PMO-RALG

KAHAMA DC CWIQ
Survey on Poverty, Welfare and
Services in Kahama DC

December 2006

Implemented by:
EDI (Economic Development Initiatives)
PO Box 393, Bukoba
Tanzania

Telephone and Fax: +255-(0)28-2220059

Email:
[email protected]
www.edi-africa.com
II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was commissioned by the Prime Minister’s Office – Regional

Administration and Local Governance (PMO-RALG) and implemented by EDI
(Economic Development Initiatives). It is part of an effort to conduct CWIQ surveys in
34 districts across Tanzania. The project Director is Joachim De Weerdt. Field work
operations are being co-coordinated by Respichius Mitti and Francis Moyo. Field
supervision was in the hands of Matovu Davies, Wilson Kabito, Henry Kilapilo, Henry
Lugakingira, Josephine Lugomora, George Musikula, and Neema Mwampeta. The listing
team was formed by Felix Kapinga and Benjamin Kamukulu. Interviewers were Dativa
Balige, Geofrey Bakari, Rukia Charles, Abbanova Gabba, George Gabriel, Jamary
Idrissa, Felix James, Sampson Mutalemwa Gloria Joseph, Placidia Josephat, Justina
Katoke, Makarius Kiyonga, Faustine Misinde, Jesca Nkonjerwa, Kamugisha Robert,
Resti Simon, Pius Sosthenes, Aissa Soud, Adella Theobald, and Honoratha Wycliffe. The
data processing software was written by Jim Otto and Neil Chalmers. The data entry team
consisted of Mary Stella Andrew and Alieth Mutungi, and was supervised by Thaddaeus
Rweyemamu. Formatting the final document layout was in the hands of Amina Suedi.
The data analysis and report writing were undertaken by Luis Barron, John Ibembe,
Ezekiel Kiagho, and Teddy Neema under the supervision of Manuel Barron. Assistance
from Charles Citinka and Howard Clegg from PMO-RALG is acknowledged.

III
DEFINITIONS

General

Accessible Village Within a district, accessible villages are villages

located closer to the district capital, all-weather
roads, and public transport.

Remote Village Within a district, remote villages are villages

located farther from the district capital, all-
weather roads, and public transport.

Socio-economic Group The socio-economic group of the household is

determined by the type of work of the main
income earner.

Poverty Predictors Variables that can be used to determine

household consumption expenditure levels in
non-expenditure surveys.

Basic Needs Poverty Line Defined as what a household, using the food
basket of the poorest 50 percent of the
population, needs to consume to satisfy its basic
food needs to attain 2,200 Kcal/day per adult
equivalent. The share of non-food expenditures
of the poorest 25 percent of households is then
added. The Basic Needs Poverty Line is set at
TZS 7,253 per 28 days per adult equivalent unit
in 2000/1 prices; households consuming less
than this are assumed to be unable to satisfy their
basic food and non-food needs.

Education

Literacy Rate The proportion of respondents aged 15 years or

older, who identify themselves as being able to
read and write in at least one language.

Primary School Age 7 to 13 years of age

Secondary School Age 14 to 19 years of age

Satisfaction with Education No problems cited with school attended.

IV
Gross Enrolment Rate The ratio of all individuals attending school,
irrespective of their age, to the population of
children of school age.

Net Enrolment Rate The ratio of children of school age currently

enrolled at school to the population of children
of school age.

Non-Attendance Rate The percentage of individuals of secondary

school-age who had attended school at some
point and was not attending school at the time of
the survey.

Health

Need for Health Facilities An individual is classed as having experienced

need for a health facility if he/she had suffered
from a self-diagnosed illness in the four weeks
preceding the survey.

Use of Health Facilities An individual is classed as having used a health

facility if he/she had consulted a health
professional in the four weeks preceding the
survey.

Satisfaction with Health No problems cited with health facility used in the
Facilities four weeks preceding the survey.

Vaccinations BCG: Anti-tuberculosis

DPT: Diphtheria, Pertussis3, Tetanus
OPV: Oral Polio Vaccination

Stunting Occurs when an individual’s height is

substantially below the average height in his/her
age-group.

Wasting Occurs when an individual’s weight is

substantially below the average weight for
his/her height category.

Orphan A child is considered an orphan when he/she has

lost at least one parent and is under 18 years.

Foster child A child is considered foster if neither his/her

parents reside in the household

V
Employment

Working Individual An individual who had been engaged in any type

of work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
Underemployed Individual An individual who was ready to take on more
work at the time of the survey.

Non-working Individual An individual who had not been involved in any

type of work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey.

Unemployed Individual An individual who had not been engaged in any

type of work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey
but had been actively looking for it.

Economically Inactive An individual who had not been engaged in any

Individual type of work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey
due to reasons unrelated to availability of work
(e.g. Illness, old age, disability).

Household duties Household tasks (cleaning, cooking, fetching

firewood, water, etc.) that do not entail payment

Household worker A household worker performs household duties

but received payment.

Household as employer A person is said to be employed by his/her

household if he/she does domestic/household
work for the household they live in (e.g. a
housewife or a child that works on his/her
parents’ fields or shop). It does not include
people whose main job was domestic work for
other households (private sector).

Welfare

Access to Facilities A household is considered to have access to

facilities if it is located within 30 minutes of
travel from the respective facilities.

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..…… 1
1.1 The Kahama District CWIQ………………………………………………...…… 1
1.2 Sampling……………………………………………………………….……….……. 1
1.3 Constructed variable to disaggregated tables…………………………………....…… 1
1.3.1 Poverty Status………………………………………………………….….….……. 2
1.3.2 Cluster Location………………………………………………………..……...…… 3
1.3.3 Socio-economic Group…………………………………………….…………...….. 4

2 VILLAGE, POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS CHARACTERISTICS…….......... 7

2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…….. 7
2.2 Main Population Characteristics………………………………………………..….… 7
2.3 Main Household Characteristics…………………………………………………....... 9
2.4 Main Characteristics of the Heads of Household……………………….……......…... 11
2.5 Orphan and Foster Status………………………………………………………..….... 14

3 EDUCATION……………………………………………………………………….…. 17
3.1 Overview Education Indicators…………………………………...…….………..….. 17
3.1.1 Literacy…………………………………………………………………..……..….. 17
3.1.2 Primary School Access Enrolment and Satisfaction…………………….……......... 17
3.1.3 Secondary School Access, Enrolment and Satisfaction…………………........……. 20
3.2 Dissatisfaction……………………………………………………………….….....…. 21
3.3 Non-Attendance…………………………………………………………………..….. 23
3.4 Enrolment and Drop Out Rates……………………………………………….......….. 24
3.5 Literacy……………………………………………………………………….…….... 24

4 HEALTH……………………………………………………………………….…...….. 27
4.1 Health Indicators………………………………………………………………......…. 27
4.2 Reasons for Dissatisfaction……………………………………………………...…… 28
4.3 Reasons for Not Consulting When Ill………………………………………..….....… 29
4.4 Type of Illness…………………………………………………………………….….. 30
4.5 Health Provider……………………………………………………………….…...…. 30
4.6 Child Deliveries…………………………………………………………………...…. 30
4.7 Child Nutrition………………………………………………………………...….….. 33

5 EMPLOYMENT……………………………………………………………………...... 37
5.1 Employment Status of Total Adult Population…………………………….…........… 37
5.1.1 Work Status…………………………………………………………………......….. 37
5.1.2 Employment of Household Heads………………………………………….......….. 38
5.1.3 Youth Employment…………………………………………………………....…… 38
5.2 Working Population………………………………………………………….....……. 40
5.3 Underemployment Population………………………………………………..........… 42
5.4 Unemployed Inactive Population……………………………………………........….. 45
5.5 Household Tasks……………………………………………………………………... 45
5.6 Child Labour……………………………………………………………………..…... 46

6 PERCEPTIONS ON WELFARE AND CHANGES WITHIN COMMUNITIES 49

6.1 Economic Situation………………………………………………………….…....….. 49
6.1.1 Perception of Change in the Economic Situation of the Community….....…........... 49

VII
6.1.2 Perception of Change in the economic Situation of the Household…….............…. 51
6.2 Self- reported Difficulty in Satisfying Household Needs………………........…...….. 52
6.2.1 Food Needs…………………………………………………………………..…..… 53
6.2.2 Paying School Fees……………………………………………………….…….….. 54
6.2.3 Paying House Rent…………………………………………………………….…… 54
6.2.4 Paying Utility Bills……………………………………………………….……...…. 55
6.2.5 Paying for Healthcare…………………………………………………….…...…..... 56
6.3 Assets and Household Occupancy Status………………………………………......... 58
6.3.1 Assets Ownership…………………………………………………………………... 58
6.3.2 Occupancy Documentation …………………………………………….……..…… 59
6.4 Agriculture………………………………………………………………………...…. 59
6.4.1 Agriculture Inputs……………………………………………………….…….....… 60
6.4.2 Landholding…………………………………………………………………......…. 62
6.4.3 Cattle Ownership…………………………………………………………….….….. 63
6.5 Perception of Crime and Security in the Community………………….……........….. 63
6.6 Household Income Contribution……………………………………………...….…... 65
6.7 Other House Items……………………………………………………….…….....….. 66

7 HOUESHOLD AMENITIES……………………………………………………….….. 67
7.1 Housing Materials and Typing of Housing Unit…………………………….......…... 67
7.2 Water and Sanitation……………………………………………………….…...….… 70
7.3 Type of Fuel……………………………………………………………….…...…….. 72
7.4 Distance to Facilities…………………………………………………………..…...… 73
7.5 Anti -Malaria Measures………………………………………………….…....……... 76

8 GOVERNANCE……………………………………………………………….…...….. 79
8.1 attendance at Meeting………………………………………………………..………. 79
8.2 Satisfaction with Leaders……………………………………………………….….… 80
8.3 Public Spending………………………………………………………………....…… 81

9 CHANGES BETWEEN 2004 AND 2006…………………………………………...… 85

9.1 Household Characteristics…………………………………………………..…......…. 86
9.2 Education……………………………………………………………………..…..….. 86
9.3 Health……………………………………………………………………………...…. 86
9.4 Households Assets and Perception of Welfare............................................................. 88

VIII
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Variables used to predict on consumption expenditure in ShinyangaRegion………....….....….. 2

Table 1.2 Predicted vs. actual poverty, Shinyanga Region, 2000/…………………………………......….. 3
Table 1.3 Cluster location……………………………………………………………………..…................. 4
Table 1.4 Socio-economic group………………………………………………………………….…........... 4
Table 1.5 Socio-economic group and gender of household………………………………………....…........ 4
Table 1.6 Socio-economic group and main economic activity……………………………………....…....... 5
Table 2 1 Percent distribution of total population by gender and age…………………………..…….......... 7
Table 2.2 Dependency ratio ………………………………………………………………...….................... 8
Table 2.3 Percent distribution of households by number of household members………………..…..…….. 8
Table 2.4 Percent distribution of total population by relation to head of household……………....….......... 9
Table 2.5 Percent distribution of the total population age 12 and above by marital status…………............ 10
Table 2.6 Percent distribution of the total population age 5 and above by socio-economic group……...…. 10
Table 2.7 Percent distribution of the total population age 5 and above by highest level of education….…. 11
Table 2.8 Percent distribution of heads of households by marital status………………………...…............. 12
Table 2.9 Percent distribution of heads of households by socio-economic group…………………....…...... 13
Table 2.10 Percent distribution of heads of household by highest level of education ………...................… 14
Table 2.11 Percent distribution of children under 18 years old who have lost their mother and /or father... 14
Table 2.12 Percent distribution of children under 18 years old living without mother and/or father…....… 15
Table 3.1 Education indicators……………………………………………………………………............... 18
Table 3.2 Percentage of students currently enrolled in school with reasons for dissatisfaction…………... 19
Table 3.3 Percentage of children 7-9 years who ever attended school by reasons not currently attending… 20
Table 3.4 Primary School enrolment and drop out rates by age and gender……………………….............. 22
Table 3.5 Secondary school enrolment and drop out rates by age and gender……………………….….…. 22
Table 3.6 Adult literacy rates by age and gender (persons age 15 and above)…………………...…............ 24
Table 3.7 Youth literacy rates by age and gender (persons age 15-24)…………………………….............. 25
Table 4.1 Health Indicators………………………………………………………………………................. 27
Table 4.2 Percentage of persons who consulted a health provider in the 4 weeks proceeding the survey
and were not satisfied, and the reasons for dissatisfaction.…........................................................ 28
Table 4.3 Percentage of persons who did not consulted a health provider in the 4 weeks preceding
the survey and the reasons for not consulting…………………………...………………………. 29
Table 4.4 Percentage of population sick or injured in the 4 weeks preceding the survey, and those sick or
injured the percentage by type of sickness/injury.......................................................................... 30
Table 4.5 Percentage distribution of health consultation in past 4 weeks by type of health provider
consulted…..................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 4.6 Percentage of women aged 12-49 who had a live birth in the year proceeding the survey by age
of the mother and the percentage of those births where the mother received pre-natal care......... 31
Table 4.7 Percentage distribution of births in the five years preceding the survey by place of birth…....…. 32
Table 4.8 Percentage distribution of births in the five years preceding the survey by person who assisted
in delivery of the child.................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4.9 Nutrition status indicators and program participating rates………….....……………………...… 33
Table 4.10 Percent distribution of children vaccination by type of vaccination received…….......………... 34
Table 4.11 Percent distribution of children vaccinated by source of information…………………......…… 35
Table 5.1 Percentage distribution of the population by working status (age 15 and above)……….....……. 37
Table 5.2 Principal labour force indicators (persons age 15 and above)…………………………...….....… 38
Table 5.3 Percentage distribution of the population by work status (age 15 -24)………………….………. 39
Table 5.4 Percentage distribution of the working population by type of payment in main job……...…...... 39
Table 5.5 Percentage distribution of the working population by employer……………………………....... 40
Table 5.6 Percentage distribution of the working population by activity……………………….......…........ 40
Table 5.7 Percentage distribution of the working population by employer, sex and activity………............. 41

IX
Table 5.8 Percentage distribution of the working population by employer, sex and employment status...... 41
Table 5.9 Percentage distribution of the underemployed population by employment status………............. 42
Table 5.10 Percentage distribution of the underemployed population by employer………………...……... 42
Table 5.11 Percentage distribution of the underemployed population by activity………………….…….... 43
Table 5.12 Percentage distribution of the unemployed population by reason…………………………….... 44
Table 5.13 Percentage distribution of the economically inactive population by reason……………...……. 44
Table 5.14 Activities normally undertaken in the households (age 15 and over)…………………......…..... 45
Table 5.15 Activities normally undertaken in the households (age 5 to 14)……………………….............. 46
Table 5.16 Child labour (age 5 to 14)………………………………………………………......................... 47
Table 6.1 Percentage of household by the percentage of the economic situation of the community
compared to the year before the survey…………………………………...…............................... 49
Table 6.2 Percentage distribution of households by the percentage of the economic situation of the
household to the year...................................................................................................................... 50
Table 6.3 Percentage distribution of households by the difficulty in satisfying the food needs of the
household during the year before the survey…………………………………….....……………. 52
Table 6.4 Percentage distribution of households but the difficulty in paying during the year before the
survey….....................................................................................................................................… 53
Table 6.5 Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in paying house rent during the year before
the survey........................................................................................................................................ 55
Table 6.6 Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in paying utility bills during the year before
the survey........................................................................................................................................ 56
Table 6.7 Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in paying for health care during the year
before the survey............................................................................................................................ 57
Table 6.8 Percentage of households owning certain assets………………………………….........……....... 58
Table 6.9 Percent distribution of households by occupancy status………………………………................ 59
Table 6.10 Percent distribution of household by type of occupancy documentation………………………. 60
Table 6.11 Percentage of household using agricultural inputs and the percentage using certain input......... 60
Table 6.12 Percentage distribution of households using agricultural inputs by the main source of the
inputs…......................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 6.13 Percent distribution of households by the area of land owned by the household……………..... 62
Table 6.14 Percent distribution of households by the number of cattle owned by the household………...... 63
of the community compared to the year before the survey…………………………………...... 64
Table 6.15 Percentage distribution of households by principal contributor to household income …...…..... 65
Table 16 Percentage of households owning selected household items …………………….......................... 66
Table 7.1 Percent distribution of households by material used for roof of the house…………………....… 67
Table 7.2 Percent distribution of households by material used for walls of the house…………………..…. 68
Table 7.3 Percent distribution of households by material used for floors of the house……………….......... 68
Table 7.4 Percent distribution of households by type of housing unit……………………………................ 69
Table 7.5 Percent distribution of households by main source of drinking water………………………....... 70
Table 7.6 Percent distribution of households by main type of toilet…………………………….................. 71
Table 7.7 Percent distribution of households by fuel used for cooking……………………………….......... 71
Table 7.8 Percent distribution of households by fuel used for lighting……………………………….......... 73
Table 7.9 Percent distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest drinking water
supply and health facility ………………………………………………………………...…….... 74
Table 7.10 Percent distribution of households by time(in minutes) to reach the nearest primary
and secondary school.................................................................................................................... 75
Table 7.11 Percent distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest food market and
public transportation..................................................................................................................... 75
Table 7.12 Percentage of households taking anti-malaria measures and percentage taking specific
measure........................................................................................................................................ 76
Table 8.1 Percentage distribution of attendance of meetings (any household members within past 12
months............................................................................................................................................. 79

X
Table 8.2 Distribution of leaders' satisfaction ratings and reasons for dissatisfaction……………………... 80
Table 8.3 Percentage distribution of households who received financial information in the past 12
months............................................................................................................................................. 81
Table 8.4 Satisfaction with public spending and reasons for dissatisfaction……………………………...... 82
Table 9.1 Household Characteristics.............................................................................................................. 85
Table 9.2 Education........................................................................................................................................ 86
Table 9.3 Health.............................................................................................................................................. 87
Table 9.4 Household assets and perception of welfare................................................................................... 88

XI
Generic Core Welfare Indicators (2006)
Margin of
Total error* Accessible Remote Poor Non-poor
Household characteristics
Dependency ratio 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.0
Head is male 84.4 2.7 79.9 90.7 83.9 84.4
Head is female 15.6 3.3 20.1 9.3 16.1 15.6
Head is monagamous 62.0 3.2 63.5 60.0 58.0 62.6
Head is polygamous 19.9 4.2 14.3 27.9 24.0 19.3
Head is not married 18.0 2.9 22.1 12.2 18.0 18.0
Household welfare
Household economic situation compared to one year ago
Worse now 47.5 3.2 44.4 51.8 67.9 44.5
Better now 32.6 3.4 33.3 31.7 18.0 34.7
Neighborhood crime/security situation compared to one year ago
Worse now 22.2 5.2 28.4 13.2 22.1 22.2
Better now 41.2 6.3 37.5 46.4 42.2 41.0
Difficulty satisfying household needs
Food 55.4 4.3 49.9 63.1 79.2 51.9
School fees 2.5 1.2 4.0 0.4 1.2 2.7
House rent 1.9 1.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.2
Utility bills 2.8 2.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 3.2
Health care 24.7 6.7 18.4 33.6 36.3 23.0
Agriculture
Land owned compared to one year ago
Less now 1.6 0.8 2.1 1.0 0.0 1.9
More now 3.1 1.1 4.0 1.9 1.2 3.4
Cattle owned compared to one year ago
Less now 17.1 4.8 12.9 23.0 27.3 15.6
More now 9.3 2.8 9.6 8.8 8.5 9.4
Use of agricultural inputs
Yes 38.3 7.0 31.9 47.4 49.1 36.8
Fertilizers 62.3 7.5 69.8 55.1 76.6 59.6
Improved seedlings 41.7 6.3 35.8 47.4 23.9 45.1
Fingerlings 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hooks and nets 1.2 0.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.5
Insecticides 39.4 7.8 32.4 46.2 29.2 41.4
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Household infrastructure
Secure housing tenure 18.2 11.8 30.1 1.1 0.0 20.7
Access to water 86.3 3.4 92.4 77.7 74.4 88.0
Safe water source 29.5 7.8 31.4 26.9 31.7 29.2
Safe sanitation 11.8 9.4 20.2 0.0 0.0 13.5
Improved waste disposal 28.3 12.4 37.5 15.1 5.5 31.5
Non-wood fuel used for cooking 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership of IT/Telecommunications Equipment
Fixed line phone 1.4 1.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.6
Mobile phone 19.1 11.3 29.4 4.4 0.0 21.8
Radio set 62.6 4.0 66.3 57.4 28.4 67.5
Television set 7.9 5.4 13.5 0.0 0.0 9.1

XII
 Margin of
Total error* Accessible Remote Poor Non-poor
Employment
Employer in the main job
Civil service 1.6 0.7 2.3 0.6 0.0 1.9
Other public serve 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2
Parastatal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NGO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Private sector formal 2.6 2.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.1
Private sector informal 31.7 0.9 32.0 31.4 25.9 32.8
Household 55.7 2.1 51.8 61.0 67.0 53.6
Activity in the main job
Agriculture 33.4 8.6 28.3 40.1 46.8 30.8
Mining/quarrying 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Manufacturing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Services 8.3 3.3 11.4 4.1 4.4 9.0
Employment Status in last 7 days
Unemployed (age 15-24) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unemployed (age 15 and above)) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Underemployed (age 15 and above) 17.3 2.0 17.5 17.1 14.8 17.8
Male 26.4 2.7 25.6 27.5 22.1 27.3
Female 8.5 1.4 9.9 6.6 7.2 8.7
Education
Adult literacy rate
Total 65.3 8.5 75.0 52.0 49.4 68.3
Male 74.8 6.5 82.7 64.5 58.3 78.1
Female 56.0 11.1 67.8 39.6 40.5 59.0
Youth literacy rate (age 15-24)
Total 81.0 7.4 90.0 66.8 71.1 83.1
Male 83.4 6.2 90.7 71.8 75.6 85.4
Female 78.5 9.5 89.3 61.8 64.9 80.9
Primary school
Access to School 64.2 7.8 71.8 53.3 55.9 66.6
Primary Gross Enrollment 104.4 3.2 109.9 96.3 99.6 105.7
Male 107.8 4.2 113.2 98.8 98.7 110.1
Female 100.7 4.8 106.0 94.0 100.5 100.8
Primary Net Enrollment 81.1 4.4 87.8 71.4 71.5 83.8
Male 84.8 8.1 92.7 72.0 69.5 88.7
Female 77.0 3.6 81.8 70.8 73.3 78.1
Satisfaction 38.5 4.0 38.2 38.9 34.7 39.5
Primary completion rate 18.7 5.0 23.1 12.3 9.8 21.2

XIII
 Margin of
Total error* Accessible Remote Poor Non-poor
Secondary School
Access to School 10.8 6.4 16.3 1.6 5.2 12.2
Secondary Gross Enrollment 20.5 13.0 31.3 2.3 3.1 24.8
Male 20.2 13.3 29.5 3.5 2.3 24.9
Female 20.7 12.9 33.2 1.2 4.0 24.7
Secondary Net Enrollment 17.2 11.6 26.1 2.3 3.1 20.7
Male 18.2 13.9 26.4 3.5 2.3 22.4
Female 16.2 9.5 25.7 1.2 4.0 19.1
Satisfaction 18.4 15.1 18.0 27.8 100.0 15.9
Secondary completion rate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Medical services
Health access 24.8 5.0 32.8 14.7 22.4 25.4
Need 21.2 0.8 21.2 21.3 16.2 22.4
Use 24.5 1.3 24.4 24.6 20.4 25.4
Satisfaction 76.0 2.5 71.3 82.0 78.7 75.5
Consulted traditional healer 9.2 2.7 4.9 14.6 14.4 8.2
Pre-natal care 96.6 2.1 93.9 98.6 100.0 95.6
Anti-malaria measures used 77.6 5.1 82.3 70.8 61.7 79.8
Person has physical/mental challenge 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.5
Child welfare and health
Orphanhood (children under 18)
Both parents dead 2.6 1.2 3.4 1.5 1.9 2.7
Father only 4.3 0.6 4.6 3.9 3.1 4.6
Mother only 2.0 0.6 3.0 0.6 3.8 1.4
Fostering (children under 18)
Both parents absent 15.3 2.9 18.4 11.2 15.5 15.2
Father only absent 10.6 2.8 12.1 8.6 10.0 10.7
Mother only absent 4.7 1.0 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.8
Children under 5
Delivery by health professionals 45.5 6.5 57.0 34.0 29.9 49.7
Measles immunization 67.3 4.7 77.0 57.5 64.3 68.1
Fully vaccinated 36.6 7.7 48.1 25.0 26.7 39.2
Not vaccinated 23.7 2.5 16.9 30.5 31.9 21.5
Stunted 21.0 4.3 14.0 28.1 35.2 17.1
Wasted 1.1 0.6 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.5
Underweight 13.2 2.9 8.3 18.1 22.9 10.5
* 1.96 standard deviations

XIV
 Change
2004 2006
Estimate SE Signif. 95% Confidence Interval

Net Enrolment Rate

Primary School 83.1 81.1 -2.0 5.2 -12.5 8.3
Secondary School 6.7 17.2 10.5 9.1 -5.1 31.3
Rate of
Dissatisfaction with
School 56.1 62.7 6.6 7.5 -8.0 22.0
Reasons for Dissatisfaction
Books/Supplies 37.6 34.1 -3.5 7.2 -18.0 10.9
Poor Teaching 3.1 21.1 18.0 4.0 *** 9.9 26.0
Lack of Teachers 42.3 50.9 8.6 12.8 -17.1 34.3
ad Condition of Facilities 20.2 50.8 30.6 10.3 *** 10.0 51.1
Overcrowding 8.5 11.2 2.7 4.8 -6.9 12.2
Health Facility
Consulted
Private hospital 12.6 16.4 3.8 7.6 -11.1 19.2
Government hospital 52.4 34.0 -18.4 5.9 *** -28.9 -5.2
Traditional healer 2.3 9.2 6.9 2.5 *** 1.9 11.7
Pharmacy 18.8 33.0 14.2 5.9 ** 2.4 26.0
Rate of
Dissatisfaction with
Health Facilities 28.6 24.0 -4.6 4.6 -13.9 4.6
Reasons for Dissatisfaction
Long wait 38.9 55.8 16.9 8.8 ** 0.0 35.3
of trained professionals 35.0 14.4 -20.6 10.0 * -39.6 0.3
Cost 51.6 24.8 -26.8 7.7 *** -41.5 -10.8
No drugs available 39.9 40.5 0.6 15.1 -28.5 31.9
Unsuccessful treatment 27.8 12.2 -15.6 6.5 ** -29.1 -3.1

Water and Sanitation

Piped water 0.6 1.3 0.7 1.0 -1.2 2.7
Protected well 34.5 29.5 -5.0 8.9 -23.2 12.3
No toilet 4.1 21.2 17.1 6.4 *** 4.5 29.9
Flush toilet 5.5 11.5 6.0 7.8 -5.0 26.2
Covered pit latrine 80.0 60.3 -19.7 5.6 *** -30.2 -7.7
Uncovered pit latrine 10.4 6.7 -3.7 2.4 -8.5 1.3

XV
 Change
2004 2006
Estimate SE Signif. 95% Confidence Interval

Child Delivery
Hospital or Maternity W 54.3 42.6 -11.7 7.7 *** -58.1 -27.4
Delivery Assistance
Doctor/Nurse/Midwife 64.1 43.4 -20.7 8.4 ** -37.1 -3.6

TBA 26.1 7.5 -18.6 5.5 *** -29.7 -7.6

Self-assistance 10.2 49.0 38.8 6.0 *** 26.7 50.6
Child Nutrition
Stunted 30.6 21.1 -9.5 5.3 ** -23.1 -1.8
Severely Stunted 10.7 4.6 -6.1 2.5 *** -13.0 -2.8
Wasted 3.7 1.0 -2.7 1.5 ** -6.6 -0.6
Severely Wasted 0.4 0.0 -0.9 0.5 * -1.9 0.0

XVI
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Kahama District Mpwapwa DC, Muheza DC, Musoma DC,
Ngara DC, Ngorongoro DC, Njombe DC,
CWIQ Rufiji DC, Shinyanga MC, Singida DC,
Songea DC, Sumbawanga DC, Tanga MC,
Temeke MC. Other African countries that
This report presents district level analysis have implemented nationally
of data collected in the Kahama District representative CWIQ surveys include
Core Welfare Indicators Survey using the Malawi, Ghana and Nigeria.
Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire
instrument (CWIQ).
1.2 Sampling
The survey was commissioned by the
Prime Minister’s Office – Regional The Kahama District CWIQ was sampled
Administration and Local Governance and to be representative at district level. Data
implemented by EDI (Economic from the 2002 Census was used to put
Development Initiatives), a Tanzanian together a list of all villages in the district.
research and consultancy company. The In the first stage of the sampling process
report is aimed at national, regional and villages were chosen proportional to their
district level policy makers, as well as the population size. In a second stage the sub-
research and policy community at large. village (kitongoji) was chosen within the
village through simple random sampling.
CWIQ is an off-the-shelf survey package In the selected sub-village (also referred to
developed by the World Bank to produce as cluster or enumeration area in this
standardised monitoring indicators of report), all households were listed and 15
welfare. The questionnaire is purposively households were randomly selected. In
concise and is designed to collect total 450 households in 30 clusters were
information on household demographics, visited. All households were given
employment, education, health and statistical weights reflecting the number of
nutrition, as well as utilisation of and households that they represent.
satisfaction with social services. An extra
section on governance and satisfaction A 10-page interview was conducted in
with people in public office was added each of the sampled households by an
specifically for this survey. experienced interviewer trained by EDI.
The respondent was the most informed
The standardised nature of the person in the household, as identified by
questionnaire allows comparison between the members of the household. A weight
districts and regions within and across and height measurement was taken by the
countries, as well as monitoring change in interviewers for each individual under the
a district or region over time. age of 5 (60 months) in the surveyed
households.
This survey was the second of its kind to
be administered in Kahama DC, located in Finally, it is important to highlight that the
Shinyanga region, the first one having data entry was done by scanning the
been administered in 2004. Chapter 9 of questionnaires, to minimise data entry
this report analyses changes between the errors and thus ensure high quality in the
two surveys. final dataset.

Although beyond the purpose of this

report, the results of Kahama CWIQ could 1.3 Constructed variables
also be set against those of other CWIQ
surveys that have are being implemented to disaggregate tables
at the time of writing in other districts in
Tanzania: Bahi DC, Bariadi DC, Bukoba The statistics in most tables in this report
DC, Bukombe DC, Bunda DC, Dodoma will be disaggregated by certain categories
MC, Hanang DC, Karagwe DC, Kasulu of individuals or households. Some of
DC, Kibondo DC, Kigoma DC, Kilosa these variables have been constructed by
DC, Kishapu DC, Korogwe DC, Kyela the analysts and, in the light of their
DC, Ludewa DC, Makete DC, Maswa DC, prominence in the report, deserve more
Meatu DC, Mbulu DC, Morogoro DC, explanation. This chapter discusses some
1 Introduction

of the most important of these variables: can be calculated. These variables are
poverty status, cluster location and socio- called poverty predictors and can be used
economic group. to determine household expenditure levels
in non-expenditure surveys such as
CWIQ. This means that, for instance, a
1.3.1 Poverty Status household that is headed by an individual
who has post secondary school education,
The poverty status of a household is with every member in a separate bedroom
obtained by measuring its consumption and that has a flush toilet is more likely to
expenditures and comparing it to a poverty be non-poor than one where the household
line. It is, however, difficult, expensive head has no education, a pit latrine is used
and time consuming to collect reliable and there are four people per bedroom.
household consumption expenditure data. This is, of course, a very simplified
One reason for this is that consumption example; however, these are some of the
modules are typically very lengthy. In variables used to calculate the relationship
addition, household consumption patterns between such information and the
differ across districts, regions and seasons; consumption expenditure of the
hence multiple visits have to be made to household.
the household for consumption data to be
reliable. For the purpose of this report, the data
collected in the Household Budget Survey
However, household consumption 2000/01 (HBS) was used to select the
expenditure data allows more extensive poverty predictors and determine the
and useful analysis of patterns observed in quantitative relationship between these
survey data and renders survey outcomes and household consumption. The five-year
more useful in policy determination. gap is far from ideal, but the data itself is
Because of this, the Tanzanian reliable and is the most recent source of
government has become increasingly information available. Work was then
interested in developing ways of using done to investigate the specific
non-expenditure data to predict household characteristics of Kahama in order to
consumption and, from this, poverty ensure that the model developed
measures. accurately represents this particular
district.
There is a core set of variables that are
incorporated in the majority of surveys. Some caveats are in order when tabulating
These variables inform on household variables used as poverty predictors on
assets and amenities, level of education of poverty status. Poverty status is defined as
the household head, amount of land owned a weighted average of the poverty
by the household and others. By observing predictors; hence it should come as no
the relation between these variables and surprise that poverty predictors are
consumption expenditure of the household correlated to them. For instance, education
in an expenditure survey, a relationship of the household head is one of the

Table 1.1 Variables Used to Predict Consumption Expenditure in Shinyanga Region

Basic Variables Household Assets

Age of the houehold head Ownership of a radio
Household size Ownership of a bicycle
Level of education of the household head Ownership of an iron
Main source of income Ownership of a motor vehicle
Main activity of the household head Ownership of a watch
Ownership of a wheelbarrow
Household Amenities Ownership of a sewing machine
Problems satisfying food needs Ownership of a bed
Fuel used for cooking Main material in the walls
Distance to the market Main material in the floor
Distance to public transport
Distance to hospital
Source: HBS 2000/2001 for Shinyanga Region

2
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

variables included in the equation used to Table 1.2 : Predicted and Observed Poverty
calculate household consumption. The Rates, Shinyanga Region, 2000/01
relationship is set as a positive one,
consequently when observing the patterns Observed
Predicted
in the data this relationship may be Non-Poor Poor Total
positive by construction. Table 1.1 lists Non-Poor 58.0 14.5 72.5
the variables that have been used to Poor 9.1 18.4 27.5
calculate predicted household
Total 67.1 32.9 100.0
consumption expenditure.
Source: HBS 2000/01 for Shinyanga Region

Once the consumption level of a percentage of correct predictions of 76.4

household has been predicted, it is percent.
compared to the Basic Needs Poverty Line
set by National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) When the model is applied to the CWIQ
on the basis of the 2000/01 HBS. The 2006 data for Kahama DC, the share of
Basic Needs Poverty Line is defined by households living in poverty is 24 percent,
what a household, using the food basket of with a 95 percent confidence interval from
the poorest 50 percent of the population, 20 to 27 percent, consistent with the 28
needs to consume to satisfy its basic food percent obtained when applying the same
needs to attain 2,200 Kcal/day per adult model to the data for Shinyanga region
equivalent. The share of non-food from the HBS. These estimates are lower
expenditures of the poorest 25 percent of than the estimated poverty rate with
households is then added. With this Kahama 2004 CWIQ (38 percent).
procedure, the Basic Needs Poverty Line However, it must be kept in mind that the
is set at TZS 7,253 per 28 days per adult aim of the model is not estimating poverty
equivalent unit in 2000/01 prices. rates, but determining the characteristics
Households consuming less than this are of the poor population. Hence, the
assumed to be unable to satisfy their basic accuracy of the model does not hinge on
food and non-food needs1. the closeness between the estimated and
actual poverty rate; but on the percentage
The Kahama 2006 CWIQ uses poverty of correct predictions as indicated in Table
predictors to classify households as poor 1.2.
or non-poor, i.e. to determine whether a
household’s monthly consumption per Expenditure surveys, such as the
adult equivalent unit is below or above the 2000/2001 Household Budget Survey, are
Basic Needs Poverty Line. This binary much better suited for informing on
approach generates two types of mistakes poverty rates. However, such large scale
associated with the prediction: surveys have insufficient number of
observations to inform on district-level
1. A poor household is predicted to be trends. The Kahama CWIQ, on the other
non-poor hand, is sufficiently large to allow detailed
2. A non-poor household is predicted to be district-level analysis. The accuracy with
poor which households can be classified by
poverty status using the CWIQ gives
One way of determining the accuracy of credence to the use of predicted poverty
the poverty predictors is to see how many level as a variable throughout this report.
mistakes of each type the model makes.
1.3.2 Cluster Location
To do this the poverty predictor model is
applied to the actual consumption
expenditure data. Results of this exercise
are presented in Table 1.2. The model Cluster Location is constructed on the
wrongly predicts a non-poor household to basis of self-reported travel time of the
be poor in 9.1 percent of the cases, and household to three different locations: the
vice versa in 14.5 percent of the nearest place to get public transport, the
households. This gives an overall nearest all-weather road and the district
capital. Travel time is probed for by the
household’s most commonly used form of
1
transport. For each household, the average
The exact procedure by which this line travel time is taken across these three
has been set is described in detail in the locations. For each cluster, the median of
2000/01 HBS report: National Bureau of the 15 means is calculated. All clusters are
Statistics, 2002, ‘2000/2001 Tanzania then ranked according to this median. The
Household Budget Survey’.

3
1 Introduction

Table 1.3: Cluster Location

Median Time (in minutes) to:
Estimated
District All-Weather Public
Poverty Rate Number of
Households
Capital Road Transport
Cluster Location
Remote 25.0 120.0 300.0 20.7 100,695
Accessible 30.0 15.0 120.0 7.5 165,840
Source: CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Table 1.4: Socio-economic Group, Poverty Rate, and Location

Percentage Living in
Poverty Rate Accessible
Remote Clusters
Clusters
Socio-Economic Group
Employees 0.0 96.4 3.6
Self-Employed Agriculture 15.5 51.7 48.3
Self-Employed Other 6.6 87.4 12.6
Other 9.3 73.8 26.2
Source: CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

15 clusters with the lowest median are as well as Government and Parastatal
labelled as accessible and the 15 clusters employees are categorised as
with the highest median are labelled as ‘Employees’. Self-employed individuals
remote. Table 1.3 shows the median of are divided into two groups, depending on
each of the variables used to construct the whether they work in agriculture (‘Self-
cluster location. employed agriculture’) or in trade or
professional sectors (‘Self-employed
Table 1.3 shows that the poverty rates other’). Finally, those who worked in
differ substantially by cluster location: other activities (unpaid or domestic
households in remote villages are more workers) or who had not been working for
likely to be poor than households in the 4 weeks preceding the survey are
accessible villages. Whereas the poverty classed as ‘other’.
rate in accessible villages is 8 percent, the
rate in remote villages is 21 percent. Table 1.4 shows that the poverty rate is
highest for households headed by an
1.3.3 Socio-economic individual who is self-employed in
agriculture. In turn, poverty is lowest for
Group households where the head is an
employee. In addition, households headed
by an employee are the most likely to be
The socio-economic group that a located in remote villages, at 96 percent,
household belongs to depends on the whereas households where the main
employment of the household head. income earner is self-employed in
Throughout the report, heads employed in agriculture are the most likely to be
the private sectors, formally or informally, located in accessible villages, at 48
percent.
Table 1.5: Socio-economic Group of the Household and Gender of the
The gender composition of the socio-
Household Head
economic group is shown in Table 1.5.
Male Female Total More than 4 out of 5 households are
Socio-economic Group headed by a male. The share of female-
Employees 45.0 55.0 100.0 headed households is highest for the
Self-Employed Agriculture 86.8 13.2 100.0 ‘employee’ category at 55 percent, and
lowest for the ‘self-employed other’ at 5
Self-Employed Other 94.8 5.2 100.0
percent.
Other 82.8 17.2 100.0
Total 84.4 15.6 100.0 Table 1.6 shows the breakdown of socio
Source: CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC economic groups by main activity of the

4
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

household heads. As expected, the main

economic activity in the district is
agriculture, to which 44 percent of the
household heads is dedicated. The second
most important activity is services, to
which 32 percent of household heads is
dedicated. Virtually all the employees are
dedicated to mining, manufacturing,
energy or construction. Heads from the
‘self-employed agriculture’ category are
split between agriculture (59 percent),
services (24 percent) and household duties
(17 percent). The self-employed in non-
agricultural activities are mostly dedicated
to services (90 percent). The ‘other’
category is divided between agriculture;
mining, manufacturing, energy or
construction; services, and household
duties (32, 31, 15, and 21 percent,
respectively).

Table 1.6: Socio-economic Group of the Household and Main Economic Activity of the Household Head

Mining
Private and Household
Agriculture ManufacturingEne Other Total
Public Services Duties
rgy Construction

Socio-economic Group
Employees 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-Employed Agriculture 59.4 0.0 23.8 16.6 0.2 100.0
Self-Employed Other 4.4 4.2 90.2 1.2 0.0 100.0
Other 32.1 31.2 15.3 21.4 0.0 100.0
Total 43.8 11.0 32.7 12.3 0.1 100.0
Source: CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

5
1 Introduction

6
2 VILLAGE, POPULATION AND
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Introduction between 15 and 64 (the working age
population). The result is the average
number of people each adult at working
This chapter provides an overview of the age takes care of.
Kahama DC households and population
characteristics. The main population The mean dependency ratio is 1.0,
characteristics are presented in section meaning that in average one adult has to
two. Section three presents the main take care of more 1 dependent person.
characteristics of the households, such as Remote villages report a slightly higher
area of residence, poverty status, number dependency ratio than accessible villages,
of members, and dependency ratio. The at 1.1 and 1.0 respectively, but the
same analysis is then conducted for the difference is wider by poverty status: poor
household heads in section four. An households report a dependency ratio of
examination of orphan and foster status in 1.5, while non-poor households report a
the district concludes the chapter. dependency ratio of 1.0.

The dependency ratio increases with the

2.2 Main Population number of household members, from 0.2
for households with 1 or 2 members, to
Characteristics 1.3 for households with 7 or more
members. The breakdown by socio-
Table 2.1 shows the percent distribution of economic group of the household shows
the population by cluster location and that the ‘other’ group has the highest
poverty status, by gender and age. Overall, dependency ratio (1.5), whereas the
the district’s population is young. For employees have the lowest (0.4).
instance, 5 percent of the population is
over 60 years old, whereas 48 percent is The breakdown by gender of the
under 15 years old. The remaining 47 household head shows that the
percent is between 15 and 59 years old. dependency ratio in male-headed
Poor households and households in remote households is higher than in female-
villages have higher shares in the 0-14 headed households, at 1.1 and 0.8,
group and less in then 15-59 groups than respectively.
non-poor households or households in
accessible villages. Table 2.3 shows the percent distribution of
households by number of household
The dependency ratio of the district’s members. The mean household size is 5.3
households is shown in Table 2.2. The individuals. Households with at most two
dependency ratio is the number of individuals only represent 14 percent of all
household members under 15 and over 64 households in the district. The figure for
years old (the dependant population) over households with 7 or more members is 30
the number of household members aged percent.

Table 2.1: Percent distribution of total population by gender and age

Male Female Total

0-14 15-59 60+ Total 0-14 15-59 60+ Total 0-14 15-59 60+ Total
Total 24.9 22.8 2.6 50.4 23.3 24.3 2.1 49.6 48.2 47.1 4.7 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 25.3 23.0 2.8 51.1 21.5 25.3 2.1 48.9 46.7 48.3 4.9 100.0
Remote 24.4 22.6 2.4 49.4 25.6 22.9 2.1 50.6 50.1 45.5 4.4 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 27.7 19.9 1.7 49.3 28.9 19.1 2.7 50.7 56.6 39.0 4.4 100.0
Non-poor 24.2 23.5 2.8 50.6 22.0 25.5 1.9 49.4 46.2 49.0 4.8 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
2 Village, population and household characteristics

Table 2.2: Dependency ratio

Dependency
0-4 years 5-14 years 0-14 years 15-64 years 65+ years Total ratio
Total 0.9 1.7 2.6 2.6 0.2 5.3 1.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 0.7 1.6 2.4 2.5 0.2 5.1 1.0
Remote 1.1 1.8 2.8 2.7 0.1 5.7 1.1
Poverty Status
Poor 1.5 3.2 4.7 3.3 0.2 8.2 1.5
Non-poor 0.8 1.5 2.3 2.5 0.1 4.9 1.0
Household size
1-2 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.2
3-4 0.7 0.6 1.3 2.1 0.1 3.4 0.6
5-6 1.0 1.8 2.8 2.5 0.1 5.4 1.2
7+ 1.3 3.4 4.7 3.8 0.3 8.8 1.3
Socio-economic Group
Employee 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.1 0.0 4.4 0.4
Self-employed - agric 1.0 1.8 2.7 2.6 0.2 5.5 1.1
Self-employed - other 1.0 1.7 2.6 2.4 0.0 5.1 1.1
Other 1.0 1.6 2.6 2.3 0.7 5.6 1.5
Gender of Household Head
Male 1.0 1.8 2.8 2.7 0.2 5.6 1.1
Female 0.3 1.3 1.6 2.2 0.1 3.9 0.8
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Table 2.3: Percent distribution of households by number of household members

household
1-2 persons 3-4 persons 5-6 persons 7+ persons Total size
Total 13.5 29.9 26.4 30.3 100.0 5.3
Cluster Location
Accessible 13.6 31.8 28.8 25.8 100.0 5.1
Remote 13.3 27.1 23.0 36.6 100.0 5.7
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 7.2 16.9 75.9 100.0 8.2
Non-poor 15.4 33.1 27.7 23.8 100.0 4.9
Socio-economic Group
Employee 29.1 31.8 3.7 35.4 100.0 4.4
Self-employed - agric 14.7 26.9 26.5 32.0 100.0 5.5
Self-employed - other 1.9 42.8 35.4 19.9 100.0 5.1
Other 0.0 18.6 45.7 35.7 100.0 5.6
Gender of Household Head
Male 10.5 28.6 28.2 32.7 100.0 5.6
Female 29.5 36.6 16.5 17.4 100.0 3.9
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

The breakdown by cluster location shows household size, at 4.4, and the ‘other’ have
that households in remote villages tend to the highest at 5.6 members.
be larger than households in accessible
villages, with means of 5.7 and 5.1 Finally, households headed by males are
members, respectively. The difference by larger than female headed households: the
poverty status is more pronounced, with former have 5.6 members in average,
poor households reporting a mean whereas the latter have only 3.9 members.
household size of 8.2 members, and non- This difference partly owes to the fact
poor households reporting 4.9. that, as shown in Section 2.4, female
household heads rarely have a spouse.
Regarding socio-economic groups, the
employees have the lowest mean

8
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 2.4: Percent distribution of total population by relationship to head of household

Other Not
Head Spouse Child Parents relative related Total
Total 18.7 15.6 49.6 0.9 14.3 0.8 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 19.6 15.3 48.1 0.7 15.1 1.2 100.0
Remote 17.6 16.0 51.5 1.1 13.3 0.4 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 12.1 10.6 57.9 1.7 16.7 1.0 100.0
Non-poor 20.3 16.8 47.7 0.7 13.8 0.8 100.0
Age
0- 9 0.0 0.0 82.1 0.0 17.7 0.2 100.0
10-19 1.0 1.9 70.3 0.0 24.7 2.0 100.0
20-29 24.4 42.0 23.7 0.0 8.7 1.2 100.0
30-39 50.7 42.3 5.0 0.3 1.6 0.0 100.0
40-49 58.5 37.4 0.6 1.5 2.1 0.0 100.0
50-59 62.7 32.9 0.8 2.8 0.8 0.0 100.0
60 and above 60.8 16.4 0.0 13.1 8.3 1.4 100.0
Gender
Male 31.4 0.8 51.8 0.2 15.6 0.2 100.0
Female 5.9 30.6 47.4 1.6 13.0 1.5 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

2.3 Main Household monogamous, and 13 percent is married

and polygamous. Despite virtually nobody
Characteristics in the district being ‘officially’ divorced, 5
percent of the population is ‘unofficially’
Table 2.4 shows the percent distribution of separated. Finally, 4 percent of the
total population by relationship to the head population aged 12 and above is widowed.
of household.
The breakdown by cluster location shows
No strong trends emerge by analysing by that people from remote villages are more
cluster location. However, the analysis by likely to be married-polygamous than the
poverty status shows that the share of people in accessible villages, who are
‘child’ is higher in poor households, more likely to have never been married.
whereas non-poor households report
higher shares of ‘head’ and ‘spouse’. The breakdown by poverty status shows
that members of poor households are more
When analysing by age-groups, it is clear likely to have never been married, whereas
that the category ‘other relatives’ is mostly members of non-poor households are more
comprised by children under 19 years old. likely to be married, either monogamous
This highlights the importance of the or polygamous.
analysis of fostering and orphan status.
After the age of 30, most of the population The age breakdown shows that the
is either head of their own household or ‘polygamous-married’ category peaks at
spouse to the head of the household. the 40-49 group, at 26 percent. For the
population after 25 years old, married-
The gender split-up shows that males are monogamous is the most common
more likely to be household heads than category. Neither divorced nor separated
females, with shares of 31 and 6 percent, show a trend but, ‘widowed’ is higher for
respectively. In turn, females are more the older cohorts. ‘Never married’ also
likely to be spouses to the household head shows correlation with age, decreasing as
than males, at rates of 31 and 1 percent, the population gets older.
respectively.
Around 42 percent of the men have never
Table 2.5 shows the percent distribution of been married, but for women the figure is
the population age 12 and above by only 34 percent. While 6 percent of
marital status. Overall, 38 percent of the women are widowed and 8 percent
population has never been married. In separated, the shares for males are 1 and 2
addition, 41 percent is married and percent, respectively.

9
2 Village, population and household characteristics

Table 2.5: Percent distribution of the total population age 12 an above by marital status

Never Married Married Informal,

married monog polyg loose union Divorced Separated Widowed Total
Total 37.5 40.9 13.0 0.2 0.1 5.2 3.1 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 40.3 41.9 9.4 0.0 0.0 5.8 2.6 100.0
Remote 33.7 39.6 17.9 0.5 0.1 4.3 3.8 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 45.2 31.1 13.3 0.0 0.3 5.5 4.6 100.0
Non-poor 35.9 43.0 12.9 0.2 0.0 5.1 2.8 100.0
Age
12-14 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
15-19 89.0 7.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 100.0
20-24 38.9 49.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.4 100.0
25-29 8.1 63.4 20.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 100.0
30-39 4.6 62.6 23.4 0.5 0.0 8.2 0.7 100.0
40-49 1.7 61.8 26.1 0.9 0.5 4.5 4.4 100.0
50-59 1.1 57.7 21.7 0.0 0.0 9.1 10.4 100.0
60 and above 1.4 55.4 14.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 21.7 100.0
Gender
Male 41.6 42.3 13.0 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.5 100.0
Female 33.8 39.6 13.0 0.2 0.1 7.8 5.6 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Table 2.6: Percent distribution of the total population age 5 and above by
socio-economic group

Self-employed Self-employed
Employee Agriculture Other Other Total
Total 2.3 19.9 5.7 72.1 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 3.9 15.7 8.5 71.9 100.0
Remote 0.2 25.6 1.9 72.3 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 17.5 1.5 81.0 100.0
Non-poor 2.8 20.5 6.7 70.0 100.0
Age
5- 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
10-14 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
15-19 2.3 3.2 1.3 93.2 100.0
20-29 2.3 22.6 14.4 60.7 100.0
30-39 4.3 44.7 14.6 36.4 100.0
40-49 6.4 49.4 8.4 35.8 100.0
50-59 8.4 51.9 4.6 35.1 100.0
60 and above 1.3 56.9 6.4 35.4 100.0
Gender
Male 2.1 31.8 7.7 58.4 100.0
Female 2.5 8.3 3.7 85.5 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Table 2.6 shows the percent distribution of to be self-employed in agriculture, as well

the population age 5 and above by socio- as non-poor households. Accessible
economic group. Overall, 20 percent of villages report higher shares of employees
the population is self-employed in and self-employed in non-agricultural
agriculture, and 72 percent in other activities. In turn, non-poor households
activities. Individuals living in remote report a higher share in ‘other’ activities
villages seem to be somewhat more likely

10
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 2.7: Percent distribution of the total population age 5 and above by highest
level of education

Nursery Some Completed Some Completed Post

None school primary primary secondary secondary secondary Total
Total 33.8 2.0 30.5 27.0 4.6 0.3 1.9 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 25.5 2.7 31.5 29.6 7.1 0.6 3.1 100.0
Remote 44.9 1.1 29.1 23.3 1.2 0.0 0.3 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 46.1 1.5 32.8 18.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 30.9 2.2 29.9 28.9 5.4 0.4 2.3 100.0
Age
5- 9 70.0 7.2 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
10-14 10.5 2.9 80.0 6.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
15-19 8.9 0.0 33.2 47.8 9.9 0.0 0.3 100.0
20-29 18.9 0.4 14.8 53.6 9.9 0.0 2.3 100.0
30-39 25.2 0.0 10.7 55.7 7.1 0.0 1.4 100.0
40-49 37.8 0.0 14.5 28.7 7.2 3.8 8.0 100.0
50-59 67.2 0.0 12.2 9.5 0.0 0.0 11.1 100.0
60 and above 64.6 0.0 25.4 8.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 100.0
Gender
Male 27.9 2.0 32.6 30.0 4.3 0.6 2.5 100.0
Female 39.5 2.1 28.3 23.9 4.8 0.0 1.3 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

(unemployed, inactive, unpaid or of population with completed primary and

household workers). some secondary.

The analysis of the age-groups is The age breakdown shows that 70 percent
particularly interesting. The share of self- of the children between 5 and 9 have no
employed in agriculture increases with formal education, but 80 percent of the
age, peaking at 57 percent for the 60+. On children 10-14 have at least some primary.
the contrary, the category ‘other’ tends to Rates of no education are lowest for the
decrease with age, showing a sharp population 10-14 and 15-19 (11 and 9
decrease between 15-19 and 20-29, from percent, respectively) and higher for the
93 to 60 percent, then stabilises at around older groups. In the groups between 15
35 percent. and 49 years old, the most common is
completed primary.
The gender breakdown shows that males
are more likely to be self-employed in The gender breakdown shows that females
non-agricultural activities than women. In have a higher share of uneducated
turn, females are more likely to be in the population than males: 40 against 28
‘other’ category, with a share of 60 percent. In turn, the shares of males
percent against 55 percent for the males. reporting some or complete primary are
higher than those of females.
Table 2.7 shows the percent distribution of
the population aged 5 and above by
highest level of education. Roughly 34 2.4 Main Characteristics of
percent of the population has no the Heads of Household
education, 31 percent has some primary,
and 27 percent has completed primary. 5 Table 2.8 shows the percent distribution of
percent of the population has some household heads by marital status.
secondary, and the remaining levels have Overall, 62 percent of the household heads
shares of at most 2 percent each. is married and monogamous, 14 percent
divorced, separated or widowed, 20
Poor households and remote villages percent married and polygamous, 4
report higher shares of population with no percent has never been married and a less
education, while accessible villages and than 1 percent lives in an informal union.
non-poor households report higher shares

11
2 Village, population and household characteristics

Table 2.8: Percent distribution of heads of household by marital status

Divorced
Never Married Married Informal, Separated
married monogamous polygamous loose union Widowed Total
Total 3.5 62.0 19.9 0.3 14.2 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 4.2 63.5 14.3 0.0 17.9 100.0
Remote 2.5 60.0 27.9 0.8 8.9 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 1.4 58.0 24.0 0.0 16.5 100.0
Non-poor 3.8 62.6 19.3 0.4 13.9 100.0
Age
15-19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
20-29 6.0 76.3 7.5 0.0 10.1 100.0
30-39 5.8 63.5 21.2 1.1 8.4 100.0
40-49 0.8 57.0 30.0 0.0 12.3 100.0
50-59 1.8 55.6 17.5 0.0 25.0 100.0
60 and above 1.7 61.6 21.4 0.0 15.3 100.0
Gender
Male 0.9 71.5 23.5 0.0 4.1 100.0
Female 17.5 11.1 0.7 2.0 68.6 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

The breakdown by cluster location shows socio-economic group of the household is

a weak relationship between location and determined by the type of employment of
marital status. Remote villages report a the main income earner of the household,
higher share of ‘married polygamous’ and who not always the household head. As
lower shares of ‘married monogamous’ expected, the great majority of the
and ‘divorced, separated, or widowed’ district’s household heads belongs to the
than accessible villages. self-employed in agriculture, with a share
of 72 percent. The self-employed in non-
Regarding poverty status, heads of non- agricultural activities represent 17 percent
poor households are more likely to be in a of the household heads, the ‘other’
monogamous marriage. In turn, heads of category (unemployed, inactive, unpaid
poor households are more likely to be in a and household workers) represents 2
polygamous marriage. percent, and the employees are 9 percent.

Analysis by age-groups shows that The analysis by location shows that the
married-monogamous is the category with share of household heads self-employed in
the highest share of household heads after agriculture in remote villages is higher
20years old. Some trends may be extracted than in accessible villages, with shares of
from this panel. For instance, except for 91 and 59 percent, respectively. In
the oldest cohort, the married- accessible villages, household heads are
monogamous category decreases slightly more likely to be in the ‘employee’ or
with age, as ‘divorced/separated or ‘self-employed other’ group than heads of
widowed’ increases. The share of households in remote villages.
household heads married and polygamous
peaks at 30 percent of the 40-49 age- Heads of poor households belong to the
groups. ‘self-employed agriculture’ group more
frequently than non-poor households. On
Most female household heads are the other hand, the heads of non-poor
divorced, separated or widowed (69 households belong to the ‘employee’ or
percent) or never married (18 percent), ‘self-employed other’ groups more often
whereas for males, this categories than the heads of poor households.
represent 4 and 1 percent, respectively.
Most male household heads are married, The breakdown by age of the household
monogamous or polygamous (96 percent). head shows interesting insights. First, it is
important to notice that the small number
Table 2.9 shows the percent distribution of of household heads aged 15 to 19 impedes
household heads by socio-economic drawing solid statistical conclusions about
group. It is worth remembering that the them, so they will be excluded from the

12
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006
Table 2.9: Percent distribution of heads of household by socio-economic group

Employed Self-employed Self-employed Other

Agriculture Other Total
Total 8.9 72.0 17.1 2.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 14.6 59.0 24.1 2.3 100.0
Remote 0.8 90.5 7.1 1.7 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 89.4 9.1 1.5 100.0
Non-poor 10.2 69.5 18.2 2.1 100.0
Age
15-19 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
20-29 9.2 56.5 34.3 0.0 100.0
30-39 6.4 72.2 21.5 0.0 100.0
40-49 9.5 73.6 14.8 2.1 100.0
50-59 11.1 80.0 5.8 3.2 100.0
60 and above 2.1 86.7 3.7 7.5 100.0
Gender
Male 4.7 74.1 19.2 2.0 100.0
Female 31.3 60.8 5.7 2.2 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

following discussion. For all age-groups, than the ones from accessible villages.
‘self-employed agriculture’ is the most Furthermore, household heads in
important category, representing more accessible villages are more likely to have
than half the household heads in each age- post-primary education, with a share of 19
group, from 57 percent in the 20-29 cohort percent against 6 percent of household
to 87 percent in the 60+ cohort. The heads in remote villages.
‘employee’ category peaks at 11 percent
for the 10-59 age-group. The ‘self- Poverty status is strongly correlated with
employed other’ category starts at 34 the education of the household heads. This
percent for the 20-29 group and then should be no surprise, since education of
decreases steadily down to 4 percent for the household head is one of the poverty
the cohort aged 60 and above. The ‘other’ predictors used to define poverty status.
category gains importance in the latter However, the difference is still important:
group, with a share 8 percent, as it while 56 percent of heads of poor
includes the economically inactive households has no education, the share for
population. non-poor is 26 percent. In the other
extreme, whereas 16 percent of non-poor
The breakdown by gender of the household heads has post-secondary
household head shows that in male-headed studies, the share for poor household
households, the main income earner is heads is virtually null.
more likely to be self-employed in
agriculture or in non-agricultural activities The age breakdown shows that 57 percent
than in female-headed households. In the of household heads aged 60 or over has no
latter, the main income earner is more education, and a further 27 percent just
likely to be an employee. some primary. Completed primary
represents over 60 percent for the groups
Table 2.10 shows the percent distribution between under 39; but only 34 percent in
of the heads of household by highest level the 40-49 cohort and 14 percent in the 50-
of education. Overall, around only 13 59, where ‘no education’ gains
percent of the household heads has any importance.
education after primary. 29 percent of the
household heads has no education, 14 The analysis by gender shows that female
percent some primary and 44 percent have household heads are more likely to have
completed primary. no education than males, with rates of 52
and 25 percent, respectively. Almost half
The breakdown by cluster location shows (48 percent) the male household heads has
that, as would be expected, household completed primary, against 21 percent of
heads in remote villages are more likely to females.
have no education or just some primary

13
2 Village, population and household characteristics

Table 2.10: Percent distribution of heads of household by highest level of education

Some Completed Some Completed Post

None primary primary secondary secondary secondary Total
Total 29.4 13.8 43.7 4.1 1.4 7.6 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 25.0 10.6 45.6 4.5 2.4 12.0 100.0
Remote 35.7 18.2 41.0 3.5 0.0 1.5 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 55.9 14.2 29.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 25.6 13.7 45.6 4.7 1.6 8.7 100.0
Age
15-19 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
20-29 11.2 5.8 69.1 4.7 0.0 9.2 100.0
30-39 17.9 11.5 61.9 7.1 0.0 1.7 100.0
40-49 26.6 13.4 34.4 5.4 6.5 13.7 100.0
50-59 54.4 16.3 13.8 0.0 0.0 15.5 100.0
60 and above 56.7 26.8 14.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 100.0
Gender
Male 25.3 14.8 47.8 4.3 1.7 6.1 100.0
Female 51.5 7.9 21.3 3.3 0.0 16.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Table 2.11 - Orphan status of children under The age breakdown shows that orphan
18 years old status is correlated with age: as can be
expected older children are more likely to
be orphans than younger children. Around
Children who Children who 26 percent of the children between 15 and
Children who lost father lost both father 17 years lost a parent, and 23 of the
lost mother only only & mother children in that age-group lost their father.
Total 2.0 4.3 2.6 There does not seem to be a gender trend
Cluster Location in orphan status.
Accessible 3.0 4.6 3.4
Remote 0.6 3.9 1.5 The percent distribution of children under
Poverty Status 18 years old by foster status is shown in
Poor 3.8 3.1 1.9 Table 2.12. A child is defined as living in
Non-poor 1.4 4.6 2.7 a nuclear household when both parents
Age
live in the household and as living in a
non-nuclear household when at least one
0-4 0.0 0.7 0.0
parent is absent from the household. Note
5-9 1.9 2.8 0.0
that this makes it a variable defined at the
10-14 3.6 6.0 4.3
level of the child, rather than the
15-17 3.0 12.4 10.6 household (a household may be nuclear
Gender with respect to one child, but not with
Male 1.9 3.9 4.2 respect to another). The table shows that
Female 2.1 4.7 0.9 31 percent of children under 18 were
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC living in non-nuclear households at the
time of the survey.
2.5 Orphan and Foster The breakdown by cluster location shows
Status that 35 percent of the children from
accessible clusters live in non-nuclear
Table 2.11 shows the percent distribution households, against 25 percent for remote
of children under 18 years old who have clusters. There is no strong relation
lost at least one parent. Overall, about 3 between poverty and foster status.
percent of children under 18 lost both
parents, 2 percent lost only their mother The analysis of age-groups shows that the
and 4 percent lost only their father. This share of children living in non-nuclear
amounts to 9 percent of all children under households increases with age, but the
18 who lost at least one parent at the time shares are lower for children living with
of the survey. their father only. Finally, there appears to

14
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

be no strong correlation between gender

and foster status.

Table 2.12 - Foster status of children under 18 years old

Children living in
Children living Children living Children living non-nuclear
with mother only with father only with no parents households
Total 10.6 4.7 15.3 30.5
Cluster Location
Accessible 12.1 4.7 18.4 35.2
Remote 8.6 4.6 11.2 24.5
Poverty Status
Poor 10.0 4.3 15.5 29.9
Non-poor 10.7 4.8 15.2 30.7
Age
0-4 6.8 1.2 7.3 15.3
5-9 10.9 5.3 14.0 30.2
10-14 10.5 7.2 21.6 39.3
15-17 18.4 6.0 22.7 47.2
Gender
Male 12.3 5.1 14.7 32.1
Female 8.7 4.2 15.9 28.8
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

15
2 Village, population and household characteristics

16
3 EDUCATION
This chapter examines selected education orphaned children is 10 points lower, at 86
indicators in Kahama DC. These include percent. Finally, 88 percent of non-
literacy rate, access to schools, satisfaction fostered children are literate compared to
rate, dissatisfaction rate and enrolment. 78 percent of fostered children.

The first section presents an overview on

selected education indicators. The second 3.1.2 Primary School
section provides information on
dissatisfaction and non-attendance along
with the reasons behind them. School Access
enrolment and drop-out rates are presented
in the fourth section. These give a picture Primary school access rate is defined as
on the enrolment patterns according to the the proportion of primary school-age
age of pupils. The final section of the children (7 to 13 years) reporting to live
chapter gives information on adult and within 30 minutes of the nearest primary
youth literacy status within the district. school. Overall, 64 percent of primary
school-age children live within 30 minutes
of a primary school. Primary school access
3.1 Overview of the is remarkably higher in accessible clusters
Education indicators than in remote clusters, at 72 and 53
percent respectively.

3.1.1 Literacy The majority (67 percent) of the children

aged 7 to 13 living in non-poor households
lives within 30 minutes of the nearest
Table 3.1 shows the main education primary school compared to 56 percent of
indicators for the district. Literacy is those living in poor households.
defined as the ability to read and write in
any language, as reported by the The breakdown by socio-economic group
respondent. Individuals who are able to shows that virtually all children living in
read but cannot write are considered households belonging to the ‘employee’
illiterate. The adult literacy rate 1 is 65 category live within 30 minutes of the
percent. Literacy rates differ between nearest primary school compared to 62
accessible and remote villages at 75 and percent of the children living in
52 percent respectively. Likewise, the households where the main income earner
literacy rate among non-poor households belongs to the ‘other’ category and 56
is higher than that of poor households at percent of children living in households
68 and 49 percent respectively. belonging to the ‘self-employed
agriculture’ category. Furthermore, males
The breakdown by socio-economic group have a higher access rate to primary
of the household shows that literacy rates school than females at 69 and 59 percent
are higher among households where the respectively.
main income earner is an employee (98
percent) than in the remaining categories. Non-orphaned children have a higher
access rate to primary schools than
The gender breakdown shows an orphaned children, at 67 and 38 percent
important literacy rate gap between men respectively. Similarly, 68 percent of non-
and women. The literacy rate among men fostered children has access to primary
is 19 percentage points higher than that of schools, whereas the rate for fostered
women at 75 percent and 56 percent children is 44 percent.
respectively.

Orphaned children have a literacy rate of Enrolment

96 percent, whereas the rate for non-
The two main measures of enrolment, the
Gross Enrolment Rate (GER) and the Net
1 Enrolment Rate (NER) are analysed in this
The Adult literacy rate is defined for the
section. GER is defined as the ratio of all
population aged 15 and over.
 3 Education

Table 3.1: Education indicators

Primary Secondary
Adult gross net gross net
Literacy rate access enrollment enrollment satisfaction access enrollment enrollment satisfaction
Total 65.3 64.2 104.4 81.1 38.5 7.9 20.5 17.2 18.4
Cluster Location
Accessible 75.0 71.8 109.9 87.8 38.2 12.6 31.3 26.1 18.0
Remote 52.0 53.3 96.3 71.4 38.9 0.0 2.3 2.3 27.8
Poverty Status
Poor 49.4 55.9 99.6 71.5 34.7 0.0 3.1 3.1 100.0
Non-poor 68.3 66.6 105.7 83.8 39.5 9.8 24.8 20.7 15.9
Socio-economic Group
Employee 97.6 100.0 101.9 100.0 72.6 39.7 88.6 74.1 13.8
Self-employed - agric 56.9 56.4 107.9 77.8 31.6 0.0 3.5 2.7 60.0
Self-employed - other 86.8 76.7 92.7 82.4 50.7 4.9 15.6 15.6 0.0
Other 49.9 62.1 99.4 95.1 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gender
Male 74.8 68.9 107.8 84.8 41.5 12.2 20.2 18.2 34.0
Female 56.0 59.1 100.7 77.0 35.0 3.7 20.7 16.2 3.7
Orphan status
Orphaned 95.5 38.0 143.1 80.5 36.9 10.8 17.5 17.5 0.0
Not-orphaned 86.2 66.7 99.7 81.0 39.2 8.3 19.8 19.8 22.5
Foster status
Fostered 77.5 43.7 93.5 81.9 30.6 18.3 22.5 22.5 0.0
Not-fostered 87.9 67.8 102.2 81.5 40.5 6.0 17.8 17.8 27.1
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Literacy is defined for persons age 15 and above.
2. Primary school:
Access is defined for children of primary school age (7-13) in households less than 30 minutes from a primary school.
Enrollment (gross) is defined for all persons currently in primary school (Kindergarden, Grade 1 to Grade 8) regardless of age.
Enrollment (net) is defined for children of primary school age (7-13) currently in primary school (Kindergarden, Grade 1 to Grade 8).
Satisfaction is defined for all persons currently in primary school who cited no problems with school.
3. Secondary school:
Access is defined for children of secondary school age (14-19) in households less than 30 minutes from a secondary school.
Enrollment (gross) is defined for all persons currently in secondary school (Form 1 to Form 5) regardless of age.
Enrollment (net) is defined for children of secondary school age (14-19) currently in secondary school (Form 1 to Form 5).
Satisfaction is defined for all persons currently in secondary school who cited no problems with school.

individuals attending school, irrespective actual participation of school-age children

of their age, to the population of school- in formal education are in part captured by
age children. If there is a large proportion the NER, the GER, at best provides a
of non-school-age individuals attending broad indication of general participation in
school, the GER may exceed 100 percent. education and of the capacity of the
Primary school GER informs on the ratio schools. The GER gives no precise
of all individuals in primary school to the information regarding the proportions of
population of individuals of primary individuals of school and non-school-ages
school-age (7 to 13 years) in the district. at school, nor does it convey any
information on the capacity of the schools
NER is defined as the ratio of school-age in terms of quality of education provided.
children enrolled at school to the
population of school-age children. The primary school GER was 104 percent
Therefore, primary school NER is the ratio at the time of the survey. This figure
of children between the ages of 7 and 13 indicates that all individuals who were at
years in primary school to the population primary school constitute 104 percent of
of children in this age-group in the district. all children of primary school-age in the
district. The NER further shows that 81
The NER provides more information for percent of all primary school-age children
analysis than the GER. While trends in the were attending school.

18
 Kahma DC CWIQ 2006

Table 3.2: Percentage of students currently enrolled in school by reasons for dissatisfaction

Reasons for dissatisfaction

Percent Books/ Poor Lack of Teachers Lack of Facilties in bad
dissatisfied supplies Teaching teachers absent space condition High fees Other
Total 62.7 34.1 21.1 50.9 3.8 11.2 50.8 4.5 1.1
Cluster Location
Accessible 63.9 36.6 21.9 37.7 3.2 12.1 55.7 6.7 0.0
Remote 60.2 28.7 19.3 78.7 5.1 9.4 40.3 0.0 3.6
Poverty Status
Poor 63.8 34.6 26.8 77.9 6.1 24.0 41.9 0.0 3.4
Non-poor 62.4 33.9 19.7 44.6 3.3 8.2 52.9 5.6 0.6
Socio-economic Group
Employee 57.9 73.5 10.2 8.6 0.0 0.0 97.6 22.7 0.0
Self-employed - agriculture 67.1 30.1 18.1 65.6 5.2 14.2 44.6 0.0 1.6
Self-employed - other 49.3 9.0 52.1 17.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 8.6 0.0
Other 60.4 32.3 10.9 71.5 10.9 67.7 67.7 0.0 0.0
Gender
Male 58.0 30.6 24.4 49.3 3.2 9.1 42.8 7.0 0.4
Female 67.9 37.4 17.9 52.5 4.4 13.2 58.5 2.1 1.8
Type of school
Primary 61.5 28.9 23.1 56.5 4.5 13.1 44.6 1.3 1.4
Government 65.7 29.4 23.5 57.0 4.6 13.3 45.4 0.0 1.4
Private 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Other 52.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Secondary 81.6 65.5 11.2 15.4 0.0 0.0 85.2 24.9 0.0
Government 70.6 62.0 44.1 50.5 0.0 0.0 72.1 0.0 0.0
Private 100.0 66.7 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 89.6 33.3 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 31.3 38.6 0.0 64.1 0.0 9.1 78.2 0.0 0.0
Government 50.8 38.6 0.0 64.1 0.0 9.1 78.2 0.0 0.0
Private 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base for column 1 is enrolled students. For columns 2 to 9, dissatisfied students

While the GER for households located in main income earner belongs to the ‘self-
accessible clusters is 110 percent, the employed agriculture’ category at 78
share for households located in remote percent respectively.
clusters is 96 percent. Likewise, NER for
households in accessible clusters is higher Furthermore, while GER for males is 108
than that of households in remote clusters percent, GER for females is 101 percent.
at 88 and 71 percent respectively. Likewise, males have higher NER than
Furthermore, while GER for non-poor females at 85 and 77 percent respectively.
poor households is 106 percent, the share
for poor households is 100 percent. Surprisingly, the breakdown by orphan
Similarly, NER for non-poor households status shows higher GER for orphaned
is higher than that of poor households at children. In contrast, non-fostered children
84 and 72 percent respectively. have higher GER than fostered children at
102 and 94 percent respectively. On the
GER is highest among people living in other hand, Orphan status and foster status
households belonging to the ‘self- do not show strong correlation with NER.
employed agriculture’ category at 108 and It is worth remembering the small sample
NER is highest among households where size in the orphaned and fostered category
the main income earner is an employee at (see chapter 2), as well as that foster and
100 percent. On the other hand, GER is orphan status are strongly correlated with
lowest among households where the main age: orphaned and fostered children have
income earner belongs to the ‘self- higher mean ages than non-orphaned and
employed other’ category at 93 and NER non-fostered children.
is lowest among households where the

19
 3 Education

Table 3.3: Percentage of children 6-17 years who ever attended school by reason not currently attending

Reasons not currently attending

Percent not Completed Got Useless/ Failed Awaits

attending school Distance Cost Work Illness Pregnancy married uninteresting exam admission Dismissed
Total 18.6 44.0 1.1 11.7 15.6 3.3 0.6 5.7 10.8 27.0 34.1 0.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 16.8 39.0 0.0 16.8 17.7 1.0 1.0 6.5 4.4 36.1 34.9 0.0
Remote 21.7 50.9 2.7 4.5 12.5 6.5 0.0 4.6 19.7 14.3 33.0 0.0
Poverty Status
Poor 20.1 48.3 0.0 0.0 19.3 9.2 0.0 3.5 22.2 18.5 31.2 0.0
Non-poor 18.2 42.8 1.5 14.8 14.6 1.7 0.8 6.3 7.7 29.3 34.9 0.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 12.7 44.8 0.0 44.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.8 55.2 0.0
Self-employed - agric 19.9 45.7 1.6 9.9 14.4 4.5 0.8 7.3 11.9 22.6 30.1 0.0
Self-employed - other 17.3 42.4 0.0 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 9.5 33.6 45.8 0.0
Other 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 49.0 0.0 0.0
Gender
Male 17.1 43.4 1.2 17.8 15.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 12.3 30.6 31.5 0.0
Female 20.1 44.5 1.1 6.0 15.4 2.9 1.2 10.9 9.4 23.7 36.4 0.0
Age
7-13 3.1 44.1 0.0 0.0 10.0 24.2 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 47.4 0.0
14-19 41.6 44.0 1.3 13.0 16.2 1.0 0.7 6.3 8.8 30.0 32.6 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base for column 1 is school-age children. For columns 2 to 13, not enrolled school children

Satisfaction percentage of non-fostered children who

report to be satisfied with primary school
is higher than that of fostered children, at
The satisfaction rate informs on the 41 and 31 percent respectively.
proportion of primary school pupils who
cited no problems with their schools. Finally, the percentage of boys who
Information on satisfaction was obtained reported to be satisfied with primary
by asking respondents to identify school is higher than that of girls at 42 and
problems they faced with school. 35 percent respectively.

39 percent of all primary school pupils

were satisfied with school. Cluster 3.1.3 Secondary School
location does not show strong correlation
with primary school satisfaction rates. On Access
the other hand, while 40 percent of pupils
living in non-poor households reported to Secondary school access rate is defined as
be satisfied with school, the share for the proportion of secondary school-age
pupils living in poor households is 35 children (14 to 19 years) reporting to live
percent. within 30 minutes of the nearest secondary
school.
The breakdown by socio-economic group
of the household shows that the employees Only 8 percent of all pupils in secondary
have the highest rate of satisfaction with school live within 30 minutes of the
their primary schools at 73 percent, while nearest secondary school. While 13
pupils living in households where the percent of pupils living in accessible
main income earner is self-employed in villages live within 30 minutes of the
agriculture have the lowest satisfaction nearest secondary school, the share for
rate at 32 percent. pupils living in remote villages is virtually
null. Similarly, 10 percent of pupils living
Furthermore, 39 percent of non-orphaned in non-poor households live within 30
children reported to be satisfied with minutes of the nearest secondary school,
primary school compared to 37 percent of whereas the share for pupils living in poor
orphaned children. Likewise, the households is virtually null.

20
 Kahma DC CWIQ 2006

The socio-economic status of the Finally, the GER and NER rates do not
household seems to be strongly correlated show important differences among
with the rate of access to secondary orphaned and non-orphaned children. On
school. Pupils belonging to the ‘employee’ the other hand, while the GER and NER
category have the highest rate of access to for fostered children is 23 percent, the
secondary school at 40 percent, while by share for non-fostered children is 18
those who belong to the ‘self-employed percent.
other’ category (5 percent). Furthermore,
the share for the ‘other’ and ‘self-
employed agriculture’ categories is Satisfaction
virtually null.
Nearly a fifth (18 percent) of the
While 12 percent of males live within 30 population enrolled in secondary school is
minutes of the nearest secondary school, satisfied with school. 82 percent of this
the share for females is 4 percent. On the population reports to be dissatisfied with
other hand, the access rate for orphaned the secondary schools they attend. This
children is 11 percent, higher than that for satisfaction rate is lower than in primary
non-orphaned children, at 8 percent. schools (39 percent). The satisfaction rate
Likewise, while 18 percent of fostered is higher among people living in remote
children live within 30 minutes of the clusters than that of people living in
nearest secondary school, the share for accessible clusters, at 28 and 18 percent
non-fostered children is 6 percent. respectively. On the other hand, virtually
all pupils living in poor households
reported to be satisfied with their
Enrolment secondary schools, compared to only 16
percent of those living in non-poor
As explained before, Gross Enrolment households.
Rate (GER) is defined as the ratio of all
individuals attending school, irrespective The breakdown by socio-economic group
of their age, to the population of school- shows that 60 percent of pupils living in
age children while the Net Enrolment Rate households belonging to the ‘self-
(NER) is defined as the ratio of school-age employed agriculture’ category are
children enrolled at school to the satisfied with secondary school, while the
population of school-age children. The share for those living in households where
secondary school-age is between 14 and the main income earner belongs to the
19 years old. ‘other’ and ‘self-employed other’
categories is virtually null.
The GER and NER at secondary school
are very low compared to primary school 34 percent of male pupils were satisfied
level. Overall, GER was 21 percent and with their school compared to only 4
NER was 17 percent. The secondary percent of females. Among the individuals
school GER for households located in enrolled in secondary schools, non-
accessible clusters is 29 percentage points orphaned children reported a higher rate of
higher than that of households located in satisfaction with school than orphaned
remote clusters. Likewise, Secondary children. While 23 percent of non-
school NER is remarkably higher in orphaned children are satisfied with their
accessible clusters than remote clusters at schools, the share for orphaned children is
26 and 2 percent respectively. virtually null. Similarly, 27 percent of
Furthermore, both secondary GER and non-fostered children reports to be
NER are higher in non-poor households satisfied with their secondary schools,
than in poor households, with a difference whereas the share for fostered children is
of above 18 percentage points. virtually null.

The breakdown by socio-economic group

of the household shows that employees are 3.2 Dissatisfaction
the category with highest GER and NER
at 89 and 74 percent respectively, whereas One of the aims of the survey is to inform
the shares for the ‘other’ category is on perceptions of quality of services
virtually null. Gender does not show received among individuals for whom
strong correlation with GER. On the other these are provided. To obtain this
hand, the NER rate is 2 percentage points information, primary and secondary
higher among males than females. school students who were not satisfied
with school at the time of the survey were

21
3 Education

Table 3.4: Primary school enrollment and drop out rates by gender

Net enrollment rates Drop out rates

Male Female Total Male Female Total
Total 84.8 77.0 81.1 1.1 2.4 1.7
7 38.0 47.8 44.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 80.6 76.8 79.2 1.3 0.0 0.8
9 92.7 87.7 90.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 89.5 87.8 88.8 2.5 0.0 1.4
11 98.6 100.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 93.7 90.5 92.1 1.7 0.0 0.9
13 96.2 58.7 77.1 1.6 21.7 11.8
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base for table is primary school-age population (age 7-13)

Table 3.5: Secondary school enrollment and drop out rates by gender

Net enrollment rates Drop out rates

Male Female Total Male Female Total
Total 18.2 16.2 17.2 17.7 18.9 18.3
14 0.0 3.2 2.2 5.1 16.6 13.0
15 21.6 6.9 14.9 9.5 9.0 9.3
16 0.0 31.7 20.1 48.3 33.3 38.8
17 30.4 8.3 24.6 28.2 29.2 28.5
18 45.9 32.6 39.3 15.2 15.4 15.3
19 1.9 1.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base for table is the secondary school-age population (age 14-19)

asked to provide reasons for their respectively. Likewise, dissatisfaction rate

dissatisfaction. Complaints regarding lack for people living in poor households is
of books and other resources were slightly higher than that of people living in
allocated into the ‘Books/Supplies’ non-poor households at 64 and 62 percent
category, while those relating to quality of respectively. Further breakdown of the
teaching and teacher shortages were data shows that the dissatisfaction rate due
grouped into the ‘Teaching’ category. The to lack of teachers among poor households
‘Facilities’ category incorporates is higher than that among non-poor
complaints regarding overcrowding and households at 78 and 45 percent
bad condition of facilities. The results are respectively. Likewise, while 79 percent
shown in Table 3.2. of people living in remote clusters
reported dissatisfaction due to lack of
Overall, 63 percent of the students who teachers, the share for those living in
were enrolled in either primary or accessible clusters is 38 percent. In
secondary school reported dissatisfaction contrast, 56 percent of people living in
with school. 51 percent of students accessible clusters reported dissatisfaction
reported lack of teachers or bad condition due to bad condition of facilities compared
of facilities as the cause of their to 40 percent of people living in remote
dissatisfaction. In addition, 34 percent clusters.
reported dissatisfaction with their schools
due to lack of books and supplies, whereas The breakdown by socio-economic groups
21 percent reported poor teaching. While shows that the dissatisfaction rate among
11 percent reported dissatisfaction with households belonging to the ‘self-
their schools due to lack of space, 5 employed agriculture’ category is the
percent reported high fees and 4 percent highest (67 percent). At the same time the
reported teachers’ absence. ‘self-employed other’ category reported
the lowest dissatisfaction rate (49 percent).
The dissatisfaction rate for people living It is also observed that 98 percent of
in accessible villages is 4 percentage households belonging to the ‘employee’
points higher than that of those living in category reported dissatisfaction due to
remote villages, at 64 and 60 percent bad condition of facilities compared to 26

22
 Kahma DC CWIQ 2006

percent of households where the main school because they had completed
income earner is self-employed in non- standard seven, O-level or A-level
agricultural activities. compared to 43 percent of those living in
poor households. Likewise, while 51
Females have a higher rate of percent of children living in remote
dissatisfaction with school than males at clusters were not attending school because
68 and 58 percent respectively. Further they had completed standard seven, O-
breakdown of the data show that the level or A-level, the share for children
dissatisfaction rate due to bad condition of living in accessible clusters was 39
facilities among females is higher than percent It is also noticeable that while 15
that among males at 59 and 43 percent percent of children living in non-poor
respectively. households were not attending school due
to cost, the share for those living in poor
Those attending primary school reported households was virtually null.
to be most dissatisfied due to lack of
teachers (57 percent) followed by bad Furthermore, 23 percent of children from
condition of facilities (45 percent) while households where the main income earner
those attending secondary schools belongs to the ‘other’ category does not
reported dissatisfaction due to bad attend school compared to 13 percent of
condition of facilities (85 percent) those from households where the main
followed by lack of books and supplies income earner is an employee. Further
(66 percent). breakdown of the data shows that while 45
percent of children from households where
3.3 Non-attendance the main income earner is an employee
was not attending because they had
completed standard seven, O-level or A-
Table 3.3 shows the percentage of school- level, the share for those from households
age individuals (7 to 19 years) that were belonging to the ‘other’ category is
not attending school and the reasons for virtually null.
not attending. The non-attendance rate is
defined as the proportion of school-age Females have a higher non-attendance rate
individuals who previously participated in than males at 20 and 17 percent
formal education and had stopped respectively. However, further breakdown
attending school by the time of the survey. of the data shows that 31 percent of boys
were not attending because they had failed
The district has about 19 percent of 7 to 19 exam, whereas the share for girls is 24
year olds who were not attending school. percent.
Around 44 percent of the non-attending
population did not attend because they had It is also observed that while 11 percent of
completed standard seven, O-level or A- females were not attending school due to
level. 34 percent reported to be awaiting marriage, the share for males was virtually
admission and 27 percent reported to have null.
failed standard four, seven or form four
exams. 16 percent of respondents reported Almost all primary school-aged children
that they were not attending school due to attend school, as their non-attendance rate
work. While 12 percent was not attending is 3 percent. On the other hand, the share
due to cost, 11 percent of respondents was for secondary school-age children is 42
not attending because they found school to percent. 44 percent of secondary school-
be useless or uninteresting. 6 percent was aged individuals not attending secondary
not attending because they had gotten school reported having completed school,
married and none of the respondents while 47 percent of primary school-aged
reported non-attendance due dismissal. children not attending school reported that
they were awaiting admission.
While 22 percent of children living in
remote villages were not attending school,
the share for children living in accessible
villages is 17 percent. On the other hand,
poverty status does not show strong
correlation with non-attendance rates.
However, further breakdown of the data
shows that 48 percent of children living in
non-poor households were not attending

23
3 Education

3.4 Enrolment and Drop-out data on primary school enrolment show

that at the time of the survey only 44
Rates percent of all seven year olds were
enrolled. Children are most likely to be in
This section takes a closer look at the school by the age of 11, where the NER is
primary and secondary school enrolment about 99 percent.
and drop-out rates. Rather than looking at
primary or secondary school-aged children Secondary School
as a whole, data will be categorized by age
and gender. Drop-out rates are calculated Table 3.5 shows secondary net enrolment
by dividing the number of children who patterns by age. Secondary school
left school in the current year by the total enrolment rates are much lower than those
number of children enrolled this year plus at primary level. Only 17 percent of
those that dropped out (children who left secondary school-aged children was
school / (enrolled children + children who enrolled compared to 81 percent in
dropped out)). primary school-age. For a person
following a normal school curriculum, i.e.
Primary School started standard one at age 7, he/she is
expected to start form one at age 14. The
Table 3.4 shows primary school net table shows that the biggest difference in
enrolment and drop-out rates. The drop- enrolment rates is observed between age
out rates at primary level are generally 18 and 19. Furthermore, 39 percent of 18
very low. Disaggregation of the data year olds reported to be enrolled at the
shows that at the time of the survey, the time of the survey. It is also noticeable
primary school drop-out rate was only 2 that the rate of girls enrolled in secondary
percent. Therefore, only enrolment rates school at the age of 14 is 3 percentage
will be analysed. points higher than that of boys.

Overall, 81 percent of primary school- Secondary school drop-out rates among

aged children were enrolled at the time of secondary school-age individuals (14 to 19
the survey. Out of those in primary years) are higher compared to those of
school-age (7 to 13 years), 77 percent of primary school. 18 percent of children of
girls and 85 percent of boys were enrolled. secondary school-age had dropped out in
The required age at which children should the year prior to the survey. In general, the
start standard one is 7 years. However, highest drop-out rate is observed among
16 year olds (at 39 percent). The highest
drop-out rate among males and females is
Table 3.6 - Adult literacy rates by gender at the age of 16.
(persons age 15 and above)

Total
Male
74.8
Female
56.0
Total
65.3
3.5 Literacy
15-19 years 88.5 83.1 86.0
Literacy is defined as the ability to read
20-29 years 76.0 66.7 70.7
and write in at least one language. Those
30-39 years 83.6 58.9 70.1 who can read but not write were counted
40-49 years 70.2 34.9 53.7 as illiterate. The data on literacy was
50-59 years 54.2 11.6 32.8 solely obtained by asking the respondent if
60+ years 46.7 18.4 34.2 he/she was able to read and write. Besides
Accessible 82.7 67.8 75.0 this information, no further tests on their
15-19 years 94.4 89.7 92.3 ability to read or write were taken.
20-29 years 83.1 79.5 81.0 Furthermore, questions that helped
30-39 years 89.9 72.6 80.3 determine adult literacy were only asked
40-49 years 76.7 52.9 64.9 for individuals aged 15 or older.
50-59 years 70.0 13.8 39.6
60+ years 52.7 25.1 41.0 Adult Literacy
Remote 64.5 39.6 52.0
15-19 years 76.0 71.9 74.0 Overall, 65 percent of the population aged
20-29 years 69.0 50.8 59.2 15 and above in the district is literate. The
30-39 years 74.3 36.5 54.2 difference in literacy rates among males
40-49 years 64.1 14.0 41.9 and females is about 19 percentage points
50-59 years 39.5 8.8 25.4 at 75 and 56 percent respectively.
60+ years 37.5 9.8 24.6
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is population age 15+
24
 Kahma DC CWIQ 2006

Individuals aged between 15 and 19 have Table 3.7 - Youth literacy rates by gender
the highest literacy rate (86 percent) while (persons age 15-24 years)
only 34 percent of those who are above 60 Male Female Total
years know how to read and write. There Total 83.4 78.5 81.0
are remarkable gender differences in 15-17 years 90.9 86.1 88.6
literacy. Furthermore, the gap is larger for 18-20 years 84.6 71.0 77.9
the older cohorts.
21-22 years 74.4 79.8 76.8
23-24 years 61.4 75.4 70.6
The literacy rate in accessible villages is
Accessible 90.7 89.3 90.0
23 percentage points higher than in remote
villages. The literacy rate for the 15-19 15-17 years 96.6 91.1 93.9
age-group in accessible villages is 92 18-20 years 90.1 86.5 88.6
percent, whereas for remote villages the 21-22 years 81.6 93.3 87.5
rate is 74 percent. Furthermore, in 23-24 years 74.5 86.7 83.1
accessible villages the literacy rate of men Remote 71.8 61.8 66.8
is 15 percentage points higher than that of 15-17 years 79.8 75.3 77.7
women. In remote villages, the difference 18-20 years 74.4 54.8 63.2
increases to 25 percentage points. On the 21-22 years 68.0 57.4 64.2
contrary, while the literacy rate of women 23-24 years 48.9 57.1 53.8
in accessible villages is about 28 Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
percentage points higher than that of
1. Base is population aged 15-24
women in remote villages, the difference
in literacy rates between men in accessible
and remote villages is 18 percentage
points. Finally, there is a significant
difference in literacy rates among men and
women above 60 years in both cluster
locations. In both cases, the literacy rates
of men over 60 years are about 28
percentage points higher than that of
women.

Youth Literacy
Table 3.7 shows literacy rates among the
youth by age, gender and residential
location. Youth literacy rate is calculated
for all persons between 15 and 24 years
old. The literacy rate for this group is 81
percent, but the gender difference is
important. While the literacy rate for men
is 83 percent, the rate for women is 4
percentage points lower, at 79 percent.

Analysis by age-groups shows that 15 to

17 year olds have the highest literacy rate
at 89 percent. Youth of 15 to 17 years
have the highest literacy rates in both
accessible and remote villages at 94 and
78 percent respectively. However, youth
literacy rate in accessible villages is higher
than that of youth in remote villages at 90
and 67 percent respectively.

25
3 Education

26
4 HEALTH
Table 4.1 - Health Indicators
This chapter examines health indicators
for the population in Kahama DC. First,
selected health indicators are examined for Medical Services
the whole population. The second section Access Need Use Satisfaction
analyses the reasons for dissatisfaction Total 24.8 21.2 24.5 76.0
with health services. Section three shows Cluster Location
the reasons for not consulting a health Accessible 32.8 21.2 24.4 71.3
provider. This section is followed by Remote 14.7 21.3 24.6 82.0
analysis of the ill population by specific Poverty Status
type of illness. A subgroup of those who Poor 22.4 16.2 20.4 78.7
had consulted a health provider is then Non-poor 25.4 22.4 25.4 75.5
taken from the ill population. In section Socio-economic group
five, this group is disaggregated by the Employee 37.8 24.8 24.8 35.6
type of health provider used. Section six
Self-employed - agriculture 18.8 21.3 23.9 76.0
presents an analysis of child deliveries.
Self-employed - other 44.8 18.2 26.9 94.3
The chapter concludes with an analysis of
Other 37.4 30.3 25.7 66.6
child nutrition indicators.
Gender
Male 24.7 20.8 24.5 76.5
4.1 Health Indicators Female 24.9 21.6 24.5 75.4
Age
Throughout this report, a household is said 0-4 26.5 36.2 60.7 79.4
to have access to medical services if it is 5-9 23.4 15.7 15.5 80.3
located within 30 minutes travel from the 10-14 30.2 15.5 14.4 82.7
nearest health facility. Judgment of the
15-19 17.4 12.6 11.8 53.2
time it takes to travel to the facility as well
20-29 31.0 13.5 12.9 81.6
as what is classed as a health facility is left
30-39 23.7 20.6 22.3 68.8
to the discretion of the respondent. In
second place, an individual is classed as 40-49 23.6 18.9 18.1 79.5
having experienced need for medical 50-59 49.5 63.6 63.6 79.3
assistance if he/she reports incidence of 60+ 15.7 37.0 30.9 65.3
illness in the 4 weeks preceding the Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
survey. It must be noted that need is based 1. Access is defined for persons in households less than 30 minutes from a health facility.
on self-reported occurrence of illness, 2. Need is defined for persons sick or injured in the four week period preceding the survey.
rather than a diagnosis by a health 3. Use is defined for persons who consulted a health practitioner in the four week period
professional. Thirdly, the rate of health preceding the survey.
facility use is defined as the proportion of 4. Satisfaction is defined for persons who consulted a health practitioner in the four week
individuals who had consulted a health period preceding the survey and who cited no problems.
service provider in the 4 weeks preceding 5. Base is total population. For satisfaction, base is population that used medical services.
the survey regardless of their health status.
Finally, the rate of satisfaction with health households in remote villages. Both show
services is represented by the proportion similar proportions of need and use, but
of people who had consulted a health households in remote villages report
provider in the 4 weeks preceding the higher satisfaction rates (82 percent) than
survey and cited no problems with the households in accessible villages (at 71
service received. percent).

Table 4.1 shows indicators regarding Non-poor households have higher access
medical services by cluster location, rates than poor households, with shares of
poverty status, socio-economic status, 25 and 22 percent, respectively. The
gender and age. Overall, 25 percent of the breakdown by poverty status shows that
households have access to medical non-poor households exhibit higher rates
services. Conversely, 75 percent of the of need and use of medical services at 22
households in the district do not have and 25 percent respectively compared to
access to medical services. poor households at 16 and 20 percent
respectively. On the other hand, poor
Households in accessible villages have households have a higher satisfaction rate
higher access to medical services than than non-poor households at 79 and 76
percent respectively.
4 Health

Regarding socio-economic status, the self- group.

employed in non-agricultural activities
show the highest rate of access, at 45
percent as well as highest satisfaction rate 4.2 Reasons for
at 94 percent. The ‘other’ category showed Dissatisfaction
the highest rate of need (at 30 percent) and
employees showed the lowest rate of
satisfaction (at 36 percent). Use of medical Table 4.2 shows the percentage of
services was not strongly correlated to population who consulted a health
socio-economic group. provider in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey and were not satisfied. Overall, 24
No strong differences are observed when percent of users of healthcare facilities are
the data are analysed by gender dissatisfied, mostly because of long waits
(56 percent) and unavailable drugs (41
Access does not vary widely by age- percent). Lack of success in the treatment
groups, but the rate of need does. It starts was reported by 12 percent of the users. It
at 36 percent for children under 5, reduces should be noticed that this does not imply
to around 16 percent for the population that treatments were successful in 88
aged between 5 and 29, and then starts percent of the cases, but that in 88 percent
going up again, peaking at 64 percent for of the cases the result of the treatment was
the 50-59 groups and finally drops again at not a cause for dissatisfaction.
37 in the 60+ cohort. . The rate of use
follows a similar trend: it starts at 61 The analysis by cluster location shows that
percent for the 0-4 age group, decreasing households in remote villages are more
with age but then increases for the older commonly dissatisfied by the long waits
cohorts. Satisfaction is lowest for the 60+ (59 percent, against 54 percent for
households in accessible villages),

Table 4.2 - Percentage of persons who consulted a health provider in the 4 weeks preceding the survey
and were not satisfied, and the reasons for dissatisfaction.

Reasons for dissatisfaction

Percent Facilities not No trained No drugs Treatment
dissatisfied clean Long wait professionals Cost available unsuccessful Other
Total 24.0 3.1 55.8 14.4 24.8 40.5 12.2 0.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 28.7 2.4 54.4 18.4 28.3 48.8 10.6 0.0
Remote 18.0 4.5 58.5 6.3 17.7 23.6 15.2 0.0
Poverty Status
Poor 21.3 6.9 68.3 0.0 19.5 30.6 9.2 0.0
Non-poor 24.5 2.5 53.7 16.8 25.7 42.1 12.7 0.0
Socio-economic group
Employee 64.4 0.0 89.6 22.4 44.8 77.6 0.0 0.0
Self-employed - agriculture 24.0 3.5 46.9 13.0 17.4 30.9 16.0 0.0
Self-employed - other 5.7 0.0 37.0 11.9 74.9 48.8 0.0 0.0
Other 33.4 17.7 70.6 0.0 0.0 11.7 17.7 0.0
Gender
Male 23.5 5.1 63.3 12.2 36.1 49.0 7.0 0.0
Female 24.6 1.1 48.5 16.5 13.8 32.2 17.2 0.0
Type of provider
Public hospital 47.9 1.5 67.0 18.1 20.5 55.2 3.8 0.0
Private hospital 19.9 8.7 40.7 9.4 39.9 19.7 7.8 0.0
Religous hospital 32.1 26.0 42.8 14.3 56.1 0.0 15.4 0.0
Village health worker 17.2 0.0 100.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Private Doctor/Dentist 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pharmacist 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.5 0.0 50.5 0.0
Trad. Healer 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 5.2 87.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. For column 1, the base is population that used medical services. For the rest, the base is the dissatisfied population.

28
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 4.3: Percentage of persons who did not consult a health provider in the 4 weeks
preceding the survey and the reasons for not consulting

Percent not Reasons for not consulting

consulting No need Cost Distance No confidence Other
Total 75.5 97.9 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.2
Cluster Location
Accessible 75.6 98.0 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.2
Remote 75.4 97.8 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.1
Poverty Status
Poor 79.6 99.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2
Non-poor 74.6 97.6 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.2
Socio-economic group
Employee 75.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Self-employed - agriculture 76.1 97.5 1.5 1.2 0.3 0.1
Self-employed - other 73.1 98.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8
Other 74.3 97.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gender
Male 75.5 98.2 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.3
Female 75.5 97.6 1.5 1.0 0.3 0.1
Type of sickness/injury
Fever/malaria 3.9 6.4 63.7 43.1 0.0 0.0
Diarrhea/abdominal pains 7.7 5.9 76.8 24.1 7.2 0.0
Pain in back, limbs or joints 7.4 10.9 57.0 48.3 16.1 0.0
Coughing/breathing difficulty 9.9 40.1 50.4 26.6 0.0 4.5
Skin problems 7.2 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Ear, nose, throat 20.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Eye 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dental 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Accident 4.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 9.2 0.0 62.5 62.5 0.0 37.5
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. For column 1, the base is total population. For columns 2 to 6, population that not consulted medical services.

whereas households in accessible villages The rate of dissatisfaction does not vary
report unavailable drugs more often (49 widely by gender, but the reasons do so.
percent, against 24 percent of the Males point out the long waits and the
households in accessible villages). lack of medicine more often than females
(63 and 49 percent against 49 and 32
The breakdown by poverty status shows percent, respectively). In turn females are
that non-poor households are more more likely to point out no trained
dissatisfied than poor households (at 25 professionals and unsuccessful treatment
and 21 percent respectively). The reasons (17 and 17 percent against 12 and 7
for dissatisfaction are different: while poor percent, respectively).
households report long waits more often
than non-poor households at 68 and 54 Regarding health provider, the main cause
percent, respectively, the latter are of dissatisfaction in public hospitals is the
relatively more dissatisfied by the lack of long wait, whereas in private and religious
drugs (42 against 31 percent). hospitals, is the long wait and cost
respectively. For the village health
The self-employed in agriculture is the workers, the long wait is the only reason
socio-economic group with the lowest for dissatisfaction cited in the sample (100
dissatisfaction rate (6 percent). 90 percent percent).
of the employees reports dissatisfaction by
the long wait, and 78 percent reports lack
of drugs. The ‘other’ socio-economic 4.3 Reasons for Not
group report the long wait more often, Consulting When Ill
with facilities not clean and unsuccessful
treatment as the second most cited reason. The distribution of the population who did
not consult a health provider in the four

29
4 Health

Table 4.4: Percentage of population sick or injured in the 4 weeks preceding the survey,
and of those sick or injured the percentage by type of sickness/injury, gender and age

Pain in
Diarrhea/ back, Coughing/
Sick or Fever or abdominal limbs or breathing Skin Ear, nose,
injured malaria pain joints difficulty problem throat, Eye Dental Accident Other
Total 21.2 46.0 21.6 14.2 22.7 1.5 1.2 3.3 1.6 3.3 2.9
Male Total 20.8 53.4 14.6 9.7 20.5 2.2 1.2 4.7 1.4 2.9 3.8
0-4 37.8 71.2 18.5 1.9 9.9 2.9 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5
5-9 18.6 54.1 4.3 2.2 38.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.8
10-14 19.5 63.6 9.2 8.4 10.0 4.0 1.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 5.1
15-29 12.7 30.1 19.9 5.8 43.2 0.0 0.0 17.4 3.9 0.0 8.9
30-49 14.8 28.0 22.8 29.2 8.3 4.2 5.9 4.5 6.6 20.5 2.8
50-64 32.1 52.0 5.4 31.6 26.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
65+ 16.6 32.8 19.2 11.7 10.5 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 10.0
Female Total 21.6 38.8 28.4 18.5 24.8 0.7 1.1 1.9 1.8 3.6 2.0
0-4 34.2 60.3 30.3 4.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
5-9 12.5 69.9 10.4 0.0 58.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10-14 11.9 54.3 16.0 0.0 22.6 2.7 3.2 3.9 0.0 7.1 0.0
15-29 14.3 25.8 48.2 12.7 27.9 1.2 1.1 6.3 4.6 1.8 1.9
30-49 25.6 26.7 29.7 29.6 16.7 1.4 2.9 2.4 0.7 12.2 1.1
50-64 44.8 10.0 26.3 35.1 28.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0
65+ 56.2 23.3 14.5 62.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Percentage by type of sickness/injury may add to more than 100% because respondents may report multiple categories.
2. Base is population sick.
weeks preceding the survey is shown respectively of the population that was
Table 4.3. The table shows that overall, 76 sick 4 weeks preceding the survey.
percent of the population did not consult a
health provider, typically because there The gender breakdown reveals that there
was no need (98 percent of the cases). is no major difference between males and
females who had been sick or injured
Cluster location, poverty status, distance, during the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
socio-economic groups and gender seems The age breakdown shows that the share
to be not to be correlated with the reasons of sick/injured population starts at around
for not consulting. 34 percent for children under 5, decreases
for the 5-9 cohort, and then starts
The split-up by type of illness shows that increasing again for the 50-64 cohort,
for most infirmities, ear, nose and throat , peaking at for the population aged 65 and
skin problems, diarrhoea and fever over for females(56 percent in that group).
(including malaria) the main cause for not The share of ill population affected by
consulting a health practitioner is cost. All malaria comes down with age but other
responses (100 percent) indicate that the diseases emerge, mainly pain in back,
specific reason for not consulting on skin limbs or joints emerge.
problems and ear, nose and throat is cost.
It is worth noticing the relatively low
percentage of people not receiving 4.5 Health Provider
attention (4 percent) for fever/malaria.
Non-agricultural activities show the
highest rate of use of private hospitals (at
4.4 Type of Illness 39 percent) while the self-employed in
agriculture report the highest rate of visits
Table 4.4 shows the percentage of to pharmacists and chemists, at 40 percent.
population sick or injured in the 4 weeks
preceding the survey. Overall, fever or
malaria is the most common sickness, 4.6 Child Deliveries
affecting almost 46 percent of the total
population. In turn, coughing, and Table 4.6 shows the percentage of women
diarrhoea constitute 23 and 22 percent aged 12 to 49 who had a live birth in the
year preceding the survey. Overall, 12

30
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 4.5: Percent distribution of health consultations in past 4 weeks by type of health provider
consulted
Village Private
Public Private Religious health doctor, Pharmacistch Traditional
hospital hospital hospital worker dentist emist healer Other Total
Total 34.0 16.4 2.7 4.5 0.1 33.0 9.2 0.2 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 37.1 23.2 3.7 1.3 0.0 29.4 4.9 0.4 100.0
Remote 30.2 7.7 1.4 8.5 0.2 37.5 14.6 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 33.4 6.1 0.6 11.8 0.0 33.7 14.4 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 34.2 18.3 3.1 3.1 0.1 32.8 8.2 0.2 100.0
Socio-economic group
Employee 50.0 32.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 3.3 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agric 31.2 9.2 1.8 5.9 0.1 39.9 11.6 0.3 100.0
Self-employed - other 38.6 39.3 6.7 0.8 0.0 12.6 2.0 0.0 100.0
Other 37.8 11.2 5.9 3.8 0.0 33.6 7.7 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is population who consulted a health provider

Table 4.6: Percentage of women aged 12-49 who had a live birth in the year preceding the survey by age
of the mother and the percentage of those births where the mother received pre-natal care

Pre-natal
12-14 yrs 15-19 yrs 20-24 yrs 25-29 yrs 30-39 yrs 40+ yrs Total care
Total 0.0 9.9 23.7 21.2 14.3 7.2 12.4 96.6
Cluster Location
Accessible 0.0 7.4 19.2 16.1 9.6 4.2 9.1 93.9
Remote 0.0 14.1 29.9 26.8 22.1 10.7 17.2 98.6
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 10.5 46.0 25.5 21.9 19.1 16.4 100.0
Non-poor 0.0 9.8 20.9 20.6 13.1 3.7 11.6 95.6
Socio-economic group
Employee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Self-employed - agric 0.0 14.5 26.1 22.5 18.7 9.8 14.5 97.1
Self-employed - other 0.0 4.3 27.0 27.7 5.2 0.0 13.9 94.4
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is females aged 12 or older.

percent of women in this age-group gave of women having a live birth than non-
birth in the past year. No girls aged 14 or poor households, at 16 and 12 percent,
under gave birth in the district. Around 10 respectively. Furthermore, in poor
percent of the females between 15 and 19 households, 46 percent of women between
gave birth. The rate peaks at 24 percent for 20 and 24 years old had a child in the 12
the 20-24 group, and then goes down, months preceding the survey.
ending in 7 percent for the group aged 40
to 49. In addition, 97 percent of pregnant The breakdown by socio-economic status
women received prenatal care. shows that the highest rates correspond to
the self-employed, with shares of 15 and
Households in remote villages show 14 percent for agriculture and non-
higher rates for women between 15 and 40 agricultural activities, respectively. Self-
or more years old. By cluster location, a employed in non-agricultural activities
higher share of women from remote show highest rates: 28 percent for women
villages had a live birth (at 17 percent) between 25 and 29 years old; and in
compared to 9 percent of households in second place self-employed in agriculture
accessible villages. 27 percent for the 20-24 cohort.

The analysis by poverty status reveals that Table 4.7 shows the percentage
the poor households report a higher share distribution of births in the five years

31
4 Health

Table 4.7: Percentage distribution of births in the five years

preceding the survey by place of birth

Hospital Health centre Dispensary Health post At home Other Total

Total 30.8 3.2 8.5 0.1 55.4 1.9 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 43.5 3.5 7.3 0.0 44.2 1.5 100.0
Remote 18.0 3.0 9.7 0.3 66.7 2.3 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 13.1 3.5 12.0 0.7 69.7 1.0 100.0
Non-poor 35.6 3.2 7.5 0.0 51.6 2.1 100.0
Socio-economic group
Employee 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agric 22.4 3.7 9.5 0.2 62.3 1.9 100.0
Self-employed - other 65.2 1.2 2.4 0.0 29.2 2.0 100.0
Other 46.6 5.9 9.1 0.0 38.5 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is children under 5 years old.

Table 4.8: Percentage distribution of births in the five years preceding

the survey by person who assisited in delivery of child
Doctor Trained Other Don't Delivery by
Nurse Midwife T.B.A. T.B.A. Self know Total health prof.
Total 2.1 41.3 1.7 5.8 48.9 0.3 100.0 45.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 2.8 52.4 1.2 7.5 36.1 0.0 100.0 56.4
Remote 1.3 30.2 2.2 4.1 61.7 0.6 100.0 33.6
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 28.6 1.0 1.7 68.6 0.0 100.0 29.6
Non-poor 2.6 44.7 1.8 6.9 43.6 0.4 100.0 49.1
Socio-economic group
Employee 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
Self-employed - agric 2.3 34.2 1.9 6.4 55.1 0.2 100.0 38.3
Self-employed - other 0.0 68.7 1.1 3.3 26.9 0.0 100.0 69.8
Other 12.2 52.7 0.0 7.8 21.8 5.5 100.0 64.9
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is children under 5 years old.

preceding the survey. Roughly, 55 percent The split-up by socio-economic group of

of births in the 5 years preceding the households shows that all employees (100
survey took place at home, almost 31 percent) used dispensaries for live
percent in a hospital, and 9 percent at a deliveries. While home represents 62
dispensary. The ordering remains across percent of deliveries for the self-employed
cluster location, poverty status, and socio- in agriculture, 65 percent of deliveries for
economic group of the household head. the ‘self-employed in non-agricultural
activities’ category occurred in hospitals.
While households in remote villages had a
higher share of births at home (68 Table 4.8 shows the percentage
percent), households in accessible villages distribution of births in the five years
a higher share of births in hospitals and at preceding the survey by person who
home, each around 44 percent. assisted in the delivery of the child.
Overall, deliveries without assistance
The breakdown by poverty status shows accounts for 50 percent of births. On the
that non-poor households had a higher other hand, 45 percent of deliveries were
share of deliveries at home and hospital attended by a health professional, mostly
(with shares of 52 and 36 percent, midwives and trained TBA (41 and 2
respectively); poor households had a percent of births). TBA accounted for 6
higher share of deliveries at home and percent while doctors or nurses account
hospitals (70 and 13 percent, respectively). for only 2 percent.

32
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 4.9: Nutritional status indicators and program participation rates

Nutritional status indicators Program participation

Stunted Wasted
(-2SD) (-2SD) Nutrition Weigh-in Vaccinated
Total 21.0 1.1 37.0 91.0 72.6
Cluster Location
Accessible 14.0 0.0 41.4 96.5 78.6
Remote 28.1 2.2 32.5 85.5 66.7
Poverty Status
Poor 35.2 3.3 26.3 86.4 66.1
Non-poor 17.1 0.5 39.8 92.2 74.4
Socio-economic Group
Employee 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 23.9 1.4 33.6 90.3 72.1
Self-employed - other 10.7 0.0 50.6 95.1 77.3
Other 16.5 0.0 45.9 82.0 50.2
Gender and age in completed years
Male 21.7 0.6 36.0 90.6 68.1
0 16.8 0.0 23.1 75.9 64.8
1 23.3 1.0 39.4 88.6 80.6
2 26.2 0.0 32.1 94.1 70.3
3 20.2 0.0 30.3 97.6 53.3
4 20.0 1.3 53.2 96.9 68.3
Female 20.3 1.7 38.1 91.6 78.1
0 6.9 4.0 43.5 83.6 81.5
1 18.9 4.1 25.2 92.0 81.3
2 30.5 0.0 36.0 93.6 76.2
3 25.9 0.0 43.7 96.7 87.0
4 15.4 0.0 44.1 94.7 61.7
Orphan status
Orphaned 51.8 20.0 29.5 100.0 81.2
Not-orphaned 20.9 0.9 37.0 90.9 72.4
Foster status
Fostered 32.3 0.0 4.9 81.2 33.7
Not-fostered 20.5 1.2 39.3 91.7 75.4
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base of Table is total number of children under 5.

The analysis by cluster location shows that The breakdown by socio-economic group
unassisted deliveries account for 62 shows that households in the ‘employee’
percent of the deliveries in remote villages category reports the highest share of
compared to 36 percent in accessible deliveries attended by professionals: 100
villages. In 56 percent of the births in percent, against 70, 65 and 38 of self-
accessible villages the deliveries were employed in non-agricultural activities,
assisted by health professionals compared ‘other’ and self-employed in agriculture.
to 34 percent in remote villages. In turn, the ‘other’ category has the
highest share of deliveries attended by a
In addition, non-poor households show a doctor or nurse.
higher share of deliveries attended by a
professional, 49 percent, against 30 for
poor households. In turn, poor households 4.7 Child Nutrition
report slightly higher share of deliveries
without assistance compared to non-poor Two standards of physical measurement of
households (69 and 44 percent, growth that describe the nutritional status
respectively). of a child are presented in this chapter:
• Height-for-age (stunting)
• Weight-for-height (wasting)

33
 4 Health

The level of malnutrition in a population is Weight-for-height is a measure of body

determined by comparing the weight and mass in relation to body height and is an
height measurements within the indicator of immediate nutritional status.
population of interest to those of a well A child who is below minus two standard
nourished population. Children are deviations from the median of the
considered malnourished if their weight reference population is classed as too thin
and/or height measurements fall outside for his/her height – a condition called
the distribution of weight and height wasting. Wasting is an immediate
measurements of the well nourished indicator of acute malnutrition and reflects
population. The reference population insufficiency in tissue and fat mass
compared to the amount expected
used, as recommended by the World according to the child’s height. Wasting
Health Organisation (WHO), is that of the occurs as a result of inadequate intake of
United States National Centre for Health nutrients immediately preceding the
Statistics (NCHS). survey. Therefore, wasting is not
necessarily the result of insufficient food
Height-for-age is a measure of linear intake, but could also be, for instance, the
growth. A child who is below minus two result of recent severe illness. Occurrence
standard deviations from the median of the of wasting may be subject to seasonal
reference population is considered to be variations.
too short for his/her age – stunted.
Stunting is a consequence of long term Another measurement commonly used is
malnutrition; it is indicative of long term weight-for-age. A child who is below
inadequacy of nutrient intake, and is minus two standard deviations from the
commonly associated with poor economic median of the reference population is
conditions and chronic or repeated considered to be underweight. However, a
infections. child may be underweight because he/she

Table 4.10: Percent Distribution of Children Vaccinated by Type of Vaccination Received

Vitamin
Measles BCG DPT1 DPT2 DPT3 OPV0 OPV1 OPV2 OPV3 A
Total 67.3 89.3 88.8 84.1 78.8 49.3 88.5 83.7 78.4 63.4
Cluster Location
Accessible 77.0 95.0 96.4 93.4 89.5 59.3 96.4 92.7 88.7 75.2
Remote 57.5 83.5 81.1 74.7 68.0 39.3 80.5 74.7 68.0 51.6
Poverty Status
Poor 64.3 87.5 85.2 81.1 74.2 38.7 84.5 80.3 74.2 60.5
Non-poor 68.1 89.7 89.8 84.8 80.0 52.1 89.5 84.6 79.5 64.2
Socio-economic group
Employed 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 64.5 88.0 87.4 81.7 76.0 43.7 87.0 81.2 75.4 59.5
Self-employed - other 78.4 95.1 95.1 94.0 89.9 71.8 95.1 94.0 89.9 78.6
Other 65.6 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 48.2 82.0 82.0 82.0 65.6
Gender and age in completed years
Male 72.2 88.4 89.1 85.6 80.0 53.4 88.8 85.3 79.6 69.4
0 9.3 72.2 72.2 64.4 45.3 36.8 72.2 64.4 45.3 6.9
1 77.4 91.0 88.3 84.0 78.2 53.8 87.3 84.0 78.2 73.3
2 80.4 81.2 89.8 85.9 84.0 48.1 89.8 84.0 84.0 78.7
3 94.8 94.3 97.2 95.8 94.8 61.3 97.2 95.8 92.7 92.6
4 94.8 100.0 96.9 96.9 96.9 64.5 96.9 96.9 96.9 91.7
Female 61.3 90.3 88.5 82.2 77.3 44.3 88.1 81.8 76.9 56.1
0 27.4 81.8 72.8 63.3 54.2 33.7 72.8 63.3 54.2 24.3
1 60.6 92.0 92.0 90.6 82.7 51.8 92.0 88.6 80.8 56.6
2 78.8 93.6 93.6 89.3 85.9 36.8 93.6 89.3 85.9 67.4
3 61.0 91.7 96.7 87.2 85.4 60.4 94.6 87.2 85.4 63.6
4 89.3 94.5 91.4 84.0 84.0 43.3 91.4 84.0 84.0 79.6
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base of table is total number of children under 5.

34
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

is stunted, wasted or both. Interpretation children from the ‘self-employed -

of this indicator is complex and Table 4.11: Percent Distribution of Children
inconclusive; for this reason it was not Vaccinated by Source of Information
incorporated into this report. Health Card Other Total
Total 93.7 6.3 100.0
Overall, 21 percent of all the children are Cluster Location
wasted, and 1 percent is stunted. Around Accessible 97.5 2.5 100.0
one third of the children (37 percent)
Remote 89.4 10.6 100.0
participates in nutrition programmes.
Poverty Status
Poor 91.2 8.8 100.0
Households in accessible villages have
higher rates of participation in nutrition Non-poor 94.3 5.7 100.0
programs than remote villages at 41 and Socio-economic group
33 percent respectively. Households in Employed 100.0 0.0 100.0
remote villages have higher rates of Self-employed - agriculture 92.2 7.8 100.0
wasted and stunted children than Self-employed - other 98.8 1.2 100.0
households in accessible villages, with Other 100.0 0.0 100.0
rates of (2 and virtually null against 28 Gender and age in completed years
and 14 percent, respectively). Similar Male 95.4 4.6 100.0
differences are observed between poor and 0 97.1 2.9 100.0
non-poor households. Poor households 1 93.3 6.7 100.0
show 3 percent of wasted children and 35 2 89.3 10.7 100.0
percent of stunted children, whereas the 3 100.0 0.0 100.0
figures for non-poor households are 1 and
4 96.9 3.1 100.0
17 percent, respectively. Non-poor
Female 91.5 8.5 100.0
households report higher shares of
0 79.6 20.4 100.0
participation in nutritional programs than
poor households, at 40 and 26 percent 1 98.4 1.6 100.0
respectively. 2 95.4 4.6 100.0
3 90.2 9.8 100.0
Regarding socio-economic status, the self- 4 94.5 5.5 100.0
employed in agriculture show the highest Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
rates for stunted children, at 24 percent. 1. Base of table is total number of children under 5 vaccinated.
Children from households where the main
income earner is an employee report agriculture’ category.
virtually null rates of stunting. The gender breakdown shows that males
have higher vaccination rates against
The gender breakdown shows no measles (72 against 61 percent), but
difference in rates of wasted children. similar shares than women for the rest of
vaccines. The age breakdown shows that
Table 4.10 shows the percent distribution the share of children consuming vitamin A
of children vaccinated by type of increases with age, though males have a
vaccination received. Overall, 67 percent higher percentage than females. Finally,
of children under 5 have vaccination the vaccination rates for male children
against measles, 89 against BCG, and aged 0 are roughly 7 percent lowest than
roughly between 84 and 75 percent for the rest of children.
received vaccinations against DPT and
OPV. Finally, 63 percent of the children in The breakdown by orphan status shows
the district receive vitamin A supplements. important differences between orphans
and non-orphans. A child is considered
The breakdown by cluster location reveals orphan if he/she is under 18 years old and
that accessible villages have a higher has lost at least one parent. Orphaned
vaccination rate than those in remote areas children show systematically higher rates
in virtually all the types of vaccinations. of stunting and wasting than non-orphans,
This seems the case even with poverty as well as lower participation in weigh-ins
status. and lower rates of vaccinations.

The breakdown by socio-economic group A child is considered fostered when at

shows that vaccination rates in most cases least one of his/her parents does not leave
are highest for children from the at home. The split-up by foster status
‘employee’ category, and lowest for reveals similar trends: foster children are
more likely to be stunted and wasted, and

35
4 Health

a lower share of them participates in

weigh-ins or receive vaccinations.
Table 4.11 shows the percent distribution
of children vaccinated by source of
information. Overall, the information for
94 percent of the vaccinated children was
supported by a vaccination card.
The analysis by cluster location reveals
that 98 percent of households in accessible
villages had health cards against 89
percent in remote villages.

There is no difference by poverty status

and source of information. The main
difference by socio-economic group is that
all vaccinated children from the
‘employee’ and ‘other’ categories had
vaccination cards, whereas in the self-
employed in agricultural and non-
agricultural activities socio-economic
groups had shares of 99 and 92 percent
respectively.

Finally, the gender and age breakdowns

show no strong differences.

36
5 EMPLOYMENT
This chapter examines employment underemployed. The underemployed are
indicators for the population of Kahama those individuals who report willingness
DC. The first section analyses the to take on additional work. This category
employment status of the adult reflects the population that is not working
population. The second section of the as much as they want, so they reflect
chapter focuses on the working adults, surplus in the labour supply.
with a special focus on the underemployed
population. Trends examined include type The non-working population consists of
of employment, employment sector and individuals who had not engaged in any
employer of the working adults. In the type of work in the 4 weeks preceding the
third section, the economically inactive survey. This group is further subdivided
subgroups of the adult population are into those who are unemployed and those
examined. Next, household activities are who are economically inactive. While the
studied. Analysis of child labour economically inactive are individuals who
concludes this chapter. had not engaged in any work in the 4
weeks preceding the survey due to illness,
disability, age or school, unemployed
5.1 Employment Status of individuals are those who were not
Total Adult Population working due to lack of employment
opportunities but were actively looking for
a job.
The adult population of the district is
categorised into two main groups: working
and non-working. The working population 5.1.1 Work Status
includes all adults who had engaged in any
type of work in the 4 weeks preceding the Table 5.1 shows that 81 percent of the
survey. Within the working population, a adult population is employed and 17
distinction is made between those percent underemployed. Unemployment is
employed to capacity and those who are virtually null and the inactivity rate is 2
percent. This shows that

Table 5.1 - Percentage distribution of the population by work status (age 15 and above)

Working Not working

Employed Under emp. Total Unemploy. Inactive Total Total
Total 80.7 16.9 97.6 0.0 2.4 2.4 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 80.0 17.0 97.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 100.0
Remote 81.7 16.8 98.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 82.6 14.3 96.9 0.0 3.1 3.1 100.0
Non-poor 80.4 17.4 97.8 0.0 2.2 2.2 100.0
Gender and age
Male 71.8 25.8 97.6 0.0 2.4 2.4 100.0
15-29 81.0 17.1 98.1 0.0 1.9 1.9 100.0
30-49 56.3 40.7 97.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 100.0
50-64 77.3 20.9 98.2 0.0 1.8 1.8 100.0
65+ 76.3 19.4 95.7 0.0 4.3 4.3 100.0
Female 89.4 8.3 97.7 0.0 2.3 2.3 100.0
15-29 92.9 5.5 98.4 0.0 1.6 1.6 100.0
30-49 87.5 11.9 99.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 100.0
50-64 86.9 13.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
65+ 74.2 0.0 74.2 0.0 25.8 25.8 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Underemployed includes persons who sought to increase earnings in the seven days preceding the survey.
2. Unemployed includes persons who did not work in the four week period preceding the survey and who
looked for work in the same period. The inactive population, primarily students and retired persons,
is not included in unemployment.
5 Employment

Table 5.2 - Principal labour force indicators (persons age 15 and above)

Total population Heads of household

Unemployment Underemploy- Active Unemploy- Underemploy-
Active population rate ment rate population ment rate ment rate
Total 97.6 0.0 17.3 99.3 0.0 36.4
Cluster Location
Accessible 97.0 0.0 17.5 99.4 0.0 35.4
Remote 98.5 0.0 17.1 99.3 0.0 37.8
Poverty Status
Poor 96.9 0.0 14.8 98.5 0.0 32.8
Non-poor 97.8 0.0 17.8 99.4 0.0 36.9
Gender and age
Male 97.6 0.0 26.4 99.4 0.0 37.0
15-29 98.1 0.0 17.4 100.0 0.0 44.8
30-49 97.0 0.0 41.9 100.0 0.0 42.4
50-64 98.2 0.0 21.2 98.1 0.0 21.6
65+ 95.7 0.0 20.3 97.7 0.0 21.1
Female 97.7 0.0 8.5 98.8 0.0 33.4
15-29 98.4 0.0 5.6 100.0 0.0 26.5
30-49 99.5 0.0 12.0 100.0 0.0 38.4
50-64 100.0 0.0 13.1 100.0 0.0 31.6
65+ 74.2 0.0 0.0 75.6 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Underemployed includes persons who sought to increase earnings in the seven days preceding the survey.
2. Unemployed includes persons who did not work in the four week period preceding the survey and who
looked for work in the same period. The inactive population, primarily students and retired persons,
is not included.

underemployment is a bigger problem in difference by cluster location, but poor

the area than unemployment. There are no households have a lower
remarkable differences by cluster location underemployment rate than non-poor
or poverty status. For males, households.
underemployment peaks for the cohort
aged between 30 and 49 at 41 percent. In The gender breakdown shows that in the
the case of females, the rate peaks at general population males are more likely
around 12 percent for the 30-64 group. to be underemployed than females, with
rates of 27 and 9 percent, respectively.
The adult population that was not working However, the gender difference in
in the 4 weeks preceding the survey was underemployment is lower for the
mostly inactive, rather than unemployed. household heads, with males and females
This means that most of them were reporting rates of 37 and 33 percent,
students, sick people, etc. rather than respectively.
people looking for work and ready for it.
For the population under 65 years, The breakdown by age-groups shows that
inactivity fluctuates around 2 percent. For underemployment decreases with age of
the population over 65 the number of the household head. The trend is less clear
inactive population increases, as would be for the general population.
expected, reaching 4 percent for males and
26 percent for females.
5.1.3 Youth Employment
5.1.2 Employment of Table 5.3 shows the distribution of the
Household Heads youth (ages 15 to 24) by work status. The
activity rate of this group is similar to the
overall population, at 98 percent.
Table 5.2 shows the principal labour force However, underemployment is lower: 7
indicators for the adult population percent is underemployed, as opposed to
compared to the household heads. Activity 17 percent for the overall population.
rates are similar for total population and There are no differences by poverty status
household heads, but underemployment is or cluster location.
higher among the latter. There is no

38
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 5.3 - Percentage distribution of the population by work status (age 15-24)

Active population Active

Employed Under emp. Working Unemployed Total Inactive Total
Total 91.0 6.8 97.9 0.0 97.9 2.1 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 90.3 6.8 97.1 0.0 97.1 2.9 100.0
Remote 92.2 6.9 99.1 0.0 99.1 0.9 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 91.2 6.2 97.3 0.0 97.3 2.7 100.0
Non-poor 91.0 7.0 98.0 0.0 98.0 2.0 100.0
Gender and age
Male 87.2 10.3 97.6 0.0 97.6 2.4 100.0
15-16 98.7 1.3 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
17-19 96.0 2.1 98.1 0.0 98.1 1.9 100.0
20-21 76.6 15.2 91.8 0.0 91.8 8.2 100.0
22-23 62.5 34.9 97.5 0.0 97.5 2.5 100.0
Female 94.8 3.4 98.1 0.0 98.1 1.9 100.0
15-16 96.2 1.1 97.2 0.0 97.2 2.8 100.0
17-19 91.6 4.3 95.9 0.0 95.9 4.1 100.0
20-21 97.3 2.7 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
22-23 94.3 5.7 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Underemployed includes persons who sought to increase earnings in the seven days preceding the survey.
2. Unemployed includes persons who did not work in the four week period preceding the survey and who
looked for work in the same period. The inactive population, primarily students and retired persons,
is not included.

Table 5.4 - Percentage distribution of the working population by employment status

Self-employed Self-employed
Employee Agriculture Other Other Total
Total 3.8 32.9 9.4 53.8 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 6.4 25.9 14.1 53.6 100.0
Remote 0.3 42.4 3.2 54.1 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 34.2 2.9 62.9 100.0
Non-poor 4.5 32.7 10.7 52.1 100.0
Gender and age
Male 3.5 52.9 12.9 30.7 100.0
15-29 2.6 24.9 10.6 61.9 100.0
30-49 1.8 75.3 21.2 1.7 100.0
50-64 13.8 79.8 4.9 1.4 100.0
65+ 0.0 91.5 0.0 8.5 100.0
Female 4.0 13.7 6.2 76.2 100.0
15-29 2.1 3.8 6.6 87.5 100.0
30-49 8.3 21.9 4.4 65.4 100.0
50-64 0.0 31.4 2.9 65.7 100.0
65+ 0.0 11.1 26.6 62.3 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is working population aged 15+

The breakdown by gender shows that underemployment is higher in the 20-24

underemployment is higher among the group for both genders.
male youth at 10 percent, while the female
youth report an underemployment rate of
6 percent. It can be seen that

39
5 Employment

Table 5.5 - Percentage distribution of the working population by employer

State/NGO/
Other Private Household Total
Total 2.1 44.0 53.9 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 3.2 42.9 53.8 100.0
Remote 0.6 45.5 53.9 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 0.3 36.8 62.9 100.0
Non-poor 2.5 45.4 52.1 100.0
Gender and age
Male 2.5 66.8 30.7 100.0
15-29 3.0 35.0 62.0 100.0
30-49 1.8 96.5 1.7 100.0
50-64 3.6 94.9 1.4 100.0
65+ 0.0 91.5 8.5 100.0
Female 1.7 22.1 76.2 100.0
15-29 0.0 12.5 87.5 100.0
30-49 4.8 29.8 65.4 100.0
50-64 0.0 34.3 65.7 100.0
65+ 0.0 37.7 62.3 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is working population aged 15+

Table 5.6 - Percentage distribution of the working population by activity

Mining/manuf/ Pub & priv Domestic

Agriculture energy/constr services duties Other Total
Total 71.0 0.5 12.7 15.8 0.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 57.0 0.8 19.7 22.5 0.0 100.0
Remote 89.7 0.1 3.4 6.8 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 88.7 0.0 2.9 8.4 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 67.6 0.6 14.6 17.2 0.0 100.0
Gender and age
Male 73.3 1.0 14.3 11.4 0.0 100.0
15-29 66.2 0.8 10.2 22.9 0.0 100.0
30-49 77.0 1.6 21.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
50-64 81.3 1.2 17.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
65+ 91.5 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 100.0
Female 68.7 0.0 11.2 20.0 0.0 100.0
15-29 62.6 0.0 8.7 28.8 0.0 100.0
30-49 74.9 0.0 15.6 9.5 0.0 100.0
50-64 91.0 0.0 2.9 6.1 0.0 100.0
65+ 26.0 0.0 26.6 47.4 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is working population aged 15+

5.2 Working population account for 4 percent of the working

population. The population self-employed
in agriculture is higher in remote villages,
Table 5.4 shows that the vast majority of whereas the self-employed in non-
the working population is formed by self- agricultural activities are more frequent in
employed in agriculture at 33 percent, or accessible villages. Poor households report
in other activities (inactive, unemployed, a lower share of self-employed workers in
unpaid workers, domestic workers) at 54 non-agricultural activities and a higher
percent. Moreover, employees only

40
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

share in other activities than non-poor private employer (with a share of 67

households. percent), females are more likely to work
for the household (with a share of 76
The gender breakdown shows that a percent). The share of males working for
higher share of males is self-employed in the household is higher in the 15-29 cohort
agriculture and in non-agricultural (62 percent). In the older age-groups the
activities, whereas 76 percent of females is share of males working for a private
in the ‘other’ category. The cut down by age- employer is higher than 90 percent. The
groups shows that the share of employees peaks share of females working in the private
for males in the 50-64 cohort (14 percent), the sector increases gradually with age, but is
self-employed in agriculture for 65+ males (92 always lower than the respective shares of
percent), the ‘self-employed other’ for 65+
males.
males (27 percent) and ‘other’ for 15-29
females (88 percent).
Table 5.6 shows the percentage
The percentage distribution of the working distribution of the working population by
population by type of employer is main activity. The categories are
analysed in Table 5.5. The table shows agriculture; mining, manufacturing,
that the private sector (formal or informal) energy and construction; services
employs more almost 44 percent of the (transport, trade, private and public
working population, which combined with services); domestic duties; and other.
individuals who work for their own Overall, agriculture and domestic duties
households represent up to 54 percent of together account for 87 percent of the
the working population. working population. 71 percent of the
population is engaged in agriculture, and
There are no strong differences by cluster 16 percent in domestic duties. ‘Services’
location. However, the breakdown by employs a further 13 percent of the
poverty status shows that non-poor working population.
household report a higher share working
for a private employer, whereas poor The breakdown by cluster location shows
households report working for the that remote villages report a higher share
household more frequently than the working in agriculture, while accessible
former. villages report higher shares in services
While males are more likely to work for a and domestic duties.

Table 5.7 - Percentage distribution of the working population by employment status, sex and activity
Self-employed Self-employed
Employee Agriculture Other Other Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Agriculture 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 65.4 72.2 72.9 68.7
Mining & non-prim 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
Services 69.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 91.9 100.0 0.0 1.4 14.1 11.2
Domestic duties 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 26.4 11.9 20.1
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is working population aged 15+

Table 5.8 - Percentage distribution of the working population by employer, sex and activity

Government Private Household Total

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Agriculture 22.6 0.0 74.1 48.5 73.1 73.4 72.7 67.6
Mining & non-primary 13.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0
Services 63.6 100.0 22.4 50.1 0.0 1.4 14.3 11.9
Domestic duties 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 26.9 25.2 11.9 20.6
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is working population aged 15+

41
5 Employment

Table 5.9 - Percentage distribution of the underemployed population females, at 73 and 69 percent,
by employment status respectively. In turn, females are more
Self- likely to work in domestic duties, at 20
Self-employed employed percent, compared to 11 percent of males.
Employee Agriculture Other Other Total
Total 1.4 67.3 17.3 14.1 100.0 The breakdown by age-groups shows that
Cluster Location
younger cohorts have higher shares
dedicated to household duties. The share
Accessible 1.2 57.5 24.7 16.6 100.0
of males and females working in
Remote 1.6 80.7 7.1 10.6 100.0
agriculture increases steadily with age.
Poverty Status
The share of workers in services is highest
Poor 0.0 69.7 10.6 19.7 100.0 for males in the 30-49 cohort (22 percent)
Non-poor 1.6 66.9 18.3 13.2 100.0 and females in the 65+ cohort (27
Gender and age percent).
Male 0.9 73.8 20.4 4.9 100.0
15-29 0.0 51.5 34.9 13.6 100.0 Table 5.7 shows the percentage
30-49 0.9 82.0 16.3 0.7 100.0 distribution of the working population by
50-64 4.2 86.5 6.5 2.7 100.0 employment status, gender and activity.
65+ 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Overall, around 73 percent of the male
Female 2.8 47.9 7.8 41.5 100.0 labour force is in agriculture, whereas the
15-29 0.0 19.8 13.2 67.1 100.0 share for females is almost 69 percent. ‘A
30-49 5.5 54.5 7.1 32.9 100.0 domestic duty’ has the second highest
50-64 0.0 81.0 0.0 19.0 100.0 shares of females at 20 percent, while
65+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
‘services’ has the second highest share of
males at 14 percent.
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is underemployed population aged 15+ Around 70 percent of the male employees
works in services, and the remaining in
Table 5.10 - Percentage distribution of the underemployed domestic duties. Female employees are
population by employer concentrated in services. The self-
employed in non-agricultural activities
State/NGO/Other Private Household Total work mostly in services, while the
Total 4.4 81.5 14.1 100.0 population in the ‘other’ group is
Cluster Location concentrated in agriculture and domestic
Accessible 6.4 77.0 16.6 100.0 duties.
Remote 1.6 87.8 10.6 100.0
Poverty Status
The percentage distribution of the working
population by employer, gender, and
Poor 0.0 80.3 19.7 100.0
activity is shown in Table 5.8. The
Non-poor 5.1 81.7 13.2 100.0
working population employed by the
Gender and age
government is mostly dedicated to
Male 4.9 90.2 4.9 100.0 services. The labour force working for
15-29 12.9 73.6 13.6 100.0 private employers (whether formal or
30-49 0.9 98.4 0.7 100.0 informal) is mostly concentrated in
50-64 4.2 93.1 2.7 100.0 agriculture in the case of males and evenly
65+ 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 split between agriculture and services in
Female 2.8 55.7 41.5 100.0 the case of females. Individuals whose
15-29 0.0 32.9 67.1 100.0 main activity is household duties mostly
30-49 5.5 61.6 32.9 100.0 work in agriculture but nearly a quarter
50-64 0.0 81.0 19.0 100.0 undertakes domestic tasks.
65+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC 5.3 Underemployed
1. Base is underemployed population aged 15+
Population
The breakdown by poverty status shows
that poor households report a higher share The percentage distribution of the
working in agriculture, and lower shares in underemployed population by
services and domestic duties than non- employment status is shown in Table 5.9.
poor households. Overall, 67 percent of the underemployed
population is self-employed in agriculture,
The gender breakdown shows that males 17 percent self-employed in other
are more likely to work in agriculture than activities, 14 percent is unemployed,

42
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 5.11 - Percentage distribution of the underemployed population by activity

Mining/manuf/ private Domestic

Agriculture energy/constr services duties Other Total
Total 81.1 1.4 17.3 0.3 0.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 74.1 1.9 24.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Remote 90.6 0.6 8.1 0.7 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 89.4 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 79.7 1.6 18.3 0.4 0.0 100.0
Gender and age
Male 78.7 1.8 19.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
15-29 65.1 3.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
30-49 82.8 0.6 16.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
50-64 89.3 5.6 5.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
65+ 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Female 88.1 0.0 10.6 1.2 0.0 100.0
15-29 83.0 0.0 13.2 3.8 0.0 100.0
30-49 87.4 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
50-64 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
65+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is underemployed population aged 15+

unpaid, inactive or household workers, 4 percent for the State, an NGO or other
and 1 percent works as employees. Even type of employer.
though self-employed in agriculture are 33
percent of the population, they represent The breakdown by cluster location shows
almost 67 percent of the underemployed. that the underemployed population in
The share of self-employed in agriculture remote villages report a higher share
is higher in remote villages, and self- working for private employers than their
employed other and ‘other’ are higher in counterparts in accessible villages. In turn,
accessible villages. The breakdown by the latter report higher shares in
poverty status shows that the shares of ‘State/NGO/Other’ and ‘household’.
self-employed in agriculture and in ‘other’
are higher for poor households. At the The gender breakdown reveals that the
same time, the share of self-employed underemployed male population is vastly
other is higher among non-poor concentrated in private employers at 97
households. percent, while underemployed females are
split between private employers and
The gender breakdown shows that in the household at 56 and 42 percent,
underemployed population, females are respectively. The age-group analysis
more likely than males to be in ‘other’. In shows that in the case of males only the
turn, males are more likely than females to youngest cohort (15-29) has a positive
be self-employed in agriculture or non- share of underemployed workers working
agricultural activities. for the household or for the State, and
NGO or other employers, while the
The age breakdown shows that the shares remaining age-groups are concentrated in
in ‘self-employed agriculture’ increase private employers. In turn, the share of
with age for both genders, while the shares females working for the household
in ‘self-employed other’ and ‘other’ decreases with age, while the share
decrease. working for a private employer increases,
remaining lower than the respective
Table 5.10 shows the percentage figures for males.
distribution of the underemployed
population by employer. Overall, the The percentage distribution of the
underemployed population mostly works underemployed population by main
for a private employer at 82 percent, with economic activity is presented in Table
14 percent working for the household and 5.11. Overall, 81 percent of the
underemployed workers is dedicated to

43
5 Employment

Table 5.12 - Percentage distribution of the unemployed population by reason

No work Seasonal HH/Family Age: too Age: too

available inactivity Student duties old young Infirmity Retired Other Total
Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Remote 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-poor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gender and age
Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15-29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30-49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50-64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
65+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15-29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30-49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50-64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
65+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is unemployed population aged 15+

Table 5.13 - Percentage distribution of the economically inactive population by reason

No work Seasonal HH/Family Age: too Age: too

available inactivity Student duties old young Infirmity Retired Other Total
Total 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 25.9 0.0 19.6 0.0 21.6 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 0.0 0.0 37.4 0.0 14.3 0.0 18.7 0.0 29.5 100.0
Remote 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 57.4 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 51.4 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 0.0 0.0 32.4 0.0 19.1 0.0 21.1 0.0 27.3 100.0
Gender and age
Male 0.0 0.0 36.8 0.0 11.5 0.0 8.8 0.0 42.8 100.0
15-29 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
30-49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
50-64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
65+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Female 0.0 0.0 28.9 0.0 40.5 0.0 30.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
15-29 0.0 0.0 83.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
30-49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
50-64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
65+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.9 0.0 29.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. Base is inactive population aged 15+
agriculture and 17 percent to services. The share of underemployed population
Each of the remaining activities report working in agriculture is higher in remote
shares of 1 percent or under. villages and poor households. In turn, the
share working in services is higher in

44
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 5.14 - Activities normally undertaken in the household (age 15 and over)

Fetching Fetching Cleaning Care of Care or

water firewood toilet Cooking children elderly/sick
Total 58.8 39.5 51.3 53.2 77.6 97.2
Cluster Location
Accessible 59.8 31.4 61.5 54.6 77.5 96.4
Remote 57.6 50.4 37.4 51.2 77.7 98.4
Poverty Status
Poor 57.7 49.6 35.1 49.7 83.8 98.4
Non-poor 59.1 37.5 54.4 53.8 76.4 97.0
Gender and age
Male 31.4 13.2 35.4 11.9 72.6 97.5
15-29 51.7 20.9 44.7 21.0 63.0 98.9
30-49 14.8 5.4 27.1 3.8 86.4 97.0
50-64 8.5 7.5 25.8 4.3 73.1 96.2
65+ 14.1 9.8 28.4 2.9 68.1 92.9
Female 85.3 64.8 66.7 93.0 82.4 97.0
15-29 95.8 64.8 71.6 99.0 79.1 99.7
30-49 85.1 68.0 67.1 91.3 90.0 95.9
50-64 69.0 75.0 64.8 95.9 84.4 98.2
65+ 20.3 21.3 20.4 41.0 57.7 75.3
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

accessible villages and non-poor percent). A further 22 percent reported

households. other causes for inactivity.

The gender breakdown shows that females Being a student is more frequent in
report a higher share in agriculture than accessible villages than in remote villages,
males, while the latter report a higher while being too old and infirmity are more
share working in services. The age common in remote villages. The
breakdown shows that for both genders breakdown by poverty status shows that
the share working in agriculture increases poor households report a higher share of
with age, while the share working in ‘too old’ and a lower share of ‘infirmity’
services decreases. than non-poor households.

5.4 Unemployed and The gender breakdown shows that being a

student is more common among males,
Inactive Population while being too old or being ill is more
common among females. The age
Unemployment refers to a person who is breakdown shows that being a student is
actively looking for a job and is ready to concentrated in the youngest cohort, while
work. If the individual is not working but being too old is concentrated in the oldest
is not looking for a job or is not ready to cohort.
work, he or she is part of the inactive
population. For instance, a full-time 5.5 Household Tasks
student, an ill individual or a retired
person are not unemployed, because they Table 5.14 shows the activities normally
either are not looking for a job (the student undertaken in the household by its
and the retired), or are not able to work members. First the population aged 15 and
(the ill person). Table 5.12 shows the main above is analysed. The most common
causes for unemployment. None of the activities for the population under analysis
respondents in the district was classified are taking care of the sick or elderly (97
as unemployed. percent) and taking care of children (78
percent), followed by fetching water (59
Table 5.13 shows the main causes of percent), cooking (53 percent), cleaning
economic inactivity. Overall, being a the toilet (51 percent) and fetching
student is the most common cause for firewood (40 percent).
inactivity (33 percent), followed by being
too old (26 percent) and infirmity (20

45
5 Employment

Table 5.15 - Activities normally undertaken in the household (age 5 to 14)

Fetching Fetching Cleaning Care of Care or

water firewood toilet Cooking children elderly/sick
Total 61.1 35.0 28.6 30.2 63.2 83.8
Cluster Location
Accessible 62.2 29.1 34.1 30.6 57.0 86.6
Remote 59.5 42.8 21.2 29.7 71.4 79.9
Poverty Status
Poor 59.9 43.5 23.6 32.4 72.6 84.2
Non-poor 61.4 32.4 30.2 29.6 60.3 83.6
Gender and age
Male 49.8 22.7 26.2 9.2 59.9 84.0
5-9 30.2 11.3 16.9 1.6 49.1 73.6
10-14 69.6 34.2 35.6 16.8 70.8 94.4
Female 72.3 47.3 31.0 51.2 66.5 83.6
5-9 52.1 31.5 12.8 16.6 66.3 72.0
10-14 88.8 60.1 45.8 79.4 66.6 93.0
Orphan status
Orphaned 71.6 35.0 32.7 34.9 62.0 94.1
Not-orphaned 60.2 35.0 28.2 29.7 63.2 83.1
Foster status
Fostered 62.8 32.5 22.2 39.9 45.0 72.1
Not-fostered 60.2 35.1 29.2 28.1 65.6 84.8
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

In accessible villages, household activities activities are taking care of children and of
are undertaken by similar or higher shares the sick or elderly, but with lower shares
of the population than in remote villages, (63 and 84 percent, respectively). These
except for fetching firewood. Poor activities are followed by fetching water
households reported a higher share (61 percent) fetching firewood (35
fetching firewood and taking care of percent), cooking (30 percent), and
children, while non-poor households cleaning the toilet (29 percent).
reported higher shares cleaning the toilet
and cooking. Children from accessible villages report
higher shares than children from remote
The most important differences are shown villages in cleaning the toilet and taking
in the gender and age breakdown. Females care of the elderly. Conversely, the latter
report remarkably higher shares in all the report higher shares fetching firewood and
activities, with most rates fluctuating taking care of children.
between 82 and 97 percent. The shares for
males run from 12 to 35 percent, except The breakdown by poverty status shows
for taking care of children (73 percent) that children from poor households report
and of the sick and elderly (89 percent). similar or higher shares than children from
non-poor households in each activity
The analysis of age-groups shows that for except cleaning the toilet.
males the shares are higher in the 15-29
cohort, and tend to decrease in the older The gender breakdown shows that girls
cohorts. The exceptions are taking care of report higher rates than boys for all the
children and of the elderly and sick. In household activities. The analysis by age-
turn, females show an important decrease groups shows that the 10-14 cohorts have
in the oldest cohort for all the activities. higher rates than the youngest children, for
all household tasks.
5.6 Child Labour The breakdown by orphan status shows
that orphaned children report higher shares
Table 5.15 shows that the most common in each activity except fetching firewood
activity for children between 5 and 14 and taking care of children, where
years old is fetching water. As in the orphaned and non-orphaned children
general population, the most common report similar shares.

46
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Virtually all the children work in the

Table 5.16 - Child labour (age 5 to 14)
Main activity Employer
Working Agriculture Household Other Private Household
Total 58.3 19.4 80.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 61.2 17.3 82.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
Remote 54.8 22.2 77.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 61.4 30.3 69.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 57.4 16.0 84.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Gender and age
Male 55.9 20.1 79.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
5-9 38.8 12.7 87.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
10-14 99.1 27.4 72.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Female 60.9 18.8 81.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
5-9 41.3 2.1 97.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
10-14 99.2 32.4 67.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Orphan status
Orphaned 91.7 24.6 75.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Not-orphaned 56.0 18.8 81.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
Foster status
Fostered 70.4 12.1 87.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
Not-fostered 55.1 20.4 79.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Fostered children are more likely to help household.

fetching water and cooking, while non-
fostered children are more likely to help The breakdown by orphan and foster
cleaning the toilet, taking care of children, status shows stark differences. Orphaned
and of the elderly. children are more likely to be working
than non-orphaned children, at rates of 92
The main descriptive statistics for child and 56 percent, respectively. In turn,
labour are presented in Table 5.16. The fostered children are more likely to be
most important result of the table is that working than non-fostered children, but
58 percent of the children are the difference is somewhat lower (70 and
economically active. Their main economic 55 percent). Orphaned children are more
activity is mostly household duties at 81 likely to work in agriculture than non-
percent, while the remaining 19 percent is orphaned children, who are more likely to
dedicated to agriculture. The share of work in household duties.
working children is higher in accessible
villages and poor households. Children
from accessible villages report a higher
share working for the household than
children from remote villages, who in turn
report a higher share working in
agriculture. The breakdown by poverty
status shows that poor households report a
higher share of children working in
agriculture than non-poor households, who
report a higher share working in
household activities.

The gender breakdown shows that girls

report a slightly higher share than boys,
but the main difference is given by the age
breakdown. Roughly 40 percent of
children in the 5-9 cohorts were part of the
working population, whereas virtually all
the children in the 10-14 cohorts were
working at the time of the survey.

47
5 Employment

48
6 PERCEPTION ON WELFARE AND
CHANGES WITHIN COMMUNITIES
This chapter presents the perceptions on
welfare status and changes in Kahama DC. Table 6.1: Percent distribution of households by the perception of the
The first section shows perceptions of economic situation of the community compared to the year before the survey
changes in the economic situation both of
the communities and of the households. Much Much Don't
Section two summarises self-reported Worse Worse Same Better Better Know Total
difficulties in satisfying a set of household Total 8.7 38.3 22.2 27.3 2.3 1.2 100.0
needs. In section three asset ownership Cluster Location
and occupancy status, as well as Accessible 7.8 35.8 25.1 26.5 3.5 1.2 100.0
occupancy documentation are analysed. Remote 10.0 41.9 17.9 28.3 0.7 1.3 100.0
Section four gives information related to Poverty Status
agriculture: use of agricultural inputs, Poor 13.0 50.3 17.9 17.3 0.0 1.5 100.0
landholding, and cattle ownership. Non-poor 8.0 36.6 22.8 28.7 2.7 1.2 100.0
Section five shows perceptions of crime
Household size
and security in the community. Section six
1-2 2.3 52.5 27.7 14.2 2.1 1.2 100.0
shows the main income contributor to the
3-4 10.6 34.6 18.2 29.5 5.8 1.3 100.0
household. A brief analysis of ownership
of selected household items concludes the 5-6 8.6 44.8 26.1 20.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
chapter. 7+ 9.7 30.0 20.2 36.7 1.1 2.3 100.0
Area of land owned by the household
None 1.6 39.9 23.8 30.8 3.0 0.9 100.0
6.1 Economic Situation < 1 ha 11.9 20.5 11.6 22.0 34.0 0.0 100.0
1-1.99 ha 6.5 42.7 33.2 17.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
The analysis of this section is based solely 2-3.99 ha 12.2 43.6 22.9 16.7 1.4 3.2 100.0
on the perception of the interviewees. The 4-5.99 ha 8.8 40.2 20.8 29.0 0.0 1.2 100.0
main respondent for this part of the 6+ ha 11.6 33.9 19.6 34.1 0.0 0.8 100.0
questionnaire was the household head. In Type of livestock owned by the household
cases where the household head was not None 6.7 39.4 21.8 28.0 3.3 0.9 100.0
able to respond i.e. was travelling, sick or Small only 12.4 29.5 28.5 23.9 3.8 1.9 100.0
had little information on the household’s
Large only 18.7 35.4 15.7 28.2 0.0 2.0 100.0
daily practices, then the best-informed
Both 8.8 39.6 24.1 25.7 0.0 1.8 100.0
household member responded. The
Socio-economic Group
respondents were asked to comment on
whether the situation had changed for Employee 0.0 21.8 19.6 42.8 15.9 0.0 100.0
better, worse or remained the same Self-employed - agric 11.2 40.1 23.8 23.0 0.4 1.5 100.0
compared to the year prior to the survey. Self-employed - other 3.3 40.8 15.4 36.7 3.8 0.0 100.0
Other 0.0 28.2 32.4 30.0 0.0 9.3 100.0

6.1.1 Perception of Change

Gender of the head of household
Male 9.7 38.7 23.6 26.2 0.8 1.0 100.0
in the Economic Situation Female 3.1 36.0 14.5 33.2 10.8 2.4 100.0

of the Community
Marital status of the head of household
Single 0.0 65.9 24.7 9.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Monogamous 8.8 36.7 22.7 29.6 1.1 1.1 100.0
Table 6.1 shows the percent distribution of Polygamous 13.5 39.0 21.2 25.3 0.0 1.0 100.0
households by the perception of the Loose union 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
economic situation of the community Widow/div/sep 3.4 38.5 21.0 22.6 11.9 2.7 100.0
compared to the year before the survey. Education level of the head of household
Results show that 30 percent of all None 11.0 40.4 28.4 17.7 1.0 1.6 100.0
households in the district reported a Primary 9.5 39.2 20.6 26.3 3.0 1.3 100.0
positive change in the economic situation Secondary + 0.0 29.6 15.1 52.8 2.5 0.0 100.0
of their community. 22 percent of the Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006
population reported observing no changes
in their community’s economic situation. economic condition to have deteriorated, 9
Even though almost half the respondents
(47 percent) reported the community’s
6 Perception on welfare and changes between

percent reported the situation to be much percent of those living in accessible

worse. clusters. Likewise, while 63 percent of
poor household’s reports deterioration in
Cluster location and poverty status of the their community’s economic situation, the
household show some correlation with the share for non-poor households is 45
perceived economic change. 52 percent of percent.
the households in remote clusters reports
deterioration in their community’s The percentage of households with one or
economic situation compared to 44 two members who reported deterioration

Table 6.2: Percent distribution of households by the perception of the economic situation
of the household compared to the year before the survey

Much Much Don't

Worse Worse Same Better Better Know Total
Total 14.4 33.1 19.9 32.3 0.3 0.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 13.7 30.7 22.3 33.1 0.2 0.0 100.0
Remote 15.3 36.6 16.5 31.2 0.4 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 22.5 45.4 14.1 18.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 13.2 31.3 20.7 34.4 0.4 0.0 100.0
Household size
1-2 6.5 41.3 20.6 30.4 1.3 0.0 100.0
3-4 14.0 31.4 25.2 29.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
5-6 13.4 28.3 21.3 37.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
7+ 19.0 35.3 13.2 32.1 0.5 0.0 100.0
Area of land owned by the household
None 4.1 37.5 14.4 43.2 0.8 0.0 100.0
< 1 ha 15.1 17.6 46.5 20.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
1-1.99 ha 15.0 44.6 18.7 21.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
2-3.99 ha 19.0 35.6 22.6 22.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
4-5.99 ha 13.0 26.8 23.5 35.9 0.9 0.0 100.0
6+ ha 19.2 30.6 17.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Type of livestock owned by the household
None 13.5 33.0 19.5 33.8 0.2 0.0 100.0
Small only 14.8 31.0 26.2 28.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Large only 18.3 30.0 16.3 35.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Both 15.0 35.7 20.7 27.8 0.9 0.0 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 0.0 31.8 19.6 46.8 1.9 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 17.9 36.8 18.3 26.8 0.2 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - other 4.3 19.4 27.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other 34.9 24.2 17.9 23.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 14.6 33.4 20.4 31.2 0.4 0.0 100.0
Female 13.1 31.3 17.1 38.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Marital status of the head of household
Single 0.0 59.9 24.7 15.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Monogamous 15.0 30.0 19.6 35.1 0.2 0.0 100.0
Polygamous 13.3 36.4 22.4 27.1 0.9 0.0 100.0
Loose union 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Widow/div/sep 16.8 36.2 17.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Education level of the head of household
None 18.1 37.2 22.9 21.4 0.5 0.0 100.0
Primary 15.0 30.3 19.4 35.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Secondary + 3.4 36.3 15.7 43.3 1.3 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

50
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

in their community’s economic situation is

higher than that of households with seven 6.1.2 Perception of Change
or more members at 55 and 40 percent in the Economic Situation
respectively. In contrast, while 38 percent
of households with seven or more of the Household
members reported an improvement in their
community’s economic situation, the share Table 6.2 shows the percent distribution of
for households with one or two members households by the perception of their
is 16 percent. Furthermore, there is a economic situation compared to the year
difference of 10 percentage points before the survey. Only 33 percent of the
between households owning six or more households reported an improvement in
hectares of land and those owning no land their economic conditions, while 20
who reported much worse conditions in percent reported same conditions
their community’s economic situation at compared to the year preceding the
12 and 2 percent respectively. Likewise, survey.
the percentage of households owning large
livestock who reported worsening While 52 percent of people living in
conditions in their community’s economic remote clusters reported deterioration in
situation is higher than that of households the economic conditions of their
owning small livestock at 54 and 42 households, the share for accessible
percent respectively. clusters was 45 percent.
Poor households express negative views
While 51 percent of households belonging on the change in their economic condition
to the ‘self-employed agriculture’ category more frequently than non-poor
reported deterioration in their households, with a difference of 24
community’s economic situation, the share percentage points at 68 and 44 percent
for households whose main income earner respectively.
belongs to the ‘employee’ category is 22
percent. In contrast, while 59 percent of The percentage of households with seven
the households where the main income or more members who reported
earner belongs to the ‘employee’ category deterioration in the economic conditions
reported an improvement in their of their households is higher than that of
community’s economic situation, the share households with one or two members at 54
for households belonging to the ‘self- and 48 percent respectively. On the other
employed agriculture’ category is 23 hand, while 44 percent of households
percent. Furthermore, 66 percent of owning no land reported an improvement
households where the household head is in the economic conditions of their
single reported deterioration in the households, the share for households
economic conditions of their communities owning six or more hectares of land is 33
whereas, the share for households where percent. Disaggregation of the data further
the household head has a loose union is shows that 51 percent of households
virtually null. In contrast, virtually all owning both large and small livestock
households where the head has a loose express negative views on their
union reported an improvement in their household’s economic conditions
community’s economic situation compared to 46 percent of households
compared to 9 percent of households owning small livestock.
where the head is single.
The percentage of households in the
It is also observed that the percentage of ‘other’ category who reported
households where the head has no deterioration in the economic conditions
education and reported much worse of their households is remarkably higher
conditions in their community’s economic than that of households whose main
situation is 11 percentage points higher income earner belongs to the ‘self-
than that of households where the head has employed other’ category at 59 and 23
secondary education or more. Finally, percent respectively. Likewise, while 60
while 49 percent of male-headed percent of households where the head is
households reported deterioration in their single reported deterioration in the
community’s economic situation, the share economic conditions of their households,
for female-headed households is 39 the share for households where the head
percent. has a loose union is virtually null. In
contrast, virtually all households where
the head has a loose union reported much

51
6 Perception on welfare and changes between

Table 6.3: Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in satisfying

the food needs of the household during the year before the survey

Never Seldom Often Always Total

Total 16.8 27.8 46.7 8.6 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 22.3 27.8 41.1 8.8 100.0
Remote 8.9 27.9 54.8 8.3 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 1.9 18.9 63.2 16.0 100.0
Non-poor 18.9 29.1 44.4 7.6 100.0
Household size
1-2 15.4 26.4 43.6 14.6 100.0
3-4 20.1 23.6 47.6 8.8 100.0
5-6 10.1 35.5 46.3 8.1 100.0
7+ 20.0 26.1 47.7 6.3 100.0
Area of land owned by the household
None 32.3 23.0 42.0 2.7 100.0
< 1 ha 39.1 19.1 29.6 12.3 100.0
1-1.99 ha 4.7 20.5 53.9 20.8 100.0
2-3.99 ha 9.2 30.7 46.0 14.1 100.0
4-5.99 ha 15.7 32.3 45.2 6.8 100.0
6+ ha 11.4 30.4 51.8 6.4 100.0
Type of livestock owned by the household
None 21.4 24.3 44.8 9.6 100.0
Small only 3.3 30.3 53.6 12.8 100.0
Large only 6.7 36.2 45.6 11.5 100.0
Both 12.0 34.4 51.0 2.7 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 75.2 21.2 3.7 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 8.0 28.3 53.2 10.6 100.0
Self-employed - other 24.6 28.1 43.6 3.7 100.0
Other 8.6 39.2 33.5 18.6 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 14.0 31.0 48.4 6.7 100.0
Female 31.9 11.0 38.1 19.0 100.0
Marital status of the head of household
Single 15.4 17.4 26.7 40.5 100.0
Monogamous 16.4 30.8 47.4 5.4 100.0
Polygamous 11.7 24.2 55.1 9.1 100.0
Loose union 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Widow/div/sep 26.5 21.2 38.1 14.3 100.0
Education level of the head of household
None 7.6 22.8 52.8 16.8 100.0
Primary 16.2 32.6 44.8 6.4 100.0
Secondary + 40.1 18.2 41.8 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

better conditions in the household’s to 39 percent of households where the

economic situation. head has secondary education or more.

48 percent of male-headed households

reported deterioration in the economic 6.2 Self-reported
conditions of their households compared Difficulties in Satisfying
to 44 percent of female-headed
households. In turn, 55 percent of Household Needs
households where the head has no formal
education reported deterioration in the This section analyses the difficulties
household’s economic situation compared households faced in satisfying household

52
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

needs during the year prior to the survey. Table 6.4: Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in paying
These household needs are such as food, school fees during the year before the survey
school fees, house rent, utility bills and
healthcare. For each household, the Never Seldom Often Always Total
respondent was asked to say whether they Total 92.6 4.9 2.3 0.2 100.0
never, seldom, often or always experience Cluster Location
difficulties in satisfying the specified
Accessible 87.7 8.3 4.0 0.0 100.0
household need.
Remote 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0
Poverty Status
6.2.1 Food Needs Poor 98.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 100.0
Non-poor 91.8 5.6 2.7 0.0 100.0
Table 6.3 shows the percent distribution of Household size
households by the difficulty in satisfying 1-2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
the food needs of the household during the 3-4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
year before the survey. Overall, 45 percent 5-6 85.0 13.2 1.8 0.0 100.0
of the district’s households never/seldom 7+ 88.7 4.7 6.1 0.5 100.0
experienced food shortages while the Area of land owned by the household
remaining population experienced food
None 78.1 14.5 7.4 0.0 100.0
shortages frequently (often/always). While
< 1 ha 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
22 percent of households in accessible
clusters never experienced food shortages, 1-1.99 ha 96.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 100.0
the share for households in remote clusters 2-3.99 ha 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
is 9 percent. Likewise, 19 percent of non- 4-5.99 ha 89.0 8.9 2.1 0.0 100.0
poor households never experienced food 6+ ha 98.0 1.1 0.4 0.5 100.0
shortages compared to only 2 percent of Type of livestock owned by the household
poor households. None 90.1 6.7 3.2 0.0 100.0
Small only 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
55 percent of households owning no land Large only 95.0 0.0 3.4 1.6 100.0
never/seldom experienced problems Both 96.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
satisfying food needs compared to 41 Socio-economic Group
percent of households owning six or more Employee 60.9 19.6 19.6 0.0 100.0
hectares of land. Furthermore, while 46 Self-employed - agriculture 99.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 100.0
percent of households with seven or more Self-employed - other 81.5 18.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
members never/seldom experienced food
Other 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
shortages, the share for households with
Gender of the head of household
one or two members is 41 percent. There
is also some correlation between livestock Male 93.9 4.1 2.0 0.0 100.0
ownership and satisfying food needs. Female 85.8 9.0 4.2 1.0 100.0
While 67 percent of households owning Marital status of the head of household
small livestock frequently experienced Single 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
food shortages, the share for households Monogamous 88.9 7.9 3.2 0.0 100.0
owning both small and large livestock is Polygamous 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
54 percent. Loose union 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Widow/div/sep 96.6 0.0 2.3 1.1 100.0
The socio-economic group of the Education level of the head of household
household also shows some correlation None 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 100.0
with the household’s ability to satisfy its Primary 94.3 4.9 0.8 0.0 100.0
food needs. 75 percent of households Secondary + 70.2 15.7 14.1 0.0 100.0
belonging to the ‘employee’ socio-
economic group never experienced Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006
problems satisfying food needs compared
to only 8 percent of households where the households where the head has a loose
main income earner is self-employed in union is virtually null. On the other hand,
agriculture. In contrast, 64 percent of virtually all households where the head
households belonging to the ‘self- has a loose union seldom experienced
employed agriculture’ category reported food shortages.
frequent problems satisfying food needs.
Furthermore, while 27 percent of The breakdown by gender of the
households where the head is household head shows that female-headed
widowed/divorced or separated had never households reported having food shortages
experienced food shortages, the share for less frequently than male-headed
households as 32 percent of female-

53
6 Perception on welfare and changes between

headed households never experienced households where the main income earner
food shortages compared to 14 percent of is an employee.
male-headed households. Likewise, while
40 percent of households where the head Furthermore, Virtually all households
has secondary education or more never where the head is single and those where
experienced food shortages, the share for the head has a loose union or is
households where the head has no polygamous never had problems paying
education is 8 percent. school fees, compared to 89 percent of
‘monogamous’ households. Finally,
6.2.2 Paying School Fees virtually all households where the
household head has no education never
experienced problems paying school fees
Table 6.4 shows the percentage compared to 70 percent of households
distribution of households by the difficulty where the head has secondary education or
in paying school fees during the year more.
before the survey. At the time of the
survey, 93 percent of the households in the
district reported that they never had 6.2.3 Paying House Rent
problems paying school fees and only 2
percent of the households reported that Table 6.5 shows the percent distribution of
they often/always had problems paying households by the difficulty in paying
school fees. It is worth noting that children house rent during the year before the
in primary state schools do not pay fees. survey. 96 percent of all households in the
While children in secondary state schools district reported that they never had
do pay fees, the secondary school problems paying house rent only 2 percent
enrolment rates are very low (for more of the households reported that they
details, see chapter 3). often/always had problems paying house
rent.
Virtually all households located in remote
clusters never experienced problems Virtually all households located in remote
paying school fees compared to 88 percent clusters never experienced problems
of households located in accessible paying house rent compared to 93 percent
clusters. Likewise, while 99 percent of of households located in accessible
poor households never experienced clusters. Likewise, virtually all poor
problems paying school fees, the share for households never experienced problems
non-poor households is 92 percent. paying house rent compared to 95 percent
Furthermore, smaller households find of non-poor households.
problems paying school fees less
frequently than larger households. While While 99 percent of households with
all (100 percent) households with one or seven or more members never experienced
two members never had problems with problems paying house rent, the share for
paying school fees, the share for households with one or two members is 88
households with seven or more members percent. Likewise, virtually all households
is 89 percent. owning 6 or more hectares of land never
experienced problems paying house rent
Virtually all households owning 1 hectare compared to 92 percent of households
of land never experienced problems owning up to 1 hectare of land and 95
paying school fees compared to 78 percent percent of landless households. It is also
of landless households and 98 percent of observed that virtually all households
households owning 6 or more hectares of owning both small and large livestock and
land. Likewise, virtually all households those owning either small or large
owning small livestock never had livestock never experienced problems
problems with paying school fees paying house rent compared to 93 percent
whereas, the share for households owning of households owning no livestock at all.
no livestock is 90 percent.
Furthermore, virtually all households
Disaggregation of the data further shows where the main income earner is an
that virtually all households where the employee never experienced problems
main income earner belongs to the ‘other’ paying house rent compared to 84 percent
category never had problems with paying of households belonging to the ‘other’
school fees compared to 61 percent of category. Likewise, virtually all
households where the head has a loose

54
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

union and those where the head is bills compared to 90 percent of

widowed/divorced or separated never had households where the head is
problems paying house rent compared to widowed/divorced or separated.
60 percent of households where the head
is single. Finally, virtually all households where the
head has no education faced no problems
While 97 percent of male-headed paying utility bills compared to 66 percent
households never experienced problems of households where the head has
paying house rent, the share for female- secondary education or more.
headed households is 91 percent. Finally,
education level does not show strong
correlation with the ability to pay house Table 6.5: Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in
rent. paying house rent during the year before the survey

6.2.4 Paying Utility Bills Never Seldom Often Always Total

Total 95.7 2.4 1.9 0.0 100.0
Table 6.6 shows the percent distribution of Cluster Location
households by the difficulty in paying Accessible 92.6 4.1 3.3 0.0 100.0
utility bills during the year before the Remote 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
survey. The outcome on household’s Poverty Status
ability to pay utility bills is almost similar Poor 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
to those of paying house rent. Overall 91 Non-poor 95.0 2.7 2.2 0.0 100.0
percent households in the district faced no Household size
problems paying utility bills. 1-2 88.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 100.0
3-4 98.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Virtually all households located in remote
5-6 92.2 6.6 1.2 0.0 100.0
clusters never had problems paying utility
7+ 98.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
bills compared to 84 percent of
Area of land owned by the household
households located in accessible clusters.
Likewise, virtually all poor households None 94.5 3.0 2.5 0.0 100.0
faced no problems paying utility bills < 1 ha 92.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
compared to 89 percent of non-poor 1-1.99 ha 83.1 0.0 16.9 0.0 100.0
households. 2-3.99 ha 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4-5.99 ha 91.1 8.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
While 98 percent of households with one 6+ ha 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
or two members never had problems Type of livestock owned by the household
paying utility bills, the share for None 93.1 3.8 3.1 0.0 100.0
households with seven or more members Small only 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
is 95 percent. On the other hand, 99 Large only 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
percent of households owning 6 or more Both 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
hectares of land faced no problems paying Socio-economic Group
utility bills compared to 65 percent of
Employee 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
landless households. Furthermore,
Self-employed - agriculture 97.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 100.0
virtually all households owning both large
Self-employed - other 86.0 12.1 1.9 0.0 100.0
and small livestock and those owning
either large or small livestock faced no Other 84.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
problems paying utility bills compared to Gender of the head of household
85 percent of households owning no Male 96.5 2.8 0.6 0.0 100.0
livestock at all. Female 91.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 100.0
Marital status of the head of household
Virtually all households belonging to the Single 59.5 0.0 40.5 0.0 100.0
‘other’ category faced no problems paying Monogamous 95.8 3.3 0.9 0.0 100.0
utility bills compared to 66 percent of Polygamous 98.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
households where the main income earner Loose union 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
is an employee. Similarly, while 92 Widow/div/sep 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
percent of male-headed households faced Education level of the head of household
no problems paying utility bills, the share None 94.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 100.0
for female-headed households is 82
Primary 96.4 3.0 0.6 0.0 100.0
percent. On the other hand, virtually all
Secondary + 95.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
households where the head has a loose
union faced no problems paying utility Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

55
6 Perception on welfare and changes between

Table 6.6: Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in paying

utility bills during the year before the survey

Never Seldom Often Always Total

Total 90.5 6.7 1.4 1.4 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 83.7 11.4 2.4 2.4 100.0
Remote 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 89.1 7.7 1.6 1.6 100.0
Household size
1-2 98.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
3-4 79.3 11.3 4.7 4.7 100.0
5-6 93.4 6.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
7+ 95.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
Area of land owned by the household
None 64.6 22.4 6.5 6.5 100.0
< 1 ha 94.9 5.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
1-1.99 ha 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
2-3.99 ha 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4-5.99 ha 91.1 8.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
6+ ha 99.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
Type of livestock owned by the household
None 84.9 10.6 2.2 2.2 100.0
Small only 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Large only 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Both 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 65.9 18.2 15.9 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 97.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - other 71.3 20.4 0.0 8.3 100.0
Other 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 92.0 6.3 0.0 1.7 100.0
Female 81.9 9.0 9.0 0.0 100.0
Marital status of the head of household
Single 94.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Monogamous 89.5 8.2 0.0 2.3 100.0
Polygamous 92.9 7.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Loose union 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Widow/div/sep 90.1 0.0 9.9 0.0 100.0
Education level of the head of household
None 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Primary 91.1 6.4 2.5 0.0 100.0
Secondary + 66.2 23.1 0.0 10.7 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

6.2.5 Paying for Healthcare that 38 percent of households located in

accessible clusters never experienced
problems paying for healthcare compared
Table 6.7 shows the percent distribution of to 23 percent of households located in
households by the difficulty in paying for remote clusters. Likewise, while 33
healthcare during the year before the percent of non-poor households never
survey. 76 percent of the households experienced problems paying for
reported that they never/seldom healthcare, the share for poor households
experienced problems paying for 22 percent.
healthcare in the year prior to the survey.
Disaggregation of the data further shows

56
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 6.7: Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in paying

for health care during the year before the survey

Never Seldom Often Always Total

Total 31.6 43.7 19.8 4.8 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 37.6 44.0 14.5 3.9 100.0
Remote 23.1 43.3 27.5 6.2 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 21.5 42.2 29.9 6.4 100.0
Non-poor 33.1 43.9 18.4 4.6 100.0
Household size
1-2 45.1 31.1 22.8 1.0 100.0
3-4 30.1 44.4 18.4 7.0 100.0
5-6 27.9 44.5 22.3 5.3 100.0
7+ 30.3 48.0 17.8 4.0 100.0
Area of land owned by the household
None 48.8 40.2 10.3 0.6 100.0
< 1 ha 10.0 65.3 24.7 0.0 100.0
1-1.99 ha 31.4 51.7 13.5 3.4 100.0
2-3.99 ha 29.2 40.5 23.5 6.8 100.0
4-5.99 ha 21.9 42.6 29.6 6.0 100.0
6+ ha 28.9 43.8 20.3 7.0 100.0
Type of livestock owned by the household
None 33.5 44.4 18.8 3.3 100.0
Small only 25.7 35.4 31.1 7.8 100.0
Large only 25.4 44.2 25.4 5.0 100.0
Both 30.8 44.6 16.3 8.4 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 60.3 36.1 3.7 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 25.7 44.8 23.1 6.3 100.0
Self-employed - other 43.1 43.8 11.5 1.6 100.0
Other 19.5 37.9 42.7 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 31.2 44.5 19.2 5.1 100.0
Female 34.0 39.4 23.3 3.4 100.0
Marital status of the head of household
Single 57.2 21.3 21.4 0.0 100.0
Monogamous 34.4 43.0 18.0 4.7 100.0
Polygamous 21.1 46.8 26.0 6.1 100.0
Loose union 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Widow/div/sep 26.5 49.2 19.4 4.9 100.0
Education level of the head of household
None 24.7 38.5 30.6 6.2 100.0
Primary 29.3 49.6 16.6 4.5 100.0
Secondary + 57.4 29.7 9.9 3.1 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

45 percent of households with one or two problems paying for healthcare compared
members never had problems paying for to 61 percent of those owning small
healthcare compared to 30 percent of livestock. On the other hand, while 60
households with seven or more members. percent of households belonging to the
Likewise, while 49 percent of landless ‘employee’ category never had problems
households never had problems paying for paying for healthcare, the share for
healthcare, the share for households households belonging to the ‘other’ socio-
owning six or more hectares of land is 29 economic group is 20 percent.
percent.
Virtually all households where the
Furthermore, 78 percent of households household head has a loose union never
owning no livestock never/seldom had had problems paying for healthcare,

57
 6 Perception on welfare and changes between

Table 6.8: Percentage of households owning certain assets

Livestock Motor- Wheel

Home Land Small Large Both Vehicle cycle Bicycle barrow
Total 81.3 78.2 7.4 9.5 19.8 3.3 2.4 61.2 7.6
Cluster Location
Accessible 73.4 68.4 3.9 8.2 14.6 5.4 3.5 53.2 9.4
Remote 92.5 92.2 12.4 11.4 27.3 0.4 0.9 72.6 5.0
Poverty Status
Poor 95.0 95.0 12.4 8.2 32.7 0.0 0.0 60.2 5.2
Non-poor 79.3 75.8 6.7 9.7 18.0 3.8 2.8 61.4 8.0
Household size
1-2 62.6 67.8 3.5 5.8 7.0 0.0 1.3 37.7 0.0
3-4 70.8 69.2 7.8 9.8 11.6 4.7 4.7 45.9 2.5
5-6 84.7 82.6 6.9 8.0 25.5 7.2 2.5 73.7 5.7
7+ 96.9 87.9 9.1 12.2 28.7 0.0 0.6 75.8 17.8
Socio-economic Group
Employee 58.7 37.8 0.0 3.7 5.6 0.0 5.6 13.3 35.4
Self-employed - agriculture 90.9 92.0 9.7 11.5 25.1 0.2 0.3 72.8 5.3
Self-employed - other 52.3 38.4 1.6 3.6 4.5 18.5 8.3 38.8 1.2
Other 84.0 100.0 6.8 14.8 23.4 0.0 16.0 47.6 21.5
Gender of the head of household
Male 83.0 78.2 7.6 9.3 22.5 3.9 2.9 69.0 7.0
Female 71.8 78.2 6.2 10.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 19.3 10.7
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

whereas the share for households where the survey did not use any further methods
the household head is polygamous is 21 to verify this information.
percent. On the other hand, 32 percent
households where the head is polygamous
frequently experienced problems paying 6.3.1 Asset Ownership
for healthcare. 34 percent of female-
headed households never had problems Table 6.8 shows the percent distribution of
paying for healthcare compared to 31 households owning a selected group of
percent of male-headed households. assets. Overall, 81 percent of the district’s
Likewise, 57 percent of household heads households own their dwellings while 78
with secondary education or more never percent own some land. 20 percent of all
had problems paying for healthcare households own both small and large
compared to 25 percent of household livestock while 10 percent of all
heads with no education. households own large livestock. While 61
percent of all households own a bicycle,
the share for households owning a
6.3 Assets and Household motorcycle is 2 percent.
Occupancy Status Table 6.9 shows the percent distribution of
households by occupancy status. While 93
This section discusses ownership of percent of households located in remote
selected assets and household occupancy clusters own their dwellings, the share for
status. These assets are as house, land, households located in accessible clusters is
livestock, vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles 73 percent. Likewise, 95 percent of poor
and wheelbarrows. This section will also households own their dwellings compared
provide detailed information on asset to 79 percent of non-poor households.
ownership by household characteristics.
Household occupancy status describes the Disaggregation of the data shows that 97
type of arrangement the household has in percent of households with seven or more
terms of their current dwelling. members own their dwellings compared to
Respondents were asked whether they 63 percent of households with one or two
own, rent, live free or temporarily live in members. Furthermore, while 91 percent
their current dwelling, and if they held any of households belonging to the ‘self-
documentation to support the occupancy employed agriculture’ category own their
status. Besides the respondent’s testimony, dwellings, the share for households whose

58
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 6.9: Percent distribution of households by occupancy status

Own Rent Free Other Total

Total 81.3 14.5 3.6 0.6 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 73.4 22.0 4.1 0.5 100.0
Remote 92.5 3.9 2.8 0.8 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 95.0 1.4 3.6 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 79.3 16.4 3.6 0.7 100.0
Household size
1-2 62.6 19.2 15.6 2.6 100.0
3-4 70.8 25.1 3.4 0.6 100.0
5-6 84.7 14.3 1.0 0.0 100.0
7+ 96.9 2.2 0.6 0.3 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 58.7 19.6 19.9 1.9 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 90.9 6.0 2.5 0.6 100.0
Self-employed - other 52.3 47.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other 84.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 83.0 12.7 3.7 0.6 100.0
Female 71.8 24.2 2.9 1.1 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

main income earner is self-employed in

non-agricultural activities is 52 percent. 6.3.2 Occupancy
Documentation
Disaggregation of the data further shows
that while 83 percent of male-headed The percent distribution of households by
households own their dwellings, the share type of occupancy documentation is
for female-headed households is 72 shown in Table 6.10. Most residents in the
percent. It is also observed that 69 percent district do not have any documentation to
of male-headed households own a bicycle verify their occupancy status. Only 19
compared to 19 percent of female-headed percent of the households possess formal
households. Likewise, 76 percent of occupancy documentation, which include
households with seven or more members a title deed, renting contract or payment
own a bicycle compared to 38 percent of receipt. 71 percent of households in this
households with one or two members. district have no documentation at all.
Similarly, while 73 percent of households
where the main income earner is self-
employed in agriculture own a bicycle, the 6.4 Agriculture
share for households where the head
belongs to the ‘employee’ socio-economic The analysis in this section focuse on the
group is 13 percent. distribution of households by use of
certain agricultural inputs, land ownership
Furthermore, 95 percent of poor and cattle ownership.
households own some land compared to
76 percent of non-poor households.
Likewise, 92 percent of households
located in remote clusters own some land
compared to 68 percent of households
located in accessible clusters. It is also
noticeable that virtually all households
belonging to the ‘other’ category own
some land compared to 38 percent of
households belonging to the ‘employee’
and ‘self-employed other’ categories.

59
6 Perception on welfare and changes between

Table 6.10: Percent distribution of households by type of occupancy documentation

Title Renting Payment Other No Secure

deed contract receipt document document Total tenure
Total 7.9 8.5 1.7 11.0 70.8 100.0 18.2
Cluster Location
Accessible 13.5 13.6 3.0 11.5 58.4 100.0 30.1
Remote 0.0 1.1 0.0 10.4 88.5 100.0 1.1
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 93.0 100.0 0.0
Non-poor 9.1 9.7 2.0 11.6 67.7 100.0 20.7
Household size
1-2 0.0 5.5 0.0 16.9 77.5 100.0 5.5
3-4 5.8 12.8 5.8 12.4 63.2 100.0 24.4
5-6 9.1 12.4 0.0 11.9 66.6 100.0 21.4
7+ 12.6 2.2 0.0 6.3 79.0 100.0 14.7
Socio-economic Group
Employee 23.2 6.0 15.9 3.7 51.2 100.0 45.1
Self-employed - agriculture 0.9 0.9 0.0 14.0 84.2 100.0 1.8
Self-employed - other 30.6 40.7 1.9 2.7 24.1 100.0 73.2
Other 0.0 16.0 0.0 8.3 75.7 100.0 16.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 8.2 9.7 0.4 10.9 70.8 100.0 18.3
Female 6.3 2.1 9.0 11.8 70.8 100.0 17.4
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

Table 6.11: Percentage of households using agricultural inputs and

and the percentage using certain inputs

% of hhs Improved Hooks

using Fertilizer seedling Fingerlings and nets Insecticides Other
Total 38.3 62.3 41.7 0.0 1.2 39.4 0.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 31.9 69.8 35.8 0.0 0.0 32.4 0.0
Remote 47.4 55.1 47.4 0.0 2.4 46.2 0.0
Poverty Status
Poor 49.1 76.6 23.9 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0
Non-poor 36.8 59.6 45.1 0.0 1.5 41.4 0.0
Household size
1-2 24.4 37.6 70.3 0.0 0.0 68.9 0.0
3-4 38.9 73.1 31.2 0.0 1.3 29.4 0.0
5-6 35.4 49.2 45.2 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0
7+ 46.5 67.9 41.5 0.0 2.3 42.8 0.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 23.1 93.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9 0.0
Self-employed - agriculture 46.8 60.8 45.3 0.0 1.4 40.2 0.0
Self-employed - other 9.7 49.7 30.5 0.0 0.0 39.6 0.0
Other 45.2 72.6 24.5 0.0 0.0 46.5 0.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 40.7 59.6 44.8 0.0 1.4 41.5 0.0
Female 25.3 85.9 15.1 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006
1. Base for column 1 is all households. For columns 2 to 7 is households using agricultural inputs

6.4.1 Agricultural Inputs information regarding usage of farm

inputs and the main source from which the
farmers got the inputs. Table 6.11 shows
The survey collected information on the percent distribution of households
agricultural practices. The dataset includes using certain inputs. This information is

60
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 6.12: Percentage distribution of households using agricultural inputs

by the main source of the inputs

Open Donor
market Government agency Coop. Other Total
Total 35.8 1.2 1.0 21.4 40.6 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 37.9 2.5 2.0 9.3 48.4 100.0
Remote 33.9 0.0 0.0 32.9 33.2 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 20.8 0.0 0.0 21.3 57.9 100.0
Non-poor 38.7 1.4 1.2 21.4 37.3 100.0
Household size
1-2 62.3 0.0 0.0 12.3 25.3 100.0
3-4 40.8 1.8 0.0 13.4 43.9 100.0
5-6 31.9 0.0 0.0 27.8 40.3 100.0
7+ 28.1 1.8 2.7 25.7 41.7 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 91.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 31.2 1.4 1.1 22.7 43.6 100.0
Self-employed - other 61.8 0.0 0.0 19.4 18.8 100.0
Other 34.1 0.0 0.0 24.5 41.4 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 33.3 1.4 1.1 23.4 40.9 100.0
Female 58.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 38.1 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006
1. Base is households using agricultural inputs

complimented by Table 6.12, which shows economic group is only 10 percent.

the main source of agricultural inputs. Likewise, the use of agricultural inputs in
male-headed households is more frequent
38 percent of all farmers apply agricultural than in female-headed households. While
inputs to their farms and the majority (62 41 percent of male-headed households use
percent) of those who use farm inputs agricultural inputs, the share for female-
apply fertilizers. 47 percent of households headed households is 25 percent.
located in remote clusters use agricultural
inputs compared to 32 percent of Most households that use agricultural
households located in accessible clusters. inputs obtain them by preparing them
Further breakdown of the data shows that themselves (41 percent) and in second
70 percent of households in accessible place obtain them by purchasing them at
clusters use fertilisers compared to 55 an open market (36 percent). While 21
percent of households in remote clusters. percent of the households gets their inputs
Furthermore, while 49 percent of poor from cooperatives, only 1 percent reports
households use agricultural inputs, the government or donor agencies as their
share for non-poor households is 37 main source.
percent.
The breakdown by cluster location shows
Disaggregation of the data further shows that the percentage of households located
that as the number of household members in accessible clusters who obtain
increases, the usage of agricultural inputs agricultural inputs by preparing them
also tends to increase as 47 percent of themselves is higher than that of
households with seven or more members households located in remote clusters at
use agricultural inputs compared to 24 48 and 33 percent respectively. Likewise,
percent of households with one or two 38 percent of households located in
members. Furthermore, while 47 percent accessible clusters purchases agricultural
of households where the main income inputs at an open market compared to 34
earner belongs to the ‘self-employed percent of households located in remote
agriculture’ category use agricultural clusters. While 58 percent of poor
inputs, the share for households belonging households obtain agricultural inputs by
to the ‘self-employed other’ socio- preparing them themselves, the share for

61
6 Perception on welfare and changes between

Table 6.13: Percent distribution of households by the area (in ha) of land owned by the household

None < 1 ha 1-1.99 2-3.99 4-5.99 6+ ha Total

Total 21.8 4.1 8.4 19.7 15.8 30.2 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 31.6 6.0 9.6 17.3 15.6 19.9 100.0
Remote 7.8 1.5 6.7 23.1 16.1 44.7 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 5.0 5.9 9.0 22.8 15.6 41.6 100.0
Non-poor 24.2 3.9 8.3 19.3 15.8 28.5 100.0
Household size
1-2 32.2 2.7 22.7 19.7 7.4 15.3 100.0
3-4 30.8 5.8 10.5 18.9 13.0 21.1 100.0
5-6 17.4 5.4 5.3 23.2 21.6 27.1 100.0
7+ 12.1 2.1 2.6 17.5 17.4 48.4 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 62.2 18.2 0.0 0.0 19.6 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 8.0 1.9 9.9 25.4 16.1 38.7 100.0
Self-employed - other 61.6 4.9 6.5 4.4 12.0 10.7 100.0
Other 0.0 16.0 6.3 31.9 23.2 22.5 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 21.8 2.1 6.4 19.7 15.6 34.5 100.0
Female 21.8 15.3 18.8 20.0 17.1 7.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

non-poor households is 37 percent. On the headed households obtain agricultural

other hand, 39 percent of non-poor inputs by preparing them themselves
households purchases agricultural inputs compared to 38 percent of female-headed
at an open market compared to 21 percent households.
of poor households.

In addition, while 62 percent of 6.4.2 Landholding

households with one or two members
purchases agricultural inputs at an open Table 6.13 shows the percent distribution
market, the share for households with of households by the area of land owned.
seven or more members is 28 percent. In Around 34 percent of households own less
contrast, the percentage of households than two acres of land (including 22
with seven or more members who obtain percent of landless households). 20
agricultural inputs by preparing them percent own between two and four acres
themselves is 17 percentage points higher and 46 percent own four or more acres.
than that of households with one or two
members, at 42 and 25 percent Landless households are more common in
respectively. accessible clusters and households owning
large portions of land are more common in
92 percent of households where the main remote clusters. Likewise, the percentage
income earner is an employee purchase of landless households among non-poor
their agricultural inputs at an open market households is higher than that of poor
compared to 31 percent of households households, at 24 and 5 percent
belonging to the ‘self-employed respectively.
agriculture’ socio-economic group. In
turn, 44 percent of households where the Regarding household size, while 32
main income earner belongs to the ‘self- percent of households with one or two
employed agriculture’ category obtain members are landless, the share for
agricultural inputs by preparing them households with seven or more members
themselves. Finally, while 58 percent of is 12 percent. In contrast, larger
female-headed households purchases households seem to own larger
agricultural inputs at an open market, the landholdings more frequently than
share for male-headed households is 33 households with less members.
percent. In contrast, 41 percent of male-

62
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 6.14: Percent distribution of households by the number of cattle owned by the household

None 1 2-10 11-20 21-50 50+ Total

Total 70.6 2.1 17.9 5.0 3.2 1.2 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 77.2 1.1 15.4 3.8 1.6 0.9 100.0
Remote 61.3 3.7 21.4 6.7 5.4 1.5 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 59.2 3.1 18.9 8.0 9.7 1.1 100.0
Non-poor 72.3 2.0 17.7 4.5 2.2 1.2 100.0
Household size
1-2 87.2 0.0 11.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
3-4 78.5 4.0 11.9 2.9 1.2 1.5 100.0
5-6 66.5 1.5 22.6 6.1 3.3 0.0 100.0
7+ 59.1 1.8 22.5 7.7 6.4 2.5 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 90.7 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 63.4 3.0 21.7 6.9 3.7 1.4 100.0
Self-employed - other 91.9 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 100.0
Other 61.7 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 8.6 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 68.2 2.0 19.0 5.9 3.4 1.4 100.0
Female 83.7 2.8 11.5 0.2 1.7 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

While households where the main income members. Likewise, about 91 percent of
earner is an employee or self-employed in households belonging to the ‘employee’
non-agricultural activities reported the and ‘self-employed other’ categories own
highest share of landless households (62 no cattle compared to 62 percent of
percent), the share for households where households belonging to the ‘other’
the main income earner belongs to the category. Finally, while 84 percent of
‘other’ category is virtually null. In turn, female-headed households own no cattle,
the majority (55 percent) of households the share for male-headed households is
where the main income earner belongs to 68 percent.
the ‘self-employed agriculture’ category
own four or more acres of land. Finally,
male-headed households have larger 6.4 Perception of Crime
landholdings (4 or more acres) compared and Security in the
to female-headed households at 51 and 24
percent respectively. Community

6.4.3 Cattle Ownership This section gives an overview of how the

district residents perceive the current
crime and security situation compared to
Table 6.14 shows the percent distribution the year preceding the survey.
of households by the number of cattle Respondents were asked to categorise the
owned. Overall 71 percent of the current crime and security situation as the
households own no cattle at all, and 18 same, better or worse than the previous
percent own between 2 and 10 heads of year. Results are shown in Table 6.15
cattle. While 77 percent of households in
accessible clusters own no cattle, the share 42 percent the households reported that
for households in remote clusters is 61 the security situation was improving, 36
percent. Likewise, the percentage of non- percent said it was the same while 22
poor households that own no cattle is percent reported it was deteriorating. The
higher than that of poor households at 72 percentage of households located in
and 59 percent respectively. remote clusters who reported the current
crime and security situation as improving
87 percent of households with one or two is higher than that of households located in
members own no cattle, compared to 59 accessible clusters at 47 and 38 percent
percent of households with seven or more respectively. On the other hand, poverty

63
6 Perception on welfare and changes between

Table 6.15: Percent distribution of households by the perception of the crime and security situation
of the community compared to the year before the survey

Much Much Don't

Worse Worse Same Better Better Know Total
Total 6.0 16.2 35.9 35.6 5.6 0.8 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 7.1 21.3 32.8 33.6 3.9 1.3 100.0
Remote 4.4 8.8 40.3 38.5 8.0 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 3.5 18.6 35.7 36.5 5.8 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 6.3 15.8 35.9 35.5 5.6 0.9 100.0
Household size
1-2 2.4 18.5 49.2 26.7 3.3 0.0 100.0
3-4 9.2 20.7 30.7 33.0 4.6 1.7 100.0
5-6 1.3 16.8 38.0 35.1 7.9 1.0 100.0
7+ 8.4 10.2 33.3 42.4 5.7 0.0 100.0
Area of land owned by the household
None 15.9 18.6 14.9 49.1 1.5 0.0 100.0
< 1 ha 7.5 37.4 13.0 28.0 6.3 7.9 100.0
1-1.99 ha 6.8 27.0 40.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
2-3.99 ha 0.0 9.8 48.1 30.9 9.0 2.3 100.0
4-5.99 ha 4.9 11.2 34.9 44.1 4.9 0.0 100.0
6+ ha 2.8 15.3 45.6 28.1 8.2 0.0 100.0
Type of livestock owned by the household
None 8.1 17.1 30.9 38.5 4.9 0.5 100.0
Small only 1.3 8.3 49.1 33.2 4.8 3.4 100.0
Large only 5.0 16.3 44.1 30.3 4.3 0.0 100.0
Both 1.5 16.1 43.0 29.7 8.8 1.0 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 31.8 23.2 5.9 35.4 3.7 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 3.1 13.5 45.8 30.7 6.3 0.6 100.0
Self-employed - other 5.4 24.4 7.7 58.7 1.9 1.9 100.0
Other 0.0 10.9 53.7 16.0 19.4 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 4.9 14.6 36.7 37.0 6.3 0.5 100.0
Female 11.8 24.6 31.7 27.7 2.1 2.1 100.0
Marital status of the head of household
Single 9.2 40.5 30.7 10.3 9.4 0.0 100.0
Monogamous 5.6 15.9 35.4 36.8 5.9 0.4 100.0
Polygamous 2.7 13.9 37.9 36.5 8.0 1.0 100.0
Loose union 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Widow/div/sep 11.6 14.8 37.5 33.8 0.0 2.3 100.0
Education level of the head of household
None 2.4 16.8 50.0 25.3 4.8 0.6 100.0
Primary 6.2 15.4 33.1 37.8 6.5 1.0 100.0
Secondary + 13.2 18.2 16.6 48.7 3.4 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

status dos not show strong correlation with Similarly, 51 percent of households
the perception of the current crime and owning no land reported the current crime
security situation compared to the year and security situation as improving
preceding the survey. compared to 36 percent of households
owning six or more hectares of land.
While 48 percent of households with While 44 percent of households owning
seven or more members reported an no livestock reported an improvement in
improvement in the current crime and the current crime and security situation,
security situation, the share for households the share for households owning large
with one or two members is 30 percent. livestock is 34 percent.

64
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 6.16: Percentage distribution of households by principal contributor to

household income
Principal contributor of income
Head Spouse Child Other Total
Total 94.9 2.2 1.9 1.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 95.7 1.8 1.3 1.1 100.0
Remote 93.8 2.8 2.7 0.7 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 91.8 2.5 4.8 0.9 100.0
Non-poor 95.4 2.2 1.5 1.0 100.0
Household size
1-2 98.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
3-4 95.0 2.4 1.0 1.6 100.0
5-6 95.4 3.1 0.4 1.0 100.0
7+ 92.7 1.8 4.8 0.7 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agric 96.3 1.6 1.6 0.5 100.0
Self-employed - other 95.5 0.0 2.8 1.7 100.0
Other 17.9 52.6 12.4 17.1 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 94.6 2.7 1.9 0.8 100.0
Female 96.5 0.0 1.7 1.8 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

While 61 percent of households where the

main income earner belongs to the ‘self- 6.6 Household Income
employed other’ category reported an Contributions
improvement in the current crime and
security situation, the share for households Table 6.16 shows the percent distribution
where the main income earner belongs to of households by main contributor to
the ‘other’ category is 35 percent. In turn, household income. The survey includes
54 percent of households belonging to the information on household income
‘other’ category reported same conditions contributions by listing all the income
in the current crime and security situation. contributors in the households and then
On the other hand, 43 percent of male- identifying the household member who
headed households reported the current contributes the largest portion. For the
crime and security situation as improving majority (95 percent) of households the
compared to 30 percent of female-headed head is the main contributor.
households.
Cluster location of the household does not
Virtually all households where the show strong correlation with the main
household head has a loose union reported contributor to household income. On the
an improvement in the current crime and other hand, while 95 percent of non-poor
security situation, whereas the share for households reported the household head as
households where the head is single is 19 the main income contributor, the share for
percent. Finally, the percentage of poor households is 92 percent.
households where the head has secondary
education or more and reported an 99 percent of households with one or two
improvement in the current crime and members reported the household head as
security situation is 22 percentage points the main income contributor compared to
higher than that of household heads with 93 percent of households with seven or
no education at 52 and 30 percent more members. On the other hand, while 5
respectively. percent of households with seven or more
members reported the child as the main
income contributor, the share for
households with one or two members is
virtually null.

65
 6 Perception on welfare and changes between

Furthermore, virtually all households that the shares of ownership tend to be

belonging to the ‘employee’ category larger for larger households and for
reported the household head as the main households headed by males. In addition,
income contributor compared to only 18 employees and the self-employed in non-
percent of households belonging to the agricultural activities show higher rates of
‘other’ category. In contrast, 53 percent of ownership in most of the selected
households belonging to the ‘other’ household items than the remaining socio-
category reported the spouse as the main economic groups.
income contributor. The breakdown by
gender of the household head shows that
up to 3 percent of male-headed households
reported the spouse as the main income
contributor, while the share for female-
headed households is virtually null. There
are no strong differences by gender of the
household head.

6.7 Other Household Items

Table 6.17 shows the percentage
distribution of households owning selected
household items. 81 percent of households
own at least one mattress or bed, 63
percent own a radio, 54 percent own a
watch or clock and 22 percent own an
electric iron. Although 1 percent of
households own a fixed line phone, 19
percent own a mobile phone. Households
in accessible clusters and non-poor
households have higher rates of ownership
in almost every selected item.

The breakdown by household size shows

Table 6.17: Percentage of households owning selected household items

Electric Sewing Modern Mattress Watch or Fixed line Mobile

iron Refrigerator machine stove or bed clock Radio Televison phone phone
Total 22.3 6.4 10.2 1.1 81.3 54.4 62.6 7.9 1.4 19.1
Cluster Location
Accessible 31.4 10.7 16.4 1.1 87.3 58.6 66.3 13.5 2.4 29.4
Remote 9.4 0.3 1.3 1.2 72.6 48.4 57.4 0.0 0.0 4.4
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.5 36.5 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-poor 25.5 7.4 11.7 1.3 85.7 57.0 67.5 9.1 1.6 21.8
Household size
1-2 8.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 63.0 29.9 35.5 2.4 0.0 5.3
3-4 19.3 6.3 7.3 0.0 84.3 57.1 56.8 5.8 4.7 18.1
5-6 25.0 6.6 19.7 2.2 82.4 50.2 67.8 7.8 0.0 18.3
7+ 28.9 9.3 9.4 0.9 85.4 66.3 76.0 12.6 0.0 26.8
Socio-economic Group
Employee 58.5 15.9 19.6 0.0 84.1 84.1 68.2 23.2 0.0 63.0
Self-employed - agriculture 13.4 0.2 1.8 1.5 78.4 45.7 57.8 0.5 0.0 5.6
Self-employed - other 41.1 28.7 39.9 0.2 92.4 74.6 81.4 30.6 8.3 53.3
Other 23.0 0.0 16.0 1.5 75.1 61.1 53.5 16.0 0.0 16.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 22.6 7.6 9.8 1.0 81.7 55.2 66.5 8.6 1.7 18.5
Female 20.9 0.0 12.1 1.8 79.1 50.0 41.7 4.2 0.0 22.2
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama 2006

66
7 HOUSEHOLD AMENITIES
This chapter analyses the main amenities more likely to use thatch than households
of the households in Kahama DC. The in accessible villages at 79 and 41 percent
first section presents the main materials respectively. In turn, households in
used to construct the dwelling, and the accessible villages tend to use iron sheets
type of housing unit the household lives more often. Similarly, 86 percent of poor
in. Section two reports the main source of households use thatch as their main roof
drinking water and main type of toilet. In material compared to 52 percent of non-
section three, the fuel used by the poor households. On the other hand, while
household is analysed, both for cooking 47 percent of non-poor households use
and lighting. Section four reports the iron sheets, the share for poor households
distance of the households to facilities as is 14 percent.
source of drinking water, schools, and
food markets. In section five the anti- The breakdown by household size shows
malaria measures taken by households are that 64 percent of households with up to 2
analysed. members use thatch compared to 53
percent of households with both 3 to 4 and
7 or more members. In turn, households
7.1 Housing Materials and with 3 to 4 members and those with 7 or
Type of Housing Unit more are more likely to use iron sheets for
their roofs, at 47 percent each. The split-
up by socio-economic group shows that
Table 7.1 shows the distribution of the “other” category has the highest share
households according to the main material of households using thatch for the roof (at
used in the roof of the house. Overall, 57 74 percent), and that employees are the
percent of households have thatch as their group that does use thatch less at 2
main roof material and 43 percent have percent.
iron sheets.
The breakdown by gender of the
The breakdown by cluster location shows household head shows that male-headed
that households in remote villages are households use thatch more often than

Table 7.1: Percent distribution of households by material used for roof of the house

Iron Cement/ Roofing

Mud Thatch Wood Sheets concrete tiles Asbestos Other Total
Total 0.2 56.6 0.0 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 0.0 40.7 0.0 59.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Remote 0.4 79.3 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 86.2 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 0.2 52.4 0.0 47.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Household size
1-2 0.0 63.8 0.0 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
3-4 0.6 52.5 0.0 46.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
5-6 0.0 61.4 0.0 38.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
7+ 0.0 53.4 0.0 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 0.0 1.9 0.0 98.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 0.3 71.6 0.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - other 0.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other 0.0 73.9 0.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 0.0 57.7 0.0 42.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Female 1.2 50.8 0.0 48.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
7 Household Amenities

Table 7.2: Percent distribution of households by material used for walls of the house

Mud/ Burnt Cement/ Wood/ Iron

mud bricks Stone bricks sandcrete bamboo sheets Cardboard Total
Total 74.3 0.0 6.8 18.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 56.8 0.0 11.5 31.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
Remote 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 70.7 0.0 7.8 21.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
Household size
1-2 82.7 0.0 1.5 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
3-4 67.3 0.0 9.6 22.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
5-6 77.6 0.0 12.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
7+ 74.7 0.0 1.8 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 5.9 0.0 0.0 94.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 94.2 0.0 3.5 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - other 25.9 0.0 25.1 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other 82.5 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 76.4 0.0 7.7 15.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
Female 63.0 0.0 2.1 34.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Table 7.3: Percent distribution of households by material used for floors of the house

Mud/ Wood/ Concrete/

earth plank Tiles cement Grass Other Total
Total 74.5 0.0 1.4 24.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 58.6 0.0 2.4 39.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Remote 97.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 70.9 0.0 1.6 27.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
Household size
1-2 77.3 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
3-4 66.1 0.0 4.7 29.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
5-6 75.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
7+ 81.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 3.6 0.0 0.0 96.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 94.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - other 25.0 0.0 8.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
Other 84.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 76.9 0.0 1.7 21.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Female 61.4 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

female-headed households, at 58 and 51 walls. Overall, 74 percent of house are

percent respectively. built with mud or mud bricks.

Table 7.2 shows the distribution of The analysis of cluster location reveals
households by type of material used in the that all households in remote villages (100
percent) have mud or mud bricks

68
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 7.4: Percent distribution of households by type of housing unit

Two or
Single more Whole
room Flat rooms building Other Total
Total 8.6 0.0 6.2 59.1 26.2 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 14.0 0.0 8.9 57.8 19.3 100.0
Remote 0.8 0.0 2.3 60.9 36.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 58.0 100.0
Non-poor 9.8 0.0 7.1 61.5 21.6 100.0
Household size
1-2 24.9 0.0 4.7 70.1 0.2 100.0
3-4 16.3 0.0 8.0 62.1 13.6 100.0
5-6 1.2 0.0 11.9 60.5 26.3 100.0
7+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 35.4 0.0 0.0 64.6 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agric 2.7 0.0 2.4 62.1 32.8 100.0
Self-employed - other 20.4 0.0 24.1 44.9 10.6 100.0
Other 0.0 0.0 16.0 46.5 37.5 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 5.7 0.0 6.9 58.9 28.5 100.0
Female 24.3 0.0 2.0 60.1 13.6 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

compared to 57 percent of households in households, at rates of 76 and 63 percent

accessible villages. On the other hand, of males. In turn, 35 percent of female-
while 12 percent of households in headed households use cement or secrete
accessible villages use burnt bricks, the compared to 16 percent of male-headed
share for households in remote villages is households.
virtually null.
The distribution of households by type of
The analysis by poverty status reveals that material used in the floor is shown in
virtually all poor households (100 percent) Table 7.3. Overall, the floor in 75 percent
use mud or mud bricks compared to 71 of households is made of mud or dirt, and
percent of non-poor households. The use 24 percent of concrete or cement.
of burnt bricks by poor households is
virtually null, while 8 percent of non-poor The breakdown by cluster location shows
households use burnt bricks on their walls. that households in accessible villages,
Similarly, 83 percent of households with with a rate of 39 percent, have a slightly
up to 2 members use mud or mud bricks as higher share of house with concrete floor
main material in the walls of the house than households in remote villages, with a
compared to 67 percent of households rate of 3 percent. In turn, households in
with 3 to 4 members. remote villages have a higher share of
house with mud or dirt floor (97 percent,
‘Employee’ is the category with the lowest against 59 percent households in
share living in house made of mud or mud accessible villages). Virtually all poor
bricks (6 percent) compared to 94 percent households (100 percent) have mud or dirt
of members self-employed in agriculture. floor compared to 71 percent of non-poor
households. On the other hand, 28 percent
The gender breakdown shows that of non-poor households use concrete or
households headed by males use mud or cement as material for the floor.
mud bricks more often than female-headed

69
7 Household Amenities

Table 7.5: Percent distribution of households by main source of drinking water

Bore
Pipe borne Pipe borne hole/hand Protected Unprotecte River, lake Vendor, Safe
treated untreated pump well d well Rain water or pond truck Other Total source
Total 0.0 1.3 27.1 2.4 23.6 0.0 22.2 23.4 0.0 100.0 29.5
Cluster Location
Accessible 0.0 1.3 28.9 2.5 20.7 0.0 6.8 39.8 0.0 100.0 31.4
Remote 0.0 1.3 24.6 2.3 27.8 0.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 26.9
Poverty Status
Poor 0.0 0.0 31.7 0.0 34.0 0.0 34.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 31.7
Non-poor 0.0 1.5 26.5 2.8 22.1 0.0 20.4 26.7 0.0 100.0 29.2
Household size
1-2 0.0 1.9 29.9 0.0 24.1 0.0 20.8 23.4 0.0 100.0 29.9
3-4 0.0 1.2 26.9 2.8 23.2 0.0 20.1 25.8 0.0 100.0 29.7
5-6 0.0 1.0 25.7 4.1 25.8 0.0 22.3 21.0 0.0 100.0 29.9
7+ 0.0 1.4 27.3 1.6 21.9 0.0 24.8 22.9 0.0 100.0 28.9
Socio-economic Group
Employee 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.6 70.9 0.0 100.0 25.6
Self-employed - agric 0.0 1.8 30.3 2.2 31.2 0.0 27.7 6.8 0.0 100.0 32.4
Self-employed - other 0.0 0.0 11.8 5.0 2.5 0.0 9.4 71.4 0.0 100.0 16.7
Other 0.0 0.0 51.1 0.0 26.1 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 51.1
Gender of the head of household
Male 0.0 1.2 25.3 2.9 25.7 0.0 23.0 21.9 0.0 100.0 28.2
Female 0.0 1.6 36.9 0.0 12.3 0.0 17.9 31.3 0.0 100.0 36.9
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

The breakdown by household size shows household size shows that 70 percent
that 81 percent households with 7 or more households with 1 to 2 members occupy
members have mud or dirt compared to 66 the whole building where they live
percent of households with 3 to 4 compared to 50 percent households with 7
members. The split-up by socio-economic or more members. The split-up by socio-
group of the household shows that economic group of the household shows
employees have the lowest share of mud that employees have the highest share of
or dirt (4 percent) and the highest share of occupying a whole building (65 percent)
concrete (96 percent). 95 percent of and those self-employed in non-
households where the main income earner agricultural activities have the lowest
is self-employed in agriculture has house share at (45 percent).
with mud or dirt floor.

The gender breakdown shows that all 77 7.2 Water and

percent of male-headed households use Sanitation
mud or dirt compared to 61 percent of
female-headed households. The percentage distribution of households
by source of drinking water is shown in
Table 7.4 shows the percentage Table 7.5. Overall, 30 percent of
distribution of households by type of households have a safe source of water,
housing unit they occupy. Overall, 59 whereas 24 percent of them gets it from an
percent of households occupy the whole unprotected well. 27 percent of all
building where they live. households gets drinking water from
boreholes/hand pumps. Safe sources of
The breakdowns by cluster location and drinking water are river, lake and pond,
gender do not show strong correlation treated pipes as well as vendors or trucks.
with the type of housing unit households
occupy. The analysis of cluster location shows that
31 percent of households in accessible
Analysis by poverty status reveals that 62 villages have a safe source of drinking
percent of poor households occupies a water, whereas the share of households in
whole building compared to 42 percent of remote villages is 27 percent. On the other
non-poor households. The breakdown by hand, 44 percent of households in remote

70
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

villages gets drinking water from river, households. In turn, 34 percent of poor
lake or pond, against 7 percent of households get their drinking water from
households in accessible villages. Poverty river, lake or pond, against 20 percent of
status of the household reveals no major non-poor households.
differences by households to use safe
sources of water, against 9 percent of poor The breakdown by household size does

Table 7.6: Percent distribution of households by main type of toilet

Flush to
None Flush to septic Pan/ Covered pit Uncovered Ventilated Safe
(bush) sewer tank bucket latrine pit latrine pit latrine Other Total sanitation
Total 21.2 0.0 11.5 0.0 60.3 6.7 0.3 0.0 100.0 71.8
Cluster Location
Accessible 8.1 0.0 19.6 0.0 62.4 9.3 0.6 0.0 100.0 82.0
Remote 39.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 57.3
Poverty Status
Poor 46.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 51.2
Non-poor 17.7 0.0 13.2 0.0 61.6 7.2 0.4 0.0 100.0 74.7
Household size
1-2 18.1 0.0 12.9 0.0 64.4 4.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 77.3
3-4 19.9 0.0 21.1 0.0 51.4 7.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 72.5
5-6 22.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 67.3 6.1 1.2 0.0 100.0 69.8
7+ 22.4 0.0 9.3 0.0 61.1 7.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 70.4
Socio-economic Group
Employee 0.0 0.0 51.3 0.0 45.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 100.0 96.3
Self-employed - agric 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.5 9.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 64.5
Self-employed - other 12.4 0.0 38.9 0.0 48.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 87.6
Other 8.6 0.0 16.0 0.0 75.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 91.4
Gender of the head of household
Male 21.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 59.7 7.3 0.4 0.0 100.0 71.3
Female 22.5 0.0 11.1 0.0 63.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 74.4
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Table 7.7: Percent distribution of households by fuel used for cooking

Crop Non-wood
Kerosene/oi residue/ Animal fuel for
Firewood Charcoal l Gas Electricity sawdust waste Other Total cooking
Total 72.5 27.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 55.8 44.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Remote 96.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Poverty Status
Poor 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Non-poor 68.6 31.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Household size
1-2 74.2 25.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
3-4 65.5 34.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
5-6 77.8 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
7+ 74.1 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 5.9 94.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Self-employed - agric 92.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Self-employed - other 23.6 76.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Other 84.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 75.7 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Female 55.6 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

71
7 Household Amenities

not reveal strong correlation with main households in accessible clusters. The
sources of drinking water. breakdown by poverty status reveals that
all (100 percent) poor households use
The breakdown by socio-economic group firewood compared with 69 percent of
of the household shows that ‘other’, is the non-poor households.
category with the highest rate of access to
safe sources of drinking water (51 Analysis of household size reveals that
percent), followed by the ‘self-employed - households with 5 to 6 members’ use
agriculture’ category (32 percent), while firewood (79 percent) compared to 66
‘self-employed-other’ is the category with percent of households with 3 to 4
the lowest access to safe water (17 members. Households with up to 2
percent). On the other hand, 31 percent of members and 7 or more members report
the households where the main income shares of 74 percent each. Similarly,
earner belongs to the ‘self-employed- households with 3 to 4 members have the
agriculture’ category gets drinking water highest use of charcoal at 35 percent.
from unprotected well compared to 2
percent of households where the main The split-up by socio-economic group
income earner is in an employee. shows that households where the main
income earner is self-employed in
The breakdown by gender of the agriculture has the highest use for
household head reveals that female- firewood (92 percent) and the ‘self-
headed households have higher access to employed-other’ category has the lowest
safe sources of water (37 percent) use of firewood use firewood at 24
compared to female-headed households. percent. The employees report the highest
rate of use for charcoal at 94 percent.
Table 7.6 shows the percentage
distribution of households by main type of The breakdown by gender of the
toilet. Overall, 72 percent of households household head reveals that male-headed
have safe sanitation, whereas up to 60 households have the higher rate of use for
percent use a covered pit latrine. firewood (76 percent) and lowest rate for
charcoal (24 percent).
The cluster location breakdown shows that
82 percent of households in accessible Table 7.8 shows the distribution of
villages have safe sanitation, while the households according to the fuel used for
share for households in remote is 57 lighting. Overall, 82 percent of the
percent. Similarly, 75 percent of non-poor households in the district use kerosene or
households have safe sanitation compared paraffin and 4 percent use firewood. Gas
to 51 percent of poor households. and candles are virtually not used for
lighting in the district.The analysis of
The breakdown by household size shows cluster location shows that about 92
households with up to 2 members have the percent of households in remote villages
highest access rate to safe sanitation (77 use kerosene/paraffin compared with 76
percent) compared to households with 5 to percent of households in accessible
6 and 7 or more members at 70 percent. villages. It is observed that 7 percent of
remote households use firewood for fuel
The breakdown by socio-economic status compared to 2 percent of the accessible
shows that employees have the highest households. Poor households have the
rate of safe sanitation, at 96 percent while highest rate of use for both kerosene or
the ‘self-employed – agriculture’ category paraffin and firewood (87 and 13 percent
has the lowest rate of safe sanitation at 65 respectively).
percent.
The breakdown by household size reveals
7.3 Type of Fuel that 87 percent of households with 3 to 4
members use kerosene/paraffin compared
to 74 percent of households with 1 to 2
Table 7.7 shows the distribution of members. On the other hand, 11 percent of
households by fuel used for cooking. households with up to 2 members use
Overall, 73 percent of households use firewood compared to 3 percent with
firewood compared to 28 percent of either 3 to 4 or 7 or more members.
households that use charcoal. 96 of
households in remote villages use The analysis by socio-economic group of
firewood compared to 56 percent of the household shows that the self-

72
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 7.8: Percent distribution of households by fuel used for lighting

Kerosene/ Mains Solar panels/

paraffin Gas electricity generator Battery Candles Firewood Other Total
Total 82.7 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 76.2 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 100.0
Remote 92.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.3 0.0 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 87.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 100.0
Non-poor 82.1 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 100.0
Household size
1-2 74.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 11.0 0.0 100.0
3-4 80.6 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.6 0.0 100.0
5-6 87.4 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 100.0
7+ 84.6 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 45.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - agric 93.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.5 0.0 100.0
Self-employed - other 58.2 0.0 40.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 100.0
Other 74.7 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 84.6 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 100.0
Female 72.5 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

employed in agriculture have the highest the variables, despite not being used to
rate of use of kerosene and paraffin at 93 define cluster location, also show strong
percent compared to 45 percent in the correlations.
‘employee’ category. In turn, 9 percent of
households belonging to the ‘other’ Overall, 86 percent of households are
category use firewood, while the share for located under 30 minutes of a drinking
the employees is virtually null. water supply. In addition, 26 percent of
the households are located under 30
Finally, male-headed households are more minutes of a health facility.
likely to use kerosene/paraffin than
female-headed households at 85 and 72 The breakdown by cluster location shows
percent respectively. Conversely, 14 that 92 percent of households in accessible
percent of female-headed households use villages has access to a drinking water
firewood compared to 3 percent of male- source and 35 percent to a health facility,
headed households. whereas the shares for households in
remote villages are 72 and 12 percent.
7.4 Distances to Facilities Similar differences are observed by
poverty status, with non-poor households
having higher access rates than poor
Table 7.9 shows the percent distribution of households.
households by time to reach the nearest
drinking water supply and health facility. Analysis of household size reveals that
Although each table gives more detailed households with 3 to 4 members have the
information, the analysis of this section highest access to both drinking water
will be focused on the 30 minute threshold supply and health facilities at 91 and 33
that was used to define access to a facility. percent respectively. Conversely,
It must be kept in mind that distance to households with 7 or more members have
public transportation is one of the the lowest access to drinking water supply
variables used to define a cluster as while households with up to 2 members
accessible or remote, so it must come as have the lowest access to health facilities.
no surprise that distance to public
transportation and cluster location are Households where the main income earner
strongly correlated. However, the rest of is an employee have the highest rate of

73
7 Household Amenities

access to drinking water (100 percent) and status of the household reveals that non-
access to health facilities (55 percent), poor households have higher access to
whereas households where the main both primary and secondary school
income earner is self-employed in education at 67 and 17 percent
agriculture have the lowest access to respectively. The access by poor
health facilities at 17 percent. households to secondary education is only
2 percent.
The breakdown by gender of the
household head shows that female-headed Analysis by household size reveals that
households have higher access rate to households with 3 to 4 members have the
drinking water supply and health facilities highest rate of access to both primary and
at 90 and 34 percent respectively. secondary education at 72 percent and 27
percent respectively. On the other hand,
Table 7.10 shows the percent distribution households with 7 or more members have
of households by time to reach the nearest the lowest access to secondary education.
primary and secondary school. Overall, 66
percent of households are located within The breakdown by socio-economic group
30 minutes of a primary school; however shows that households in the ‘employee’
only 15 percent of households live within category have the highest rate of access to
30 minutes of a secondary school. Access primary and secondary schools, at 96 and
to school was also analysed in chapter 3 57 percent, respectively. Households in
but with a different focus. In chapter 3, the category ‘self-employed agriculture’
access to school was analysed at child have the lowest access rate to primary
level, i.e. the access rate of each child. In schools at 60 percent.
this section the focus is the distance of the
house to the nearest school. Households headed by females have
higher access rates to primary school than
The analysis of cluster location shows that male-headed households, at 69 percent,
55 percent of households in remote against 64 percent for females. Access to
villages have access to primary school, secondary education by households
against 73 percent in accessible villages. headed by males is 10 percent.
For secondary school, the rate for
accessible villages is 24 percent against 1 Table 7.11 shows the percent distribution
percent for those in remote villages. On of households by time to reach the nearest
the other hand, the breakdown by poverty food market and public transportation.

Table 7.9: Percent distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest drinking water supply
and health facility
Drinking water supply Health facility
<= 15 16-30 31-60 61+ Total <= 15 16-30 31-60 61+ Total
Total 61.1 25.2 10.9 2.8 100.0 9.7 15.8 35.4 39.1 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 70.0 22.4 7.3 0.3 100.0 13.6 21.0 37.5 27.8 100.0
Remote 48.5 29.2 15.9 6.3 100.0 4.1 8.3 32.5 55.2 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 44.5 29.9 17.6 8.0 100.0 4.3 17.3 26.5 51.9 100.0
Non-poor 63.5 24.5 9.9 2.1 100.0 10.4 15.6 36.7 37.3 100.0
Household size
1-2 64.9 20.2 8.7 6.1 100.0 14.4 5.5 48.8 31.3 100.0
3-4 59.3 31.9 7.1 1.7 100.0 14.9 18.5 26.3 40.2 100.0
5-6 63.3 26.1 9.2 1.3 100.0 3.5 18.3 40.9 37.3 100.0
7+ 59.4 19.9 17.0 3.7 100.0 7.7 15.5 33.7 43.1 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 76.1 23.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 35.4 19.6 41.5 3.6 100.0
Self-employed - agriculture 55.6 30.6 10.4 3.4 100.0 4.7 12.0 37.5 45.8 100.0
Self-employed - other 78.8 2.2 17.2 1.9 100.0 16.6 29.1 24.0 30.4 100.0
Other 43.2 32.5 24.3 0.0 100.0 16.0 21.7 32.6 29.7 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 61.5 24.2 11.7 2.6 100.0 8.7 15.3 33.4 42.6 100.0
Female 59.1 30.4 6.4 4.1 100.0 15.0 18.5 46.4 20.2 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

74
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 7.10: Percent distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest primary and
secondary school
Primary school Secondary school
<= 15 16-30 31-60 61+ Total <= 15 16-30 31-60 61+ Total
Total 32.8 32.7 26.1 8.3 100.0 7.7 7.0 12.7 72.6 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 38.7 34.4 23.4 3.5 100.0 13.1 11.1 14.5 61.2 100.0
Remote 24.4 30.4 30.0 15.2 100.0 0.0 1.1 10.1 88.8 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 21.3 36.8 30.8 11.1 100.0 0.0 1.8 6.5 91.8 100.0
Non-poor 34.5 32.2 25.5 7.9 100.0 8.8 7.7 13.6 69.9 100.0
Household size
1-2 23.9 36.8 22.8 16.4 100.0 2.4 12.9 8.8 75.9 100.0
3-4 43.5 28.8 21.7 6.0 100.0 18.9 8.0 7.2 65.9 100.0
5-6 26.7 35.5 31.9 5.8 100.0 0.0 8.9 19.6 71.5 100.0
7+ 31.5 32.4 27.0 9.1 100.0 5.7 1.7 13.8 78.7 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 67.5 28.8 0.0 3.7 100.0 35.4 23.2 18.2 23.1 100.0
Self-employed - agric 26.7 33.3 30.3 9.7 100.0 2.0 3.3 11.7 83.0 100.0
Self-employed - other 38.3 34.5 22.7 4.5 100.0 18.5 13.0 13.8 54.6 100.0
Other 51.0 16.3 20.9 11.8 100.0 0.0 16.0 13.9 70.1 100.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 31.9 33.0 26.4 8.8 100.0 5.4 4.9 13.6 76.0 100.0
Female 37.8 31.6 24.9 5.7 100.0 20.1 18.1 7.6 54.2 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Table 7.11: Percent distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest food market and
public transportation
Food market Public transportation
<= 15 16-30 31-60 61+ Total <= 15 16-30 31-60 61+ Total
Total 21.7 24.9 27.7 25.7 100.0 41.3 29.5 15.2 14.0 100.0
Cluster Location
Accessible 25.1 30.3 30.8 13.9 100.0 46.6 36.2 10.3 7.0 100.0
Remote 16.9 17.2 23.3 42.6 100.0 33.9 20.0 22.1 23.9 100.0
Poverty Status
Poor 6.0 19.3 23.8 51.0 100.0 38.2 20.4 15.0 26.4 100.0
Non-poor 23.9 25.7 28.3 22.1 100.0 41.8 30.8 15.2 12.2 100.0
Household size
1-2 24.9 10.0 42.4 22.6 100.0 54.4 11.6 22.1 11.9 100.0
3-4 31.6 24.1 22.7 21.5 100.0 42.1 33.2 12.1 12.5 100.0
5-6 21.5 27.1 29.2 22.2 100.0 37.4 34.3 16.5 11.8 100.0
7+ 10.7 30.2 24.7 34.4 100.0 38.1 29.6 13.9 18.4 100.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 37.8 53.2 7.4 1.6 100.0 78.8 15.9 3.7 1.6 100.0
Self-employed - agric 17.5 19.6 31.2 31.8 100.0 38.4 25.7 18.6 17.2 100.0
Self-employed - other 32.7 30.7 26.9 9.6 100.0 33.8 53.8 6.0 6.4 100.0
Other 9.3 39.4 0.0 51.3 100.0 43.1 17.9 21.7 17.3 100.0
Gender of head of household
Male 22.1 22.8 28.3 26.8 100.0 36.4 32.8 16.4 14.5 100.0
Female 19.6 36.2 24.3 19.9 100.0 67.9 11.8 8.8 11.5 100.0
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

Overall, 47 percent of households has market and, against 34 of households in

access to a food market, and 71 percent to remote villages. The shares for public
public transportation. transportation are 83 percent for accessible
and 54 percent for remote villages. Non-
The analysis of cluster location shows that poor households have higher rates of
55 percent of households in accessible access to food markets, with a rate of 50
villages live within 30 minutes of a food percent, against 25 of poor households.

75
7 Household Amenities

Similarly, while 73 percent of non-poor and bed nets (40 percent).

households have access to public
transportation, the share for poor The analysis of cluster location shows that
households is 59 percent. 82 percent of households in remote
villages takes measures against malaria,
The analysis by household size shows that compared to 71 percent of households in
households with 3 to 4 members have accessible villages. On the other hand,
higher rates of access to food markets as while 58 percent of households in
well as public transportation at 56 and 75 accessible villages use insecticide treated
percent respectively. Those in the ‘other’ nets, the share for households in remote
category have the lowest access to food villages is 32 percent.
markets.
In addition, 80 percent of non-poor
Although analysis by socio-economic households take measures against malaria
group reveals that employees have the compared to 62 percent of poor
highest rate of access to food markets and households. The rates for maintenance of
public transportation, with 91 percent and good sanitation are lower, though non-
94 percent respectively. poor households tend to maintain good
sanitation than poor households at 12 and
Finally, female-headed households have a 4 percent respectively.
higher access rate to food market and
public transportation than male-headed The share of households taking measures
households. tends to increase with the size of the
household but there are no clear trends by
7.5 Anti-Malaria Measures measure taken. The analysis of socio-
economic status shows that all households
(100 percent) in the ‘employee’ category
The percentage of households taking anti- share take measures against malaria
malaria measures and the specific compared with 69 percent in the ‘other’
measures they take are shown in Table category. Finally, 79 percent of
7.12. Overall, 78 percent of households households headed by males take
take measures against malaria. The most measures against malaria compared to 72
commonly taken measures are insecticide percent of households headed by females.
treated nets (49 percent of households)

Table 7.12: Percentage of households taking anti-malaria measures, by measures taken

Share Anti- Maintain Maintain

taking Use bed Insect- malaria Fumi- Insecticide good good Burn Window/
measures net icide drug gation treated net drainage sanitation Herbs leaves door net
Total 77.6 39.7 1.3 9.6 0.0 48.5 0.0 11.0 4.0 0.0 0.6
Cluster Location
Accessible 82.3 28.5 1.1 11.1 0.0 58.3 0.0 16.1 5.0 0.0 0.7
Remote 70.8 58.2 1.8 7.2 0.0 32.4 0.0 2.6 2.4 0.0 0.6
Poverty Status
Poor 61.7 53.5 2.3 2.1 0.0 31.4 0.0 3.6 7.1 0.0 0.0
Non-poor 79.8 38.2 1.2 10.5 0.0 50.4 0.0 11.8 3.7 0.0 0.7
Household size
1-2 72.9 50.5 3.7 12.1 0.0 19.3 0.0 22.2 2.6 0.0 1.8
3-4 79.5 38.9 0.0 11.1 0.0 53.5 0.0 9.4 3.0 0.0 1.4
5-6 77.7 32.9 1.6 6.1 0.0 58.4 0.0 7.1 5.2 0.0 0.0
7+ 77.6 41.9 1.5 10.2 0.0 47.2 0.0 11.3 4.5 0.0 0.0
Socio-economic Group
Employee 100.0 37.8 3.7 3.7 0.0 46.3 0.0 37.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Self-employed - agric 71.0 44.9 0.7 13.0 0.0 40.9 0.0 6.5 6.1 0.0 0.3
Self-employed - other 94.4 21.7 2.2 3.2 0.0 75.5 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 2.0
Other 69.1 68.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gender of the head of household
Male 78.6 37.6 1.6 9.5 0.0 50.2 0.0 12.5 4.0 0.0 0.3
Female 72.0 51.9 0.0 10.4 0.0 39.0 0.0 2.3 3.9 0.0 2.9
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

76
 Kahama DC CWIQ 2006

Male-headed households use insecticide

treated nets more frequently than female-
headed households at 50 and 39 percent
respectively. In turn, a higher share of the
latter maintains good sanitation.

77
7 Household Amenities

78
8 GOVERNANCE
The PMO-RALG CWIQ expanded the households, at only 13 and 1 percent
standard CWIQ survey instrument with respectively.
several questions on governance. This
chapter discusses the responses to these Data as presented in table 8.1 did not
questions. The first section discusses expose a considerable difference in
attendance at kitongoji, village, ward and meeting attendance between households in
district meetings. Section 2 shows the remote and accessible clusters in
results of questions aimed at measuring kitongoji, village and district levels.
satisfaction with leaders at each of these However, meeting attendance rates at
levels. Section 3 concerns public spending ward level was found to be higher by 8
at kitongoji, village, ward and district percent point difference in remote clusters
level and discusses to what extent than in accessible cluster at 18 and 10
financial information reaches households, percent respectively.
as well as their satisfaction with public
spending at each level. Looking at the breakdown of the results by
poverty status, it can be seen that higher
8.1 Attendance at Meetings attendance rates were recorded in poor
households in village level meetings by 10
percentage points at 87 and 77 percent
Table 8.1 summarises responses to the respectively. Meeting attendance rate in
following question “Did you or anyone in ward level was slightly higher in poor
your household attend a meeting at […] category households than it was the case
level in the past 12 months”. This question in the non-poor households. No important
was repeated 4 times with the dots differences were observed in meeting
replaced by kitongoji, village, ward and attendance rates in other government
district. Generally percentage distribution levels. Analysis of the results by socio-
for meeting attendance is higher at lower economic groups indicates that the the
levels of government than in the higher self-employed in non-agricultural
government levels. The results show that activities and the ‘other’ socio-economic
80 percent of households had at least one groups report lower rates of attendance to
member attending at least one kitongoji meetings. Generally, ward and district
meeting in the past 12 months. Attendance level meetings, are characterised by lower
at village meetings was also high at 79 attendance rates by all socio-economic
percent. Ward and district level meetings groups.
did not attain attendance of the majority of

Table 8.1: Percentage distribution of attendance of meetings

(any household member within past 12 months)
Kitongoji Village Ward District
Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting
Total 80.2 77.9 13.4 0.6
Cluster Location
Accessible 80.8 76.7 10.1 0.6
Remote 79.3 79.7 18.2 0.7
Poverty Status
Poor 81.4 86.7 15.0 0.9
Non-poor 80.0 76.7 13.2 0.6
Socio-economic Group
Employee 73.1 59.3 21.5 3.7
Self-employed - agriculture 83.1 85.5 14.8 0.2
Self-employed - other 71.4 55.0 2.1 1.0
Other 82.1 82.1 25.9 0.0
No. of Obs. 450 450 450 450
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
8 Governance

Table 8.2: Distribution of leaders' satisfaction ratings and reasons for dissatisfaction
(any household member within past 12 months)
Kitongoji Village Ward District District
Leaders Leaders Leaders Leaders Councillor
Total
Satisfied 84.0 77.1 66.2 56.8 66.2
Not Satisfied 12.9 19.3 17.4 8.9 32.2
Don't Know 3.1 3.6 16.4 34.3 1.6
Share Satisfied by Cluster Location
Accessible 85.7 80.6 68.4 55.7 65.8
Remote 81.7 72.1 62.9 58.3 66.8
Share Satisfied by Poverty Status
Poor 88.8 71.2 60.9 62.4 58.5
Non-poor 83.3 77.9 66.9 56.0 67.3
Share Satisfied by Socio-economic Group
Employee 80.4 80.4 70.7 72.5 74.4
Self-employed - agriculture 84.5 75.3 63.2 51.5 63.3
Self-employed - other 84.1 80.9 75.4 70.3 73.1
Other 83.2 91.7 72.9 61.9 75.0
Reasons for Dissatisfaction (incl. don't know)
Political differences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Embezzlement/corruption 26.3 33.5 16.2 1.9 16.7
They do not listen to people 25.6 22.4 15.1 1.8 23.5
Favouritism 16.1 17.7 10.4 0.3 4.6
Lazy/inexperienced 13.7 13.6 5.6 4.1 15.9
Personal Reasons 1.6 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.5
I see no results 35.4 35.2 24.5 7.8 54.3
They never visit us 11.2 15.8 49.3 82.8 45.6
No. of Obs. 450 450 450 450 450
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC
1. While the question for kitongoji, village, ward and district leaders was framed as: "do you think the leaders at
this level are polite and helpful', the question for the district councillor was framed as 'are you satisfied with the
work of your district councillor?'

8.2 Satisfaction with though with an obviously declining trend

as level of government increases.
Leaders Generally, the satisfaction rates were
higher at 84 percent in kitongoji level and
The main respondent was asked whether declined to 57 percent in district level
he or she considered the leaders at though in essence majority of respondents
kitongoji, village, ward and district levels 34 percent reported ‘I don’t know’ when
of government to be polite and helpful. asked on satisfaction with district leaders.
For those who were not satisfied or On the other hand, 32 percent reported not
answered that they did not know, the to be satisfied with their district
reasons for this were asked. For district councillor. Satisfaction rates seem to be
councillors the question was phrased slightly higher among people in accessible
slightly differently and respondents were clusters at other levels accept for the
asked whether they were satisfied with district where the satisfaction rate is
their work and for those who responded slightly higher in the remote clusters by 2
‘no’ or ‘don’t know’ the reason for this percent point difference at 58 and 56
response was asked. percent respectively. The shares of
satisfaction seem to differ by poverty
The results, displayed in Table 8.2, show status across respondents in all levels.
that majority of respondents are satisfied While the satisfactions seem to be higher
with their leaders at all government levels among poor category respondents in

80
 Khama DC CWIQ 2006

Table 8.3: Percentage distribution of households who received financial

(any household member within past 12 months)
Kitongoji Village Ward District
Finances Finances Finances Finances
Total 12.6 14.0 3.1 1.7
Cluster Location
Accessible 16.0 17.0 2.7 2.8
Remote 7.7 9.8 3.8 0.0
Poverty Status
Poor 6.5 8.2 3.8 0.0
Non-poor 13.4 14.9 3.0 1.9
Socio-economic Group
Employee 19.6 35.4 15.9 15.9
Self-employed - agriculture 10.2 12.0 2.4 0.4
Self-employed - other 17.7 11.3 0.0 0.0
Other 22.6 14.8 0.0 0.0
Source
Letter 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.4
Notice board 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Meeting 92.9 92.8 83.9 0.0
Rumours/hear-say 5.4 5.7 16.1 15.6
Radio/newspapers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No. of Obs. 450 450 450 450
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

kitongoji and district levels, it is higher personal reasons were not prominent
among non poor respondents in the village among reasons for dissatisfactions on
and ward levels as well as the district leadership at any level of government. The
councils. Shares of satisfaction by socio- most common reason for dissatisfaction
economic groups suggest that the majority with district councillors is on their failure
of respondents are satisfied with the work to pay visits (54 percent), followed by the
of their leaders are across all levels as well complaint that no results of their work can
as the district councillor. be seen.

Finally, all respondents who answered

‘no’ or ‘I don’t know’ to the question 8.3 Public Spending
regarding satisfaction with the leaders at a
certain level of government where asked This section discusses the results of
to provide reasons. The bottom part of questions on the extent to which financial
Table 8.2 summarises the responses. Note information reached the respondents, as
that the base for the percentages here is well as their satisfaction with public
the number of people who answered spending. Table 8.3 shows the distribution
‘don’t know’ or ‘no’ to the question of of the percentage of respondents that
whether they were satisfied with their reported having received financial
leaders at the specified level. information from four different levels of
government. Information on finances
The reasons for dissatisfaction are very seems to reach small share of households
different across the different levels of at all levels. It can be noticed that, while
government. Political differences are not village financial information reach 14
major reasons for dissatisfaction with percent of the respondents, information on
leadership among people at all district finances reach only about 2
government levels. At ward and district percent of the households. Overall a
level the main reason for dissatisfaction is higher share of households in accessible
failure to pay visits 49 and 83 percent villages reported having received financial
respectively. Other important reasons for information in the past twelve months than
dissatisfaction include ‘I see no results’ households in remote villages, especially
‘embezzlement/corruption’ and failure to for district finances where information on
listen to people. On the other hand, finances did not reach any remote

81
8 Governance

Table 8.4: Satisfaction with public spending and reasons for dissatisfaction
(any household member within past 12 months)
Kitongoji Village Ward District
Spending Spending Spending Spending
Total
Satisfied 52.6 46.8 39.0 33.8
Not Satisfied 23.1 28.9 25.2 9.5
Don' Know 24.3 24.3 35.8 56.8
Share Satisfied by Cluster Location
Accessible 54.7 51.2 43.0 34.8
Remote 49.6 40.5 33.3 32.3
Share Satisfied by Poverty Status
Poor 58.8 43.0 39.0 34.4
Non-poor 51.7 47.3 39.0 33.7
Share Satisfied by Socio-economic Group
Employee 35.3 54.9 51.6 35.7
Self-employed - agriculture 51.7 43.3 35.2 31.9
Self-employed - other 62.7 54.5 47.2 38.9
Other 76.0 68.2 48.8 48.8
Reasons for Dissatisfaction (incl. don't know)
I see no results 22.4 26.5 9.6 11.4
Embezzlement/corruption 18.8 32.0 24.2 3.0
Favouritism 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.5
This is what I hear 4.3 7.7 7.7 0.4
They give no information 50.8 62.3 72.9 82.7
No. of Obs. 450 450 450 450
Source:CWIQ 2006 Kahama DC

households. Disaggregating households by Respondents were asked whether they

poverty status exposed that except for were satisfied with spending at different
ward finances, non-poor household have levels of government and were requested
relatively higher access to information on to respond either ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘don’t
finances at all other levels. know’. Table 8.4 shows the results.
Satisfaction with spending is slightly
The distribution of households received higher for lower levels of government.
financial information by socio-economic While around 53 and 47 percent of
groups shows that the self-employed other respondents were satisfied with kitongoji
and self-employed agriculture categories and village spending respectively, 39 and
did not receive information on ward and 44 percent, respectively, reported the same
district finances. Relatively higher shares for ward and district spending. This does
were observed among the employees not, however, mean that respondents
across all government levels. specifically report dissatisfaction with
spending for higher levels of government,
The data as presented in table 8.3 clearly rather the share of respondents reporting ‘I
show that except for the district where don’t know’ is higher for the latter levels,
letter was mentioned as the most at 36 and 57 percent for ward and district
important means in disseminating respectively.
information on finances, majority of
respondents received the information on The share of satisfaction by cluster
finances through attending in meetings in location showed higher shares of
all local government levels. Rumours or satisfaction on public finances in
hear say was the second best means for accessible clusters. The breakdown by
dissemination of information on finances poverty status shows a remarkable
across all levels. difference at kitongoji level, with 59
percent of poor households being satisfied
while the share for non-poor households is

82
 Khama DC CWIQ 2006

52 percent. However, there are no strong

differences at the remaining levels of
government. The breakdown by socio-
economic groups showed that the ‘other’
group displays relatively higher
satisfaction rates in government spending
at kitongoji and village levels.

Further probing on why respondents were

not satisfied, or why they did not know
whether they were satisfied, the most
common response was that they did not
receive any information (73 percent at
district spending). Other important reasons
included embezzlement/corruption in the
public spending and that the respondents
did not see results.

83
8 Governance

84
9 CHANGES BETWEEN 2004 AND
2006
This chapter will use the results of the Although they are not presented in the
2004 Kahama DC CWIQ to analyse tables, stars indicate the significance level
changes in a selected set of indicators of each change. *, **, and *** represent
between the two surveys. Both the significance at the 90, 95 and 99 percent
sampling methodology and the structure of of confidence. The text only discusses
the questionnaires allow comparisons changes at the 95 percent of confidence.
between the surveys. ‘t’ tests were
performed to ensure statistical significance Some caveats must be pointed out. In first
of the changes that take into account the place, the sample is not a panel, i.e. the
clustered nature of the dataset. The null households interviewed in 2004 were not
hypothesis in all cases was equality of re-interviewed interviewed in 2006.
means, so rejection of the null implies that Therefore, only the overall changes can be
the means are statistically different. These analysed, not the evolution for individual
tests rely on two assumptions: normality households. For instance, as shown in
of the distribution of each variable in the Table 9.4, the share of population owning
population and equality of variance in only small livestock did not change
both samples. Violation of the first significantly between the two surveys. It
assumption does not pose serious must be kept in mind that this result does
problems in practice. Regarding the not mean that the households that owned
second assumption, one may be willing to small livestock in 2004 are the same ones
assume equal variance between the two that own small livestock in 2006.
samples if it is considered that both are
representative of the same population in In second place, changes in perception
two relatively close points in time. may depend on the population
interviewed. The same circumstance can
Being estimates, the changes should not be be catalogued as ‘fair’ by some people and
read as points, but from the corresponding ‘unfair’ by others. The impact of this
confidence intervals. For instance, Table caveat is minimised by securing
9.3 shows that rate of need of healthcare randomness in the selection of sampled
increased by 7 percent, and that the households.
confidence interval of the change runs
from 3.6 to 9.4 percent. This should be Finally, the figures are just two dots in
read: ‘rate of need of healthcare increased time, and do not necessarily imply the
by between 3.6 and 9.4 percent, at the 95 existence of a trend between them.
percent of confidence’. If the confidence
interval includes zero, it is said that the Section one presents changes in household
change is non-significant. For the sake of characteristics. In section two, the
space, the tables only show the 95 percent evolution of education indicators is
confidence intervals. However, some analysed. Changes in health are reported
researchers or policy makers may prefer in section three. The last section presents
90 or 99 percent confidence intervals. an analysis of changes in household assets

Table 9.1: Household Characteristics

Change
2004 2006
Estimate SE Signif. 95% Confidence Interval
Household Size
1-2 18 13.5 -4.3 3.28 -10.3 2.8
3-4 32 29.9 -2.3 3.91 -10.3 5.3
5-6 26 26.4 0.6 2.88 -4.8 6.7
7+ 24 30.3 6.1 4.43 -3.5 14.2
Mean Household Size 5.0 5.3 0.3 0.32 0.36 -0.34
Female-headed Households 17 15.7 -1.3 3.93 -11.2 4.6
Source: Kahama CWIQ for 2004 and 2006
Table 9.2: Education

Change
2004 2006
Estimate SE Signif. 95% Confidence Interval
Literacy 74 65 -8 7.77 -23.9 7.2
Primary School
Net Enrolment Rate 83 81 -2 5.21 -12.5 8.3
Satisfaction 42 39 -4 8.32 -20.8 12.5
Secondary School
Net Enrolment Rate 7 17 11 9.11 -5.1 31.3
Satisfaction 47 18 -28 12.19 * -47.8 3.3
Dissatisfaction Rate 56 63 7 7.48 -8.0 22.0
Reasons for dissatisfaction
Books/Supplies 38 34 -4 7.22 -18.0 10.9
Poor Teaching 3 21 18 4.01 *** 9.9 26.0
Lack of Teachers 42 51 9 12.85 -17.1 34.3
Bad Condition of Facilities 20 51 31 10.27 *** 10.0 51.1
Overcrowding 9 11 3 4.75 -6.9 12.2
Source: Kahama CWIQ for 2004 and 2006

and perceptions of welfare.

9.3 Health
9.1 Household The rate of need increased constant
characteristics between 2004 and 2006, while the rates of
use satisfaction remained constant. The
reasons for dissatisfaction that report the
The percent distribution of households by highest reductions are cost and
number of members presents no unsuccessful treatment. In turn, the share
significant changes between the two reporting dissatisfaction due to long waits
surveys. This means that the observed increased in 2006.
differences are due to sampling errors, not
to actual differences. The mean household The share of people who did not consult a
size has also remained constant, as well as healthcare provider did not change
the share of female-headed households. significantly. The main reason for not
consulting is ‘no need’ in both cases,
9.2 Education which shows a significant increase in
2006. The share citing cost as the reason
Neither literacy nor net enrolment rates for for not consulting remained stable, while
primary or secondary school changed the share reporting distance decreased by
between the surveys. It must be pointed 1 to 6 points.
out that the net enrolment rate for
secondary school still lags far behind that The distribution of consultations by type
for primary school. The rate of satisfaction of health facility shows interesting
with school also remained statistically variations. The share of patients who used
unaltered in the case of both primary and a hospital decreased significantly, while
secondary school. the shares consulting pharmacies and
traditional healers increased.
Despite the overall share of dissatisfied
students did not change between 2004 and There have not been changes in the
2006, some changes are appreciated in the distribution of women giving birth, except
reasons for dissatisfaction. The shares of for the 40+ cohort. The share of women
students reporting dissatisfaction due to giving birth in this age-group increased by
poor teaching and bad condition of the between 1 and 12 percentage points. The
facilities increased drastically between the share of women receiving pre-natal care
surveys. did not change between the surveys. The
share of women giving birth in hospitals
or maternity guards has decreased at the

86
Table 9.3: Health

Change
2004 2006
Estimate SE Signif. 95% Confidence Interval
Medical Services
Need 15 21 7 1.45 *** 3.6 9.4
Use 22 24 3 1.61 -1.1 5.3
Satisfaction 71 76 5 4.62 -4.6 13.9
Reasons for Dissatisfaction
Long wait 39 56 17 8.80 ** 0.0 35.3
Shortage of trained professionals 35 14 -21 9.96 * -39.6 0.3
Cost 52 25 -27 7.66 *** -41.5 -10.8
No drugs available 40 40 1 15.08 -28.5 31.9
Unsuccessful treatment 28 12 -16 6.49 ** -29.1 -3.1
Percentage not Consulting 78 76 -2 1.61 -5.3 1.1
Reasons for not consulting
No need 94 98 4 1.42 *** 1.5 7.2
Cost 2 1 -1 0.72 * -2.7 0.2
Distance 5 1 -4 1.26 *** -6.1 -1.1
Facility Used
Private hospital 13 16 4 7.55 -11.1 19.2
Government hospital 52 34 -18 5.93 *** -28.9 -5.2
Traditional healer 2 9 7 2.46 *** 1.9 11.7
Pharmacy 19 33 14 5.92 ** 2.4 26.0
Women who Had Live-Births
15-19 11 10 -1 4.74 -7.3 11.7
20-24 35 24 -11 4.20 -4.1 12.7
25-29 25 21 -4 7.14 -6.3 22.3
30-39 14 14 0 5.83 -10.4 12.9
40+ 1 7 7 2.77 ** 1.3 12.4
Prenatal care 97 97 -1 0.03 -0.1 0.0
Facilities Used in Child Deliveries
Hospital or maternity ward 54 43 -12 7.65 *** -58.1 -27.4
Delivery Assistance
Doctor/Nurse/Midwife 64 43 -21 8.37 ** -37.1 -3.6
TBA 26 8 -19 5.52 *** -29.7 -7.6
Other/Self 10 49 39 5.97 *** 26.7 50.6
Child Nutrition
Stunted (-2SD) 31 21 -10 5.33 ** -23.1 -1.8
Severely Stunted (-3SD) 11 5 -6 2.54 *** -13.0 -2.8
Wasted (-2SD) 4 1 -3 1.48 ** -6.6 -0.6
Severely Wasted (-3SD) 0 0 -1 0.46 * -1.9 0.0
Source: Kahama CWIQ for 2004 and 2006

95 percent of confidence, from 54 to 43 The last panel of the table shows child
percent. The distribution of births by nutrition indicators, previously defined in
person who assisted the delivery shows section 4. The rates of stunting and
that the shares of births attended by health wasting show important decreases. The
professionals and TBA (traditional birth exception is the rate of severe wasting,
assistants) decreased, while the share of which has remained unaltered, but is
child deliveries without assistance almost zero percent.
increased drastically, between 27 and 51
percent.

87
 9.4 Household Assets and the share of households owning less than
one hectare of land (but with some land)
Perceptions of Welfare increased between 2004 and 2006. There
were no changes in the percentage
Table 9.4 analyses changes in household distribution of ownership of any type of
assets and on welfare perceptions. The livestock.
share of households owning the same
extension of land as the year preceding The share of households reporting seldom
each of the surveys has increased, while difficulties in satisfying food needs
the share reporting a decreased in decreased, while the share reporting
landowning was reduced. The distribution always having these difficulties increased.
of households by landholding shows that
The share of households getting water

Table 9.4: Household Assets and Perception of Welfare

Change
2004 2006
Estimate SE Signif. 95% Confidence Interval
Landholding
No holding 36 22 -15 13.45 -41.8 12.0
Less 6 2 -4 1.82 ** -8.0 -0.7
Same 51 95 45 7.62 *** 29.6 60.1
More 7 3 -4 2.14 * -8.2 0.4
Difficulty satisfying food needs
Never 17 17 0 6.22 -12.9 12.0
Seldom 39 28 -11 4.64 ** -20.8 -2.2
Sometimes 43 47 4 4.98 -5.5 14.4
Always 1 9 8 1.48 *** 4.5 10.5
Livestock
No livestock 71 63 -8 9.37 -26.1 11.4
Small only 9 7 -2 2.92 -7.8 3.9
Large only 6 10 4 2.79 -1.9 9.3
Small and large 14 20 6 5.46 -5.4 16.5
Landholding (in acres)
Mean 4.7 4.7 0 1.16 -2.3 2.4
0 39 22 -17 13.45 -41.8 12.0
0-0.99 1 4 3 1.41 ** 0.5 6.2
1-1.99 7 8 2 1.84 -1.5 5.8
2-3.99 19 20 1 5.56 -9.0 13.3
4-5.99 12 16 4 2.77 * -0.6 10.5
6+ 23 30 7 7.72 -13.2 17.7
Source of water
piped water 1 1 1 0.96 -1.2 2.7
protected well 35 30 -5 8.88 -23.2 12.3
unprotected well 50 24 -27 9.81 *** -46.1 -6.8
Type of toilet
None 4 21 17 6.35 *** 4.5 29.9
Flush toilet 6 12 6 7.80 -5.0 26.2
Covered pit latrine 80 60 -20 5.62 *** -30.2 -7.7
Uncovered pit latrine 10 7 -4 2.44 -8.5 1.3
Economic Situation Has Deteriorated
Community 57 47 -10 4.98 ** -20.2 -0.3
Household 53 48 -5 4.27 -13.6 3.5
Source: Kahama CWIQ for 2004 and 2006

88
from pipes or protected wells does not
show significant changes, while the share
of households getting water from
unprotected wells has decreased. The
share of households with no toilet has
increased, while the share of households
reporting pit latrines has decreased
markedly.

Finally, the share of people reporting

deterioration in the economic situation of
the community has decreased in 2006 in
comparison to the 2004 survey, but the
share reporting deterioration of the
economic situation of the household does
not present significant variations.

89