Exploring the Nature of Poverty Among Primary Caregivers of Children from Two Red-Light Areas in Mumbai, India

Purpose: Women in low-income prostitution and their children are among the most disenfranchised citizens of India. Understanding the nature of poverty in their lives is an essential step towards effective programmatic and policy interventions to reduce deprivations, increase socio-economic security and safeguard human rights. As an initial step towards building this understanding, this study examines caregiver socio-economic status (SES) among three groups of children from two red-light areas in Mumbai. 

Methods: Data regarding SES was collected for: i) 43 primary caregivers of community-based children of ever-prostituted women (CB-EP); ii) 43 primary caregivers of shelter-based children of ever-prostituted women (SB-EP); and iii) 30 primary caregivers of community-based children of never- prostituted women (CB-NP). Data was collected through in-person survey interviews with primary caregivers; where caregivers were deceased or missing, data was obtained through interviews with participating organization’s social workers and case file reviews. An SES scale developed and validated in India was used. This SES scale measured seven socio-economic indicator at the household level. For analysis, a series of one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were conducted.  

Results: One way ANOVAs revealed statistically significant between group differences in mean scores on 5 of 7 socio-economic profiles measured. These include a) house (land area of residence + type of residence); b) material possessions; c) education; d) economic; and e) possessed land/house cost profiles. The highest scores reported on all economic indicators were well below the mid-point on a 10 point scale indicating that all families in this study belonged to the lower economic strata. Primary caregivers in the SB-EP group reported the lowest scores on house, material possessions, economic and possessed land/house cost profiles. Further, caregivers in the CB-NP group reported significantly higher scores than caregivers in the CB-EP groups on material possessions, education and possessed land/house profiles. Lastly, differences between CB-EP and CB-NP groups on house and economic profile, as observed in the field, were missed on the SES scale due to measurement issues.

Conclusion: Caregivers in SB-EP group reported the lowest SES scores on multiple economic indicators, suggesting higher vulnerability. Shelter placement of children, in this sample, occurred only under dire circumstances whether voluntary or mandated. Reasons for shelter placement of children, in this sample, were: fatal illness, death, or disappearance of the mother/primary caregiver, discovery of abuse or attempted trafficking of the child or ‘voluntary’ placement by mother under economic or health related duress.

Caregivers of children of ever-prostituted women reported significantly lower material and property ownership than caregivers in the CB-NP group, highlighting some aspects of inter-generational poverty. Higher average per capita income per month among caregivers of children in the CB-EP group, however marginal, did not appear to translate into greater property ownership or improved standard of living. These findings provide some texture towards comprehending the nature of poverty experienced by families in this study.