JOE SLOVO HOUSEHOLD
ENUMERATION REPORT
LANGA, CAPE TOWN, JUNE 2009
Community Organisation Resource Centre
&
Joe Slovo Community Task Team
PREFACE
The Community Organisation Resource Centre (CORC) is a non-governmental organisation
with main offices in Cape Town but operating in all provinces, that supports communities
prepared and willing to help themselves. CORC provides support to networks of urban and
rural poor communities who mobilize themselves around their own resources and capacities.
CORC’s interventions are designed to enable rural and urban communities to learn from one
another and to create solidarity and unity in order to be able to broker deals with formal
institutions, especially the State.
The community of Joe Slovo “surveyed” with the exercise described in this report is a good
example of an organized community, willing and able to take up their own developmental
issues. This community is situated ten kilometres out of the City of Cape Town, stretching
on a strip of land along the N2 national road, towards the Cape Town International airport.
In 2004 the National Government launched their flagship programme, known as the “N2
Gateway”. This pilot but huge project, designed within the Government's Human Settlement
Plan, was approved by Cabinet in September 2004. According to Government, this project
was to demonstrate the new way of building human settlements with all basic social and
economic amenities accompanying the houses. The upgrading of the Joe Slovo “slum” was
identified as the first project within the N2 Gateway development.
Unfortunately, from the outset this project was riddled with problems. The main problem was
lack of proper consultation with the community. Soon government was faced with protest,
demonstrations and burning of tyres. To enable the State to start phase 1 and 2 of the project,
the first group of Joe Slovo residents was relocated to a transit camp in Delft (about 20 km
away).
The remaining residents at Joe Slovo resisted relocation to Delft, and this resulted in a long
court battle with the National Department of Housing, which ended up at the Constitutional
Court.
Whilst the community awaited the outcome of the Constitutional Court hearing, they realized
the importance of gathering current information with regard to their settlement. Given the
innovative exercise run with CORC and its ally iKhayalami in March 2009 after one more
tragic fire, i.e. a blocking out of the shack to re-build towards a more rational layout, in view
of allowing upgrading with no need for relocations, during mid April 2009 the Joe Slovo
community approached CORC for support in doing an enumeration. Actually many figures
about the households residing in the community were given and used, so a need for clarity
was strongly felt. CORC linked the community with community organisations, like
Federation of the Urban Poor (FEDUP) and Poor People’s Movement (PPM), well versed in
the practice of enumeration. The Kenyan Homeless People’s Federation also provided
support during this process and in particular in preparation for the data analysis and mapping
of the community.
This Joe Slovo Enumeration report summarizes the data collected during the Enumeration
exercise. The questionnaire of the survey collected data on 23 variables, of which all are
represented in this report. The appendix contains further information on the forms used.
The map prepared is going under a process meant to divide it into portions and give them a
more manageable electronic format.
Acknowledgement
Conducting enumerations under the SDI umbrella implies the involvement of a lot of
volunteering especially from the shack dwellers community. These people are volunteers
from the Joe Slovo Community, FEDUP and PPM members. They have participated in the
planning phase, data collection and filing and in the capturing. They will further verify the
information reported in this draft document. Their participation is seen by CORC as the
guarantee of the accuracy of the data and of the potential to use them for their development
purposes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Introduction
2.
Methodology of the Enumeration
3.
Key Findings
4.
Graphs and Tables (of Major Findings)
Appendix : Survey Form
1. INTRODUCTION
On the 6th of May 2009, CORC and the Joe Slovo Community Task Team came together in a
collaborative effort to conduct a household enumeration in the community as a way of getting
the actual data about the livelihoods of the people who stay in this land strip. The main
motive behind this enumeration project was to equip and strengthen the Community Task
Team in the negotiation with the Government about their tenure security. The Joe Slovo
residents were struggling against the eviction to Delft and CORC was keen to help in the
research of win-win solutions with the community members.
This compilation is aimed at providing a tool more to both parties of the negotiation
occurring between Government (National, City and Province) and the leadership representing
the people of Joe Slovo, who would be strengthened in the definition of relocation and
accommodation options.
The kind of data collected may also help to understand better life conditions in informal
settlements. Furthermore, the exercise was supposed to represent an influential tool for the
growth and development of other community activities such as daily savings and
participation into the Urban Poor Fund (managed by uTshani Fund, the treasurer organisation
of the Federation of the Urban Poor).
During this month-long enumeration, numerous demographic and settlement observations
were made about the inhabitants of this settlement. In this exercise, we surveyed only the
households who were not affected by the movement to Delft. It was observed that the
community is made up of about 2800 teenagers (age range 1 – 17years), about 5070 adults (in
the 18 – 64years range) and little more than 80 people aged 65 y.o. or more.
These numbers make up the total population observed during the period of enumeration,
though it must be taken into account that there is a (small) number of families which were not
enumerated due to a number of reasons.
In terms of community service delivery, the settlement has a total of 896 toilets where 706
are still functional with 190 not functional, due to vandalism. In terms of water supply, there
is a total of 38 taps which are all functional.
The community is only made up of shack structures; there are no formal houses or backyards
in this community. This is as a result of lack of tenure agreements between the government
and the residents, hence no permanent structures.
As mentioned above, Joe Slovo settlement is situated 10 km east of Cape Town CBD on a
vacant strip along the N2 highway. The settlement is a result of the increased rate of
urbanisation where people leave rural areas in search of employment and better living. Due to
high prices of rent and housing, people have resorted to this kind of shelter as the only cheap
and accessible housing alternative. It emerged that most of the household heads in this
settlement are from the Eastern Cape Province and came to Cape Town in great anticipation
of a chance for employment and formal housing. The shortage of affordable housing across
low income levels has seriously limited the housing options of lower-income households,
hence low income earners have resorted to shack dwelling as the only option which can meet
the level of their income.
During the enumeration it was established that the community has a diverse source of
income, such as service jobs, state employment, construction and work in factories. However,
there are some who own some small scale indigenous businesses like small corner shops
locally known as “spaza” where small groceries and other basic goods like bread, cigarettes
and drinks are sold. These small businesses also include beer outlets (“shebeens”). Some
other activities like traditional healing are also a source of income to other people.
The monthly expenses of poor households for food, electricity, school fees and transport
absorb the entire income and can be used as a proxy of it. The amount spent by a household
on all the main, survival expenses per month ranges from R800 to R1500. Water and toilet
services are freely delivered in this community hence there are no sanitation expenses for
anyone.
There are no official statistics for the settlement’s current population, and of late there have
been thick migrations into and out of the community. From the old city census records, Joe
Slovo had a population of 20,000+ people. This figure is sometimes used without
specification of whether the figure includes the large group of people who were evicted
earlier to Delft as transit accommodation or not. From the history of the community, there is
no enumeration of this magnitude which has ever been carried out in this settlement except
for shack counting which was conducted by the City Council for an estimation of the
population size.
The figures from our recent enumeration have some differences when compared to some
previous demographic publications of the community. Therefore there is a risk of
misrepresentation of figures; this has some long-term impacts on the people since
demographic figures are used in making decisions about funding and other developmental
issues and social programs. The need for current and accurate data has become critical in this
particular community because service planning, program development and eviction
deliberations will be based on this data.
This Joe Slovo Enumeration Report deals with the methodology of data collection and
capture, the general lessons learnt in the enumeration project and analyzes the major findings.
2. METHODOLOGY OF THE ENUMERATION
CORC had regular meetings in early April 2009 to make all the necessary plans for the
enumeration. The Community Task Team was called in to participate as a pivot and as the
instrumental tool of mobilisation for the whole community about the enumeration. A series of
meetings was held with the community at large about the enumeration, until it was agreed in
its meaning, logistic aspects and task distribution.
Questionnaire development
The 2009 Joe Slovo enumeration survey questionnaire was adapted and revised from another
recent exercise run by CORC in 2008 in Cloetesville (Stellenbosch Municipality). Based on
the outcomes of the Cloetesville enumeration, many consultations and discussions to decide
on what to be included, and left out of the Joe Slovo enumeration questionnaire, took place.
Further improvements were made to the previous questionnaire to ensure that more relevant
and comprehensive information would be collected. The format of the questionnaire is as
follows.
DOMAIN OF SURVEY
Household details
Employment
Nature of house
Disaster history
Migration
Sanitation
ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE
QUESTIONNAIRE
- identity and gender of household head
- his/her age
- number of families occupying the structure
- number of young people in the house
- number of people attending school
- number of adults staying in the house
- number of aged persons in the house
- number of people employed per household
- type of employment
- grants received
- monthly basic expenses
- transport and costs
- shopping options
- type of house
- area of house
- number of rooms
- self-built / purchased
- disasters experienced by the household
- period lived in the community
- place of residence before coming to JS
- period lived in Cape Town
- type of toilet available to the household
- number of people using the toilet
- collection of waste from common bins
Table 1 - Questionnaire Outline
The whole enumeration team was divided into three teams: Measuring Team, Numbering
Team and the Data Collection Team. 24 sections of the community were identified; the 24
Sections were numbered in an alphabetical order from Section A to Section X.
The Joe Slovo Household Survey was structured around one main enumeration code for all
the housing units, so each household was clearly identified by the numbered (and measured)
structure where it is sheltered. On the 6th of May 2009, the CORC fieldworkers and some
Community Task Team members led a mini workshop to instruct service providers and
volunteer enumerators how to complete the questionnaire with the surveyed families.
Enumerators were instructed to collect information from people in their structures, which
were numbered and measured only by the enumeration team, in order to avoid confusion.
Based on the SDI methodology, enumerators were instructed to speak personally to a member
of the household they would collect information about. For this reason, the Joe Slovo
Enumeration leaders built up three teams made up of Joe Slovo community volunteers who
had some knowledge about the community and all its sections. This not only increased the
level of accuracy in the survey but helped the survey not to be seen as an external intrusion
and potentially as a tool to favour the eviction1.
For the survey component of the project, enumerators surveyed every structure in each and
every section at Joe Slovo. The survey contained 21 questions and took 10-15 minutes to be
fully completed. All answers provided were confidential, in the process of data collection, the
respondents were informed that there would be no retribution for any of their answers they
provided in the survey and also ensured that there was nothing to be done to them for turning
down some questions in the questionnaire.
During the data collection, substantive efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the data
which were collected. Despite all the stringent measures taken to ensure all the accuracy
expected, there are some limitations which were met in the process:
1. Some people were misinformed of the purpose of the survey hence they did not
divulge the information. They thought that the information was to be used against
their interests.
2. Some people got an impression that the enumeration was aimed at collecting
information which would be used in the house allocation hence they tried to have their
information collected more than once.
3. Issues of leadership in the community, a few members in a couple of sections were
contesting the Community Task Team’s representativeness and painted the
enumeration as an initiative of the Task Team, excluded themselves and tried to
boycott the whole exercise.
4. The enumeration was conducted after a serious fire disaster: some people are still
temporarily living outside the community while setting up their structures hence the
population is probably underestimated, as well as the number of shacks constituting
the community.
Fieldwork
For a period of three weeks, the enumeration team conducted the “point in time” data
collection in the whole community about households found in this community. Most of the
data collection was done during the day; however, there were some situations where
information was collected at night because the residents could be reached only during the
evening, when they were back from work.
Data
After the data entry, all the data was analyzed and reports were produced showing frequency
tables and graphs for each variable from the questionnaire. Prior to the analysis of the data,
the data was first subjected to frequency and cross-tabulation analysis to minimize data entry
errors. Of course errors may still be affecting accuracy, due to data entry problems or
inconsistent answers provided by the respondents. However, only few errors were detected,
thus ensuring the overall integrity of the information elaborated upon. The final data set
analysis was done through the 2007 Microsoft Excel version. The data presented is for the
whole community and for some variables the data is presented separately for each section.
1
As it is mentioned below, some suspicions remained anyway in a few residents, who refused to collaborate.
3. KEY FINDINGS
Key results of the enumeration are shown on the following pages, mainly in the synthetic
form of graphs and tables.
The following table summarizes the settlement profile2 established through the enumeration.
“Slum” Name
Joe Slovo
Age of Settlement
17 years
Status at the time of the survey on the Eviction: disputed in courts by
date of drafting this report
Constitutional Court with obligation to
consultations
Structures
Informal residential units
Population
7946 (plus the households who refused to
provide information – see below)
Not enumerated
Estimated 100 households in the Section
called “Zone 30”
Ownership
City-owned land
No. of Individual Toilet Blocks
None
No. of Community Toilet Blocks
896
Ratio of toilets to total number of 896 for 7946 (9 people per toilet)
people
Most urgent needs
Electricity, water, toilets
Table 2 - Brief Settlement profile
Due to the factors mentioned above, these figures are most probably slightly underestimated.
There were 2799 households found to be staying in this community; children and teenagers
make up 35% of the total population. The results about household leadership by gender also
reflect a reality of fast transition from the stereotypical situation (household leadership is
2
Settlement Profile format adapted from Ahmad Nagar Settlement Profiling, India (2009)
only a male role), and woman-led family units are gradually equalling the male-dominated
household leadership responsibilities.
Analysis
From the Joe Slovo Household Enumeration exercise of May – June 2009, CORC and the Joe
Slovo Community Task Team learned that in that period there were at least 2748 shacks in
the community. They have to find with Government temporary and permanent solutions to
accommodate with dignity these families and the ones which were forced to Delft in the past
years.
CORC supported the exercise in the hope that the information contained in the tables verified
by the community and the elaborations shared with all actors will favour a more informed
discussion, starting from the one currently going on among local and national government,
and the Joe Slovo Community Task Team, all parties assisted by their legal teams.
Empowering the community means giving them the tools for appropriate demands and for
putting forward their own solutions, or to show how valuable their contribution to (any)
solution may be, if consultation and negotiation take place. Staying in the slums is a bad
experience and evictions may be worse both for the people affected and Government’s
expenditure, hence community empowerment is needed to demand a deeper analysis.
The leadership of this community is aware that shack dwelling as an urbanization
consequence has created a situation which requires intervention.3 Just as an example: Every
woman responsible for a household in the community has to provide for 3.2 people on
average. Grants contribute to the community for about R 340,000 (gross estimate) and
apparently about 10.7% of the households depend only on them.
Every toilet has to be shared by nine people at least, and they are all in a very bad state after
continuous vandalism. There are no ablution facilities and people have to wash themselves in
dangerous promiscuity. Refuse is collected about once per week from the big containers at
the periphery of the settlement, very far from the location of the majority of the shacks, which
encourages unhealthy and unpleasant practices.
Shack dwelling has always been a poor living condition environment, there is always serious
squeezing in these shacks, for example, three families sharing a 20m2 shack.
In this situation the improvement of shelter and infrastructure is a clear urgent need and
government’s intention to solve the problem is welcome, however, it is the process and the
relocation to a worse, far-away area that is contested.
3
Several studies and reports have demonstrated that continued poverty and necessity deprivation in the first
years of life will have a great influence on the shaping of children’s health, cognitive development, social skills
and the future in general. The lack of basic infrastructure and services in the early stage of children’s lives may
create a difficulty in social bonding with society. Growing up in physically constrained situations, with troubled
parents or adults, makes it difficult for these informal settlement children to learn appropriate behaviour,
appropriate conflict or problem resolution skills and proper personal management and responsibility. There is
high vulnerability to developing problems which are most likely to have life-long negative impacts on
education, health, civic participation, employment, skill development and social development.
Some consideration about the eviction (recently sanctioned also by the Constitutional Court
with the condition of meaningful consultation) can be made from the data collected during
the survey.
The community is contributing to the city’s economy more than 2.7 million rand per month
(by taking only the expenses for food and basic services). This figure alone should convince
all that they have a right to a say about the development of the land where they have been
staying for about nine years (on average) and about the protection of their livelihoods.
Only 4.5% of the households is spending more than R300 per month in transport (about 30%
of the average income roughly estimated), and only 10.7% is spending more than R200
(about 20% of the income per household roughly estimated). It is likely that to reach their
sources of income from Delft, the expenses for transport would increase significantly.
Considering the closer environment in terms of employment and income opportunities, most
people are likely to lose their jobs if they are suddenly evicted to Delft. Most of the employed
household heads find their workplaces adjacent to their community. Thanks to the proximity
to the train station, about 57% of the households can benefit from relatively cheap
(subsidized) train services. If the Joe Slovo residents had to devote a more relevant portion of
their income to transport (today at about 8.6% of their expenses), the poverty cycle would
worsen: if they have to travel from Delft, the train would not be available and taxis would be
much more expensive.
Apart from employment, among the risks of the threatened eviction there is a great
probability of a break-up of the social fabric and bonding within the community. This has a
great impact on human life as it suddenly brings a great change in social life which takes a
long time to shape again.
The community is mostly constituted by people from the Eastern Cape who came in search of
employment and better living. 80.93% are directly from the Eastern Cape whilst a paltry
19.07% is from areas around Cape Town metropolitan zone and other provinces (refer to
Graph 3). In relation to the migration from the Eastern Cape, the residents of this community
have a variable history. The period of residence in Cape Town varies from less than one year
to 63 years. 18% of the total population of Joe Slovo has stayed in Cape Town for five years
and less, 82% has a longer history of stay in Cape Town, thus six years to 63 years.
Like any other slum in the world, the settlement is also vulnerable to different disasters. In its
history, this settlement has experienced some devastating fires and floods. Almost one
thousand residents have experienced both disasters. However, the most dominant disaster is
flooding, which came to be an annual winter experience in the community. From 2748
families surveyed in the first enumeration, 1747 have had a fire experience, and among these
1209 (69.2%) have also experienced flooding (more than once). 1708 households have
experienced flooding (please refer to Table 8 and Graph 10). In this situation, there is clearly
a great need for disaster preparation and mitigation rather than emergency interventions like
the ones carried out so far.
4. GRAPHS AND TABLES
Demographic background of respondents
Primary Results Table
Age Group
0 – 17
18 – 64
65 +
Total
Number of people
2799
5066
81
7946
% of the total
35%
64%
1%
100%
Table 3 - Joe Slovo Population
The distribution of totals by age group is shown in Table 3 and also reflected in the diagram
below.
Population Distribution
35%
64%
(17yrs
below)
(18 - 64yrs)
80
1%
60
40
20
0
(65+ yrs)
1
2
3
Population Distribution
.
Graph 1 - Population Distribution by age group
Analysis of household leadership by gender reflects that in 2748 households in the whole
community (from the enumerated households), the leadership is predominantly male with a
total of 1688 which accounts for 62.28% of household leadership. Women lead a total of
1022 households, accounting for 37.72% of the households found in this community. Refer to
the table and chart below.
Gender
Male
Female
Total number
1714
1034
Table 4 – Gender distribution of household heads
Percentage
62%
38%
62%
38%
80
60
(Male)
(female)
40
20
0
Household Leadership…
1
2
Graph 2 - Household Leadership by Gender
In the analysis of household leadership by age, the leadership is dominated by 18–45 years
age range, this range accounts for 92.39%, while the bracket 46-64 accounts for 6.04%.
Households which are led by (otherwise) “dependant” population (under 17 years and above
64 years) only account for 0.69 (teenagers) and 0.87 (65+ years).
Age Range
Teenage Leadership
18 – 45 Years
46 – 64 Years
65+ Years
Total Population
19
2539
166
24
Percentile Representation
0,69%
92,39%
6,04%
0,87%
Table 5 - Household Leadership per age range
6%
(46 - 64
yrs)
1%
Household
leadership by
(teenag
1%
Age
e)
(65+
yrs)
92%
(1864
yrs)
Figure 1 – Household leadership per age range
The history of the community is relatively short, but the analysis of the years spent on the
land by the households surveyed shows that the average of residence is 8.6 years and the
median figure is 9 years, and almost 43% of the households have been residing there for
more than 10 years.
Community constitution
Average years of residence
Median number of years of residence
Percentage of population staying in JS
> 5 years
> 6 years
> 7 years
> 10 years
17 years
8.6 years
9 years
79%
70%
64.4%
43%
History of residence in Cape Town
21+ Years
6%
0 - 5 years
22%
16 - 20 Years
11%
11 - 15 Years
26%
Figure 2 Period of stay in Cape Town of Joe Slovo residents
6 - 10 years
35%
Period of stay for E. Cape migrants
36.33
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
30.89
28.06
Less than
5 years
5 to 9
yeras
10 to 15
Years
20.00
15.00
4.72
10.00
16+ Years
5.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
Graph 3 Period of stay for people who migrated directly from the Eastern Cape to Joe Slovo.
Focusing on the population distribution illustrated in Graph 1, the economically active
population also dominates the distribution in as much as it dominates in the Household
Leadership. This gives us a statistical picture and explanation of the small scale dependency
ratio of the community, the ratio is 1 economically active person to 3 dependant people.
In the analysis of the teenage population’s school attendance, the analysis was done with an
impression that the school going age is the teenage age group only, there might however be
some few cases where people out of this age range attend school as well. From the whole
population of the community, 31% of the community is school going, and 69% is nonschooling population.
Total population
7946
%
Number attending school
2489
31
Number not attending school
5457
69
Table 6 - School Attendance
A further analysis was done on education about the teenagers who make up 35% of the whole
population. It was observed that in a total of 2799 teenagers, 310 teenagers are not attending
school4. 88.92% of the teenagers attend school whilst 11.08% do not attend school.
4
Analysis done with the assumption that only teenagers are attending school.
Analysis of School Attendance
by Teenagers
11%
(non schooling)
89%
(schoolgoing)
Figure 3 - School attendance of teenagers
From the total population of 7946, a percentage which is less than 50% is employed in
different types of jobs, only 2544 people are employed, thus 32%. 68% is the unemployed
population. The employment statistics are demonstrated below in Figure 2.
Employment Analysis
68%
(Unemploye
d)
80.0
70.0
60.0
32%
(Employed)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1
2
Employment Analysis
Graph 4 – Employment Analysis
In terms of employment, the employed population is involved more with part-time and fulltime jobs, a small percentage is accounted for by self-employment, however, there are some
who did not indicate the type of employment they are involved in. The table and figure below
show the employment trend in the community.
Employed community members
2544
%
Self-employed
222
8.73
Part time
1163
45.72
Full time
990
38.92
Data not provided
169
6.64
Table 7 – Employment synopsis
6%
9%
Data)
Employed)
Employment Analysis(Self
(Missing
39%
(Full Time)
46%
(Part Time)
Figure 4 – Employment Analysis
We highlighted above that within the households led by women the people to provide for are
on average 3.2. In the same group only 26.5% are employed. These families depend on grants
for about 72%, meaning that 28% of the families led by women have no source of income.
Households without employed people are 15.2% of all the ones led by men. Among the
unemployed the surveyed families declared that only 30.8% can rely on grants. More refined
research would be needed to understand how 160 households with no apparent source of
income can survive (and spend about R 145,000 per month), but the general picture shows a
reality of fragile equilibrium if any.
Employment
84.55
Analysis
73.5%
Employment Analysis
80
60
40
20
Un
employe
d
26.5%
100.00
Employe
d
Employ
ed
50.00
0
Unempl
oyed
0.00
1
2
1
Graph 5 - Female led households
15.45%
2
Graph 6 - Male led households
Income is slightly boosted by the different grants which are received from the national
government. Four different grants are received by different people in the community, namely
Disability, Child Support, Refugee Pension and other grants.
Social Welfare Information
86.97%
(No
Grant)
2
13.03% receive
grants
1
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
Graph 7 – Social Welfare
A total of 1035 people receive grants on monthly basis, Child Support Grant constituting the
biggest percentage of grants received (84.35%). Disability Grant constitutes 11.69%, a
Pension 3.09% of the enumerated grant receivers, while the lowest percentages are shared
among other minor types of grants (they have 0.48% and 0.39% respectively). From these
statistics, it can be observed that 13.03% are those who receive grants whilst 86.97% do not
receive any.
90.00
80.00
70.00
84.35%
Child Support
60.00
50.00
0.48%
(Refugee)
40.00
30.00
20.00
0.39%
(Other)
11.69%
Disability
3.09%
Pension
10.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
Distribution of Social Welfare
Graph 8 – Social Welfare
The total expenditure of the community calculated based on the basic needs sums up to R 2
662 616, this includes the total of arbitrary addition from 47 additional households added
after the end of enumeration and 59 families which refused to declare their expenses: these
households are taken at the average of the others.
The table below summarises the financial contribution of the community to the economy of
Cape Town.
Average of declaring families
Additional families (59+47)
Total (with arbitrary addition)
R 967.88
R 104,516
R 2,662,616
Monthly
Expenses in Rands
Food
1200000
1000000
Clothing
800000
600000
400000
School
Fees
ElectricityTransport
200000
Rent &
maintainance
0
1
2
3
4
Graph 9: Main monthly expenses
5
6
In transport, the analysis was done based on the four types of transport which are minibus (“taxi”),
bus, train and private.5 Train transport dominates the distribution, it has 57% with private and taxi
having 18% each the bus has the lowest percentage with 7%.
Transport Distribution
Private
18%
Taxi
18%
Train
57%
Bus
7%
Figure 5
The table below shows the occurrence of disasters in the community. In relation to disasters, 105
households have had an experience of an eviction.
Disaster
Households affected
Fire Only
1747
Floods Only
1708
Both
1202
Table 8
5
Transport covers work and school
Disasters Experienced
18%
20%
Fire
18%
Floods
Both
44%
None
Figure 6
As highlighted above, the community is only serviced by 896 toilets with 34 taps. All the taps
are functional whilst there are some toilets which are not functional due to vandalism and
poor servicing.
IN USE
UNUSED
TOTALS
TOILETS
706
190
896
TAPS
34
0
34
Table 9
The area is made up mostly of shacks with sizes ranging from 6 to 10m2 which has a total of 39.9%.
Please refer to the above Table 9 and Graph for more information.
Shack Size
No measurement
< 5 m2
6 - 10m2
11 - 15 m2
16 - 20 m2
21 - 25m2
>26m2
No. Of
h/holds
170
111
1097
595
323
163
289
Table 10
%
6.2
4.0
39.9
21.7
11.8
5.9
10.5
Shack size analysis
Number of Households
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Area of shack (in square meters)
Graph 10 Analysis of shack area
\
COMMUNITY ORGANISATION RESOURCE CENTRE
JOE SLOVO ENUMERATION
THIS ENUMERATION SURVEY COLLECTS INFORMATION ON HOUSING, INCOME,
EMPLOYMENT AND SANITATION. PLEASE COOPERATE WITH THE ENUMERATOR TO FILL IN
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
THIS FORM ASKS FOR THE FOLLOWING:
 BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN YOUR HOUSE
 SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THIS HOUSE AND ITS OCCUPANCY
 SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR SANITATION SERVICES
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Household Details
1.1 Head of Household
Surname ________________________________
Gender: Male
1.2 Age; 0 – 17
Name ___________________________
Female
18 – 45
46 – 64
1.3 How many families stay in your house?
1
1.4 How many people in the house are; (i) 1 – 17 years
(ii) 18 – 64 years
(iii) 65 +
1.5 How many people live in your house?
1.6 How many people in the house attend school?
65 +
2
3
1
2
3
4+
2. Employment details
2.1 How many people are employed in the house?
1
2
3
4+
2.2 What type of employment are they involved in?
How many
Self Employed
How many
Part time/Casual
2.3 If unemployed do you receive a welfare grant?
How many
Full Time
Yes
No
2.4 If yes, what kind of grant do you receive?
Disability
Child support
Refugee
Pension
Other
2.6 How many people have any form of income in your house?
1
2
3
4+
R
2.7 How much are the main expenses per month?
1. Food
R
2. Electricity
R
3. Transport
R
4. Rent/Maintenance
R
5. School fees
R
R
6. Clothing
2.8 What type of transport do you use when going to work?
Private
Taxi
2.9 How much do you pay per day?
Bus
Train
R
2.9.1 Where do you do your shopping?
1. In the community
2. Cape Town
3. Van Gate Shopping mall
4. Other
3. Nature of house you live in
3.1 Type of house:
Shack
Backyard
3.2 What is the size of your house?
+
=
3.3 How many rooms does your house have?
1
2
3
4+
4+
3.4 Is your house
Self built?
Purchased?
4. Disaster History
4.1 Have you ever experienced?
(i) Fire Disaster
Yes
No
how many times?
(ii) Flooding
Yes
No
how many times?
(iii) Evictions
Yes
No
how many times?
4.2 Migration History
i) How long have you lived in Joe Slovo?
ii) Where were you living before you came here? _____________________________
iii) How long have you lived in Cape Town?
5. Sanitation
5.1 Which toilet do you use? (i) Communal
5.2 How many people use this toilet?
(ii) Individual
m²
5.3 How many times is the refuse Collected in your community?
(1) Once a Week
twice a week
Trice a week
(2) Once a month
twice a month
or never
---------------------------------------------END- ------------------END-------------------------------------------------------
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
ENUMERATOR:
…………………………………………………………..
DATE
…………/………/………………
: