A census of orphans and vulnerable children in two Zimbabwean districts

Shungu Munyati, Simbarashe Rusakaniko, Pakuromhunu F Mupambireyi, Stanford T Mahati, Peter Chibatamoto, & Brian Chandiwana

Edited by Shungu Munyati Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

NATIONAL INSTITUTE BIOMEDICAL OF HEALTH RESEARCH, RESEARCH MINISTRY OF HEALTH & TRAINING AND CHILD WELFARE INSTITUTE Prepared by the Biomedical Research and Training Institute (BRTI) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) of the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare, , .

Published by HSRC Press Private Bag X9182, Cape Town, 8000, www.hsrcpress.ac.za

© 2006 HSRC, BRTI, NIHR & FACT

First published 2006

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

ISBN 0 7969 2146 6

Print management by comPress

Distributed in Africa by Blue Weaver PO Box 30370, Tokai, Cape Town, 7966, South Africa Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Tel: +27 (0) 21 701 4477 Fax: +27 (0) 21 701 7302 email: [email protected] www.oneworldbooks.com

Distributed in Europe and the United Kingdom by Eurospan Distribution Services (EDS) 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2E 8LU, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 20 7240 0856 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7379 0609 email: [email protected] www.eurospanonline.com

Distributed in North America by Independent Publishers Group (IPG) Order Department, 814 North Franklin Street, Chicago, IL 60610, USA Call toll-free: (800) 888 4741 All other enquiries: +1 (312) 337 0747 Fax: +1 (312) 337 5985 email: [email protected] www.ipgbook.com ‘Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans … in their distress.’

James 1 verse 27 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

iii Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword vii Authors ix C ontributors x Acknowledgements xi List of Tables and Figures xiii Acronyms and abbreviations xv Executive Summary xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.0 Background 1 1.1 Definition and prevalence of orphanhood and vulnerability 1 1.2 Rationale and aims of the study 4 1.3 Conceptual framework 5 Chapter 2: Methodology 7 2.1 Operational definitions 7 2.2 Description of the study sites 7 2.3 Geographical frame for the OVC Census 9 2.4 Instrument 9 2.4.1 Questionnaire design and its translation 9 2.4.2 Pre-testing of Census questionnaire 9 2.5 Ethical issues 10 2.6 Data collection 10 2.6.1 Pre-enumeration activities 10 2.7 Deployment of enumerators and supervisors 12 2.8 Quality control 12 2.9 Assessment of vulnerability 13 2.10 Data management and analysis 13 Chapter 3: Results 15 3.1 15 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 3.1.1 Demographic data 15 3.1.2 Magnitude of orphanhood 18 3.1.3 Disability 19 3.1.4 Household level data 20 3.1.5 Main household vulnerability indicators 23 3.1.6 Other income indicators 26 3.2 27 3.2.1 Demographic data 27 3.2.2 Household level data 31 3.2.3 Main household vulnerability indicators 35 3.2.4 Other income indicators 37 Chapter 4: Discussion 39

Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations 43 5.1 Challenges faced during the study 44 5.2 Dissemination of results 44

v Appendices 47 Appendix 1 Ward Maps by District 47 Appendix 2 Reactions to the Pilot Research Procedures 52 Appendix 3 Fieldworker’s Introductory Letter 53 Appendix 4A Census Shona and English Questionnaire 54 Appendix 4B Code Sheet – Shona 56 Appendix 5A Census Ndebele and English Questionnaire 58 Appendix 5B Code Sheet – Ndebele 60 Appendix 6 Quality Control of Questionnaire Checklist 62 Appendix 7 List of Supervisors 63 Appendix 8 Ward Analysis of Census Results by District 64 Appendix 9 OVC 2003 Census Operational Structure 125 Appendix 10 Vulnerability Score Assessment 126

References 127 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

vi FOREWORD

In this era of the HIV and AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and economic challenges in Zimbabwe, there is possibly no other subject that has received as much media attention of late, than that of the plight of orphans and vulnerable children, hence it is difficult to conceive of a more pertinent and perfectly timed publication than this one.

Of the 3 million AIDS-related deaths globally, 2.2 million are from the sub-Saharan region. One major impact is that the disease has orphaned vast numbers of children, because those dying from AIDS are mainly in the prime of their lives and are parents. These children endure overwhelming losses; living in societies already weakened by under development, poverty, the AIDS pandemic itself and whose traditional support structures, like the extended family system, have been eroded by, among other factors, urbanisation.

Faced with this unprecedented crisis, the Zimbabwe Government in 1999 introduced the compulsory AIDS levy from taxable incomes to raise money which is channelled to alleviate the suffering of people living with AIDS and their dependents, who are mostly orphans. It further complemented this effort by developing a National Orphan Care Policy to underpin the mobilisation of resources and ensure that orphans get, at least, minimal basic services. The Orphan Care Policy combines institutional, fostering, and community-based care. A plethora of interventions has been initiated by the government, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Faith-Based Organisations (FBOs) and Community-Based Organisations (CBOs), aimed at assisting Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) and their caregivers. However, the work of intervention agencies is often undermined or made difficult by their use of data which is scant, outdated and vague, covering small geographical areas like wards, and is generally less objective in terms of how it identifies needy children and areas. Furthermore, the process of how they identify the needs of OVC in different households and localities is not well defined. Consequently, this at times leads to the implementation of badly focused interventions or selection of areas with fewer households which are vulnerable.

The 2003 OVC Population Census in Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani districts was the first of its kind to be undertaken in Zimbabwe. In the past, national censuses captured data on orphanhood status without obtaining data on vulnerable children. This census was done a year after the 2002 National Census. Thus the framework of operation and Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za mapping of the districts was done within the framework of the 2002 National Census. However, while the 2002 National Census was taken on a de facto basis, the OVC Census used the de jure method. The additional information in this census was the household and individual vulnerability indicators, which were identified to assist in future interventions tailored for these districts. Vulnerability was assessed using the Vulnerability Indicator Score, which touched on broad aspects of children’s lives such as access to food, health care and protection.

On behalf of the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare and the Government of Zimbabwe, I would like to express my gratitude to the funders of the Project, The W.K. Kellogg Foundation for championing and supporting the plight of OVC, and the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), in particular its new President and Chief Executive Officer, Consultant and Project Champion of the OVC Project, Dr Olive Shisana, who worked tirelessly to make the projects happen in the three selected countries. In addition, I acknowledge all persons who participated in the census exercise, especially the people of Bulilimamangwe (Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree districts) and Chimanimani, for their co-operation and support. Special mention is accorded to the research team from the

vii Biomedical Research and Training Institute (BRTI) and the National Institute of Health Research (formerly Blair Research) who successfully carried out this mammoth exercise under the leadership of the Project Director, Mrs Shungu Munyati, Project Manager Mr Brian Chandiwana and the Chief Consultant, Professor Simbarashe Rusakaniko.

I am hopeful that this database can be used by my Ministry and others to mobilise additional resources that will be channelled towards improving the lives of orphaned and vulnerable children, their caregivers, and communities at large. I also fervently hope that this database, which shows the magnitude of the Orphans and Vulnerable Children’s problem across the districts at household and ward level, will lead to the formulation and implementation of both relevant national policies and evidence-based interventions by CBOs, FBOs, NGOs and government structures aimed at tackling the pertinent challenges confronted by the OVC.

Dr David Parirenyatwa (MP) Minister of Health and Child Welfare, Zimbabwe May 2005 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

viii AUTHORS

The Editor: Shungu Munyati – MSc, BSc (Hons) Applied Biology, PhD Candidate; OVC Research Project Director and Acting Director, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Ministry of Health & Child Welfare, Harare (Zimbabwe).

Simbarashe Rusakaniko – PhD; OVC Research Project Chief Consultant Biostatistician, University of Zimbabwe, College of Health Sciences, Harare (Zimbabwe).

Pakuromunhu Freddie Mupambireyi – MSc Demography, BSc (Hons) Econs Statistician, University of Zimbabwe, Deputy Dean, Faculty of Commerce, Harare (Zimbabwe).

Stanford Taonatose Mahati – MPhil, BSc (Hons) Sociology & Anthropology, Social Scientist, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Ministry of Health & Child Welfare, Harare (Zimbabwe).

Peter P Chibatamoto – MBA, MSc Infectious Diseases, Biological Sciences; HIV/AIDS (Mainstreaming) Technical Advisor UNDP, Windhoek (Namibia).

Brian Chandiwana – BSc Econs & MBA, OVC Research Project Manager; Health Economist, Biomedical Research & Training Institute, Harare (Zimbabwe). Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

ix CONTRIBUTORS

George Chitiyo – MSc & BSc Econs; PhD (Cand), USA.

Wilson Mashange – Dip Med Lab Tech; National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Ministry of Health & Child Welfare, Harare (Zimbabwe).

Junior Mutsvangwa – BSc Medical Laboratory Technology and MPhil (Cand), Biomedical Research & Training Institute, Harare (Zimbabwe).

Natsayi Chimbindi – BSc HEP, (Health Education), Biomedical Research & Training Institute, Harare (Zimbabwe). Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• We would like to thank the Biomedical Research and Training Institute, in particular the Centre for International Health and Policy, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR – formerly the Blair Research Institute) of the Ministry of Health, and Child Welfare for their participation and unwavering support of the OVC project. • We also thank Professor Exnevia Gomo, Dr M B Serbit from the College of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Mr White Soko from the National Institute of Health Research, Mr Rogers Sango, Mr Manase Viriri, Mr Patrick Bvitira, Mr Henry Semwayo from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and Mr Tichaona Chirimanyemba (formerly with the CSO) for their valuable technical input and participation during tool development, mapping, training of fieldworkers and fieldwork. • The Grant Maker FACT , in particular the Executive Director, Mr Jephias Mundondo, is acknowledged for support during the entire OVC census. • The District Administrator for Bulilimamangwe Mr Mzingaye Sithole, the Rural District Council Chairmen of Bulilima (Mr Christopher Ndlovu), Plumtree (Mr Patrick Mabuza) and Mangwe (Mr Grey Ncube), Traditional Chiefs and Councillors are saluted for their co-operation as well as their facilitating role in ensuring successful mobilisation of the community, which led to the successful implementation of the field data collection exercise. In Chimanimani, we are also grateful to the then District Administrator of Chimanimani Mr Edgar Nyagwaya, Chimanimani Rural District Council Chairman of Chimanimani Mr Joseph Harahwa, Traditional Chiefs and councillors who facilitated the census process. • The active participation of the Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree OVC Local Liaison team: Mr Irvine Ncube, Mrs Melta Moyo, Mr Frank Ngwenya, Mr Lincoln Ncube, Ms Sifiso Dube and Mr Alois Sibanda during the entire exercise is very much appreciated. Thanks are also extended to Mr Andrew Nleya and Mr Khumbulani Tshuma whilst the role played by headmasters, teachers and nurses in providing the entire team with free training venues, accommodation and logistical support is gratefully acknowledged. We also acknowledge the support received from the Chimanimani OVC Local Liaison team members: Mr Jobes Jaibesi, Mr Brian Muchinapo, District Nursing Officer the late Sister Mistress Ndhlovu and Sister Sifovo during the whole exercise. • The field supervisors and youthful enumerators who diligently and enthusiastically performed their tasks in Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree districts are acknowledged. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za • Gratitude is extended to the Catholic Development Commission (CADEC), Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP), Council and Council who provided us with vehicles during the fieldwork. World Vision assisted in the recruitment of research assistants. • Data entry was performed by a large team of Data Entry Clerks under the supervision of Mr Tendai Madiro and Mr Lowence Gomo. Their role is acknowledged, together with Mr Stephen S Buzuzi, Mr Timothy Mutsvari, Mr Teramai Moyana, Miss Stella Gwini, Miss Chenjerai K Mutambanengwe and Mr Maxwell Chirehwa who assisted incorporating comments from reviewers. • Appreciation is extended to Mr Norest Mapisaunga, Mr Kuziva Chatindo, Ms Tinashe Maoneke and Mr Clemence Gatsi for provision of logistical support. • We also extend our gratitude to Dr Sheila Tlou and Dr Nunu Tsheko of the University of for sharing with us their experiences of the OVC project in Botswana. • Special mention goes to the funders of the Project, The WK Kellogg Foundation, whose financial support made the Census happen and the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), in particular the new President and Chief Executive Officer, Consultant and Project Champion of the OVC Project, Dr Olive Shisana, who together

xi with Principal Investigator of the Research Component of the project, Professor Leickness Simbayi and the Overall Project Manager, Dr Donald Skinner, gave leadership and direction during the entire exercise. • Professor SK Chandiwana, now Head of the School of Postgraduate Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand is acknowledged for the role he played in successfully securing the grant for the Zimbabwean component of the project from Kellogg through HSRC, and for the advisory role that he continues to play to the Zimbabwean team. • Last but not least, this work would not have been possible without the support and the co-operation of the people of Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree, in particular the orphans and vulnerable children themselves. We salute them!

Shungu Munyati Brian Chandiwana Project Director Project Manager Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

xii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 Distribution of wards and enumeration areas (EAs) by district 11 Table 2 Demographics of population by district 15 Table 3 Comparison between National Census 2002 and OVC Census 2003 by District 16 Table 4 Age distribution in Bulilimamangwe 16 Table 5 Distribution of population aged 18 and below by district 17 Table 6 Population distribution by level of education attained in districts 17 Table 7 Reasons for children who had never gone to school in the districts 18 Table 8 Extent of orphanhood by district 18 Table 9 Population distribution of type of orphan by district 18 Table 10 Population distribution of disabled people by type of disability by district 19 Table 11 Prevalence of disability in households with children by district 19 Table 12 Household distribution by main water source in the districts 20 Table 13 Distribution of main water sources in households with children by districts 20 Table 14 Household distribution by distance from main water source in the districts 21 Table 15 Household distribution by main source of energy for cooking in the districts 21 Table 16 Household distribution by main source of energy for lighting in the districts 22 Table 17 Household distribution by toilet facility and district 22 Table 18 Distribution of toilet facilities in households with children by district 23 Table 19 Summary of vulnerability indicators by household and district 23 Table 20 Summary of vulnerability indicators in households with children by district

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 25 Table 21 Household vulnerability status using the Total Vulnerability Score 25 Table 22 Household vulnerability status of households with children using the Total Vulnerability Score 26 Table 23 Household distribution by other income indicators and district 26 Table 24 Distribution of other income indicators in households with children by district 27 Table 25 Demographics of population in Chimanimani District 27 Table 26 Comparison between National Census 2002 and OVC Census 2003 in Chimanimani District 28 Table 27 Age distribution in Chimanimani District 28 Table 28 Distribution of population aged 18 and below and above 18 in Chimanimani District 29 Table 29 Population distribution by ever attended school in Chimanimani District 29

xiii Table 30 Population distribution of level of education attained in Chimanimani District 29 Table 31 Reasons for children who had never gone to school in the districts 30 Table 32 Population distribution by orphanhood status in Chimanimani District 30 Table 33 Population distribution of disabled people by type of disability 31 Table 34 Prevalence of disability in households with children in Chimanimani 31 Table 35 Household distribution by main water source 32 Table 36 Distribution of main water sources in households with children in Chimanimani 32 Table 37 Household distribution by distance from main water source 33 Table 38 Household distribution by main source of energy for cooking 33 Table 39 Household distribution by main source of energy for lighting 34 Table 40 Household distribution by toilet facility in Chimanimani District 34 Table 41 Distribution of toilet facilities in households with children in Chimanimani 35 Table 42 Summary of vulnerability indicators by household 35 Table 43 Summary of vulnerability indicators in households with children in Chimanimani 36 Table 44 Household distribution of vulnerability score in Chimanimani District 37 Table 45 Household vulnerability status of households with children using the Total Vulnerability Score 37 Table 46 Household distribution by other income indicators in Chimanimani District 38

Figure 1 Location of Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani Districts 8 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

xiv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome BRTI Biomedical Research and Training Institute BSS Behavioural Sero Status Survey CADEC Catholic Development Commission CBO Community-Based Organisation CDS Census Data Survey CHH Child-Headed Household CIHP Centre for International Health and Policy CMED Central Mechanical Equipment Department CSO Central Statistics Office DNO District Nursing Officer EA Enumeration Area FACT Family AIDS Caring Trust FBO Faith-Based Organisation HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HSRC Human Sciences Research Council IRD Integrated Rural Development MRCZ Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children PSS Psychosocial Survey TVIS Total Vulnerability Indicator Score Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

xv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Within the southern African region, the problem of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) is on the increase, especially in the face of the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Zimbabwe is one of the countries which has been hard hit by the OVC problem and yet there are currently no reliable national statistics on OVC, let alone for the various districts of the country. Reliable information on OVC is required by researchers in order to understand better the nature of the problem and thereby provide community-based organisations (CBOs), non-governmental organisations and government departments working with OVC with data for effective and efficient programme planning, especially in a resource-poor environment such as Zimbabwe.

The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) together with its partners within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region have been commissioned by The WK Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) to develop and implement a five-year intervention project on orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) as well as families and households coping with an increased burden of care for affected children in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

As part of this broader research and intervention project on OVC across three countries in the SADC region, an OVC census was conducted in selected sites across Zimbabwe in order to quantify the extent of the OVC problem regarding their numbers, and, further, to use the information collected to determine a sampling frame for the other component of the broader project, which was the OVC Psycho-social Survey (PSS).

Bulilimamangwe area (comprising Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree districts) and Chimanimani district in Matabeleland South province and of Zimbabwe respectively, were the selected sites where the census was conducted in November 2003. Using the de jure approach, all households in the sites were enumerated by a team of 527 enumerators under the supervision of 67 supervisors. A two-paged census questionnaire obtained data from the head of the household or someone in a knowledgeable position in that household about all occupants and their demographic profile, living conditions, as well as their vulnerability status, using a Total Vulnerability Indicator Score (TVIS) index. Nine main indicators of vulnerability were used, which were household-based rather than individual-based; that is, looking at the number of meals per Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za day, some days they go without food, children of school-going age not going to school, ability to pay for medical fees, anyone ill in the household in the last month, adequacy of clothing and school uniforms, children without caretakers and, lastly, those without anyone with whom to discuss their problems.

The total population of Bulilimamangwe according to this census was 153 320, specifically 81 984 for Bulilima, 62 324 for Mangwe and 9 012 for Plumtree, with an average household size of 5.1, 5.4 and 4.0 respectively. The total population was 107 120 in Chimanimani District, with 24 495 households and an average household size of 4.4. Over 50% of the population in Chimanimani and Bulilimamangwe were female and had either gone to primary or secondary school, and a similar proportion were aged 18 years and above (56.3% for Bulilima, 69% in Mangwe, 47.9% in Plumtree, and 51.8% in Chimanimani). Prevalence of orphanhood (only in those 18 years and below) was 30.5% in Chimanimani, 27.6% in Bulilima, 24.5% in Plumtree and 23.7% in Mangwe. The most prevalent type of orphan across the four districts were those whose father had died (paternal orphans): Chimanimani 19.3%, Bulilima 17.7%, Mangwe 15.6% and Plumtree 14.6%, and then those who had lost both parents: Chimanimani 6.9%, Bulilima 5.7%,

xvi Mangwe 4.3% and Plumtree 6.8%. Loss of mother, that is, the maternal orphan was the least common: Chimanimani 4.3%, Bulilima 4.5%, Mangwe 3.8% and Plumtree 3.9%.

Regarding vulnerability assessment, between 49% and 80% of the households across Bulilimamangwe reported having only one meal a day with almost half of these indicating that there were actually some days that the household went without any food. Plumtree, in the urban area, had the highest proportion for both scenarios. The majority of the households in Chimanimani district reported having at least two meals a day (89.8%), although as many as 65.4% still indicated that there were some days that they went without any food. Inadequate clothing for children was another major vulnerability indicator reported by a large number of the households (Chimanimani 71.6%, 71% in both Bulilima and Mangwe and 46% in Plumtree). More than a third of the households across Chimanimani and Bulilimamangwe districts indicated that they were not in a position to pay for medical fees if their children fell ill. Of note was also the proportion of children who were heading households in Bulilimamangwe, that is, the child-headed households (average of 5% across the site) who then reported not having any caretakers (55.5%) and not having anyone with whom to discuss their problems (29.7%) as children. In Chimanimani, child-headed households were 3.1% but with almost half of them (46.9%) reporting not having any caretakers, as well as 37% indicating that they had no-one with whom to discuss their problems. Further analysis using the TVIS showed that Mangwe (3.0%) and Bulilima (2.1%) had higher proportions of highly vulnerable households as compared to 0.5% for both Plumtree and Chimanimani. Income indicators were also assessed as a measure of vulnerability and the census showed that most of the households in all the districts owned farm animals and farm equipment.

A similar assessment as above but specifically looking at the households with children 18 years and below, which was inclusive of the households with OVC, indicated that around 50% of these households in Bulilima and Mangwe reported that they were having only one meal a day, whilst it was 20% in Plumtree, which is urban. Over 70% of the households with children in Mangwe and Bulilima, 47.9% of those in Plumtree and 66.3 % in Chimanimani went for some days without food. Again, inadequate clothing for children was another major vulnerability indicator reported by a large number of these households (more than three quarters in both Bulilima and Mangwe, 80% and 79% Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za respectively), nearly two thirds in Plumtree (60.8%) and 87.5% in Chimanimani. Except for Plumtree, over half reported that their children had inadequate school uniforms (55.3% Bulilima, 55.8% Mangwe, and 61.6% in Chimanimani). Mangwe had just over half (54.9%), whilst Bulilima (47.2%) and Plumtree (43.2%) had nearly half of the households reporting that they were not in a position to pay for medical fees if their children were sick. In Chimanimani this was 42.4%. Of note is that all these figures depicting vulnerability were slightly higher in the households with ‘children’ as compared to the households with ‘adults’.

On other personal and household conditions, it was found that around one in every five households with children in Bulilima, Mangwe and Chimanimani districts had at least one person who had a disability, whilst in Plumtree it was about ten per cent. The most common forms of disability were ‘difficulty in moving’ and ‘seeing’. In Bulilima, Mangwe and Chimanimani the main water source was a protected well or borehole, except Plumtree with indoor piped water. In all the districts, with the exception of Plumtree, wood was commonly used for cooking while paraffin was commonly used for lighting, with the exception of Plumtree where electricity was the main source of energy. In Bulilima and Mangwe, over half the households visited (53.5%) had no toilet facility. The

xvii majority of households in Chimanimani had either a Blair (ventilated pit latrine (36.4%)) or a pit toilet (34.1%).

It is therefore concluded from this study that census data are a useful source of scientific data. This census has managed to extrapolate the population profile of Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani districts. The census data has also highlighted the extent of the problem of OVC in the districts and the conditions in which these children live. The study therefore recommends that interventions tailor-made for OVC should use the statistics generated to help in the sampling frame of their target groups. It is interesting to note that the national demographic profile parameters as defined by the OVC census of 2003 are generally in agreement with the National Census of 2002. The burden of other problems like disability, sanitary facilities and sources of energy has been well documented. The results have also identified gaps at population level that need to be addressed, like the need for toilet facilities and clean water. Around a quarter of the children were orphans across the two sites and there were more paternal orphans than maternal orphans. Shortage of food and lack of adequate clothing seemed to be the major problems facing the communities in Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani.

Regarding the key findings in assessing vulnerability, it is apparent that in all sites the households had high levels of poverty as evidenced by the lack of adequate meals. It is therefore essential that interventions be directed at issues to do with food security, for example, equipping the community and the caretakers with skills and resources to come up with income-generating activities, targeting mainly those households with children, especially OVC.

Intervention agencies should, when donating household items, prioritise and make provision for clothing and school uniforms for the children, who in this assessment included OVC. Being inadequately clothed or not having school uniforms singles you out as a child in Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani, and has a bearing on issues of stigmatisation within the communities. Furthermore, Social Welfare and other intervention agencies should assist in lobbying for subsidies for medical fees/medicines for those households with vulnerable children, including orphans. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

xviii CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Background

Parents are the most central and enduring influence in children’s lives. The loss of parents has an indelible impact on the living conditions of children and can have a strong bearing on their future quality of life. The circumstances under which orphans and vulnerable children are growing up might not auger well for the development of any country. Children are bearing the brunt of many of the socio-economic problems bedevilling most developing countries; especially in sub-Saharan Africa, as the supportive structures at household, community and national level have, over the years, been eroded or overwhelmed by the magnitude of the burden, set against a background of scant resources. For intervention agencies it is critical to determine the numbers of orphans and vulnerable children if adequate and appropriate strategies are to be adopted and implemented successfully.

As one way of fulfilling its mandate, the WK Kellogg Foundation (WKKF), in 2001, funded the Human Sciences Research Council’s (HSRC) Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS and Health Programme (SAHA) to prepare a policy document reviewing social and economic problems linked directly or indirectly to the HIV/AIDS problem in . This required that an analysis of problems related to orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) be prepared, together with recommendations on potential interventions in rural development programming. On completion and submission of the report to WKKF, HSRC was then asked to produce a draft strategy for the care of orphans and vulnerable children in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, a task that was undertaken jointly by SAHA and the Child, Youth and Family Development (CYFD) programme of the HSRC. This was accepted by WKKF and led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between them and the HSRC, which required that the latter prepare an Operational Framework for Research-Driven Interventions for Orphans and Vulnerable Children, including performance targets and indicators. The framework was submitted to WKKF and also approved. The MOU in addition required that the HSRC develop systems Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za to implement and monitor the HIV/AIDS OVC Operational Framework and provide research to support innovative and sustainable models that target orphans and vulnerable children, as well as families and households coping with an increased burden of care for affected children. The OVC Census was one of such research studies.

1.1 Definition and prevalence of orphanhood and vulnerability

The definition of an ‘orphan’ varies. In 2002, a study was carried out to find out the local definition of an orphan in the Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani (Skinner et al., 2004). Similar studies were concurrently conducted in Botswana and South Africa1 (ibid). In Zimbabwe, members from service providers, community leaders, OVC and caretakers of OVC participated in the study. The communities in both Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani districts overwhelmingly defined an orphan (nherera/ intandane) as a child who has lost one or both parents. They broadly categorise orphans into two groups, that is, those without guardians and those with guardians.

1 The study was funded by the WK Kellogg Foundation.

1

a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

The communities further indicated that there is no age limitation to orphanhood and that they would remain under the banner of being called an orphan until they were able to look after themselves or when they got married. They, however, considered childhood as lasting up until the age of 18 years.

Skinner et al. (2004) noted that the threat posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic has resulted in the mushrooming of numerous social support institutions in our communities, all aimed at giving care to orphaned and vulnerable children left as victims of the pandemic. It is further pointed out that the proliferation of the related family disintegration creates a situation in which those affected automatically become victims of stigma, which becomes apparent in the way they are treated, and also in the terminology used to describe them. It therefore becomes necessary to take due care in defining what an orphan is. In addition, social implications brought about by this pandemic, including the surrounding poverty and increased numbers of vulnerable children creates a situation where in dealing with the problem, organisations find themselves having difficulty defining OVC and drawing parameters for their work, especially in resource-poor environments where there is a lack of adequate caring mechanisms and service structures to support them.

UNAIDS defines an orphan as a child under 15 years of age who has lost their mother (‘maternal orphan’) or both parents (‘double orphan’) to AIDS (UNICEF/UNAIDS, 1999). Many researchers and intervention groups increase the age to 18 years, but most appear to use the UNAIDS definition. It is also being more generally accepted that the loss of the father would also classify the child as an orphan (RAISA, 2002).

Again Skinner et al. (2004), note that community definitions of an orphan and vulnerable child are also often different from the government definitions. For instance, assistance to children by the government is directed by particular age limits – any child who falls outside those limits may be excluded. There was general consensus during the research interviews conducted by Smart (2003) on definitions of vulnerability in Botswana, Rwanda, and South Africa that the government should adopt a ‘bottom up’ approach, so taking guidance from community level, when setting parameters for assistance. This provokes a debate about addressing the specificity of needs versus what is bureaucratically feasible. To get a real sense of where to introduce interventions or Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za support, a clear understanding of the community’s perspective is required. Time has to be spent in the community listening to people who are doing work there already, and particularly to the caretakers and the vulnerable children themselves.

‘Vulnerability’ is much more difficult to define than defining an orphan. World Vision (2002) listed some identifiers, such as children who live in a household in which one person or more is ill, dying or deceased; children who live in households who receive orphans; children whose caregivers are too ill to continue looking after them; and children living with very old and frail caregivers. These categories focus on factors related to HIV (Skinner et al., 2004). There is an entire set of variables that needs to be considered that relates to more general aspects of the child’s context, such as poverty; access to shelter, education and other basic services; disability; impact of drought or extreme weather conditions; stigma and political repression – all factors that could influence vulnerability. A consultative meeting in Kenya defined as vulnerable, children in households with a chronically ill parent or caregiver, but later focused on vulnerability in terms of access to key resources such as food, shelter, education, psychosocial and emotional support and love (NACC Taskforce on OVC, 2002).

2 Chapter 1

Vulnerability for this OVC census is defined using nine vulnerability indicators, which included access to food, protection, health care and clothing among other indicators (see section 2.9). However, these indicators differ slightly from those used by World Vision in assessing vulnerability. World Vision indicators of vulnerability focused on HIV-related factors like children who live in a household where one person or more is ill, dying or deceased, children whose caretakers are too ill to continue to look after them (Skinner et al., 2004). On the other hand, this census focused on general factors such as poverty and education.

Zimbabwe, along with Zambia, , Lesotho and Rwanda, has the world’s highest proportion of orphaned children. December 2001 estimates by UNAIDS (2002) suggest that in these five countries, 17–18% of all children under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents. In Zimbabwe, this amounts to just over 1 million orphans, out of a child population of around 5.8 million in a total population of 12 million. It is estimated that by the year 2010 one out of every three or four children in Botswana, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe will be an orphan. A generation of orphans are being cared for by grandparents, family members or through self-care in child- headed households (UNAIDS, 2002). According to UNICEF (2003), there were 240 000 Zimbabwean children (0–14 years) living with HIV and AIDS by the end of 2002. Since the beginning of the epidemic 900 000 children have lost one or both parents to the disease (SAfAIDS/Panos, 2001). It is therefore projected that in Zimbabwe, Zambia and South Africa, 20–30% of all children younger than 15 years may be orphans by 2015 (FHI 2003 in ZHDR, 2003).

The HIV/AIDS epidemic is resulting in increasing numbers of OVC and child-headed households, and is creating a strain upon extended families – particularly grandparents – and communities, who are desperate for resources and support to deal with ever- increasing demands. However, Skinner et al., (2004) noted the existence of many community-based initiatives supporting OVC, through identifying and monitoring vulnerable children, visits, creating community foster homes, providing material and psychosocial support, and disseminating information on HIV/AIDS prevention.

The National Plan of Action for OVC for Zimbabwe seeks to prioritise and address the Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za urgent issues facing OVC, their families and communities (Government of Zimbabwe, 2003). Although communities and community-based organisations have responded to the plight of OVC with a proliferation of local initiatives, lack of co-ordination means that their impact is fragmented and existing resources cannot be utilised in a manner that fully benefits children. The harsh socio-economic situation in Zimbabwe has resulted in alarming increases in children with the basic survival needs for food and health services.

In Zimbabwe generally, national policies and laws establishing the legal infrastructure for the co-ordination of OVC programmes and services have not been implemented, for lack of financial, material and human resources. Anecodotal evidence shows that due to the lack of full policy implementation protecting children’s rights, OVC service providers report an alarming increase in cases of child abuse. Furthermore, the widespread lack of birth certificates prevents children from accessing basic services and rights and children, particularly OVC, lack the ability to participate in decisions that affect their lives. Nowhere is the lack of children’s participation more evident than in the legal and policy issues that affect them in Zimbabwe. The extent of the orphan problem and the new phenomenon of households headed by children and grandparents was not anticipated when the laws were framed, and therefore gaps and contradictions are evident.

3 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Legal issues pertinent to children in Zimbabwe are subject to interpretation according to a dual legal system, comprising customary law and codified, general law found in the Constitution and statutes. The existence of these two systems can result in situations where one system can pre-empt or contradict the other. Moreover, existing legislation aimed at protecting children against abuse is often fragmented, generally requiring access to legal advocacy to ensure that the law is carried out in favour of the child.

Generally, the GOZ, NGOs and the international community (donors) are now recognising that approaching community initiatives collectively results in significant gains for OVC. Escalating numbers of OVC mean that line ministries, local organisations and communities need to expand coverage with service provision and care, and that local efforts are co-ordinated to maximize resources and avoid duplication of effort.

1.2 Rationale and aims of the study

Conducting population censuses in Zimbabwe began as early as 1901 but was confined to the non-African population. The first enumeration of the whole population was done in 1961–62 and then again in 1969. However, the two races were enumerated separately. In 1980 Zimbabwe attained political independence from the United Kingdom, and in 1982 the first census with a single reference period was conducted using the same questionnaire for the whole population.

After the 1992 census, quite a number of population-related or demographic surveys were undertaken within the framework of the Zimbabwe National Household Survey Capability Programme. The surveys include the 1994 and the 1999 Demographic and Health Surveys and the 1997 Inter-censual Demographic Survey. The last population-based survey was performed in 2002.

The HIV and AIDS epidemic, which has had serious negative impacts on households and communities in Zimbabwe since the early 1990s, has orphaned thousands of children, and the economic problems bedevilling the country have exacerbated the plight of children in general. Life expectancy has dropped from 61 years in 1990 to 43 years in

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 2003 (Zimbabwe Human Development Report, 2003). As of 1999, an estimated 4.7 million children in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region had been orphaned due to AIDS.

In response to the AIDS epidemic and economic challenges seriously affecting the lives of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) and threatening to ruin their future socio-economic well-being, various intervention agencies like the government, non- governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) have been very active in trying to identify those children in need of various forms of assistance, and directly or indirectly assisting them and their families. In Zimbabwe, there are no population figures available for OVC at national level. The data on the OVC population is fragmented, scant and is found at organisational level such as NGOs, government departments, schools and in different districts, wards, etc.

This enumeration of OVC is therefore an endeavour to make sure that all the affected children are identified and the burden of the OVC problem in households and communities assessed, so that reliable information is available to assist the local municipalities and CBOs in planning their interventions.

4 Chapter 1

The main objectives of the OVC Census were therefore: • To determine the numbers of OVC in the selected sites and the extent of their vulnerability • To describe and characterise the challenges faced by OVC and their households • To provide a sampling framework for the Psychosocial Survey (PSS) to be carried out among OVC.

1.3 Conceptual framework

South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), together with its partners within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, were commissioned in 2002 by the WK Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) to develop and implement a five-year intervention project on orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), as well as families and households coping with an increased burden of care for affected children in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

The goals of the project are to: • Improve the social conditions, health, development and quality of life of vulnerable children and orphans • Support families and households coping with an increased burden of care for affected and vulnerable children • Strengthen community-based support systems as an indirect means to assist vulnerable children • Build capacity in community-based systems for sustaining care and support to vulnerable children and households, over the long term.

The need by intervention agencies to have accurate, reliable, up-to-date statistics and broad-based information in order to efficiently execute their work cannot be over- emphasised. Population censuses are a principal means of collecting basic population statistics. They form part of an integrated programme of data collection and compilation aimed at providing a comprehensive source of statistical information for economic and social development planning, for administrative purposes, for assessing conditions

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za in human settlements, for research and for commercial and other uses. The value of each census is increased if the results can be used together with those from other investigations.

This OVC Census was therefore conducted in order to document the extent of the problem in the selected districts by conducting a house-to-house enumeration exercise. It also located households and communities with children in need of assistance without bias or prejudice.

The use of census data as a base or benchmark for current statistics can furnish information needed for conducting other statistical investigations. This was the secondary aim of the census – that is, to provide a good basis for a sampling frame for other scientific studies. The statistics generated usually provide good estimates of prevalence and sample size determination.

5 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

6 CHAPTER 2

Methodology

2.1 Operational definitions

In the context of the OVC project in Zimbabwe the following definitions were used: Caregiver: a person who regularly voluntarily assists a household, whose members are related or not related to him/her, in doing household chores, providing advice and giving spiritual, psycho-social and material support. Child: a person under the age of 18. Child-headed household: a household in which a person aged 18 years and below is responsible for making day-to-day decisions for a group of persons who stay or who usually reside together and share food from the same pot, whether or not they are related by blood. District: a district is made up of several wards. Enumeration area: the smallest demarcation of a district that is a cluster of about 100 households. Head of Household: a person, regardless of age, who is responsible for making day-to- day decisions for a group of persons who stay or who usually reside together and share food from the same pot, whether or not they are related by blood. Household: a group of persons who stay or who usually reside together and share food from the same pot, whether or not they are related by blood. Orphan: a person under the age of 18 who has lost either one or both parents. School-going age: in Zimbabwe, school-going age starts at seven years (grade 1) and goes up to form six (grade 13), although often if someone completes form four and does not proceed to form 5-6 he or she is still regarded as having finished school. Vulnerable Child: a child who is living in a household having one meal a day, receiving inadequate caregiving (child-headed households), with a sick household member who has been seriously ill for a month, households that are not able to pay for medical fees, and children with inadequate clothing. Of note is that there is no direct relationship between orphanhood and vulnerability. One can be an orphan and yet not be vulnerable or one can be vulnerable without necessarily being an orphan. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward: a ward is made up of 500 to 600 households.

2.2 Description of the study sites

The 2003 OVC Census was conducted in the two districts of Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani, which were then the WK Kellogg Foundation’s Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) sites. The WK Kellogg Foundation has been funding various intervention programmes through the IRDP in these two sites. Thus, for logistical reasons and the need for continuity of intervention programmes, Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani were selected as research sites.2

In 2002 the government recognised that Bulilimamangwe was too large in terms of administration and decided to split into three districts, namely Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree. Bulilima and Mangwe districts are considered rural whilst Plumtree is urban. However, for the purpose of this study, the three districts will be treated under the name Bulilimamangwe, although at times the districts will be specifically distinguished from

2 In Zimbabwe the OVC intervention programmes are also being implemented in the following areas: Nyanga, , , , Midlands and Mutare urban.

7

a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

each other. Bulilimamangwe, located in Matabeleland South province and bordering with Botswana to the west, is in Region 5, which is prone to severe droughts (Figure 1). There are diverse economic activities in Bulilimamangwe, but the most common is cattle rearing. It has a total of 35 wards, specifically Bulilima in the north with 19 wards, Mangwe in the south with 12 wards, while Plumtree district, which is between Mangwe and Bulilima districts, has four wards.

According to CSO (2002) the population of Bulilimamangwe is 172 788 (Bulilima 94 361 and Mangwe South, 78 427), with 54% being female. The Ndebele and Kalanga are the dominant ethnic groups in the districts. The average household size for Bulilima is 5.1 and Mangwe is 5.3. There is one district hospital, one mission hospital, three rural hospitals, seven rural health centres and 11 clinics for the three districts.

Chimanimani district is located in Manicaland province in the Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe (Figure 2.1). The district, which is predominantly rural, is 155 km south east of the provincial capital Mutare and borders Mozambique to the east, district to the west, district to the south and to the north. The district is divided into 23 wards that are further divided into enumeration areas (Appendix 1). The district has a small urban area that is named after the district. The current population estimate is 115 250 with 52% being female (CSO 2002). The average household size in the district is 4.4 and the population is predominantly Ndau, which is a Shona sub-ethnic group. The district represents all five agro-ecological zones found in Zimbabwe. The high and rugged terrain in the eastern side receives high rainfall, while the low-lying flat lands in the western part, at 1 600m above sea level, is characterised by a very erratic rainfall pattern. The main economic activity in the district is agriculture. The district has two mission hospitals, one of which is the acting district hospital, and three other hospitals, with one of them being a rural facility, five rural health centres, thirteen clinics and two sub-clinics.

Figure 1: Location of Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani Districts Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

8 Chapter 2

2.3 Geographical frame for the OVC Census

The geographical framework for the 2003 OVC Census followed the spatially defined structure of the districts and wards. In an effort to cover all the selected districts, the exercise followed the smallest demarcation of each district, known as the enumeration areas (EAs). Consultants who work for Zimbabwe’s Central Statistics Office (CSO), using the 2002 National Census (Zimbabwe Census 2002 Preliminary Report) border definitions, mapped the boundaries of each ward and its enumeration areas. On average, each enumeration area was assigned to one enumerator with an average of six EAs constituting a ward, which was assigned a supervisor.

2.4 Instrument

2.4.1. Questionnaire design and its translation The research team adopted and modified the OVC Project’s Generic Census Questionnaire from South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) and the census questionnaire used by the Zimbabwe’s Central Statistics Office (CSO, 2002). The OVC Project’s Generic Census Questionnaire did not have the following information: geo- mapping, number of visits by the interviewer, disability, type of disability, highest level of education completed, reasons why never been to school (those who never attended school), type of housing, detailed information about water and sanitation, other income indicators and, most importantly, indicators on vulnerability. Zimbabwe’s Central Statistics Office’s census tool did not have a section on indicators of vulnerability.

The questionnaires were pre-coded (Appendices 4a and 5a) and divided into 4 sections: A) Geo-coding – identification of enumeration area and household B) Household listing and socio-demographic characteristics of household members including disability C) Socio-economic characteristics of the household (for example, type of dwelling unit, availability of water and sanitation, etc.) D) Vulnerability indicators – to determine the extent of their vulnerability using a set of indicators, for example, number of meals eaten per day, number of school-going

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za children who were not attending school, number of children without adequate clothing, etc.

The questionnaires were translated into the two main vernacular languages (Shona and Ndebele) for easy use in the districts. The questionnaires were not back translated, but to ensure accuracy in translation, the translated versions were reviewed by an independent group of experts speaking the same language, to compare translated versions with original English texts.

2.4.2 Pre-testing of Census questionnaire A total of 40 questionnaires (20 in each district) were administered during the pre-test, which was conducted from 5-8 October 2003. The list of aspects that were evaluated during the pre-test are summarised in Appendix 2. After the pre-test, the census tool was slightly amended by deleting repetitions, adding some skip instructions, adding some codes (for example, either N/A or 99 for response that does not apply) and clarifying some questions which were vague. Both the physical address and the name of the household were added for easy identification of households.

9 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

2.5 Ethical issues

Permission to carry out the OVC Census was granted by the Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe (MRCZ), which is the institution responsible for sanctioning all research on humans in Zimbabwe. In addition, supervisors and enumerators were trained on the following aspects of research ethics: • Gaining access into research sites and households • Getting ordinary and sensitive information • The importance of respecting the respondents • Risks, harm and benefits of participating in the exercise • Confidentiality • What to do when they met vulnerable groups including children, people with terminal illness, pregnant women and people who were stressed economically and socially • The generally acceptable dress code • Culturally acceptable ways of approaching dwelling units and how to introduce themselves and the organisation they were representing (Appendix 3) • Obtaining informed consent from participants.

2.6 Data collection

A population census can be taken either on a de jure or de facto basis. Using the de facto approach, only those people who spend the nights of the census exercise in the district are counted, whilst the de jure involves enumerating people at their place of usual residence. The OVC population census was done on a de jure basis. This was done through enumerating all households (those with and without OVC) irrespective of their age, sex, ethnicity, citizenship and nationality or residence status in the three districts. A head of household or key informant for the household was identified and interviewed to provide information on the household composition and other information relating to the household members’ living conditions.

The main activities included: • pre-enumeration, which involved mapping the districts, questionnaire design, Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za preparation of supervisors and enumerator manuals, pre-tests sensitisation meetings, etc. • the actual enumeration • post-enumeration, involving data processing, analysis, releasing preliminary results, editing report, dissemination of results.

2.6.1. Pre-enumeration activities

2.6.1.1. Publicity and sensitisation Publicity was properly and effectively done at all levels of authority.

At the provincial level – this was done by sending letters stating the objectives of the OVC Census to the following: Provincial Medical Director, Police Chiefs and other influential people. At the district level – letters stating the objectives of the OVC Census were sent to the following: District Administrator, District Medical Officer, Police Chiefs and other influential people. Sensitisation meetings – The research team held sensitisation meetings in all the three districts before the census exercise was conducted. These meetings involved all district and community leaders and key people in government departments.

10 Chapter 2

The main objectives of holding sensitisation meetings were: • To ask for the co-operation of the communities during the census and the subsequent Psychosocial Survey (PSS) in terms of allowing the research team to conduct the studies in their areas and providing honest responses • To ask the community leaders to assist in the selection of supervisors and enumerators from their wards.

At the local level – core research team members and field supervisors contacted the local leadership (Ward Councillor, Chief and Village Head) and informed them about the census before the onset of data collection. This was done in all enumeration areas.

2.6.1.2 Mobilisation and recruitment In each district, the research team selected and recruited local people to serve as members of the OVC Project Liaison Committee. The Committee assisted in mobilising the local community to support the OVC project programmes, organising community meetings and logistical issues. They further assisted in the mobilising of both the census supervisors and enumerators who were then screened for final selection by the research team.

The basic educational requirements for eligibility to participate as an enumerator were three Ordinary Level passes. For supervisors, preference was given to people who had more than five Ordinary Level passes, university graduates and those who had participated in other surveys, for example, researchers, teachers, nurses, etc.

A total of 67 fieldwork supervisors (Bulilimamangwe 44 and Chimanimani 23) and 527 enumerators (Bulilimamangwe 315 and Chimanimani 212) who were mostly youth were recruited (Appendix 7).

2.6.1.3 Training of fieldworkers The supervisors and enumerators were trained for three days in Plumtree and Chimanimani towns. Due to logistical reasons both Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani districts were divided into five clusters for the purpose of training and supervision. In each district the research team was accordingly split into five teams and each team was Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za assigned a cluster to train and supervise.

The supervisors assisted in the training of their enumerators. A summary table for the total number of enumerators and supervisors trained in the enumeration areas is given in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Distribution of wards and enumeration areas (EAs) by district

District Total number of wards Total number of enumeration areas

Chimanimani 23 198 Bulilima 19 175

Bulilimamangwe Mangwe 12 112 Plumtree 4 23 Total 58 508

11 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Supervisors Training: – This was based on the Training Manual developed by the research team. Objectives for the supervisors training were to: 1. define the role of the supervisor 2. define the supervisor’s expected activities before and during enumeration 3. define the supervisor’s role in quality control procedures for enumeration, highlighting the objectives of quality control from the supervisor’s perspective 4. equip the supervisors with knowledge on research ethics.

Enumerators Training: – The training was based on the Training Manual developed by the research team. The objectives of this training were to: 1. standardise the way enumerators were going to ask questions 2. define the parameters within which enumerators should operate 3. introduce the enumerators to the tools 4. go through the census tool and make sure the enumerators understood the objectives of each question in the tool 5. impart skills on rapport creation with the interviewee 6. impart skills on how to tackle difficult interviews 7. familiarise the enumerators with mapping procedures and definitions of the ward and EA boundaries in which they were going to work 8. equip the enumerators with knowledge on research ethics.

2.7. Deployment of enumerators and supervisors

Each supervisor was in charge of a group of enumerators corresponding to the number of EAs in the ward. Certain wards, which were large in terms of the number of households to be covered, were given more than one team and supervisor. Each team was expected to have a vehicle assigned to it for field activities, though some teams had to share vehicles.

2.8 Quality control

There was an overall team that was responsible for co-ordinating the fieldwork and ensuring quality control by monitoring the work of the supervisors and enumerators. In

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za the field, the completed questionnaires were checked for completeness, accuracy and consistency and were also checked again by the enumeration area supervisor. Corrections were made on the spot and call-backs were done to collect missing information. The supervisors also made sure that the enumerators had covered all the households in their area of jurisdiction. After the enumeration exercise, all the completed questionnaires were checked at the OVC Census’s command centres (Plumtree town in Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani urban) by the core research team members.

A quality control of questionnaire checklist was then developed (see Appendix 6). It checked on completeness of questionnaires and adherence to protocol.

The head of household was the targeted respondent even for those households that were headed by children (see operational definitions). Where there was no-one at home an enumerator would re-visit the household. If the head of household or a member knowledgeable about the household was not in a position to respond (for example, due to a busy work schedule), an enumerator would make an appointment to re-visit. There were no call-backs for those who refused to be interviewed.

12 Chapter 2

2.9 Assessment of vulnerability

The Vulnerability Indicator Score was defined using the nine vulnerability indicators listed below: 1. The number of meals the household usually had a day 2. Households which indicated that there were some days they would go without food 3. Households with children of school-going age (7–18 years) who were not attending school 4. Households that were not able to pay medical fees if children were sick/ill 5. Households with children who did not have adequate clothing 6. Households with a household member who had been ill during the month preceding the census exercise 7. Households with school-going children who had no adequate school uniform 8. Child-headed households that had no caretaker 9. Child-headed households that had no-one with whom to discuss problems.

Each indicator was coded 1 if the household was commensurate with vulnerable status and coded 0 if otherwise. The nine vulnerability indicator scores were then summed up to come up with a Total Vulnerable Indicator Score (TVIS), which was then expressed as a percentage. The maximum possible score was nine, indicating a state of being highly vulnerable.

The TVIS was developed taking into account some of the basic Childs’ Rights (access to food, education, health and protection), which are enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). However, these rights were not weighted in order to signify their relative importance in the overall score.

The TVIS was then defined into the following three categories: 1. Less Vulnerable: – a TVIS below 50% of the total score 2. Moderately Vulnerable: – a TVIS of 50% to 74% of the total score 3. Highly Vulnerable: – a TVIS of 75% and above of the total score.

The cut-off of 50% was chosen on the basis that anyone who scored more than half the Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za total expected score was more likely to be at higher risk of being vulnerable.

2.10 Data management and analysis

Soon after the completed questionnaires were quality-checked, by both the supervisor and the research team who were co-ordinating the fieldwork, they were ferried to Harare for data entry. Fifteen data-entry clerks were recruited and trained for one week on how to use the EPI-Info 6 statistical package and to understand the census tools (questionnaire and code sheet). As part of familiarising them with the questionnaire, trial runs on entering data were conducted. Double entry of data took about one and half months. Data was then exported to STATA from EPI-Info 6 for analysis. After data entry the research team did data cleaning, which involved performing consistency checks. For analysis, basic frequencies and cross tabulations were done. Descriptive statistics (for example, means, proportions, etc.) were computed for selected variables. After data analysis, the data was stored electronically and the questionnaires were kept in a room with access limited to only selected research-team members.

13 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

14 CHAPTER 3

Results

The following section describes the census results analysed at district level, whilst the results at ward level for each district are presented as appendices (see Appendix 8). For each district, results describe what is found in the communities at person level and also at household level, with an attempt to pick out any differences that may be apparent between households with and without children 0–18 years, the latter which includes orphans and vulnerable children. The first section (3.1) presents the findings from Bulilimamangwe followed by the section (3.2) on the findings of Chimanimani district.

3.1 Bulilimamangwe District

3.1.1 Demographic data The populations of Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree districts were 81 984, 62 324 and 9 012 respectively, with the average household size for these districts being 4.8 persons. There were more females than males across all the three districts, with a sex ratio in Plumtree of 85 males per every 100 females, 84 and 83 males per 100 females in Mangwe and Bulilima respectively. Over 70% of the households in the three districts had children. Table 2 below illustrates these findings in the three districts in more detail.

Table 2: Demographics of population by district

Sex Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 81 984 N = 62 324 N = 9 012 n (%) n (%) n (%) Males 37 134 (45.3) 28 399 (45.6) 4 126 (45.8)

Females 44 850 (54.7) 33 925 (54.4) 4 886 (54.2)

Sex ratio (Male:Female) 83:100 84:100 85:100

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Average household size 5.1 5.4 4.0

Total number of households 16 016 11 526 2 265

Child-headed households 1 089 (6.8) 261 (2.3) 104 (4.6)

Total number of households 14 047 (87.7) 10 109 (87.7) 1 648 (72.8) with children

A comparison of results of the preliminary National Census of 2002 and the OVC Census shows that there were differences in population size (especially in Bulilima district where the population declined by 13.1%) as well as the number of households across all the three districts (Table 3). However the OVC Census results on sex ratio are consistent with the National Census of 2002. Of note is the striking similarity on average household size between the two censuses.

The population profile for the three districts demonstrates consistency with the national profile in terms of sex ratio (male:female), which shows that there are more females than

15

a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

males as well as the average household size. The population census in the three districts has also shown that most of the people are below the age of 18 years.

Table 3: Comparison between National Census 2002 and OVC Census 2003 by district

Sex Bulilima Mangwe*

National OVC Variation National OVC Variation Census Census Census Census 2002 2003 2002 2003 Males 42 974 37 134 -5 840 (13.6%) 36 116 32 525 -3 591 (9.9%)

Females 51 387 44 850 - 6 537 (12.7%) 42 311 38 811 -3 500 (8.3%)

Sex ratio 84:100 83:100 85:100 84:100 (Male: Female)

Total 94 361 81 984 -12 377 (13.1%) 78 427 71 336 -7 091 (9.0%) population Total 18 352 16 016 -2 336 (12.7%) 14 872 13 791 -1 081 (7.3%) number of households Average 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.2 - 0.1 (1.9%) household size

* In the National Census 2002, data for Plumtree district is included in Mangwe district. Accordingly, for comparison purposes, the OVC Census data for Plumtree and Mangwe districts has been combined.

Age distribution in the districts is shown in Table 4. The largest group in the three districts (n = 152 899 for Bulilima, Mangwe, Plumtree) was that aged 25 and above (31.1%) followed by those aged between 3 and 11 years (29.3%). Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Table 4: Age distribution in Bulilimamangwe

Age group Bulilimamangwe N = 152 899 n (%) 0–2 years 12 369 (8.1) 3–11 years 44 870 (29.3) 12–14 years 15 458 (10.1) 15–24 years 32 645 (21.4) 25+ years 47 557 (31.1)

When further broken down, using the cut-off point of 18 years of age to separate the ‘children’ from the ‘adults’ as defined for this census, you find that the majority of the

16 Chapter 3

population in Bulilima and Mangwe was 18 years and below (56% and 58% respectively) whilst Plumtree had slightly less children (48%) compared to adults (52%), (see Table 5).

Table 5: Distribution of population aged 18 and below by district

Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree Age Group N = 81 984 N = 62 324 N = 9 012

n (%) n (%) n (%)

≤ 18 years 46 169 (56.3) 36 206 (58.1) 4 317 (47.9)

Above 18 years 35 815 (43.7) 26 118 (41.9) 4 695 (52.1)

On level of education a total of 80 335, 60 803 and 8 888, for Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree respectively, responded to the question on whether or not they have ever attended school. In all, over three quarters of the respondents had ever attended school, 82.8%, 78% and 76.9%, for Plumtree, Mangwe and Bulilima respectively.

The reported levels of education attained among those who indicated that they had gone to school are summarised in Table 6. Of those who indicated that they had attended school, only 59 900, 47 068 and 7 185 from Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree respectively indicated the level of education they had attained. The table shows that the largest group in Bulilima and Mangwe were those who had reached primary school level (71% and 70.3%) with only about 21% having attended secondary school, whilst for Plumtree, which was the urban area, there were slightly more (46%) who had reached secondary school.

Table 6: Population distribution by level of education attained in districts

Education level Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 59 900 N = 47 068 N = 7 185 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za n (%) n (%) n (%) Pre–primary 3652 (6.1) 3 429 (7.3) 247 (3.4) Primary3 42 792 (71.4) 33 107 (70.3) 3 172 (44.1) Secondary4 12 636 (21.1) 9 789 (20.8) 3 320 (46.2) High school5 334 (0.6) 331 (0.7) 203 (2.8) Tertiary (Non-degreed) 314 (0.5) 268 (0.6) 128 (1.8) Tertiary (Degreed) 172 (0.3) 144 (0.3) 115 (1.6)

Of those children who had never gone to school, a variety of reasons was given and these are summarised in Table 7. The major reason given was ‘still too young’ (average of 82% across Bulilimamangwe) followed by ‘financial constraints’ (average 10%).

3 In Zimbabwe primary education covers grades 1 to 7. 4 In Zimbabwe secondary education covers forms 1 to 4 or grades 8–11. 5 In Zimbabwe high school covers forms 5 to 6 or grades 12–13.

17 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 7: Reasons for children who had never gone to school in the districts

Reason for no education Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 14 920 N = 10 396 N = 1 343 n (%) n (%) n (%) Financial constraints 1 796 (12.0) 767 (7.4) 98 (7.3) School too far 241 (1.6) 177 (1.7) 7 (0.5) Ill/sick 237 (1.5) 208 (2.0) 10 (0.7) Still too young* 1 1784 (79.0) 8 779 (84.4) 1 205 (89.7) Other 862 (5.9) 465 (4.5) 23 (1.8)

* Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture policy states that a child must start going to school at the age of 7 years. However, for this exercise determination of the numbers of those who were too young to attend school were not analysed according to school-going and non-school-going age groups.

3.1.2 Magnitude of orphanhood According to our definition of ‘child’ the proportion of orphans in the districts was determined based on the total population of those aged 18 years and below – a total of 86 692 in the three districts. As shown in Table 8, approximately one quarter of all children in each district were orphans (28%, 23% and 25% for Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree respectively).

Table 8: Extent of orphanhood by district

Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree Orphanhood N = 46 169 N = 36 206 N = 4 317

Size 12 880 (27.8%) 8 592 (23.7%) 1 058 (24.5%)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za The most common type of orphan across the three districts was one who had lost a father (17.7%, 15.6% and 14.6%) followed by a child who had lost both parents (5.7%, 4.3% and 6.8%) for Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree respectively (Table 9).

Table 9: Population distribution of type of orphan by district

Orphanhood status Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 46 169 N = 36 206 N = 4 317 n (%) n (%) n (%) Both parents alive 33 289 (72.1) 27 614 (76.3) 3 259 (75.5)

Mother dead 2 086 (4.5) 1 369 (3.8) 169 (3.9)

Father dead 8 157 (17.7) 5 682 (15.6) 631 (14.6)

Both parents dead 2 637 (5.7) 1 541 (4.3) 258 (6.8)

18 Chapter 3

3.1.3 Disability The prevalence of disability across the three districts was 5.5% for Bulilima, 5.2% for Mangwe and 2% for Plumtree (Table 10) with ‘difficulty in moving’ being the most common type of disability (26%) in both Bulilima and Mangwe followed by ‘difficulty in seeing’ (Table 10). In Plumtree, the urban district, difficulty in seeing (24.9%) was more common than difficulty in moving (20.9%). Table 10 also shows that ‘multiple disabilities’ were also prevalent across all the three districts (12% in Bulilima, 14.1% in Mangwe and 13.6% in Plumtree). It is worth noting that there was a high prevalence of ‘other’ disabilities, which were not specified across the three districts. Further research needs to be done to identify these.

Table 10: Population distribution of disabled people by type of disability by district

Disability Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 46 169 N = 36 206 N = 4 317 n (%) n (%) n (%) Prevalence 4 534 (5.5) 3 217 (5.2) 177 (2.0)

Type of disability N = 4 534 N = 3 217 N =177 Difficulty in moving 1 197 (26.4) 851 (26.5) 37 (20.9) Difficulty in seeing 960 (21.2) 629 (19.5) 44 (24.9) Difficulty in speaking 225 (5.0) 196 (6.1) 8 (4.5) Difficulty in hearing 336 (7.4) 199 (6.2) 13 (7.3) Chronic fits/Epilepsy 151 (3.3) 118 (3.7) 9 (5.1) Mental illness 447 (9.9) 368 (11.4) 17 (9.6) Multiple disability 543 (12.0) 453 (14.1) 24 (13.6) Others 675 (14.9) 403 (12.5) 25 (14.1) Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Table 11 shows that one in every five households with children in Bulilima and Mangwe districts had at least one person who had a disability, whilst in Plumtree it was about ten per cent.

Table 11: Prevalence of disability in households with children by district

Total number of households with children Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 14 047 N = 10 109 N = 1 648 n (%) n (%) n (%) Total number of households with 3 227 2 313 155 (9.4) children and with a disabled person (23.0) (22.9)

19 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

3.1.4 Household level data

3.1.4.1. Sources of water In the general population as shown in Table 12 below, households in Bulilima and Mangwe had protected wells or boreholes as their main water source (58.7% and 53% respectively) whilst Plumtree, being an urban setting, had mostly households with piped water, either inside the home (57.4%) or outside (29.5%). About a third of the households in Bulilima and Mangwe (30.7% and 34.8%) fetched water from rivers, streams or dams.

Table 12: Household distribution by main water source in the districts

Main source of water Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%) Piped water inside house 216 (1.3) 326 (2.8) 1 301 (57.4) Piped water source outside 186 (1.2) 248 (2.2) 668 (29.5) Communal tap 481 (3.0) 173 (1.5) 206 (9.0) Well/borehole protected 9 399 (58.7) 6 117 (53.1) 52 (2.3) Well/borehole unprotected 698 (4.4) 446 (3.9) 11 (0.5) River/stream/dam 4 944 (30.8) 4 015 (34.8) 13 (0.7) Other 93 (0.6) 201 (1.7) 12 (0.6)

The main sources of water in households with children across the three districts are summarised in Table 13. More than half of the households in Bulilima and Mangwe were getting water from protected wells or boreholes, whilst in Plumtree the majority had piped water inside the house. As in the general population, around a third of the households in Bulilima and Mangwe got their water from rivers, streams or dams.

Table 13: Distribution of main water sources in households with children by districts Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Main source of water Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 14 047 N = 10 109 N = 1 648 n (%) n (%) n (%) Piped water inside house 163 (1.2) 234 (2.3) 980 (59.5) Piped water source outside 146 (1.0) 138 (1.4) 457 (27.7) Communal tap 369 (2.6) 139 (1.4) 147 (8.9) Well/borehole protected 8 275 (58.9) 5 445 (53.9) 39 (2.4) Well/borehole unprotected 611 (4.4) 350 (3.5) 6 (0.4) River/stream/dam 4 420 (31.5) 3 628 (35.9) 14 (0.9) Other 63 (0.5) 175 (1.8) 5 (0.3)

In terms of how far these water sources were from the households, Table 14 shows that the majority of the general Plumtree population had water sources either on the actual

20 Chapter 3

premises or at least within a radius of 500m of their households, whilst the majority of the Bulilima and Mangwe population had water sources either outside a radius of 500m (35.3% and 36.6%), or more than a kilometre away (36.7% and 30.4% respectively).

Table 14: Household distribution by distance from main water source in the districts

Main source of water Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%) On premises 813 (5.1) 536 (4.7) 1 579 (69.7) Less than 500m 3 545 (22.1) 3 190 (27.7) 537 (23.7) 500m to 1km 5 656 (35.3) 4 215 (36.6) 98 (4.3) More than 1 kilometre 5 871 (36.7) 3 509 (30.4) 41 (1.8) Not indicated 131 (0.8) 76 ( 0.7) 10 (0.4)

3.1.4.2 Sources of energy for cooking and lighting The main source of energy for cooking and lighting in all the three districts is summarised in Tables 15 and 16 respectively. In all the districts, wood was commonly used for cooking and paraffin for lighting, with the exception of Plumtree, which is an urban setting. Here the main source of energy was electricity for both cooking and lighting purposes.

Table 15: Household distribution by main source of energy for cooking in the districts

Source of energy for Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree cooking N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%) Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Wood 15 302 (95.5) 10 712 (92.9) 575 (25.4) Paraffin 133 (0.8) 89 (0.8) 52 (2.3) Electricity 266 (1.7) 221 (1.9) 1601 (70.7) Gas 142 (0.9) 343 (3.0) 3 (0.1) Coal 4 (0.02) 8 (0.0) 3 (0.1) Solar 77 (0.5) 100 (0.9) 1 (0.0) Other 92 (0.6) 53 (0.3) 30 (1.3)

21 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 16: Household distribution by main source of energy for lighting in the districts

Source of energy for Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree lighting N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%) Wood 1 293 (8.1) 684 (5.9) 51 (2.2) Paraffin 11 165 (69.7) 6 175 (53.6) 260 (11.5) Electricity 226 (1.4) 194 (1.7) 1 811 (80.0) Gas 12 (0.1) 19 (0.2) 1 (0.0) Coal 24 (0.1) 19 (0.2) 17 (0.8) Solar 100 (0.6) 106 (0.9) 1 (0.0) Other 3 196 (20.0) 4 329 (37.5) 124 (5.5)

3.1.4.3 Toilet facilities Table 17 shows that in Bulilima and Mangwe the majority (62% and 50.8%) of households had no toilet facilities, whilst most households in Plumtree had flush toilets (77.8%). The Ventilated Improved Pit latrine (VIP), which is a non-waterborne improved pit toilet facility that is promoted in Zimbabwe’s national rural water and sanitation programme and is commonly known as the ‘Blair’ toilet, was seen in only 32.6% and 42.2% of the households in Bulilima and Mangwe districts respectively.

Table 17: Household distribution by toilet facility and district

Type of toilet facility Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%) Flush 347 (2.2) 257 (2.2) 1 763 (77.9) Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ventilated Improved Pit 5 224 (32.6) 4 859 (42.2) 82 (3.6) latrine (Blair) Pit latrine 373 (2.3) 459 (4.0) 41 (1.8) Communal 141 (0.9) 92 (0.8) 236 (10.4) No toilet 9 931 (62.0) 5 859 (50.8) 143 (6.3)

The status of sanitation facilities in the households with children across the three districts is summarised in Table 18. Again, the majority of these households in Bulilima and Mangwe had no toilet facilities.

22 Chapter 3

Table 18: Distribution of toilet facilities in households with children by district

Type of toilet facility Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 14 047 N = 10 109 N = 1 648 n (%) n (%) n (%)

Flush 259 (1.8) 156 (1.5) 1 317 (79.9) Ventilated Improved Pit 4 500 (32.0) 4 236 (41.9) 49 (3.0) latrine (Blair) Pit latrine 323 (2.3) 406 (4.0) 23 (1.4) Communal 100 (0.7) 71 (0.7) 151 (9.2) No toilet 8 865 (63.1) 5 240 (51.8) 108 (6.6)

3.1.5 Main household vulnerability indicators There were nine indicators for vulnerability assessed in this census and, together with the general findings, these are summarised below in Table 19. Between 49% and 80% of the households across the three sites reported that they had only one meal a day. Of note, Plumtree, which is urban, had the highest proportion reporting this, with also as many as 59% of households indicating that there were actually some days that the household went without any food. These proportions were slightly less in Bulilima (27.4%) and Mangwe (22.5%).

Inadequate clothing for children was another major vulnerability indicator reported by a large number of the households (72% in Bulilima, 71% in Mangwe and 46% in Plumtree).

More than a third of the households across the three sites indicated that they were not in a position to pay for medical fees if their children fell ill. In particular, Mangwe district had slightly more than half (50.5%) of the households indicating this. Less than a tenth of all the households in the three districts were being headed by children. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Table 19: Summary of vulnerability indicators by household and district

Vulnerability indicators Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%) Household having one meal 8 283 (51.7) 5 636 (48.9) 1 820 (80.4) a day Households that go for some 4 392 (27.4) 2 598 (22.5) 1 188 (59.2) days in a month without food

Children of school-going age 11 664 (72.8) 2 833 (24.6) 1 988 (88.2) not going to school Inability to pay for medical fees 7 401 (43.5) 5 821 (50.5) 781 (36.5) if children are sick

23 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Vulnerability indicators Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%) Inadequate clothing for children 11 482 (71.7) 8 153 (70.7) 1 047 (46.2) Sick person in household 11 264 (70.3) 3 718 (32.3) 1 665 (73.5) during the past month Inadequate uniforms for school- 7 917 (49.4) 5 741 (49.8) 680 (30.0) going children

Child-headed households (CHH) 1 089 (6.8) 261 (2.3) 104 (4.6) Children without caretakers 490 (45.0) 108 (41.4) 49 (47.1) in CHH Absence of anyone to discuss 341 (31.3) 42 (16.1) 37 (35.6) problems with in CHH

Table 20, which describes results of a similar assessment, but looking specifically at the households with children 18 years and below, shows that around half of these households in Bulilima and Mangwe reported that they had only one meal a day, whilst in Plumtree, which is urban, there was about a fifth who reported having only one meal a day. Over 70% of the households in Mangwe and Bulilima and almost half (47.9%) of those in Plumtree go for some days without food.

Regarding access to education, nearly a third of the households in Bulilima and Mangwe had children who were not going to school. Over half of the households in these two districts reported that their children had inadequate school uniforms.

Inadequate clothing for children was another major vulnerability indicator reported by a large number of the households (more than three quarters in both Bulilima and Mangwe) and nearly two thirds in Plumtree.

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Mangwe had more than half (54.9%), whilst Bulilima (47.2%) and Plumtree (43.2%) had nearly half of the households reporting that they were not in a position to pay for medical fees if their children were sick. In each of the three districts nearly a third of the households indicated that they had a household member who fell ill during the month preceding the study.

Of note, in terms of the other vulnerability indicators, was the proportion of children who were heading households: Bulilima (7.2%), Mangwe (2.5%) and Plumtree (6.0%). Over 40% of the child-headed households across the three districts reported not having caretakers. Around a third of the child-headed households in Bulilima (30.9%) and Plumtree (36.4%) had no-one with whom to discuss their problems.

24 Chapter 3

Table 20: Summary of vulnerability indicators in households with children by district

Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree Vulnerability indicators N = 14 047 N = 10 109 N = 1 648 n (%) n (%) n (%) Household having one meal 6 963 (49.6) 5 362 (53.0) 298 (18.1) a day Households that go for some 10 355 (73.7) 7 992 (79.1) 789 (47.9) days without food

Children of school-going age 4 321 (30.8) 2 812 (27.8) 262 (15.9) (7 to 18 years) not going to school Inability to pay for medical 6 625 (47.2) 5 545 (54.9) 712 (43.2) fees if children are sick Inadequate clothing for 11 231 (80.0) 8 001 (79.2) 1 002 (60.8) children Sick person in household 4 248 (30.2) 3 380 (33.4) 488 (29.6) during the past month Inadequate uniforms for 7 770 (55.3) 5 639 (55.8) 638 (38.7) school-going children

Child-headed households (CHH) 1 009 (7.2) 251 (2.5) 99 (6.0) Children without caretakers 445 (44.1) 103 (41.0) 47 (47.5) in CHH Absence of anyone to discuss 312 (30.9) 39 (15.5) 36 (36.4) problems with in CHH

Further assessment of vulnerability through determination of the TVIS (Total Vulnerability Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Indicator Score), as shown in Table 21, was done using all the nine contributing indicators. Although results show that the majority of households (at least 66% in all districts) were in the ‘less vulnerable’ category, the ‘moderately vulnerable’ ranged from 11 to 30% (average of 28% across the districts) and ‘highly vulnerable’ from 0.5 to 3% (specifically Mangwe 3%, Bulilima 2.1% and Plumtree 0.5%, for the highly vulnerable).

Table 21: Household vulnerability status using the Total Vulnerability Score

Vulnerability status Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%) Less vulnerable 11 203 (70.0) 7 630 (66.2) 2 002 (88.4)

Moderately vulnerable 4 463 (27.9) 3 550 (30.8) 252 (11.1)

Highly vulnerable 350 (2.1) 346 (3.0) 11 (0.5)

25 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

On assessing vulnerability status of households with children, more than a third of the households in Bulilima and Mangwe were in the moderately and highly vulnerable category. Less than a fifth of the households in Plumtree were in that category (Table 22).

Table 22: Household vulnerability status of households with children using the Total Vulnerability Score

Vulnerability status Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 14 047 N = 10 109 N = 1 648 n (%) n (%) n (%) Less vulnerable 9 289 (66.1) 6 264 (62.0) 1 391 (84.4)

Moderately vulnerable 4 409 (31.4) 3 499 (34.6) 246 (14.9)

Highly vulnerable 349 (2.5) 346 (3.4) 11 (0.7)

3.1.6 Other income indicators Table 23 shows some indirect income indicators that were also used to measure the extent of vulnerability in households. In Bulilima and Mangwe districts, which are arid regions well known for keeping farm animals (especially cattle and donkeys), over three quarters of the households in Bulilima (79.7%) and Mangwe (78.7%) had farm animals. Very few households in Bulilima and Mangwe reported that they had a telephone whilst in Plumtree, which is an urban area, almost a third of the households had a telephone.

Table 23: Household distribution by other income indicators and district

Income indicators Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 16 016 N = 11 526 N = 2 265 n (%) n (%) n (%)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Television 195 (1.2) 188 (1.6) 566 (25.0) Radio 4 799 (30.0) 3 172 (27.5) 1 196 (52.8) Telephone 321 (2.0) 407 (3.5) 698 (30.8) Electric stove 215 (1.3) 182 (1.8) 1 592 (70.3) Car 322 (2.0) 158 (1.4) 220 (9.7) Manufacturing 869 (5.4) 706 (6.1) 196 (8.7) equipment Farm animals 12 761 (79.7) 9 066 (78.7) 289 (12.8) Farm equipment 9 547 (59.6) 7 476 (64.9) 195 (8.6)

Table 24 shows that the majority of households with children in Bulilima and Mangwe, previously indicated as rural districts, reported that they had farm animals and farm equipment. On other income indicators like television, radio and electric stoves, Plumtree had the highest proportion of households with these assets compared to the other two districts.

26 Chapter 3

Table 24: Distribution of other income indicators in households with children by district

Income indicators Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree N = 14 047 N = 10 109 N = 1 648 n (%) n (%) n (%) Television 166 (1.2) 169 (1.7) 495 (30.0) Radio 4 389 (31.3) 2 884 (28.5) 935 (56.7) Telephone 261 (1.7) 345 (3.4) 588 (35.7) Electric stove 159 (1.1) 117 (1.2) 1 219 (74.0) Car 275 (2.0) 136 (1.4) 177 (10.7) Manufacturing equipment 800 (5.7) 640 (6.3) 155 (9.4) Farm animals 11 749 (83.6) 8 392 (83.0) 224 (13.6) Farm equipment 8 854 (63.0) 6 977 (69.0) 147 (8.9)

3.2 Chimanimani District

This section presents the OVC Census results of Chimanimani district and the results at ward level are presented in Appendix 8. Furthermore, results describe what is found in the communities at person level and also at household level, with an attempt to identify any differences that may be apparent between households with and without children 0-18 years, the latter which include orphans and vulnerable children.

3.2.1 Demographic data The population size, sex ratio, average household size and total number of households of Chimanimani district are summarised in Table 25. The total population of Chimanimani district was 107 120 with 52% being females. The average household size for the district was 4.4 persons. More than three quarters of the households in the district had children. Slightly more than three per cent of the households were being headed by children. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Table 25: Demographics of population in Chimanimani District

Sex Chimanimani N = 107 120 n (%) Males 51 509 (48.1)

Females 55 611 (51.9)

Sex ratio (Male:Female) 93:100

Average household size 4.4

27 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Total number of households 24 495

Total number of households with children 19 655 (80.2)

Child-headed households 779 (3.2)

A comparison of results of the preliminary National Census of 2002 and the OVC Census in Table 26 shows that there were very slight differences in population as well as the number of households in the district. The OVC Census results on sex ratio are consistent with the National Census of 2002 as were the figures for average household size. However, there was a decline of 7.1% in the total population from 2002 to 2003.

Table 26: Comparison between National Census 2002 and OVC Census 2003 in Chimanimani District

Sex Chimanimani

National Census 2002 OVC Census 2003 Variation Males 55 433 51 509 -3 924 (7.1%)

Females 59 817 55 611 -4 206 (7.0%)

Sex ratio 93:100 93:100 - (Male:Female) Total population 115 250 107 120 -8 130 (7.1%)

Total number of 26 425 24 495 -1 930 (7.3%) households Average household size 4.4 4.4 -

3.2.1.1 Age distribution

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za The majority of the population in Chimanimani district was aged 25 years and above (34%) followed by 27.2% who were aged between 3 and 11 years (Table 27).

Table 27: Age distribution in Chimanimani District

Age group Chimanimani 107 120 n (%) 0–2 years 8 705 (8.1) 3–11 years 29 154 (27.2) 12–14 years 9 741 (9.1) 15–24 years 22 885 (21.4) 25+ years 36 635 (34.2)

28 Chapter 3

When further broken down using the cut-off point of 18 years of age to separate the ‘children’ from the ‘adults’ as defined for this census, slightly more than half (52%) of the population in the district was aged 18 years and below (Table 28).

Table 28: Distribution of population aged 18 and below and above 18 in Chimanimani District

Age group Chimanimani 107 120 n (%) ≤ 18 years 55 462 (51.8)

Above 18 years 51 658 (48.2)

3.2.1.2 Level of education In Chimanimani district over three quarters (78.9%) of the population responded to the question on whether they had ever gone to school (Table 29).

Table 29: Population distribution by ever attended school in Chimanimani District

Ever attended school Chimanimani (N = 107 120) n (%) Yes 82 208 (78.9)

No 22 039 (11.1)

Total who answered 104 247

The reported levels of education among those who indicated that they had gone to school are summarised in Table 30. Out of those who indicated that they had attended school, 80 870 indicated the level of education they had attained. The table shows

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za that the majority of the population in the district had reached primary and secondary education level (56.8 and 34% respectively).

Table 30: Population distribution of level of education attained in Chimanimani District

Education level Chimanimani N = 80 870 n (%) Pre–primary 5 633 (7.0) Primary 45 927 (56.8) Secondary 27 495 (34.0) High school 551 (0.7) Tertiary (Non-degreed) 1 007 (1.2) Tertiary (Degreed) 257 (0.3)

29 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

3.2.1.3 Reasons for never going to school Table 31 summarises the reasons given by those who had never gone to school. From the table the major reason given was ‘still too young’ (74.7%) followed by ‘financial constraints’ (10.9%).

Table 31: Reasons for children who had never gone to school in the districts

Reason for no education Chimanimani N = 18 199 n (%) Financial constraints 1 992 (10.9) School too far 964 (5.3) Ill/sick 249 (1.4) Still too young** 13 595 (74.7) Other 1 399 (7.7)

** Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture policy states that a child must start going to school at the age of 7 years. However, for this exercise determination of the numbers of those who were too young to attend school was not analysed according to school-going and non-school going ages.

3.2.1.4 Orphanhood According to our definition of ‘child’ the proportion of orphans in the districts was determined based on the total population of those aged 18 years and below. Out of a total population of 55 462 who were aged 18 years and below, nearly a third (30.5%) of them had lost one parent or both.

The distribution of orphanhood by type is summarised in Table 32.

Table 32: Population distribution by orphanhood status in Chimanimani District

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Orphanhood status Chimanimani 55 462 n (%) Both parents alive 38 541 (69.5)

Mother dead 2 378 (4.3)

Father dead 10 696 (19.3)

Both parents dead 3 847 (6.9)

The most prevalent type of orphan was the paternal orphan (19.3%) followed by those who had lost both parents (6.9%).

3.2.1.5 Disability Five percent of the population in Chimanimani district indicated that they had a form of disability, and the distribution of people by type of disability in the district is summarised in Table 33. The table shows that the common forms of disability in the district were

30 Chapter 3

difficulty in moving and seeing and those with multiple disabilities. It is worth noting that there was a high prevalence of ‘other’ disabilities, which were not specified. Further research needs to be done to identify these other types of disabilities.

Table 33: Population distribution of disabled people by type of disability

Type of disability Chimanimani N = 5 313 n (%) Prevalence 5 313 (5.0)

Difficulty in moving 1 344 (25.3) Difficulty in seeing 985 (18.5) Difficulty in speaking 253 (4.8) Difficulty in hearing 334 (6.2) Chronic fits/Epilepsy 138 (2.6) Mental illness 479 (9.0) Multiple disability 548 (10.3) Others 1 232 (23.2)

Table 34 shows that almost one in every five households with children in the district had at least one person who had a disability.

Table 34: Prevalence of disability in households with children in Chimanimani

Total number of households with population ≤ 18 Chimanimani N = 19 655

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Total number of households with population ≤ 18 years 3 640 (18.5%) and with a disabled person

3.2.2 Household level data

3.2.2.1 Sources of water The households’ main sources of water in the district are summarised in Table 35. Over one third (36.0%) of the households in Chimanimani district had protected wells or bore- holes, followed by a piped water source outside the house (22.6%), whilst a fifth (19.7%) of the households were using unprotected wells and boreholes.

31 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 35: Household distribution by main water source

Main source of water Chimanimani N = 24 495 n (%) Piped water inside house 1 342 (5.5) Piped water source outside 5 527 (22.6) Communal tap 1 951 (8.0) Well/borehole protected 8 823 (36.0) Well/borehole unprotected 4 824 (19.7) River/stream/dam 1 797 (7.3) Other 231 (0.9)

The main sources of water in households with children in the district are summarised in Table 36. More than a quarter of the households were getting water from unprotected sources (well/boreholes 21.3% and river/stream/dam 7.7%).

Table 36: Distribution of main water sources in households with children in Chimanimani

Main source of water Chimanimani N = 19 655 n (%) Piped water inside house 975 (5.0) Piped water source outside 4 089 (20.8) Communal tap 1 010 (5.1)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Well/borehole protected 7 732 (39.3) Well/borehole unprotected 4 190 (21.3) River/stream/dam 1 507 (7.7) Other 152 (0.8)

3.2.2.2 Distance from the main water source Table 37 shows the distance of the main water sources from the homestead in Chimanimani district. Close to half (42.2%) of the households in the district had water sources that were within a radius of 500m, whilst nearly a quarter (23.1%) had a main water source on their premises.

32 Chapter 3

Table 37: Household distribution by distance from main water source

Main source of water Chimanimani N = 24 495 n (%) On premises 5 667 (23.1) Less than 500m 10 344 (42.2) 500m to 1km 5 550 (22.7) More than 1 kilometre 2 712 (11.1) Not indicated 222 (0.9)

3.2.2.3 Sources of energy for cooking and lighting The main source of energy for cooking and lighting in Chimanimani district is summarised in Tables 38 and 39 respectively. The majority of the households (95.2%) reported use of wood for cooking, whilst paraffin was used for lighting by about two thirds of the households (65.4%).

Table 38: Household distribution by main source of energy for cooking

Source of energy for cooking Chimanimani N = 24 495 n (%) Wood 23 306 (95.2) Paraffin 145 (0.6) Electricity 865 (3.5) Gas 25 (0.1) Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Coal 2 (0.01) Solar 1 (0.0) Other 151 (0.6)

33 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 39: Household distribution by main source of energy for lighting

Source of energy for lighting Chimanimani N = 24 495 n (%) Wood 5 032 (20.5) Paraffin 16 019 (65.4) Electricity 1 676 (6.8) Gas 24 (0.1) Coal 51 (0.2) Solar 181 (0.7) Other 1 512 (6.2)

3.2.2.4 Toilet facilities The distribution of toilet facilities in Chimanimani district is summarised in Table 40. The majority of the households in the district either had a Ventilated Improved Pit latrine (VIP), commonly known as the Blair toilet (36.4%), or an ordinary pit toilet (34.1%). The VIP is a non-waterborne improved pit toilet facility that is promoted in Zimbabwe’s national rural water and sanitation programme. One fifth (18.4%) of the households in the district had no toilet facility at all.

Table 40: Household distribution by toilet facility in Chimanimani District

Type of toilet facility Chimanimani N = 24 495 n (%)

Flush 1 444 (5.9) Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ventilated Improved Pit latrine (Blair) 8 911 (36.4) Pit latrine 8 360 (34.1) Communal 1 273 (5.2) No toilet 4 507 (18.4)

The status of sanitation facilities in the households with children is summarised in Table 41. A fifth of the households had no toilets.

34 Chapter 3

Table 41: Distribution of toilet facilities in households with children in Chimanimani

Type of toilet facility Chimanimani N = 19 655 n (%) Flush 1 033 (5.3) Ventilated Improved Pit latrine (Blair) 6 784 (34.5) Pit latrine 7 318 (37.2) Communal 631 (3.2) No toilet 3 889 (19.8)

3.2.3 Main household vulnerability indicators There were nine main indicators for vulnerability assessed in this census (Table 42). These indicators were household based rather than individual based. In this census, more than ten per cent (10.2%) of the households in Chimanimani district reported that they had one meal a day and as many as 65.4% indicated that there were some days that they went without any food. Of note, nearly three quarters (71.6%) of the households had children who did not have adequate clothing. More than a third (35.4%) of the households in the district indicated that they were not in a position to pay for medical fees if children fell ill, with a similar proportion (37.3%) reporting having an ill person in their household during the past month. Child-headed households represented 3.2%, with almost half of them (46.9%) reporting not having any caretakers, as well as 37% indicating that they had no- one with whom to discuss their problems.

Table 42: Summary of vulnerability indicators by household

Vulnerability indicators Chimanimani

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za N = 24 495 n (%) Household having one meal a day 2 509 (10.2)

Households that some days go without food 16 007 (65.4)

Children of school-going age not going to school 4 311 (17.6)

Inability to pay for medical fees if children are sick 8 672 (35.4)

Inadequate clothing for children 17 539 (71.6) Sick person in household during the past month 9 140 (37.3) Inadequate uniforms for school-going children 414 (1.7)

35 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Child headed households (CHH) 779 (3.2) N = 779 Children without caretakers in child-headed households 365 (46.9)

Absence of anyone to discuss problems with in child-headed households 285 (36.6)

Table 43 shows that one in every ten households with children in the district reported having only one meal a day. Two thirds of the households indicated that they go for some days without food.

Regarding access to education, slightly more than a fifth of the households had children who were not going to school. Over half (61.9%) of the households in the district reported that their children had inadequate school uniforms. The majority of the households (87.5%) had children with inadequate clothing.

About two fifths (42.4%) households were not in a position to pay medical fees if their children were sick. Almost the same number of households indicated that they had a household member who was sick during the month preceding the study.

More than half (52.6%) of the child-headed households had no caretakers and slightly over a third (34.2%) had no-one with whom to discuss their problems.

Table 43: Summary of vulnerability indicators in households with children in Chimanimani

Vulnerability indicators Chimanimani N = 19 655 n (%) Household having one meal a day 1 945 (9.9) Households that some days go without food 13 035 (66.3)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Children of school-going age not going to school 4 264 (21.7) Inability to pay for medical fees if children are sick 8 324 (42.4) Inadequate clothing for children 17 194 (87.5) Sick person in household during the past month 7 810 (39.7) Inadequate uniforms for school-going children 12 169 (61.9)

Child-headed households (CHH) 704 (3.6) Children without caretakers in CHH 370 (52.6) Absence of anyone to discuss problems with in CHH 241 (34.2)

3.2.3.1 Vulnerability Indicator Score Assessment The Vulnerability Indicator Score was defined from all the nine contributing indicators listed in the previous table (Table 43), whilst Table 44 shows the household vulnerability scores in the district. The assessment shows that the majority (82.5%) of households were in the ‘less vulnerable’ category with 17% being ‘moderately vulnerable’ and only a few

36 Chapter 3

(0.5%) of the households scoring as ‘highly vulnerable’ (see Appendix 10).

Table 44: Household distribution of vulnerability score in Chimanimani District

Vulnerability status Chimanimani N = 24 495 n (%) Less vulnerable 20 209 (82.5)

Moderately vulnerable 4 159 (17.0)

Highly vulnerable 127 (0.5)

On assessing vulnerability status of households with children, slightly more than a fifth of the households were in the moderately and highly vulnerable category (Table 45).

Table 45: Household vulnerability status of households with children using the Total Vulnerability Score

Vulnerability status Chimanimani N = 19 655 n (%) Less vulnerable 15 440 (78.6)

Moderately vulnerable 4 090 (20.8)

Highly vulnerable 125 (0.6)

3.2.4 Other income indicators

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Some indirect income indicators were also used to measure the extent of vulnerability in the households. Table 46 shows that over half (59.3%) of the households in Chimanimani owned farm animals and slightly more than a third (34.5%) had farm equipment. Although Chimanimani district has an urban population (only ward 15 is an urban area) it is predominantly a rural district as its population is only 3.0% of the population of the whole district. In terms of having access to electronic media, more than a fifth (22.7%) of the households had a working radio and less than a tenth (6.7%) had a functional television set. Table 46 also shows that the majority of households with children had farm animals and farm equipment. Almost a quarter of these households had a radio.

37 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 46: Household distribution by other income indicators in Chimanimani District

Income indicators Households in general (with or Households with children without children)

Chimanimani Chimanimani N = 24 495 N = 19 655 n (%) n (%) Television 1 642 (6.7) 1 442 (7.3) Radio 5 564 (22.7) 4 655 (23.7) Telephone 454 (1.9) 361 (1.8) Electric stove 975 (4.0) 734 (3.7) Car 364 (1.5) 309 (1.6) Manufacturing equipment 2053 (8.4) 1 852 (9.4) Farm animals 14 525 (59.3) 13 091 (66.6) Farm equipment 8 440 (34.5) 7 466 (38.0) Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

38 CHAPTER 4

Discussion

Population Profile

The purpose of the census was to quantify the magnitude of the problem of Orphans and Vulnerable children (OVC) in Zimbabwe’s Bulilimamangwe (Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree) and Chimanimani districts, and to document socio-demographic and socio- economic conditions in OVC households. Ultimately, the aim was to generate a database of OVC in the districts and information on some of the conditions existing in their households, so as to feed into a process of intervention identification and consideration of the expansion/redirection of existing interventions to meet better the needs of orphans and vulnerable children.

The OVC Census data is an approximation of the 2002 National Census data, which did not explicitly quantify the number of vulnerable children. Though there seem to be discrepancies between the OVC 2003 Census and the 2002 National Census preliminary results (decline in population ranged from 7.1% in Chimanimani to 13.1% in Bulilima), there were quite a number of factors that could have contributed to the differences in results. For instance, there were methodological differences, as the National Census was conducted on a de facto basis whilst the OVC Census was de jure based. Furthermore, besides the AIDS epidemic that continued to claim the lives of many people6, 7, new population dynamics have emerged in Zimbabwe since 2002, notably:

1. The Fast Track Land Resettlement Programme of 2000, which moved some people from their original homes to resettlement areas8, conservancies, farms and estates and was still underway when the OVC Census exercise was conducted. 2. The economic crisis in Zimbabwe (shortage of basic commodities, high inflation and unemployment, shortage of foreign currency, etc.) which has prevailed in the country since 2000 forced a lot of people, especially those in the border districts, to move to neighbouring countries, especially South Africa and Botswana, in search of employment. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 3. The 2002 drought, which resulted in food shortages and consequently forced some people to migrate in search of food.

Because of this, there was no 100% consistency with the CSO 2002 National Census data. It is interesting to note that although the exact population figures are not the same, the population distribution patterns are similar.

Prevalence of OVC and other related indicators

Excess mortality, largely due to AIDS and poverty, is causing the number of orphans and the proportion of orphaned and vulnerable children in sub-Saharan Africa to grow daily.

6 Neff Walker, Bernhard Schwartlander, Jennifer Bryce (2002) stated that in 1999 five countries (Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) had high rates of HIV infection resulting in under 5 mortality rates of above 30 per 1000 (The Lancet and HIV/AIDS ‘Meeting International goals in child survival and HIV/AIDS’) 7 An estimated 70% of deaths among children under the age of five in Zimbabwe is due to AIDS (UNDP 2002 HIV/AIDS Statistical Fact Sheet) http:www.undp.org/hiv/docs/Barcelona-statistical-fact-sheet-2july02.doc 8 There were two types of resettlement models: A1 model (small-scale farm) and A2 model (large-scale farm).

39

a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Uganda’s 1991 population and housing census identified 1 037 228 children under age 18 years who had lost at least one parent, comprising 12% of all children in the same age group. Findings are presented from the analysis of survey data collected during 1992–93 in Iganga, Mbale, Masaka, Mbarara, Kabale, and Hoima districts. There were 4 502 orphans under age 18 years in the districts, for an overall orphanhood prevalence of 43% (Sarker, et al; 2005). This OVC Census, conducted in Zimbabwe, found the overall orphanhood prevalence in Bulilima, Mangwe, Plumtree and Chimanimani districts to be 16%.

Another interesting factor was the prevalence of disability in households with children, which was 4.2% and 18.5 % in Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani respectively, with the most common disability being ‘difficulty in moving’. It is acknowledged that there are very few studies that have actually involved counting the numbers of disabled persons in the country, which therefore makes it difficult to make comparisons with other statistics. Furthermore, in this census it is worth noting that there was a high prevalence of ‘other’ disabilities reported and these were not specified. Further research needs to be done to identify these other types of disabilities.

Educational level

Of note was the fact that in all the four districts, the population was very literate, with over 75% having gone to school. Of those who had gone to school, the majority (over 90%) had attained at least primary education, and these figures are similar to national figures which show a literacy level of 70%. The intervention agencies that prepare OVC programme materials should take advantage of the literacy situation in the population.

Financial constraints were highlighted by about 10% of households in both districts, as a reason why their children had never gone to school.

Source of water and energy for cooking and lighting

The Census shows that in Mangwe and Bulilima districts, over a third of households were getting their water from unsafe sources (dams, rivers and unprotected boreholes and

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za wells) but for those households with children, the situation was slightly better, with more than half of them getting water from protected wells or boreholes. In Plumtree, which is an urban district, the majority of households had piped water inside the house, but there was still a quarter or more of the households with children that were getting water from unprotected sources (well/boreholes 21.3% and river/stream/dam 7.7%). Thus the issue of clean water, which is important for having a healthy population, needs to be addressed, so that the population, especially of Bulilima and Mangwe, can easily access clean and safe water.

On distance to water source, around a third of the population in Bulilima (36.7%) and Mangwe (30.4%) and over a tenth (11.1%) of the households in the mainly hilly Chimanimani district stated that they fetched water from sources that were more than a kilometre from their homes. This is contrary to the government’s rural water and sanitation programme policy that stipulates that a household should have a water source within a radius of 500 metres. It is quite clear that in order to reduce the burden of fetching water on the rural populace, especially on women who do domestic work, the distance from homesteads to water sources needs to be reduced.

40 Chapter 4

Most people in the communities enumerated were using wood as a source of energy for cooking and paraffin for lighting. This is common practice in Zimbabwe but environmentalists have raised concerns that the use of firewood poses a serious threat to the environment, as deforestation leads to land degradation. Alternative sources of energy for rural people need to be promoted.

Toilet Facilities

It was interesting to note that there were differences in the availability of sanitation facilities across the four districts. The Ministry of Health and Child Welfare, besides promoting the flush toilet, considers a proper toilet in rural areas to be the Ventilated Improved Pit latrine (the VIP), commonly known as the Blair toilet, since it controls fly breeding by the very nature of its construction. In Chimanimani district, nearly three quarters (70.5%) of the households were either using the VIP or an ordinary pit latrine. Of the households in Chimanimani with children, only one third (34.5%), and 5.3%, had a VIP latrine and flush toilet respectively.

Most households visited in Bulilima and Mangwe had very poor sanitation coverage with no toilets of any form. Of the households in these districts with children, again the status was poor, with figures in Bulilima of 32% and 2% for the VIP and flush toilet respectively. In Mangwe, for the households with children, the picture was slightly better, with 42% of them with the VIP. Overall, the high proportion of households that had no toilet facilities in the four districts is a cause for concern as these households therefore resort to using the bush and this puts people at risk of contracting diarrhoeal diseases.

Vulnerability indicators

While societies have always had to find homes for children without parents, the sheer scale of the HIV and AIDS pandemic, and the number of orphans being left in its wake, appear to be unprecedented. Although data is incomplete and often difficult to compare, the best available estimates speak of an extraordinary human catastrophe. One key indicator for the impact of HIV is vulnerability, posed to both the young and the old. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za There were a number of vulnerability indicators that were included in the census form. The purpose of these was to assess the extent of vulnerability among the populations in the selected districts. The indicators on income and sources of income were difficult to assess because of recall bias on the exact amounts spent on the various items. In deciding on household vulnerability, only the nine main vulnerability indicators were used, since these were the ones that were widely debated between the three study countries, internally debated, and agreed upon by the research team. In addition, orphans were included in the vulnerability definition.

Medical Costs – What was apparent in this census was that the cost of accessing medical care was high, to the extent that a third of the households across the four districts indicated that they were not in a position to pay for medical fees in the event of their children being ill.

Clothing – Having adequate clothing for children was also identified as a serious problem as nearly three quarters of the households in the four districts indicated that their children did not have adequate clothing, save for Plumtree, which had a lower proportion (46.2%). It is worth noting that almost half (49.4% and 49.8%) of the households in Bulilima and

41 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Mangwe respectively, and slightly fewer in Plumtree (30.0%), indicated that their children of school-going age had inadequate school uniforms. This scenario is a recipe for the stigmatisation and discrimination of children at school from poor backgrounds, as they are not dressed like all other schoolchildren. Consequently, these children are likely not to participate fully in school activities, as they would have feelings of inferiority due to their parents/guardians’ poor backgrounds. Again, this could possibly contribute to the high number of children not attending school. However, the situation in Chimanimani was quite different as there where only about 2% of the households who indicated that their children did not have adequate school uniforms. Also the number of school-going age children not attending school was lower here.

Vulnerabilty Score – The census showed some variability in the Vulnerability Indicator Score across the three districts of Bulilimamamngwe. The drought-prone districts of Bulilima and Mangwe had households that were highly vulnerable. This indicates that many people are still desperately in need of assistance, be it land for agricultural purposes, material, or cash. However Chimanimani, which generally receives high rainfall because of its mountainous terrain, has a population making a living from growing crops such as bananas and maize. As a result, over 80% of the population had adequate resources for survival, with only 17.0% moderately vulnerable and 0.5% highly vulnerable households. Again Plumtree, an urban district, had relatively low numbers of households that were either moderately or highly vulnerable.

Child-headed Households – Although in Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani the proportion of child-headed households was 5% and 3.2% respectively, it is still recognised that urbanisation, the AIDS epidemic and economic challenges that have prevailed in Zimbabwe in the recent past, have, to a large extent, led to the erosion of the practice of having safety nets for orphans and children in difficult circumstances provided by the extended family or communities. These children are very much in need of psychosocial support, and so the proportion of child-headed households which did not have caretakers (proportion ranged from 41% in Mangwe to 53% in Chimanimani) is cause for concern. Also worrying is the proportion of child-headed households having no-one with whom to discuss their problems, as evidenced by proportions ranging from 16% in Mangwe to 36% in Plumtree. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Overall, the census results have demonstrated the extent to which census data can be used to deepen and widen knowledge in understanding population dynamics through indicator developments. There is a need to validate the TVIS through other participating countries to ascertain the extent of its usefulness.

42 CHAPTER 5

Conclusion and recommendations

Historically, census data has always been a useful source of scientific data. This census has managed to extrapolate the population profile of Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani districts. It is interesting to note that the national demographic profile parameters as defined by the National Census of 2002 are generally consistent with the 2003 OVC Census.

More than half of the population in the four districts was aged 18 years and below, with the exception of Plumtree. The literacy level across all the districts was high, as most people had either gone to primary or secondary school. Firewood was the most common source of energy for cooking in rural districts. A protected well or borehole was the main water source in the four districts save for Plumtree, which is an urban district. Regarding disability, difficulties in moving and seeing were reported to be the most common types of disability.

The results have also identified gaps at population level that need to be addressed, like the need for toilet facilities and access to clean water. The orphanhood problem is very grave, as around a quarter of the children are orphans across each of the four districts and there are more paternal orphans than maternal orphans in all the districts. According to the Vulnerability Indicator Score, Bulilima and Mangwe were found to have higher vulnerable household proportions than Plumtree and Chimanimani.

The OVC Census database for Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani is a useful tool for all intervention agencies that are working or will work with OVC, their caregivers and communities in general. The use of such databases should be encouraged.

Government, intervention agencies and communities should urgently assist orphans and vulnerable children to enjoy their fundamental rights of having food, accessing education and medical care, and having adequate clothing.

The communities should take the responsibility of supporting child-headed households Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za by offering them psychosocial support, as the census revealed that a large proportion of these children reported that they neither have caretakers nor anyone else with whom to discuss their problems. The communities should revive the traditional practice of looking after less privileged members of society, especially orphans and vulnerable children who, among other things, need adult caretakers to instil moral values in order for them not to become social misfits.

In light of the high use of firewood by the populace in the four districts, the rural electrification programme must be intensified to curb rural people’s dependency on firewood as a source of energy. Rural people must be educated on the need to use other sources of energy beside firewood, for example, solar power and cow dung.

There is a need to validate the Total Vulnerabilty Index Score (TVIS) to ascertain the extent of its usefulness in Zimbabwe and in the region. It should be noted that in surveys where indicator scores are developed, there should be close liaison between the researchers and the communities if the indicators are to be appropriate.

43

a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

5.1 Challenges faced during the study

There were quite a number of challenges faced during the census exercise. These include the following: 1. There was a serious national fuel crisis. To counter this problem some research members had to import fuel from Botswana’s Ramaquebane Business Centre almost on a daily basis and distribute it to various teams scattered in the field. This slowed down the exercise. In Chimanimani, the research members often had to travel to Mutare (150 km) and Chipinge (100 km) to source fuel. 2. Enough and suitable vehicles for the rugged terrain could not be sourced to cover all the teams in the field. To cope with this problem some teams shared the few suitable vehicles. This slowed down the exercise. 3. The timing of the census was not appropriate because of the rains. The rains restricted the mobility of the supervisors and enumerators. The tillage season had an effect because some respondents were in the fields and hence could not be found at households, resulting in the need to have call-backs and working late in the evening. 4. In both districts, where the terrain was rough, it was difficult for the supervisors and enumerators to finish the census exercise in the given ten days. Furthermore, the households in Bulilima and Mangwe are sparsely distributed and roads were very poor. Some parts of Chimanimani are very mountainous and there are households on top of mountains. Consequently, enumerators had to walk or travel long distances to reach the next household, resulting in only a few households being covered in a day. To complete the enumeration of all households in these areas, other teams that had finished enumerating in their respective wards were redeployed to assist. In all, the census exercise was extended by at most eight days. 5. Ideally, enumerators and supervisors were supposed to work in their home areas so that there was no need to provide them with accommodation. But this was not the situation on the ground as some supervisors and enumerators had to move to areas that were far away from their homesteads and this called for the need to provide them with accommodation and transport. 6. Respondents were not willing to disclose information on their earnings/income for fear of jeopardising their chances of getting material and financial assistance, especially in drought prone wards, and most of the households depend heavily on Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za food handouts. 7. Church services, funerals, food handout distribution days and community meetings slowed down the census exercise. 8. The land redistribution exercise,9 which was underway, demanded the supervisors and enumerators to be meticulous in making sure that there was no double-counting of people, as some people were living in ‘two’ areas. To avoid double-counting of people, supervisors and enumerators were thoroughly trained to define a household on a de jure basis.

5.2 Dissemination of results

Dissemination workshops of the census results in Bulilimamangwe and Chimanimani districts were held in April 2004. Participants included representatives of some relevant government departments and ministries, traditional leaders and organisations involved in orphan-care programmes and working with communities in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

9 The Zimbabwe government in 2000 embarked on a ‘fast track’ nationwide process of redistributing agricultural commercial land to thousands of indigenous people living in the congested, poor and arid communal areas.

44 Chapter 5

In addition to this report, there will be publications on the further analysis of the results. The publications will be complemented by presentations at workshops at national, regional and international forums. Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

45 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

46 APPENDIX 1

Ward Maps by District Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

47 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

48 Appendices Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

49 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

50 Appendices

Names of Ward by District

Ward Number Bulilima Mangwe Plumtree Chimanimani 1 Tshankwa Empandeni Ward 1 Cashel 2 Gwambe Izimnyama Ward 2 Mhandarume Communal Area 3 Natane Madabe Ward 3 Chakohwa 4 Nyele Tshitshi Ward 4 Guhune 5 Matjinge Ingwizi Rupise 6 Gala Sanzukwi Chayamiti 7 Masendu Shinja Resettlement 8 Huwana Maninji Nyanyadzi 9 Makhulela Mambale Shinja Communal 10 Bambadzi Bango Chikukwa 11 Madlambudzi Marula Martin 12 Hingwe Izimnyama Small Tilbury Scale Area 13 Ndolwane Nyahode 14 Malanswazwi Charter 15 Vulindlela Chimanimani 16 Dombolefu Gwindingwi 17 Somnene Biriwiri Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 18 Norwood Mhakwe 19 Figtree Chikwakwa 20 Changazi 21 Ngorima A 22 Ngorima B 23 Manyuseni

51 APPENDIXCHAPTER 2

Reactions to the Pilot Research Procedures

1. Reactions of respondents to research procedures

Acceptable Not acceptable Suggestions

Availability of respondents

Daily work schedules of respondents

Desire of respondents to participate

Acceptability of questions

2. The data collection tool (Census data sheet)

Whether the tool provides the information needed

Time needed for administering the tool

Presentation of questions & format of questionnaire

Accuracy of translation

Pre-categorizing of questions

Coding system & coding guidelines Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Handling and administering the tools

3. The Field procedures

Whether the instructions to obtain respondents are straightforward

Time needed to locate the respondents

52 APPENDIX 3

Fieldworker’s Introductory Letter

Your Ref: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND CHILD WELFARE Our Ref BLAIR RESEARCH INSTITUTE Josiah Tongogara Avenue/Mazowe Street All correspondence to be addressed to P.O. BOX CY 573 “ The Director” Causeway Telephone: 253975-9 ZIMBABWE Harare Fax: 263 – 4- 253979 E-Mail:

28 October 2003

Dear Community member

The bearer (______ID No. ______is representing the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare (Blair Research Institute). He/she is collecting information on orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) census. All the information collected in the census is strictly confidential and will be published and used in aggregated form where no individual/household data can be recognized.

The Blair Research Institute, Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare and Family AIDS Caring Trust (FACT), Mutare have been commissioned by The WK Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) to develop and implement a 5-year intervention OVC as well as families and households coping with an increased burden of care for affected children in Zimbabwe.

The objectives of the project that is being implemented in Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree and Chimanimani districts are:

 Improve the social conditions, health, development and quality of life of vulnerable children and orphans.

 Support families and households coping with an increased burden of care for affected and vulnerable children.

 Strengthen community-based support systems as an indirect means to assist vulnerable children.

 Build capacity in community-based systems for sustaining care and support to vulnerable children and households, over the long term.

For further information or clarification pertaining to the project contact the following people:

Mrs Shungu Mtero-Munyati (091 252 160), Mr. Brian Chandiwana (011 409 911), Mr. Peter Chibatamoto (091 350 162), Mr. Freddy Mupambireyi (023 504 504) and Mr. Stanford Mahati (011 700 252) Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

53 APPENDIXCHAPTER 4a

Census Shona and English Questionnaire .–> ) is no name If ( longer at school, the main what is reason? Chii chikonzero chikuru chakaita kuti asiye chikoro? constraints Financial 1. far away too 2. School Ill/sick 3. related 4. Pregnancy Completed 5. Other 6. ) CONFIDENTIAL when completed name has never been to been has never school? Chikonzero chikuru chiri kumutadzisa kuenda kuchikoro chii? What is the main main is the What ( reason why constraints Financial 1. far away too 2. School Ill/sick 3. young too Still 4. Other 5. Date Interviewer Visits Date Result* 1 2 Highest level of education completed. Akadzidza kusvika padanho ripi? 1. Pre–school Pre–school 1. Primary 2. 3. Secondary 4. High School (Non-degreed) 5. Tertiary (Degreed) 6. Tertiary 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kwete Hongu Yes No Have you ever ever Have you attended school? Akamboenda kuchikoro here? 1. 2. If NO Go to B10 1. 2. If Names In B1 Continue Tick In The Box Below And Use Another Sheet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If YES, What is the type of disability?* Kana akaremara, akaremara pai/sei? Interviewer Code Date Supervisor Code Date

) name Kwete Hongu Yes No disabled? disabled? Munhu uyu akaremara here? 1. 2. 1. 2. Is ( and fill in the following information following in the and fill Household HEET S Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za ATA EA Type of Orphan* Mhando yenherera D ENSUS Sector C Relationship to head* Ukama kuna Samusha Enter the code Ward (Those who normally live here) who normally (Those

HILDREN C District 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 Gender* Munhui Age* Zera Province ULNERABLE ULNERABLE V B1 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B2 B8 B9 B10 B11 RPHANS AND Identification O List of members of household Enter the chief respondent’s line number line number respondent’s chief the Enter 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. Full Name Zita rizere A2 e.g. school) feature (nearest details contact Additional A1 Physical Address/Village Name Home Location of Address/Village A1 Physical 3 1 page available in Annex used to be codes indicates * Star B 1. A

54 Appendices 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1. Yes 2. No (circle response) Vana Vana Kana vana CONFIDENTIAL when completed Pane here vana Are there children without there Are to anyone have Do you ) ) Une munhu waunokwanisa Une munhu Vana vari kuenda kuchikoro Vana Mune murwere here mumba a caretaker(s)? with? discuss problems kutaura naye kana une zvinokunetsa here? Munomboshaya kudya here mamwe mazuva? mazuva? kudya here mamwe Munomboshaya consultation), if the children fall sick? here kuvaendesa munokwanisa vakarwara kuchipatara? in the household? muno? are not attending school?attending are not vanofanirwa kunge vachienda kuchikoro vasiri kuenda? zvakakwana here? vane zvipfeko school uniforms? vane mayunifomu here? (For child headed h/holds (For child headed h/holds Are there any children of school going age going of school children Are there any who clothing? adequate have Do the children adequate have children going Do the school Main Indicators of Vulnerability Vulnerability Main Indicators of D D1. How have per day?meals do you many Munowana kudya kangani pazuva? go without food? D2. Are there some days you D3. fees able to pay (transport and D4. Are you medical D5. D6. Is there anyone who has been ill during the past month D7. D8. D9. 8. Other Zvimwewo Farm Equipment * Total chete Pamwe Basa kwenguva diki ramunoshanda Tick one. Tick Farm animals* animals* Farm Zvipfuyo 7. Casual Labour Labour 7. Casual Other Zvimwewo ) Tick the appropriate response Tick the ) nesi enyu enyu 6. Own household? business Mabhizi Interviewer Code Date Supervisor Code Date What type of toilet facility is used by this What typeof toilet facility . Flush Blair Pit Communal None Communal Pit Flush Blair Chimbuzi chamunoshandisa chakaita sei?

C5 5. Flat 6. Shack (specify) 7. Other Health Utano Mari 5. Grants Household detached detached nehurumende yamunopihwa HEET as observed, or asked ( Manufacturing equipment* Manufacturing Michina yekugadzira zvinhu Education Dzidzo S * ATA EA D 4. Pension Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Clothing Zvipfeko Mudyandigere ENSUS Sector Car Chovhamubayi wa C source of energy? of source What is the household’s main the What is 2. Mixed 3. Detached 4. Semi- Ward Moto wamunoshandisa kazhinji C4. ndeupi? Cooking* Lighting* Mugove 3. Wages Phone Runhare Food Zvekudya

HILDREN Nature* Source* Nature* Source* C District They must be functioning - Kurima 2. Farming Enter Amount)

1.Traditional* 1.Traditional* Imba dzechivanhu ( Province ULNERABLE ULNERABLE V Chitofu chemagetsi Chitofu chemagetsi Mari Distance from water source* water Distance from Inhamboi kusvika pamunowana mvura dzimwe nehama nzvimbo yamunopihwa dzinogara kune

Kunobva RPHANS AND Identification Munowanza kuwana marii pamwedzi? O External material assistance material External Mvura yekunwa neyekubikisa Mvura yekunwa neyekubikisa Munowanzoshandisa marii pamwedzi? What is the household’s average monthly income? Other Income Indicators Household Income Household’s Living Conditions Water for drinking and cooking drinking Water for Average monthly expenditure on? Average monthly expenditure Enter Amount) A H/h income H/h income per annum C1. Enter number of C1. Enter structures number of rooms C2. Enter C3. C UnitsDwelling Type accepted) (Multiple response C7. ( C9. C10. C8. 1. Remittances Remittances 1. Main water source * mvura kazhinji stove Television Radio Electric

C6. Enter amount in local currency

55 APPENDIXCHAPTER 4b

Code Sheet – Shona

Question Codes Description Result 1 Completed Mibvunzo yose yakaperakupindurwa 2 Incomplete Mibvunzo haina kupera kupundurwa 3Refusal Vakaramba kupundura mibvunzo 4 Dwellings vacant Pamusha paive pasina munhu 5Abandoned Pamusha hapasisina airikugarapo Sector (land use) 1 Communal Land Kumaruzevha evanhu vatema 2 Small-scale commercial Mapurazi madiki 3 Large-scale commercial Mapurazi makuru 4 Resettlement area Kuminda mirefu 5 Urban Council area 6 Administrative Centres 7 Growth Point 8 Other Urban 9 State land e.g. national parks, safari areas 0 Special category Gender 1 Male Murume 2 Female Mukadzi

Age (as at last birthday) 00 For less than 1 year Anemakore ari pasi perimwe 05 For those between 1 - 5 years Vane makore ari pakati perimwe nemashanu 98 For those aged 98 and above Makore 98 uye kudarikaa Relationship to head of 1 Head Samusha household 2Spouse Mudzimai/Murume 3Child Mwana 4 Sibling Vamwe vana vekuberekwa navo 5 GrandPa – Maternal vabereki vakabereka amai 6 GrandPa – Paternal vabereki vakabereka baba 7 Other relative – Maternal Hama dzekwaamai 8 Other relative – Paternal Hama dzekwababa 9 Employee Mushandi 0 Not related Asiri weukama Orphan 1 Lost a mother akafirwa naamai 2 Lost a father akafira nababa

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 3 Lost both parents akafirwa nevabereki vose Type of Disability 1 Difficulty moving Kunetseka pakufamba 2 Difficulty seeing Kunetseka kuona 3 Difficulty speaking Kunetseka pakutaura 4 Difficulty hearing Kunetseka kunzwa 5 Difficulty learning /mentally retarded Kunonoka kubata zvadzidziswa 6 Chronic fits/ Epilepsy Pfavi/pfari/tsviyo 7 Mental illness Kurwara nepfungwa 8 Other Zvimweo nyatsai kutsanangura

Type of Dwelling 1 Traditional (explain) Imba yedhakakana zvidhina asi yakapfirirwa 2Mixed Dzimba dzedhaka/zvidhina dzakapfirirwa

56 Appendices

neuswa, nedzimwe dzezvidhina dzine denga remarata/mazenge dziri pamusha umwe 3Detached dzimba dzezvidhina dzine denga remarata dzkazvimirira dzoga/dzisina madziroakabatana nedzimwe dzimba 4 Semi-detached Dzimba mbiri dzakasiyana asi dzakabatanidzwa nemadziro 5 Flat/Townhouse Dzimba nhatu kana kudarika dzirimumutsetse kana kudungamidzana pamusoroasi dzichigara mhuri dzakasiyana 6Shack Dzimba (dzisina kusimba) dzakavakwa nezvinhu zvinemutengo uri pasi pasi sematanda, plastics etc. 7 Other Dzimweo dzimba nyatsai kutsanangura Main water source 1 Piped water inside house Mvura yemupombi iri mumba 2 Piped water source outside Mvura yemupombi asi iri panze 3 Communal tap Pombi yemvura inoshandiswa nevanhu vakawanda 4 Well/borehole protected Tsime rakavharwa/chibhorai 5 Well – unprotected Tsime risinakuvharwa 6 River/stream/dam Rwizi/karukova/dzamu 7 Other Zvimweo nyatsai kutsanangura Distance from water 1 On premises Pamusha source 2 Less than 500m Pasi pezvinhambwe 500m 3 500m to 1km Pakati pe500m kusvika 1km 4 More than 1km Kupfuura 1Km Type of toilet facility 1 Flush Chemvura 2 Blair Chimbuzi chine fefa inobuditsa hwemakunze 3Pit Gomba rakacherwa pasirisina fefa 4 Communal Chimbuzi chinoshandiswa nemhuri dzakawanda 5 None Hapana Energy type 1 Wood Huni 2 Paraffin Parafini 3 Electricity Magetsi 4Gas Gasi 5Coal Marasha Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 6 Other Zvimweo nyatsai kutsanangura

57 APPENDIXCHAPTER 5a

Census Ndebele and English Questionnaire .–> ) is no name If ( constraints Financial 1. far away too 2. School Ill/sick 3. related 4. Pregnancy Completed 5. Other 6. longer at school, the main what is reason? Yisiphi isizathu esenze esikhulu wayekela isikolo? ) CONFIDENTIAL when completed name Interviewer Visits Interviewer Visits 1 2 What is the main main is the What reason why ( to been has never school? Yiphi imbangela enkulu ebangele ukuthi angayi esikolo? constraints Financial 1. far away too 2. School Ill/sick 3. young too Still 4. Other 5. Result* Date Date Highest level of education completed. Wafunda wafika kusigaba siphi? 1. Pre–school Primary 2. 3. Secondary 4. High School (Non-degreed) 5. Tertiary (Degreed) 6. Tertiary and fill in the following information and fill in the following 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Yes No Have you ever ever Have you attended school? Wake waya esikolo na? 1. 2. If NO Go to B10 1 (Those who normally live here) (Those If Names In B1 Continue Tick In The Box Below And Use Another Sheet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 If YES, What is the type of disability?* Uma eyisilima ulobulimabani? Ask collectively (Probe)

) HEET HEET S name Yes No disabled? disabled? Umuntu lo uyisilima? 1. 2. Is ( Household Interviewer Code Date Supervisor Code Date ATA D Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za EA ENSUS Type of Orphan* Intandane enjani Above 18 years don’t ask status of orphanhood C Sector Izinto ezinkulu ezingancedisa ukufika kuhle emzini wakho? ezinkulu ezingancedisa Izinto HILDREN Ward C Relationship to head* Uyini yomunini muzi Enter the code Chasisa ukuthi I household kuyini?

District 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 Male kheli lePoso Gender* Ngoyini (Ngumfazi/ Inkazana/ Isilisa/ Umfana 1. 2. Female I ULNERABLE ULNERABLE V Province Age Iminyaka yakho Write age Ungaphi umuzi wakho Ungaphi umuzi RPHANS AND O B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B7 B10 B11 B6 B5 B4 B3 B2 B1 Identification List of members of household A Full Name Ibizo eligcweleyo 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. number line respondent’s chief the Enter Location of Home Home Location of A1 Name Physical Address/Village 3-4 page available in code list used to be codes indicates * Star B 16. A2 e.g. school) feature (nearest details contact Additional

58 Appendices 2. 2. No\hatshi 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 N/A 2 1 1 2 N/A 2 1 N/A 2 1 N/A 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1. Yes\yebo Izibonakaliso Nxa CONFIDENTIAL when completed Kulo muntu owake Kulabantwana Kulabantwana Is there a caretaker(s) for to anyone have Do you ) ) Kulomuntu elimbikelayo nxa Kulomuntu elimbikelayo Abantwana abaya esikolo esikolo Abantwana abaya Kulo oligcinayo Kulo yini kulo umuzi? (circle response) this household? with? discuss problems kulokuhluphayo consultation), if the children fall sick? gula liyenelisa yini ukubahambisa abantwana banga esibhedlela? kanye lokuba bhadalela in the household? past month ukusebenza ngenyanya wagula okokwehluleka ephelileyo kulo umuzi? are not attending school?attending are not abangayiyo? abafanele ukuya esikolo school uniforms? balama unifomu yini? Abantwana balezembatho ezaneleyo na? (For child headed h/holds (For child headed h/holds Are there any children of school going age going of school children Are there any who clothing? adequate have Do the children adequate have children going Do the school Main Indicators of Vulnerability Vulnerability Main Indicators of zokuhlukuluzwa D D1. How have per day?meals do you many ? Lidla kangaki ngelanga go without food? D2. Are there some days you elitshona lingadlanga? lapho Kulamalanga D3. fees able to pay (transport and D4. Are you medical D5. D6. Is there anyone who has been seriously ill during the D7. D8. D9. /Konke Equipment * 8. Other Okunye Total Total Lisebenzisa Lisebenzisa yesikhathi Imisebenzi Imisebenzi esifitshane 1 7. Casual Labour Labour 7. Casual Other Okunye ) Tick the appropriate response Tick the ) 5. Flat 6. Shack (specify) 7. Other 6. Own si lakho used by this household? ekhaya isambusi sohlobo luphi lapha ?Tick one. Ibhizimi Business What is the main type of toilet facility facility of toilet What is the main type .

Flush Blair Pit Communal None Communal Pit Flush Blair Health Impilaka hle C5 HEET HEET S Household Interviewer Code Date Supervisor Code Date 5. Grants labancedisa ATA uhulumende detached detached kuhulumende Imali oyithola Imali oyithola as observed, or asked D ( Education Ekufundise ni Uhlobo * EA Lighting* Lighting* Wokukhanyisa ENSUS C 4. Pension Clothing Izembatho Impentsheni Sector Enter Amount) Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za ( HILDREN source of energy? of source eluwusebenzisayo lomlilo kanengi yiwuphi? What is the household’s main the What is Ward 2. Mixed 3. Detached 4. Semi- C Ukudla Cooking* Wokuphekisa C4. Umholo 3. Wages

Food District Source* Source* Type* Type* They must be functioning - ULNERABLE ULNERABLE Ukulima 2. Farming V Province 1.Traditional 1.Traditional Izindlu zesintu

Imali eliyitholayo /Tshengisa * Distance from water source* water Distance from Ibanga lokuya emanzini kuzihlobo RPHANS AND Imali oyithola Imali oyithola

O Identification Lapho Ngenyanga lithola imali enganani yokusebenzisa? imali Ngenyanga lithola External material assistance material External Imali ojayele ukuyisebenzisa ngenyanga? Amanzi awokupheka lokunatha What is the household’s average monthly income? Other Income Indicators Household Income Household’s Living Conditions Average monthly expenditure on? Average monthly expenditure Water for drinking and cooking drinking Water for A Enter Amount) C6. local currency in amount Enter ngemali yeZimbabwe

Main water source * khona elithola amanzi C1. Enter number of C1. Enter structures number of rooms C2. Enter C3. C UnitsDwelling Type Uhlobo lwezindlu zokuhlala C7. ( C9. C10. C8. 1. Remittances Remittances 1. stove Television Radio Electric Phone Caranimals* equipment* Farm Farm Manufacturing H/h income H/h income per annum

59 APPENDIXCHAPTER 5b

Code Sheet – Ndebele

Question Codes Description Result /Impumela 1 Completed Kuphelele 2 Incomplete Akupheleanga 3Refusal Balile 4 Dwellings vacant Bekungela bantu 5 Abandoned Bathutha Sector (land use)/Indawo ohlezi khona 1 Communal Land - Isabelo 2 Small-scale commercial -Emapulazini amancinyane 3 Large-scale commercial - Emapulazini amkhulu 4 Resettlement area - Indawo eziqunyaqunyiweyo 5 Urban Council area - Emadolobheni 6 Administrative Centres- Kondaba zabantu 7 Growth Point –Emadolobheni asakhulayo 8Other Urban- Amanye amadolobho 9 State land e.g. national parks, safari areas –Indawo zikahulumende 0 Special category Gender Ngumuntu oyini? 1Male Isilisa/Umfana 2 Female Inkazana/Ngumfazi

Age (as at last birthday) 00 For less than 1 year – Ongaphansi komnyaka Iminyaka Iminyaka yokuzalwa 05 For those between 1 - 5 years Labo abalomnyaka owodwa kusiya kwemihlanu 98 For those aged 98 and above – Labo abaleminyaka 98 kusiya phezulu Relationship to head of 1Head Umninimuzi household Ubuhlobo bakho lomnini 2Spouse Umfazi/Indoda muzi 3 Child Ngumntwana 4 Sibling Abanye abantwana ozalwa labo 5 GrandPa – Maternal Abazali abazala umama 6 GrandPa – Paternal Abazali abazala ubaba 7 Other relative – Maternal Ezinye izihlobo zako mama 8 Other relative – Paternal Ezinye izihlobo zako baba

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 9 Employee Isisebenzi 0Not related Kasila buhlobo Type of Orphan Yintandane 1 Lost a mother Wafelwa ngumama enjani? 2 Lost a father Wafelwa ngubaba 3 Lost both parents Wafelwa ngabazali bonke Type of Disability 1 Difficulty moving Ulobunzima ekuhambeni Uhlobo lobulima 2 Difficulty seeing Kaboni kuhle 3 Difficulty speaking Ulobunzima ekukhulumeni/kakhulumi kuhle 4 Difficulty hearing Kezwa kuhle 5 Difficulty learning /mentally retarded Uyaphuza ukubamba izinto nxa efundiswa

60 Appendices

6 Chronic fits/ Epilepsy Izithutwane/izifayifa 7 Mental illness Ugula inqondo 8Other Okunye Type of Dwelling Izindlu 1 Traditional (Built from mud) Izindlu zodaka/izitina zokuhlala ezifulelwe ngotshani 2Mixed Izundlu zodaka/izitina ezifulelwe ngama zenge emzini munye 3Detached Indlu yezitina efulelwe ngamazenge ezimele yodwa/ingabambananga lenye ngomduli 4 Semi-detached Izindlu ezimbili ezitshiyeneyo kodwa zibanjaniswe ngemuduli 5 Flat/Townhouse Izundlu ezintathu loba ezingedlula ezibanjaniswe ngemduli kodwa Zihlala abantu loba imuli ezitshiyeneyo 6Shack Indlu eyakwe ngezinto ezitholakala kuyenaleyo indawo kungaba ngamaplastics loba izigodo ezile nntengo ephansi 7Other Lezi zindawo ezihlanganisa izinto Main water source Lapho 1 Piped water inside house Amanzi empompi asendlini lithola khona amanzi 2 Piped water source outside Amanzi empompi apandle kwendlu 3 Communal tap Impompi yamanzi okunatha esetshenziswa ngabatu a abanengi 4 Well/borehole protected Umthombo wamanzi ovaliwayo 5 Well – unprotected Umtombo wamanzi ongavalwanga 6 River/stream/dam Amanzi avela emfuleni/ loba esifuleni loba edamu 7Other Okunye Distance from water source 1 On premises - ngekhaya Ibanga lamanzi 2 Less than 500m - ngaphansikwe 500m 3 500m to 1km -phakathi kwe 500m kusiya ku1km 4 More than 1km ngaphezu kwe1km Type of toilet facility 1Flush Isambusi samanzi Uhlobo lwesambuzi 2 Blair Isambusi esilo muphongolo okupa umnuko

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za kanye lokuvalela impukani ukuthi zingaphumi 3Pit Igodi loba isambisi esingela sefa loba imphongolo 4 Communal Isambusi esisebenziswa ngabantu abanengi loba imuli 5 None Akula Energy type Uhlobo 1 Wood Inkuni lwamandla eliwasebenzisayo 2 Paraffin Parafini 3 Electricity Amagetsi 4Gas Igasi 5Coal Amalahle 6 Other Okunye

61 APPENDIXCHAPTER 6

Quality Control of Questionnaire Checklist

Quality Control Categories

a. Was section A asked/completed correctly?

b. Was section B asked/completed correctly for all persons in the household?

c. Was section C asked/completed correctly on the questionnaire for the household?

d. Was section D asked/completed correctly on the questionnaire for the household?

e. Was the questionnaire correctly signed and dated?

f. Was the correct procedure followed when identifying all the household members?

g. Was the sticker correctly placed on the dwelling unit?

e. To ensure that their enumerators did not encroach into their fellow team members’ enumeration areas and other teams’ enumeration areas.

Supervisors’ Quality Control Checklist for Questionnaire Administration

Quality Control Categories

a. Was section A completed correctly?

b. Was section B completed correctly for all persons in the household?

c. Was section C completed correctly on the questionnaire for the household?

d. Was section D completed correctly on the questionnaire for the household?

e. Was the questionnaire correctly signed and dated? Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za In addition to this, the possible errors supervisors were likely to make were also highlighted. There were three possible outcomes from a supervisor’s review of five questionnaires:

The enumerator has a perfect record, no error The enumerator has a low to moderate error rate The enumerator has a high error rate

A high error rate is: More than five mistakes on one questionnaire Or more than fifteen mistakes in total on five questionnaires

62 APPENDIX 7

List of Supervisors

Bulilima District Mr Moses Madzadzavara, Mr Timothy Manyinyire, Mr Joseph Chipinduro, Ms Daina Mtabeni, Mr Odwell Muzari, Ms Nontabiso Moyo, Mr Washington Rwodzi, Mr Somandla Dube, Mr KC Mabuza, Mr David Moyo, Mr B Ngwenya, Mr T Pahla, Mr Bongani Ngwenya, Mr N Uteng, Mr Mhlawumbe Ndebele, Mr Taurai Moyo, Mr R Hanyane, Mr Tedius Ndlovu and Mr A Magumise

Mangwe District Mr Timothy Mutsvari, Ms Sitholumusa Shumba, Ms Ropafadzo Manema, Ms Iylit Shereni, Ms Olivia Zenda, Ms Rennie Chioreso, Mr Pamenus Maponga, Mr Godfrey Makanda, Mr Thabani Ncube, Mr Godfrey Matsinde, Mr Artwell Chogugudza, Mr Bekithemba Mguni, Mr Future Imbayago, Mr Mthokozisi Tshuma, Mr Cryton Tebe, Mr Patrick Sibanda, Ms Sidumiso Ncube, Mr Kasaya Banda, Mr David Moyo, Mr Sidile Dingumuzi, Mr K Sibanda

Plumtree District Ms Philisiah Sibanda, Ms Rose Msesengwa, Ms Grace Mtubuki and Ms N Nyondo

Chimanimani District Mr Teramai Moyana, Mrs Kerina Duri, Mr Anderson Munatsi, Mr James Chivenga, Ms Liliosa Chambwera, Ms Josephine Jonato, Mr Pardon Viriri, Mr Enock Mugaviri, Ms Getrude Matonda, Mr John Chakasikwa, Mr Noah Nyongo, Ms Rufaro Nyagomo, Mr Gift Nyamundanda, Ms TH Gumbo, Ms Verna Mazhawidza, Mrs Rose Chibatamoto, Mrs A Karonga, Mrs Elipher Mashange, Mrs Getrude Mutambanengwe, Mr Peter Mafunga, Mr Nicholas Madzivanzira, Mr Aubrey Kamalizeni Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

63 APPENDIXCHAPTER 8

Ward Analysis of Census Results by District

Bulilima, Mangwe and Plumtree

Table 1a: Population distribution of Bulilima by sex

Ward Name Ward Number Males Females Total Tshankwa 1 2 173 2 538 4 711 Gwambe 2 1 765 2 234 3 999 Natane 3 2 919 3 613 6 532 Nyele 4 2 996 3 508 6 504 Matjinge 5 2 529 3 218 5 747 Gala 6 855 1 125 1 980 Masendu 7 3 438 4 535 7 973 Huwana 8 2 241 2 908 5 149 Makhulela 9 2 113 2 523 4 636 Bambadzi 10 1 807 2 214 4 021 Madlambudzi 11 2 302 2 830 5 132 Hingwe 12 2 121 2 686 4 807 Ndolwane 13 2 396 2 936 5 332 Malanswazwi 14 2 646 3 111 5 757 Vulindlela 15 1 068 1 171 2 239 Dombolefu 16 943 972 1 915 Somnene 17 391 386 777 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Norwood 18 180 168 348 Figtree 19 2 251 2 174 4 425 Total 37 134 44 850 81 984

64 Appendices

Table 1b: Population distribution of Mangwe by sex

Ward No Ward Name Males Females Total 1 Empandeni 2 799 3 277 6 076 2 Izimnyama 2 652 2 998 5 650 3 Madabe 4 138 4 815 8 953 4 Tshitshi 2 441 3 057 5 498 5 Ingwizi 2 747 3 389 6 136 6 Sanzukwi 2 715 3 360 6 075 7 Brunapeg 2 171 2 559 4 730 8 Maninji 2 581 3 308 5 889 9 Mambale 2 669 3 344 6 013 10 Bango 2 235 2 784 5 019 11 Marula 1 036 799 1 835 12 Izimnyama S Scale 215 235 450 Total 28 399 33 925 62 324

Table 1c: Population distribution of Plumtree by sex

Ward No Ward Name Males Females Total 1 Ward 1 1 000 1 267 2 267 2 Ward 2 1 325 1 582 2 907 3 Ward 3 948 1 186 2 134 4 Ward 4 853 851 1 704 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Total 4 126 4 886 9 012

65 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 2a: Population distribution of Bulilima by ophanhood status

Ward Name Both parents Mother Father Both parents Total alive dead dead dead Tshankwa 1 912 103 493 193 2 701 Gwambe 1 482 93 454 192 2 221 Natane 2 653 146 696 223 3 718 Nyele 2 608 172 550 299 3 629 Matjinge 1 998 155 577 173 2 903 Gala 558 80 182 88 908 Masendu 3 450 184 828 209 4 671 Huwana 2 387 86 449 140 3 062 Makhulela 1 925 216 457 144 2 742 Bambadzi 1 509 69 501 121 2 200 Madlambudzi 2 209 128 532 171 3 040 Hingwe 1 925 123 589 142 2 779 Ndolwane 2 408 178 421 95 3 102 Malanswazwi 2 417 131 598 187 3 333 Vulindlela 913 50 224 67 1 254 Dombolefu 781 38 123 51 993 Somnene 372 34 58 20 484 Norwood 123 14 22 12 171 Figtree 1 659 86 403 110 2 258 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Total 33 289 2 086 8 157 2 637 46 169

66 Appendices

Table 2b: Population distribution of Mangwe by orphanhood status

Both parents Mother Father Both parents Total Ward Name alive dead dead dead Empandeni 2 746 113 539 136 3 534 Izimnyama 2 226 151 543 210 3 130 Madabe 3 843 235 992 237 5 307 Tshitshi 2 654 116 428 124 3 322 Ingwizi 2 747 123 546 161 3 577 Sanzukwi 2 576 152 515 131 3 374 Brunapeg 2 090 108 472 155 2 825 Maninji 2 653 133 468 99 3 353 Mambale 2 792 123 597 185 3 697 Bango 2 483 80 380 86 3 029 Marula 670 27 153 12 862 Izimnyama Small 134 8 49 5 196 Scale Total 27 614 1 369 5 682 1 541 36 206

Table 2c: Population distribution of Plumtree by orphanhood status

Ward Name Both parents Mother Father Both parents Total alive dead dead dead Ward 1 925 44 147 73 1 189

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 2 1 051 50 176 74 1 351 Ward 3 717 53 203 57 1 030 Ward 4 566 22 105 54 747 Total 3 259 169 631 258 4 317

67 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 3a: Population distribution of Bulilima by ward and disability status

Ward Name Are you disabled? Total

Yes n (%) Tshankwa 423 (9.1) 4 674 Gwambe 348 (8.8) 3 968 Natane 342 (5.3) 6 432 Nyele 356 (5.6) 6 407 Matjinge 234 (4.3) 5 482 Gala 181 (9.4) 1 935 Masendu 620 (7.9) 7 849 Huwana 103 (2.0) 5 167 Makhulela 146 (3.2) 4 622 Bambadzi 418 (10.5) 3 987 Madlambudzi 223 (4.4) 5 104 Hingwe 283 (5.9) 4 767 Ndolwane 221 (4.2) 5 292 Malanswazwi 363 (6.4) 5 665 Vulindlela 111 (5.1) 2 184 Dombolefu 119 (6.3) 1 904 Somnene 75 (7.8) 959 Norwood 14 (4.0) 350 Figtree 215 (4.9) 4 400 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Total 4 795 (5.9) 81 148

68 Appendices

Table 3b: Population distribution of Mangwe by ward and disability status

Ward No Ward Name Are you disabled? Total Yes n (%) 1 Empandeni 310 (5.2) 6 005 2 Izimnyama Communal 417 (7.4) 5 633 3 Madabe 798 (9.0) 8 905 4 Tshitshi 172 (3.1) 5 488 5 Ingwizi 319 (5.2) 6 092 6 Sanzukwi 272 (4.5) 6 017 7 Brunapeg 159 (3.4) 4 726 8 Maninji 223 (3.8) 5 843 9 Mambale 393 (6.6) 5 987 10 Bango 204 (4.0) 5 041 11 Marula 98 (5.3) 1 833 12 Izimnyama S Scale 23 (5.2) 442 Total 3 388 (5.5) 62 012

Table 3c: Population distribution of Plumtree by ward and disability status

Ward No Ward Name Are you disabled? Total Yes n (%) 1 Ward 1 57 (2.5) 2 262 2 Ward 2 58 (2.0) 2 833 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 3 Ward 3 66 (3.2) 2 093 4 Ward 4 60 (3.5) 1 695 Total 241 (2.7) 8 883

69 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 4a: Population distribution of Bulilima by disability status

Ward Name Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty Chronic Mental Multiple Others Total in in seeing in in fits/ illness disability moving speaking hearing epilepsy

Tshankwa 93 76 10 21 14 42 45 103 404 Gwambe 123 62 11 36 20 36 11 43 342 Natane 72 71 19 34 24 25 38 23 306 Nyele 94 75 21 21 5 51 52 25 344 Matjinge 65 53 14 16 6 29 18 15 216 Gala 53 28 7 10 3 14 35 24 174 Masendu 151 140 26 41 6 43 78 112 597 Huwana 25 16 4 2 7 9 9 20 92 Makhulela 41 23 10 16 7 7 9 11 124 Bambadzi 73 76 25 26 21 32 53 95 401 Madlambudzi 74 37 8 10 3 14 35 34 215 Hingwe 83 44 16 27 6 16 24 27 243 Ndolwane 55 53 14 17 4 22 24 16 205 Malanswazwi 71 88 11 22 15 50 43 53 353 Vulindlela 25 16 7 14 3 17 11 11 104 Dombolefu 17 33 11 6 2 12 23 14 118 Somnene 16 17 3 5 0 9 11 11 72 Norwood 6 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 14 Figtree 60 49 8 12 4 17 23 37 210

Total 1 197 960 225 336 151 447 543 675 4 534 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

70 Appendices

Table 4b: Population distribution of Mangwe by disability status

Ward Name Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty Chronic Mental Multiple Others Total in in seeing in in fits/ illness disability moving speaking hearing epilepsy

Empandeni 61 43 22 26 11 59 27 50 299 Izimnyama 132 129 32 30 18 29 24 18 412 Madabe 156 123 34 50 20 68 156 127 734 Tshitshi 35 33 5 10 9 25 44 7 168 Ingwizi 83 69 23 9 11 32 45 28 300 Sanzukwi 79 42 11 11 12 34 27 38 254 Brunapeg 38 32 10 7 4 20 14 18 143 Maninji 55 35 13 14 5 22 32 33 209 Mambale 125 63 31 17 10 53 43 41 383 Bango 61 32 7 9 12 20 29 25 195 Marula 22 21 7 10 6 5 7 18 96 Izimnyama S 4 7 1 6 0 1 5 0 24 Scale

Total 851 629 196 199 118 368 453 403 3 217

Table 4c: Population distribution of Plumtree by disability status

Ward Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty Chronic Mental Multiple Others Total Name in in in in fits/ illness disability moving seeing speaking hearing epilepsy

Ward 1 6 16 4 4 1 2 9 8 50 Ward 2 11 12 1 1 3 5 1 10 44 Ward 3 7 9 2 5 3 5 7 4 42 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 4 13 7 1 3 2 5 7 3 41

Total 37 44 8 13 9 17 24 25 177

71 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 5a: Population distribution of Bulilima by ward and education status

Ward Name Have you ever attended any school? Total

Yes n (%) Tshankwa 3 762 (81.4) 4 619 Gwambe 3 247 (87.5) 3 709 Natane 4 977 (76.7) 6 493 Nyele 5 203 (80.9) 6 434 Matjinge 4 335 (78.2) 5 541 Gala 1 466 (75.3) 1 946 Masendu 6 202 (78.5) 7 905 Huwana 3 385 (65.9) 5 137 Makhulela 3 117 (69.9) 4 458 Bambadzi 2 852 (71.1) 4 010 Madlambudzi 3 905 (77.8) 5 022 Hingwe 3 353 (70.3) 4 771 Ndolwane 3 956 (75.5) 5 237 Malanswazwi 4 465 (81.2) 5 500 Vulindlela 1 745 (78.7) 2 216 Dombolefu 1 480 (77.6) 1 906 Somnene 632 (74.7) 846 Norwood 268 (77.0) 348 Figtree 3 435 (80.8) 4 249 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Total 61 785 (76.9) 80 347

72 Appendices

Table 5b: Population distribution of Mangwe by ward and education status

Ward Ward Name Have you ever attended any school? Total

No Yes n (%) 1 Empandeni 4 817 (81.8) 5 889 2 Izimnyama 4 531 (80.8) 5 609 3 Madabe 7 112 (79.8) 8 912 4 Tshitshi 4 212 (81.6) 5 159 5 Ingwizi 4 672 (76.1) 6 137 6 Sanzukwi 4 617 (80.4) 5 746 7 Brunapeg 3 550 (79.8) 4 448 8 Maninji 4 137 (70.9) 5 832 9 Mambale 4 406 (76.1) 5 792 10 Bango 3 703 (73.8) 5 015 11 Marula 1 301 (71.6) 1 816 12 Izimnyama S 355 (80.5) 441 Scale Total 47 413 (78.0) 60 796

Table 5c: Population distribution of Plumtree by ward and education status

Ward Ward Name Have you ever attended any school? Total

No Yes n (%)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 1 Ward 1 1 905 (84.4) 2 256 2 Ward 2 2 380 (83.2) 2 861 3 Ward 3 1 732 (82.6) 2 097 4 Ward 4 1 345 (80.3) 1 676 Total 7 362 (82.8) 8 890

73 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 6a: Population distribution of Bulilima by education level status

Ward Name Pre- Primary Secondary High Tertiary Tertiary Total Primary school (non- (degreed) degreed) Tshankwa 278 2 624 754 19 18 16 3 709 Gwambe 283 2 165 659 11 20 0 3 138 Natane 280 3 695 897 19 25 17 4 933 Nyele 215 3 503 1 353 19 22 20 5 132 Matjinge 117 2 865 1 196 20 43 9 4 250 Gala 90 696 194 4 0 16 1 000 Masendu 615 4 284 1 189 33 14 2 6 137 Huwana 63 2 732 538 4 16 5 3 358 Makhulela 118 2 105 538 16 15 13 2 805 Bambadzi 149 1 638 607 10 17 6 2 427 Madlambudzi 370 2 749 705 19 35 0 3 878 Hingwe 167 2 549 539 24 16 6 3 301 Ndolwane 233 2 778 815 20 17 6 3 869 Malanswazwi 292 3 093 1 026 30 7 3 4 451 Vulindlela 123 1 312 271 15 8 1 1 730 Dombolefu 48 1 047 327 10 12 1 1 445 Somnene 20 482 120 4 2 4 632 Norwood 1 203 66 0 1 1 272

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Figtree 190 2 272 842 57 26 46 3 433 Total 3 652 42 792 12 636 334 314 172 59 900

74 Appendices

Table 6b: Population distribution of Mangwe by education level status

Ward Name Pre- Primary Secondary High Tertiary Tertiary Total Primary school (non- (degreed) degreed) Empandeni 466 3 604 624 28 28 38 4 788 Izimnyama 337 2 735 1 399 28 8 18 4 525 Madabe 643 4 602 1 633 142 37 27 7 084 Tshitshi 340 2 974 825 9 19 10 4 177 Ingwizi 376 3 187 883 13 80 13 4 552 Sanzukwi 497 3 156 871 20 10 7 4 561 Brunapeg 335 2 355 793 16 37 6 3 542 Maninji 66 3 170 848 16 27 10 4 137 Mambale 165 3 278 902 23 8 9 4 385 Bango 180 2 873 608 13 1 2 3 677 Marula 11 965 287 15 5 1 1 284 Izimnyama S 13 208 116 8 8 3 356 Scale Total 3 429 33 107 9 789 331 268 144 47 068

Table 6c: Population distribution of Plumtree by education level status

Ward Pre- Primary Secondary High Tertiary Tertiary Total Name Primary school (non- (degreed) degreed)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 1 75 852 855 40 35 5 1 862 Ward 2 67 1 078 1 090 54 22 38 2 349 Ward 3 73 693 753 55 36 27 1 637 Ward 4 32 549 622 54 35 45 1 337 Total 247 3 172 3 320 203 128 115 7 185

75 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 7a: Household distribution of Bulilima by source of water

Ward Name Piped Piped Communal Well/ Well/ River/ Others Total water water tap borehole borehole stream/ inside the outside protected unprotected dam house the house

Tshankwa 0 2 1 727 6 175 7 918 Gwambe 2 8 5 732 2 77 10 836 Natane 4 5 6 466 33 727 7 1 248 Nyele 1 2 8 821 149 298 5 1 284 Matjinge 3 0 0 716 57 42 5 1 202 Gala 0 0 25 228 6 147 0 406 Masendu 11 21 31 885 110 479 6 1 543 Huwana 3 2 0 666 58 233 11 973 Makhulela 19 3 1 826 3 45 6 903 Bambadzi 12 22 6 480 25 219 3 767 Madlambudzi 25 7 15 515 9 406 0 977 Hingwe 5 4 18 361 33 421 21 863 Ndolwane 9 2 153 838 2 22 3 1 029 Malanswazwi 8 29 52 250 8 717 0 1 064 Vulindlela 1 2 1 326 0 71 2 403 Dombolefu 1 0 0 325 63 3 1 393 Somnene 0 1 0 104 9 51 0 165 Norwood 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 76 Figtree 111 76 159 57 125 432 6 966

Total 215 186 481 9 399 698 4 944 93 16 016 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

76 Appendices

Table 7b: Household distribution of Mangwe by source of water

Ward Name Piped Piped Communal Well/ Well/ River/ Others Total water water tap borehole borehole stream/ inside the outside protected unprotected dam house the house

Empandeni 62 5 1 588 35 419 4 1 114 Izimnyama 10 10 3 888 40 62 1 1 014 Madabe 19 9 9 1025 2 477 10 1 551 Tshitshi 2 13 36 411 5 561 5 1 033 Ingwizi 158 56 55 742 98 148 5 1 262 Sanzukwi 12 17 10 493 20 411 166 1 129 Brunapeg 6 13 0 665 60 122 2 868 Maninji 12 46 2 269 19 713 5 1 066 Mambale 9 0 0 534 13 458 1 1 015 Bango 22 3 2 375 101 387 0 890 Marula 13 71 54 64 44 245 1 492 Izimnyama S 1 5 1 63 9 12 1 92 Scale

Total 326 248 173 6 117 446 4 015 201 11 526

Table 7c: Household distribution of Plumtree by source of water

Ward Piped Piped water Communal Well/ Well/ River/ Others Total Name water outside the tap borehole borehole stream/ inside the house protected unprotected dam house

Ward 1 442 8 25 10 1 4 0 490

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 2 204 387 145 10 1 4 5 756 Ward 3 319 150 28 12 8 4 5 528 Ward 4 336 123 8 20 1 1 2 491

Total 1 301 668 206 52 11 13 12 2 265

77 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 8a: Household distribution of Bulilima by source of energy for cooking

Ward Name Wood Paraffin Electricity Gas Coal Solar Other Total Tshankwa 880 2 29 3 0 0 4 918 Gwambe 819 6 6 1 0 0 4 836 Natane 1 132 6 3 28 0 72 7 1 248 Nyele 1 271 7 0 2 0 0 4 1 284 Matjinge 1 188 4 0 2 0 0 8 1 202 Gala 402 0 0 1 1 0 2 406 Masendu 1 524 7 0 3 0 2 7 1 543 Huwana 952 4 1 3 0 1 12 973 Makhulela 868 3 2 23 0 0 7 903 Bambadzi 751 7 1 2 1 0 5 767 Madlambudzi 965 1 0 8 0 1 2 977 Hingwe 838 10 0 0 0 0 15 863 Ndolwane 861 2 108 56 0 0 2 1 029 Malanswazwi 1 057 1 0 3 1 0 2 1 064 Vulindlela 381 16 0 0 0 0 6 403 Dombolefu 387 0 0 5 0 0 1 393 Somnene 164 1 0 0 0 0 0 165 Norwood 21 55 0 0 0 0 0 76 Figtree 841 1 116 2 1 1 4 966 Total 15 302 133 266 142 4 77 92 16 016 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

78 Appendices

Table 8b: Household distribution of Mangwe by source of energy for cooking

Ward Name Wood Paraffin Electricity Gas Coal Solar Other Total Empandeni 1 029 5 54 8 0 9 9 1 114 Izimnyama 983 4 22 3 0 0 2 1 014 Madabe 1 500 7 26 6 0 1 11 1 551 Tshitshi 1 023 3 1 2 0 0 4 1 033 Ingwizi 1 146 12 54 46 0 0 4 1 262 Sanzukwi 802 24 25 219 1 46 12 1 129 Brunapeg 854 2 6 5 0 0 1 868 Maninji 945 17 1 49 6 43 5 1 066 Mambale 996 13 2 1 0 1 2 1 015 Bango 887 1 0 1 0 0 1 890 Marula 463 1 24 2 0 0 2 492 Izimnyama S 84 0 6 1 1 0 0 92 Scale Total 10 712 89 221 343 8 100 53 11 526

Table 8c: Household distribution of Plumtree by source of energy for cooking

Ward Name Wood Paraffin Electricity Gas Coal Solar Other Total Ward 1 68 7 390 2 1 0 22 490 Ward 2 169 23 558 0 2 0 4 756

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 3 129 9 389 0 0 1 0 528 Ward 4 209 13 264 1 0 0 4 491 Total 575 52 1 601 3 3 1 30 2 265

79 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 9a: Household distribution of Bulilima by source of energy for lighting

Ward Name Wood Paraffin Electricity Gas Coal Solar Other Total Tshankwa 28 607 31 1 0 5 246 918 Gwambe 26 593 12 0 1 3 201 836 Natane 149 896 0 3 0 3 197 1 248 Nyele 117 910 4 0 1 7 245 1 284 Matjinge 63 841 1 0 4 19 247 1 202 Gala 33 267 2 0 0 6 98 406 Masendu 86 1 203 9 1 2 7 235 1 543 Huwana 61 790 1 0 2 4 115 973 Makhulela 93 558 2 1 0 10 239 903 Bambadzi 49 561 10 2 0 5 140 767 Madlambudzi 430 524 2 1 3 3 314 977 Hingwe 120 664 0 0 1 0 78 863 Ndolwane 80 897 2 1 7 3 69 1 029 Malanswazwi 84 658 0 1 0 7 314 1 064 Vulindlela 29 337 2 0 0 2 33 403 Dombolefu 10 268 1 1 0 7 106 393 Somnene 6 110 2 0 1 3 43 165 Norwood 12 60 0 0 0 0 4 76 Figtree 117 451 145 0 2 6 245 966 Total 1 293 11 165 226 12 24 100 3 196 16 016 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

80 Appendices

Table 9b: Household distribution of Mangwe by source of energy for lighting

Ward Name Wood Paraffin Electricity Gas Coal Solar Other Total Empandeni 31 820 61 2 1 14 185 1 114 Izimnyama 63 736 31 1 2 6 175 1 014 Madabe 105 917 29 0 3 13 484 1 551 Tshitshi 43 612 1 2 0 4 371 1 033 Ingwizi 111 741 3 2 1 12 392 1 262 Sanzukwi 133 475 9 10 1 9 492 1 129 Brunapeg 20 321 8 0 2 11 506 868 Maninji 54 433 1 0 2 9 567 1 066 Mambale 47 558 0 1 4 11 392 1 015 Bango 14 235 1 1 1 13 625 890 Marula 61 255 43 0 2 3 128 492 Izimnyama S 2 72 7 0 0 1 10 92 Scale Total 684 6 175 194 19 19 106 4 329 11 526

Table 9c: Household distribution of Plumtree by source of energy for lighting

Ward Name Wood Paraffin Electricity Gas Coal Solar Other Total Ward 1 9 47 418 0 0 0 16 490 Ward 2 15 48 662 0 17 0 14 756 Ward 3 13 68 419 1 0 0 27 528

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 4 14 97 312 0 0 1 67 491 Total 51 260 1 811 1 17 1 124 2 265

81 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 10a: Household distribution of Bulilima by toilet facility

Ward Name Flush Blair Pit Communal None Total Tshankwa 1 330 58 1 528 918 Gwambe 10 465 20 38 303 836 Natane 2 386 17 0 843 1 248 Nyele 2 502 23 6 751 1 284 Matjinge 26 570 11 8 587 1 202 Gala 0 155 6 1 244 406 Masendu 2 340 36 2 1 163 1 543 Huwana 2 200 23 0 748 973 Makhulela 1 168 23 2 709 903 Bambadzi 93 165 9 0 500 767 Madlambudzi 29 237 10 9 692 977 Hingwe 6 207 31 0 619 863 Ndolwane 7 264 33 6 719 1 029 Malanswazwi 12 365 30 5 652 1 064 Vulindlela 5 309 2 0 87 403 Dombolefu 2 344 10 1 36 393 Somnene 13 53 8 0 91 165 Norwood 0 33 0 0 43 76 Figtree 134 131 23 62 616 966 Total 347 5 224 373 141 9 931 16 016 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

82 Appendices

Table 10b: Household distribution of Mangwe by toilet facility

Ward Name Flush Blair Pit Communal None Total Empandeni 69 448 14 5 578 1 114 Izimnyama 8 486 37 0 483 1 014 Madabe 23 734 32 58 704 1 551 Tshitshi 2 368 74 14 575 1 033 Ingwizi 55 539 59 2 607 1 262 Sanzukwi 8 352 64 5 700 1 129 Brunapeg 4 484 15 6 359 868 Maninji 8 505 11 0 542 1 066 Mambale 3 313 122 1 576 1 015 Bango 2 470 14 1 403 890 Marula 74 89 16 0 313 492 Izimnyama S 1 71 1 0 19 92 Scale Total 257 4 859 459 92 5 859 11 526

Table 10c: Household distribution of Plumtree by toilet facility

Ward Name Flush Blair Pit Communal None Total Ward 1 433 6 0 6 45 490 Ward 2 548 16 17 160 15 756 Ward 3 399 19 8 60 42 528

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 4 383 41 16 10 41 491 Total 1 763 82 41 263 143 2 265

83 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 11a: Household distribution of Bulilima by vulnerability status

Ward Name Less vulnerable Moderately Highly vulnerable Total vulnerable Tshankwa 662 232 24 918 Gwambe 558 251 27 836 Natane 902 327 19 1 248 Nyele 923 340 21 1 284 Matjinge 800 368 34 1 202 Gala 284 117 5 406 Masendu 1 049 460 34 1 543 Huwana 652 309 12 973 Makhulela 528 319 56 903 Bambadzi 545 208 14 767 Madlambudzi 667 295 15 977 Hingwe 591 248 24 863 Ndolwane 820 207 2 1 029 Malanswazwi 836 212 16 1 064 Vulindlela 202 189 12 403 Dombolefu 306 82 5 393 Somnene 106 55 4 165 Norwood 55 19 2 76 Figtree 717 225 24 966 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Total 11 203 4 463 350 16 016

84 Appendices

Table 11b: Household distribution of Mangwe by vulnerability status

Ward Name Less vulnerable Moderately Highly vulnerable Total vulnerable Empandeni 638 436 40 1 114 Izimnyama 684 295 35 1 014 Madabe 836 620 95 1 551 Tshitshi 727 285 21 1 033 Ingwizi 891 345 26 1 262 Sanzukwi 921 199 9 1 129 Brunapeg 671 186 11 868 Maninji 667 364 35 1 066 Mambale 597 377 41 1 015 Bango 514 346 30 890 Marula 405 84 3 492 Izimnyama S 79 13 0 92 Scale Total 7 630 3 550 346 11 526

Table 11c: Household distribution of Plumtree by vulnerability status

Ward Name Less vulnerable Moderately Highly vulnerable Total vulnerable Ward 1 429 58 3 490 Ward 2 678 75 3 756 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 3 459 64 5 528 Ward 4 436 55 0 491 Total 2 002 252 11 2 265

85 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 12a: Household distribution of Bulilima by number of meals per day and by ward

Ward Name How many meals a day do you usually have? Total

1 meal a day At least 2 meals a day Tshankwa 536 (58.4) 382 918 Gwambe 479 (57.3) 357 836 Natane 765 (61.3) 483 1 248 Nyele 711 (55.4) 573 1 284 Matjinge 517 (43.0) 685 1 202 Gala 182 (81.3) 224 406 Masendu 812 (52.6) 731 1 543 Huwana 354 (36.4) 619 973 Makhulela 366 (40.5) 537 903 Bambadzi 294 (38.3) 473 767 Madlambudzi 430 (44.0) 547 977 Hingwe 386 (44.7) 477 863 Ndolwane 503 (48.9) 526 1 029 Malanswazwi 580 (54.5) 484 1 064 Vulindlela 191 (47.4) 212 403 Dombolefu 307 (78.1) 86 393 Somnene 118 (71.5) 47 165 Norwood 59 (77.6) 17 76 Figtree 693 (71.7) 273 966 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Total 8 283 (51.7) 7 733 16 016

86 Appendices

Table 12b: Household distribution of Mangwe by number of meals per day and ward

Ward Ward Name How many meals a day do you usually have? Total

No 1 meal a day At least 2 meals a day (V) (NV) 1 Empandeni 574 (51.5) 540 1 114 2 Izimnyama 571 (56.3) 443 1 014 3 Madabe 678 (43.7) 873 1 551 4 Tshitshi 485 (47.0) 548 1 033 5 Ingwizi 856 (67.8) 406 1 262 6 Sanzukwi 573 (50.8) 556 1 129 7 Brunapeg 419 (48.3) 449 868 8 Maninji 369 (34.6) 697 1 066 9 Mambale 307 (30.2) 708 1 015 10 Bango 353 (39.7) 537 890 11 Marula 377 (76.6) 115 492 12 Izimnyama S Scale 74 (80.4) 18 92 Total 5 636 (48.9) 5 890 11 526

Table 12c: Household distribution of Plumtree by number of meals per day and ward

Ward Name How many meals a day do you usually have? Total

1 meal a day At least 2 meals a day (V) (NV)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ward 1 417 (85.1) 73 490 Ward 2 624 (82.5) 132 756 Ward 3 401 (75.9) 127 528 Ward 4 378 (77.0) 113 491 Total 1 820 (80.4) 445 2 265

87 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 13a: Household distribution of Bulilima by ward and whether they go for some days without food

Ward Name Do you go for some days without food? Total

Yes n (%) Tshankwa 265 (28.9) 918 Gwambe 215 (25.7) 836 Natane 399 (32.0) 1 248 Nyele 369 (28.7) 1 284 Matjinge 292 (24.3) 1 202 Gala 95 (23.4) 406 Masendu 349 (22.6) 1 543 Huwana 271 (27.9) 973 Makhulela 224 (24.8) 903 Bambadzi 171 (22.3) 767 Madlambudzi 310 (31.7) 977 Hingwe 279 (32.3) 863 Ndolwane 267 (25.9) 1 029 Malanswazwi 262 (24.6) 1 064 Vulindlela 89 (22.1) 403 Dombolefu 194 (49.4) 393 Somnene 59 (35.8) 165 Norwood 38 (50.0) 76

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Figtree 244 (25.3) 966 Total 4 392 (27.4) 16 016

88 Appendices

Table 13b: Household distribution of Mangwe by ward and whether they go for some days without food

Ward No Ward Name Do you go for some days without food? Total

Yes n (%) 1 Empandeni 847 (76.0) 1 114 2 Izimnyama 808 (79.7) 1 014 3 Madabe 1 274 (82.1) 1 551 4 Tshitshi 793 (76.8) 1 033 5 Ingwizi 855 (67.7) 1 262 6 Sanzukwi 877 (77.7) 1 129 7 Brunapeg 617 (71.1) 868 8 Maninji 843 (79.1) 1 066 9 Mambale 884 (87.1) 1 015 10 Bango 762 (85.6) 890 11 Marula 321 (65.2) 492 12 Izimnyama S Scale 47 (51.1) 92 Total 8 928 (77.5) 11 526

Table 13c: Household distribution of Plumtree by ward and whether they go for some days without food

Ward No Ward Name Do you go for some days without food? Total

Yes n (%)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 1 Ward 1 251 (51.2) 490 2 Ward 2 459 (60.7) 756 3 Ward 3 273 (51.7) 528 4 Ward 4 205 (88.0) 233 Total 1 188 (59.2) 2 007

89 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 14a: Household distribution of Bulilima by ward and whether there are children of school- going age who are not going to school

Ward Name Do you have children of school-going age who are not Total going to school?

Yes n (%) Tshankwa 698 (76.0) 918 Gwambe 615 (73.6) 836 Natane 912 (73.1) 1 248 Nyele 965 (75.2) 1 284 Matjingei 978 (81.4) 1 202 Gala 308 (75.9) 406 Masendu 1 044 (67.7) 1 543 Huwana 715 (73.5) 973 Makhulela 592 (65.6) 903 Bambadzi 554 (72.2) 767 Madlambudzi 663 (67.9) 977 Hingwe 582 (67.4) 863 Ndolwane 750 (72.9) 1 029 Malanswazwi 775 (72.8) 1 064 Vulindlela 293 (72.7) 403 Dombolefu 274 (69.7) 393 Somnene 123 (74.5) 165

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Norwood 59 (77.6) 76 Figtree 764 (79.1) 966 Total 11 664 (72.8) 16 016

90 Appendices

Table 14b: Household distribution of Mangwe by ward and whether there are children of school- going age who are not going to school

Ward No Ward Name Do you have children of school-going age who Total are not going to school?

Yes n (%) 1 Empandeni 300 (26.9) 1 114 2 Izimnyama 229 (22.6) 1 014 3 Madabe 421 (27.1) 1 551 4 Tshitshi 255 (24.7) 1 033 5 Ingwizi 305 (24.2) 1 262 6 Sanzukwi 157 (13.9) 1 129 7 Brunapeg 191 (22.0) 868 8 Maninji 323 (30.3) 1 066 9 Mambale 289 (28.5) 1 015 10 Bango 282 (31.7) 890 11 Marula 68 (13.8) 492 12 Izimnyama S 13 (14.1) 92 Scale Total 2 833 (24.6) 11 526

Table 14c: Household distribution of Plumtree by ward and whether there are children of school- going age who are not going to school

Ward No Ward Name Do you have children of school-going age who are Total

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za not going to school?

Yes n (%) 1 Ward 1 417 (85.1) 490 2 Ward 2 687 (90.9) 756 3 Ward 3 473 (89.6) 528 4 Ward 4 421 (85.7) 491 Total 1 998 (88.2) 2 265

91 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 15a: Household distribution of Bulilima by ward and whether they are able to pay for medical fees and consultation if the children fall sick

Ward Name Able to pay medical fees and consultation when sick Total

No n (%) Tshankwa 325 (35.4) 918 Gwambe 462 (55.3) 836 Natane 491 (39.3) 1 248 Nyele 695 (54.1) 1 284 Matjinge 628 (52.2) 1 202 Gala 183 (45.1) 406 Masendu 717 (46.5) 1 543 Huwana 499 (51.3) 973 Makhulela 430 (47.6) 903 Bambadzi 173 (22.6) 767 Madlambudzi 500 (51.2) 977 Hingwe 273 (31.6) 863 Ndolwane 336 (32.7) 1 029 Malanswazwi 234 (22.0) 1 064 Vulindlela 279 (69.2) 403 Dombolefu 179 (45.5) 393 Somnene 133 (80.6) 165 Norwood 43 (56.6) 76

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Figtree 391 (40.5) 966 Total 7 401 (43.5) 16 016

92 Appendices

Table 15b: Household distribution of Mangwe by ward and whether they are able to pay for medical fees and consultation if the children fall sick

Ward No Ward Name Able to pay medical fees and Total consultation if children fall sick

No n (%) 1 Empandeni 798 (71.6) 1 114 2 Izimnyama 491 (48.4) 1 014 3 Madabe 973 (62.7) 1 551 4 Tshitshi 480 (46.5) 1 033 5 Ingwizi 669 (53.0) 1 262 6 Sanzukwi 317 (28.1) 1 129 7 Brunapeg 344 (39.6) 868 8 Maninji 490 (46.0) 1 066 9 Mambale 561 (55.3) 1 015 10 Bango 463 (52.0) 890 11 Marula 207 (42.1) 492 12 Izimnyama S 28 (30.4) 92 Scale Total 5 821 (50.5) 11 526

Table 15c: Household distribution of Plumtree by ward and whether they are able to pay for medical fees and consultation if the children fall sick

Ward No Ward Able to pay medical fees and Total

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Name consultation if children fall sick

No n (%) 1 Ward 1 174 (35.5) 490 2 Ward 2 230 (30.4) 756 3 Ward 3 219 (41.5) 528 4 Ward 4 158 (32.2) 491 Total 781 (34.5) 2 265

93 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 16a: Household distribution of Bulilima by ward and whether the children have adequate clothing

Ward Name Do the children have adequate clothing? Total

No n (%) Tshankwa 648 (70.6) 918 Gwambe 619 (74.0) 836 Natane 877 (70.3) 1248 Nyele 910 (70.9) 1284 Matjinge 879 (73.1) 1202 Gala 321 (79.1) 406 Masendu 1 049 (68.0) 1543 Huwana 743 (76.4) 973 Makhulela 684 (75.7) 903 Bambadzi 535 (69.8) 767 Madlambudzi 727 (74.4) 977 Hingwe 708 (82.0) 863 Ndolwane 681 (66.2) 1 029 Malanswazwi 779 (73.2) 1 064 Vulindlela 302 (74.9) 403 Dombolefu 251 (63.9) 393 Somnene 121 (73.3) 165 Norwood 48 (63.2) 76

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Figtree 600 (62.1) 966 Total 11 482 (71.7) 16 016

94 Appendices

Table 16b: Household distribution of Mangwe by ward and whether the children have adequate clothing

Ward No Ward Name Do the children have adequate clothing? Total

No n (%) 1 Empandeni 819 (73.5) 1 114 2 Izimnyama 723 (71.3) 1 014 3 Madabe 1 234 (79.6) 1 551 4 Tshitshi 774 (74.9) 1 033 5 Ingwizi 798 (63.2) 1 262 6 Sanzukwi 700 (62.0) 1 129 7 Brunapeg 576 (66.4) 868 8 Maninji 774 (72.6) 1 066 9 Mambale 771 (76.0) 1 015 10 Bango 700 (78.7) 890 11 Marula 238 (48.4) 492 12 Izimnyama S Scale 46 (50.0) 92 Total 8 153 (70.7) 11 526

Table 16c: Household distribution of Plumtree by ward and whether the children have adequate clothing

Ward No Ward Name Do the children have adequate clothing? Total

No n (%) 1 Ward 1 218 (44.5) 490 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 2 Ward 2 359 (47.5) 756 3 Ward 3 274 (51.9) 528 4 Ward 4 196 (39.9) 491 Total 1 047 (46.2) 2 265

95 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 17a: Household distribution of Bulilima by ward and whether there was anyone seriously ill in the household in the past month

Ward Name Was there anyone in the household who was Total seriously ill in the past month?

Yes n (%) Tshankwa 618 (67.3) 918 Gwambe 565 (67.6) 836 Natane 793 (63.5) 1 248 Nyele 901 (70.2) 1 284 Matjinge 948 (78.9) 1 202 Gala 304 (74.9) 406 Masendu 1 116 (72.3) 1 543 Huwana 858 (88.2) 973 Makhulela 649 (71.9) 903 Bambadzi 446 (58.1) 767 Madlambudzi 696 (71.2) 977 Hingwe 555 (64.3) 863 Ndolwane 814 (79.1) 1 029 Malanswazwi 733 (68.9) 1 064 Vulindlela 258 (64.0) 403 Dombolefu 260 (66.2) 393 Somnene 106 (64.2) 165 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Norwood 33 (43.4) 76 Figtree 611 (63.3) 966 Total 11 264 (70.3) 16 016

96 Appendices

Table 17b: Household distribution of Mangwe by ward and whether there was anyone seriously ill in the household in the past month

Ward No Ward Name Was there anyone in the household who was Total seriously ill in the past month?

Yes n( %) 1 Empandeni 739 (66.3) 1 114 2 Izimnyama 619 (61.0) 1 014 3 Madabe 929 (59.9) 1 551 4 Tshitshi 751 (72.7) 1 033 5 Ingwizi 912 (72.3) 1 262 6 Sanzukwi 799 (70.8) 1 129 7 Brunapeg 635 (73.2) 868 8 Maninji 769 (72.1) 1 066 9 Mambale 667 (65.7) 1 015 10 Bango 611 (68.7) 890 11 Marula 325 (66.1) 492 12 Izimnyama S 52 (56.5) 92 Scale Total 7 808 (67.7) 11 526

Table 17c: Household distribution of Plumtree by ward and whether there was anyone seriously ill in the household in the past month

Ward Ward Name Was there anyone in the household who was Total

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za No seriously ill in the past month?

Yes n (%) 1 Ward 1 322 (65.7) 490 2 Ward 2 556 (73.5) 756 3 Ward 3 392 (74.2) 528 4 Ward 4 395 (80.4) 491 Total 1 665 (73.5) 2 265

97 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 18a: Household distribution of Bulilima by ward and whether schoolchildren have adequate school uniform

Ward Name Do schoolchildren have adequate school uniform? Total

No n (%) Tshankwa 433 (47.2) 918 Gwambe 387 (46.3) 836 Natane 638 (51.1) 1 248 Nyele 570 (44.4) 1 284 Matjinge 499 (41.5) 1 202 Gala 218 (53.7) 406 Masendu 857 (55.5) 1 543 Huwana 575 (59.1) 973 Makhulela 390 (43.2) 903 Bambadzi 360 (46.9) 767 Madlambudzi 513 (52.5) 977 Hingwe 537 (62.2) 863 Ndolwane 515 (50.0) 1 029 Malanswazwi 483 (45.4) 1 064 Vulindlela 239 (59.3) 403 Dombolefu 159 (40.5) 393 Somnene 94 (57.0) 165 Norwood 37 (48.7) 76

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Figtree 413 (42.8) 966 Total 7 917 (49.4) 16 016

98 Appendices

Table 18b: Household distribution of Mangwe by ward and whether schoolchildren have adequate school uniform

Ward Ward Name Do schoolchildren have adequate school uniform? Total

No No n (%) 1 Empandeni 682 (61.2) 1 114 2 Izimnyama 476 (46.9) 1 014 3 Madabe 919 (59.3) 1 551 4 Tshitshi 572 (55.4) 1 033 5 Ingwizi 610 (48.3) 1 262 6 Sanzukwi 411 (36.4) 1 129 7 Brunapeg 342 (39.4) 868 8 Maninji 548 (51.4) 1 066 9 Mambale 506 (49.9) 1 015 10 Bango 510 (57.3) 890 11 Marula 138 (28.0) 492 12 Izimnyama S Scale 27 (29.3) 92 Total 5 741 (49.8) 11 526

Table 18c: Household distribution of Plumtree by ward and whether schoolchildren have adequate school uniform

Ward No Ward Name Do schoolchildren have adequate school uniform? Total

No n (%)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 1 Ward 1 125 (25.5) 490 2 Ward 2 261 (34.5) 756 3 Ward 3 179 (33.9) 528 4 Ward 4 115 (23.4) 491 Total 680 (30.0) 2 265

99 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 19a: Household distribution of Bulilima by ward and whether there are children without a caretaker among child-headed households

Ward Name Is there a caretaker for the household? Total

No n (%) Tshankwa 16 (57.1) 28 Gwambe 11 (45.8) 24 Natane 32 (71.1) 45 Nyele 38 (77.6) 49 Matjinge 139 (50.0) 278 Gala 7 (18.4) 38 Masendu 52 (81.3) 64 Huwana 8 (72.7) 11 Makhulela 206 (56.3) 366 Bambadzi 4 (40.0) 10 Madlambudzi 12 (60.0) 20 Hingwe 23 (38.3) 60 Ndolwane 8 (44.4) 18 Malanswazwi 8 (72.7) 11 Vulindlela 18 (52.9) 34 Dombolefu 7 (53.9) 13 Somnene 0 (0.0) 1 Norwood 0 (0.0) 1

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Figtree 10 (55.6) 18 Total 599 (55.0) 1 089

100 Appendices

Table 19b: Household distribution of Mangwe by ward and whether they are children without a caretaker among child-headed households

Ward No Ward Name Is there a caretaker for the household? Total

No n (%) 1 Empandeni 8 (50.0) 16 2 Izimnyama 8 (40.0) 20 3 Madabe 15 (42.9) 35 4 Tshitshi 11 (42.3) 26 5 Ingwizi 41 (74.6) 55 6 Sanzukwi 18 (66.7) 27 7 Brunapeg 12 (63.2) 19 8 Maninji 9 (50.0) 18 9 Mambale 12 (80.0) 15 10 Bango 14 (63.6) 22 11 Marula 5 (62.5) 8 12 Izimnyama S Scale 0 (0.0) 0 Total 153 (58.6) 261

Table 19c: Household distribution of Plumtree by ward and whether they are children without a caretaker among child-headed households

Ward No Ward Name Is there a caretaker for the household? Total

No n (%)

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 1 Ward 1 40 (58.8) 68 2 Ward 2 5 (41.7) 12 3 Ward 3 8 (44.4) 18 4 Ward 4 2 (33.3) 6 Total 55 (52.9) 104

101 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 20a: Household distribution of Bulilima by ward and whether the children have anyone to discuss problems with among child-headed households

Ward Name Is there anyone to discuss problems with? Total

No n (%) Tshankwa 8 (0.9) 918 Gwambe 7 (0.8) 836 Natane 6 (0.5) 1 248 Nyele 3 (0.2) 1 284 Matjinge 85 (7.1) 1 202 Gala 22 (5.4) 406 Masendu 4 (0.3) 1 543 Huwana 3 (0.3) 973 Makhulela 142 (15.7) 903 Bambadzi 4 (0.5) 767 Madlambudzi 1 (0.1) 977 Hingwe 37 (4.3) 863 Ndolwane 3 (0.3) 1 029 Malanswazwi 2 (0.2) 1 064 Vulindlela 13 (3.2) 403 Dombolefu 3 (0.8) 393 Somnene 1 (0.6) 165 Norwood 0 (0.0) 76

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Figtree 3 (0.3) 966 Total 347 (2.2) 16 016

102 Appendices

Table 20b: Household distribution of Mangwe by ward and whether the children have anyone to discuss problems with among child-headed households

Ward No Ward Name Is there anyone to discuss problems with? Total

No n (%) 1 Empandeni 1 (0.1) 1 114 2 Izimnyama 3 (0.3) 1 014 3 Madabe 10 (0.6) 1 551 4 Tshitshi 4 (0.4) 1 033 5 Ingwizi 9 (0.7) 1 262 6 Sanzukwi 3 (0.3) 1 129 7 Brunapeg 2 (0.2) 868 8 Maninji 3 (0.3) 1 066 9 Mambale 4 (0.4) 1 015 10 Bango 5 (0.6) 890 11 Marula 4 (0.8) 492 12 Izimnyama S Scale 0 (0.0) 92 Total 48 (0.4) 11 526

Table 20c: Household distribution of Plumtree by ward and whether the children have anyone to discuss problems with among child-headed households

Ward No Ward Name Is there anyone to discuss problems with? Total

No n (%) 1 Ward 1 28 (5.7) 490 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 2 Ward 2 6 (0.8) 756 3 Ward 3 1 (0.2) 526 4 Ward 4 2 (0.4) 491 Total 37 (1.6) 2 265

103 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Chimanimani District Table 1: Population distribution of Chimanimani by sex

Ward No Ward Name Males Females Total 1 Cashel 2 036 2 062 4 098 2 Mhandarume 1 408 1 573 2 982 3 Chakohwa 2 215 2 479 4 694 4 Guhune 3 173 3 538 6 711 5 Rupise 2 126 2 392 4 519 6 Chayamiti 1 432 1 730 3 162 7 Shinja Resettlement 2 801 2 894 5 696 8 Nyanyadzi 3 372 3 815 7 187 9 Shinja Communal 711 849 1 560 10 Chikukwa 1 127 1 328 2 455 11 Martin 517 472 989 12 Tilbury 1 932 1 316 3 248 13 Nyahode 4 156 4 417 8 573 14 Charter 1 528 1 026 2 554 15 Chimanimani 1 559 1 684 3 243 16 Gwindingwi 4 704 4 568 9 272 17 Biriwiri 2 322 2 703 5 025 18 Mhakwe 1 194 1 341 2 535 19 Chikwakwa 1 525 1 701 3 226 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 20 Changazi 3 333 3 651 6 984 21 Ngorima A 2 666 3 068 5 734 22 Ngorima B 2 819 3 481 6 300 23 Manyuseni 2 852 3 523 6 375 Total 51 509 55 611 107 120

104 Appendices

Table 2: Population distribution of Chimanimani by orphanhood status

Ward Ward Name Both Mother Father Both Total No parents dead Dead parents alive dead 1 Cashel 1 569 85 296 103 2 053 2 Mhandarume 1 225 73 232 107 1 637 3 Chakohwa 1 689 117 493 192 2 491 4 Guhune 2 254 119 690 266 3 329 5 Rupise 1 808 111 500 157 2 576 6 Chayamiti 927 87 354 196 1 564 7 Shinja 2 185 124 400 196 2 905 Resettlement 8 Nyanyadzi 2 284 198 671 287 3 440 9 Shinja Communal 470 31 152 129 782 10 Chikukwa 955 48 283 90 1 376 11 Martin 332 18 102 15 467 12 Tilbury 966 42 186 39 1 233 13 Nyahode 3 740 187 766 324 5 017 14 Charter 731 50 144 58 983 15 Chimanimani 1 189 38 306 79 1 612 16 Gwindingwi 2 979 189 602 168 3 938 17 Biriwiri 1 573 92 480 227 2 372 18 Mhakwe 952 48 274 106 1 380 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 19 Chikwakwa 1 131 112 366 138 1 747 20 Changazi 2 709 155 813 299 3 976 21 Ngorima A 2 230 174 657 202 3 263 22 Ngorima B 2 470 150 1 445 236 4 301 23 Manyuseni 2 173 130 484 233 3 020 Total 38 541 2 378 10 696 3 847 55 462

105 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 3: Population distribution of Chimanimani by ward and disability status

Ward No Ward Name Are you disabled? Total

Yes n (%) 1 Cashel 92 (2.3) 4 019 2 Mhandarume 147 (4.9) 3 000 3 Chakohwa 196 (4.3) 4 510 4 Guhune 257 (3.9) 6 632 5 Rupise 283 (6.3) 4 508 6 Chayamiti 269 (8.7) 3 093 7 Shinja Resettlement 328 (6.0) 5 446 8 Nyanyadzi 264 (4.0) 6 533 9 Shinja Communal 96 (6.2) 1 559 10 Chikukwa 112 (4.6) 2 423 11 Martin 40 (4.1) 981 12 Tilbury 149 (4.6) 3 219 13 Nyahode 444 (5.2) 8 589 14 Charter 207 (8.1) 2 555 15 Chimanimani 108 (3.3) 3 247 16 Gwindingwi 471 (5.4) 9 164 17 Biriwiri 218 (4.6) 4 956 18 Mhakwe 83 (3.4) 2 493 19 Chikwakwa 161 (5.5) 3 082 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 20 Changazi 477 (7.3) 6 967 21 Ngorima A 279 (5.1) 5 761 22 Ngorima B 325 (5.5) 6 228 23 Manyuseni 307 (5.2) 6 227 Total 5 313 (5.3) 105 192

106 Appendices

Table 4: Population distribution of Chimanimani by disability status

Ward Name Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty Chronic Mental Multiple Others Total in moving in seeing in in hearing fits/ illness disability speaking epilepsy

Cashel 25 17 3 6 3 7 10 9 80 Mhandarume 51 17 6 6 3 8 29 18 138 Chakohwa 48 35 10 8 1 22 19 22 165 Guhune 57 46 10 18 3 41 25 25 225 Rupise 78 62 3 19 4 27 33 38 264 Chayamiti 58 59 11 25 5 20 44 29 251 Shinja 74 60 10 15 9 34 37 67 306 resettlement Nyanyadzi 57 46 12 16 6 31 19 41 228 Shinja 28 19 4 5 1 14 12 9 92 Communal Chikukwa 30 21 9 14 2 6 9 19 110 Martin 6 6 2 6 1 4 3 11 39 Tilbury 36 15 11 7 1 1 8 59 138 Nyahode 101 58 28 48 11 34 38 119 437 Charter 48 34 20 16 1 10 17 55 201 Chimanimani 26 40 1 12 1 5 5 13 103 Gwindingwi 113 61 20 18 12 24 44 138 430 Biriwiri 63 36 11 8 1 24 33 29 205 Mhakwe 16 17 5 6 2 15 8 9 78 Chikwakwa 45 27 7 11 4 22 15 25 156 Changazi 109 96 19 27 42 37 65 35 430 Ngorima A 57 44 17 18 5 36 23 50 250 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ngorima B 102 50 20 15 8 29 26 54 304 Manyuseni 52 45 10 9 11 26 23 105 281

Total 1 280 911 249 333 137 477 545 979 4 911

107 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 5: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and education status

Ward No Ward Name Have you ever attended school? Total

Yes n (%) 1 Cashel 3 139 (82.6) 3 799 2 Mhandarume 2 405 (86.1) 2 792 3 Chakohwa 3 882 (83.5) 4 647 4 Guhune 5 578 (84.9) 6 572 5 Rupise 3 666 (85.7) 4 277 6 Chayamiti 2 657 (89.3) 2 975 7 Shinja resettlement 4 260 (79.9) 5 331 8 Nyanyadzi 5 861 (82.4) 7 115 9 Shinja Communal 1 340 (86.2) 1 555 10 Chikukwa 1 806 (74.0) 2 439 11 Martin 714 (73.2) 975 12 Tilbury 2 623 (81.4) 3 224 13 Nyahode 5 878 (69.6) 8 445 14 Charter 2 076 (81.3) 2 553 15 Chimanimani 2 697 (82.9) 3 252 16 Gwindingwi 6 326 (68.3) 9 264 17 Biriwiri 4 038 (86.0) 4 694 18 Mhakwe 2 065 (83.1) 2 485 19 Chikwakwa 2 369 (76.7) 3 087 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 20 Changazi 5 496 (83.8) 6 561 21 Ngorima A 4 436 (77.1) 5 757 22 Ngorima B 4 440 (72.8) 6 101 23 Manyuseni 4 433 (70.0) 6 331 Total 82 185 (78.8) 104 231

108 Appendices

Table 6: Population distribution of Chimanimani by education level

Ward Name Pre-Primary Primary Secondary High Tertiary (non- Tertiary Total school degreed) (degreed)

Cashel 131 1 758 1 025 36 96 45 3 091 Mhandarume 181 1 425 781 9 20 1 2 417 Chakohwa 309 2 148 1 325 25 35 8 3 850 Guhune 429 2 898 2 076 30 90 19 5 542 Rupise 260 2 180 1 132 21 29 2 3 624 Chayamiti 282 1 390 935 7 42 6 2 662 Shinja resettlement 252 2 492 1 119 14 19 4 3 900 Nyanyadzi 487 3 038 2 104 57 34 8 5 728 Shinja Communal 111 775 426 6 15 1 1 334 Chikukwa 56 1 098 625 4 12 10 1 805 Martin 17 427 252 2 10 2 710 Tilbury 127 1 163 1 246 20 34 2 2 592 Nyahode 155 3 847 1 761 26 68 11 5 868 Charter 80 942 980 16 44 12 2 074 Chimanimani 114 984 1 305 48 148 25 2 624 Gwindingwi 214 3 957 1 884 47 53 6 6 161 Biriwiri 215 2 451 1 228 46 40 30 4 010 Mhakwe 111 1 044 796 33 41 11 2 036 Chikwakwa 102 1 290 879 7 12 5 2 295 Changazi 487 3 260 1 693 19 17 8 5 484 Ngorima A 120 2 504 1 616 46 57 36 4 379 Ngorima B 128 2 877 1 311 15 45 2 4 378 Manyuseni 1 265 1 979 996 17 46 3 4 306 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Total 5 633 45 927 27 495 551 1 007 257 80 870

109 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 7: Household distribution of Chimanimani by source of water

Ward Name Piped water Piped water Communal Well/bore- Well/bore- River/ Others Total inside the outside the tap hole hole stream/ house house protected unprotected dam

Cashel 180 204 3 128 240 231 4 990 Mhandarume 2 9 2 540 22 78 3 656 Chakohwa 17 95 6 750 11 37 4 920 Guhune 36 166 5 1 196 90 14 23 1 530 Rupise 2 64 7 723 34 68 2 900 Chayamiti 2 5 1 537 120 27 6 698 Shinja 3 49 14 665 245 182 2 1 160 resettlement Nyanyadzi 47 679 3 653 6 14 5 1 407 Shinja 2 0 1 297 35 9 0 344 Communal Chikukwa 13 283 10 165 35 9 0 515 Martin 18 99 0 11 75 62 1 266 Tilbury 116 307 770 4 17 69 5 1 288 Nyahode 5 372 67 132 956 293 51 1 876 Charter 99 398 388 0 43 61 5 994 Chimanimani 327 328 48 4 198 26 4 935 Gwindingwi 118 557 439 110 834 260 51 2 370 Biriwiri 39 125 24 651 228 16 11 1 094 Mhakwe 38 62 1 365 124 11 1 602 Chikwakwa 3 12 0 522 120 48 5 710 Changazi 13 14 10 1 153 38 59 2 1 289 Ngorima A 102 600 58 110 279 65 25 1 239 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ngorima B 3 604 72 66 481 152 7 1 385 Manyuseni 155 494 23 39 595 8 13 1 327

Total 1 340 5 526 1 952 8 821 4 826 1 800 230 24 495

110 Appendices

Table 8: Household distribution of Chimanimani by source of energy for cooking

Ward Name Wood Paraffin Electricity Gas Coal Solar Other Total Cashel 890 2 91 1 0 0 6 990 Mhandarume 635 7 8 3 0 0 3 656 Chakohwa 901 3 9 4 0 0 3 920 Guhune 1 444 10 52 4 0 0 20 1 530 Rupise 885 1 10 2 0 0 2 900 Chayamiti 694 0 0 0 0 0 4 698 Shinja 1 150 5 1 1 0 0 3 1 160 resettlement Nyanyadzi 1 326 21 48 1 1 0 10 1 407 Shinja 339 1 1 1 0 0 2 344 Communal Chikukwa 502 11 0 0 0 0 2 515 Martin 261 1 2 0 0 0 2 266 Tilbury 1 189 3 93 0 0 0 3 1 288 Nyahode 1 854 6 10 2 0 0 4 1 876 Charter 940 6 44 0 0 0 4 994 Chimanimani 602 8 315 2 0 0 8 935 Gwindingwi 2 316 16 21 0 0 1 16 2 370 Biriwiri 1045 3 36 1 0 0 9 1 094 Mhakwe 570 22 8 0 0 0 2 602

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Chikwakwa 703 1 0 0 0 0 6 710 Changazi 1 273 5 2 1 1 0 7 1 289 Ngorima A 1 149 4 71 1 0 0 14 1 239 Ngorima B 1 346 5 27 0 0 0 7 1 385 Manyuseni 1 293 5 14 0 0 0 15 1 327 Total 23 307 146 863 24 2 1 152 24 495

111 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 9: Household distribution of Chimanimani by source of energy for lighting

Ward Name Wood Paraffin Electricity Gas Coal Solar Other Total Cashel 294 520 139 0 0 4 33 990 Mhandarume 108 474 34 2 1 7 30 656 Chakohwa 277 561 40 0 0 5 37 920 Guhune 215 1 109 113 1 8 24 59 1 530 Rupise 99 702 41 0 0 6 52 900 Chayamiti 453 221 1 1 0 4 18 698 Shinja 356 649 2 1 6 10 136 1 160 resettlement Nyanyadzi 91 1 104 149 9 0 5 49 1 407 Shinja 217 115 1 1 0 3 7 344 Communal Chikukwa 29 374 0 3 0 8 101 515 Martin 71 165 3 0 0 2 25 266 Tilbury 46 957 225 1 2 1 56 1 288 Nyahode 511 1 215 26 0 0 5 119 1 876 Charter 74 814 58 0 0 0 48 994 Chimanimani 24 372 486 3 1 0 49 935 Gwindingwi 603 1 417 101 1 0 5 243 2 370 Biriwiri 269 668 74 0 1 8 74 1 094 Mhakwe 55 468 14 0 2 8 55 602

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Chikwakwa 355 320 0 0 0 10 25 710 Changazi 533 671 6 0 25 11 43 1 289 Ngorima A 77 874 91 1 1 22 173 1 239 Ngorima B 58 1 230 45 0 4 12 36 1 385 Manyuseni 213 1 025 24 0 0 21 44 1 327 Total 5 029 16 025 1 673 24 51 181 1 512 24 495

112 Appendices

Table 10: Household distribution of Chimanimani by toilet facility

Ward Name Flush Blair Pit Communal None Total Cashel 141 253 313 11 272 990 Mhandarume 3 342 101 2 208 656 Chakohwa 7 351 262 18 282 920 Guhune 53 740 342 3 392 1 530 Rupise 1 386 240 9 264 900 Chayamiti 1 210 150 5 332 698 Shinja resettlement 12 273 348 44 483 1 160 Nyanyadzi 35 615 480 3 274 1 407 Shinja Communal 3 147 80 2 112 344 Chikukwa 11 243 194 49 18 515 Martin 15 77 137 10 27 266 Tilbury 163 620 122 375 8 1 288 Nyahode 18 268 1 433 24 133 1 876 Charter 99 452 47 337 59 994 Chimanimani 526 59 327 7 16 935 Gwindingwi 161 779 1 099 240 91 2 370 Biriwiri 35 280 594 63 122 1 094 Mhakwe 35 338 136 3 90 602 Chikwakwa 2 232 170 0 306 710 Changazi 7 422 169 8 683 1 289 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Ngorima A 94 669 408 4 64 1 239 Ngorima B 11 454 769 53 98 1 385 Manyuseni 10 694 446 3 174 1 327 Total 1 443 8 904 8 367 1 273 4 508 24 495

113 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 11: Household distribution of Chimanimani by vulnerability status

Ward Name Less Vulnerable Moderately Highly Total vulnerable vulnerable Cashel 834 151 5 990 Mhandarume 554 101 1 656 Chakohwa 722 193 5 920 Guhune 1 246 283 1 1 530 Rupise 649 239 12 900 Chayamiti 545 149 4 698 Shinja resettlement 893 261 6 1 160 Nyanyadzi 1 020 375 12 1 407 Shinja Communal 278 65 1 344 Chikukwa 446 68 1 515 Martin 231 34 1 266 Tilbury 1 236 49 3 1 288 Nyahode 1 576 296 4 1 876 Charter 921 72 1 994 Chimanimani 865 68 2 935 Gwindingwi 1 894 456 20 2 370 Biriwiri 875 205 14 1 094 Mhakwe 560 42 0 602 Chikwakwa 566 138 6 710 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za Changazi 923 357 9 1289 Ngorima A 1 086 145 8 1 239 Ngorima B 1 170 209 6 1 385 Manyuseni 1 122 200 5 1 327 Total 20 212 4 156 127 24 495

114 Appendices

Table 12: Household distribution of Chimanimani by number of meals per day and ward

Ward Ward Name How many meals a day do you usually have? Total

No 1 meal a day At least 2 meals a day 1 Cashel 108 (10.9) 882 990 2 Mhandarume 67 (10.2) 589 656 3 Chakohwa 114 (12.4) 806 920 4 Guhune 181 (11.8) 1 349 1 530 5 Rupise 124 (13.8) 776 900 6 Chayamiti 107 (15.3) 591 698 7 Shinja resettlement 129 (11.1) 1 031 1 160 8 Nyanyadzi 142 (10.1) 1 265 1 407 9 Shinja Communal 25 (7.3) 319 344 10 Chikukwa 38 (7.4) 477 515 11 Martin 18 (6.8) 248 266 12 Tilbury 96 (7.5) 1 192 1 288 13 Nyahode 138 (7.4) 1 738 1 876 14 Charter 104 (10.5) 890 994 15 Chimanimani 60 (6.4) 875 935 16 Gwindingwi 286 (12.1) 2 084 2 370 17 Biriwiri 145 (13.3) 949 1 094 18 Mhakwe 51 (8.5) 551 602 19 Chikwakwa 136 (19.2) 574 710 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 20 Changazi 166 (12.9) 1 123 1 289 21 Ngorima A 96 (7.8) 1 143 1 239 22 Ngorima B 67 (4.8) 1 318 1 385 23 Manyuseni 111 (8.4) 1 216 1 327 Total 2 509 (10.2) 21 986 24 495

115 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 13: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether they go for some days without food

Ward Ward Name Do you go for some days without food? Total No Yes n (%) 1 Cashel 599 (60.5) 990 2 Mhandarume 543 (82.8) 656 3 Chakohwa 662 (72.0) 920 4 Guhune 1 178 (77.0) 1 530 5 Rupise 732 (81.3) 900 6 Chayamiti 466 (66.8) 698 7 Shinja resettlement 782 (67.4) 1 160 8 Nyanyadzi 991 (70.4) 1 407 9 Shinja Communal 236 (68.6) 344 10 Chikukwa 267 (51.8) 515 11 Martin 170 (63.9) 266 12 Tilbury 814 (63.2) 1 288 13 Nyahode 1 140 (60.8) 1 876 14 Charter 633 (63.7) 994 15 Chimanimani 395 (42.3) 935 16 Gwindingwi 1 586 (66.9) 2 370 17 Biriwiri 733 (67.0) 1 094 18 Mhakwe 388 (64.5) 602 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 19 Chikwakwa 569 (80.1) 710 20 Changazi 963 (74.7) 1 289 21 Ngorima A 644 (52.0) 1 239 22 Ngorima B 806 (58.2) 1 385 23 Manyuseni 708 (53.4) 1 327 Total 16 005 (65.3) 24 495

116 Appendices

Table 14: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether there are children of school-going age who are not going to school

Ward Ward Name Do you have children of school-going Total No age who are not going to school?

Yes n (%) 1 Cashel 198 (20.0) 990 2 Mhandarume 135 (20.6) 656 3 Chakohwa 198 (21.5) 920 4 Guhune 160 (10.5) 1 530 5 Rupise 140 (15.6) 900 6 Chayamiti 101 (14.5) 698 7 Shinja resettlement 312 (26.9) 1 160 8 Nyanyadzi 221 (15.7) 1 407 9 Shinja Communal 44 (12.8) 344 10 Chikukwa 104 (20.2) 515 11 Martin 46 (17.3) 266 12 Tilbury 98 (7.6) 1 288 13 Nyahode 389 (20.7) 1 876 14 Charter 118 (11.9) 994 15 Chimanimani 81 (8.7) 935 16 Gwindingwi 501 (21.1) 2 370 17 Biriwiri 246 (22.5) 1 094

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 18 Mhakwe 69 (11.5) 602 19 Chikwakwa 99 (13.9) 710 20 Changazi 359 (27.9) 1 289 21 Ngorima A 174 (14.0) 1 239 22 Ngorima B 274 (19.8) 1 385 23 Manyuseni 241 (18.2) 1 327 Total 4 308 (17.6) 24 495

117 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 15: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether they are able to pay for medical fees and consultation if children fall sick

Ward No Ward Name Able to pay medical fees and Total consultation if the children fall sick?

No n (%) 1 Cashel 303 (30.6) 990 2 Mhandarume 203 (31.0) 656 3 Chakohwa 359 (39.0) 920 4 Guhune 588 (38.4) 1 530 5 Rupise 481 (53.4) 900 6 Chayamiti 268 (38.4) 798 7 Shinja resettlement 532 (45.9) 1 160 8 Nyanyadzi 837 (59.5) 1 407 9 Shinja Communal 139 (40.4) 344 10 Chikukwa 232 (45.1) 515 11 Martin 87 (32.7) 266 12 Tilbury 150 (11.7) 1288 13 Nyahode 759 (40.5) 1 876 14 Charter 192 (19.3) 994 15 Chimanimani 253 (27.1) 935 16 Gwindingwi 914 (38.6) 2 370 17 Biriwiri 350 (32.0) 1 094

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 18 Mhakwe 63 (10.5) 602 19 Chikwakwa 242 (34.1) 710 20 Changazi 553 (42.9) 1 289 21 Ngorima A 243 (19.6) 1 239 22 Ngorima B 458 (33.1) 1 385 23 Manyuseni 461 (34.7) 1 327 Total 8 667 (35.4) 24 495

118 Appendices

Table 16: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether the children have adequate clothing

Ward No Ward Name Do the children have adequate clothing? Total

No n (%) 1 Cashel 581 (58.7) 990 2 Mhandarume 508 (77.4) 656 3 Chakohwa 703 (76.4) 920 4 Guhune 1 101 (72.0) 1 530 5 Rupise 757 (84.1) 900 6 Chayamiti 546 (78.2) 698 7 Shinja resettlement 945 (81.5) 1 160 8 Nyanyadzi 1 130 (80.3) 1 407 9 Shinja Communal 276 (80.2) 344 10 Chikukwa 431 (83.7) 515 11 Martin 152 (57.1) 266 12 Tilbury 468 (36.3) 1 288 13 Nyahode 1 442 (76.9) 1 876 14 Charter 422 (42.5) 994 15 Chimanimani 532 (56.9) 935 16 Gwindingwi 1 646 (69.5) 2 370 17 Biriwiri 836 (76.4) 1 094 18 Mhakwe 404 (67.1) 602

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 19 Chikwakwa 596 (83.9) 710 20 Changazi 1 097 (85.1) 1 289 21 Ngorima A 871 (70.3) 1 239 22 Ngorima B 1 094 (79.0) 1 385 23 Manyuseni 1 004 (75.7) 1 327 Total 17 542 (71.6) 24 495

119 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 17: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether there was anyone seriously ill in the household in the past month

Ward No Ward Name Was there anyone in the household who Total was seriously ill in the past month?

Yes n (%) 1 Cashel 317 (32.0) 990 2 Mhandarume 198 (30.2) 656 3 Chakohwa 376 (40.9) 920 4 Guhune 537 (35.1) 1 530 5 Rupise 440 (48.9) 900 6 Chayamiti 295 (42.3) 698 7 Shinja resettlement 498 (42.9) 1 160 8 Nyanyadzi 669 (47.6) 1 407 9 Shinja Communal 143 (41.6) 344 10 Chikukwa 158 (30.7) 515 11 Martin 71 (26.7) 266 12 Tilbury 251 (19.5) 1 288 13 Nyahode 681 (36.3) 1 876 14 Charter 199 (20.0) 994 15 Chimanimani 214 (22.9) 935 16 Gwindingwi 909 (38.4) 2 370 17 Biriwiri 396 (36.2) 1 094

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 18 Mhakwe 171 (28.4) 602 19 Chikwakwa 274 (38.6) 710 20 Changazi 671 (52.1) 1 289 21 Ngorima A 568 (45.8) 1 239 22 Ngorima B 630 (45.5) 1 385 23 Manyuseni 477 (36.0) 1 327 Total 9 143 (37.3) 24 495

120 Appendices

Table 18: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether school-children have adequate school uniform

Ward No Ward Name Do school-children have adequate school uniform? Total

No n (%) 1 Cashel 354 (35.8) 990 2 Mhandarume 343 (52.3) 656 3 Chakohwa 568 (61.7) 920 4 Guhune 850 (55.6) 1 530 5 Rupise 585 (65.0) 900 6 Chayamiti 438 (62.8) 698 7 Shinja resettlement 618 (53.3) 1 160 8 Nyanyadzi 848 (60.3) 1 407 9 Shinja Communal 208 (60.5) 344 10 Chikukwa 286 (55.5) 515 11 Martin 107 (40.2) 266 12 Tilbury 268 (20.8) 1 288 13 Nyahode 920 (49.0) 1 876 14 Charter 249 (25.1) 994 15 Chimanimani 284 (30.4) 935 16 Gwindingwi 1 131 (47.7) 2 370 17 Biriwiri 601 (54.9) 1 094 18 Mhakwe 297 (49.3) 602

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 19 Chikwakwa 443 (62.4) 710 20 Changazi 847 (65.7) 1 289 21 Ngorima A 577 (46.6) 1 239 22 Ngorima B 786 (56.8) 1 385 23 Manyuseni 762 (57.4) 1 327 Total 12 370 (50.5) 24 495

121 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 19: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether the household is a child- headed household

Ward Ward Name Child-headed household Total

No Yes n (%) 1 Cashel 23 (2.3) 990 2 Mhandarume 10 (1.5) 656 3 Chakohwa 20 (2.2) 920 4 Guhune 43 (2.8) 1 530 5 Rupise 9 (1.0) 900 6 Chayamiti 33 (4.7) 698 7 Shinja resettlement 29 (2.5) 1 160 8 Nyanyadzi 58 (4.1) 1 407 9 Shinja Communal 5 (1.5) 344 10 Chikukwa 11 (2.1) 515 11 Martin 2 (0.8) 266 12 Tilbury 33 (2.6) 1 288 13 Nyahode 36 (1.9) 1 876 14 Charter 26 (2.6) 994 15 Chimanimani 38 (4.1) 935 16 Gwindingwi 160 (6.8) 2 370 17 Biriwiri 41 (3.8) 1 094 18 Mhakwe 29 (4.8) 602

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 19 Chikwakwa 32 (4.5) 710 20 Changazi 39 (3.0) 1 289 21 Ngorima A 38 (3.1) 1 239 22 Ngorima B 35 (2.5) 1 385 23 Manyuseni 29 (2.2) 1 327 Total 779 (3.2) 24 495

122 Appendices

Table 20: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether there are children without a caretaker among child-headed households

Ward Ward Name Are there children without a caretaker? Total

No Yes n (%) 1 Cashel 14 (60.9) 23 2 Mhandarume 5 (50.0) 10 3 Chakohwa 4 (20.0) 20 4 Guhune 23 (53.5) 43 5 Rupise 6 (66.7) 9 6 Chayamiti 21 (63.6) 33 7 Shinja resettlement 11 (37.9) 29 8 Nyanyadzi 20 (34.5) 58 9 Shinja Communal 3 (60.0) 5 10 Chikukwa 6 (54.5) 11 11 Martin 0 (0.0) 2 12 Tilbury 13 (39.4) 33 13 Nyahode 21 (58.3) 36 14 Charter 9 (34.6) 26 15 Chimanimani 29 (76.3) 38 16 Gwindingwi 64 (40.0) 160 17 Biriwiri 12 (29.3) 41 18 Mhakwe 23 (79.3) 29

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 19 Chikwakwa 22 (68.8) 32 20 Changazi 8 (20.5) 39 21 Ngorima A 19 (50.0) 38 22 Ngorima B 17 (48.6) 35 23 Manyuseni 15 (51.7) 29 Total 365 (46.9) 779

123 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts

Table 21: Household distribution of Chimanimani by ward and whether the children have anyone to discuss problems with among child-headed households

Ward No Ward Name Anyone to discuss problems with? Total

No n (%)

1 Cashel 5 (23.8) 21 2 Mhandarume 3 (33.3) 9 3 Chakohwa 7 (38.9) 18 4 Guhune 11 (27.5) 40 5 Rupise 3 (33.3) 9 6 Chayamiti 5 (16.7) 30 7 Shinja resettlement 17 (60.7) 28 8 Nyanyadzi 25 (48.1) 52 9 Shinja Communal 1 (20.0) 5 10 Chikukwa 3 (30.0) 10 11 Martin 0 (0.0) 0 12 Tilbury 21 (65.6) 32 13 Nyahode 6 (20.0) 30 14 Charter 8 (40.0) 20 15 Chimanimani 5 (13.5) 37 16 Gwindingwi 97 (61.8) 157 17 Biriwiri 18 (51.4) 35 18 Mhakwe 4 (66.7) 6 Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 19 Chikwakwa 5 (16.1) 31 20 Changazi 12 (41.4) 29 21 Ngorima A 18 (50.0) 36 22 Ngorima B 6 (17.6) 34 23 Manyuseni 5 (23.8) 21 Total 285 (40.2) 709

124 APPENDIX 9

OVC 2003 Census Operational Structure

OVC Project Director Mrs Shungu Mtero- Munyati

OVC Project Manager Mr Brian Chandiwana OVC Project Chief Consultant: Prof Simbarashe Rusakaniko Consultant: Junior OVC Project Research Mutsvangwa Officers Mr Peter Chibatamoto Mr Pakuromunhu F. Mupambireyi Mr Stanford Mahati Mr George Chitiyo OVC District Liaison Mr Wilson Mashange Committee Members Research Intern Bulilimamangwe Miss Natsai Chimbindi Mr Irvine Ncube Mrs Melta Moyo OVC Technical Advisers Mr Lincoln Ncube Mr Rogers Sango Ms Sifiso Dube Mr Tichaona Mr Frank Ngwenya Chirimanyemba Mr Alois Sibanda Mr Manase Viriri Chimanimani Mr Patrick Bvitira Mr Jobes Jaibesi Mr Brian Muchinapo The late DNO Sister Mistress Ndhlovu Sister Sifovo 15 Data Entry Clerks Bulilimamangwe 44 Field Supervisors Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za 315 Enumerators Chimanimani 23 Field Supervisors 212 Enumerators

125 APPENDIXCHAPTER 10

Vulnerability Score Assessment

During the OVC 2003 Census, the Vulnerability Indicator Score was defined using the nine vulnerability indicators which are listed below: 1. The number of meals the household usually had a day. 2. Households which indicated that there were some days they would go without food. 3. Households with children of school-going age (7–18 years) who were not attending school. 4. Households that were not able to pay medical fees if children were sick/ill. 5. Households with children who did not have adequate clothing. 6. Households with a household member who had been ill during the month preceding the census exercise. 7. Households with school-going children who had no adequate school uniform. 8. Child-headed households that had no caretaker. 9. Child-headed households that had no one to discuss problems with.

Each indicator was coded 1 if the household was commensurate with vulnerable status and coded 0 if otherwise. The nine vulnerability indicator scores were then summed up to come up with a Total Vulnerable Indicator Score (TVIS), which was then expressed as a percentage. The maximum possible score was nine indicating a state of being highly vulnerable.

The TVIS was developed taking into account some of the basic Childs’ Rights: access to food, education, health and protection, which are enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). However, these rights were not weighted in order to signify their relative importance on the overall score.

The TVIS was then defined into three categories as: 1. Less Vulnerable: – a TVIS below 50% of the total score. 2. Moderately Vulnerable: – a TVIS of 50% to 74% of the total score. 3. Highly Vulnerable: – a TVIS of 75% and above of the total score.

The cut off of 50% was chosen on the basis that anyone who scores more than half the total expected score was more likely to be at higher risk of being vulnerable. The Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za sampling frame for the PSS was comprised of those households which were moderately and highly vulnerable.

126 REFERENCES

ICAD (2001) HIV/AIDS and Policies Affecting Children. Interagency Coalition on AIDS and Development. www.icad.cisd.com NACC Taskforce on OVC (2002) Proceedings of a consultative meeting of OVC, Nairobi, 16–19 December. Accessed from: http://www.fhi.org/en/HIVAIDS/Publications/Archive/ confrpts/Orphans_HIV_Research.htm 13 September 2005. RAISA (2002) Regional AIDS Initiative of Southern Africa: Orphans and Vulnerable Children and HIV/AIDS National Workshop Report. Bronte Hotel, Harare, Zimbabwe, 28–29 November 2002. Sarker M., Neckermann C., Muller O. (2005) Assessing the health status of young AIDS and other orphans in Kampala, Uganda. Trop Med Int Health, Mar; 10(3):210–5. Smart R. A. (2003) Policies for Orphans and Vulnerable Children: A framework for moving ahead. USAID Skinner, D., Tsheko, N., Mtero-Munyati, S., Segwabe, M., Chibatamoto, P., Mfecane, S., Chandiwana, B., Nkomo, N., Tlou, S. and Chitiyo, G. (2004) Defining orphaned and vulnerable children. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press. Southern Africa HIV/AIDS Action (2004) Orphans and Vulnerable Children: Issue 60 June: SAfAIDS and Health Link Worldwide, Harare. UNAIDS (2002) Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS. UNDP (2002) HIV/AIDS Statistical Fact Sheet http://www.undp.org/hiv/docs/Barcelona-statistical-fact-sheet-2july02.doc UNAIDS/WHO (2000) Guidelines for Second Generation HIV Surveillance. WHO/CDS/CSR/ EDC/2000.5. UNAIDS/00.03E. UNAIDS/WHO Working Group on Global HIV/AIDS and STI Surveillance. http://www.unaids.org/NetTools/Documents/pub/Publications/IRC- pub01/JC370-2ndGeneration_en.pdf Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 2004. http://www.unaids.org/en/ geographical+area/by+country/zimbabwe.asp UNICEF/UNAIDS (1999) Children orphaned by AIDS. Frontline responses from eastern and southern Africa.

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za New York: UNICEF division of communication. UNICEF (2003) Situational Assessment and Analysis of Children in Zimbabwe, 2002 Update Hope Never Dries Up: Facing the Challenges. New York: UNICEF. UNICEF (2000) Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs and Practices: A baseline survey for the Government of Zimbabwe/UNICEF Country Programme of Cooperation 200–2004. Harare: UNICEF. Walker, Neff, Bernhard Schwartlander, and Jennifer Bryce (2002) Meeting international goals in child survival and HIV/AIDS. Lancet, Vol. 360, No. 9329, pp. 284–9. World Vision (2002) Summary of OVC programming approaches. Geneva: World Vision International/HIV/AIDS Hope Initiative. Zimbabwe Human Development Report-ZHDR (2003) Redirecting Our Responses to HIV and AIDS. Harare: Poverty Reduction Forum. Zimbabwe National Orphan Care Policy (2000). Zimbabwe Government Printer: Harare. Zimbabwe Census (2002) Preliminary Report: Central Statistics Office (CSO), Zimbabwe Government Printer: Harare.

127 a census of ovc in two zimbabwean districts Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

128