Lost ҉Love SPELL CASTER// Spell pay after results +27734818506 Ottawa,Newfoundland,Halifax,@$ NS, Canada ,Winnipeg,Regina ,Edmonton,$$Vancouver

UPGRADING GAUTENG’S INFORMAL
SETTLEMENTS
Volume 2 : Baseline study of Soshanguve South
Ext. 4 and Johandeo
RESEARCHED FOR
The Gauteng Department of Housing

and Land Affairs
BY
Lucy Stevens and Stephen Rule
COMMUNITY AGENCY FOR SOCIAL ENQUIRY
August 1998
Published by: The Community Agency for Social Enquiry (C A S E)
PO Box 32882
Braamfontein
2017
Telephone: +27 (11) 403 4204
Fax: +27 (11) 403 1005
e-mail: director@case.wn.apc.org
Web site address: http://www.case.org.za
Researched for: Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs

© Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs
ISBN: 1-919776-09-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. IV
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. VI
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1
OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Selecting respondents for the survey ............................................................................................................. 5
Note on statistical techniques used ................................................................................................................ 7
SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXTENSION 4 .......................................................................................................... 8

1. BACKGROUND TO SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXT. 4 ........................................................................................ 8
2. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGINS OF RESIDENTS ....................................................................................................... 10
Home language............................................................................................................................................ 10
Migration histories ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Length of time in Soshanguve South Ext. 4 and Gauteng ............................................................................ 11
Cities are better places to live than rural areas .......................................................................................... 12
Reason for coming to Soshanguve South Ext. 4........................................................................................... 13
3. COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................................................... 14
Household structure .................................................................................................................................... 14
Community age-sex distribution .................................................................................................................. 16
Characteristics of heads of household ......................................................................................................... 17
Employment, dependence and poverty in the community ............................................................................ 21
4. HOUSING ................................................................................................................................................. 26
Subsidies ...................................................................................................................................................... 26
Tenure.......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Type of dwelling .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Upgrading ................................................................................................................................................... 31
5. FACILITIES, PRIORITIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES ..................................................................... 33
What services exist at the moment? ............................................................................................................. 33
Priorities for services .................................................................................................................................. 34
Developments .............................................................................................................................................. 35
Payment for services .................................................................................................................................... 36
6. PROBLEMS IN THE COMMUNITY ............................................................................................................... 37
Crime ........................................................................................................................................................... 37
7. COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS AND DYNAMICS ........................................................................................ 38
Organisations and membership ................................................................................................................... 38
Settling conflicts .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Community meetings ................................................................................................................................... 40
Relationship between the community and local government ....................................................................... 40
8. INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY ............................................................................... 40
How well established are individuals? ........................................................................................................ 40
Powerlessness and isolation ........................................................................................................................ 42
C A S E research for the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs. ii
JOHANDEO ........................................................................................................................................................ 45
1. BACKGROUND TO JOHANDEO .................................................................................................................. 45
2. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGINS OF RESIDENTS ....................................................................................................... 47
Home language............................................................................................................................................ 47
Migration histories ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Length of time in Johandeo and Gauteng .................................................................................................... 49
Cities are better places to live than rural areas .......................................................................................... 50
Reason for coming to Johandeo .................................................................................................................. 51
3. COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................................................... 53
Household structure .................................................................................................................................... 53
Community age-sex distribution .................................................................................................................. 56
Characteristics of heads of household ......................................................................................................... 57
Employment, dependence and poverty in the community ............................................................................ 61
4. HOUSING ................................................................................................................................................. 66
Subsidies ...................................................................................................................................................... 66
Tenure.......................................................................................................................................................... 67
Type of dwelling .......................................................................................................................................... 68
Upgrading ................................................................................................................................................... 71
5. SERVICES, PRIORITIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES ....................................................................... 72
What services exist at the moment? ............................................................................................................. 72
Priorities for services .................................................................................................................................. 73
Developments .............................................................................................................................................. 75
Payment for services .................................................................................................................................... 76
6. PROBLEMS IN THE COMMUNITY ............................................................................................................... 77
Crime ........................................................................................................................................................... 77
7. COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS AND DYNAMICS ........................................................................................ 77
Organisations and membership ................................................................................................................... 77
Settling conflicts .......................................................................................................................................... 78
Community meetings ................................................................................................................................... 79
Relationship between the community and local government ....................................................................... 79
8. INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY ............................................................................... 80
How well established are individuals? ........................................................................................................ 80
Powerlessness and isolation ........................................................................................................................ 82
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 84
C A S E research for the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The co-operation of the residents of Soshanguve South Extension 4 and Johandeo in

providing information to our fieldworkers and researchers has made the task of compiling this
report enjoyable. The assistance of staff of the Department of Land Affairs, especially Dumisa
Dlamini, George van Rensburg and Director, Carien Engelbrecht is also gratefully
acknowledged. Our thanks to the fieldwork department, particularly Steve Motlatla, Nobayeti
Dube, Thuli Khanye, and the interviewers and focus group monitors and to Debbie Budlender
for her editorial comments. Pan African Surveys took the aerial photographs.
C A S E research for the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs. iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: LUMP SUM HOUSING SUBSIDIES AVAILABLE FROM DHLA TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ....................... 2
TABLE 2: COMPOSITION OF FOCUS GROUPS.............................................................................................................. 4
TABLE 3: WHEN DID YOU MOVE TO SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXTENSION 4? ............................................................. 12
TABLE 4: CITIES ARE BETTER PLACES TO LIVE THAN RURAL AREAS ....................................................................... 12
TABLE 5: QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN THE SCORE FOR HOW SETTLED RESPONDENTS ARE ......................................... 41
TABLE 6: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN SCORE FOR FEELINGS OF POWERLESSNESS .............................. 43
TABLE 7: ESTIMATE OF POPULATION SIZE OF JOHANDEO, AT TIME OF THE SURVEY (JANUARY 1998). ................... 47
TABLE 8: WHEN DID YOU MOVE TO JOHANDEO? .................................................................................................... 49
TABLE 9: CITIES ARE BETTER PLACES TO LIVE THAN RURAL AREAS. ...................................................................... 50
TABLE 10: HOUSEHOLD FORM, MAYIBUYE SECTION OF JOHANDEO....................................................................... 54
TABLE 11: INCOME OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MAYIBUYE SECTION OF JOHANDEO ACCORDING TO SUBSIDY CATEGORIES.
..................................................................................................................................................................... 66
TABLE 12: QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN THE SCORE FOR HOW SETTLED RESPONDENTS ARE IN THE MAYIBUYE SECTION
OF JOHANDEO ............................................................................................................................................... 80
TABLE 13: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN SCORE FOR FEELINGS OF POWERLESSNESS, MAYIBUYE
SECTION, JOHANDEO .................................................................................................................................... 82
LIST OF FIGURES
SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXTENSION 4

FIGURE 1: BIRTHPLACE OF SOSHANGUVE EXT. 4 RESPONDENTS ............................................................................ 10
FIGURE 2: PREVIOUS PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF SOSHANGUVE EXT. 4 RESPONDENTS .............................................. 11
FIGURE 3: HOUSEHOLD SIZE .................................................................................................................................. 14
FIGURE 4: HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE FOR MALE-HEADED AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS .............................. 15
FIGURE 5: AGE-SEX PYRAMID FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF SAMPLED HOUSEHOLDS ...................................................... 16
FIGURE 6: AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD FOR MALE-HEADED AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS ........................... 17
FIGURE 7: EDUCATION LEVEL OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD FOR MALE-HEADED AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS ..... 18
FIGURE 8: OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD FOR MALE-HEADED AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS ............. 19
FIGURE 9: TYPE OF WORK DONE (ALL RESPONDENTS, BY SEX)............................................................................... 20
FIGURE 10: TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME PER MONTH ............................................................................................ 22
FIGURE 11: TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME PER MONTH BY SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD .............................................. 23
FIGURE 12: IF YOU ARE EVER DESPERATE FOR MONEY, HOW CAN YOU GET SOME? ................................................ 25
FIGURE 13: ITEMS ON WHICH „SOME‟ OR „MOST‟ OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS SPENT ............................................... 26
FIGURE 14: NUMBER OF ROOMS (DIVIDED BY A SOLID STRUCTURE) IN DWELLING................................................. 29
FIGURE 15: ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE DWELLING .......................................................................... 30
FIGURE 16: WHO BUILT THE DWELLING, BY SEX OF RESPONDENT.......................................................................... 30
FIGURE 17: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO UPGRADE YOUR DWELLING? ..................................................................... 32
FIGURE 18: HAVE YOU UPGRADED YOUR DWELLING IN THE PAST, AND IF SO, WHERE DID YOU GET THE MONEY? . 32
FIGURE 19: SERVICES MOST URGENTLY NEEDED IN SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXTENSION 4 ....................................... 35
FIGURE 20: HOW MUCH CAN YOU AFFORD TO PAY, AND HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR SERVICES? ... 37
FIGURE 21: ORGANISATIONAL MEMBERSHIP OF SOSHANGUVE EXT. 4 HOUSEHOLDS ............................................. 39
FIGURE 22: COMPOSITE SCORE FOR HOW WELL SETTLED RESPONDENTS ARE ........................................................ 41
FIGURE 23: COMPOSITE SCORE FOR HOW POWERLESS AND ISOLATED RESPONDENTS FEEL .................................... 43
C A S E research for the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs. v
JOHANDEO
FIGURE 24: BIRTHPLACES OF HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS IN JOHANDEO (MAYIBUYE SECTION) ................................. 48
FIGURE 25: WHERE DID YOU LIVE BEFORE COMING TO JOHANDEO? ...................................................................... 49
FIGURE 26: HOUSEHOLD SIZE, MAYIBUYE SECTION OF JOHANDEO ........................................................................ 53
FIGURE 27: HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE FOR MALE-HEADED AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS, MAYIBUYE
SECTION OF JOHANDEO. ................................................................................................................................ 55
FIGURE 28: AGE-SEX DISTRIBUTION OF JOHANDEO (MAYIBUYE) RESIDENTS ........................................................ 56
FIGURE 29: AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD FOR MALE-HEADED AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS, MAYIBUYE
SECTION, JOHANDEO. ................................................................................................................................... 57
FIGURE 30: EDUCATION LEVEL OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD FOR MALE-HEADED AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS,
MAYIBUYE SECTION, JOHANDEO. ................................................................................................................. 58
FIGURE 31: OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD FOR MALE-HEADED AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS,
MAYIBUYE SECTION, JOHANDEO. ................................................................................................................. 59
FIGURE 32: TYPES OF WORK AVAILABLE IN JOHANDEO – ALL RESPONDENTS IN MAYIBUYE SECTION, BY SEX ...... 60
FIGURE 33: TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME PER MONTH, MAYIBUYE SECTION, JOHANDEO........................................ 62
FIGURE 34: TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME PER MONTH, BY SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD, MAYIBUYE SECTION,
JOHANDEO. ................................................................................................................................................... 63
FIGURE 35: IF YOU ARE EVER DESPERATE FOR MONEY, HOW CAN YOU GET SOME? ................................................ 64
FIGURE 36: ITEMS ON WHICH „SOME‟ OR „MOST‟ HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS SPENT, MAYIBUYE SECTION, JOHANDEO.
..................................................................................................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 37: NUMBER OF ROOMS (DIVIDED BY A SOLID STRUCTURE) IN DWELLING................................................. 69
FIGURE 38: ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE DWELLING .......................................................................... 69
FIGURE 39: WHO BUILT THE DWELLING, BY SEX OF RESPONDENT.......................................................................... 70
FIGURE 40: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO UPGRADE YOUR DWELLING? ..................................................................... 71
FIGURE 41: HAVE YOU UPGRADED YOUR DWELLING IN THE PAST, AND IF SO, WHERE DID YOU GET THE MONEY? . 72
FIGURE 42: SERVICES MOST URGENTLY NEEDED IN THE MAYIBUYE SECTION, JOHANDEO .................................... 73
FIGURE 43: HOW MUCH CAN YOU AFFORD TO PAY, AND HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR SERVICES,
MAYIBUYE SECTION, JOHANDEO .................................................................................................................. 76
FIGURE 44: ORGANISATIONAL MEMBERSHIP OF JOHANDEO (MAYIBUYE) HOUSEHOLDS........................................ 78
FIGURE 45: HOW WOULD YOU RESOLVE A CONFLICT WITH YOUR NEIGHBOUR, MAYIBUYE SECTION, JOHANDEO .. 78
FIGURE 46: COMPOSITE SCORE FOR HOW SETTLED RESPONDENTS ARE IN JOHANDEO ............................................ 81
FIGURE 47: COMPOSITE SCORE FOR HOW POWERLESS AND ISOLATED RESPONDENTS FEEL, MAYIBUYE SECTION,
JOHANDEO .................................................................................................................................................... 83
Baseline report: Soshanguve South Extension 4 and Johandeo: Executive Summary. vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
In November 1996 the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs embarked upon two
programmes to address the issues of landlessness and tenure insecurity in the province.
Twenty-two sites around Gauteng have been designated for the Mayibuye Programme (MP)
which arranges the release of vacant land for settlement by identified communities. Sites are
surveyed and pegged, and water is supplied. The second scheme involves the upgrading of
existing informal settlements.
C A S E was commissioned in June 1997 by the GDHLA to monitor these
programmes over a four year period. Two settlements from each scheme were selected as part
of the study. Volume 1 of this study reports the baseline for the two existing informal
settlements. This report (Volume 2) constitutes the baseline report for the two MP sites
(Johandeo and Soshanguve South Extension 4). The fieldwork for this study was conducted in
January and April 1998.
Methodology
A systematic random sample of two hundred households was selected from each of the two
MP sites chosen for the time-series study. The sites are Johandeo, northeast of Vanderbijlpark
and Soshanguve South Extension 4, northwest of Pretoria. Interviews of approximately forty-
five minutes were conducted with the heads of households about their origins, reasons for
coming to the settlement, economic circumstances, house upgrading plans and perceptions
about the settlement. The household head was defined as “the person who makes the most
important decisions about how money is spent”. In some cases, both partners may have an
equal say in which case the fieldworker interviewed either partner. Separately, a series of
three focus groups of residents from each settlement were held to explore their lives and
views in greater depth. Interviews with local city councillors and other key members of the
communities concerned were conducted to complement the grassroots perspectives.
Background to the sites

Johandeo comprises 2009 residential stands. 608 of these were settled in 1994 and form an
area called „Phase 1‟ or Polokong. The other 1 401 stands to the east of the original settlement
form the Mayibuye section which was settled in March 1997. Most are now occupied and the
estimated population is between 6 200 and 7 100 (a third in Phase 1 and two thirds in the
Mayibuye section). This report focuses on the Mayibuye section of the settlement, but makes
comparisons with the older section.
Soshanguve South Extension 4 is the western section of a larger MP including
Extension 5 which is still to be developed. It is situated northwest of Pretoria on the southern
periphery of Soshanguve. The settlement layout for Extension 4 comprises about 2 800
residential stands. About 2 000 of these were occupied in January 1998, translating into an
estimated population of between 7 000 and 8 100.
Baseline Report: Soshanguve South Extension 4 and Johandeo: Executive Summary. vii
Origins of residents
Most of the current household heads in both sites moved there from settlements relatively
close by. Of those in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo, more than three-quarters (86%)
moved from elsewhere in the Vaal region, especially the Golden Highway and Sebokeng
areas. Fewer (39%) were born in Gauteng or the Vaal region however, with almost two out of
five having been born in the Free State (37%). This is reflected in the languages spoken. The
main language spoken in Johandeo (MP area) is Sesotho (71%), with smaller proportions of
households speaking isiZulu (12%) or isiXhosa (11%).
In the case of Soshanguve South Extension 4, almost two-thirds (62%) moved there
from other parts of Soshanguve (especially Chris Hani settlement). Smaller proportions
moved from elsewhere in Gauteng (17%), from North West (16%) or from other provinces
(6%). In both the Mayibuye section of Johandeo and Soshanguve, most households had
moved in during the few months following the establishment of the settlements in March and
June 1997. Soshanguve South Extension 4 is more ethnically diverse than Johandeo. Four
home languages account for four-fifths of households. These are Sepedi (28%), Xitsonga
(21%), Setswana (19%) and isiZulu (14%).
Soshanguve households appear to be considerably more settled than their counterparts
in Johandeo. Almost half (46%) of the former settled there in order to achieve security of
tenure as opposed to only 2% of the latter. One in five (19%) of Johandeo households see
their current abode as only temporary. This raises the potential for large-scale movements out
of Johandeo if new development occurs faster on land adjacent to the settlement. The other
main reasons for coming to the Mayibuye section of Johandeo and to Soshanguve were
simply to have somewhere to live (25% Soshanguve; 32% Johandeo) or to gain independence
from one‟s family (13% Soshanguve; 14% Johandeo). In Johandeo, smaller numbers wanted
to avoid paying rent (12%) or to escape the treatment they had been receiving from their
former landlords.
Demographic characteristics
The average size of households in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo is 3,4 as opposed to 3,8
in Soshanguve. The composition of households differed with more children aged 15 or under
(1,5 on average) in Soshanguve compared with 1,2 in Johandeo. In both settlements the
number of females exceeded the number of males and in both cases the proportion of the
population aged 16 to 20 years was low in comparison with other age categories.
Few heads of households in the two settlements had achieved an educational level of
Standard 10 or more. In the Mayibuye section of Johandeo this was the case for only 5% of
male heads (no females) and in Soshanguve, 6% of males and 5% of females had been
educated to matric level or beyond. Overall, Soshanguve household heads were slightly better
educated than those in Johandeo MP. In Soshanguve only 47% had received a primary
education or none at all, as opposed to 57% in Johandeo.
Baseline report: Soshanguve South Extension 4 and Johandeo: Executive Summary. viii
Economic circumstances
About one in five heads of households in both settlements can be classified as unemployed
(Johandeo, MP 21%; Soshanguve 22%) as opposed to about half of all adults in each case
(Johandeo, MP 51%; Soshanguve 47%). These statistics varied significantly by gender. In the
Mayibuye section of Johandeo only 76% of women were unemployed and in Soshanguve,
65% were unemployed. The figures for males, in contrast, were 26% and 33% respectively.
The highest proportion of households in each settlement earned between R401 and
R600 per month. However, poverty levels in Johandeo were higher with half of the
households earning R560 per month or less, compared with R925 or less in Soshanguve.
Again, female-headed households were poorer in both cases. In Johandeo, half of the female-
headed households had a total monthly income of R350 or less, compared with R680 for
male-headed households. In Soshanguve, 50% of female-headed households had a total
monthly income of R500 or less, compared with R1 025 for male-headed households. Also
indicative of the slightly lower level of poverty in Soshanguve compared with that in
Johandeo was that only 48% of households in Soshanguve said they were „never‟ able to save
money compared with 61% in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo.
Housing characteristics
More than nine out of ten dwellings in both settlements are made of corrugated iron, with a
few constructed of wood, cardboard or brick. Most in Soshanguve (59%) had a single room,
with relatively few (11%) divided into four or more rooms. Johandeo had on average more
rooms, with only one-third (33%) being one-roomed and 28% two-roomed. Greater expense
was incurred in the construction of the Soshanguve dwellings, however. Half of these cost
more than R1 450 to construct, as opposed to the median cost of R800 in Johandeo.
Most respondents said that they would like to upgrade their present dwellings
(Johandeo 77%; Soshanguve 96%). One in eight (12%) of Johandeo households and one in
five (18%) of Soshanguve households had already done this in the six months since coming to
the settlements. The most common intention was to enlarge the size of the house (Johandeo
64%; Soshanguve 68%). Others in Johandeo said that they wanted to improve the walls and
roof of their dwellings (46%), add windows (35%) or improve the internal fittings (32%). The
next priorities in Soshanguve were to add windows (45%), improve internal fittings (35%) or
improve the yard (23%).
Almost all survey respondents in both settlements indicated that they owned the stands
on which their homes were situated. Although fieldworkers were instructed not to probe this
issue, several respondents mentioned that they did not yet have title deeds to the land,
affecting their sense of security in the settlements.
The processes for acquiring land seemed to differ in the two sites. One third of
households in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo said they had paid someone for the site
(between R10 and R250) in comparison with only 1% in Soshanguve. Lower levels of
understanding of the subsidy system were apparent among focus group participants from
Johandeo than those from Soshanguve, although both complained of a lack of activity from
their local committees.
Baseline Report: Soshanguve South Extension 4 and Johandeo: Executive Summary. ix
Developments and services

In terms of bulk services, both sites were provided with a water supply only before they were
settled. Each stand has a tap in the yard. Priorities for services were similar across both
settlements. Top of the list was the need for electrification (Johandeo 42%; Soshanguve 46%),
followed by sewerage (Johandeo 33%; Soshanguve 38%) and water provision inside the
dwelling (Johandeo 23%; Soshanguve 30%).
Community dynamics
Only 13% of Soshanguve households did not have at least one member who was affiliated to
a community organisation. Organisations to which they were linked were mainly churches
(63%), a women‟s organisation (44%), political organisations (36%), street committees (22%)
and trade unions (20%). In the Mayibuye section of Johandeo household members tended to
belong to fewer organisations. Church membership was high (81%) and only 8% belonged to
no organisation. However, relatively few participated in other community organisations
(women‟s 23%, political 17%).
Most residents in both settlements (Johandeo 86%; Soshanguve 92%) said that they
feel part of the communities in which they now live. There was more evidence in Johandeo,
however, of people who might move elsewhere should the opportunity arise.
Conclusions
Several factors differentiate the new Mayibuye settlements at Johandeo and Soshanguve
South Extension 4:
1. Whereas residents from the Mayibuye section of Johandeo are largely a single linguistic
group (Sesotho), in Soshanguve several groups comprise the population (Sepedi,
Xitsonga, Setswana, and isiZulu). In both cases, the bulk of households had moved from
places in close proximity to their new homes.
2. Soshanguve households are slightly larger than those in Johandeo and more committed to
remaining and settling there in the long term. This is an interesting finding given the
greater ethnic diversity of Soshanguve. Members of Soshanguve households tend to be
members of more local organisations than their counterparts in Johandeo, even though
both settlements came into existence in the first half of 1997.
3. Economic circumstances, although poor in both settlements, are considerably better in
Soshanguve. There are more people employed and generally higher levels of household
income in Soshanguve. Consequently larger capital investments have been made in
constructing dwellings there than in Johandeo.
Baseline Report: Soshanguve South Extension 4 and Johandeo: Introduction. 1
INTRODUCTION
Almost one third (31%) of the 7 million residents of Gauteng were not born in the province
and one in seven1 of these were born beyond the borders of South Africa. Many of those not
born in Gauteng are thought to be recent immigrants. One estimate is that in the
December/January period after the 1994 elections, 200 000 people entered Gauteng, and that
currently 20 000 flood into the province every month.2 The consequent burden on existing
housing stock, municipal services such as piped water, sewerage reticulation and electricity,
and vacant land, is massive.
Until the 1980s most South Africans were excluded from purchasing property in urban
areas. The legacy of apartheid and racially restrictive settlement policies is overcrowded
township houses, backyard shacks and mushrooming informal settlements to accommodate
those who choose to move into less crowded shack settlements. Such is the demand for land
that “land mafia” can charge R50 to sign individuals up on a „housing list‟ to help them settle
on invaded land, plus up to R30 a month once they have moved in protection and legal fees.3
The White Paper on Housing4 states clearly the intention of the government to provide
accommodation and basic services for all:
Government strives for the establishment of viable, socially and economically
integrated communities, situated in areas allowing convenient access to economic
opportunities as well as health, educational and social amenities, within which all
South Africa‟s people will have access on a progressive basis to:
 a permanent residential structure with secure tenure, ensuring privacy and
providing adequate protection against the elements; and
 potable water, adequate sanitary facilities including waste disposal and domestic
electricity supply.
To this end, Provincial departments of Housing and Land Affairs have been
empowered to grant a housing subsidy to qualifying households. The actual amount of the
housing subsidy granted varies from R5 000 to R15 000, depending on the level of household
income as indicated in Table 1. In the event of the land being difficult to build on, an
additional amount of 15% may be accessed.
The housing subsidy may only be used for purchasing housing, land, and fencing or
for installing services. For example, the subsidy can be used for:5
 installing bulk services in a community
 purchasing building materials
1
Extrapolated from migration statistics table (5.1) of the October 1995 Household Survey. Pretoria: Central
Statistical Services, p.49.
2
The Saturday Star 21/2/98, p.9.
3
The Saturday Star 21/2/98, p.9.
4
Department of Housing White Paper: A new housing policy and strategy for South Africa (Pretoria: Department
of Housing, 1994), p.21.
5
Department of Housing White Paper: A new housing policy and strategy for South Africa (Pretoria: Department
of Housing, 1994), p.41.
C A S E research for the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs. 2
 building a starter top structure (house)

 expanding an existing starter top structure
 off-setting, in part or in full, a housing loan
 paying a deposit in order to gain access to a housing loan
 improving security of tenure by purchasing land.
LEVEL MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF SUBSIDY AMOUNT

BENEFICIARY
1 R0 to R800 R15 000
2 R801 to R1 500 R12 500
3 R1 501 to R2 500 R9 500
4 R2 501 to R3 500 R5 000
5 R3 501+ R0
Table 1: Lump sum housing subsidies available from DHLA to low income households6
In November 1996, the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs (GDHLA)
embarked upon two programmes to address the issues of landlessness and tenure insecurity in
the province. Both programmes are linked to the provision of housing subsidies. They are
known as the Mayibuye Programme (MP) and the Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme
(ISUP).
 The MP arranges the release of vacant land to facilitate security of tenure for residential
settlements. Housing subsidies are used to survey and peg the land, purchase the sites, and
install basic services, with the remainder used for building a basic house. Residents are
able to move onto the land after it has been surveyed and deemed suitable. The aim of this
programme is to release land to the landless quickly to pre-empt invasions, and to help
avoid situations where people settle on land such as flood plains and rubbish dumps which
would be unsafe for permanent structures.
 The ISUP involves the purchase of land, using money from housing subsidies, by
individuals that are already occupying informal settlements, as the first step to the
upgrading of the settlement.
Both programmes envisage the sale of individually surveyed stands to occupants and
the installation or upgrading of electricity, water, sewerage reticulation and roads in the
settlements. The programmes rely on the access of individual low-income households to the
national housing subsidy of R15 000. Providing security of tenure is seen as an impetus for
the creation of viable, integrated and well-functioning communities.
Since the commencement of the two programmes, significant progress has been made.
By mid-June 1998, a total of 30 869 sites at 22 separate locations had been approved for
settlement for the MP programme. Half (50%) of the provincial budgetary allocation amount
of R39,25 million had been disbursed and work was in progress at all but three of the sites.
6
Matthew Nell, p.10.
The twenty-two MP sites are Commercia, Johandeo, Welgedacht Ext. 1, Kwa-Thema Ext. 3,
Bekkersdal NDP, Reiger Park Ext. 5, Munsieville, Boipatong, Soshanguve Exts. 4 and 5,
Atteridgeville Ext. 16, Simunye Ext. 2, Blaauwbank, Mamelodi Ext. 6, Kingsway, Tshepiso
North, Soshanguve South Exts. 8 and 9, Ned Pillay, Windmill Park, Vlakfontein, Mamelodi
Ext. 22, Heidelberg Ext. 23 and Zandspruit 1. The ISUP sites are listed in an earlier report.7
Objectives
In June 1997, C A S E was commissioned to conduct research over a four year period in two
ISUP sites (Eatonside and Albertina) and two MP sites (Soshanguve South Extension 4, and
Johandeo). Figure 1 shows the location of the four selected sites.
Figure 1: Location of fieldwork sites
7
Stevens, L., & Rule, S.: Upgrading Gauteng‟s Informal Settlements. Volume 1: A baseline study of Eatonside
and Albertina (Etwatwa Extension 30) (Braamfontein: C A S E, 1998) p.3.
Overall, the research aims to assess the extent to which the programmes meet the
vision and objectives of government housing policy as outlined on page 1 of this report. The
specific objectives of the research are to:
 conduct comprehensive physical and socio-economic baseline surveys of the residents and
environments at two ISUP sites and two MP sites. These surveys will be conducted using a
range of quantitative and qualitative techniques;
 collect regular updates on the physical consolidation of sites, the impact of the settlements
on the existing social environment, the urbanisation of households at the selected sites and
the attitudinal changes which occur amongst residents in respect of their dwellings and
future outlooks in relation to tenurial security, over a four-year period;
 utilise the data to assess the extent to which policies are achieving their goals and
highlighting aspects and issues that need further attention by the GDHLA.
This report constitutes the baseline study of the two selected MP sites. It is
complemented by an earlier report on the baseline study of the two ISUP sites.8
Methodology
Two sites in which the MP is operating were selected for this time series study. It was decided
to select sites in different parts of Gauteng in order not to bias findings in favour of any
particular region. The two sites chosen to represent the MP were (i) Soshanguve South
Extension 4 and (ii) Johandeo.
New data were obtained about the two settlements using a variety of methods:
 comprehensive new questionnaire baseline surveys of samples of 200 households in each
settlement. Households were selected systematically using a random starting point in each
site;
 new aerial photographs of each settlement;
 in-depth interviews with community leaders and municipal councillors
 three focus groups of residents selected randomly from each settlement, consisting of
either men or women and a mixture of employed and unemployed groups:
1 Unemployed women, 18-25 years

Soshanguve South Ext. 4 focus 2 Employed men, 25-40 years,
groups household heads
3 Unemployed men, 40+ years
1 Unemployed men, 18-25 years
Johandeo focus groups 2 Employed women, 25-40 years,
household heads
3 Unemployed women, 40+ years
Table 2: Composition of focus groups
8
Stevens, L., & Rule, S.: Upgrading Gauteng‟s Informal Settlements. Volume 1: A baseline study of Eatonside
and Albertina (Etwatwa Extension 30) (Braamfontein: C A S E, 1998)
Additional data will be collected during subsequent years to monitor developments by

means of:
 reports from the continuous monitoring of growth and development of each settlement by
local residents (site monitors) employed for this purpose
 updates of physical and socio-economic data using smaller sample questionnaire
interventions on a six-monthly basis
 monitoring of property market trends in adjacent formal settlements.
Selecting respondents for the survey

For the purposes of this survey, fieldworkers were instructed to interview the head of the
household defined as “the person who makes the most important decisions about how money
is spent”. In some cases, both partners may have an equal say in which case the fieldworker
interviewed either partner.
There has been debate about the usefulness of the concept of „household head‟. For
example, a World Bank publication argues that:
The most serious problem with the use of the concept of headship … has to do
with the assumptions it carries. The term assumes that a hierarchical
relationship exists between household members and that the head is the most
important member; that the head is a regular presence in the home; has
overriding authority in important household decision matters; and, provides a
consistent and central economic support… The common practice among
survey researchers and analysts to impute the characteristics of the head to the
household only serves to aggravate the problem. In doing this, researchers
tacitly assume that the head‟s information is the most important…9
Whilst recognising these problems, it was considered important to attempt to identify,

and to interview the household head for a number of reasons.
 In order to gain accurate information about, for example, household income and
expenditure. A randomly selected household member may not have been able to provide
this information.
 In order to record the opinions and perceptions of the (or at least of one of the) key
decision-maker(s) in the household.
 In order to tie in with housing subsidies where the application is made by the head of
household. This helps to justify a focus on the characteristics, opinions and perceptions of
the household head.10
9
Rosenhouse, S.: Identifying the Poor: Is „Headship‟ a Useful Concept? LSMS Working Paper No.58, World
Bank, Washington DC, 1989, p.4.
10
It should be noted that in this survey, respondents were not asked whether they had applied for a subsidy and
whether the application was in their name. Making this a criterion for selecting respondents would have been too
limiting given that not all households have applied for subsidies. Also, while in theory the „household head‟
would have filled in the subsidy application form, this may not always have been the case.
 In order to classify households on the basis of the sex of the household head. This is of
interest because of the worldwide concern that woman-headed households are particularly
disadvantaged.
Three main ways of identifying household heads are used in most surveys. 11 In this
research, the identification of the household head mixed elements of all three.
a) “Self-definition: that is classifying as the head of household the person who nominates
himself or herself as the head.” At each dwelling, the fieldworker asked who the head of
the household was, and interviewed that person.
b) “Identification of the person in authority, that is, the person who controls the
maintenance of the household and exercises the authority to run the household.” The
question of authority to make decisions is included in the definition used in this research
in terms of making decisions over money.
c) “Identification of the economic supporter of the household, that is, the chief earner or
the main supporter of the household‟s economy.” The specification in this research that
the head should be the person who makes important decisions over money links the
definition to economic factors.
Report-backs from fieldworkers indicated that women may have been over-sampled.
This was particularly the case when the husband was not at home at the time the interviewer
first called. In these circumstances, the woman often identified herself as the „head of the
household‟, or at least and „equal partner‟ with her husband. She may also have been curious
about the survey, and interested to be interviewed herself. Finally, there may have been an
element of convenience on the part of the fieldworkers. If the woman identified herself as
either „head‟ or an „equal partner‟ they were unlikely to challenge this, as they had an interest
in completing the interview rather than setting a time to return.
For all these reasons the sex of respondents cannot be taken as an accurate reflection
of the sex of the „head of the household‟ even under the definition specified. This is more a
failing of the definition and methodology used than of the fieldworkers themselves. The
survey respondent should be seen more as a „household reference person‟ than as necessarily
the „head‟. In order to estimate more accurately which households were female-headed and
which were male-headed for the purposes of analysis, a combination of three issues was taken
into consideration. These were: a) self-identification by members of the household b) who the
main contributor to the household income was, and c) any relevant comments recorded by the
fieldworker (for example “I interviewed the wife because the husband comes home late from
work”).
In recognition of the criticisms of the concept of household headship, in this survey,
household form is also considered. In addition to analysing data on the basis of whether the
household head is a male or female, households where there are no adult men can be
identified. It is important to single out this group because the number of adult men may have
11
Department of International Economic and Social Affairs: Improving Statistics and Indicators on Women
using Household Surveys, Series F No.48, Statistical Office and International Research and Training Institute for
the Advancement of Women, United Nations, New York, 1988, p.53.
implications in terms of potential income, and in terms of the opportunities and constraints
facing a household.12
Note on statistical techniques used

In analysing the data from the questionnaire surveys a number of statistical tests were used to
establish whether observed differences in the data could have simply occurred by chance, or
whether they were significant. For example, the data may suggest that female household-
heads are less educated on average than male household-heads. A statistical test can establish
the probability of this difference having simply occurred by chance, as a result of some
unforeseen bias in the sample of households selected. Where statistical tests have been carried
out, reference has been made to the type of test used and its result in the form of a „P‟
(probability) value. If the value is 0,05 or smaller, this means there is a 95% chance that the
difference did not occur by chance. The difference is significant at the 5% level. In other
words, there is a 95% chance that the difference observed in our sample exists in the
population of the site as a whole. If the value is 0,01 or smaller, there is a 99% chance that the
difference did not occur by chance, in which case the difference is significant at the 1% level.
12
Budlender, D.: The debate about household headship, Central Statistical Service, 1997, p.16.
SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXTENSION 4
1. Background to Soshanguve South Ext. 4

The first of the two Mayibuye sites selected comprises Soshanguve South Extensions 4 and 5,
of which only Extension 4 has been developed to date. Extension 4 has approximately 2 800
stands, and by January 1998 (when this survey was conducted), approximately 2 000 were
occupied. An aerial photograph of the site is shown overleaf (Figure 2). The site is situated at
the southern extremity of Soshanguve, about 30 kilometres north west of central Pretoria and
adjacent to Mabopane. Originally, Soshanguve was established as a commuter township for
Pretoria. It was located immediately east of the boundary of Bophuthatswana, designated as a
settlement for non-Setswana-speaking inhabitants of the ethnic Tswana homeland to be
established in terms of the grand apartheid policy. Soshanguve is an acronym for Sotho-
Shangaan-Nguni-Venda.
A total of R3 575 000 was budgeted for the development of the Mayibuye site.
Residents who had been living in the Chris Hani and PP informal settlements of Soshanguve
began to occupy Extension 4 in June 1997. Stand numbers were allocated to households by a
local committee before people moved to the new area. By June 1998, 63% of the budget had
been disbursed by the province and about half of the erfs in Extension 4 had been occupied. A
degree of reluctance by some residents to move from Chris Hani settlement had arisen in
response to a misconceived rumour that it too would be developed shortly.13 Understandably,
residents were reluctant to move with this in mind. All development thus far has been in
Extension 4, the idea being to allocate all the erfs there before beginning on Extension 5.
The site is part of Ward 10 of the Northern Pretoria Metropolitan Council, which
includes Soshanguve Extensions 1, 2, 3, 4, TT, WW, UU, XX, H, L, M, M extension, phase 3
and phase 4. In the November 1995 local council elections, three political parties (ANC, NP,
and PAC) and an independent candidate contested the ward. The ANC won about three-
quarters of the votes cast (5 700; one third of registered voters) and the elected councillor was
Mr. Lesiba Thomas Matlou. This was prior to the establishment of Extension 4, however.
Many current residents had voted for the ANC in their previous settlement (Chris Hani) and
the elected councillor there is Mr. Mabusela. A committee formed by the Chris Hani
community continues to hold office after facilitating the move to Extension 4. Members
include Mr. Andries Kekae (chair), Mr. Mbambo, Mr. Simon Ngwasheng, Mr. Phineas
Chauke, Mr. Joseph Shibambo and Mr. Lebete.
13
Interview with local councillor, Mr. L.T. Matlou (Ward 10, Northern Pretoria Municipal Council), 12 June
1998.
Baseline Report: Soshanguve South Extension 4. 9
Figure 2: Soshanguve South Extension 4 from the air: 22/5/98

2. Geographic origins of residents
Home language
Three languages are used most often as home languages in Soshanguve South extension 4.
The largest proportion of respondents (28%) spoke Sepedi. The two other commonly used
languages were Xitsonga (21%) and Setswana (19%). Fourteen percent of respondents spoke
isiZulu. The remaining 18% used one of five other South African languages as their home
language. This pattern was replicated amongst members of three focus groups selected to give
their views on developments in the area. Twelve of the thirty participants were speakers of
Sepedi, another eight were Setswana, four spoke isiZulu and the rest were speakers of
Xitsonga, isiNdebele, Siswati or Sesotho.
Migration histories
N Province
20%
Hammanskraal
20%
Selbourne
16%
N West
Gauteng
16%
42%
Pretoria (other)
47%
Gauteng (other)
Mpumalanga 17%
15%
FS Other
4% Prov.
3%
Figure 3: Birthplace of Soshanguve Ext. 4 respondents

Two-fifths (42%) of respondents told us that they had been born in Gauteng, primarily
in the northern parts of the province, in and around Pretoria. Almost all of the rest were born
in the three adjacent provinces: Northern Province (20%), North West (16%) and
Mpumalanga (15%). This pattern reflects the process of urbanisation that is occurring in the
direction of South Africa‟s major metropolitan centres.
Other
Prov. 1%
Chris Hani-Sosh. 42%
NW 16%
Gauteng 79%
Sosh. PP 22%
N.Prov. 2% Sosh. othr 25%

Mpumal. 3%
Pretoria 10%
Other 2%
Figure 4: Previous place of residence of Soshanguve Ext. 4 respondents

Eight out of ten respondents had been living elsewhere in Gauteng prior to their move
to Extension 4. The vast majority of these had moved from the same neighbourhood, namely
other parts of Soshanguve, especially the Chris Hani and Extension PP informal settlements
(two focus group participants said that these two names referred to the same place), where the
water table was said to be too close to the ground surface to allow for construction of houses.
It was these informal households that were specifically earmarked for occupation of
Extension 4 in the Mayibuye project. Some of the focus group members had come from
Orange Farm and other informal settlements such as Nirvana and Apla. Several focus group
participants were under the impression that the government was going to refund them for
expenses incurred in moving to Extension 4 and expressed impatience that this had not yet
occurred.
Length of time in Soshanguve South Ext. 4 and Gauteng

Almost all respondents (95%) had lived in Gauteng for 4 years or more. Settlement in
Soshanguve South Extension 4 was supposed to begin in June 1997. However, results from
this survey indicate that 9% of residents moved into the area prior to that date, and that since
June 1997, movement to the settlement has occurred gradually. The highest proportion of
respondents (48%) moved in between October and December 1997, a figure which appeared
to correlate with the dates of arrival of most focus group participants. Nine out of ten (91%)
had moved to the settlement between July 1997 and the end of January 1998 when the survey
was conducted.
Moved Real date

< 1 month ago Jan „98 9%
1-3 months ago Oct-Nov „97 48%
4-6 months ago July-Sept „97 34%
7-12 months ago Jan-June „97 8%
> 1 year, and < 3 years 1996 1%
Table 3: When did you move to Soshanguve South Extension 4?
Cities are better places to live than rural areas

The sentiment in favour of urban versus rural localities was strong amongst most respondents.
Only one in eight (12%) were pro-rural or unsure of their preference.
Strongly agree Agree Don‟t know Disagree Str. disagree

52% 37% 3% 6% 3%
Table 4: Cities are better places to live than rural areas
Participants in the unemployed women‟s focus group were generally in favour of
urban life. Points in its favour that were mentioned were the presence of “firms and shopping
complexes which make job searching easier”, rapid transport (“when you are working in
Pretoria you can leave home at 07:40 and at 08:00 you will be at work”, crèches,
entertainment, telephones, clinics, proximity to town and the “fast” life. However, several
disadvantages about living in cities were mentioned. These were crime, expensive lifestyles
that include electricity and home loan repayments and disobedient children.
Living in a rural environment was seen as advantageous in the view of one Extension
4 woman, who said “rural people are accustomed to such a life of collecting wood, using
candles, fetching water from far distances, etc. They live a slow life without much crime,
rapes, car hijackings and many other funny things that take place in urban areas”. Another
said, “in rural areas there is still law abidance. If children are instructed in accordance with a
law, they abide, unlike their counterparts in the urban areas”. One saw no problem with
splitting the family. She felt that rural residents “are fine and live a normal and right life
because they come to the cities to work while their children remain with their grannies at
home. At the end of the month, they go back home with money for their families”. Others
tended to focus on the disadvantages, mentioning such rural difficulties as obtaining transport,
collecting wood, using candles and high levels of unemployment. One said “rural residents
make use of hole toilets into which children sometimes fall when playing near them”.
Reason for coming to Soshanguve South Ext. 4

Respondents gave three main reasons for moving to Soshanguve South Extension 4:
1. Security of tenure (46%)
2. Just wanted somewhere to live (25%)
3. Getting away from family and gaining independence (13%)
Only 7% said they had moved because they were tired of being bullied by their
previous landlord, and none mentioned avoidance of paying rent (a major reason for moving
for residents of Eatonside). Only 3% said they moved in order to find a job or make money. It
is of particular significance that almost half (46%) mentioned security of tenure as their
reason for moving. This is a positive finding for the GDHLA and suggests a commitment
among respondents to making Extension 4 their permanent home.
These sentiments concurred with what was said in the focus groups. The issue of
having one‟s “own place” was mentioned by several participants. A member of the employed
male group said they had moved to Extension 4 “because in Chris Hani we were squatters, so
there it was a place which is not ours. We wanted a place that is our own”. A proactive
committee formed by the Chris Hani settlement “was given the responsibility of searching for
a permanent settlement area … because people wished to build houses of their dreams, but
they couldn‟t do so in a temporary residing area” (unemployed women). The committee
approached the local authorities about being allocated permanent sites and this had resulted in
their being moved to Extension 4. Another said “Here in Extension 4 it is better because you
know that you occupy your own stand, even though we do not have title deeds.” A level of
uncertainty still existed, as illustrated by his next comment that “we do not, however, have
any permit or assurance that the place belongs to us”.
Lack of services was the focus of another comment: “where we were staying before
there were no schools, no streets, no water, no lights, no clinics. We were living just because
we had to live, but you know that we were not living, we were dead” (employed men).
Another traced his movements prior to coming to Extension 4, beginning with the occasion
that he overheard an argument about use of the washing line between his wife and the
landlady at their Mamelodi house. At that time he
“predicted that we shall never stay happily in the landlady‟s house. I then decided to
move to Mandela village at Mamelodi. I asked for a site there. I told them I shall buy
building material so they told me they no longer sell sites. Fortunately when I arrived
at Chris Hani I found that they were still selling sites. I talked to people who were
responsible for sites and then I got a site. I built a shack and I went to take my wife
and child to our new place”.
3. Community and household demographics
Household structure
For the purposes of this survey we defined household as “all the people who live here
permanently for at least four days a week and who generally eat together or who take part in
joint activities.”
In Soshanguve South Extension 4, the mean household size was 3,8 people. The
estimated number of occupied stands by April 1998 was 2 000, meaning that the total
population of the settlement was between 7 000 and 8 100 residents. Figure 5 shows that over
half the households (56%) had between 2 and 4 members.
This can be broken down into adults and children, with adults defined as all those aged
16 years and over. The average household in Soshanguve South Extension 4 comprised 2,3
adults (slightly more women than men: 1,2 women, compared with 1,1 men), and 1,5 children
(slightly more girls than boys: 0,8 girls compared with 0,7 boys). In other words, in the
average household there were 1,5 adults per child.
20% 19% 19%

18%
% of sampled households
15%
15%
12%
10%
6%
5%
5%
3%
2% 2%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
No. of people in household
Figure 5: Household size
Half (50%) of the households surveyed comprised one adult man and one adult
woman. Of these, most (69%) included children. Just over a quarter of households (27%)
comprised multiple adults (both men and women), and again, most (75%) included children.
One in eight households (13%) included no adult men, and 9% consisted of adult men only
(mostly without children).
On the basis of the definition discussed in the introduction, 33% of households were
female-headed.
Structure Freq. %
No children 30 31%
1 adult man + 1 adult woman 50%
With children 68 69%
Multiple adults (men & No children 13 25%
27%
women) With children 40 75%
No children 9 36%
No adult men (women only) 13%
No children 17 94%
No adult women (men only) 9%
With children 1 6%
(Plus one household with no adults at all)
Note: for the purposes of this survey, „children‟ were defined as those aged 15 years and younger.
Differences in household structure by age and sex of household head

There were significant differences in the structure of households by the age (not shown
graphically) and sex of the household head (Figure 6). The younger the household head, the
smaller the size of the household on average. In households where the head was under 35
years, the average size was 2,9 people. In comparison, where the head was 35 years or older,
the household size was 3,9 people.14 There were no significant differences in household size
between male- and female-headed households. However, in female-headed households, there
were significantly more adult women (1,5 on average, compared with 1,0 in male-headed
households).15
Number of people in household (avg)
4.00
0.86
0.73
3.00
0.92 girls
0.62
boy s
2.00 women
1.04 men
1.46
1.00
1.24
0.88
0.00
male-headed f emale-headed
households households
Figure 6: Household structure for male-headed and female-headed households
14
Mann-Whitney U test. P=0,013. Significant at the 5% level.
15
Mann-Whitney U test. P=0,000.
Sons and daughters not living with respondent

Just over half the respondents (52%) had sons or daughters who are not living with them. We
did not ask how old these children were, but it is possible to infer this approximately from the
age of the parents. This analysis is based on the assumption that a parent aged less than 35
years is unlikely to have children aged over 20 years. Of those with children living elsewhere,
the majority (69%) were aged 35 or older. Their children are likely to be grown-up. However,
16% of respondents were aged under 35 and had children living elsewhere. We recognise the
limitations of this information and in future phases of the research, a question will be included
about how old respondent‟s children are who live elsewhere.
Community age-sex distribution

Figure 7 shows the age-sex pyramid for all the 196 households sampled in Soshanguve South
Extension 4. This gave us information about 740 residents.
86+
81-85 male female
76-80
71-75
66-70
61-65
56-60
51-55
46-50
41-45
36-40
31-35
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
1-5
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
% of all residents in 196 sampled households
Figure 7: Age-sex pyramid for all residents of sampled households
The age-sex pyramid in Figure 7 indicates various features of the population of
Extension 4. There were even numbers of males and females in the sampled households:
48,5% were male and 51,5% were female. The population of Extension 4 was young, with an
average age of 24,2 years. Thirty nine per cent of the population were aged 15 or less, and
13% were aged under 5 years. In contrast to Johandeo, there were no significant differences
by gender across the age categories. Characteristic of informal settlements in Gauteng in
general, 16-20 year olds were under-represented in the population. It is likely that the
population consists of young adults with young children (under 15 years).
Characteristics of heads of household

As discussed in the introduction, for the purposes of this survey, we defined the head of the
household as the “person who makes the most important decisions about how money is
spent”. A third (33%) of households were defined as female-headed, and two thirds as male-
headed.
The average age of household heads in Soshanguve South Extension 4 was 40,5 years.
However, this varied significantly by sex.16 The average age of female household heads was
46 years, compared with 37 years for male household heads. Seventeen percent of female
household heads were aged 55 or over, compared with only 6% of male household heads.
55+ men women 6 17

Age of household head
45-54 15 27
35-44 33 34
30-34 27 13
19-29 19 9
40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40
% of male household heads % of female household heads
Figure 8: Age of household head for male-headed and female-headed households
16
Among household heads in Soshanguve South Extension 4, levels of education were

low. Just over half the respondents (53%) had either no schooling or were educated to the
primary level only. This figure is only just higher than for African household heads in
informal settlements in Gauteng as a whole (50%).17
Female household heads were significantly more likely to have a low level of
education than male household heads.18 This is probably a reflection of both gender biases
within the education system and the older average age of female household heads. Seven out
of ten female household heads (72%) were educated to the primary level only, compared with
4 in 10 male household heads (39%).
men w omen
Std. 10 or more 6 5
Std. 8-9 21 4
Std. 6-7 34 19
Primary 31 43
No formal 8 29
schooling
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 9: Education level of household head for male-headed and female-headed households
17
Figures from Central Statistical Service, October Household Survey 1995 (Pretoria, Central Statistical Service,
1996).
18
The rate of unemployment19 among household heads (22%) was lower than that of
adults in Soshanguve South Extension 4 as a whole (47%). This is not surprising, as the
definition of „household head‟ was based partly on identifying the main contributor to
household income. There were, however, significant differences between male and female
household heads in their employment status (see Figure 10).20 A higher proportion of female
household heads were pensioners (19%) compared with male household heads (4%). A far
lower proportion of female household heads were employed full-time (29%) compared with
male household heads (57%).
Male household heads Female household heads

pensioner/
disabled student
unemploy ed pensioner/
4% 2% Working
7% disabled
19% f ull time
29%
Casual /
piece jobs
Working
27%
f ull time
57%
Working
unemploy ed part time
27% 6%
Working
Casual /
part time
piece jobs
5%
17%
Figure 10: Occupation of household head for male-headed and female-headed households
19
Rate of unemployment is the proportion of the labour force that are unemployed. The „labour force‟ excludes
students, full-time homemakers, pensioners, the disabled, and those under 16 years.
20
Chi² test. P=0,000.
The types of work available in Soshanguve South Extension 4 are shown below. The
most common form of work is in informal businesses. This consists mostly of hawkers selling
fruit, vegetables, drinks and cooked food. Five respondents owning spaza shops and one
traditional healer are also included in this category. The second most common type of work
was cleaning, which, along with informal businesses was the biggest source of employment
for women. About 40% of cleaners worked in offices and businesses, while the remainder
were domestic workers (including gardeners). The building industry was the third biggest
employer in Soshanguve South extension 4 and the biggest source of work for men. This
included a wide range of specialisms including bricklaying, plastering, plumbing and
carpentry. The one woman employed in this category worked making bricks.
% of all w orking respondents

30
26
25
21
20
16
women
15
men
10 9
7
6
5 4
5 3
2
0
g
ry
ua rica er
an
ry
ss
Sk kille rer
er
al
r
so
in
st
to
C , cle oth
on
iv
ne
tis
ille d)
ns ou
an
vi
du
ac
dr
si
ar
si
er
(u lab
le
,
es
In
l/F
es s
c,
bu
up
C
d,
ss op
ni
of
g
ria
,s
al
in
ha
ne Sh
pr
st
rm
ild
er
as
ec
du
d,
Bu
ag
fo
ne
In
In
an
ai
si
M
Tr
bu
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding
Figure 11: Type of work done (all respondents, by sex)

Employment, dependence and poverty in the community
Employment
As can be seen from the comments made by focus group respondents discussed in the section
on „Poverty indicators and coping mechanisms‟ below, unemployment is a key cause of
poverty in Soshanguve South Extension 4. Overall, rate of unemployment was 47%.19
Excluding those under 16 years, 44% of the population of Soshanguve South Extension 4 had
some form of employment. A further 11% were studying, and 6% were pensioners or
disabled. There were significant differences in employment rates between men and women in
Soshanguve South Extension 4 as a whole. Among men aged 16 years and over, the
unemployment rate was 27%, compared with 66% for women.21 Focus group participants
commented on the need for jobs. One man complained that only a few local residents had
been employed by the contractors laying the water pipes. The majority of their workers had
come from Germiston.
Dependency
Focus group participants talked about the dependency ratio in a household as another cause of
poverty. As discussed below, one unemployed woman depicted poverty as “a family in which
there are too many and no one works.” In 9% of cases, the household was surviving with no
regular income at all. In 68% of households (some as large as 9 or 10 people) only one person
was contributing to the household income. At the other end of the scale, in seven of the
sampled households, there were three people contributing to the household‟s income.
A percentage can be calculated of the number of people contributing to household
income in relation to household size. In the average household, 40% (two out of five) people
contributed some money towards household income. This was higher than the 35% on
average who were employed. The difference can be accounted for by contributions from
pensions and disability grants, and money given to a household on a regular basis by relatives.
There were significant differences in the percentage employed in male and female
headed households.22 This reflects the higher number of women in female-headed households
and the higher rate of unemployment for women. On average, 26% of members of a female-
headed household were employed compared to 39% in male-headed households. However,
there were no significant differences in terms of the percentage of people contributing to
household income. This implies that female-headed households rely more heavily on
pensions, disability grants and support from relatives for their income than do male-headed
households.
21
22
Income
Incomes among those sampled in Soshanguve South Extension 4 ranged from 15 households
where there was no regular income, to 5 households earning over R3 000 per month. Half the
households earned R925 per month or less. The highest proportion earned R401-R600.
Household income per head ranged from households with no regular income, to those earning
R2 000 per head. Half the sampled households had an income per head of R275 or less per
month.
20
15
% of households
10
0
0
+
0
00
m r
0
co la
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
00
50
00
00
10
in gu
e
1-
1-
1-
1-
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
30
1-
re
20
40
60
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
80
o
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
N
Figure 12: Total household income per month

Total household income and income per head varied significantly by the sex of the
household head.23 A third of female-headed households earned R401-R600 per month, while
income for male-headed households was spread more evenly across a range of income levels.
Fifty percent of female-headed households had a total monthly income of R500 or less,
compared with R1 025 for male-headed households.
There were also significant differences in household income per head, by the level of
education of the household head.24 This was, however, closely related to the sex of the
household head, as female household heads made up the majority of those with lower levels
of education. Women tended to earn less, and support slightly larger households on the
contributions of fewer members of the household.
23
24
Spearman‟s rank correlation. P=0,005.
35
male-headed female-headed
30
25
% of households
20
15
10
0
0
+
0
00
m r
0
co la
20
40
60
80
00
20
40
60
80
00
50
00
10
in gu
e
1-
1-
1-
1-
30
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
1-
re
20
40
60
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
80
o
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
N
Figure 13: Total household income per month by sex of household head
Poverty indicators and coping mechanisms

The meaning of poverty and wealth were discussed by focus group participants. It was felt
that there were about “five or six” rich people in Extension 4. Wealth was not necessarily
related to material possessions. For example, one participant felt that people in the settlement
who drive “china eyes” (Mercedes Benzs) are not necessarily wealthy because the cars may
be old. Wealth was described in terms of the ability to budget and economise effectively, and
to be an entrepreneur.
One woman said,
“by wealth we understand that it relates to people who know how to budget. You are
educated and you have had time to plan for your life. With the know-how you can use
a certain amount of money for your needs and invest some in the bank”.
Another talked about the importance of being an entrepreneur.

“If you are a boy for example and you are not lazy, you can start selling some
vegetables, at the same time banking your proceeds. You may end up having a big
business and ultimately being rich”.
Electricity was seen as an important factor in helping people to become better off.
Some participants said that electricity would allow them to start businesses such as shops, or
services involving spraying machines or grinders. Another participant (employed men) said
that the provision of electricity would help people to economise, because you can buy a
refrigerator and purchase food for a whole month and “they you are able to budget your
money”.
Unemployment was seen as a primary cause of poverty. An unemployed woman
depicted poverty as
“a family in which there are too many and no one works. The whole family including
the grandchildren may be dependent on the aged mother‟s pension, which is about
three hundred, and something.25 She may be buying the grandchildren some shoes and
myself some clothes because I cannot get a job as I have not been to school”.
One participant introduced race and the relationship between bosses and workers into
the discussion claiming that “white people have retrenched a lot of people. There is a lot of
oppression from white people”. His fellow participant added that if one attempted to negotiate
re-employment, “all they would say is that you go talk to your president to give you jobs”
(unemployed men).
Although unemployment is the main cause of poverty, one woman commented that
even those who are employed may be poor.
“even those who are working and earning their salaries monthly may be poor because
of debts. You will find that a person borrows money from others during the month and
at the end of the month he is left with nothing as he has to repay his debts”
(unemployed women).
One indicator of levels of poverty, which was measured in the questionnaire survey,
relates directly to definitions of poverty and wealth discussed in the focus groups – that is the
ability of households to budget, and to save money. Just over 4 in 10 households (42%) said
they were able to save money weekly or monthly. Another 1 in 10 (10%) said they saved
money irregularly or every few months. However, just under half the respondents (48%) said
they were never able to save money.
Another indicator of poverty levels in Soshanguve South Extension 4 was responses to
the question “were there times in the last 12 months when you could not afford to feed your
family?” Overall, a quarter of respondents (25%) said they „often‟ could not afford to feed
their family, and a further 30% said their family „sometimes‟ went hungry. Forty five percent
said there was „never‟ a time in the last year when they could not afford to feed their family.
These results are very similar to those from the 1995 October Household Survey, where
respondents were asked whether there had been a shortage of money to feed the children in
the last 12 months. As in Extension 4, 45% of the comparable group (Africans in informal
settlements in Gauteng) said „no‟.26
Responses varied significantly by income.27 For households where people „often‟ went
hungry, the average (median) income per head was R153 per month. For those replying
25
It seems that this woman was not describing her own situation, as the amount she gave for the pension is
incorrect. Government old-age pensions are currently R490 per month.
26
Figures from Central Statistical Service October Household Survey, 1995 (Pretoria: Central Statistical Service,
1996). Comparable group are Africans living in informal settlements in Gauteng.
27
Kruskal-Wallis test. P=0,001.
„sometimes‟ the average income per head was R233, and for those who could always afford to
feed their family, the average income per head was R350.
Residents in Soshanguve South Extension 4 use various coping mechanisms when
money is short. Respondents were asked, “if you ever have no money at all and you really
need some, how do you get it?” It should be noted that any illegal means of getting money
were unlikely to have been mentioned by respondents. The low level of incomes is reflected
in only 3% saying they never have money problems. The highest proportion of respondents
(42%) relies on their immediate family for help. A smaller proportion (13%) than in the two
more established sites of Eatonside (20%) and Albertina (19%) borrow money from
neighbours or friends. The relatively high level of employment of household heads (78% are
employed) is reflected in the fairly high proportion (29%) who borrow from their employer,
banks or loan sharks, other sources, or who use their own resources.
stay without 14%
nev er hav e probs 3%

use own resources 3%
bor. f amily /
partner 42%
bor. other 11%
bor. bank/
cash loans 5%
bor. employ er 10%

bor. neighbour/
f riend 13%
Figure 14: If you are ever desperate for money, how can you get some?
Focus group participants spoke about requesting help for a range of problems, not just
when money is short. Such situations might be the need to get somewhere quickly or to leave
one‟s children with someone while out. For this kind of assistance, focus group participants
(unemployed women) tended to opt for approaching their close neighbours, provided
relationships were good. One woman spoke of a priest whom she felt comfortable to
approach.
Spending patterns
Respondents were asked whether they spend none, some, most or all of their income on
various items. The graph below (Figure 15) displays the proportions saying they spent „some‟
or „most‟ of their income on different items (no respondents said they spent „all‟ of their
income on one item). The graph does not show the proportions in which households allocate
income to different items. However, the items on which high proportions of respondents said
they spent „some‟ or „most‟ of their income can be seen as the most essential. The most
essential items appear to be food, water and fuel, transport and clothes in that order. Over a
quarter of respondents (27%) said they spent „most‟ of their income on food. Other items that
the majority of respondents said they spent „some‟ of their money on were cosmetics (which
would include soap) and schooling.
% of respondents
100
Some Most
80
60
40
20
0
Food Water Transport Clothes Cosmetics School Enter- Maintn./ Loans/ Rent/
& f uel tainment building hire bond
materials purchase
Most 27 11 9 6 3 4 6
Some 73 89 88 87 89 70 43 28 23 1
Figure 15: Items on which ‘some’ or ‘most’ of household income is spent
4. Housing
Subsidies
Household structure and eligibility for the housing subsidy

The criteria for eligibility for a housing subsidy are:
 Applicant is over 21 years
 Applicant is married or living with their partner, OR has dependants.
 Household income is less than R3 500 per month
 Applicant is a South African citizen
 Applicant is buying a house for the first time
 Applicant or spouse has not received a subsidy previously.
The survey results allow us to estimate the proportion of households that will not
qualify for a housing subsidy based on the first three criteria above.
1. Age
There was one household where there was no person aged 21 years or over. In fact, this
household consisted entirely of children (aged 15 years and younger) supported by a relative
living elsewhere.
2. Dependants
One in eight households (14%) consisted of single adults with no children (9% men and 5%
women). However, this does not necessarily mean that they will not qualify for a subsidy.
This is because the definition of „dependant‟ is not clear. Does the dependant have to be a
child, or could it be a pensioner (despite the fact that pension money may be the only source
of income)? What is the cut-off age for children to be counted as dependants? Does the
dependant have to live in the household, or could they be someone the household supports but
who lives elsewhere?
The definition of „household‟ may also be problematic. Our survey may overestimate
the number of people living without partners. The definition of „household‟ used was “all the
people who live here permanently for at least four days a week and who generally eat together
or who take part in joint activities.” This may exclude a small number of households where
the partner lives at work during the week and only come home at weekends.
3. Income
Level Beneficiary Income Subsidy Amount %
1 R0 to R800 R15 000 46%
2 R801 to R1500 R12 500 31%
3 R1501 to R2500 R9 500 20%
4 R2501 to R3500 R5 000 1%
5 R3501 + R0 2%
Combining all three of these criteria, 16% of households fail to qualify for a housing
subsidy (12% male-headed and 4% female-headed). The biggest determinant of this is
household form, rather than age or income. However, as noted above, this may overestimate
the number not qualifying because of the definition of „household‟ used in the survey.
Perceptions of the subsidy application process

It was apparent in the focus group discussions that a considerable amount of confusion existed
about the state subsidy scheme. One participant said that at meetings they had been told that
of the R15 000 subsidy, “R7 500 of the total sum will belong to the government, while the
remaining R7 500 belongs to the subsidised person”. This is true to some extent as
approximately R7 500 may be left after services have been installed which can be used for
building houses for individuals. However, people who qualify for subsidies will not
physically receive the money themselves. It will be paid directly to contractors. Another
participant had heard, while registering for a housing subsidy at Pretoria North (Akasia) that
there might be “other types of subsidies like water, ash, sewerage and site.”
Some dissatisfaction was voiced about the whole process. One participant claimed that
„even though‟ he was a government employee he had realised that he might not be eligible for
a house subsidy. He objected to having to produce birth certificates of himself, his wife, his
children and a pay slip from his current employer. He subsequently decided to build a house
at his own expense and questioned the need for a “state guarantee” to proceed with his plans.
From visits to the site in July 1998 there is evidence that other residents are doing likewise
and using their own money to build houses. This might cause problems in the future because
many of these houses are not built to approved plans, and might be being built over the
planned sewerage lines. This had also caused confusion for other residents. One said,
“I do not understand why some people are building houses because we have not yet
received title deeds. Another thing is that we do not have sewerage but people have
already started building houses” (unemployed men).
Some participants were dissatisfied with the work of the local committee. They felt
was not committed enough, and was a delaying factor in obtaining subsidies. Another
participant felt that if the committee was not organised enough, the government would not
have the confidence to hand over subsidies. Several participants mentioned that the process of
stand allocation, organised by the committee had been problematic. In some cases there had
been conflicts over the boundaries of stands which had caused conflicts. One woman
commented “the committee fails when it comes to such issues”.
Tenure
The importance of having secure tenure was highlighted above as a reason given by 46% of
respondents for moving to the settlement. It was also evident in the comments of focus group
participants. One (unemployed) woman said, “I would not want to go anywhere else. I think
where we are staying is all right for us now”. Another said, “we have been squatters for a long
time, I think we are tired of moving around. Our belongings are partly damaged because of
moving from one place to another”. Another participant (employed men) explained that he
needed secure tenure in order buy a house plan and proceed with building. He asked “who is
going to certify it without a title deed?”
In the survey, respondents were asked, “do you own this site/land?” Fieldworkers
were instructed not to probe too deeply. For example, respondents were not asked whether
they had a title deed for the site or any other proof of ownership. This was to maintain the
trust of the respondent. Questions about tenure were likely to be sensitive given the unsettled
experiences of many residents of Soshanguve South extension 4 and Johandeo. The vast
majority of residents of Soshanguve South extension 4 (94%) said they owned the site. Only
5% said they did not own the site, and 1% were not sure.
Respondents were asked whether they had paid money to get the site on which their
house is built. Only two respondents (1%) said they had paid for their sites. In the focus
groups, participants (employed men) indicated that most had not paid for registration to be
allocated sites in Extension 4 but that latecomers had been charged R30. These people had not
questioned this expense because “if we asked maybe our application was not going to be
successful”. This may be indicative of some corruption.
Type of dwelling
The majority of dwellings (91%) in Soshanguve South extension 4 were constructed with
corrugated iron walls. Five percent had wooden walls, and 1% were cardboard. Two percent
of dwellings had brick walls. Almost all dwellings (97%) had corrugated iron roofs. The other
3% had roofs made of wood or cardboard. A variety of materials were used for the floors of
dwellings. Four in ten dwellings (42%) had mud or soil floors, and another 4 in 10 (40%) had
brick or cement floors. Eleven percent of dwellings had floors made of a mixture of mud and
cement. In the remaining 7% of dwellings the floors were covered with wood or carpet.
Most dwellings in Soshanguve South extension 4 were very small. Six out of ten
(59%) were one-roomed, and another two out of ten (21%) had two rooms. Only 11% of
dwellings had 4 or more rooms, and none had more than six. As would be expected for a new
settlement, and one under the Mayibuye scheme, the majority of dwellings (95%) were
occupied by one family. However, there were 8 sites (4% of those sampled) where there were
two families and in 1% of cases, there were three families on one stand.
% of dw ellings
70
59
60
50
40
30
21
20
10
10 7
4
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 16: Number of rooms (divided by a solid structure) in dwelling

Respondents were asked to estimate how much their dwelling had cost to construct.
The pattern of costs was very variable as can be seen from Figure 17. Estimated costs ranged
from R65 for a one-roomed dwelling with corrugated iron walls and roof to R9 000 for a four-
roomed house with brick walls. Just over a quarter of dwellings (28%) had cost R600 or less
to construct, but at the other end of the scale, a quarter (24%) had cost over R2 000. Half the
dwellings had cost R1 450 or less to construct.
Focus group participants also discussed the cost of building a shack. Estimates given
ranged from R3 400 to R3 600. One man said,
“One spends a lot of money on building material. One would spend R2 000 to pay
people who helped in building the shack. The building material I used to build a shack
at Chris Hani is now having rust. I can no longer use it. To build a two-roomed shack
is very costly”.
Another participant pointed out that local prices for materials to construct a shack
were inflated because suppliers were aware of the demand. Non-shack materials on the other
hand were relatively less expensive.
% of respondents
20
16
15
13
11
10
10 9 9
8
7
6
5
5 4
2 2
+
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
20
40
60
80
01
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
50
-R
50
R
-R
-R
-R
-R
-R
-R
-R
1-
1-
1-
50
R
1-
20
40
60
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
R
80
R
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
R
R
Figure 17: Estimated cost of constructing the dwelling

The majority of dwellings (82%) had either been built by the respondent themselves or
by their family and friends. Of respondents who had built the dwelling themselves, 70% were
male. Where the dwelling had been built by family, friends and neighbours, 75% of
respondents were women. Fifteen percent of respondents had employed a builder (all from
businesses employing 5 or less people) to construct the dwelling. This ties in with the 16% of
respondents working in the building sector (see Figure 11). Surprisingly, given the short time
the settlement has been in existence, 2% of respondents said the previous owner had
constructed the dwelling.
% of respondents
50%
Men Women
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
My self Family /f riend/ Small builder Prev ious owner Other
neighbour
Total 43% 39% 15% 2% 1%
Figure 18: Who built the dwelling, by sex of respondent

A number of questions were asked in relation to the construction of formal houses.

Respondents were asked whether they would like to participate in building their own house.
There was a fairly wide spread of opinion about this. Two thirds of respondents (67%) agreed
that they would like to participate in building their own house, but nearly a quarter (23%)
disagreed. There was no clear pattern of responses in relation to the sex, education level, or
age of the respondent, or to household income. Restricting responses to those from household
heads, however, there was a correlation between who constructed the house, and attitudes to
building a house.28 Those who had built their current dwelling themselves were more likely to
agree or strongly agree that they would like to participate in building their own house (68%)
than those who had had their house built for them (56%).
Respondents were also asked, “do people in your household have the skills to build a
house themselves?” Overall, over half the respondents (58%) said they did “not at all” have
the skills to build a house. At the other end of the scale, over a quarter of respondents (28%)
said members of their household had all the skills required to build a house. If the respondent
or their friends and family had built their current dwelling, they were more likely to say they
had all the skills to build a house (30%) than respondents whose house had been built by a
builder or by the previous owner (14%).
Upgrading
Respondents in the survey were asked whether they would like to upgrade their dwelling, and
81% said they would. Tenure security seemed to have an impact on this, as one focus group
participant commented that his preference is to stay in a shack and gradually purchase bricks
and other materials to build a house while knowing that his tenure is secure. This seems to
have been happening, as another focus group participant mentioned that he had seen three
stands with “enough bricks in their yards” to build houses.
Respondents who said they would like to upgrade were asked what they would like to
do. They could give as many answers as wanted. Just under half the respondents (46%)
mentioned services (electricity, water or sanitation), while 96% mentioned upgrading some
part of the dwelling itself. The highest proportion (68%) wanted to upgrade by enlarging their
house. Other priorities included adding windows and improving the inside of the dwelling.
Fifteen percent of respondents said specifically that they would like a „permanent‟, brick built
house.
28
Chi² test. P=0,013. Significant at the 5% level.
Electrify 46
Toilet in house/stand 38
Water in house/stand 30
Enlarge house 68
Add w indow s 45
Improve internal fittings 35
Improve yard 23
Permanent/brick house 15
Improve w alls/roof 11
Other 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
% of respondents
Figure 19: How would you like to upgrade your dwelling?
Despite the fact that the first people only settled in Soshanguve South extension 4 in
June 1997, by the time of the survey (January 1998), 12% of respondents said they had
already upgraded their dwelling. The highest proportion (69%) had used their own savings to
upgrade, while 22% had got the money to upgrade from their employer.
Other
9%
Employ er
22%
No Y es Own
88% 12% sav ings
52%
Family
sav ings
17%
Figure 20: Have you upgraded your dwelling in the past, and if so, where did you get the money?
5. Facilities, priorities and development programmes
What services exist at the moment?

All stands in Extension 4 have a tap in their yard. At this stage, water is the only service
supplied. Sewerage reticulation, electricity and paved roads have not been installed. Some
focus group participants mentioned that adjacent Extension 3 was being provided with these
services in spite of its residents having arrived more recently those in Extension 4.
Water
Three quarters of respondents (74%) had taps in their yard by the time of the survey (January
1998). Six percent of respondents had water piped to their houses. Seventeen percent of
respondents got water from a tap in their neighbour‟s yard, and the remaining 3% used other
sources of water.
Some problems with the continuity of water supplies have been experienced. Thirty
seven percent of respondents said they had problems with the water supply. For a quarter of
respondents (24%) these problems were experienced weekly. Several participants in the
employed male group mentioned that water supplies to Extension 4 were sometimes cut off
without warning. One said, “when you are from work and you want to do some washing, you
will find that there is no water”. Another man complained that the local committee was not
active enough in helping to solve this problem.
“We cannot be organised if our leadership is disorganised. They must first be
organised, then come to us so that we know their position, then we can submit our
requests. Presently when you have a problem, you cannot take it to the office. You
cannot go to the office and complain that your water pipe is leaking – it may take two
to three weeks before it is sealed” (employed men).
Toilet facilities
Almost all those surveyed in Soshanguve South extension 4 (98%) use pit latrines. For less
than half of those using pit latrines (43%) these were used by household members only. For
another 55% the facilities were shared with neighbours. Two percent use public toilets. Only
two out of ten respondents (21%) thought the toilet facilities were „fine‟ or „adequate‟. Four
out of ten (41%) thought they were „inadequate‟ and another four in ten (37%) thought they
were „terrible‟.
The installation of sewerage pipes is planned but at least one house has been built in a
position where digging of trenches for pipes may affect its foundations, according to a
participant in one of the focus groups (employed men). The local councillor also mentioned
this as a problem, but emphasised that the installation of sewerage was a priority for the
community. There may be major advantages in making every effort to begin this quickly,
before more houses are built which may obstruct sewerage lines.
Refuse disposal
The municipality does not remove refuse from Soshanguve South extension 4. Residents
dispose of their household refuse in a variety of ways. The largest proportion (58%) buries it,
and 18% burn it. The remainder (24%) dumps their refuse - mostly in an open space, although
one respondent said they dumped their rubbish on the street. A focus group participant
(unemployed men) said, “we throw garbage anywhere we want to throw because they no
longer come to collect garbage”. Another pointed out the health hazard of pit latrines in
combination with lack of refuse removal. He said “my concern is that we have little children
who might get infected”
Priorities for services

One focus group participant expressed an intense frustration about the lack of local facilities
that was evident in all three groups. He said “there is no church, no clinic, no schools, no
streets, no sewerage, no police stations, no phones, no shopping complexes – so where can we
buy anything?” (employed men). One woman compared Extension 4 to Mshenguville (a
densely populated, unserviced shack settlement in Soweto). Another complained that there
were no playgrounds for children and if all stands were to be occupied with houses he asked,
“where will they create a sports area?” (unemployed men). In addition to the above, other
services required were post offices and shebeens according to another participant
(unemployed women).
Beyond these lists of requests, survey respondents were asked to prioritise which
services and facilities were needed most urgently. Electricity was mentioned the most
frequently (by 81% of respondents), and the most frequently as a first priority (57%).
Frustration over the lack of electricity has been exacerbated by the installation of electricity
and Apollo lights in Extension 3. One focus group participant questioned this, saying that
“Extension 3 came into being long after we were here, but it is more developed than
Extension 4”.
Toilet facilities and sanitation were the second most frequently mentioned services in
the survey. Given the dissatisfaction expressed with toilet facilities, this is perhaps not
surprising. Beyond these basic services, people spoke of health services (with 8% mentioning
this as the top priority), tarred roads and schools.
The state of the roads was also discussed in the focus groups. None of the roads except
one within Extension 4 are tarred, and at times they become too muddy for taxis to enter the
area. Another participant complained that the roads “are bumpy, and full of potholes and thus
dangerous when it is raining”. She added that to avoid the mud “you have to wear plastic
covers on your feet until arriving at the bus stop”. Others (employed men and unemployed
women) mentioned that passing cars on the busy main Rosslyn-Erasmia road had killed
several children. One participant said that the local committee “do not want to go to the traffic
department and ask that at least one or two officers be allowed to come and help, so that at a
certain times traffic is controlled so that people can cross [the road]”.
The provision of schools was also discussed by focus group participants. Various
problems and frustrations have been experienced in relation to schooling. On focus group
participant (employed men) said that on arrival promises had been made that tents would be
erected to accommodate school children and that these had not materialised. In consequence
his two children now have to be transported to school, whereas in their previous settlement,
they could just walk. Another participant claimed that four schools had been promised for
Extension 4 (unemployed women). Someone else in her group said that for local children to
get to school there were insufficient buses and she related an incident of a young child getting
lost because of not knowing about “extensions” in response to the bus driver‟s question.
Problems with the committee had also been experienced in relation to schools. One
woman indicated that some community volunteers had approached the Sinqobile School to
ask that Extension 4 children could attend there and negotiated transport for them. This
initiative was not appreciated by the committee, who responded by saying that the volunteers
had been usurping the role “which was supposed to be played by the committee – taking their
duties” (unemployed women).
80 1st choice 2nd choice

% of respondents
24
60
40
57 32
20 9
9
14 11 9
11 8 7
4 3 3
0
er
ty
s
s
es
n
lig nes e,
ol
ad
t io
ci
at
o ic
ic
ht ,
ho
tri
ro
ph ol
it a
rv
ec
Sc
s, , p
s)
se
an
d
rre
El
op es
/s
lt h
sh us
Ta
ts
ea
ile
o
H
(h
To
er
th
O
Figure 21: Services most urgently needed in Soshanguve South Extension 4
Developments
Over half the respondents (54%) said they did not know of any development project taking
place in Soshanguve South extension 4 at the time of the survey (January 1998). Of those who
had heard of development programmes, the most commonly mentioned were a
water/sanitation project (70%), grading of roads (40%) and electrification (11%). No
development projects are currently underway in Extension 4, although a sewerage project and
electrification are planned. Only two respondents (1%) said that members of their household
were participating in development projects.
Payment for services

Under a quarter of respondents (23%) said they paid for services in the past, with the
remainder (77%) saying they had never paid for services. Despite this low rate of payment in
the past, the vast majority of respondents (96%) agreed that people should pay for services.
There was also strong support for the idea that those who do not pay should have their
services cut off. Half the respondents (49%) strongly agreed with this statement, and another
29% agreed.
In the focus groups it became clear that there were problems with payment for water.
Many households do not have water meters (more than 800 according to one focus group
participant) and the method of determining how much these people should pay each month
appears erratic. One participant (employed men) said “you go to the offices to pay and what
they do is just look at you and determine from your appearance as to how much you could pay
for water”. Another said “Some people pay R16, some R100 and others R80. There is no
consistency. Dizzy from the previous day‟s beer drinking, they just determine the water
account from the head as to who pays how much”. Another (unemployed men) questioned
whether he could be expected to pay for water without receiving a statement. He said that he
had been told that “they only check the months you did not pay for and then they know how
much you should be charged”. Others also said that they never receive accounts for water
usage. There was disagreement whether accounts should be paid under these circumstances.
One man said “There are some people who use water from the pipe because the taps got
finished before the tap installation into each house was completed, If those people drink 20
litres, who should pay?” Amongst those who had paid for services, the amount varied from
R48,60 to R81.
In the survey, respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay for
water and electricity each month. This was an open-ended question, but the highest proportion
of respondents (32%) said they would be willing to pay R50 per month. Just over half the
respondents (53%) said they would pay up to R50 per month, with the remainder (47%)
saying they would be willing to pay more. When asked about how much they could afford to
pay, respondents gave slightly higher figures, selecting from a range of figures from R5 up to
R200. On average, respondents said they could afford to pay R26 more than they were willing
to pay, however 38% said they could not afford any more than they were willing to pay. A
third of respondents (32%) said they could not afford to pay over R50 per month.
35
afford to pay willing to pay
30
% of respondents
25
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 35 50 75 100 150 200
Amount (R)
Figure 22: How much can you afford to pay, and how much are you willing to pay for services?
6. Problems in the community

Focus group participants complained about several issues. These were mostly related to
services and facilities as discussed in section 5. The other problem spoken about most often
was crime.
Crime
Over six out of ten respondents (62%) said that crime was not a problem in Soshanguve South
Extension 4. Crime was perceived as much less of a problem here than in any of the other
three settlements. In Eatonside only 11% of respondents said there was no crime, and 37% in
Johandeo MP and 46% in Albertina gave this response. In Extension 4, of those who reported
that crime was a problem, the majority (87%) said that the main type of crime was theft or
robbery. Others (7%) mentioned rape, and 1% mentioned corruption and the illegal selling of
stands. The majority of respondents (59%) said crimes occurred only „sometimes‟.
Crime was also discussed in the focus groups. One participant attributed crime to the
large number of unoccupied stands in Extension 4. She said “people hide in these areas
because they won‟t be seen as there are no lights” (unemployed women). Similarly, another
mentioned the incidence of empty shacks. Some “people erect their shacks and leave them to
stay elsewhere. This promotes gangsters and thieves because gangs live in those unoccupied
shacks”.
There was some criticism of the lack of policing in the area. One participant
(unemployed men) said, “I have a problem with our area because there is no police station
nearby where one could report criminal cases. We are just in the bush. There is no security,
especially at night”. Another pointed out “even if you are attacked, there are no telephones
nearby where you can phone the police. The nearest place is Rosslyn and one has to use a taxi
and pay R2,50. There are no taxi‟s at night”. According to another “the committee must
arrange with nearby policemen for our security. It looks as if we were just thrown away in the
bush and nobody is taking care of us”.
As a result of the lack of policing, the community has developed its own system for
dealing with criminals. In the event of a crime a whistle is blown. “Each one of us has a
whistle in the house. We use a whistle if someone has broken into a house and attacked us.
That is the only strategy we use to wake neighbours for help. I sometimes think the strategy is
wrong because sometimes a person without fault is beaten” (unemployed men). A response to
this comment was “It is all because we are doing this in the dark. You can hardly see whom
you are beating!”.
7. Community organisations and dynamics
Organisations and membership

Results of the survey indicate that membership of one or more community organisations was
common amongst households in Soshanguve Ext. 4. In only 13% of households none of the
members was affiliated to a community organisation. Some focus group participants felt that
facilities for organisations were lacking. One participant (unemployed male) said that
Extension 4 had no recreational hall and therefore “no activities like karate, boxing or
football”. He also pointed out the lack of a church, saying “there is nothing we can use to
keep ourselves busy. All we have is our sites and shacks”. One focus group participant
(employed men) said that there was no ANC branch structure in Extension 4. He said that he
had been urging local women to form a women‟s league. A certain minimum number was
needed before it would be “recognised”.
For those who did belong to organisations, the highest proportion belonged to a church
(63% or all respondents). An unemployed woman commented in the focus group that the
churches were quite active in Extension 4. A church had recently been built (referring to a
house building) and that it “serves as a crèche during the week, on Sundays it is a church.
Beauty contests are also held there”. There was also a relatively high proportion of
households with membership of women‟s organisations (44%), political organisations (36%),
street committees (22%) and trade unions (20%). Others belonged to youth organisations
(18%), sports clubs (14%), stokvels (8%), cultural organisations (3%), burial societies (4%) or
civic organisations (2%).
Organisational membership was higher amongst households that had a history of
membership in the areas where they lived previously (87%) than those that had not belonged
to organisations in their old communities (56%). What is indicative of a sense of settledness
amongst Extension 4 households is that the latter group had joined organisations, in spite of
not being members previously. Households with incomes of less than R500 per month were
slightly less likely to have organisational memberships (84%) than those with incomes in
excess of R500 per month (89%).
Church 63
Women's org. 45
Political org. 36
Street comm. 22
Trade Union 20
Youth 18
Sports 14
Stokvel 8
Burial society 4
Other 10
None 13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
% of households
Figure 23: Organisational membership of Soshanguve Ext. 4 households
Settling conflicts
Respondents were asked whom they would first approach to settle a serious conflict between
themselves and their neighbours. Despite the criticism of the community committee voiced in
the focus groups, the highest proportion of respondents said this is where they would turn for
assistance. Just under a quarter of respondents (23%) said they would solve the problem
themselves, and 5% said they would involve their family or neighbours.
Street committee 11%

Ourselves 23%
Family/
neighbour 5%
Police/
councillor 2%
Community
committee 59%
Figure 24: How would you resolve a conflict with your neighbour?
From the discussion in the focus groups, it seems that the resolution of local conflicts
is a rather haphazard affair. As indicated in the section on crime, the community may take the
law into its own hands. “Kangaroo courts” are conducted in the event of conflict situations.
One focus group participant (employed men) said “when you beat your wife and we cannot
sleep because of that, we may beat you up”.
Community meetings
The community development committee sometimes convenes meetings in the evenings at
about 19:00 when working residents have all arrived home. According to one woman, “they
use a whistle, then we congregate at the football grounds”. Attendance at these meetings is
generally high, with the majority of respondents (96%) estimating that over 200 people attend
such meetings. Most respondents (87%) said that the meetings were the main way they found
out about developments within the community. Another 7% mentioned pamphlets and letters
as a way of gaining information.
There was criticism of the community committee for a lack of activity from some
focus group participants. One participant claimed that the last meeting had been in December
1997 and that no update on developments had been received at the time of the group being
convened (March 1998). Other participants felt that the committee had not done much since
acquiring sites for them and that better organisation was needed.
Relationship between the community and local government

Respondents in the survey were asked how they would describe the relationship between the
community and the local government councillor. Support for the councillor seemed quite
high, with 60% saying the relationship was „good‟ and another 12% saying it was „excellent‟.
Only 7% said the relationship was „poor‟ or „terrible‟. This was also the impression of
C A S E staff on visiting the site, and on one occasion finding the councillor was also visiting.
This impression is contradicted, however, by some comments from the focus groups.
Some participants claimed that the councillor is not actively involved in the affairs of local
people and that although he meets with the local committee and attends mass meetings, he
does not provide enough feedback about developments and what has been achieved.
8. Individuals and their place in the community

In the report on the baseline surveys of Eatonside and Albertina two indicators were
constructed by combining responses to a series of questions. The indicators centred around
issues of a) how settled a person felt in the community, and b) how isolated or powerless they
felt. It was recognised in the first baseline report that these indicators are subjective and
experimental. The results for Soshanguve South extension 4 and Johandeo suggest that some
changes may be needed in the future as more becomes known about the process of
development and local perceptions of it. This is discussed below. However, the indicators are
calculated and presented here in the same format as in the baseline report for Eatonside and
Etwatwa extension 30 so that comparisons between the four sites can be made.
How well established are individuals?

The following five questions were grouped together to create an index of how well
established and settled respondents felt. Answers were allocated scores as below. Questions 1
and 2 were weighted more strongly than the other three questions, because they were
considered to be more powerful indicators of how settled a person felt. The minimum possible
score was 0, and the maximum, 14.
1. Do you feel you are part of this community?

2. How many different organisations do members of this household belong to?
3. Do you plan to bring any of your relatives here in the future?
4. Do you, or members of this household, participate in community development projects?
5. If you ever really need money, how do you get it?
Question Responses and score

0 1 2 3 4
Feel part of the No, not at all No, not really Don‟t know Yes, sort of Yes, strongly
community? 1% 0% 1% 6% 92%
Number of None One Two Three 4 or more
organisations 13% 26% 14% 20% 27%
Bring relatives? No Don‟t know Yes
53% 8% 39%
Participate in No Yes
comm. devp. 99% 1%
Projects
How get money Self-sufficient (go Borrow from Borrow from
when really without, use own family or friends or
need it? savings etc.) work (or not neighbours
specific)
24% 63% 13%
Table 5: Questions included in the score for how settled respondents are
Respondents‟ scores ranged between 2 and 12. Over half the respondents (54%)
scored between 7 and 9.
25%
20% 20%
20%
15% 14% 14%
11%
10% 9%
7%
5% 4%
1% 1%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Score from 0-14
Figure 25: Composite score for how well settled respondents are
Most respondents seem well-settled in Soshanguve South Extension 4. Ninety two

percent of respondents said they felt „very strongly‟ part of the community, and only 1% said
they did not feel part of the community. Focus group participants also reported a strong sense
of community because people know each other from the days at Chris Hani settlement. For
example, assistance is given in the erection of shacks, sometimes for money and sometimes
not. In the event of a death, people are generally very supportive in donating money or
lending “pots, a tent and chairs on the day when the burial service is held”.
Statistical tests carried out on the scores showed that a respondents‟ score was not
related to socio-economic variables of sex, age, education or income. However, there was a
significant difference in the score for how settled a respondent was, in relation to how long
they had lived at Soshanguve South extension 4. Only 14% of those who had been there for
less than 4 months at the time of the survey scored „high‟ compared to 33% of those who had
been there for 4 months or more.29 One explanation for this, despite the short amount of time
involved, may be that those who came to the settlement first were more committed to the
development of the area, and may have known each other from previous settlements. Those
who came later may have come with less enthusiasm than the first arrivals.
Possible problems with the indicator can be identified:
 It does not differentiate enough between links to a community that people from Johandeo
and Soshanguve have moved with, and links to the specific place where they are now.
 Not enough is known about the dynamics of organisational membership or about the
movement of people and families to draw specific conclusions. It may be that in a new
place, respondents feel they need to join organisations, but as they feel more settled, the
number they belong to actually declines.
 Comparison between all the sites shows little differences in responses despite, for
example, the 19% of respondents in Johandeo who said this was only a temporary move
and they were waiting for something better, compared with only 1% from Extension 4.
Bigger differences might have been expected. An indicator which shows greater variance
between the sites (and over time, although this remains to be seen) may need to be
developed.
Powerlessness and isolation

A similar score was calculated using responses to the following three statements:
1. People like me can‟t influence developments in our community.
2. The government doesn‟t care about people like me.
3. I will never be able to afford a better place to live.
Respondents scored 0 for strong agreement with the statement (the most pessimistic)
and 4 for strong disagreement (the most optimistic). The lower the score, the greater the sense
of powerlessness.
29
Question RESPONSES AND SCORE

 Pessimistic/disempowered Optimistic/empowered 
Strongly agree Agree Don‟t know Disagree Strongly disagree
0 1 2 3 4
Can‟t influence
41% 11% 7% 36% 5%
development.
Govt. doesn‟t
17% 14% 7% 44% 17%
care.
Never afford
better place to 24% 7% 7% 30% 6%
live.
Table 6: Responses to questions included in score for feelings of powerlessness

Six out of ten respondents (61%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement
that “the government doesn‟t care about people like me”. Responses to this statement were the
most positive across the three statements. It is quite concerning that four out of ten
respondents (41%) strongly agreed with the statement that “people like me can‟t influence
development in our community”.
% of respondents
20% 19%
15%
11% 11% 11% 11%
10%
7% 7% 7%
5% 5%
5% 4%
2%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Score from 0-12
Figure 26: Composite score for how powerless and isolated respondents feel
Statistical analysis showed that scores did not vary dramatically by socio-economic
variables such as age, sex, education or income. There were significant differences between
men and women, according to the length of time the respondent had been in Soshanguve
South Extension 4. Men who had been there for 3 months or less were much more likely to
have a low score than women who had been there for same amount of time. Forty five percent
of men scored between 0 and 4, compared with only 17% of women. However, among those
who had been there four months or over, the pattern was reversed. Fifty five percent of
women scored between 0 and 4 compared with only 29% of men. This suggests a link with
patterns of migration to the settlement, and warrants further investigation in the follow-up
studies.
Baseline Report: Johandeo. 45
JOHANDEO
1. Background to Johandeo
Johandeo is the second Mayibuye site selected for this study. The settlement is bounded by
the Golden Highway (R553) to the east and the Vereeniging-Potchefstroom railway line to the
south, in the vicinity of the Vanderbijlpark station and immediately west of Sebokeng‟s
southernmost extension (17). Johandeo lies 14 kilometres north of Vanderbijlpark town centre
and 16 kilometres north-west of Vereeniging town centre. It lies on a flat site at an altitude of
1 490 metres.
The Mayibuye site is situated immediately east and south of an older informal
settlement of the same name. The old and Mayibuye sections have become known locally as
Phases 1 and 2 respectively (see Figure 27). The settlement as a whole comprises 2 009
residential stands, of which 712 were previously occupied as Phase 1, and the remainder laid
out as new stands for the Mayibuye project. A comparison between the two phases is useful in
this analysis, because of their proximity to each other and the inevitable networks of
relationships between residents of each phase. The survey, therefore, comprised households
from both phases (67 from Phase 1 and 132 from Phase 2), but the primary focus of this
report is on Phase 2.
Some of the first residents of Phase 1 (about 30 households) moved there from the
KwaMadala (Iscor) hostels. They had allegedly been involved in the massacre that took place
at Boipatong on the 17th June 1992. Protracted negotiations led to their settlement in Johandeo
(named after the original farmland on which it is situated) in April 1994. Others followed
these households from the Sebokeng and Evaton areas during 1995. The settlement is known
by some residents as Polokong. Early settlers in Phase 1 were given cards bearing this name,
to register their occupation of stands, according to focus group participants. Even now, at taxi
ranks, one woman said, “you will find the board written Polokong” (employed women). An
important difference between the two phases is the different provision of services. Phase 1 has
piped water, toilets and electricity, in contrast to the Mayibuye site which only has water (a
tap in each stand).
Phase 2 is part of the province‟s Mayibuye programme and residents began to move
into the settlement in March 1997. Many of these came from a site beside a small shopping
centre on the Golden Highway called „Golden Store‟, and from Sebokeng (particularly
extension 13), Evaton and other surrounding townships. Indications are that virtually all
stands have now been occupied. A greater problem currently is people moving away to other
settlements. Some apply for a subsidy in more than one place, and move if their application is
approved in another settlement first. This problem may be a serious concern in the future
given the plans for extensive development and building of formal houses on land adjacent to
Johandeo to the North and East.
Figure 27: Johandeo from the air (22/5/98)

The total population of the settlement can be estimated to lie between 6 200 and 7 100.
This takes into account the small proportion of stands which fieldworkers found to be vacant,
or where there were houses that appeared to have been abandoned.
Mayibuye Phase 1 Total

Number of stands 1401 608 2009
% of vacant stands in sample 8% 9%
Estimated no. of occupied 1295 554 1849
stands.
Average household size 3,37 4,09
Estimated number of people 4364 2266 6630
Confidence interval30 for ±446
population estimate (95%) 6184-7076
Note: this estimate assumes that there was only one household per stand. In the survey, only two stands were
found where this was not the case.
Table 7: Estimate of population size of Johandeo, at time of the survey (January 1998).
Johandeo is part of ward 17 of the Western Vaal Sub-structure of the Vaal
Metropolitan Council. Mr Ace Motaung of the ANC was elected as councillor for the ward in
the November 1995 local council elections. The community itself has formed a Johandeo
Development Committee. It comprises four residents of Phase 1 and three from the Mayibuye
section. The committee is chaired by Mr Abram Manuedi Moilwa, minister of the local AME
church. Other members are Mrs Princess Cxiki (vice-chairperson), Mr William Nhlapo
(secretary), Mr David Hulane (vice-secretary), Ms Elizabeth Mokoena (treasurer), Ms Beauty
Mthethwa (vice-treasurer) and Rev Simon Dlamini (AFM minister). The streets of Johandeo
are named after the members of the committee.
2. Geographic origins of residents
Home language
The dominant language in Johandeo as a whole is Sesotho, spoken at home by two thirds
(67%) of the respondents. Two other languages are also frequently spoken. One in eight
respondents (13%) used isiZulu as their home language, and another 13% spoke isiXhosa.
There were slight differences between Phase 1 of Johandeo and the Mayibuye area. In the
Mayibuye area lower proportions of respondents spoke Zulu (12% compared with 15% in the
Phase 1 area) or isiXhosa (11% versus 16%). In the case of the isiZulu speakers this may be a
result of the early settlement of Zulu hostel residents in the area. Conversely, the
predominance of the largest group, speakers of Sesotho, is less marked in Phase 1 (where 60%
use this language at home) than in the Mayibuye area (where the equivalent statistic is 71%).
30
Because the survey did not cover every household in the settlement, but only a sample, it is not possible to
give an exact number for the population. From our sample, however, we can be 95% sure, that the population
lies between 6184 and 7076.
The majority of participants (21 out of 30) in the three focus groups convened were speakers
of Sesotho.
Migration histories
Just under half (44%) of the respondents were born in Gauteng, especially the Evaton region,
and more than one third (38%) in the Free State, especially the Heilbron, Parys and Sasolburg
areas. Situated near the southern boundary of Gauteng, Johandeo and the Vaal region as a
whole serves as a convenient settling place for migrants from the Free State.
The survey revealed a small proportion of respondents (3%) who were born outside
South Africa. In the focus groups there was some animosity towards these foreigners. One
man felt were only there to make money from their businesses and not interested in
contributing to the development of the community. In contrast, however, the employed
women‟s group expressed admiration for these people because of the way that they co-operate
with each other and the “good wages” (R150 per week) that they pay their employees, who
are also foreigners.
Outside SA
3%
Vaal (Evaton)
Free State 25%
37%
Gauteng
44% Vaal (other)
64%
Gauteng (other)
Mpumalanga 11%
5% NW
Other
4%
Prov.
7%
Figure 28: Birthplaces of heads of households in Johandeo (Mayibuye section)

Most residents had not moved directly from the areas where they had been born to
Johandeo, as illustrated by Figure 29 which shows the place of previous residence. In this
case, more than eight out of ten (84%) had moved from other parts of the Vaal region in close
proximity to Johandeo, especially Evaton, Sebokeng and the „Golden Store‟ settlement next to
the Golden Highway. This was verified by the stated previous homes of participants in the
three focus groups, primarily Evaton, Sebokeng and Small Farms, all within about a seven
kilometre radius of Johandeo.
Evaton 36%
Free
State 9% Golden Hgwy 23%
Gauteng 87%
Other
Prov. 4% Sebokeng 17%
Vereeniging 8%
Othr Vaal 17%

Othr Gaut. 1%
Figure 29: Where did you live before coming to Johandeo? (Mayibuye section)
Length of time in Johandeo and Gauteng

Almost all respondents (95%) across both areas of Johandeo had lived in Gauteng for 4 years
or more. The history of development is revealed in the dates given for moving to Johandeo. In
the Mayibuye area, the highest proportion (69%) had moved to Johandeo between January
and June 1997. Another 16% had moved later than this (between July 1997 and the end of
January 1998 when the survey was conducted). In contrast, 67% of respondents from Phase 1
of Johandeo had moved sometime during 1995 or earlier. Only 14% had moved to Johandeo
during 1997.
Moved Real date MP Phase 1

< 1 month ago Jan „98 2% 0%
1-3 months ago Oct-Nov „97 5% 0%
4-6 months ago July-Sept „97 9% 2%
7-12 months ago Jan-June „97 69% 12%
> 1 year, and < 3 years 1996 11% 19%
> 3 years, and < 4 yrs 1995 4% 31%
4 years or more 1994 or earlier 1% 36%
Note: percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.
Table 8: When did you move to Johandeo?

Cities are better places to live than rural areas

The majority of respondents in both sections of Johandeo agreed or strongly agreed that cities
are better places to live than rural areas. However, there were significant differences between
respondents from the two sections.31 Those from the Mayibuye area were significantly more
likely to agree with the statement than those from Phase 1, who were more likely to strongly
disagree with the statement.
Strongly agree Agree Don‟t know Disagree Str. disagree

MP 51% 28% 5% 7% 8%
Phase 1 40% 16% 5% 13% 25%
Note: percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.
Table 9: Cities are better places to live than rural areas.

Most participants in the focus groups were from Phase 1 and had moved to Johandeo
in 1994. Their views should thus be seen as indicative primarily of the more established
residents of the settlement. Some of these older residents had favourable comments about
urban life. One said that the convenience of proximity to shops and schools was a great
advantage (employed women). A spin-off of this was that
“Our children do not have to walk long distances. They just walk short distances and
then they are at school. After school they come straight home” (employed women).
In contrast, it was mentioned that

“Rural life is difficult because if you want to build a fire you must go to the forest and
chop some trees for wood and also get some cow dung. In town it is better because
there are trucks that sell both wood and coal. When you are in the rural areas you
leave children at home and fetch wood very far away” (unemployed women).
However, comments that placed rural areas in a positive light were more common
among participants in the focus groups. These participants often seemed cynical about the
possibility of living a settled life in an urban environment.
“Rural areas are good because one does not spend money. You do things on your
own. You can get vegetables and beans from your own garden” (employed women).
“We came for money in Gauteng. The money that we want is not available. It is better
that we go back. We should start from scratch ploughing. If one has chickens one can
eat eggs. I have sheep. I have cows that will produce milk. My children will eat
properly. I plough in the fields. When maize has ripened I reap it. I do not buy. We eat
31
brown bread – not this one that we eat in Johannesburg. I never thought I would stay
in a shack in Johannesburg” (employed women).
“When we have functions or services we encounter problems. We are said to be

making noise. Even if one has bought a property, one has to be quiet in one‟s yard. We
black people are so used to noise. The other time we would like to enjoy ourselves.
Every person would like to do things in his own way. When you are in town you are
said to be making a public disturbance” (employed women).
“You are not allowed to slaughter a cow, you are said to be abusing animals. We
black people are used to doing things in that way” (employed women).
The bottom line was articulated by one participant who pointed out the stark economic
differences between rural and urban environments. Only the latter offered a means of escape
from the poverty trap in which so many people are caught. She said,
“In towns there are many piece jobs. If I am not working I can go looking for someone
who can offer me some washing to do. In the rural areas you cannot, because we are
all the same. In towns you can offer to clean someone‟s house and maybe raise
yourself some R20. In the rural areas this is impossible” (unemployed women).
Reason for coming to Johandeo

Respondents in the Mayibuye area of Johandeo gave a variety of reasons for moving there.
The five most common reasons are listed below:
1. Just wanted somewhere to live (32%)
2. This is a temporary home. I‟m waiting for a better place (19%)
3. To get away from family and gain independence (14%)
4. Avoid paying rent (12%)
5. Tired of bullying from landlord (11%)
A third of respondents from the Mayibuye section said they moved to Johandeo
because they „just wanted somewhere to live‟. One focus group participant said, “I was
staying with my parents so I had no problems. The only thing was that I wanted to get my
own place” (unemployed women). It is very concerning, however, that one in five
respondents said they had moved to the Mayibuye site at Johandeo as a temporary measure.
One in ten (9%) of those living in Phase 1 of Johandeo also gave this response. Only 2% of
respondents from the Mayibuye area of Johandeo said they had moved in order to gain
security to tenure, which contrast starkly with the 46% who gave this response in Soshanguve
South Extension 4. There were marked differences between the responses given by residents
in the Mayibuye area of Johandeo and those from Phase 1. The highest proportion of
respondents from Phase 1 (48%) said they had moved to Johandeo to avoid paying rent.
There are some similarities between the responses of residents of the Mayibuye area,
and those given by residents of nearby Eatonside.32 There, 30% of respondents said they „just
wanted somewhere to live‟, 21% said they had moved to avoid paying rent, and 15% said they
had moved to get away from their family and gain independence.
There was discussion in the focus groups about the violence which had brought some
residents to Phase 1 of Johandeo. One participant said that his family had been living at
Mahlathini, Sasolburg.
“We were forced to leave because of the violence that broke out between the various
rival political parties. We then rushed for cover to Madala Hostel in Vanderbijlpark.
Iscor chased us out because Madala Hostel belongs to workers. We were afraid to go
back to the township because of a possible recurrence of violence. We then consulted
the Peace Committee as residents. The Peace Committee, IFP, ANC and PAC held
several meetings about our problem. Eventually we were brought to Johandeo. At first
it was argued that only IFP members could move to Johandeo. This notion was
rejected outright on the basis that there were no IFP members who were suffering and
without a roof over their heads” (unemployed men).
Two participants in the employed women‟s group spoke about the IFP members who
had come to live in Johandeo. One said that some IFP members had refused to move there
because of fear of being targeted by “their enemies”. They “were afraid to mingle with us” but
they were also “afraid to live alone”. This resulted in an excess of stands and “it was then
decided that anyone who wants a site would go to Johandeo”. “Other people who belong to
other organisations should stay with them”. The current situation is that the IFP members are
no longer afraid of people from other political parties. We are mixed…” (employed women).
Several participants said that they had left their previous homes because they had not
been able to co-exist amenably with their landlords or families. Paying rent was a primary
cause of tensions. One participant spoke of the landlord‟s practice of asking the tenant for an
extra R40 on top of the R70 monthly rental in the event of her paying only after the 7 th of the
month (unemployed women). Another said that rental was increased if one extended one‟s
shack size (unemployed men).
Some spoke about other pressures from their landlords. For example, one said the
landlord was unhappy about her having visitors and another said that her in-laws did not like
her family arriving home late (employed women). Another said that her landlord “was not
always happy” and that when one greeted her in the morning “she would respond in a very
low voice”, indicative of an unfriendly or moody disposition.
Access to services such as water and toilets was a problem for some. One woman
referred to restrictions from her landlord on how much water she used (employed women).
Another said that her landlord had expected her to empty and wash the buckets used for toilets
and that none of her neighbours would assist with this unpleasant procedure. Others had to
32
See Stevens, L., & Rule, S.: Upgrading Gauteng‟s Informal Settlements. Volume 1: A baseline study of
use their neighbours‟ or landlord‟s toilets. One of these decided to leave when the landlord
said that she should dig her own toilet, but could not because of the smallness of the stand on
which she was living (unemployed women).
3. Community and household demographics
Household structure
For the purposes of this survey we defined household as “all the people who live here
permanently for at least four days a week and who generally eat together or who take part in
joint activities.” One practical implication of this definition is that where the husband lives at
work during the week and only returns to Johandeo at weekends, he was not counted as part
of the household for the purposes of this survey.
The mean household size in Johandeo was 3,4 people in the Mayibuye section. This is
significantly lower than the average household size of 4,1 in Phase 1.33 The average household
in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo comprised 2,2 adults (slightly more women than men:
1,2 women compared with 1,0 men), and 1,2 children (even numbers of boys and girls). In
other words, in the average household there were 1,8 adults per child.
30% 29%
% of sampled households
25% 23%
21%
20%
15%
10% 9%
8%
5%
5% 3%
1% 1%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
No. of people in household
Figure 30: Household size, Mayibuye section of Johandeo
Half (50%) of households surveyed in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo comprised
one adult man and one adult woman. Of these, 70% included children. One in five households
(20%) comprised multiple adults (both men and women), and again, the majority (67%)
included children. One in five households (19%) included no adult men, and 11% consisted of
adult men only (mostly without children).
Eatonside and Albertina (Etwatwa Extension 30) (Braamfontein: C A S E, 1998) p.11.

33
Mann-Whitney U-test. P=0,042. Significant at the 5% level.
On the basis of the definition discussed in the introduction, 30% of the households in
the Mayibuye section, and 31% in Phase 1 were female-headed. The figures are similar to
those found in the other baseline surveys (31% in Eatonside, 30% in Albertina).
Structure Freq. %
No children 20 30%
1 adult man + 1 adult woman 50%
Multiple adults (men & No children 9 33%
20%
women) With children 18 67%
No children 7 28%
No adult men (women only) 19%
No children 12 86%
No adult women (men only) 11%
With children 2 14%
Table 10: Household form, Mayibuye section of Johandeo
The differences in household form between the Mayibuye section and Phase 1 of
Johandeo were not statistically significant. However, some differences noted may indicate a
trend that may be followed as the Mayibuye section develops. In Phase 1 there were a higher
proportion of households with multiple adults (36% compared with 20% in the Mayibuye
section). Lower proportions of households with one adult man and one adult woman (39%)
and households with no adult women (7%) compensated this for. The proportion of
households with no adult men remained constant (18%).
Differences in household structure by age and sex of household head

There were significant differences in the structure of households by the age (not shown
graphically) and sex of the household head (Figure 31). The younger the household head, the
smaller the size of the household on average. In households where the head was under 35
years, the average size was 3,0 people. In comparison, where the head was 35 years or older,
the household size was 3,7 people.34
There were no significant differences in household size between male- and female-
headed households. However, in female-headed households, there were significantly more
adult women (1,58 on average, compared with 1,07 in male-headed households).35
34
35
Number of people in household (avg)

0.53
3.00 0.65
0.60
0.73
girls
2.00
boy s
1.07
women
men
1.58
1.00
1.20
0.38
0.00
male-headed f emale-headed
households households
Figure 31: Household structure for male-headed and female-headed households, Mayibuye
section of Johandeo.
Sons and daughters not living with respondent

Half the respondents in the Mayibuye section (50%) had sons or daughters who are not living
with them. We did not ask how old these children were, but it is possible to infer this
approximately from the age of the parents. This analysis is based on the assumption that a
parent aged less than 35 years is unlikely to have children aged over 20 years. We recognise
the limitations of this information and in future phases of the research, a question will be
included about how old respondent‟s children are who live elsewhere. Of those with children
living elsewhere, the majority (64%) were aged 35 or older. Their children are likely to be
grown-up. However, 18% of all respondents were aged under 35 and had children living
elsewhere. Focus group respondents confirmed this information. In the employed women‟s
focus group, several participants mentioned that some of their children lived elsewhere, such
as in Sebokeng zone 14 where there is better access to schools.
The differences between the Mayibuye section and Phase 1 suggest that the longer
people have been living in a particular settlement, the more likely they are to bring relatives
(including children) to live with them. In Phase 1 only 7% of respondents were aged under 35
and had children living elsewhere.
Community age-sex distribution

Figure 32 shows the age-sex pyramid for the 132 households sampled in the Mayibuye
section of Johandeo. This gave us information about 445 residents.
86+
81-85 male female
76-80
71-75
66-70
61-65
56-60
51-55
46-50
41-45
36-40
31-35
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
1-5
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
% of all residents in 132 sampled households
Figure 32: Age-sex distribution of Johandeo (Mayibuye) residents
There were even numbers of males and females in the sampled households: 47% were
male and 53% were female. The population of Johandeo is quite young. The average age was
24,4 years. Thirty six per cent were aged 15 years or less, and 14% were aged under 5 years.
There were significant differences by gender across the age categories. There were twice as
many women as men in the 16-25 years age group, and nearly three times as many women as
men aged over 50 years. In contrast there were slightly more men than women aged 26-50
years. For men in particular there were very few 16-20 year-olds. This pattern is common for
informal settlements. It may partly be explained by the labour migrant nature of the
population which causes the bulge in the bars for men especially aged 25-35 years. There
were no significant differences between the Mayibuye section and Phase 1 of Johandeo.
Characteristics of heads of household

The head of the household was defined, for the purposes of this survey, as the “person who
makes the most important decisions about how money is spent”. In the Mayibuye section of
Johandeo, 30% of households were female-headed. Similarly, in Phase 1, 31% of households
were female-headed.
The average age of household heads in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo was 38
years. Household heads in Phase 1 were on average slightly older (41 years), however this
difference was not significant.36 There was a significant difference in the age of household
heads by their sex. In the Mayibuye section female household heads were on average older (at
44 years) than male household heads (35 years).37 Nineteen percent of female household
heads were aged 55 years or over compared with only 4% of male household heads.
55+
m en women 4 19
Age of household head
45-54 12 22
35-44 30 30
30-34 27 11
19-29 27 19
30 20 10 0 10 20 30
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Figure 33: Age of household head for male-headed and female-headed households, Mayibuye
section, Johandeo.
36
37
Among household heads in Johandeo, levels of education were low. Over half the
respondents (57%) in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo had either no schooling or were
educated to the primary level only. There was no significant difference between the education
levels of respondents in the Mayibuye section and Phase 1 of Johandeo. Education levels were
lower than for Africans in informal settlements in Gauteng as a whole, where 50% were
educated to the primary level.38
Male and female heads of household were equally likely to have low levels of
education in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo. Some differences (not significant) are
evident, however, especially at the secondary level. For example, 25% of male household
heads completed standard 8 or more, compared with only 11% of female household heads.
men w omen
Std. 10 or more 5 0
Std. 8-9 20 11
Std. 6-7 20 30
Primary 48 46
No formal 7 14
schooling
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Note: percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding
Figure 34: Education level of household head for male-headed and female-headed households,
Mayibuye section, Johandeo.
38
Figures from Central Statistical Service, October Household Survey 1995 (Pretoria, Central Statistical Service,
1996).
The rate of unemployment39 among household heads in the Mayibuye section of

Johandeo (21%) was lower than that of adults as a whole (51%). This is not surprising, as the
definition of „household head‟ was based partly on identifying the main contributor to
household income. There were, however, significant differences between male and female
household heads in their employment status (see Figure 35).40 Only 38% of female household
heads were employed, compared to 84% of male household heads. Also, a much higher
proportion of female household heads (30%) were pensioners, disabled, students or classified
themselves as housewives compared with male household heads (2%).
Male household heads Female household heads

Pensioner/ Working
Disabled/Student Student/
housewif e f ull time
unemploy ed 2% 8% 8%
14%
Working
part time
pensioner/ 19%
Working disabled
f ull time 22%
43%
Casual /
piece jobs
26%
Casual /
piece jobs
11%
Working unemploy ed
part time 32%
15%
Figure 35: Occupation of household head for male-headed and female-headed households,
Mayibuye section, Johandeo.
39
Rate of unemployment is the proportion of the labour force that are unemployed. The „labour force‟ excludes
students, full-time homemakers, pensioners, the disabled and those under 16 years.
40
The types of work done by respondents in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo are
shown below. The biggest employer (especially of men) remains the heavy industry of the
Vaal area including firms such as ISCOR. The one woman employed in this category worked
packing bricks. Most men in this category were employed as either machine operators or
general labourers. Industry also provided about half (55%) the cleaning jobs, with the other
half in this category employed as domestics or gardeners. The majority of women (86%) were
employed as cleaners. A third of these worked in industries, offices or business, and two
thirds worked as domestics. As in Soshanguve South extension 4, the third biggest employer
was the building industry with men doing a wide range of jobs. The level of involvement in
informal businesses (7% of those employed) was much lower than in Soshanguve South
Extension 4, where 26% of respondents who were employed, earned money through informal
businesses. This may be a reflection of the lower incomes in Johandeo, providing a smaller
market for such businesses.
% of all w orking respondents
30
26
25
25
20
wom en
15 14
m en
10 10
10 7
5 4 4
1
0
g
try
ic r
an
y
lle r
er
al
er e
ki re
r
in
es
to
on
cl oth
iv
us
tis
d)
ns ou
al
an
in
dr
ac
si
ar
d
us
(u ab
le
s, s,
es
In
l/F
c,
C
d,
se p
ll
ni
of
g
a
es Sho
ille
ua
al
in
ha
tri
pr
rm
ild
us
as
Sk
ec
d,
Bu
fo
d
C
M
ne
In
In
n
ai
si
Tr
bu
Figure 36: Types of work available in Johandeo – all respondents in Mayibuye section, by sex
Employment, dependence and poverty in the community
Employment
Of all those 16 years and over in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo, 37% had some form of
work. A further 16% were studying and 8% were pensioners or disabled. The rate of
unemployment39 was 51%. This high level of unemployment was seen as the major cause of
poverty by focus group participants (employed women). There were significant differences in
employment rates between men and women in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo.41 Among
all men aged 16 years and over, the unemployment rate was 25%, compared with 74% for
women. There were no significant differences in the rates of unemployment or the pattern of
numbers studying or retired between the Mayibuye section of Johandeo, and Phase 1.
Dependency
In 74% of households in the Mayibuye section, only one person was contributing on a regular
basis to the household income. This includes money from pensions and disability grants as
well as earned income. In a further 8% the household was surviving with no regular income at
all. In contrast in 3 households sampled (2%) there were 3 people contributing to household
income. There was no significant difference between the Mayibuye section and Phase 1 in the
numbers of people contributing to household income (despite the greater number of people
per household in Phase 1).
A percentage can be calculated of the number of people contributing to household
income in relation to household size. In the average household in the Mayibuye section, 38%
of household members (two out of five) contributed some money towards household income.
A lower proportion of household members (30%) in Phase 1 contributed to household
income, but this difference was not statistically significant.
There were significant differences in the percentage of household members working
for money in male- and female-headed households.42 This reflects the higher rate of
unemployment for women, and the higher proportion of adult women in female-headed
households (see Figure 31). On average 19% of the members of female-headed households
were employed, compared with 33% of the members of male-headed households. However,
there were no significant differences in the percentage of household members contributing to
household income between male- and female-headed households. This implies that female-
headed households rely more heavily on pensions, disability grants and support from relatives
than do male-headed households.
41
42
Income
Incomes in the sample of 132 households in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo ranged from
10 households (8%) where there was no regular income, to 2 households (2%) earning over
R3 000 per month. Half the households earned R560 per month or less. The highest
proportion earned R401-600. Household income per head ranged from households with no
regular income, to 4 (3%) earning over R1 000 per head. Half the sampled households had an
income per head of R187 or less per month. There was no significant difference in total
income or income per head between the Mayibuye section and Phase 1 of Johandeo.
25
20
% of households
15
10
0
0
+
0
00
m r
0
co la
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
00
50
00
00
10
in gu
e
1-
1-
1-
1-
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
30
1-
re
20
40
60
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
80
o
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
N
Figure 37: Total household income per month, Mayibuye section, Johandeo.
There were no significant differences in income per month by the level of education of
the household head. This seems surprising as education is often strongly related to income
levels. One explanation may be the relatively high proportion of respondents with low levels
of education. With education to primary level or less, income-earning opportunities are likely
to be limited and income levels relatively similar.
Total household income and income per head varied significantly by the sex of the
household head.43 In Figure 38, the bars for female-headed households are clustered towards
the left-hand side of the graph, while those for male-headed households peak at a higher
income level (R401-600, compared to R1-400 for female-headed households) and extend over
a greater range of incomes. Fifty percent of female-headed households had a total monthly
income of R350 or less, compared with R680 for male-headed households.
43
Mann-Whitney U test. For total household income, P=0,000, and for income per head, P=0,001.
30
male-headed female-headed
25
% of households
20
15
10
0
0
+
0
00
m r
0
co la
20
40
60
80
00
20
40
60
80
00
50
00
10
in gu
e
1-
1-
1-
1-
30
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
1-
re
20
40
60
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
80
o
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
N
Note: Percentages f or f emale-headed households should be treated with caution as the sample size is only 39.
Figure 38: Total household income per month, by sex of household head, Mayibuye section,
Johandeo.
Poverty indicators and coping mechanisms

Unemployment was seen as the major cause of poverty amongst focus group participants
(employed women). Even among the unemployed, some families were seen as particularly
poor. In spite of her own poverty, one woman (unemployed) said,
“There are people who are more poor than us, who do not have life. I feel a stabbing
pain when I have to talk about this old lady. She has six children and stays at her
husband‟s mother‟s place. At times she goes to work in the fields with bare feet.
Yesterday I was talking to Mrs. X that we should form something like a society and put
some cents together so that we can buy her mealie meal”.
This comment speaks of poverty where families cannot even afford the essentials. This
was explored in the questionnaire survey, where respondents were asked “were there times in
the last 12 months when you could not afford to feed your family?”. In the Mayibuye section
a surprisingly low proportion of respondents (7%) said there were „often‟ times when they
could not afford to feed their family. However, four in ten respondents said there were
„sometimes‟ times when their family went hungry. These figures are lower than the 55% of
the comparable group (Africans in informal settlements in Gauteng) in the 1995 October
Household Survey, who said there had been a shortage of money to feed their children in the
last 12 months.
There were no significant differences between the two sections of Johandeo.
Responses did, however, vary significantly by income. For households where people „often‟
went hungry, the median income per head was R34 per month. For those replying
„sometimes‟ the median income per head was R150, and for those who could always afford to
feed their family, the median income per head was R239. The lower income levels of female-
headed households were also reflected in responses to this question. Fifteen percent of
female-headed households were „often‟ unable to afford to feed their family, compared with
only 3% of male-headed households.44
Another indicator of levels of poverty is the ability of households to save money. Just
over a third of households in the Mayibuye section (36%) said they could afford to save
money weekly or monthly. Four percent said they saved money irregularly or every few
monthly. However, six out of ten respondents (61%) said they were never able to save money.
Despite the fact that there were no significant differences in income levels or income
per head between the Mayibuye section and Phase 1 of Johandeo, respondents from the
Mayibuye section saved money more often than those in Phase 1. Just over a third (36%) of
respondents in the Mayibuye section said they saved money weekly or monthly, compared
with only 21% of those in Phase 1.
Residents in Johandeo use various coping mechanisms when money is short.
Respondents were asked “if you ever have no money at all and you really need some, how do
you get it?”. The desperate financial situation most households in Johandeo find themselves in
is illustrated by the fact that only 1 respondent across all those sampled said that they „never
have problems with money‟. The highest proportion of respondents in the Mayibuye section
(42%) relies on their immediate family for help. While there were no significant differences in
coping strategies between households in the Mayibuye section and Phase 1, some small
differences may be indicative of the different ages of the settlements. In Phase 1, only 33% of
respondents relied on their immediate family for help with money, while 21% borrowed from
friends and neighbours. Half this proportion (11%) in the Mayibuye section borrows from
neighbours and friends.
stay without 31%
bor. f amily /
partner 42%
nev er hav e probs 1%

bor. others 3%
(inc. bank/ cash loans)
bor. employ er 12%

bor. neighbour/
f riend 11%
Figure 39: If you are ever desperate for money, how can you get some?
44
The differences between male- and female-headed households were significant at the 5% level. Chi² test.
P=0,048.
The ability to borrow money was seen as an important solution to poverty in the view
of one (employed) woman. She said, “If I could be lent money to continue with my crèche
project, I would repay that money on a monthly basis. In that way I would be able to change
my poor living conditions”. Others mentioned sewing or running a tuck shop or selling
“Swissguard products” as means of alleviating poverty.
Networks of mutual support are important for some in Johandeo. One focus group
participant (unemployed men) said that someone whom he does not even know well had paid
R110 for him to be taken by ambulance to hospital when he had been taken ill. Another
indicated that he would give R10 to a person who needs it to get to work and would not
expect to be repaid because “this is how I was raised”.
Spending patterns
Respondents were asked whether they spend none, some, most, or all of their income on
various items. The graph below (Figure 40) displays the proportions saying they spent „some‟
or „most‟ of their income on different items (no respondents said they spent „all‟ of their
income on one item). The graph does not show the proportions in which households allocate
income to different items. However, the items on which a high proportion of respondents said
they spent „some‟ or „most‟ of their income, can be seen as the most essential. The most
essential items appear to be food, water and fuel, transport, clothes and cosmetics (in that
order). It is likely that soap was included under „cosmetics‟. Three out of ten respondents
(31%) said they spent „most‟ of their income on food. All respondents said they spent at least
some income on water and fuel, and nine out of ten said they spent at least „some‟ money on
transport.
% of respondents
100
80
60
40
20
0
Food Water Transport Clothes Cosmetics School Enter- Loans/ Maintn./ Rent/
& f uel tainment hire building bond
purchase materials
Most 31 1 2 1 2
Some 69 98 90 84 77 60 38 17 9 1
Figure 40: Items on which ‘some’ or ‘most’ household income is spent, Mayibuye section,
Johandeo.
4. Housing
Subsidies
Household structure and eligibility for the housing subsidy

The criteria for eligibility for a housing subsidy are listed in the chapter on Soshanguve South
Extension 4. The survey results allow us to estimate the proportion of households that will not
qualify for a housing subsidy based on the criteria of age, household structure and income.
1. Age
There were 4 households across all those surveyed (all in the Mayibuye section) where no
member of the household was aged 21 years or older.
2. Dependants
Fourteen percent of households in the Mayibuye section consisted of single-sex households
with no children (9% men and 5% women). However, as discussed in the section on subsidies
for Soshanguve South, these households may still qualify for a subsidy depending on the
definition of „dependant‟.
3. Income
Level Beneficiary Income Subsidy Amount %

1 R0 to R800 R15 000 65%
2 R801 to R1500 R12 500 23%
3 R1501 to R2500 R9 500 9%
4 R2501 to R3500 R5 000 3%
5 R3501 + R0 0%
Table 11: Income of households in Mayibuye section of Johandeo according to subsidy
categories.
Combining all three of these criteria, 16% of households from the Mayibuye section
fail to qualify for a housing subsidy (10% male-headed and 6% female-headed). The biggest
determinant of this is household form, rather than age or income. However, as noted above,
this may overestimate the number not qualifying because of the definition of „household‟ used
in the survey.
Perceptions of the subsidy application process

From discussions in the focus groups it seems that a concerted effort had been made to ensure
that people fill in subsidy application forms. One of the women participants (employed group)
said that most residents had completed subsidy applications. Local people had distributed
application forms and collected them on completion, together with copies of identity
documents and children‟s birth certificates.
There seems to have been some confusion over the application process. One woman
said that she knew of two residents who had been told that they would be evicted from their
shacks if they did not complete subsidy applications. One Johandeo man (unemployed group)
expressed the view that some people in the community did not understand the subsidy
scheme. He said, “the family of an illiterate granny and a school child will just use the child to
fill in [the forms] without fully understanding the requirements”. Another commented that it
was the first exposure to issues like subsidies and “instead of choosing a house plan of a size,
which suits his/her pocket, he/she would choose a big house”.
Tenure
In the survey, respondents were asked, “do you own this site/land?” Fieldworkers were
instructed not to probe too deeply. For example, respondents were not asked whether they had
a title deed for the site or any other proof of ownership. This was to maintain the trust of the
respondent. Questions about tenure were likely to be sensitive given the unsettled experiences
of many residents of Johandeo. The vast majority of residents of the Mayibuye section of
Johandeo (95%) said they owned the site. Only 5% said they did not own the site. The same
pattern of responses was found in Phase 1.
In the focus groups most participants seemed happy that they had their own places.
“What I love about Johandeo is that the place belongs to you. You do not trouble
anyone. We love it because you are in your yard” (unemployed women).
“I am also happy because it is my place. I can do whatever I want. That is the only
thing I like about it” (unemployed women).
However, the lack of title deeds was mentioned spontaneously. One woman said,
“Even if we like being owners, we do not have title deeds”. Another indicated that in spite of
the fact that they are “owners”, “they can come at any time and say mama, you are not well
suited to stay here”. It appears that after filling in forms on several occasions, residents were
told that they would receive title deeds. None have yet materialised at this stage. The only
„proof of ownership‟ that residents have is a form bearing the name of the person and “a
stamp that verifies that you have paid R50” (unemployed women). Phase 1 residents paid this
money and were given the document. Residents from the Mayibuye section do not have this
or title deeds yet.
Respondents were asked whether they had paid money to get the sites on which their
houses were built. In Phase 1, nine out of ten respondents (88%) had paid for their sites. The
most commonly mentioned figures were R50 (paid by 41% of those who paid for their sites)
and R80 (paid by 17%). In the focus groups it was mentioned that in Phase 1, local leaders of
political organisations facilitated the move to Johandeo. Mr. Phosa of the ANC was
mentioned in particular (employed women). Newcomers were initially required to pay R50 in
order to settle in the area. Those who arrived later had to pay R80, which included the cost of
a garbage bin. This money was either paid to the committee (42% of those who paid) or the
previous owner (54% of those who paid).
In the Mayibuye section, a third (32%) of respondents had paid for their sites. This is
in stark contrast with Soshanguve South extension 4 where only two respondents (1%) said
they had paid. Amounts ranged from R10 to R250. Half the respondents who had paid for
their site had paid R10-R15. However, a third of respondents (33%) had paid over R50. In a
quarter of cases (24%), the respondents had paid the previous owner, and in these cases the
amounts were often quite large (in 5 out of 10 cases respondents paid R250, and in 70% of
cases respondents paid over R50). In three-quarters of cases (75%) respondents paid a
committee member. In most of these cases (60%) the amount was R10-R15, with 71% paying
R50 or less.
It seems that there may have been some irregularities in the allocation of and payment
for stands. One woman claimed that she was one of the few residents who had a double stand.
It is not clear whether she was from Phase 1 or the Mayibuye section. Most of this select
group had paid to get double stands but she said that she had not paid money, but “talked for
myself”. She had “confronted” the white developers with her ambition to build a crèche. “I
talked to them, telling them that I want two sites. They did not charge me a cent. They simply
gave me the sites”. She had not managed to start the crèche yet, as she said he was impeded
by the “lack of co-operation of people in Johandeo”.
Type of dwelling
The majority of dwellings (95%) in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo were constructed with
corrugated iron walls. Three percent had pre-fabricated walls, and 2% were of other materials
including one brick house. Almost all dwellings (96%) had corrugated iron roofs. A variety of
materials were used for the floors of dwellings. Six in ten dwellings (57%) had mud or soil
floors, and a quarter (24%) had floors made of a mixture of mud and cement. Seventeen
percent had cement or brick floors.
Most dwellings in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo were very small. A third (33%)
were one-roomed, and another three out of ten (28%) had two rooms. Only 18% of dwellings
had 4 or more rooms. The differences between dwelling sizes in the Mayibuye section and
Phase 1 were not statistically significant. However, as Figure 41 shows, dwellings in the older
Phase 1 tended to be larger, with higher proportions having 3 or 4 rooms than dwellings in the
Mayibuye section. As would be expected for a new settlement, and one under the Mayibuye
scheme, the majority of dwellings (99%) were occupied by one family. However, there was 1
site where there were two families. The same pattern with 99% of sites occupied by one
family was also found in Phase 1.
% of dw ellings
40
Mayibuye Phase 1
33
30 28
25
24
22
21 21
20
14
10
5
3
2 2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6+
Figure 41: Number of rooms (divided by a solid structure) in dwelling
Respondents were asked to estimate how much their dwelling had cost to construct.
Estimated costs ranged from R30 for a one-roomed dwelling to R5 000 for a five-roomed
dwelling. Half the dwellings cost R800 or less to construct, but at the other end of the scale, a
quarter of dwellings had cost more than R1 800 to construct.
% of respondents
20
16
15 14
12
11 11 11
10
7
5 5
5
3 3
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
20
40
60
80
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
50
-R
-R
-R
-R
-R
-R
-R
-R
1-
1-
1-
50
1-
20
40
60
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
R
80
R
10
12
14
16
18
20
25
R
Figure 42: Estimated cost of constructing the dwelling

The highest proportion of dwellings (61%) had been built by the respondents
themselves. Of respondents who had built the dwelling themselves, the majority (89%) was
male. Where the dwelling had been built by family, friends and neighbours, two thirds (67%)
of respondents were women. Eighteen percent of respondents had employed a builder (all
from businesses employing 5 or less people) to construct the dwelling.
% of respondents
70%
Men Women
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
My self Family /f riend/ Small builder Prev ious owner Other
neighbour
Total 61% 18% 18% 2% 1%
Figure 43: Who built the dwelling, by sex of respondent

A number of questions were asked in relation to the construction of formal houses.
Respondents were asked whether they would like to participate in building their own house.
There was a fairly wide spread of opinion about this. Four out of ten respondents (42%)
agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to participate in building their own house, but
over half (56%) disagreed. The differences between the Mayibuye section and Phase 1 were
not statistically significant.
There was no clear pattern of responses in relation to the education level, or age of the
respondent, or to household income. However, there was a clear gender pattern. Women were
significantly more likely to strongly disagree with the statement than men. Over a third of
women (36%) said strongly that they did not want to participate in building their own house,
compared with 13% of men.
These attitudes are related to gender perceptions of whether people in the household
have the skills to build a house themselves. Every female respondent said that their household
possessed none of the skills required, compared with three-quarters (74%) of male
respondents giving this answer. Overall, respondents in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo
were not confident of possessing the skills needed to build a house. Only 11% of respondents
said their household possessed all the skills required. This is despite 14% of those employed
working in the building industry.
Upgrading
Respondents in the survey were asked whether they would like to upgrade their dwellings. In
the Mayibuye section, 77% of respondents said they would like to upgrade – a significantly
higher proportion than respondents from Phase 1 (60%).45 These respondents were asked how
they would like to upgrade. They could give as many answers as they wanted.
There were marked differences in the upgrading preferences of respondents from the
Mayibuye section compared with Phase 1. These differences reflect the differences in service
provision in the two areas. Housing is a much higher priority than services for Phase 1
residents, while services and housing are important for residents in the Mayibuye section.
ISUP Mayibuye
Electrify 2 42
Toilet in house/stand 7 33
Water in house/stand 5 23
Enlarge house 90 64
Improve w alls/roof 75 46
Improve internal fittings 68 32
Add w indow s 48 35
Improve yard 55 22
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
% of respondents from each phase
Figure 44: How would you like to upgrade your dwelling?

Despite the fact that the first people only settled in Johandeo‟s Mayibuye section in
March 1997, by the time of the survey (January 1998), 18% of respondents said they had
already upgraded their dwelling. The highest proportion (80%) of these had used their own
savings to upgrade, while 20% had got the money from family savings.
45
Chi² test. P=0,021. Significant at the 5% level.
Family
sav ings
20%
No Y es
82% 18%
Own
sav ings
80%
Figure 45: Have you upgraded your dwelling in the past, and if so, where did you get the money?
5. Services, priorities and development programmes
What services exist at the moment?

In Phase 1 stands have toilets, piped water and electricity,46 whereas in the Mayibuye area
only water has been provided so far. Three high mast “apollo” lights have been erected but in
the view of one man “they are not enough for a large area like this”.
Water
All stands in both sections of Johandeo have piped water in their stands. For about half the
respondents from both sites (55% from the Mayibuye section and 45% from Phase 1) there
were never problems with the supply of water. However, for 14% of respondents from the
Mayibuye section and 33% from Phase 1, problems were experienced either daily or weekly.
Toilet facilities
In Phase 1, the vast majority of stands have flush toilets in their yards (91%). The remainder
use pit toilets. In the Mayibuye section, however, 79% of respondents use pit latrines. Just
less than half these respondents (46%) share a latrine with their neighbours. Seventeen per
cent of respondents from the Mayibuye section use the bush or open spaces. It is not
surprising, therefore, that while 88% of respondents from Phase 1 said that toilet facilities
were „fine‟, 72% of those from the Mayibuye section said they were „terrible‟, and another
21% said they were „inadequate‟.
46
Mr. Peter Tladi was said to have negotiated with Eskom for the installation of electricity in Phase 1 (working
women‟s focus group).
Refuse disposal
The majority of respondents (84%) said they dumped their rubbish in the streets or an open
space. One in ten (10%) buried their refuse, and 5% burn it. A quarter of respondents (23%)
said that refuse was removed. There was disagreement over how often this happened. Some
respondents said it was removed 2-3 times per month, while others said it was removed
„irregularly‟. Concerns were raised in the focus groups about the amount of litter. One man
said,
“I would be happy to see the bush I am staying next to, removed. Children are playing
in this bush and rubbish is dumped there as well. It is starting to smell badly”
(unemployed men).
Priorities for services

Respondents were asked what two services the community needed most urgently. In the
Mayibuye section, the two top priorities were electricity and toilets. These services were listed
first or second by over two thirds of respondents. They were also raised in the focus groups,
with one man stating that „toilets and electricity are my biggest concern‟ (unemployed men).
80
1st choice 2nd choice
% of respondents
60
34
40
40
7
20 37
27 28
5
5 4 5 3 1
2
0 1 1
s
er
ty
al
s
n
sc ho ps,
se
ad
e
tio
ci
ov
at
ic
ol s
tri
ou
ro
ita
p o
W
ho ne
rv
m
s, h
ec
s)
se
H
re
an
ht , s
rre
El
/s
e
lig lice
lt h
us
Ta
ts
ea
po
ile
ef
H
R
To
(
er
th
O
Figure 46: Services most urgently needed in the Mayibuye section, Johandeo
In Phase 1, the priorities were rather different. Fully 60% of respondents said that
housing was their first priority, and another 6% listed it as the second most important need.
The two other issues mentioned most often by respondents from Phase 1 were the need for
tarred roads (55%) and the need for a clinic (34%).
Some of these priorities were discussed in the focus groups. One participant spoke
about the muddy roads saying, “on such days you hold your shoes in your hands until you
reach a drier area”. Another said, “when it is raining a car cannot drive into my yard”.
Another complained that the refuse truck was partly to blame for the state of the roads. It
seems to come “when it is about to rain”, ploughing up the road and preventing other lorries,
such as the one that delivers coal, from entering the area.
On a previous occasion residents had been asked to contribute R40 to the development
of the roads. “Immediately after popping out those R40‟s, the municipality improved the
streets … they didn‟t manage to do all the streets and the residents also stopped paying the
R40”. One participant (unemployed women) pointed out that formal township residents knew
“nothing about dust”. She continued,
“They will only see us when we are from shacks and being dusty. They have tarred
roads. Even when they are from the clinics they look clean, and when we come back
from our clinic we look dusty. You can even contract diseases on your way back from
the clinic”.
Another participant described the difficulty of accessing good health services. One
woman said that one is no longer allowed to get treatment at the Sebokeng hospital. “We are
told to start at the clinic. If you go with an ill child right now, they send you back”. Another
comment was that lack of money sometimes forces residents to walk to a clinic “on scary
roads” where one could be attacked.
Beyond these priorities which were revealed through the survey, focus group
participants discussed a range of other issues related to services and facilities. These included
problems with transport generally, education, and the need for community facilities. With
reference to public transport, one perspective was given by a women‟s focus group
participant, who complained,
“When it has rained taxi drivers refuse to drop us at our area. They leave us on main
roads. You would find that one is carrying groceries and become miserable. This
would cost us much because I would be left with no choice but to board another taxi.
That would cost me a lot of money. I pay R8,40 return to town. If I go to Vereeniging I
pay R5,20”.
Another woman pointed out that Johandeo was situated alongside the railway but that
no trains stopped there. “Platforms are in good order, the station is alright. What we only need
are trains. We are next to the station” (unemployed women). The alternative open to residents
is to wait lengthy periods for taxi‟s that do not always go directly to their destinations.
In terms of education, it was mentioned that there is only one school in Johandeo and
that it is private. Parents are required to pay R50, failing which “the principal will complain
about the empty school purse from which he cannot pay the teachers” and children‟s reports
are withheld. Some participants suggested that a government school be built so that education
costs would not be so high.
The needs for community facilities included a place to play soccer or volleyball, and
the need for a community hall. Since the time of the survey, work has started funded by the
IDT on converting an existing structure into a hall. One participant (employed women)
regretted that a place to hold funerals, weddings or church choral functions was lacking in
Johandeo.
“If we had a hall we would invite other choirs to sing in the hall. We are not in a
position to invite other school choirs for competitions if we do not have a hall. I think
a hall is very important for our community” (employed women).
One final issue discussed was public telephones which are housed in caravans, which
are closed during the night. One woman added, “they do not operate every day and they
sometimes do not function properly”. Another said, “They belong to a certain person who
hired them. We are unable to phone sometimes because he would lock the place and go. On
holidays he does not open”.
Developments
At the time of the survey (January 1998) only 36% of respondents from the Mayibuye section,
and 25% from Phase 1 knew of any development projects taking place in Johandeo. The
perception among focus group participants was that developments were only taking place
very slowly. One woman attributed this to an “argument” about whether the name is Johandeo
or Polokong, a matter that she said needed to be finalised in Pretoria. In the unemployed
women‟s group a lot of dissatisfaction was articulated about the lack of facilities and slow
progress in developing Johandeo. One woman said “We attend meetings almost daily and we
are told the holes for sewerage pipes will be dug, yet nothing happens”. Where survey
respondents had heard about development projects, over a quarter of all respondents in the
Mayibuye section (26%) were aware of this sewerage project, which was discussed by focus
group participants.
There seems to be much talk of developments in Johandeo, but often these projects
are stalled. For example, focus group participants talked about the installation of electricity,
but said they had been informed that it would not be installed in the Mayibuye section until
1999. Another focus group participant (employed women) said that they had been told last
year that “in January houses would be built for us”. Another confirmed that when she had
been at the office to complete applications for a subsidy “we heard people talking amongst
themselves that houses would be built”. Delays seemed inevitable, as another participant
reported that they had been told that “in ten months time housing projects will resume”.
No survey respondents reported that they, or members of their household, were
employed on development projects. In the focus groups, however, it was reported that some
local people had been employed in the installation of water pipes and electricity in Phase 1.
One participant (employed women) said that the workers had “relieved” each other at times
“so that we could all get money”. However, an element of nepotism also emerged in the
discussion. One man, said that Johandeo committee members “rush to their unemployed
relatives outside Johandeo to come an fill the posts” that occasionally become available for
service work in the area.
Payment for services

A significantly higher proportion of respondents in Phase 1 had paid for services in the past
(60%) compared with those in the Mayibuye section (42%).
The differences in service provision between the two sections of Johandeo are
reflected in opinions about payment for services. Overall, the majority of respondents in both
sections agreed that people should pay for services received (87% in the Mayibuye section
and 94% in Phase 1). However respondents from the two sections differed significantly in
their opinions about whether people who do not pay for services should have these services
cut off.47 Nearly half the respondents in the Mayibuye section (46%) strongly agreed that non-
payers should be cut off, and only 9% strongly disagreed. In Phase 1, however, a higher
proportion disagreed with the idea of cutting off those who do not pay. This may be because
they receive and pay for more services than the residents of the Mayibuye section, and have
found themselves in the position of not being able to pay. Only 30% of respondents from
Phase 1 strongly agreed that non-payers should be cut off and 22% strongly disagreed.
In the survey, respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay for
water and electricity each month. This was an open-ended question, but among respondents
from the Mayibuye section, the highest proportion (28%) said they would be willing to pay
between R51 and R75 per month. Just over half the respondents (53%) said they would pay
up to R60 per month, with the remainder (47%) saying they would be willing to pay more.
When asked about how much they could afford to pay, respondents gave slightly higher
figures, selecting from a range of figures from R5 up to R200. On average, respondents said
they could afford to pay R15 more than they were willing to pay.
35
afford to pay willing to pay
30
% of respondents
25
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 35 50 75 100 150 200
Amount (R)
Figure 47: How much can you afford to pay, and how much are you willing to pay for services,
Mayibuye section, Johandeo
47
6. Problems in the community
Crime
Several focus group participants (unemployed men) commented on the low crime rate in
Johandeo and how this encouraged them to stay there. This is despite the fact that only a third
(34%) of respondents in the survey reported that there was no crime in Johandeo, compared
with 62% in Soshanguve South Extension 4. Of those who thought crime was a problem 63%
thought crimes occurred „often‟ and 37% thought they occurred „sometimes‟. No respondents
said crimes only occurred „occasionally‟ or „rarely‟. Of those who thought crime was a
problem, 43% mentioned theft as the most common type of crime, 36% said rape was the
most common, and 8% said assaults occurred the most frequently.
There was some criticism of the police. There is a police station in Johandeo, but one
focus group participant said “sometimes our police are afraid of criminals until police from
outside places are called in”. It seems that the Houtkop police are called when the local police
cannot cope with a difficult situation. Others felt that the police hampered by the lack of a
vehicle. Others were more scathing. One young man said that people who have crimes
committed against them “must contact the youth like us, because our policemen are lazy”.
Another man said,
“I will be happy if our Johandeo police could act responsibly. They must be serious
even if they are just a small unit. They must stop drinking beer, which blinds them to
see thieves who steal their guns. Should you go to them at night, you will find them
asleep, not hearing you when knocking”.
7. Community organisations and dynamics
Organisations and membership

Membership of a range of organisations was low in comparison with Soshanguve South
Extension 4. Only 8% of respondents in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo said they, or
members of their household, did not belong to any local organisation, compared with 13% in
Soshanguve South Extension 4. However, in the Mayibuye section of Johandeo, 81% of
respondents said they belonged to a church, but relatively few participated in any other
community organisations. Forty two percent belonged to only one organisation, compared to
only 26% in Soshanguve South. Only about one or two in ten of the survey respondents were
members of a women‟s, a political or a youth organisation. It could be that the relative
newness of the Mayibuye settlement means that residents have not had time to get too
involved in community affairs and are understandably engrossed in eking out a living for their
households under difficult circumstances.
Church 81
Women's org. 23
Political org. 17
Youth 13
Sports 11
TU 11
Stokvel 8
Civic/Street committee 3
Burial society 2
Other 2
None 8
0 20 40 60 80
% of households
Figure 48: Organisational membership of Johandeo (Mayibuye) households
Church services tend to be held in people‟s houses. One focus group participant said
that those who have “big yards do allocate one room for this purpose” (unemployed men). It
was mentioned in focus groups that the ANC, PAC, IFP and NP have called meetings in
Johandeo. However, attendance at these was reported to be quite low (unemployed men).
Distribution of food parcels in the community had at one stage been attributed to donations
from the NP (employed women).
Some local committees are active in Johandeo. The local community police forum was
mentioned which was set up “to deal with criminal activities and to guard this place” as well
as other committees. One problem seems to be that the various committees do not work
together very well (unemployed men). Some participants mentioned that clashes had occurred
between the different committees about respective roles and turfs.
Settling conflicts
Ourselves 26% Street committee 27%
Family/
neighbour 3%
Other 2%
Community
Police 20% committee 21%
Figure 49: How would you resolve a conflict with your neighbour, Mayibuye section, Johandeo
Just more than one quarter (26%) of survey respondents indicated that in the event of a
conflict with neighbours they would resolve the matter themselves. A similar proportion
(27%) said that they would approach a street committee (although participants in two focus
groups said that street committees do not exist in Johandeo). Just over a fifth (21%) said that
the community committee would be contacted. Only one fifth (20%) said that they would
approach the police about a neighbourhood conflict. In the employed women‟s focus group
some participants said that they approach either the committee or the police in the event of
conflicts.
Community meetings
Survey respondents were asked to estimate the number of people who usually attend
community meetings. These seem to be well attended with the majority (85% of all
respondents) saying that there are usually over 200 people there. These meetings are held at
an open space, and seem to serve for many people as their prime source of information about
developments. Ninety four per cent of respondents from Phase 1 said that they mainly found
out about important developments in the community through these meetings. Interestingly,
only 78% of respondents from the Mayibuye section said this, and 14% said that they relied
on friends and neighbours to tell them about developments.
It may be that the lower proportion attending community meetings from the Mayibuye
section is due to a sense of disillusionment with the local committee, and with the pace of
development. Feedback from the focus groups about these meetings is not positive. In the
employed women‟s group, disagreements between committee members were mentioned as a
factor that impedes development in the community. Some even said that the committee was
non-functional. Similarly, a participant in the unemployed men‟s group said, “the committee
is out of focus… Today they may talk about electricity, tomorrow houses will be the focus
and they will allow no one to refer to or ask questions about the previous day‟s issues. Some
of us don‟t attend meetings anymore”.
Relationship between the community and local government

The level of trust and respect for local government is low. This is particularly the case in
Phase 1 where only 22% said that the relationship between local government and the
community was „good‟ or „excellent‟ compared with 59% in the Mayibuye section and 72%
in Soshanguve South Extension 4. Focus group members complained about the lack of
interest shown in the community by the councillor (employed women).
8. Individuals and their place in the community

As for Soshanguve South extension 4, two indicators have been calculated to suggest a) how
settled, and b) how powerless or isolated respondents in Johandeo feel. Some possible
problems with the indicators and suggestions for improving them were listed in the section on
Soshanguve South extension 4.
How well established are individuals?

The following five questions were grouped together to create an index of how well
established and settled respondents felt. Answers were allocated scores as below. Questions 1
and 2 were weighted more strongly than the other three questions, because they were
considered to be more powerful indicators of how settled a person felt. The minimum possible
score was 0, and the maximum, 14.
1. Do you feel you are part of this community?
2. How many different organisations do members of this household belong to?
3. Do you plan to bring any of your relatives here in the future?
4. Do you, or members of this household, participate in community development projects?
5. If you ever really need money, how do you get it?
Question Responses and score

0 1 2 3 4
Feel part of the No, not at all No, not really Don‟t know Yes, sort of Yes, strongly
community? 1% 5% 0% 8% 86%
Number of None One Two Three 4 or more
organisations 8% 42% 30% 13% 7%
Bring relatives? No Don‟t know Yes
42% 2% 56%
Participate in No Yes
comm. devp. 100% 0%
Projects
How get money Self-sufficient (go Borrow from Borrow from
when really without, use own family or friends or
need it? savings etc.) work neighbours
34% 55% 11%
Table 12: Questions included in the score for how settled respondents are in the Mayibuye
section of Johandeo
Respondents from the Mayibuye section scored between 2 and 12. This was a bigger
range than respondents from Phase 1 who scored between 3 and 10. Surprisingly, respondents
from the Mayibuye section scored slightly, but significantly48 higher on average, than those
from Phase 1. The average score in the Mayibuye section was 7,3 compared with 6,5 in Phase
1. This finding may relate to the different histories of the two areas. Many of those from the
48
Mayibuye section came from a squatter camp beside the Golden Highway. This indicator may
suggest a feeling of community amongst those people as much as an attachment to Johandeo
itself.
% of respondents
25%
Mayibuye ISUP
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Score from 0-14
Figure 50: Composite score for how settled respondents are in Johandeo
The majority of respondents (86%) said they felt strongly part of the community at
Johandeo. Only 73% of respondents from Phase 1 felt strongly part of the community. One
focus group participant felt that “Johandeo is the best of all places I know”. Another said
(unemployed men) said,
“I won‟t leave Johandeo because I am already used to this place and its people.
Another thing is that if someone tries to do criminal practices we can easily recognise
him. At a new place the criminals will have because we don‟t know each other, even
neighbours”.
For others, however, staying in Johandeo was dependent on the provision of services.
This is a concern given the plans for extensive new development, and building of formal
houses on land adjacent to Johandeo to the North and East. If better services and facilities are
available there, or even if people feel they are likely to be available, many may move out of
Johandeo. For example, participants in the employed women‟s group said,
“If [Johandeo] can be developed, we won‟t move”.
“Only if our needs are met, then there won‟t be anything which will make us move”.
But she added:
“I am already on my way out. I am going to look for a house elsewhere because it
seems there is no progress”.
Statistical tests on the results from the Mayibuye section led to the conclusion that a
respondent‟s score is independent of socio-economic variables such as sex, age, income,
education or how long the respondent had lived in Johandeo.
Powerlessness and isolation

A similar score was calculated using responses to the following three statements:
4. People like me can‟t influence developments in our community.
5. The government doesn‟t care about people like me.
6. I will never be able to afford a better place to live.
Respondents scored 0 for strong agreement with the statement (the most pessimistic)
and 4 for strong disagreement (the most optimistic). The lower the score, the greater the sense
of powerlessness.
Question RESPONSES AND SCORE

 Pessimistic/disempowered Optimistic/empowered 
Strongly agree Agree Don‟t know Disagree Strongly disagree
0 1 2 3 4
Can‟t influence
10% 33% 22% 19% 16%
development.
Govt. doesn‟t
8% 7% 18% 34% 33%
care.
Never afford
better place to 10% 41% 2% 27% 21%
live.
Table 13: Responses to questions included in score for feelings of powerlessness, Mayibuye
section, Johandeo
Of the three statements, respondents from the Mayibuye section were the most
positive about Government. Two thirds of respondents (67%) thought that government did
care about people like them. There was a wider spread of opinion in response to the other two
statements. For example, 10% of respondents strongly agreed that they would never be able to
afford a better place to live, but 21% felt strongly that they would.
Respondents from the Mayibuye section of Johandeo scored between 2 and 12. As
with the score for how settled respondents felt, those from Phase 1 scored slightly, but
significantly lower than those from the Mayibuye section.49 In Phase 1 the average score was
5,8 compared with 6,8 for respondents from the Mayibuye section.
49
% of respondents
25%
Mayibuye
20% 19%
17%
16%
15%
10% 9%
8% 8%
6% 6%
5% 4% 4%
3%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Score from 0-12
Figure 51: Composite score for how powerless and isolated respondents feel, Mayibuye section,
Johandeo
Statistical analysis of the scores showed that the sex of the respondent was the only
socio-economic variable by which there was a significant difference in scores (and this was
only at the 5% level). Feelings of powerlessness and isolation were independent of age,
education, income or how long the respondent had lived in Johandeo. By sex, women were
more likely than men to have a low score (between 0 and 4), suggesting they feel more
powerless than men. Nearly a quarter of women (22%) scored between 0 and 4 compared
with only 9% of men.
CONCLUSIONS
The Mayibuye Programme (ISUP) of the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs
commenced implementation almost simultaneously at different ends of the province. The time
series study will be useful in monitoring their respective degrees of progress, within two
different contexts. This report constitutes a baseline against which progress and change can be
measured during subsequent years.
Both of the settlements, Johandeo and Soshanguve South Extension 4, commenced in
early 1997 (March and June respectively). Some progress has been made in the installation of
bulk services but the communities are anxious to see further developments. The process of
accessing housing subsidies and transferring land to individual beneficiaries is at an early
stage in both settlements and levels of comprehension of the system are relatively low, more
so in Johandeo. Some upgrading and expansion of existing dwellings has already taken place
and most households intend to increase the sizes of their homes or add windows or internal
fittings to upgrade their homes.
Johandeo is not as well established as Soshanguve in terms of the networking and
membership of local community organisations is concerned. Fewer households in Johandeo
have members belonging to one or more organisation than is the case in Soshanguve.
Additionally, there is a slightly stronger likelihood that Johandeo residents would move
elsewhere given the opportunity.
Households in Soshanguve are slightly better off than those in Johandeo. This is
reflected in higher levels of employment, higher average household incomes and better levels
of education in Soshanguve than in Johandeo. Johandeo have consequently been able to invest
lesser amounts of capital in the construction of their current dwellings than their Soshanguve
counterparts.

Lost ҉Love SPELL CASTER// Spell pay after results +27734818506 Ottawa,Newfoundland,Halifax,@$ NS, Canada ,Winnipeg,Regina ,Edmonton,$$Vancouver

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Lost ҉Love SPELL CASTER// Spell pay after results +27734818506 Ottawa,Newfoundland,Halifax,@$ NS, Canada ,Winnipeg,Regina ,Edmonton,$$Vancouver

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lost ҉Love SPELL CASTER// Spell pay after results +27734818506 Ottawa,Newfoundland,Halifax,@$ NS, Canada ,Winnipeg,Regina ,Edmonton,$$Vancouver

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UPGRADING GAUTENG’S INFORMAL

The Gauteng Department of Housing

Lucy Stevens and Stephen Rule

COMMUNITY AGENCY FOR SOCIAL ENQUIRY

Researched for: Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. IV

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. VI

SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXTENSION 4 .......................................................................................................... 8

The co-operation of the residents of Soshanguve South Extension 4 and Johandeo in

SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXTENSION 4

Background to the sites

Developments and services

 building a starter top structure (house)

LEVEL MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF SUBSIDY AMOUNT

Figure 1: Location of fieldwork sites

1 Unemployed women, 18-25 years

Additional data will be collected during subsequent years to monitor developments by

Selecting respondents for the survey

Whilst recognising these problems, it was considered important to attempt to identify,

Note on statistical techniques used

SOSHANGUVE SOUTH EXTENSION 4

1. Background to Soshanguve South Ext. 4

Figure 2: Soshanguve South Extension 4 from the air: 22/5/98

2. Geographic origins of residents

Figure 3: Birthplace of Soshanguve Ext. 4 respondents

N.Prov. 2% Sosh. othr 25%

Figure 4: Previous place of residence of Soshanguve Ext. 4 respondents

Length of time in Soshanguve South Ext. 4 and Gauteng

Moved Real date

Cities are better places to live than rural areas

Strongly agree Agree Don‟t know Disagree Str. disagree

Reason for coming to Soshanguve South Ext. 4

3. Community and household demographics

20% 19% 19%

Differences in household structure by age and sex of household head

Figure 6: Household structure for male-headed and female-headed households

Sons and daughters not living with respondent

Community age-sex distribution

Characteristics of heads of household

55+ men women 6 17

Among household heads in Soshanguve South Extension 4, levels of education were

Male household heads Female household heads

% of all w orking respondents

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding

Figure 11: Type of work done (all respondents, by sex)

Employment, dependence and poverty in the community

Figure 12: Total household income per month

Poverty indicators and coping mechanisms

Another talked about the importance of being an entrepreneur.

stay without 14%

nev er hav e probs 3%

bor. employ er 10%

Figure 15: Items on which ‘some’ or ‘most’ of household income is spent

Household structure and eligibility for the housing subsidy

Perceptions of the subsidy application process

Figure 16: Number of rooms (divided by a solid structure) in dwelling

Figure 17: Estimated cost of constructing the dwelling

Figure 18: Who built the dwelling, by sex of respondent