Copyright © NISC Pty Ltd
African Journal of AIDS Research 2008, 7(1): 123–132
Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved
AJAR
EISSN 1727–9445
doi: 10.2989/AJAR.2008.7.1.12.440
Junior-headed households as a possible strategy for coping with the
growing orphan crisis in northern Namibia
Jan Kuhanen*, Riikka Shemeikka, Veijo Notkola and Margareth Nghixulifwa
Department of History, PO Box 111, Joensuu 80101, Finland
* Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]
This paper reports research concerning junior-headed households among Oshiwambo speakers in north-central
Namibia. Based on field interviews with randomly sampled junior heads of households and selected key informants,
we outline some features common to the junior-headed households and the ways in which they attempt to manage
their lives. The concepts of child- and junior-headed households are also clarified. We argue that due to a significant increase in the number of orphans in Namibia, the ability of extended families to absorb and care for orphaned
children is beginning to fail. Although child-headed households are still rare in Namibia, junior-headed households
— those led by young persons aged 18 years or more and who are unmarried and have not established a household
of their own — appear to be more common. The paper poses the question, do junior-headed households represent
a coping strategy in a situation where the upper limits of the ability of extended families to absorb and provide
care for orphans has been reached? The ability of junior heads of households to run their households and care
for younger children is limited by lack of experience, unemployment, and poverty. The primary function of these
juniors appears to be maintaining order and providing basic security against abuse and the grabbing of property.
By and large, such households are dependent on handouts from neighbours, relatives and the church, for food,
clothing and financial support. We propose that efforts be made to secure access to education for junior heads of
households, and to develop ways of improving their knowledge and skills regarding both household management
and income-generating activities.
Keywords: child-headed households, coping, extended families, HIV/AIDS, Oshiwambo, socio-economic aspects, southern
Africa
Introduction
One of the most profound and long-lasting consequences
of the HIV pandemic in Africa is the number of children who
have been orphaned by AIDS. In Namibia, according to the
2001 Population and Housing Census, 156 000 children
under age 19 years had lost one or both parents (GRN/
MWACW [Government of the Republic of Namibia/Ministry
of Women’s Affairs and Child Welfare], 2004). It has been
estimated that the number of orphans and vulnerable
children under age 15 years will rise to more than 250 000
by 2021 (SIAPAC, 2002), of whom at least three out of four
will have been orphaned as a result of the HIV epidemic.
Among Oshiwambo speakers of north-central Namibia,
both the rapid socio-economic change that followed the
country’s independence in 1990 and the emergence of HIV/
AIDS have increased the vulnerability of children (SIAPAC,
2002). Under the prevailing economic circumstances
(characterised by labour migration dating back to the colonial
period) marriages tend to be unstable (Miettinen, 2005).
Married couples may be separated for long periods of time,
with men working or in search of work far from home while
women stay home to care for children and run households.
One survey found that 60% of households in the region
were headed by women (GRN/MGECW [Government of the
Republic of Namibia/Ministry of Gender Equality and Child
Welfare] & WFP [World Food Programme], 2006). Separation of spouses for long periods can lead to extra-marital
relationships and increased risk of exposure to HIV, particularly for men who work away from home. While the social
and health risks related to arrangements like this seem to be
well understood, as yet there is little that individuals can do
to escape from pressing economic circumstances: families
need money to run their household and to raise and educate
children, and with few income-earning possibilities available
in north-central Namibia itself, men often leave home to find
work elsewhere. Often taking up work in the central and
southern parts of the country, men may acquire temporary
or permanent companions among the local women and
even set up whole new families, while women remaining in
Ovamboland (the most densely populated region of Namibia)
who are short of money may resort to transactional sex to
support themselves and their children (LeBeau, Fox, Becker
& Mufune, 1999).
Orphanhood and child-fostering were common in Africa
before the HIV epidemic. In Namibia, as elsewhere in
Africa, it has been culturally acceptable to send children
away from their biological parents to live and be raised by
aunts and uncles or other members of their extended family
as a result of economic difficulties. Similarly, if children
124
became orphaned they would typically be brought up within
their extended family (McKittrick, 1995). Raising children
outside their biological family could also be undertaken for
educational reasons. For example, in many cultures it was
customary to send adolescent girls to live with their aunts
so they could receive sex education and advice on how to
grow up to be a good woman and wife (Muyinda, Nakuya,
Pool & Whitworth, 2003). Even though extended families
are united by blood ties, it is obvious that being separated
from their biological parents for one reason or another
means that children can more easily face neglect. For
instance, they might receive inferior food and clothing, be
asked to undertake heavier domestic chores, while having
limited access to education and healthcare. The economic
status of a foster family sometimes dictates the treatment
received by fostered children (McKittrick, 1995; SIAPAC,
2002; UNICEF, 2003; Case, Paxson & Ableidinger, 2004;
Skinner, Tsheko, Mtero-Munyati, Segwabe, Chibatamoto,
Mfecane et al., 2004; Andrews, Skinner & Zuma, 2006;
UNICEF, UNAIDS & PEPFAR, 2006).
In north-central Namibia today more then 50% of women
of childbearing age are unmarried. Co-habitation and
consensual unions are common, and sexual activity often
begins before marriage and continues regardless of a
person’s marital status (Notkola & Siiskonen, 2000; GRN/
MoHSS [Government of the Republic of Namibia/Ministry
of Health and Social Services], 2003; Shemeikka, Notkola
& Siiskonen, 2005; Shemeikka, 2006). Children born to
unmarried women, and occasionally also to couples living in
consensual unions, are sometimes left with grandparents or
other relatives as the mother (or both the mother and father)
chooses to move ahead with their own life. Less than 25%
of children in Namibia live with both their biological parents
(GRN/MoHSS, 2003; Project Hope, 2006). Elderly people
aged 50 and above bear the brunt of caring for orphans in
Namibia: in 2006, 56% of those providing care for orphans
were aged 60 or more (GRN/MGECW & WFP, 2006;
Project Hope, 2006).
This paper reports findings from fieldwork undertaken in
September and October 2006 in the Oshana and Oshikoto
regions in north-central Namibia. The primary purpose was
to examine the coping strategies employed by single-parent
and caregiver households in north-central Namibia, as a
part of an ongoing study of HIV/AIDS in northern Namibia.
The aims of the paper are: 1) to discuss key concepts such
as child-headed household, adolescent-headed household
and junior-headed household, so as to assess whether the
concepts currently used in the literature can succeed in
describing present-day realities in rural African communities; 2) to outline the processes by which junior-headed
households evolve (that is, the ways in which this type of
household may come about); and, 3) to address the ways in
which such households are coping in north-central Namibia,
with an emphasis on their economic situation.
Methods
The paper is based on field interviews and an analysis of
available literature, such as official publications, reports,
newspapers, and research literature. The results presented
are based on data collected first-hand through open-ended
Kuhanen, Shemeikka, Notkola and Nghixulifwa
field interviews conducted by a two-person research team
(one a native speaker of Oshiwambo, which is a cluster of
several very closely related languages spoken in Angola
and Namibia) in September and October 2006. A total of
46 interviews were conducted: eight with child or juniorheaded households, 13 with single-parent households, 14
with caregiver households, one with a focus group, and
10 with key informants. The term ‘caregiver’ here means
an adult person other than a biological parent or elderly
sibling who is taking care of an orphaned child, while the
term ‘single parent’ means a biological parent caring for
a child who has lost his/her other parent. Child-headed
households are households run by children who are not
yet 18 years old. Key informants interviewed included
persons active in anti-HIV work, such as government social
workers, volunteer workers and church workers. A separate
set of questions covering the central research themes
from their own viewpoint were presented to each group.
The interviews were conducted mainly in Oshiwambo
(Oshindonga), by an interviewer fluent in the language. All
interviews, with the exception of some with key informants,
were tape recorded so that they could be transcribed into
English.
All interviews, except those with key informants, were
carried out in 13 parishes located in the Oshikoto and
Oshana regions. The research team cooperated with the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia (ELCIN), who
provided the team with field guides in each parish visited
and also helped in arranging transportation. Informants
were selected at random from suitable households in each
parish visited. Interviews, with the exception of those with
key informants, were carried out in the informant’s home or
in its immediate vicinity. Present at each interview were the
interviewee, the two members of the research team, and
often a local church worker who acted as a field guide, and
occasionally some family members (mostly small children
or grandparents). The research team was aware that the
presence of additional people could influence an informant’s
willingness to talk openly. In cases where the research
team realised that the informant was uncomfortable talking
in the presence of so many people, the additional persons
were asked to leave. In most cases this was not necessary.
It is the opinion of the research team that the presence of
additional people in some interview situations did not significantly affect the testimony provided by the informant.
Characteristics of the research area
The research area consisted of 11 parishes in six constituencies in the western Oshikoto region (Olukonda,
Omuntele, Omuthiyagwiipundi, Onayena, Oniipa and
Onyaana) and two parishes in two constituencies in the
Oshana region (Oshakati East and Ongwediva) (Figure 1).
The area is arid grassland savannah, and predominantly
rural with small peri-urban centres, the largest of which are
located in the Oshana region. The inhabitants belong to the
Ovambo ethnic group and speak different dialects of the
Oshiwambo language. The Oshiwambo-speaking people
constitute Namibia’s largest ethnic group.
In 2001, the combined population of the Oshikoto and
Oshana regions was 323 000; in both regions, approximately half the households reported subsistence farming
African Journal of AIDS Research 2008, 7(1): 123–132
125
ANGOLA
AFRICA
OHANGWENA
1
Oshakati
Ondangwa
Namibia
OMUSATI
OSHANA
International boundary
Regional borders
Main roads
Town
Congregations
contributing to
interview data
2 8
4
11
9
3
10
5
6
12
7
1. Ongwediva
2. Oshitayi
3. Onguta
4. Oniipa
5. Olukonda
6. Ontananga
7. Onakazizi
8. Oshitutuma
9. Omulonga
10. Onayena
11. Omulondo
12. Onyaanya
13. Onankali
13
NAMIBIA
Etosha Pan
19°S
0
15°E
18°S
OSHIKOTO
20
16°E
40
60 km
17°E
Figure 1: The parish locations of the junior heads of households and key informants interviewed for the study (Oshikoto and Oshana
regions, Namibia)
as their main source of income (48% and 50%, respectively), followed by wages and salaries, which were the
main income of 31% of the households in Oshana and 26%
in Oshikoto (GRN/NPC [Government of the Republic of
Namibia/National Planning Commission], 2006). Unemployment in the regions increased significantly between 1991
and 2001, and was 45% in 2001 among the 40% of the
population (aged 15 or above) who were counted as part of
the labour force. In the same year, a considerable proportion of the population, 57% of those aged 15 or above, was
counted as being outside the labour force (e.g. students,
homemakers, pensioners) (GRN/NPC, 2004 and 2005).
The spread of HIV in Namibia has been rapid since the
beginning of the 1990s. In Oshakati, for example, HIV
prevalence among pregnant women increased from 4%
to 27% between 1992 and 2006. In 2006, average HIV
prevalence at all sentinel sites in north-central Namibia
was 24%. The HIV epidemic has significantly increased the
mortality rate in the study region. According to estimates
based on parish register data, the mortality rates among
women and men, respectively, were 3.5 and 2.5 times
greater in 2000 than in 1993; increased mortality was
concentrated among women aged 25–49 and men aged
30–54. Information extracted from population censuses
shows that between 1991 and 2001, life expectancy at birth
in the Oshikoto and Oshana regions fell by almost 13 years.
Orphanhood is fairly common: for example, in 2001 in
Oshikoto, 5% of children under age 15 had lost their mother,
10% had lost their father, and 1% had lost both their parents
(GRN/MoHSS, 2003 and 2007; GRN/NPC, 2004 and 2005;
Notkola, Timæus & Siiskonen, 2004; Shemeikka, 2006).
Clarifying major concepts
Defining orphan
In 1999 UNAIDS and UNICEF defined an orphan as a child
who has lost his or her mother before the age of 15. This
definition, although used by both UNICEF and UNAIDS,
is not entirely without problems when applied to the local
realities prevailing in various African countries. In some
patrilineal communities in Africa, children who have lost
their mother but whose father is still alive are not considered orphans, since it is supposed that the father will
soon remarry and that the new wife will take care of the
children (Ntozi & Mukiza-Gapere, 1995). The definition is
also inadequate in the sense that the need for parental
care, love, and guidance does not cease when a child
reaches the age of 15 (Andrews, et al. 2006). By 2006,
in accordance with a request from Namibia’s Ministry of
Gender Equality and Child Welfare, UNICEF had redefined
126
an orphan as “a child under 18 years of age whose mother,
father or both parents have died of any cause” (UNICEF
et al., 2006, p. 4), while differentiating between single and
double orphans, as well as maternal and paternal orphans.
In 2002, the Second National Conference on Orphans
and Other Vulnerable Children adopted a definition according to which “an OVC in Namibia is a child under the age
of 18 whose mother, father or both parents or primary
caregiver has died, and/or who is in need of care and
protection” (GRN/MoHSS, 2002, p. 54). As regards the age
limit, these definitions are in line with the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that
persons under age 18 are regarded as children — and this
is also accepted as the legal definition of a child in Namibia
(UNICEF & MWACW, 2004, p. 8). According to Skinner
et al. (2004), persons under age 18 years are commonly
regarded as children in many countries in Africa.
Child-headed household, adolescent-headed
household, and junior-headed household
The term ‘child-headed household’ here means a household
headed by a person who is under age 18 (i.e. a legal minor).
There are two basic types of child-headed households,
accompanied and unaccompanied (Foster, Makufa, Drew &
Kralovec, 1997). An accompanied child-headed household
has one or more adult members, who, because of illness
or debility, etc., do not contribute to the running of the
household, but who do require shelter, support and care.
An unaccompanied child-headed household has no adult
members and denotes a situation where children are living
with other children.
The term ‘adolescent-headed household’ has been used
to refer to a household in which the primary caretaker is
aged between 18 and 24 (Foster et al., 1997). Typically,
a child-headed household would become an adolescentheaded household when one of its members reaches the
age of 18, while an adolescent-headed household would
become a child-headed household when the primary
caretaker leaves, for example, to search for work.
Generally, adolescence is associated with puberty, the
period of life between childhood and adulthood during
which a young person achieves sexual maturity. Recently,
Family Health International defined an adolescent as a
young person aged between 12 and 17 years (Tahir, Finger
& Ruland, 2007). In Namibia, the age of legal majority is 21,
although a person can vote at age 18. In many instances,
people aged 18 or above are considered adults, while those
who have not yet reached 18 are considered to be children
(GRN/MoHSS, 2002; see also Skinner et al., 2004).
Both adolescence and an adolescent-headed household
are however problematic concepts when describing the
social realities in African communities. For example,
among Ovambo who speak the Oshindonga dialect, the
terms ‘teenager’ and ‘adolescent’ are seldom used in local
conversation because they do not have equivalent terms in
the language they use; the terms ‘youth’ and ‘young person’
are used more often because they fit the local dialect more
easily (Yamakawa, 2007). In Oshindonga, many ways
exist to express the relative age, gender and social status
of a person. For example, there are terms for a small boy
(okamati), a boy or an unmarried man (omumati), and
Kuhanen, Shemeikka, Notkola and Nghixulifwa
a married man or the head of household (omusamane)
(Yamakawa, 2007). Adolescence, both as a concept and
a transitional period of life from childhood to adulthood, is
alien to many cultures in Namibia. Instead, young people
experience a more direct transition from childhood to
adulthood — that is, from a state of dependence (on
parents) to a state in which one is supposed to sustain
oneself outside the familial household (Talavera, 2002).
Whereas people aged between 18 and 24 would legally
be considered adults in Namibia, they are regarded as
social minors if they have remained unmarried and have
not established a household of their own. In many African
cultures, marriage, among other things, represents the final
step to manhood or womanhood, social maturity and senior
status. Through marriage, social juniors receive senior
status, with all its prestige and access to the resources (such
as land and cattle) under the control of senior members of
the community (McKittrick, 1995; Miettinen, 2005).
Use of the term ‘adolescent-headed household’ to
describe households where the primary caretaker is aged
between 18 and 24 (an arbitrary limit) or older should
therefore be reconsidered. Such a definition should perhaps
include those households headed by children between
age 12 and 17 (the actual adolescents), while households
headed by children age 11 or under would be child-headed
households. However, for the sake of clarity and conceptual
consistency, households headed by persons aged 18 or
under should be referred to as accompanied or unaccompanied child-headed households. Government social workers
in Namibia seem to concur with this: ‘...A child-headed
household is one which is being run by a child who is under
the age of 18, because the definition of a child clearly states
that a child is a person who is under the age of 18’ (social
worker, KI-5/19.10.06/Ongwediva).
Problems of definition occur when young adults are
placed in charge of under-age children. Both legally and
by government standards, households headed by young
adults aged 18 or more are not child-headed households,
but are households headed by adults. In the eyes of the
local community, however, they are not proper heads
of households since they lack the status and resources
associated with seniority. And, in practice, a household
headed by a junior member of the community differs little
from a household headed by a child, as this comment by
an Oshakati-based AIDS worker suggests: ‘In some cases,
families are deciding for a young adult from somewhere...
to come and live with these small children in this house so
that the land is not taken from them. For me that is a childheaded household.... We still consider them as children….’
(AIDS worker KI-2/29.9.06/Oshakati).
To draw the distinction between households headed
by young adults and actual child-headed households,
households that are comprised of juniors and children and
with a primary caretaker aged 18 or more are here referred
to as ‘junior-headed households,’ with junior describing
a person, either male or female, aged 18 years or more,
unmarried, with no established household of his or her own,
and living permanently in the same household with children.
Although such a junior would be considered an adult in legal
terms, in social terms they are considered a junior member
of the community as long as they have not yet married or
African Journal of AIDS Research 2008, 7(1): 123–132
established a household of their own.
It may be useful to view junior-headed households as
a separate category from child-headed households and
households managed by single parents or caregivers,
not only for the sake of monitoring, but also in relation to
supervision and support programmes, since both the needs
of each type of household and their abilities are different.
Therefore, it is necessary to outline some differences that
they exhibit when compared to child-headed households
(and which make it difficult to group them with child-headed
households), and to consider the implications of the
status of junior heads as social minors when compared to
households headed by single parents or adult caregivers.
Compared to child-headed households, junior-headed
households in general should be in a relatively advantageous position because the head of the household is older,
which means more life experience, better education, a
better ability to work, and better understanding and skills
in acquiring and managing resources. Legally, a junior
household head should be eligible to act as a guardian
to children in the household and should have access to
whatever grants and benefits are available for them. This
would allow greater command over the generation and
management of household income. Compared to childheaded households, all these factors could contribute to
greater economic, social and psychological security (cf.
Ruiz-Cesares, 2007).
Unlike the case of households headed by a single parent
or caregiver, the access of junior-headed households to
certain resources such as land is not clearly defined by
social and cultural traditions. As will be discussed, juniorheaded households have mainly emerged to enhance
basic security, to protect family property and rights regarding the use of land, and, in a situation where the number
of orphans is growing rapidly, to supposedly mitigate the
economic burdens faced by single household units that
have limited resources. They do lack cultural support for
any claim to own land and other property associated with
adulthood, however, and this may give rise to disputes. It
is too early to say what kinds of social role and social rights
these households enjoy within their communities. Further
research is required to ascertain the actual number of
junior-headed households in the communities of northern
Namibia and to understand the social and economic roles
these households are adopting.
Extended-family and junior-headed households in
northern Namibia
The extended family as a safety net
The extended family system, which has traditionally acted
as a social safety net, has been severely stretched by an
ever-growing number of orphans. The ability of families to
absorb orphans and other vulnerable children varies greatly,
depending on the number of income-earning persons within
the household, number of children, location, personal life
situations, and access to outside assistance (MoHSS &
UNICEF, 1998). In 2001, Namibia’s first national conference on orphans and vulnerable children indicated that a
great deal of support was needed to keep this ‘frontline of
care’ functioning, and that its collapse would reduce levels
127
of child welfare, education and the general development of
the nation (GRN/MoHSS, 2002).
Despite the dimensions of the orphan problem in Namibia
and elsewhere in Africa, the extended-family system has
exhibited an enormous capacity to absorb children in
need of care. The low number of child-headed households
in Africa stands as clear proof of the adaptability and
endurance of the extended family. UNICEF et al. (2006)
estimated that less than 1% of all households with children
were headed by persons aged 18 years or under. The 2001
Population and Housing Census had identified more than
7 000 households (2%) in the Oshikoto and Oshana regions
headed by individuals 18 years old or younger (GRN/NPC,
2004 and 2005); but, as Ruiz-Casares (2007) points out,
this number should be viewed with caution as it included,
for example, households whose usual senior household
head was not present on the census night. A recent survey
conducted by GRN/MGECW & WFP (2006) found that
the number of households headed by children aged 18 or
under in northern and north-eastern parts of the country is
very low, or less than 1%. The same survey found that most
single orphans live in households headed by a grandparent (54%), a single parent (28%), or other type of relative
(15%); and two out of three or 64% of double orphans live
with their grandparents, 11% live in foster families, and 10%
live in households headed by an older sibling (see also
GRN/MoHSS, 2002; GRN/NPC, 2004 and 2005).
Extended families ‘on the brink’
Even though extended families in Namibia are exhibiting considerable resourcefulness, the key informants
interviewed for this study were unanimous in expressing their concern about escalation of the orphan problem.
According to the informants, extended families are on the
brink in the sense that their capacity to absorb orphans
and care for them properly has been pushed to its limit or
perhaps exceeded it (AIDS worker, KI-1/22.9.06/Ongwediva; ELCIN pastor, KI-6/24.10.06/Windhoek; AIDS worker,
KI-2/29.9.06/Oshakati). Empirical observations made by the
research team in interviews with actual caregivers pointed
to the same conclusion, although it must be recognised
that the group of caregivers within an extended family is
fairly heterogeneous, and right alongside those who are
struggling to meet even the most basic of needs there can
be found those who are better able to take care of orphaned
children — either because they are younger, have a greater
ability to work, or because they are better educated.
However, such people are in the minority; the bulk of
caregivers are elderly people whose livelihoods depend on
small-scale household cultivation, state pensions or maintenance grants, as well as occasional handouts received
from the community, church or neighbours (see also GRN/
MGECW & WFP, 2006; Shemeikka, Kuhanen, Notkola &
Siiskonen, 2007). In this respect, the ability of adult caregivers to protect children’s rights; to offer them security from
abuse; to provide social and psychosocial support and
advice, as well as moral, cultural and religious instruction;
and to take overall responsibility for the children (Skinner et
al., 2004), may in some cases be questionable.
Considering the relatively older age of the majority of the
caregivers in Namibia, it is expected that within a fairly short
128
period, the number of those orphans who have lost their
caregiver will increase as the social safety net that relies
predominantly on elderly people for this begins to collapse:
‘...We have also children who are orphans who
are losing their primary caregivers…. That is also
becoming worse, because if the parents have died,
[and] now the grandmother who was the caregiver
has died, where is this child going?’ (AIDS worker,
KI-2/29.9.06/Oshakati).
‘Eventually, the grandmothers die too’ (AIDS
worker, KI-1/22.9.06/Ongwediva).
Some key informants offered the opinion that the number
of child-headed households can be expected to rise in the
near future (AIDS worker, KI-1/22.9.06/Ongwediva; social
worker, KI-5/19.10.06/Ongwediva). In general, the number
or prevalence of child-headed households has been taken
as one sign of an escalating orphan crisis and the collapse
of the traditional safety net provided by extended families
(Foster et al., 1997). Some informants indicated that it is
becoming ever more difficult to find foster families either
within or outside the extended family, and that those willing
to adopt children are often already fully stretched in terms
of their resources (AIDS worker, KI-1/22.9.06/Ongwediva;
AIDS worker, KI-2/29.9.06/Oshakati; childcare worker,
KI-9/13.9.06/Windhoek).
As a result, child- and junior-headed households are a
new phenomenon in Namibia and a direct consequence of
the escalating HIV epidemic, which is forcing both families
and communities to find ways of adapting to and dealing
with the situation (ELCIN pastor, KI-6/24.10.06/Windhoek;
see also Foster et al., 1997). Some informants expressed
the view that orphan homes or orphan care centres will
eventually be the only option for managing the growing
number of orphans, but at the moment the Namibian
government and at least one major faith-based organisation
involved in orphan care are opposed to the establishment
of orphanages (ELCIN pastor, KI-6/24.10.06/Windhoek;
AIDS worker, KI-4/16.10.06/Ongwediwa; AIDS worker,
KI-10/13.9.06/Windhoek; GRN/MWACW, 2004).
Child-headed households in the Oshikoto region
As a part of an ongoing study on coping mechanisms in
caregiver households, the research team also requested
interviews with child-headed households in the Oshikoto
region of north-central Namibia. A member of the research
team fluent in the local language explained the term
child-headed household to each field guide (e.g. church
workers), and then asked them whether such households
existed in the area. If their response was yes, the research
team asked to be taken to an arbitrarily chosen household
in which children were known to be living without an adult
present.
All the child-headed households visited (eight in total,
in seven different parishes) were actually headed by young
adults aged 18 to 28. Two of these young adults were still
going to school and a third one reported working for the
railway; the other five were unemployed. In terms of education,
only two reported that they had completed Grade 10.
When prompted to consider households headed by
children aged 18 or under, the field guides responded
that according to their knowledge no such child-headed
Kuhanen, Shemeikka, Notkola and Nghixulifwa
households existed in their parish. A recent survey carried
out in Namibia and other countries in southern Africa
appears to concur with this (see GRN/MGECW & WFP,
2006). Also, the key informants interviewed confirmed that
while child-headed households exist, they were, so far, very
few:
‘I have come across one or two cases where children
are living on their own. No adult is with them…’
(AIDS worker, KI-2/29.9.06/Oshakati).
‘So far, I have visited about eleven child-headed
households in this region [Oshana]’ (social worker,
KI-5/19.10.06/Ongwediva).
The research team was struck by the fact that the
sequence of events described above —finding ‘childheaded households’ that were actually headed by a young
adult/social junior — was repeated in each parish whenever
an interview with a child-headed household was requested.
It was assumed that this happened because the young
adults who were taking care of children aged 18 or less
were considered to be social juniors and had only minority
status in the eyes of the community. The assumption was
further backed by notions expressed by some of the junior
heads of households, who referred to both themselves and
other young people in a similar situation as ‘children’:
Q: Do you know if there are any other households headed
by young persons like yourself?
A: Yes, like that house, there are only children (male, junior
household head, age 28, CHH-3/28.9.06/Omulonga).
‘I am just a child that needs guidance and support’
(female, junior household head, age 21, CHH-6/5.10.06/
Oshitayi).
Whereas actual child-headed households were not
encountered and seem as yet to be few in the region,
junior-headed households appeared to be quite common.
Most heads of junior-headed households claimed that other
households led by young people like themselves were to be
found in their area. The actual numbers of these households
in each parish, however, could not be verified.
Junior-headed households — the ‘last straw’ coping
strategy?
Households headed by social juniors appear to be a
reaction to the reduced capacity of extended families
to absorb orphaned children (cf. Foster, Shakespeare,
Chinemana, Jackson, Gregson, Marange & Mashumba,
1995; Foster et al., 1997). When children have lost both
parents and/or their primary caregiver and have no adult
relative to go to, they face the risk of being left on their own
to fend for themselves:
‘Practically, in this area, in this community, families,
extended family members will actually not allow that
[children to live by themselves]. They will make sure
that someone older is going there to keep order in
that particular house’ (AIDS worker, KI-2/29.9.06/
Oshakati).
The junior-headed households interviewed all reported
similar histories of their parents passing away and children
remaining in the house. In one case, the children had
been living at their grandmother’s house and remained
there after she died. In another case, the children were
distributed within the extended family with two staying to
African Journal of AIDS Research 2008, 7(1): 123–132
live in the parents’ house. One young man reported that
after his parents died, no one came to take care of him
and his siblings, but two small children in the family were
taken away — apparently by relatives — during the period
when their parents were being mourned (CHH-7/9.10.06/
Olukonda). All children staying at their parents’ house were
aged 18 or more at the time their parent(s) passed away, so
they may have been in a better position to argue for staying
on in their parents’ home than younger children would have
been.
According to some key informants (AIDS worker,
KI-2/29.9.06/Oshakati; ELCIN pastor, KI-6/24.10.06/
Windhoek), young persons are sometimes ‘appointed’ by
the extended family to ‘head’ the household in order to
enhance the basic security of children against abuse and
grabbing of property (cf. Barnett & Blaikie, 1992):
‘…Solution would [have] be [brought] in quickly, so
that these children will not remain in their home by
themselves, because they will be exploited by...
unethical adults in the community — particularly the
girls’ (ELCIN pastor, KI-6/24.10.06/Windhoek).
Within the sample, no cases of ‘appointed’ junior heads
of household were found; all people in charge of houses
claimed to be children of deceased parents who were
taking care of their younger siblings (cf. Foster et al., 1995).
Evidence of property-grabbing within the sample was
impressionistic. All but one of the households interviewed
claimed ownership of the house that constituted the
household. Similarly, all but one household reported that
the land at their disposal belonged to them. All were liable
to pay the village headman and/or municipality officers,
depending on the location, a small annual fee for using
the land. Some reported paying a fee for the house as well
as for the land. Annual fees ranged from N$5 to N$17.
One informant reported that the cattle belonging to the
household were being taken care of by an aunt, and that
the government’s maintenance grant received by one of the
orphans was actually paid to a woman living nearby, and
that this woman was supposed to support them in terms
of medical costs and other fees. In another household, the
father had ‘given’ the house and the land to his brother
before dying, and the children now technically lived in their
uncle’s house, which used to belong to their parents. No
one reported paying any extra fees in addition to those paid
to the headman.
Economic hardship and lack of experience
All the households visited were extremely poor. The most
pressing needs were related to adequate food and clothing,
and securing school fees and uniforms, and medicine.
The presence of a legal adult means that a household is
eligible for a maintenance grant under the government’s
grants scheme. Access to the government grants scheme
in Namibia requires a statement from a social worker and
a court order. Because social workers are few and local
courts can only handle a limited number of cases, the
whole process of getting into the grant programme can be
delayed for months, even years. In some cases, insufficient
documents (e.g. missing birth certificates) may delay the
receipt of grants (social worker, KI-5/19.10.06/Ongwediva).
All the junior-headed households interviewed claimed
129
that they had been registered on a national orphan
and vulnerable children database — a precondition for
receiving food aid, for example — but only three of the
households visited actually reported receiving any kind of
financial aid or other assistance, with two of these being
government maintenance grants intended for orphaned
children (CHH-5/5.10.06/Oshitayi; CHH-6/5.10.06/Oshitayi;
CHH-7/9.10.06/Olukonda).
Economic necessity may force the junior head of a
household to leave the children under his or her care to
fend for themselves:
‘...The person allocated there to take care of them
is a young person, unemployed, and he’ll go to
seek for employment, somewhere, so that he can
earn money to support the children, but leaving the
children...they are in the house alone because he is
in Windhoek working’ (AIDS worker, KI-2/29.9.06/
Oshakati).
But even when young adults are present, their ability
to run a household and take care of children may be
limited. They often lack money, necessary skills and other
resources that are often only accessible to senior members
of the community:
‘...Young adult is not ready to head a house. In most
cases they are not employed. They’re not earning
anything. So, they are given the responsibility to
take care of the house, and to feed the younger
brothers and sisters.... This person lacks resources.
He is unemployed; he’s not mature [enough] to
head a house. He didn’t head a house himself but
he was under his mother or father, or grandmother’s house, and was just taken there’ (AIDS worker,
KI-2/29.9.06/Oshakati).
‘...It is not easy to take care of other children
without the guidance of the elderly’ (junior head of
household, CHH-7/9.10.06/Olukonda).
‘The burdens are on my shoulders and it is
difficult to take care of our daily life’ (junior head of
household, CHH-5/5.10.06/Oshitayi).
‘The difficulties are being alone taking care of the
house and being without money’ (junior head of
household, CHH-4/3.10.06/Onayena).
‘...It is not nice, but in this case I don’t have any
choice’ (junior head of household, CHH-8/25.9.06/
Onguta).
In terms of bare necessities, households were mostly
dependent on their own cultivation skills and support from
neighbours, relatives and the church, with neighbours
being the most frequent source of aid. Two heads of
households reported selling some homemade foodstuffs
to raise money. Support from neighbours, in terms of food
handouts, appeared to be of great importance in nearly all
the households visited. Also, support offered by the church
(ELCIN) was also reported by a couple households. In most
of the households visited, two meals a day was the rule, but
this varied from day to day according to the food available
— on some days the family might eat three times, on other
days only once. The biggest problem for such households,
which is directly related to their inexperience, lack of income
and labour for cultivation, and general poverty, is that of
having a permanent, secure food supply.
130
Economic hardship may also encourage people to
engage in higher-risk behaviour, such as transactional sex
and petty crime. This could expose persons to HIV infection,
unwanted pregnancy, criminal charges and imprisonment.
On the other hand, claims of engaging in transactional
sex or criminal activity as ways of ‘making ends meet’ did
not emerge in any of the discussions. In two cases, the
young woman in charge of the household was the mother
of a baby under 12 months old (CHH-5/5.10.06/Oshitayi;
CHH-8/25.9.06/Onguta); while this is not a direct reference
to transactional sex, it does reflect the growing burden
carried by young women who are junior household heads.
Discussion and conclusions
In this study, the term junior-headed household has been
applied to distinguish between households headed by
young adults aged 18 or above from actual child-headed
households — ones headed by people who have not yet
reached age 18. Although both child- and junior-headed
households are considered by the community to be
households run by social minors, the presence of a legal
adult apparently provides greater security in terms of
both property and land. Compared, for example, with the
results obtained by Ruiz-Casares (2007), the households
interviewed in this study experienced less grabbing of
property. In her study, Ruiz-Casares reported that 40% of
the child-headed households interviewed had experienced
grabbing of property — for example, relatives claiming
cattle, beds, linen, cooking utensils and even corrugated
zinc sheets from the house roof, and some child-headed
households had also experienced food being stolen by their
neighbours. Also, requesting food from neighbours was
reported as having become more difficult once parents had
died and children had begun to live in a house on their own
(Ruiz-Casares, 2007).
Junior-headed households are typically headed by a
sibling aged 18 or more who continues to live in the family
or caregiver home after the parent(s) or primary caregiver
has died. All heads of junior households in this study were
aged 18 or more at the time their parent(s) or primary
caregiver had died, which probably put them in a better
bargaining position as regards remaining in their home and
taking care of the property than would have been the case
if the oldest sibling had been younger. It is also plausible
that junior-headed households come about when young,
unmarried adults (cousins or other relatives, for example)
are ‘appointed’ by the extended family to take care of
children whose parents or primary caregiver has died, but
no such cases were encountered in this study. Another
way in which junior-headed household can come about is
when the oldest sibling in a child-headed household turns
18; however, no case of this type of household was found
in this study.
Despite access to land and housing, all junior-headed
households were economically vulnerable and dependent
on handouts from neighbours, government, the church or
other relief organisations. It is notable that support from
older siblings or other relatives living outside the household
was reported only rarely. As economic units, junior-headed
households are vulnerable since there is usually only one
Kuhanen, Shemeikka, Notkola and Nghixulifwa
economically productive person in the household, and
in most cases this person is unable to provide an income
for the family because they are unemployed and lack
necessary skills. Sudden illness or injury, or the absence
of this person for any reason increases the household’s
vulnerability significantly. Economic hardship can also push
people to engage in higher-risk behaviour in order to make
ends meet.
On the basis of the evidence presented above it appears
that actual child-headed households are not yet common
in the Oshikoto region of Namibia because young adults
(social juniors) are overseeing orphaned children who have
been deprived of their parents and primary caregivers,
primarily because it is considered unacceptable for small
children to live by themselves without adult supervision, and
also because extended families want to protect orphaned
children from abuse and prevent grabbing of property.
It also appears that this arrangement may represent a
‘last-straw’ coping strategy by extended families in a
situation where other options are no longer available, and
that despite the fact that a young head of household may
be aged 18 or more, he or she is still considered by the
community to be a ‘child’ or a junior (and sometimes thought
of in the same way even by him/herself); such junior status
implies dependency and a lack of the necessary resources
and skills to run a household properly and provide care to
younger household members. This legal adult/social junior
status of the head of household does not altogether prevent
a household from being vulnerable, even though it may
reduce the risk of child abuse and outright property theft.
Community support and solidarity have been essential in
the survival of such households impaired by poverty. It is
believed that the developments described above represent
a more general trend that is prevailing in parts of contemporary north-central Namibia, a trend that may relate to
reduced capacity in extended families to take care of
orphaned children in the middle of a peaking HIV epidemic.
In the Ovambo culture, ‘head of household’ was a title
traditionally reserved for men (LeBeau, 2002). Over the
past 50 years or so, this situation has changed significantly. Today, more than half the households in Namibia
are headed by women. Recently, young adults, mainly
orphans who have lost both parents, have emerged as a
new group of persons in charge of a new type of family —
families that do not consist of their own children but of their
younger siblings. Unlike the female-headed households that
emerged as a consequence of social change characterised
by migrant labour and a shattering of the old rural forms of
the Ovambo social order, households headed by orphans,
whether juniors or children, are a direct consequence of the
HIV epidemic and the collapse of the safety once provided
by the extended family. The number of households like
these, as well as the number of child-headed households,
will undoubtedly increase in the near future because of
deaths among caregivers and single parents (as a result of
old age and HIV infection) and because the overburdened
extended family system is unable to absorb all the children
being orphaned. This in turn poses a challenge for the
government: how to keep these families integrated into their
communities and broader society, and how to help them
fight the threat of isolation and marginalisation which results
African Journal of AIDS Research 2008, 7(1): 123–132
from unemployment and low levels of education.
Incomplete education and lack of skills, experience and
access to resources — all of which stem from the status
of junior head of household — mean that the economic
prospects for junior-headed households are bleak. Since
the colonial period, migrant labour has offered young men
(and later also young women) additional ways of earning
money, enabling them to marry and gain access to the
resources related to senior status (Miettinen, 2005). In the
past, this option has brought more problems than it solved,
but for many it continues to be the only available option.
The fact that children often remain in their family home
could be a starting point for building up new confidence and
economic capacity in junior-headed families. Since many
junior heads of households have dropped out of school
to find work or take care of younger siblings at home,
novel ways of meeting their educational needs should be
developed, ways that would acknowledge their current
situation and provide both formal education and the practical skills to help them to cope with their life situation.
Acknowledgements — The authors wish to thank the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in Namibia (ELCIN), ELCIN AIDS Action (EASA),
and Dr A.A. Ogunmokun at the University of Namibia for assistance
in conducting the fieldwork on which this study is based. This
research was funded by a grant from the Academy of Finland.
The authors — Jan Kuhanen’s speciality is African history. His
doctoral thesis (2005) dealt with the issues of poverty and health
in the context of colonial Uganda. He worked as a researcher in
various capacities in the Department of History, University of
Joensuu, Finland, from 1998 to 2006. In 2006–2007, he participated in a sociology research project titled ‘Coping with the HIV/
AIDS pandemic in African communities: the case of north-central
Namibia,’ at the University of Helsinki. His current work focuses on
the social history of HIV/AIDS in Uganda.
Riikka Shemeikka received her doctorate in social sciences in
demography in 2006 from the University of Helsinki, Finland; the
topic of her dissertation was fertility and HIV in northern Namibia.
Since 1994, she has worked at the University of Helsinki as a
researcher for several projects concentrating on the demography of Namibia. In 1997–98 she worked as a research scholar at
the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
in Austria in an EU-funded research project on populationdevelopment-environment interactions in Namibia, Botswana and
Mozambique. She has also worked as a project researcher in the
Office of the Finnish Prime Minister.
Docent Veijo Notkola is Managing Director of the Rehabilitation
Foundation in Helsinki, Finland. In 1992–96, he was a professor
of demography at the University of Helsinki, during which time
he published two books: The Population of Finland and Occupational Mortality and Disability Differences in Finland. In 2000, he
co-authored Fertility, Mortality and Migration in Sub-Saharan
Africa: The Case of Ovamboland in North Namibia 1925–1990. His
main areas of research are rehabilitation, occupational mortality
differences, occupational health services, population problems in
sub-Saharan Africa, and also survey-measurement and processquality problems. He has led three research projects concentrating
on northern Namibia. In 1998–2001, he worked at Statistics Finland
as head of the Survey Research Unit.
Margareth Nghixulifwa is a research coordinator at the University of Namibia – Northern Campus. She holds a bachelor’s degree
in geography, economics, industrial psychology; a honours degree
of Bachelor of Education; and a post-graduate education diploma.
She is currently working on her master’s degree in education.
131
She has overseen commissioned research on a project titled
‘Import substitution in north-central region’ and has participated
as a research assistant and conducted more than 40 interviews
with small and medium enterprises. She has also analysed data
for research undertaken by the Oshana Regional Council and the
Oshakati Town Council in Namibia. She participated in a sociology research project titled ‘Coping with the HIV/AIDS pandemic in
African communities: the case of north-central Namibia, conducting
the fieldwork, translation and transcription on which this study is
based.
References
Andrews, G., Skinner, D. & Zuma, K. (2006) Epidemiology of health
and vulnerability among children orphaned and made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS Care 18(3), pp.
269–276.
Barnett, T. & Blaikie, P. (1992) AIDS in Africa. Its Present and
Future Impact. New York, Guilford Press.
Case, A., Paxson, C. & Ableidinger, J. (2004) Orphans in Africa:
Parental Death, Poverty and School Enrollment. Center for
Health and Wellbeing, Research Program in Development
Studies, Princeton University, New Jersey. Unpublished.
Foster, G., Makufa, C., Drew, R. & Kralovec, E. (1997) Factors
leading to the establishment of child-headed households: the
case of Zimbabwe. Health Transition Review 7(supplement 2),
pp. 155–168.
Foster, G., Shakespeare, R., Chinemana, F., Jackson, H., Gregson,
S., Marange, C. & Mashumba, S. (1995) Orphan prevalence and
extended family care in a peri-urban community in Zimbabwe.
AIDS Care 7(1), pp. 3–18.
GRN/MGECW (Government of the Republic of Namibia/Ministry
of Gender Equality and Child Welfare) & WFP (World Food
Programme) (2006) Namibia Community and Household Surveillance (CHS) Findings. WFP Support to Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Northern Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia, GRN/
MGECW and WFP.
GRN/MoHSS (Government of the Republic of Namibia/Ministry of
Health and Social Services) (2002) 2nd National Conference
on Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children: Facing Challenges,
Ensuring Futures. Windhoek, Namibia, Directorate of Developmental and Social Welfare Services & MoHSS.
GRN/MoHSS (2003) Namibia Demographic and Health Survey
2000. Windhoek, Namibia, MoHSS.
GRN/MoHSS (2007) Results of the 2006 National Sentinel Survey
among Pregnant Women. Press release, 17 April 2007.
GRN/MWACW (Government of the Republic of Namibia/Ministry
of Women’s Affairs and Child Welfare) (2004) National Policy
on Orphans and Vulnerable Children. Windhoek, Namibia,
MWACW.
GRN/NPC (Government of the Republic of Namibia/National
Planning Commission) (2004) 2001 Population and Housing
Census. Oshikoto Region. Basic Analysis with Highlights.
Windhoek, Namibia, Central Bureau of Statistics.
GRN/NPC (2005) 2001 Population and Housing Census. Oshana
Region. Basic Analysis with Highlights. Windhoek, Namibia,
Central Bureau of Statistics.
GRN/NPC (2006) Namibia Household Income & Expenditure
Survey 2003/2004. Main Report. Windhoek, Namibia, NPC and
Central Bureau of Statistics.
LeBeau, D. (2002) Gender Inequality as a Structural Condition
for the Progression of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic in Namibia.
Unpublished paper.
LeBeau, D., Fox, T., Becker, H. & Mufune, P. (1999) Taking Risks
— Taking Responsibility. An Anthropological Assessment of
Health Risk Behaviour in Northern Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia,
Department for Cooperation and Cultural Affairs of the French
132
Embassy, and Ministry of Health and Social Services.
McKittrick, M. (1995) Conflict and Social Change in Northern
Namibia, 1850–1954. PhD thesis, Stanford University, California.
Miettinen, K. (2005) On the Way to Whiteness. Christianization,
Conflict and Change in Colonial Ovamboland, 1910–1965.
Bibliotheca Historica 95. Helsinki, Finland, Finnish Literary
Society.
MoHSS (Ministry of Health and Social Services [Namibia]) &
UNICEF (1998) More than the Loss of a Parent. Namibia’s First
Study of Orphan Children. Windhoek, Namibia, MoHSS and
UNICEF.
Muyinda, H., Nakuya, J., Pool, R. & Whitworth, J. (2003) Harnessing the senga institution of adolescent sex education for the
control of HIV and STDs in rural Uganda. AIDS Care 15(2), pp.
159–167.
Notkola, V. & Siiskonen, H. (2000) Fertility, Mortality and Migration
in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Case of Ovamboland in North
Namibia, 1925–90. Basingstoke, UK, Macmillan.
Notkola, V., Timæus, I. & Siiskonen, H. (2004) Impact on mortality
of the AIDS epidemic in northern Namibia assessed using parish
registers. AIDS 18(7), pp. 1061–1065.
Ntozi, J. & Mukiza-Gapere, J. (1995) Care for AIDS orphans in
Uganda: findings from focus group discussions. Health Transition Review 5(supplement), pp. 245–252.
Project Hope (2006) Sustainable Strengthening of Families of
Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Mozambique and Namibia.
Baseline Survey Report: Namibia — August 2006. Unpublished
survey report.
Ruiz-Casares, M. (2007) How did I become the parent? Gendered
responses to new responsibilities among Namibian child-headed
households. In: LaFont, S. & Hubbard, D. (eds.) Unravelling
Taboos: Gender and Sexuality in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia,
Legal Assistance Centre.
Shemeikka, R. (2006) Fertility in Namibia: Changes in fertility levels
in North-Central Namibia 1960–2001, including an assessment of
the impact of HIV. Yearbook of Population Research in Finland,
XLII 2006 (supplement). Helsinki, Finland, Väestöliitto.
Shemeikka, R., Kuhanen, J., Notkola, V. & Siiskonen, H. (2007)
HIV-epidemia ja sosiaalinen ja taloudellinen tuki eteläisessä
Afrikassa: Tuen tarve Pohjois-Namibiassa. Kuntoutus 1/2007,
pp. 16–36.
Kuhanen, Shemeikka, Notkola and Nghixulifwa
Shemeikka, R., Notkola, V. & Siiskonen, H. (2005) Fertility decline
in north-central Namibia: an assessment of fertility in the period
1960–2000 based on parish registers. Demographic Research
[online] 13, pp. 83–116.
SIAPAC (2002) A Situation Analysis of Orphan Children in Namibia.
Prepared by the Social Impact Assessment and Policy Analysis
Committee (SIAPAC) for the Ministry of Health and Social
Services and UNICEF, Windhoek, Namibia.
Skinner, D., Tsheko, N., Mtero-Munyati, S., Segwabe, M., Chibatamoto, P., Mfecane, S., Chandiwana, B., Tlou, S. & Chitiyo, G.
(2004) Defining Orphaned and Vulnerable Children. Social
Aspects of HIV/AIDS and Health Research Programme,
Occasional Paper No. 2. Cape Town, South Africa, HSRS
Publishers.
Tahir, S., Finger, W. & Ruland, C. (2007) Adolescents: Orphaned
and Vulnerable in the Time of HIV and AIDS. YouthNet, YouthLens
No. 18: On reproductive health and HIV/AIDS. Available at: http://
www.fhi.org/en/Youth/YouthNet/Publications/YouthLens+English.
htm [Accessed 7 May 2007].
Talavera, P. (2002) Challenging the Namibian perception of sexuality. A case study of the Ovahimba and Ovaherero culturo-sexual
models in the Kunene North in an HIV/AIDS context. Windhoek,
Namibia, Gamsberg Macmillan.
UNICEF (2003) Africa’s Orphaned Generations. Available at: http://
www.unicef.org/publications/files/africas_orphans.pdf [Accessed
8 February 2007].
UNICEF & MWACW (Ministry of Women’s Affairs and Child
Welfare [Namibia]) (2004) A Study on the Interface between
Orphanhood, Street Children and Child Labour in Namibia. Final
Report. Windhoek, Namibia, UNICEF.
UNICEF, UNAIDS & PEPFAR (2006) Africa’s Orphaned and
Vulnerable Generations. Children Affected by AIDS. Available
at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Africas_Orphaned_
and_Vulnerable_Generations_Children_Affected_by_AIDS.pdf
[Accessed 8 February 2007].
Yamakawa, S. (2007) The interrelationship of Ohango ritual, gender
and youth status among the Owambo of north-central Namibia.
In: LaFont, S. & Hubbard, D. (eds.) Unravelling Taboos: Gender
and Sexuality in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia, Legal Assistance
Centre.