A national average is not every child’s reality
Botswana’s national development progress is important, but national averages can conceal the barriers experienced in particular communities. Rural child poverty in Botswana is a clear example. Distance, infrastructure, service quality and limited economic opportunities can combine to make childhood very different outside major towns.
According to the Statistics Botswana and UNICEF child-poverty report, children living in rural areas were far more likely to experience several deprivations at the same time.
Data note: The statistics in this article come from a report published in 2021 using 2015/16 household survey data. They should be presented as an important evidence baseline, not as Botswana’s current 2026 child-poverty rate.
In 2015/16, approximately 68% of rural children were deprived in at least two dimensions. The comparable estimates were 41% for children in urban villages and 27% for children in cities and towns. In other words, the rural rate was more than twice the rate recorded in cities and towns.
Statistical source: Statistics Botswana and UNICEF, Child Poverty in Botswana (2021), based on the 2015/16 Botswana Multi-Topic Household Survey; Preface and Executive Summary, pp. 5-6.
The report also identified the Northwest, Ghanzi and Central districts as areas with some of the largest proportions of children facing multiple deprivations. This is particularly relevant to Lehikeng because the organisation is based in Maun, Ngamiland, within Botswana’s Northwest.
Rural disadvantage cannot be reduced to a single shortage.
The report showed higher rural deprivation across several dimensions, including sanitation, housing, health and water. Geographic dispersion can increase the cost and difficulty of delivering infrastructure and maintaining consistent access to qualified professionals, medicines and other services.
These are structural challenges. Families should not be blamed for living far from services or for being unable to finance infrastructure that is costly in dispersed settlements. A fair response recognises local realities and brings resources, partnerships and decision-making closer to affected communities.
Local organisations can recognise needs that may be blurred in national statistics. They know the distances families travel, the transitions young people struggle with, the strengths that already exist in the community and the partnerships most likely to work.
Lehikeng’s work in Maun and Ngamiland is grounded in this community context. Its programmes connect immediate support with psychosocial care, mentoring, life skills, career guidance and practical capacity building. This is not a substitute for public systems. It is a way of helping children and young people navigate barriers, build confidence and access opportunity while stronger systems are pursued.
The organisation’s emphasis on capacity building in Ngamiland is especially relevant. Capacity building treats young people as future workers, entrepreneurs, caregivers and community leaders, not simply as recipients of assistance.
Rural inequality requires collaboration. Businesses can offer work exposure, apprenticeships or technical expertise. Professionals can mentor young people. Donors can help programmes reach more beneficiaries. Community members can volunteer and strengthen local networks.
Explore Lehikeng’s programmes or volunteer with Lehikeng to help expand opportunity for vulnerable children and youth in Maun and Ngamiland.
The 2021 report found that 68% of rural children experienced at least two deprivations in 2015/16, compared with 27% in cities and towns and 41% in urban villages.
The report identified the Northwest, Ghanzi and Central districts among the areas with the largest proportions of children facing multiple deprivations.
Lehikeng was established to support vulnerable children and youth in Maun and surrounding Ngamiland communities through locally rooted, holistic empowerment programmes.