6% (n= 45) where

19 were males and 26 were females.

61

Figure 2: Perception of respondents on vulnerable children.

S. Agree42%

Agree30%

Neutral12%

Disagree9%

S. Disagree6%

The result on figure-2 indicates that 42% and 30% of respondents

strongly agree and agree that there were vulnerable children in

the community respectively. Where only 6% and 9% strongly

disagree and disagree that there were no vulnerable children in

the community while 12% of respondents were neutral.

Figure 3: Knowledge of parents on the causes of vulnerability.

62

S. Agree35%

Agree33%

Neutral13%

Disagree11%

S. Disagree8%

Out of 515 respondents who were asked the question regarding

causes of vulnerability. The result in figure-3 indicates that

35% and 33% respondents were strongly agreed and agree

respectively. They reported that major causes of vulnerability

were extreme poverty, divorce, early marriage, polygamy and child

labour. Only 11% and 8% were disagree and strongly disagree while

a total of 13% respondents were neutral.

63

Figure 4: How low income contribute to increase vulnerability

S. Agree39%

Agree31%

Neutral15%

Disagree7%

S. Disagree8%

The figure-4 above indicates that 39% of the respondents agree

with the low income of parents tend to increase the number of

vulnerable children. Few respondents only 7% was disagree while

15% of the respondent was neutral on the same questions.

64

Figure 5: Government and Community support.

S. Agree33%

Agree32%

Neutral18%

Disagree10%

S. Disagree8%

Result in figure-5 shows that lack of government and community

support positively increases the lower class parent and

vulnerable children. From the figure-13 only 10% and 8% of

respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed on this opinion.

This result implies that there was significant difference between

government support and vulnerable children.

65

Figure 6: Socio-economic class in the community.

S. Agree40%

Agree32%

Neutral11%

Disagree9%

S. Disagree9%

Result in figure-6 indicates that 40% of respondents were

strongly agree and 32% were agree while only 9% were strongly

disagree on the question said that the major socio-economic

classes are upper, middle and lower classes.

66

On the other hand the percentage of disagree and strongly

disagree were 8% and 9% respectively whereby the percentage of

respondents indicated neutral was 11%. Therefore, according to

this study in the study area there was three major classes were

upper, middle and lower classes.

Figure 7: Lack of basic needs.

S. Agree34%

Agree27%

Neutral21%

Disagree10%

S. Disagree8%

The result from figure-7 shows that 34% of respondents were

strongly agree and 27% were agree that lower class family

affected by lack of basic needs and economically weak. While 10%

67

of respondents were disagree and 8% were strongly disagree. This

result shows that there was significant different of income among

the people in the community.

Figure 8: Wealth of parents to purchase clothes for their

children.

68

S. Agree10%

Agree10%

Neutral19%

Disagree28%

S. Disagree34%

The results in Figure-8 summarize the characteristic of parent’s

income on purchasing clothes for their children. The status of

purchase clothes for children was difficult. The finding

indicates that most respondents did not manage to purchase

clothes for their children. Only 10% strongly agree that they

managed to purchase clothes while 33% strongly disagree that they

did not managed to purchase clothes.

69

Figure 9: How parents/guardians manage to pay school fees.S. Agree

9%

Agree11%

Neutral19%

Disagree28%

S. Disagree33%

Figure-9 shows that 33% and 28% of respondents were strongly

disagree and disagree about the payment of school fees for their

children respectively. Only 9% and 11% of respondents were

strongly agree and agree that they able to pay the school fess

for their children while 19% were neutral. This indicates that

majority of parents in the study area were poor and live in

poverty line.

70

Figure 10: Knowledge of respondents on factors that reduce socio-

economic classes and vulnerable children.

S. Agree36%

Agree28%

Neutral18%

Disagree9%

S. Disagree9%

Figure-10 indicates that 36% and 28% of respondents were strongly

agree and agree respectively on the question said that.

Initiation of microfinance small business and contribution

groups, conducting vocational training and providing psychosocial

support can reduce socio-economic classes and vulnerable

71

children. While 9% of respondents were disagree and 9% were

strongly disagree and 18% were neutral. According this result

shows that socio-economic classes and vulnerable children can be

reduced if special measures will taken.

CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the main findings, conclusion and

recommendation obtained in the field as per objectives of this

study.

5.1 Findings

Result in table-17 indicates that families with low socio-

economic status often lack the financial, social, and educational

supports that characterize families with high socioeconomic

status. Poor families also may have inadequate or limited access

to community resources that promote and support children's

development and school readiness. The study conducted by Akanle,

(2007) reported that children from families with low socio-

economic status are at greater risk to be in vulnerable group72

than their peers from families with median or high socioeconomic

status.

According this study some causes of low socio-economic status and

vulnerability of children were poverty of extreme parents, low

education of parent, and shortage of employment and lack of

Government support. The table-17 demonstrated that there was high

number of parents/guardians of lower class and middle class and

few from upper class. Of whom 58.4% (=302) parents/guardians from

lower class where 57.9% (n=175) males and 42.1% (n=127) were

females. The percent of middle class was 30.7% (n=158) by whom 99

males and 59 females. While the percent of upper class was 10.9%

(n=56) where 49 males and 7 females (Figure-15).

Kikobweni was the first shehia that has high number of upper and

middle class parents/guardians followed by Mkwajuni. On the other

hand Kijini was the last shehia comprised the lowest number of

upper class parents, they were only 3.4% followed by Kisongoni

5.4%. For the case of lower class Mkwajuni scored the highest

43.3% (n= 55) followed by Kikobweni that scored 39.3% (n=50).

Kisongoni scored the lowest number for the case of low class,

12.6% (n=16) followed by Kigunda that scored 17.3% (n= 22). A

result of this study indicates that extreme poverty tends to

increase the gap between upper and lower classes.

Most head of households depend on farming/livestock keeping and

employed/self-employed as a source of income. There was no73

female-headed household reported that depending on fishing as a

source of income. However, high number of males-headed household

depending on fishing as a source of their income. In the study

conducted in Morogoro Tanzania by Kajembe et al., (2004) reported

that most of respondents were typically peasant farmers in

subsistence crop production with 92.5% and 95.0% surveyed

households at Ruvu Fuelwood Pilot Project and Hifadhi Ardhi

Shinyanga respectively. Engle, (2008) stated that out of 1009

respondents who were asked the question regarding sources of

income, 40% received income through trading goods and another

11.1% through general labour. Only 3.7% receive income from

friends and family, and 1.6% earns money from a formal occupation

such as teaching.

The result table-7 indicates that the mean monthly income for all

respondents was TAS. 165,213 (Equivalent to 103.25 US dollars).

The average monthly household income for male-headed of

households was TAS. 194,099 (Equivalent to 121.31 US dollars) and

for female-headed households it was TAS. 117,268 (Equivalent to

73.29 US dollars). In all eight shehia, the total regular income

earned by female-headed households was almost half that earned by

male-headed households. According to the results many females’

head of households receive monthly income of below TAS. 50, 000

(31.25 US dollars), this indicate that high number of head of

household were poor. Inshengoma, (2010) reported that, women, due

to lack of access to household income, (being dominated by men),

74

they have engaged themselves in small income generating

activities. The income generated was generally low, about 60%

respondents were getting between, Tanzanian Shillings 501-3,000/=

per week which is equivalent to US $ 0.5-3 per week. Therefore,

the findings in this study related to employment and income

reinforce the need for strengthening economic security at the

household level identified as a priority. The strengthening of

economic security is crucial for families affected by low socio-

economic status and vulnerable children if they are to be able to

provide adequate care for themselves and their children. Given

the relationship between household economic strengthening and the

capacity of communities to support those lower socio-economic

status parents and vulnerable children.

The finding indicates that the overall vulnerability in the study

area was higher. The result indicates that 78.0% (n=1884) were

vulnerable children. Of whom 49.2% (n=927) were males and 50.8%

(n=957) were females. The percentage of critical vulnerable was

30.6% (n=576) and 69.4% (n=1,308) was moderate vulnerable. In the

study done by Kalibala and Elson, (2009) in Uganda indicates that

96 percent of children in Uganda considered vulnerable, with 8

percent (1.4 million) critically vulnerable, 43 percent (7.4

million) moderately vulnerable, and 45 percent generally

vulnerable (7.7 million). USAID, (2010) noted that in Uganda

67.5% of children below 18 years old were vulnerable children.

75

The degrees of vulnerability tend to be higher in some shehia,

whereby Kijini has the highest number 66.1% (n= 341) whereby 179

male and 162 female. Of whom 45.5% moderately vulnerable and

20.5% critically vulnerable. While Kisongoni has the lowest

number of vulnerable children only 17.1% (n= 88). Of whom 12.2%

moderately and 4.8% critically vulnerable. Therefore, the result

demonstrates that there was significant difference of

vulnerability within the shehia. URT, (2010) reported that number

of vulnerable children was continuing to increase in many

communities. World Vision International, (2005) noted that in

most cases the caregivers are poor consequently; meeting the core

needs of VC at the household level remains a challenge.

Respondents reported that they perceived an ever-increasing

number of vulnerable children in the study area because some of

them have lost their parents, and also because households are too

poor to feed and care properly for children. Other causes were

early marriage, abandoned women, low level of education among the

parents and lack of support from local and central Government.

Frequently children are involved in risk-taking activities such

as taking drugs and alcohol, gambling, Children born out of

wedlock and Teenage girls with children out of wedlock were also

reported during the survey.

Furthermore, divorce was mentioned as a major factor that

contributes vulnerability in the study area. USAID, (2010) report

76

in Uganda found that social, political and economical processes

and structures that lead to vulnerable conditions. Kalibala and

Elson, (2009) described that a large number of children made

vulnerable by food insecurity, poverty, and high illiteracy

rates. Lack of adequate rainfall and rocky soil inhibit food

production, contributing to high levels of poverty. Furthermore,

divorce was mentioned as a major factor that contributes

vulnerability in the study area.

The finding shows that the most important needs of vulnerable

children included basic material needs (e.g., food and clean

water), shelter, education (e.g., access to scholastic materials

and uniforms), and health care services. The findings of this

study correlated with those reported by Elgbeleye and Olasupo,

(2011) suggested that food, casual clothes, shelter and education

were mention as basic needs by respondents.

The results from table-17 indicate that there is positive

relationship between parental socio-economic status (PSES) and

children vulnerability. Figuer-6 shows that 34% of respondents

come from lower class affected by lack of basic need while only

8% from upper class were affected. This implies that there was

significant relationship between PSES and children vulnerability.

it Rector et al., (2001) documented that there was positive

relationship between parent’s socio-economic status and children

vulnerability. Thomos (2009) presented evidence that the

77

association between PSES and children vulnerability depend on

income of the parents, those children come from lower socio-

economic status were in high risk to be in vulnerable group

compared to those come from upper and middle classes.

The result from tabe-19 indicates that most parents did not

manage to purchase clothes for their children. Only 9.5% of

respondents were strongly agreed that enable to purchase while

33.8% of respondents were reported that did not managed to

purchase clothes for their children. There is evidence that the

connection between PSES and children vulnerability applies to

many societies. Parson et al., (2001) found that among Zimbabwean

children from low social class most of them lack the basic needs

such as food, shelter and clothes. In his meta-analysis McLeod

and Shanahan (1993) found some evidence that the relation between

PSES and children vulnerability depend on parental socio-class,

those from upper class experience good life style while from

lower class have poor life style.

The result from table-7 indicates that parents from lower socio-

economic status have less income. The average monthly income for

male-headed household was 194,099 Tanzania shilling while female-

headed household was 117,268 Tanzania shilling. Since most of

these parents have high number of vulnerable children. Low socio-

economic status for parents were associated with delayed or

absent prenatal care and poor livelihood to the children (Bennett

78

and Lu, 2000). Low social status may limit one’s social ties

(capital) and lead to feelings of helplessness and lack of

control, the first reducing one’s protection from potential

threats to well-being, the second limiting one’s own efforts to

deal effectively with those threats (Barrett, 2005).

This study shows that children from upper class have good life

while those from lower class experience poor life style. Those

children from upper class often have adequate food, good shelter

and enough clothes. Evans (2004) reported that most children

found in vulnerable group comes from lower socio-economic status,

likewise, poor houses belongs to parents from lower class.

Bradley & Corwyn (2000) also found that access to stimulating

materials and experiences mediated the relation between PSES and

children’s vulnerability. The connection between PSES,

stimulating experiences, and children’s vulnerability functioning

is well established (Alisa and Gregg, 2010, Clones, 1992, Currie

and Moetti, 2007).

The result of the study demonstrate that out of 2,415 school age

children 5-18 years old (from nursery school) only 52.4%

(n=1,265) was attending school among them 43.3% (n=548) were

males and 56.7% (n= 717) were females. While 47.6% (n=1,150)

never attended school by whom 52.8% (n=608) were males and 47.1%

(n=542) were females (Table-12).

79

Skills training, material support and psychosocial support were

reported as among the methods that can reduce the vulnerability

of children in the study are. Similarly, coordination of support

activities for vulnerable children and ensuring collaboration

among implementers was a key role in reduction of vulnerability.

(UNAIDS,1999; Engle, 2008). The psychological needs of these

children include love, recognition and acceptance, protection,

being valued, encouragement, comfort, and participation in

important life events.

According to respondents the national and district level

coordination of service provision for vulnerable children was

functioning in some districts. There was also limited

coordination between the central government and local elected

leaders. Sustainability an effort was reported as key for reduce

vulnerability. Sustainability refers to the extent to which

organizations are making attempts to ensure care for vulnerable

children beyond the life of the current situation was oversee by

the shehia, district and Central Government.

It is important to train communities in insurance mechanisms for

the most vulnerable groups and also for unexpected incidents. For

example, Uganda has experimented with some ‘insurance’ programs

which encourage solidarity groups to include a member who have

HIV positive. Individual solidarity groups need to make plans for

80

unexpected incidents such as an illness or funeral to ensure that

members do not dip into their principle (USAID, 2010).

5.2 Conclusion

Based on the findings of this study, it is indicates that upper

socio-economic status parents have much influence on children

value such as basic needs, education, health and their

livelihood. The children from upper and middle socio-economic

status groups preferred to continue and aspire higher for high

yielding jobs than those of the low socio-economic status who do

not wish to continue their education due to poverty.

A family's socioeconomic status is based on family income,

parental education level, parental occupation, and social status

in the community. Less educated Parents may have inadequate

skills for such activities as reading to and with their children,

and having inadequate resources and limited access to available

resources. Hence, this situation can negatively affect families

on decisions regarding their young children’s development. As a

result of the financial and material issues surrounding working

class families, low income parents are most concerned with

providing basic survival needs like food and shelter.

Education concerning vulnerable children for community is a tool

in the process of addressing and reducing the vulnerable

children. The findings from this study reveals of the lack of

81

accessibility of basic needs, poverty and lack of government and

community support on parents who have low socio-economic status

and vulnerable children was very minimal.

There is a positive relationship between economic status and

vulnerability of children in the society. Children from low

economic status are more vulnerable than those from better

economic status.

5.3 Recommendations

From this study the following recommendations are pertinent:

There is need to involve single parents special widows in

decision-making and improve their accessibility to resources.

Women should be assisted to engage themselves in income

generating activities. Meanwhile, establishment of widow support

groups and services through a variety of local mechanisms and

organizations is very important in reduction of poverty for the

aims of control vulnerability.

Provision of material support including food, clothing, medical

services and education for low socio-economic status parents is

urgently required in the study area.

82

Particular efforts need to be made to create opportunities for

those at risk at different stages of the lifecycle to access

policy and channels in order to express their views on their

needs, priorities and realities. A greater focus on vulnerability

and low socio-economic parents.

It is important for the Government, NGOs, CBOs and FBCs to

facilitate training of parents and youth on entrepreneurship and

business skills, including credit management in order to raise

income of low socio-economic status parents.

Area for Further Research

Further research is required that look the effect of low socio-

economic status on performance of students.

Additional specific research is needed that assess the impacts of

socio-economic classes in the community.

REFERENCES

Alisa G and Gregg P. (2010). Poorer children’s educational attainment: how

important are attitudes and behaviour? Retrieves on 10 February 2012.

83

AKanle, O.B. (2007). Socio-economic factors influencing student’s academic

performance in Nigeria.

Ainsworth, M., and Filmer, D. (2002). "Poverty, AIDS, and

Children’s Schooling: Targeting Dilemma." Paper presented at

the annual meetings of the Population Association of America.

Atlanta, Ga., 9–11 May 2002 (revised 23 May 2002).

Andvig, J. S. (2000). An essay on child Labor in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Zambia. ILO.

Ajakaiye, O and Mwabu, G. (2009). The Causal Effect of

Socioeconomic Status and Supply-Side Factors on Health and

Demand for Health Services: A Survey of Methods and Findings.

Paper Presented at the AERC Health, Economic Growth and

Poverty Reduction in Africa Framework Workshop, Accra, and

April, 2009.

Australian Commission on Social Determinants of Health. (2007). A

conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health.

Discussion paper for the commission on social determinants of

health draft April 2007.

Boyd, M., Goyder, J., Joneys, F. E., and McRoberts, H. (1981).

Cross Section and Penal. Belgium. Principal Investigator.

Babbie, Earl. (1989). The practice of Social Research. 5

Editions. Wadsworth Belmont.

84

Bennett, N. G., & Lu, H. (2000). Child poverty in the states: Levels and

trends from 1979 to 1998 (Childhood Poverty Research Brief 2). New

York: National Center for Children in Poverty.

Bugembe, B. Joseph R. Richard and Kagugube J. (2005). Children in

abject poverty in Uganda: Study of criteria and status of those in and out of school

in selected districts in . Retrieved on 08/02/2012.

Barrett, A.E. & Turner, R.J. (2005). Family structure and mental

health: The mediating effects of Socioeconomic Status, Family

Process, and Social Stress. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, vol. 46 (2), 156-169. American Sociological

Association.

Battin-Pearson S, Newcomb MD, Abbott RD, Hill KG, Catalano RF,

Hawkins JD. (2000). Predictors of early high school drop-

out: a test of five theories. J. Educ. Psychol. 92: 568–82

Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, McAdoo HP, Garcia Coll C. (2001b). The

home environments of children in the United States. Part 1:

variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child Dev. In

press

Brooks-Gunn J, Klebanov PK, Liaw F. (1995). The learning,

physical, and emotional environment of the home in the

85

context of poverty: The Infant Health and Development

Program. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 17:251–76

Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Wiggins, B. B. (2000). An

investigation of the effect of gender, socioeconomic status, race and grades on

standardized test scores. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas.

Clones, P.J. (1992). The Link between Gender Issues and the

Fragile Environments of Sub-Saharan Africa. Women in

Development Unit. Poverty and Social Policy Division.

Technical Department. Africa region. The World Bank. pp 19.

Currie, J. and Moretti, E. (2007). Biology as destiny? short and

long-run determinants of intergenerational transmission of

birth weight. Journal of Labor Economics 25, 231-264.

Corwyn RF, Bradley RH. (2000). Developmental accomplishments and family-

child activities of preschoolers in the United States: comparisons across three

major ethnic groups and poverty status. Presented at Meet. Southwest.

Soc. Res. Hum. Dev., Eureka Springs, AR, April 13–15

Chauhan, S. S. (1996). Advance Psychology, New Delhi: Vani

Educational Books.

Desmond, C., and Gow, J. (2001). “The cost-effectiveness of 6

models of care

86

for orphans and other vulnerable children.” South Africa.

UNICEF.

Diamond, P. J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Factors associated

with reading achievement and attitudes among elementary

school-aged students. Research in the Schools, 8(1), 1-11.

Duke, N. K. (2000). For the rich it’s richer: Print experiences

and environments offered to children in very low- and very

high-socioeconomic status first-grade classrooms. American

Educational Research Journal, 17, 441-478.

Engle, P. (2008). “National Plans of Action for Orphans and

Vulnerable Children in sub-Saharan Africa: Where Are the

Youngest Children?” Working Paper No. 50. The Hague, The

Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Evans, G. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American

Psychological Association, vol. 59(2), 77-92.

Elgbeleye, O.S and Olasupo M.O. (2011). Parental Socio-economic

Status as Correlates of Child labour in Ile-lfe, Nigeria An

International Journal 8 (2): 139-147.

Foster, G., Makufa, C., Drew, R., and E. Krahre, E. (1997).

"Factors Leading to the Establishment of Child-Headed

Households: The Case of Zimbabwe."

Health Transition Review 7 (supply 2): 155–168.

87

Gilborn, L. (2001). "Influencing of Family and Community in

School Attendance and Performance of Children Affected by

HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa." Washington, D.C. USAID.

Galobardes, B., Lynch, J., & Smith, G. (2007). Measuring socio-

economic position in health research. Oxford University

Press. British Medical Bulletin, 1-17.

Gilson, L. and D. McIntyre. (2005). ‘Removing User Fees for

Primary Care in Africa: The Need for Careful Action’, British

Medical Journal 331: 762-5.

George. Z. (2001). Socio-economic status of Children and Women on

Commercial farm. UNICEF. Zimbabwe.

Guo G, Harris KM. (2000). The mechanisms mediating the effects of

poverty on children’s intellectual development. Demography

37:431–47.

Hoff, D. (2002, January 10). State of the states: Louisiana.Education Week: Quality Counts 2002, 21(17), 120.

Inshengoma, C.G. (2010). Accessibility of Resources by Gender.

The case study of Morogoro Region Tanzania. Morogoro. Sokoine

University of Agriculture.

88

Kajembe, G.C., Kessy, J.F., Nduwamungu, J., Mndolwa, M., Msuya,

T., Bakengesa, S., and Maduka, S. (2004). Best Method for

Dissemination of Agroforestry Intervention at HASH/ICRAF and

Ruvufuelwood Pilot Project. Morogoro. Tanzania Forestry

Research Institute (TAFORI).

Kalibala, S., and Elson, L. (2009). Protecting Hope Situation

Analysis of Vulnerable Children in Uganda, New York.

Population Council.

Mhamba, R., and Hemed, M. (2008). Zanzibar Most Vulnerable

Children Situation

Analysis. Zanzibar. Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.

Zanzibar.

Mackenbach JP, Bakker MJ, Kunst AE, and Diderichsen F. (2002).

Socio-economic inequalities in health in Europe – An

overview. In Reducing inequalities in health a European perspective.

Routledge. London:

McLeod, D., & Shanahan, M. (1996). Trajectories of poverty and

children’s mental health. Journal of Health and Social

Behaviour, vol. 37(3), 207-220.

McLeod, D., & Shanahan, M. (1993). Trajectories of poverty and

children’s mental health. Journal of Health and Social

Behaviour, vol. 27(6), 206-124.

89

National Bureau of Statistics Tanzania. (2002). Population and

Housing Census.

Tanzania. National Bureau of Statistics Tanzania. Parson, R. D., Hinson, S. L., Sardo-Brown, D. (2001). Educational

Psychology: A Practitioner- Researcher Model of Teaching.

Singapore: Thomson Learning Inc.

Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar. (2009). North ‘A’ District

Strategic Plan. Zanzibar. Revolutionary Government of

Zanzibar.

Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar. (2008). North ‘A’ district

Profile. Revolutionary. Zanzibar. Revolutionary Government of

Zanzibar.

Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar. (2004). Institutional

Analysis. Ministry of Zanzibar. Finance and Economic Affairs

Zanzibar.

Richter, L., Manegold, J., and Pather, R. (2004). Family and

Community Interventions for Children Affected by Aids.

New York. HSRC Publishers.

Rector, R., Johnson, K. A., & Fagan, P. F. (2001). Understanding

differences in Black and White child poverty rates (Report No. CDA01-04.

90

The Heritage Center for Data Analysis). Washington, DC: The

Heritage Foundation.

Subbarao, K., Mattimore., A and Plangemann, K. (2001). "Social

Protection of Africa’s Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children:

Issues and Good Practice Program Options." Human Development

Working Paper series, Africa Region. Washington D.C.: World

Bank, August.

Strohschein, L. A. (2005). Household income histories and child

mental health

trajectories. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46, 359-375.

Thurman, T.R., Hoffman, A., Chatterji., M and Brown, L. (2007).

Kilifi orphans

and Vulnerable Children. Kenya. Catholic Relief Services.

Thompson, A.O. (1997). The haunting Past: Politics, economics and

race in the Caribbean. Jamaica. Ian Randal Publisher.

Thomas, D. (2009). The Causal Effect of Health on Social and

Economic Prosperity: Methods and Findings. Department of

Economics and Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University

Mimeo (Paper Presented at the AERC Health, Economic Growth

and Poverty Reduction in Africa Framework Workshop, Accra,

April, 2009).

91

UNAIDS (United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS) and UNICEF (United

Nations Children’s Fund), (1999). “Children orphaned by AIDS:

Frontline Responses from Eastern and Southern Africa”. New York and

Washington D.C. USAID.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2006). Early Childhood

Kenya. Nairobi Kenya. UNICEF.

UNICEF. (2008). Care for Orphans and vulnerable children.

Tanzania. Department of Social Welfare Tanzania.

USAID. (2010). Review of Orphan and Vulnerable Children (OVC) in

HIV/AIDS to fight against Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Washington. United State Agency.

UNDP. (2009). Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming Barriers: Human

mobility and development. UNDP New York.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Poverty in the United States: 2000 (Report No.

P60-214). Retrieved March 4, 2012, from

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty.

World Bank. (2006). Ensuring Education Access for the Orphans and

Vulnerable Children. 2nd Edition. London. World Bank.

Wilson, T., Giese, So., Meitjes, H., Croke, R., and Chamberlein,

R. (2002). A conceptual Framework for the Identification,

support and Monitoring of children experiencing Orphanhood.

UK. Save the Children. 92

World Vision International. (2005). Guide to Mobilizing and

Strengthening Orphans and Vulnerable Children. Uganda. World

Vision International.

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: TRANSMITTAL LETTER

93

APPENDIX II: RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD AND CHILDREN

DATE……………………………….

DISTRICT………………………………………….SHEHIA……………………………………

Section 1 Social Economic Profile

i. Name of head of household………………………………………….

ii. Sex: (Male = 1, Female =2)

iii. Age…………………………..Years

94

iv. Marital Status: Tick mark one (√)

1. Single

2. Married

3. Divorced

4. Widowed

5. Separated

v. How many wives are in this family? Write down the number of

wives

vi. Educational status of parent/ guardian: Tick mark one (√)

1. No formal education

2. Adult education

3. Primary education

4. Secondary education

5. College

vii. Total number of household members…………..Males…………Females………

viii. Total number of children under 18 years……….Males……….Females…………

xi. Those attending school…………Males………..Females…………

x. Those not attending school............Males………..Females…………..

Section 2 Occupational and Income of the Parents

1. Occupation of the head of household. Which of the following

statements about 95

occupational status applies to you? Tick mark one (√)

1. Farming

2. Livestock keeping

3. Fishing

4. Business

5. Employed

6. Self-employed

7. No work

2. What is the monthly household income, net income after

deductions?

Below 50,000 T.sh

50,000 – 100,000 T.sh

100,000- 150,000 T.sh 150,000- 200,000 T.sh 200,000- 250,000 T.sh 250,000- 300,000 T.sh 300,000- 350,000 T.sh 350,000- 400,000 T.sh 400,000- 500,000 T.sh 500,000-550,000 T.sh 550,000-600,000 T.sh

96

600,000 and more

3. Which kind of income you receive?

i) Earning from employment or self-employment

ii) State retirement pension

iii) Pension from former employer

iv) Child benefits

vi) Income Support

vii) Family Credit

viii) Housing Benefit

xi) Other state benefits

x) Interest from savings and investments (e.g. stocks & shares)

xii) No source of income

4. Does anyone else in the household have an income from any

source?

1= Yes

2= No

5. If yes which type of work?

i) Employed

ii) Self-employed

iii) Business

97

6. How many times do you manage to provide food for your family

per day?

i) One

ii) Two

iii) Three

iv) Some day passes without any food

7. State the priority needs for your children i)………………………………………………. ii)………………………………………………. iii)………………………………………………. 8. Are your children vulnerable? 1=Yes 2=No

9. If yes write the problems that face in their everyday life

i)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ii)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

iii)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

10. The major causes of vulnerability of children are: - Circle

the correct, you

may circle more than one.

i. Chronically illness of parents 1ii. Chronically illness of Children 2

iii. Disabilities 3iv. Extreme poverty 4v. Death of parents 5vi. Early marriage 6

vii. Drug abuse 7viii. Prostitution 8

ix. Extraneous child labour 9x. Other……………………….. 10

98

11. How many socio-classes are there in this community? Mark one

tick (√) in

the box.

i) One

ii) Two

iii) Three

12. Choose your class level. Mark one tick (√) in the box.

i) First class

ii) Middle class

iii) Lower class

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

Section 3 Household Economic Status

From the following statements Tick mark (√) one as per your

economic status.

No Questions Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Q. 13

There are vulnerable children inthis community. 1 2 3 4 5

Q. 14

Extreme poverty, divorce, earlymarriage, polygamy and childlabour are major causes ofvulnerability.

1 2 3 4 5

99

Q. 15

Low incomes of the parents tendto increase the number of mostvulnerable children in thisarea.

1 2 3 4 5

Q. 16

Lack of Government and communitysupport increase the number oflower class of parents andvulnerability of the children.

1 2 3 4 5

Q. 17

The major socio-economic classesin this area are first class, middle class and lower class.

1 2 3 4 5

Q. 18

Low socio-economic familiesaffected by lack basicnecessities of life and are botheconomically weak and sociallydepressed.

1 2 3 4 5

Q. 19

Each year I manage to purchase clothes for my family. 1 2 3 4 5

Q. 20

I manage to pay school fees for my family. 1 2 3 4 5

Q.21 The following can be taken inorder to reduce the class leveland vulnerability of thechildren in this communityinitiation of microfinance smallbusiness and contributiongroups, Conducting Vocationaltraining and Providingpsychosocial support.

1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX III: RESEARCH BUDGET

NO ITEM AND ACTIVITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST

100

1.0 Preparation research writing1.1 1 Laser Jet Printer (purchasing) 1pc @ 150,000 150,000

1.2 Photocopying (200)copies 200 cps @ 50 10,000

Sub total160,000/=

2.0 Survey equipment2.1 First aid kit (purchasing) 1box @ 100, 000 100 000

Sub total100, 000/=

3.0 Transport cost3.1 Transport round trip Dar- ZNZ-

Dar8 trips @ 50,000 400, 000

3.2 Vehicle hiring during field survey

45 trips @ 40,000 1,800,000

3.3 Allowance for research assistant(45 days)

4 people @ 15,000@ 45 days

2,700,000

Sub total4,900,000=

4.0 Data analysis and report writing4.1 Stationeries 1 parcel @ 8,000 8,000

4.2Data treatment and analysis

Software & Technician @400,000

400,000

4.3Photocopying

120pc@50 6,000

4.4Binding

1 parcel @ 2,000 @ 4times

8,000

4.5 Hard binding @ 300,000

300,000

101

Final production (binding)

Sub total 722,000/=

GRAND TOTAL 5,882,000/=

APPENDIX IV: CURRICULUM VITAE

ALI MOHAMED ALI

P.O.BOX 873LUMUMBA SECONDARY CSHOOL

ZANZIBAR, TANZANIAMobile: +255-777-864086

Email: amoa2006@hotmail.com

Family status: Married with children

Nationality: Tanzanian

Date and place of birth: 05th November, 1972 Zanzibar

Gender: Male

PROFESSION: Teacher, Major subjects are Biology andChemistry

Education2001-2004 Chukwani University College

Zanzibar, Tanzania

Bachelor Degree of Science with Education (BSc. Ed)

102

1995-1997 Nkrumah Teacher Training College

Zanzibar, Tanzania

Grade ‘A’ Teacher Certificate

Secondary Education

1998-2000 Lumumba Secondary school

Zanzibar, Tanzania

A- Level certificate of Secondary Education

1992-1994 Lumumba Secondary school

Zanzibar, Tanzania

O- Level Certificate of Secondary Education

Primary Education

1982-1992 Mkwajuni Primary School

Zanzibar, Tanzania

Standard one to form three

Employment Experiences

Ministry of Education

1997-2000 Mkwajuni Primary School

Zanzibar, Tanzania

2000-2004 Potoa Secondary School

Zanzibar, Tanzania

103

2004-2007 Nkrumah Teacher Training College

Zanzibar, Tanzania

2007-to now Lumumba Secondary School

Zanzibar, Tanzania

TUNAJALI (WE CARE)

2008-2010 MVC/HBC Focal Person

Zanzibar, Tanzania

Africa Muslim Agency

2008-2010 Al-Ihsan Girl Secondary School

Zanzibar, Tanzania

Currently: I’m Student in Kampala International

University, I pursuing

Master degree of Project Planning

and Management.

Already completed course work and

now I’m in research.

Training

2011 Proposal writing training which

sponsored by ReCOMAP

Zanzibar, Tz

104

2009 Report writing training of

identification of MVC

sponsored by FHI, USAID and Sight

Server International

Zanzibar, Tz

2009 Life skills and care of PLWHA and MVC

sponsored by

TUNAJALI.

Kibaha, Tanzania

Other Skills and Experiences

2004-2005 I was Zanzibar Election Officer in North ‘A’

District.

Zanzibar, Tanzania

2006 Participate in Preparation of Biology

books for Zanzibar

Schools sponsored by USAID.

Zanzibar, Tanzania

I’m Executive Secretary for

Mnarani Natural Aquarium

105

since 2004 up to now.

Languages

i) Kiswahili (Read, speak and write excellent)

ii) English (Read, speak and write excellent)

106