JOE SLOVO HOUSEHOLD ENUMERATION REPORT

LANGA, CAPE TOWN, JUNE 2009

CommunityOrganisationResourceCentre

&

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 organised community willing and able to take up their own developmental issues. This community is situated 10 km 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. One problem was a 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 in the Constitutional Court. While the community awaited the outcome of the Constitutional Court hearing, they decided to gather relevant information with regard to their settlement. The Joe Slovo Task Team then agreed to work with CORC, who have considerable experience in enumerations, to survey and map the entire settlement. This enumeration process was conducted in conjunction with a community-based blocking out and upgrading exercise in a section of the settlement that had been devastated by a fire in April 2009. CORC linked Joe Slovo with community organisations, like Federation of the Urban Poor (Fedup) and Poor People’s Movement (PPM), well versed in the practice of enumeration. Muungano Wa Wanvijiji - the Kenyan Federation affiliated to Shack Dwellers International - 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 summarises 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.

Acknowledgement Conducting enumerations under the SDI umbrella implies the involvement of a lot of volunteering especially from the shack dwellers community. In this case the people involved were volunteers from the Joe Slovo Settlement as well as FEDUP and PPM members. All have participated in the planning phase, data collection and in the filing and in the capturing. They will further verify the information reported in this draft document and intend to set up a live cadastre.

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. An enumeration of this magnitude has never been carried in this settlement before. There has only been a shack counting exercise conducted by the City Council for estimation of population size. This alone makes this people-driven enumeration a major accomplishment. It sets the bar for future community-based enumeration and mapping exercises, which, CORC and its grassroots allies, believe will increase in numbers in the months and years ahead. This enumeration of Joe Slovo was recognised as a way of getting the actual data about the livelihoods of the people who stay in this land strip. The gathering, compilation and ownership of the information has equipped the Community Task Team with crucial knowledge required in their negotiation with the Government in regard to the upgrading and relocation of the community. This compilation is aimed at providing a tool to both parties in the negotiation so that the relocation and accommodation options could lead to an inclusive outcome in terms of planning, decision making and access to the city. The data collecting and management exercises have also equipped the community with new skills and capacities. In the process it has democratised and demystified vital planning methodologies that are traditionally the preserve of professionals, consultants and governments. 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, to date, by the relocation 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 years or more. These numbers make up the total population observed during the period of enumeration. In terms of community service delivery, the settlement has a total of 896 toilets. Only 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 made up only of shack structures; there are no formal houses or backyards in this community. 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 emerged as a result of increased rate of urbanisation and by new household formation. Initial settlement of the site in the early 1990’s had to do with the disappearance of influx control, which allowed families to squat on vacant land in the immediate vicinity of former single-sex hostels that for generations had housed the significant numbers of the city’s black working class population.

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.. At the same time the survey demonstrates that this in-migration has been underway for over two decades and that it has occurred in conjunction with a rapid growth in the formation of new urban households. 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 is a significant minority who own some small scale indigenous businesses like small shebeens, corner shops where groceries and other basic goods like bread, cigarettes and drinks are sold. Some other activities like traditional healing are also a source of income to other people in the community. The monthly expenses of poor households for food, electricity, school fees and transport absorb the entire income of almost every household. 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 relocated earlier to Delft or not. The figures from our recent enumeration have some differences when compared to some previous demographic estimates. CORC, the community and the enumerators are confident that the data presented in this publication is very accurate indeed. What is more it will be refined and verified on an ongoing basis. This is because the need for current and accurate data has become critical in this particular community because service planning, program development and eviction deliberations need to be predicated on accurate, reliable and acceptable information.

2. METHODOLOGY OF THE ENUMERATION This Joe Slovo Enumeration Report also outlines the methodology of data collection and capture; the general lessons learnt in the enumeration project and analyzes the major findings. CORC held regular meeting with the community 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. A series of mass meetings were held with the entire community, until there was broad-based agreement in terms of the meaning purpose and objectives of the proposed enumeration. Agreement was also reached about logistical aspects and task distribution.

Questionnaire development The 2009 Joe Slovo enumeration survey questionnaire was adapted and revised – through intensive community consultation and professional verification - from another recent exercise run by CORC in 2008 in Cloetesville (Stellenbosch Municipality). Further improvements were made to the previous questionnaire to ensure that more relevant and comprehensive information be collected. The format of the questionnaire is as follows.

DOMAIN OF SURVEY ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Household details - 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

Employment - number of people employed in the hh - type of employment - grants received - monthly basic expenses - transport and costs - shopping options

Nature of house - type of house - area of house - number of rooms - self-built / purchased

Disaster history - disasters experienced by the household

Migration - period lived in the community - place of residence before coming to JS - period lived in Cape Town

Sanitation

- type of toilet available to the hh - number of people using the toilet - collection of waste from common bins

Table1‐QuestionnaireOutline 

The whole enumeration team was divided into three groups: 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. Enumerators were instructed to speak personally to a member of every household. 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 increased the level of accuracy in the survey and helped ensure general community support and ownership of the process. This was in sharp contradistinction to other information gathering efforts in the settlement, where external actors, linked and sponsored by the state were suspected of hidden agendas. (These efforts notwithstanding there was a small section of the community that withheld information on the grounds that, even in this case, the information may be used to facilitate eviction. Whilst these doubts have now disappeared and the few score outstanding families are in the process of being surveyed, this reaction underscores the suspicion and hostility that an upgrading and relocation process tends to generate.) 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 each questionnaire 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 nor for any refusal to answer all or some of the questions. During the data collection substantive efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the data which was collected. 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 during the 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 analysed and reports were produced showing frequency tables and graphs for each variable from the questionnaire. Prior to the analysis of the data, it was subjected to frequency and cross-tabulation analysis to minimise 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. 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.

3. KEY FINDINGS Key results of the enumeration are shown in the following pages, mainly in the synthetic form of graphs and tables. The following table summarises the settlement profile1 established through the enumeration.

“Slum” Name Joe Slovo

Age of Settlement 17 years

Status at the time of the survey at the date of drafting this report

Relocation (regarded by some as eviction) and contested relocation: disputed in courts by Constitutional Court with obligation to consultations

Structures Informal residential units

Population 7946 (plus the households who refused to provide information – see below)

Shack number (2748) Number of housed families 3100

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 people

896 for 7946 (9 people per toilet)

Most urgent needs Electricity, water, toilets

Table2‐BriefSettlementprofile

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

1 Settlement Profile format adapted from Ahmad Nagar Settlement Profiling, Sparc/NSDF India (2009)

reflect a reality of fast transition from the stereotypical situation (household leadership is 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 relocated 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 forwards their own solutions, or to show how valuable their contribution to (any) solution may be. Staying in an informal settlement is a bad experience and evictions may be worse both for the people affected and Government’s expenditure - hence community empowerment is needed to deepen analysis, participation and decision-making. The leadership of this community is aware that shack dwelling is a direct consequence of the urbanisation of poverty and the way in which land use is determined in an environment in which market forces dominate. The urbanisation of poverty affects women and children acutely. Every woman in Joe Slovo who is responsible for a household has to provide for 3.2 people. Most are unemployed and depend on Government grants for survival. Grants contribute a considerable R 340,000 per month to the community’s gross income and about 10.7% of the households depend only on them. Every toilet has to be shared by 9 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 the open. 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. This encourages unhygienic practices. People live in very high densities. For example in Joe Slovo there is a case of three families sharing a 20m2 shack In this situation infrastructure upgrading and shelter improvement are a clear urgent and need and government’s intention to solve the problem is welcome. Some considerations about the proposed relocations to Delft can be made from the data collected during the survey.

The Joe Slovo community contributes more than R2.7 million rand per month (or R32 million per annum) to the city’s economy . This figure provides market-related justification to the community’s right to contribute actively in the discussions, planning and development of the land where they have been staying for an average of 9 years and about the protection of their livelihoods. Most of the employed household heads currently 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 train services. If the Joe Slovo residents had to devote a bigger portion of their income to transport the poverty cycle would worsen. Only 10.7% is spending more than R200 on transport at the moment. This already equates to a staggering 20% of the average household income. This will dramatically increase if and when people are relocated 20kms away. It is likely that many of the people gainfully employed at present will not be able to carry such an additional burden and will lose or even forfeit their jobs. Should the state decide to provide transport subsidies this only disguises the problem and channels resources that could be used to integrate and densify Cape Town’s apartheid structure rather towards unsustainable and inappropriate transport systems. Relocations are unavoidable – even in this instance. However the findings of the survey argue that any relocation should be minimised both in terms of the numbers affected and the alternative provided. Community-based land identification and action planning exercises that are currently underway at Joe Slovo indicate that there are indeed options that could significantly minimize the break-up of the social fabric and bonding within this community.. The community is mostly constituted by people from the Eastern Cape who have come – over the years - in search of employment and better living opportunities. 80.93% are directly from the Eastern Cape, having migrated to Joe Slovo since 1992. A sizeable minority of 19.07% are from areas around Cape Town metropolitan zone and other provinces (refer to Graph 3), As indicated above, when it comes to migration from the Eastern Cape, the residents of Joe Slovo have a long and variable history. The period of residence in Cape Town varies from less than one year to 63 years. Whilst18% of the total population of Joe Slovo has stayed in Cape Town for 5 years or less, the remaining 82% have been Capetonians for 5 years or longer – the period required by foreigners to be eligible for South African citizens. This debunks the ugly myth that the residents of Joe Slovo are newcomers, stealing housing opportunities from longstanding residents. Like any other slums 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 is an annual winter experience in the community. From 2748 families surveyed in the 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 Number of people % of the total 0 – 17 2799 35% 18 – 64 5066 64%

65 + 81 1% Total 7946 100%

Table3‐JoeSlovoPopulation

The distribution of totals by age group is shown in Table 3 and also reflected in the diagram below.

. Graph1‐PopulationDistributionbyagegroup

Analysis of household leadership by gender reflects that in 2748 households in the whole community (from the enumerated households), the leadership is predominantly man who has 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 Total number Percentage Male 1714 62%

Female 1034 38% Table4–Genderdistributionofhouseholdheads

Graph2‐HouseholdLeadershipbyGender

In the analysis of household leadership by age, the leadership is dominated by 18–45years 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 Total Population Percentile Representation Teenage Leadership 19 0,69%

18 – 45 Years 2539 92,39% 46 – 64 Years 166 6,04%

65+ Years 24 0,87% Table5‐HouseholdLeadershipperagerange

Figure1–Householdleadershipperagerange

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.

Communityconstitution 17yearsAverageyearsofresidence 8.6yearsMediannumberofyearsofresidence 9yearsPercentageofpopulationstayinginJS

>5years>6years>7years>10years

79%70%64.4%43%

Figure2 PeriodofstayinCapeTownofJoeSlovoresidents

Graph3 PeriodofstayforpeoplewhomigrateddirectfromEasternCapetoJoeSlovo.

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 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 non schooling population.

Total population 7946 %

Number attending school 2489 31

Number not attending school 5457 69

Table6‐SchoolAttendance

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 school2. 88.92% of the teenagers attend school whilst 11.08% do not attend school.

2 Analysis done with the assumption that only teenagers are attending school.

Figure3‐Schoolattendanceofteenagers

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.

Graph4–EmploymentAnalysis

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 Table7–Employmentsynopsis

Figure4–EmploymentAnalysis

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 pm), but the general picture shows a reality of fragile equilibrium if any.

Graph5‐FemaleledhouseholdsGraph6‐Maleledhouseholds

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.

Graph7–SocialWelfare

A total of 1035 people receive grants on monthly basis, Child Support Grant constituting the biggest percentage of grants received (84.35%). Disability Grant has 11.69%, a Pension is got by 3.09% of the enumerated grant receivers, while the lowest percentages are shared among refugee 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.

Graph8–SocialWelfare

The total expenditure of the community calculated basing 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 R 967.88 Additional families (59+47) R 104,516 Total (with arbitrary addition) R 2,662,616

Graph 9: Main monthly expenses

In transport, the analysis was done basing on the four types of transports which are minibus (“taxi”), bus, train and private.3 Train transport dominates the distribution, it has 57% with private and taxi having 18% each the bus has the lowest percentage with 7%.

Figure5

The table below shows the occurrence of disasters in the community. in relation to the disasters, 105 households have had an experience of an eviction.

3Transportcoversworkandschool

Disaster Households Affected

Fire Only 1747

Floods Only 1708

Both 1202

Table8

Figure6

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.

INUSE UNUSABLE TOTALS

TOILETS 706 190 896

TAPS 34 0 34

Table9

The area is made up mostly of shacks with size ranging from 6 to 10m2 which has a total of 39.9%. please refer to the following table (9) and graph for more information

ShackSizeNo.Ofh/holds %

Nomeasurement 170 6.2

<5m2 111 4.06‐10m2 1097 39.9

11‐15m2 595 21.716‐20m2 323 11.8

21‐25m2 163 5.9>26m2 289 10.5

Table10

Graph10Analysisofshackarea

\

COMMUNITYORGANIZATIONRESOURCECENTRE

JOESLOVOENUMERATION THISENUMERATIONSURVEYCOLLECTSINFORMATIONONHOUSING,INCOME,EMPLOYMENTANDSANITATION.PLEASECOOPERATEWITHTHEENUMERATORTOFILLINTHISQUESTIONNAIRE.THISFORMASKSFORTHEFOLLOWING:

• BASICINFORMATIONABOUTTHEPEOPLEWHOARELIVINGINYOURHOUSE• SPECIFICINFORMATIONABOUTTHISHOUSEANDITSOCCUPANCY• SPECIFICINFORMATIONABOUTYOURSANITATIONSERVICES

______________________________________________________________________________1.HouseholdDetails1.1HeadofHouseholdSurname________________________________ Name___________________________Gender:MaleFemale1.2Age;0–1718–4546–6465+

1.3Howmanyfamiliesstayinyourhouse?12 3

1.4Howmanypeopleinthehouseare;(i)1–17years

(ii)18–64years

(iii)65+

1.5Howmanypeopleliveinyourhouse?1.6Howmanypeopleinthehouseattendschool?

1234+

2.Employmentdetails2.1Howmanypeopleareemployedinthehouse?1234+2.2Whattypeofemploymentaretheyinvolvedin?Howmany Howmany HowmanySelfEmployedParttime/CasualFullTime2.3Ifunemployeddoyoureceiveawelfaregrant?YesNo2.4Ifyes,whatkindofgrantdoyoureceive?DisabilityChildsupportPensionRefugee Other

2.6Howmanypeoplehaveanyformofincomeinyourhouse?1234+2.7Howmucharethemainexpensespermonth?1.Food 2.Electricity 

3.Transport 4.Rent/Maintenance

5.Schoolfees 6.Clothing2.8Whattypeoftransportdoyouusewhengoingtowork?PrivateTaxiBusTrain2.9Howmuchdoyoupayperday?

R

R R

R

R

R R

R

2.9.1Wheredoyoudoyourshopping?1.Inthecommunity 2.CapeTown

3.VanGateShoppingmall 4.Other

3.Natureofhouseyoulivein3.1Typeofhouse:Shack Backyard 3.2Whatisthesizeofyourhouse? x =3.3Howmanyroomsdoesyourhousehave?123 4+4+3.4IsyourhouseSelfbuilt? Purchased?

4.DisasterHistory4.1Haveyoueverexperienced?(i)FireDisasterYesNo howmanytimes? (ii)Flooding YesNo howmanytimes? (iii)EvictionsYes Nohowmanytimes?4.2MigrationHistoryi)HowlonghaveyoulivedinJoeSlovo?ii)Wherewereyoulivingbeforeyoucamehere?_____________________________iii)HowlonghaveyoulivedinCapeTown?

5.Sanitation5.1Whichtoiletdoyouuse?(i)Communal(ii)Individual5.2Howmanypeopleusethistoilet?

m²

5.3HowmanytimesistherefuseCollectedinyourcommunity?(1)OnceaWeektwiceaweekTriceaweek

(2)Onceamonthtwiceamonthornever

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐END‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐END‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

FOROFFICEUSEONLY

ENUMERATOR:…………………………………………………………..

DATE :…………/………/………………