SUB-THEME 1.2: COMMUNITY MEMBERS EXPRESSED

Some of the participants expressed concerns regarding the children and young people growing up in youth-headed families. The participants‟ concerns were related to the effects of growing up without parents and the often poor living conditions of

159

youth-headed families. These participants viewed children growing up in these conditions as being at risk of engaging in maladaptive behaviours. Issues like school drop-out, the possibility of becoming involved in criminal activities, and the lack of proper socialisation were of particular concern to the participants. Based on these perceptions, some participants were of the view that child- and youth-headed households should not be an option. This was in contrast to the earlier view, where some of the participants expressed their support for youth-headed families. The following issues featured prominently in participants‟ views about children and young people living on their own without parental or adult supervision:

 Perceptions of risk factors; and

 Concerns regarding the ability of young people to manage households.

5.3.1.2.1 Perceptions of risk factors

The community members expressed concerns regarding the plight of children in youth-headed families. Concerns related to lack of adult supervision and inability to cope with material needs were evident. Some of the participants viewed children and young people in youth-headed families to be at risk of negative future outcomes, based on their circumstances.

The participants‟ views were reflected in the following statements:

They may steal in order to survive.

Usually when a child is 18 years old in our culture, he is not ready to go to work, you know, because they start late at school, so at 18 maybe he is doing Standard 9 or Standard 10, so it‘s getting tough for both of the youth. It‘s worse for the child, because he knows nothing about taking care of the others.

Contrary to the previous view that these families needed support, where community members viewed youth-headed families negatively, the availability of or lack of support became a subject of debate. These contradictory messages or ambivalent

160

perceptions continued to dominate the participants‟ views. It was also noted that community members‟ attitudes and views regarding youth-headed families influenced their willingness to support the families. Of note is the assumption, which is also evident in the literature, that the extended family structures should be able to absorb members of their families, regardless of their circumstances. This assumption led to participants blaming relatives and extended families for neglecting these children. Berk (2000:3) refers to the different layers of the ecological systems theory. According to Berk, the principles defined by the macro system have a cascading influence throughout the interactions of all other layers. For example, if it is the belief in a culture that parents and families should be solely responsible for raising their children, that culture is less likely to provide resources to help parents and families. This, in turn, affects the structures in which the family functions. Phrases such as „my

child is your child‘, believed to be reflective of Ubuntu, did not feature in participants‟

views, as some community members maintained that children should be integrated within the extended family and that it was the duty of these families to look after their own.

Statements such as ―A child does not know how to head a home and should not be

allowed to do so‖ were identified in participants‟ accounts. These statements tended

to construct young people within youth-headed families as passive, dependent children who are at risk of future negative outcomes. Evans (2010:8) cautions against these views, arguing that this view seeks to emphasise their vulnerability as children lacking adult supervision rather than demonstrating their competencies as youth „managing their own lives‟. Evans further argues that this view could undermine young people‟s ability to exert agency and control over their lives.

Some of the participants expressed their concerns and hesitation in supporting the existence of these households, as this was perceived as encouraging children to live on their own, instead of being absorbed into their extended families. Research data also revealed that the situation of children and young people growing up in youth- headed families challenged the community‟s understanding of childhood within a Black (African) context and represented a significant change in conventional beliefs about children and patterns of care within families.

161

The following extracts bear testimony to this view:

Intsha lento kuthi ngoba nawe umele ukwazi ukuba kwi culture yethu abantwana abanakuziphatha and abanakuzihlalela. Baphi abantu abadala?

[This is new to us. Even you should know that in our culture, children should not do as they please and should not live on their own. Where are the adults?]

We have seen cases where children find themselves in serious danger when there is no adult.

Some of the concerns expressed by community members cannot be denied given the magnitude of the challenges faced by children and young people and the possible risk on their well-being. McWhirter et al. (2004: 2007) refer to the socio- economic environment in which children and young people grow as a significant exosystemic predictor of their overall well-being. Problems related to at-risk youth have been linked to the lower socio-economic status of the family. In support of this view, Fraser and Terzian (2005:5) have identified risk as relating to any event, condition, or experience that increases the probability that a problem will be formed, maintained, or exacerbated. These factors may include events, conditions or experiences of different magnitude and diverse nature which, it has been suggested, can be assessed on three levels, namely (i) individual level, (ii) household/family level, and (iii) community level. However, the literature on resilience in children and youth provides evidence that some of the children and young people demonstrated the capacity to adapt successfully, despite their challenging and/or threatening circumstances (Werner 7 Smith, 1982; Garmezy, 1991). The authors highlight protective factors within the individual, such as self-efficacy beliefs, factors within the family such as family connectedness, and factors within communities, such as the availability of support, as crucial factors that facilitated resilience of children and young people in their studies.

162

5.3.1.2.2 Concerns regarding the ability of young people to manage households

Some of the participants expressed concerns regarding the ability of children and young people to manage their households and the economic needs of the family with lack of and/or limited resources. The participants made reference to their own circumstances and shared their difficulties in coping with the challenging demands of managing their own households, even in situations where there are two income earners. Issues of prostitution, exploitation and crime as strategies to meet the economic demands of running a household featured prominently in participants‟ views.

Some of the girls may end up selling their bodies to get money for the house. Some of them will drop out of school, because there is no money to pay school fees and they will end up being criminals.

Participants‟ views are congruent with the literature on at-risk youth. Mc Whirter et al. (2004, 2007) argue that the socio-economic status of the family has an impact on the development and growth of children and young people in the family and could determine the future outcomes of members of the family. Germann (2005:316) indicates that the ability of children and young people within households headed by children and young people to mitigate household and economic challenges, coupled with parental loss, depends on the internal household economy, as well as access to existing internal and external resources.

5.3.2 THEME 2: COMMUNITY MEMBERS’ PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE