Tanzania BUKOMBE DC CWIQ 2006

8/9/2019 Tanzania BUKOMBE DC CWIQ 2006

1/103

PMO-RALG

BUKOMBE DC CWIQ

Survey on Poverty, Welfare andServices in Bukombe DC

December 2006

Implemented by:

EDI (Economic Development Initiatives)

PO Box 393, BukobaTanzania

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

[email protected]

www.edi-africa.com


2/103

II


3/103

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was commissioned by the Prime Ministers 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 workoperations are being co-coordinated by Respichius Mitti and Francis Moyo. Fieldsupervision 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, JamaryIdrissa, 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. Thedata 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,

Ngasuma Kanyeka, Ezekiel Kiagho, and Teddy Neema under the supervision of Manuel

Barron. Assistance from Charles Citinka and Howard Clegg from PMO-RALG is

acknowledged.

III


4/103

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 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 mainincome earner.

Poverty Predictors Variables that can be used to determine

household consumption expenditure levels innon-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 adultequivalent. The share of non-food expenditures

of the poorest 25 percent of households is then

added. The Basic Needs Poverty Line is set atTZS 7,253 per 28 days per adult equivalent unit

in 2000/1 prices; households consuming lessthan this are assumed to be unable to satisfy theirbasic food and non-food needs.

Education

Literacy Rate The proportion of respondents aged 15 years or

older, who identify themselves as being able toread 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


5/103

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 childrenof 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 ofthe survey.

Health

Need for Health Facilities An individual is classed as having experiencedneed 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 thesurvey.

Satisfaction with Health

Facilities

No problems cited with health facility used in the

four weeks preceding the survey.

Vaccinations BCG: Anti-tuberculosis

DPT: Diphtheria, Pertussis3, Tetanus

OPV: Oral Polio Vaccination

Stunting Occurs when an individuals height is

substantially below the average height in his/her

age-group.

Wasting Occurs when an individuals weight is

substantially below the average weight forhis/her height category.

Orphan A child is considered an orphan when he/she haslost at least one parent and is under 18 years.

Foster child A child is considered foster if neither his/herparents reside in the household

V


6/103

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

Individual

An individual who had not been engaged in any

type of work in the 4 weeks prior to the surveydue to reasons unrelated to availability of work

(e.g. Illness, old age, disability).

Household duties Household tasks (cleaning, cooking, fetchingfirewood, water, etc.) that do not entail payment

Household worker A household worker performs household dutiesbut 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. ahousewife 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


7/103

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.. 1

1.1 The Bukombe District CWIQ... 1

1.2 Sampling... 1

1.3 Constructed variable to disaggregated tables.... 2

1.3.1 Poverty Status.... 21.3.2 Cluster Location..... 4

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........ 173.1.1 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.... 22

3.4 Enrolment and Drop Out Rates......... 23

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....... 304.4 Type of Illness... 31

4.5 Health Provider..... 31

4.6 Child Deliveries.... 32

4.7 Child Nutrition...... 34

5 EMPLOYMENT...... 39

5.1 Employment Status of Total Adult Population......... 39

5.1.1 Work Status........ 39

5.1.2 Employment of Household Heads......... 40

5.1.3 Youth Employment.... 40

5.2 Working Population...... 41

5.3 Underemployment Population.......... 43

5.4 Unemployed Inactive Population.......... 45

5.5 Household Tasks... 46

5.6 Child Labour..... 48

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

6.1.2 Perception of Change in the economic Situation of the Household.............. 51

VII


8/103

6.2 Self- reported Difficulty in Satisfying Household Needs............. 52

6.2.1 Food Needs.... 53

6.2.2 Paying School Fees.... 55

6.2.3 Paying House Rent. 57

6.2.4 Paying Utility Bills..... 57

6.2.5 Paying for Healthcare......... 58

6.3 Assets and Household Occupancy Status......... 58

6.3.1 Assets Ownership... 59

6.3.2 Occupancy Documentation ... 59

6.4 Agriculture.... 60

6.4.1 Agriculture Inputs...... 60

6.4.2 Landholding....... 62

6.4.3 Cattle Ownership.... 62

6.5 Perception of Crime and Security in the Community........... 63

6.6 Household Income Contribution....... 64

6.7 Other House Items........ 65

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...... 73

7.4 Distance to Facilities..... 74

7.5 Anti -Malaria Measures........ 76

8 GOVERNANCE...... 79

8.1 attendance at Meeting... 79

8.2 Satisfaction with Leaders.. 79

8.3 Public Spending.... 81

9 CHANGES BETWEEN 2004 AND 2006... 83

9.1 Household Characteristics......... 84

9.2 Education...... 84

9.3 Health.... 84

9.4 Households Assets and Perception of Welfare............................................................. 86

VIII


9/103

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Variables used to predict on consumption expenditure in Shinyanga Region....... 1

Table 1.2 Predicted vs. actual poverty, Shinyanga Region, 2000/......... 2

Table 1.3 Cluster location................... 3

Table 1.4 Socio-economic group............ 3

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.......... 12

Table 2.10 Percent distribution of heads of household by highest level of education .............. ..... 13

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 21

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... 23

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......... 32

Table 4.7 Percentage distribution of births in the five years preceding the survey by place of birth..... 33

Table 4.8 Percentage distribution of births in the five years preceding the survey by person who assisted

in delivery of the child................. .............. ............... ............... ............... ............... .............. ........... 34

Table 4.9 Nutrition status indicators and program participating rates........ 35

Table 4.10 Percent distribution of children vaccination by type of vaccination received.......... 36Table 4.11 Percent distribution of children vaccinated by source of information...... 37

Table 5.1 Percentage distribution of the population by working status (age 15 and above)...... 39

Table 5.2 Principal labour force indicators (persons age 15 and above)........ 40

Table 5.3 Percentage distribution of the population by work status (age 15 -24).. 41

Table 5.4 Percentage distribution of the working population by type of payment in main job......... 41

Table 5.5 Percentage distribution of the working population by employer....... 42

Table 5.6 Percentage distribution of the working population by activity............... 42

Table 5.7 Percentage distribution of the working population by employer, sex and activity............. 43

IX


10/103


11/103

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...... 83

Table 9.2 Education.... 84

Table 9.3 Health.............. ............... ............... ............. ............... .............. ............... ............... ............. ............. 85Table 9.4 Household assets and perception of welfare................. ............... .............. ............... ............... ....... 86

XI


12/103

Generic Core Welfare Indicators (2006)

Total

Margin of

error* Accessible Remote Poor Non-poor

Household characteristics

Dependency ratio 1.3 0.1 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.1

Head is male 88.1 2.2 87.1 89.4 81.8 89.3

Head is female 11.9 2.1 12.9 10.6 18.2 10.7Head is monagamous 57.8 2.6 61.2 53.6 63.8 56.7

Head is polygamous 23.9 2.7 18.7 30.5 15.1 25.6

Head is not married 18.2 2.3 20.1 15.9 21.1 17.7

Household welfare

Worse now 69.8 4.3 65.0 75.9 79.1 68.0

Better now 17.1 2.7 19.6 14.1 5.0 19.5

Worse now 29.2 6.0 26.6 32.6 33.0 28.5

Better now 43.2 4.7 44.9 41.0 27.7 46.2

Food 37.3 4.2 30.1 46.3 64.5 32.0School fees 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.7

House rent 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.2 0.0 1.0

Utility bills 1.0 0.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.2

Health care 15.8 3.0 12.2 20.4 24.4 14.1

Agriculture

Less now 2.1 0.8 2.2 2.0 4.6 1.7

More now 1.6 0.5 1.2 2.1 0.0 1.9

Less now 8.6 2.0 7.7 9.9 5.7 9.2

More now 7.2 1.2 6.3 8.3 4.0 7.8

Yes 38.5 4.0 39.6 37.0 20.9 41.9

Fertilizers 59.6 5.8 53.0 68.5 43.1 61.2

Improved seedlings 57.3 8.7 61.2 51.9 48.7 58.1

Fingerlings 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hooks and nets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Insecticides 22.5 5.4 15.7 31.7 23.8 22.4

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Household infrastructure

Secure housing tenure 9.5 3.8 14.5 3.1 1.2 11.1

Access to water 85.3 3.3 91.1 77.8 73.7 87.5

Safe water source 77.8 4.6 76.3 79.6 64.7 80.3Safe sanitation 3.4 1.5 6.1 0.0 0.0 4.0

Improved waste disposal 19.0 5.1 18.6 19.6 8.9 21.0

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 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Mobile phone 14.4 4.1 23.0 3.5 0.0 17.2

Radio set 60.2 4.0 71.8 45.5 16.3 68.7

Television set 1.1 0.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

Household economic situation compared to one year ago

Difficulty satisfying household needs

Use of agricultural inputs

Neighborhood crime/security situation compared to one year ago

Land owned compared to one year ago

Cattle owned compared to one year ago

XII


13/103

XIII

EmploymentEmployer in the main job

Civil service 0.8 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.9

Other public serve 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

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 2.2 0.9 3.7 0.4 0.6 2.6Private sector informal 53.6 3.9 57.5 48.8 53.6 53.7

Household 36.2 3.1 29.7 44.5 41.3 35.1Activity in the main job

Agriculture 52.9 6.8 37.7 71.9 69.2 49.3

Mining/quarrying 3.1 2.3 5.3 0.3 2.8 3.2

Manufacturing 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

Services 1.8 0.9 3.3 0.0 1.1 2.0Employment 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 0.0Underemployed (age 15 and above) 18.0 2.0 18.5 17.4 19.5 17.7

Male 27.8 4.2 29.0 26.3 29.8 27.4Female 9.0 1.3 9.1 9.0 10.4 8.7

EducationAdult literacy rate

Total 62.1 2.8 67.2 55.7 57.7 63.1

Male 74.3 2.8 79.0 68.4 68.9 75.4

Female 50.9 3.3 56.5 43.6 47.8 51.6

Youth literacy rate (age 15-24)

Total 69.0 3.7 71.3 66.3 64.0 70.2

Male 76.7 3.3 75.8 77.6 68.3 79.1

Female 63.2 5.7 67.9 57.4 59.7 63.9Primary school

Access to School 73.4 6.5 83.3 59.7 60.5 79.0

Primary Gross Enrollment 88.7 3.5 86.7 91.5 71.5 96.2

Male 91.3 6.1 84.6 99.3 68.0 103.7

Female 86.6 3.1 88.2 84.3 75.2 90.8

Primary Net Enrollment 67.6 2.9 69.4 65.2 55.5 73.0

Male 63.8 3.7 61.0 67.3 48.8 71.8

Female 70.7 3.4 75.5 63.3 62.4 73.8

Satisfaction 50.8 5.6 57.8 41.6 41.8 53.7

Primary completion rate 7.7 2.1 5.7 10.4 6.7 8.1

Secondary school

Access to School 16.7 5.0 27.3 6.8 2.4 21.3Secondary Gross Enrollment 4.7 2.2 5.9 3.7 1.6 5.7

Male 7.2 3.3 7.3 7.1 2.5 9.4

Female 2.1 2.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.6

Secondary Net Enrollment 4.1 2.0 4.5 3.7 1.1 5.1

Male 6.0 3.3 4.7 7.1 1.7 7.9

Female 2.1 2.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.6

Satisfaction 80.7 14.9 71.7 94.0 100.0 78.9

Secondary completion rate 1.0 1.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.4


14/103

Medical servicesHealth access 34.4 7.3 44.7 20.5 14.6 40.2

Need 14.6 0.9 13.4 16.3 15.0 14.5Use 18.7 1.7 18.0 19.6 20.1 18.3

Satisfaction 89.4 2.1 88.3 90.8 87.6 90.0

Consulted traditional healer 4.4 1.4 2.0 7.5 4.4 4.5

Pre-natal care 96.9 2.3 97.6 95.5 94.5 97.6

Anti-malaria measures used 70.9 4.5 77.7 62.3 44.7 76.0

Person has physical/mental challenge 1.0 0.2 1.3 0.6 1.8 0.8

Child welfare and healthOrphanhood (children under 18)

Both parents dead 1.0 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.1 1.4

Father only 5.3 1.5 3.5 7.9 9.8 3.7

Mother only 2.2 0.9 3.4 0.6 0.5 2.8

Fostering (children under 18)Both parents absent 10.2 1.7 10.9 9.2 12.0 9.6

Father only absent 12.7 2.3 11.9 13.9 19.2 10.4

Mother only absent 3.4 1.2 4.2 2.2 2.1 3.8

Children under 5

Delivery by health professionals 49.1 5.7 53.9 41.3 37.2 52.7

Measles immunization 62.7 4.0 59.9 67.3 47.9 67.1

Fully vaccinated 24.4 3.0 27.2 19.8 15.0 27.2

Not vaccinated 15.6 4.0 17.2 13.1 25.0 12.9

Stunted 25.2 2.7 20.7 32.1 38.9 21.3

Wasted 1.2 0.6 0.4 2.4 0.5 1.3

Underweight 8.4 2.3 6.2 11.8 11.1 7.7

* 1.96 standard deviations

XIV


15/103

Estimate SE Signif.

Net Enrolment RatePrimary School 73.3 67.6 -5.7 4.7 -15.1 3.8

Secondary School 6.8 4.1 -2.7 2.1 -5.1 3.4ate o

Dissatisfaction with

School 70.9 46.3 -24.6 12.1 ** 5.0 -48.4

Reasons for Dissatisfaction

Books/Supplies 75.4 15.3 -60.1 13.0 *** -64.0 -12.2

Poor Teaching 17.7 12.2 -5.5 4.2 ** 0.7 17.4Lack of Teachers 82.6 86.0 3.4 14.6 * -1.7 56.7

d Condition of Facilities 38.5 29.9 -8.6 8.7 *** 12.5 47.3

Overcrowding 7.8 21.2 13.4 7.1 ** 1.5 29.8

Health Facility

Consulted

Private hospital 6.2 8.4 2.2 2.7 -3.3 7.7

Government hospital 54.5 48.7 -5.8 6.9 -19.5 7.9

Traditional healer 3.3 4.4 1.1 1.8 -2.5 4.8Pharmacy 22.5 36.5 14.0 9.9 -5.8 33.8

ate o

Dissatisfaction with

Health Facilities 33.3 10.6 -22.7 4.9 *** -33.2 -13.4

Reasons for Dissatisfaction

Long wait 15.1 11.2 -3.9 7.1 -17.5 10.9

of trained professionals 47.4 16.7 -30.7 12.8 ** -54.1 -2.8Cost 41.5 5.1 -36.4 9.7 *** -55.3 -16.6

No drugs available 51.2 21.9 -29.3 15.7 * -58.6 4.7

nsuccessful treatment 18.2 42.4 24.2 8.5 ** 4.4 38.6

2004 2006 Change

95% Confidence Interval

XV


16/103

Water and Sanitation

Piped water 0.0 5.1 5.1 4.1 -3.0 13.2

Protected well 50.2 77.5 27.3 7.5 *** 11.4 41.2

No toilet 4.7 7.6 2.9 2.6 -1.3 9.1

Flush toilet 2.4 3.4 1.0 1.7 -1.0 5.9

Covered pit latrine 85.9 82.2 -3.7 4.5 -13.1 4.9

Uncovered pit latrine 7.1 6.8 -0.3 3.2 -6.6 6.3

Child Delivery

Hospital or Maternity 72.0 41.4 -30.6 8.3 *** -47.4 -14.3

Delivery Assistance

Doctor/Nurse/Midwife 54.4 42.2 -12.2 9.8 -31.8 7.5

TBA 27.2 15.5 -11.7 8.0 -27.7 4.3

Self-assistance 18.4 41.9 23.5 6.8 *** 9.8 37.1

Child Nutrition

Stunted 31.4 25.2 -6.2 6.7 -20.5 6.2

Severely Stunted 13.9 6.1 -7.8 6.9 * -26.0 1.7

Wasted 3.0 1.2 -1.8 1.8 -6.2 1.1

Severely Wasted 1.1 0.0 -2.2 1.5 -5.1 0.7

XVI


17/103

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Bukombe District

CWIQ

This report presents district level analysisof data collected in the Bukombe DistrictCore Welfare Indicators Survey using theCore Welfare Indicators Questionnaire

instrument (CWIQ).

The survey was commissioned by thePrime Ministers Office Regional

Administration and Local Governance andimplemented by EDI (EconomicDevelopment Initiatives), a Tanzanian

research and consultancy company. Thereport is aimed at national, regional and

district level policy makers, as well as theresearch and policy community at large.

CWIQ is an off-the-shelf survey packagedeveloped by the World Bank to produce

standardised monitoring indicators ofwelfare. The questionnaire is purposivelyconcise and is designed to collectinformation on household demographics,

employment, education, health andnutrition, as well as utilisation of andsatisfaction with social services. An extrasection on governance and satisfaction

with people in public office was addedspecifically for this survey.

The standardised nature of thequestionnaire allows comparison between

districts and regions within and acrosscountries, as well as monitoring change ina district or region over time.

This survey was the second of its kind tobe administered in Bukombe DC, located

in Shinyanga region, the first one havingbeen administered in 2004. Chapter 9 ofthis report analyses changes between thetwo surveys.

Although beyond the purpose of thisreport, the results of Bukombe CWIQcould also be set against those of otherCWIQ surveys that have are being

implemented at the time of writing inother districts in Tanzania: Bariadi DC,Bukoba DC, Bunda DC, Chamwino DCDodoma MC, Hanang DC, Karagwe DC,Kasulu DC, Kibondo DC, Kigoma DC,

Kilosa DC, Kishapu DC, Korogwe DC,

Kyela DC, Ludewa DC, Makete DC,Maswa DC, Meatu DC, Kahama DC,Mbulu DC, Morogoro DC, Mpwapwa DC,

Muheza DC, Musoma DC, Ngara DC,Ngorongoro DC, Njombe DC, Rufiji DC,

Shinyanga MC, Singida DC, Songea DC,Sumbawanga DC, Tanga MC, TemekeMC. Other African countries that haveimplemented nationally representative

CWIQ surveys include Malawi, Ghanaand Nigeria.

1.2 Sampling

The Bukombe District CWIQ was

sampled to be representative at districtlevel. Data from the 2002 Census wasused to put together a list of all villages inthe district. In the first stage of the

sampling process villages were chosen

Basic Variables Household Assets

Household size Radio

Level of education of the household head Bicycle

Consumption of meat Iron

Main source of income WatchProblems satisfying food needs Wheelbarrow

Number of meals Sewing machine

Main activity of the household head Bed

Household Amenities

Material in the walls

Material in the floor

Type of toilet

Source: HBS 2000/2001 for Shinyanga Region

Table 1.1 Variables Used to Predict Consumption Expenditure in Shinyanga Region


18/103

1 Introduction

proportional to their population size. In asecond stage the sub-village (kitongoji)

was chosen within the village throughsimple random sampling. In the selectedsub-village (also referred to as cluster orenumeration area in this report), all

households were listed and 15 householdswere randomly selected. In total 450households in 30 clusters were visited. Allhouseholds were given statistical weights

reflecting the number of households thatthey represent.

A 10-page interview was conducted inach of the sampled households by an

portant to highlight that the

ata entry was done by scanning the

ructed variables

eportill be disaggregated by certain categories

Status

usehold isbtained by measuring its consumption

household consumptionxpenditure data allows more extensive

core set of variables that arecorporated in the majority of surveys.

ose of this report, the data

ollected in the Household Budget Survey

Table 1.2 : Predicted and Observed Poverty

Rates, Shinyanga Region, 2000/01

Non-Poor Poor Total

Non-Poor 58.3 15.1 73.4

Poor 9.2 17.4 26.6

Total 67.5 32.5 100.0Source: HBS 2000/01 for Shinyanga Region

ObservedPredicted

eexperienced interviewer trained by EDI.

The respondent was the most informedperson in the household, as identified bythe members of the household. A weightand height measurement was taken by the

interviewers for each individual under theage of 5 (60 months) in the surveyedhouseholds.

Finally, it is im

dquestionnaires, to minimise data entryerrors and thus ensure high quality in thefinal dataset.

1.3 Const

to disaggregate tables

The statistics in most tables in this rwof individuals or households. Some ofthese variables have been constructed by

the analysts and, in the light of theirprominence in the report, deserve moreexplanation. This chapter discusses some

of the most important of these variables:poverty status, cluster location and socio-

economic group.

1.3.1 Poverty

The poverty status of a hooexpenditures and comparing it to a povertyline. It is, however, difficult, expensive

and time consuming to collect reliablehousehold consumption expenditure data.

One reason for this is that consumptionmodules are typically very lengthy. Inaddition, household consumption patternsdiffer across districts, regions and seasons;

hence multiple visits have to be made to

the household for consumption data to bereliable.

However,eand useful analysis of patterns observed insurvey data and renders survey outcomes

more useful in policy determination.Because of this, the Tanzaniangovernment has become increasinglyinterested in developing ways of using

non-expenditure data to predict householdconsumption and, from this, povertymeasures.

There is ainThese variables inform on household

assets and amenities, level of education ofthe household head, amount of land ownedby the household and others. By observingthe relation between these variables and

consumption expenditure of the householdin an expenditure survey, a relationshipcan be calculated. These variables arecalled poverty predictors and can be used

to determine household expenditure levelsin non-expenditure surveys such asCWIQ. This means that, for instance, ahousehold that is headed by an individual

who has post secondary school education,with every member in a separate bedroomand that has a flush toilet is more likely tobe non-poor than one where the household

head has no education, a pit latrine is usedand there are four people per bedroom.This is, of course, a very simplified

example; however, these are some of thevariables used to calculate the relationshipbetween such information and the

consumption expenditure of thehousehold.

For the purp

c

2000/01 (HBS) was used to select thepoverty predictors and determine thequantitative relationship between these

and household consumption. The five-yeargap is far from ideal, but the data itself isreliable and is the most recent source ofinformation available. Work was thendone to investigate the specific

characteristics of Bukombe in order toensure that the model developed

2


19/103

Bukombe DC CWIQ 2006

accurately represents this particulardistrict.Some caveats are in order when tabulatingvariables used as poverty predictors on

poverty status. Poverty status is defined as

dicted, it isompared to the Basic Needs Poverty Line

assumed to be unable to satisfy their basicfood and non-food needs1.

ine whether aouseholds monthly consumption per

icted to be

determining the accuracy of

es of each type the model makes.do this the poverty predictor model is

a weighted average of the povertypredictors; hence it should come as nosurprise that poverty predictors are

correlated to them. For instance, educationof the household head is one of thevariables included in the equation used to

calculate household consumption. The

relationship is set as a positive one,consequently when observing the patternsin the data this relationship may be

positive by construction. Table 1.1 liststhe variables that have been used tocalculate predicted householdconsumption expenditure.

Once the consumption level of ahousehold has been pre

o

c

set by National Bureau of Statistics (NBS)on the basis of the 2000/01 HBS. TheBasic Needs Poverty Line is defined bywhat a household, using the food basket of

the poorest 50 percent of the population,needs to consume to satisfy its basic foodneeds to attain 2,200 Kcal/day per adultequivalent. The share of non-food

expenditures of the poorest 25 percent ofhouseholds is then added. With this

procedure, the Basic Needs Poverty Lineis set at TZS 7,253 per 28 days per adultequivalent unit in 2000/01 prices.Households consuming less than this are

The Bukombe 2006 CWIQ uses poverty

predictors to classify households as pooror non-poor, i.e. to determhadult equivalent unit is below or above the

Basic Needs Poverty Line. This binaryapproach generates two types of mistakesassociated with the prediction:

1. A poor household is predicted to benon-poor2. A non-poor household is pred

poor

One way ofthe poverty predictors is to see how many

mistakTapplied to the actual consumptionexpenditure data. Results of this exercise

are presented in Table 1.2. The modelwrongly predicts a non-poor household tobe poor in 9.2 percent of the cases, andvice versa in 15.1 percent of the

households. This gives an overallpercentage of correct predictions of 75.7percent.

Remote ClustersAccessible

Clusters

Socio-Economic Group

Employees 0.0 67.8 32.2

Self-Employed Agriculture 20.0 38.1 61.9

Self-Employed Other 10.0 79.7 20.3

Other 4.6 44.7 55.3Source: CWIQ 2006 Bukombe DC

Poverty Rate

1 The exact procedure by which this line has

been set is described in detail in the 2000/01

HBS report: National Bureau of Statistics,2002, 2000/2001 Tanzania Household

Budget Survey.

Table 1.3: Cluster Location

District

Capital

All-Weather

Road

Public

Transport

Cluster Location

Remote 60.0 30.0 240.0 19.7 38,445

Accessible 20.0 10.0 120.0 12.8 38,040

Source: CWIQ 2006 Bukombe DC

Median Time (in minutes) to:

Poverty Rate

Estimated

Number of

Households

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

Percentage Living in

3


20/103

1 Introduction

When the model is applied to the CWIQ2006 data for Bukombe DC, the share of

households living in poverty is 16 percent,similar to the figure for Bukombe 2004CWIQ (16 percent). These rates are lower

, such large scalerveys have insufficient number of

sis of self-reported travel time of theons: the

ort, thearest all-weather road and the district

cessible villages. Whereas the poverty

that aon the

t of the household head.t the report heads employed in

e private sectors, formally or informally,

cent. In turn,

overty is lowest for households where the

e-headedouseholds is lowest for the employees at

activity in the district isgriculture, to which 61 percent of the

Table 1.5: Socio-eco

Gender of

Male Female Total

Socio-economic Group

Employees 93.0 7.0 100.0

Self-Employed Agriculture 88.2 11.8 100.0

Self-Employed Other 87.2 12.8 100.0

Other 87.5 12.5 100.0

Total 88.1 11.9 100.0


than 33 percent estimated for Shinyaga

Region. However, it must be kept in mindthat the aim of the model is not estimatingpoverty rates, but determining the

characteristics of the poor population.Hence, the accuracy of the model does nothinge on the closeness between theestimated and actual poverty rate; but on

the percentage of correct predictions asindicated in Table 1.2.

Expenditure surveys, such as the

2000/2001 Household Budget Survey, aremuch better suited for informing onpoverty rates. Howeversu

observations to inform on district-leveltrends. The Bukombe CWIQ, on the otherhand, is sufficiently large to allow detailed

district-level analysis. The accuracy withwhich households can be classified bypoverty status using the CWIQ givescredence to the use of predicted povertylevel as a variable throughout this report.

1.3.2 Cluster Location

Cluster Location is constructed on thebahousehold to three different locati

nearest place to get public transpnecapital. Travel time is probed for by the

households most commonly used form oftransport. For each household, the averagetravel time is taken across these three

locations. For each cluster, the median ofthe 15 means is calculated. All clusters arethen ranked according to this median. The15 clusters with the lowest median are

labelled as accessible and the 15 clusterswith the highest median are labelled asremote. Table 1.3 shows the median of

each of the variables used to construct thecluster location.

Table 1.3 shows that the poverty ratesdiffer substantially by cluster location:households in remote villages are more

likely to be poor than households in

acrate in accessible villages is 13 percent,the rate in remote villages is 20 percent.

1.3.3 Socio-economic

Group

The socio-economic grouphousehold belongs to depends

employmenhroughouT

thas well as Government and Parastatal

employees are categorised asEmployees. Self-employed individuals

are divided into two groups, depending onwhether they work in agriculture (Self-employed agriculture) or in trade orprofessional sectors (Self-employed

other). Finally, those who worked inother activities or who had not beenworking for the 4 weeks preceding thesurvey are classed as other.

Table 1.4 shows that the poverty rate ishighest for households whose mainincome earner is self-employed in

agriculture, at a rate of 20 per

pmain income earner is an employee. Inaddition, households from the former

group are the most likely to be located inaccessible villages, at 62 percent, whereasthe self-employed in non-agriculturalactivities are the most likely to be located

in remote villages, at 80 percent.

The gender composition of the socio-economic group is shown in Table 1.5.Almost 9 out of 10 households are headedby a male. The share of femalh

7 percent.

Table 1.6 shows the breakdown of socioconomic groups by main activity of the

household heads. As expected, the maineconomicahousehold heads is dedicated. Employees

are mostly dedicated to mining,manufacturing, energy or construction,with a share of 91 percent. The self-

nomic Group of the Household and

the Household Head

4


21/103


employed in non-agricultural activities aremostly dedicated to services (99 percent).

More than half of the other category ismainly concentrated in agriculture (57percent) with the rest almost evenly splitbetween services, household duties and

other activities (17, 12 and 14 percent,

respectively).

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

Agriculture

Mining

ManufacturingEne

rgy Construction

Private and

Public Services

Household

DutiesOther Total


Employees 9.1 90.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Self-Employed Agriculture 84.0 0.4 13.7 1.4 0.5 100.0

Self-Employed Other 0.0 0.0 98.5 1.5 0.0 100.0

Other 56.9 0.0 16.9 12.2 14.0 100.0

Total 60.7 2.7 34.3 1.6 0.7 100.0


5


22/103


23/103

2 VILLAGE, POPULATION AND

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the

Bukombe DC households and populationcharacteristics. The main population

characteristics are presented in sectiontwo. Section three presents the maincharacteristics of the households, such asarea of residence, poverty status, number

of members, and dependency ratio. Thesame analysis is then conducted for thehousehold heads in section four. Anexamination of orphan and foster status in

the district concludes the chapter.

2.2 Main Population

Characteristics

Table 2.1 shows the percent distribution ofthe population by cluster location andpoverty status, by gender and age. Overall,

the districts population is young. Forinstance, 4 percent of the population isover 60 years old, whereas 53 percent isunder 15 years old. The remaining 43

percent is between 15 and 59 years old.Poor households and households in

accessible villages have higher shares inthe 0-14 group than non-poor households

or households in remote villages, but thedifference by poverty status is wider.

The dependency ratio of the districtshouseholds is shown in Table 2.2. Thedependency ratio is the number ofhousehold members under 15 and over 64

years old (the dependant population) overthe number of household members aged

between 15 and 64 (the working agepopulation). The result is the average

number of people each adult at workingage takes care of.

The mean dependency ratio is 1.3,

meaning that one adult has to take care ofmore than 1 person. On average poorhouseholds and households in remotevillages present higher dependency ratios

(1.8 and 1.3, respectively) than non-poorhouseholds and households fromaccessible villages (1.1 and 1.2,

respectively).

The dependency ratio increases with thenumber of household members, from 0.2

for households with 1 or 2 members, to1.7 for households with 7 or moremembers. The breakdown by socio-economic group of the household shows

that the self-employed in agriculture reportthe highest dependency ratio (1.3),whereas the other socio-economic groupreports the lowest (1.1).

The breakdown by gender of thehousehold head shows that thedependency ratio in male-headed

households is slightly higher than in

female-headed households, at 1.3 and 1.2,respectively.

Table 2.3 shows the percent distribution ofhouseholds by number of household

members. The mean household size is 5.2individuals. Households with at most twoindividuals only represent 17 percent of allhouseholds in the district. The figure for

households with 7 or more members is 31percent.

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

0-14 15-59 60+ Total 0-14 15-59 60+ Total 0-14 15-59 60+ Total

Total 23.5 20.2 2.4 46.0 29.7 22.4 1.9 54.0 53.1 42.6 4.2 100.0

Cluster Location

Accessible 23.3 20.3 1.3 44.9 31.2 22.0 1.8 55.1 54.5 42.4 3.1 100.0

Remote 23.8 20.0 3.8 47.6 27.5 23.0 1.9 52.4 51.3 43.0 5.8 100.0

Poverty Status

Poor 28.9 15.8 1.6 46.3 33.9 18.2 1.6 53.7 62.9 34.0 3.2 100.0

Non-poor 21.9 21.5 2.6 45.9 28.4 23.7 2.0 54.1 50.3 45.1 4.6 100.0

Source:CWIQ 2006 Bukombe DC

Male Female Total


24/103

2 Village, population and household characteristics

The breakdown by cluster location shows

that households in remote villages tend to

roups, themployees have the highest mean

household size, at 6.4, and the self-

olds: thermer have 5.4 members in average,

Table 2.2: Dependency ratio

0-4 years 5-14 years 0-14 years 15-64 years 65+ years Total

Dependency

ratio

Total 1.1 1.7 2.8 2.3 0.1 5.2 1.3

Cluster Location

Accessible 1.2 1.7 2.9 2.3 0.1 5.4 1.3

Remote 0.9 1.6 2.6 2.3 0.1 5.0 1.2

Poverty Status

Poor 1.5 3.0 4.6 2.6 0.1 7.3 1.8

Non-poor 1.0 1.4 2.4 2.3 0.1 4.8 1.1

Household size

1-2 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.2 1.7 0.2

3-4 0.7 0.7 1.5 2.1 0.1 3.6 0.8

5-6 1.4 1.7 3.1 2.3 0.1 5.5 1.4

7+ 1.7 3.4 5.1 3.1 0.1 8.3 1.7


Employee 1.7 1.5 3.1 2.9 0.3 6.4 1.2

Self-employed - agriculture 1.1 1.7 2.8 2.3 0.1 5.2 1.3

Self-employed - other 1.1 1.6 2.7 2.3 0.1 5.1 1.2

Other 1.0 1.6 2.6 2.7 0.3 5.5 1.1

Gender of Household Head

Male 1.2 1.7 2.9 2.4 0.1 5.4 1.3

Female 0.5 1.4 1.9 1.8 0.2 4.0 1.2


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

1-2 persons 3-4 persons 5-6 persons 7+ persons Total

household

size

Total 17.4 26.0 25.4 31.2 100.0 5.2

Cluster Location

Accessible 12.8 29.3 25.2 32.7 100.0 5.4

Remote 23.2 21.8 25.6 29.4 100.0 5.0

Poverty Status

Poor 2.5 7.6 26.9 63.1 100.0 7.3

Non-poor 20.3 29.4 25.2 25.1 100.0 4.8


Employee 0.0 25.5 38.6 35.9 100.0 6.4

Self-employed - agric 19.8 23.5 25.1 31.6 100.0 5.2

Self-employed - other 14.2 32.9 23.5 29.5 100.0 5.1

Other 12.0 25.6 31.3 31.2 100.0 5.5

Gender of Household Head

Male 14.0 26.4 27.0 32.6 100.0 5.4

Female 42.6 22.7 13.5 21.2 100.0 4.0


be larger than households in accessiblevillages, with means of 5.4 and 5.0members, respectively. The difference by

poverty status is more pronounced, withpoor households reporting a meanhousehold size of 7.3 members, and non-poor households reporting 4.8.

Regarding socio-economic ge

employed in non-agricultural activities

have the lowest at 5.1 members.

Finally, households headed by males are

larger than female-headed househfowhereas the latter have 4.0 members. Thisdifference partly owes to the fact that, as

shown in Section 2.4, female householdheads rarely have a spouse.

8


25/103


2.3 Main Household

Characteristics

Table 2.4 shows the percent disttotal population by relationship tof household.

ribution ofo the head

us shows that the shares of

hild and other relative are higher in

e head of the household. The category

ercent,spectively. In turn, females are more

, 30 percent of theopulation has never been married. In

addition, 41 percent is married and

monogamous, and 17 percent is marriedand polygamous. Despite only 1 percentreported to be officially divorced, 5

y to be monogamous or informal unions.

lygamous marriage.

d-

onogamous is the most common

women are widowed and a further 7

on

Other Not

Head Spouse Child Parents relative related Total

Total 19.2 16.1 51.6 0.7 12.1 0.3 100.0

Cluster Location

Accessible 18.6 15.6 52.1 0.8 12.7 0.2 100.0

Remote 20.0 16.8 50.9 0.6 11.2 0.6 100.0

Poverty Status

Poor 13.8 10.9 57.0 0.7 17.2 0.3 100.0

Non-poor 20.7 17.6 50.0 0.7 10.6 0.3 100.0

Age

0- 9 0.0 0.0 84.0 0.0 15.7 0.3 100.0

10-19 0.6 4.0 76.1 0.0 19.0 0.3 100.0

20-29 23.4 54.0 14.0 0.0 7.5 1.1 100.0

30-39 57.2 36.5 2.4 0.7 3.1 0.0 100.0

40-49 59.2 38.8 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 100.0

50-59 64.1 31.9 0.0 1.4 2.5 0.0 100.0

60 and abov

No particular trends emerge by analysingby cluster location. However, the analysisby poverty stat

cpoor households, whereas non-poorhouseholds report higher shares of headand spouse.

The age breakdown shows that after theage of 30, most of the population is eitherhead of their own household or spouse toth

other relative peaks for the 10-19 cohortat 19 percent, whereas the shares for theolder cohorts are under 10 percent.

The gender split-up shows that males aremore likely to be household heads than

females, with shares of 37 and 4 prelikely to be spouses to the household headthan males, at rates of 30 and less than 1

percent, respectively.

Table 2.5 shows the percent distribution ofthe population age 12 and above by

marital status. Overallp

percent of the population is unofficially

separated. Informal unions constitute 3percent of the population and 4 percent iswidowed.

The breakdown by cluster location showsthat people of remote villages are morelikely to be never married or polygamous

than people in accessible villages, who aremore likel

by relationship to head of household

in

The breakdown by poverty status showsthat members of poor households are morelikely to have never been married, whereasmembers of non-poor households are more

likely to be in a poThe age breakdown shows that thepolygamous-married category tends to

increase with age, peaking for the 40-59groups, roughly at 35 percent. For thepopulation after 20 years old, marrie

mcategory. Neither divorced nor separatedshow a trend but, as would be expected,

widowed increases with age. Nevermarried also shows correlation with age,decreasing as the population gets older.

Around 33 percent of the men has neverbeen married, but for women the figure isonly 28 percent. While 7 percent of

Table 2.4: Percent distribution of total populati

70.3 9.2 0.0 13.5 6.9 0.0 100.0

Gender

Male 36.7 0.4 51.4 0.2 11.1 0.2 100.0

Female 4.2 29.6 51.7 1.2 12.9 0.4 100.0


9


26/103


percent separated, the shares for males are2 and 1 percent, respectively.

Table 2.6 shows the percent distribution of

the population age 5 and above by socio-economic group. Overall, 26 percent ofthe population is self-employed in

agriculture, with 62 percent in other

ricultural activities, and less likely to be

t, thenecreases to 24 percent for the population

able 2.7 shows the percent distribution of

Table 2.5: Percent distribution of th tu

Never Married Married Informal,

married monog polyg loose union Divorced Separated Widowed Total

Total 30.2 41.4 16.7 2.5 0.6 4.5 4.1 100.0

Cluster Location

Accessible 28.7 43.8 13.2 4.5 1.0 4.8 4.2 100.0

Remote 32.1 38.4 21.0 0.1 0.2 4.2 4.0 100.0

Poverty Status

Poor 40.9 39.7 8.9 0.0 0.4 6.6 3.5 100.0

Non-poor 27.7 41.7 18.6 3.1 0.7 4.0 4.2 100.0

Age

12-14 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

15-19 83.0 11.4 0.8 2.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 100.0

20-24 27.1 53.1 8.6 6.9 0.7 3.2 0.5 100.0

25-29 1.8 70.3 14.6 4.6 1.1 7.1 0.5 100.0

30-39 1.7 61.0 26.3 1.5 0.9 5.7 3.0 100.0

40-49 0.5 55.6 33.5 2.3 0.0 3.3 4.7 100.0

50-59 1.0 46.9 35.6 4.3 0.0 1.4 10.8 100.0

60 and above 0.0 30.7 23.8 0.0 2.5 15.9 27.1 100.0

Gender

Male 32.7 43.5 17.6 2.7 0.0 2.2 1.4 100.0

Female 28.0 39.5 15.8 2.4 1.2 6.6 6.5 100.0


activities. Individuals living in accessible

villages seem to be more likely to be self-employed in agriculture, or in non-ag

in the other group than remotehouseholds. In turn, poor households aremore likely to be self-employed inagriculture on in the other group than

non-poor households, who are more likelyto be self-employed in agriculture.

The analysis of the age-groups isparticularly interesting. The share of self-

employed in agriculture tends to increasewith age, peaking at 71 percent for the 60+group. On the contrary, the categoryother tends to decrease with age,

showing a sharp decrease between 15-19and 20-29, from 81 to 43 percendaged 40+.

The gender breakdown shows that malesare more likely to be self-employed in

agriculture or in non-agricultural activities

than women. In turn, females are morelikely to be in the other category, with a

share of 73 percent against 50 percent forthe males.

T

the population aged 5 and above byhighest level of education. Around 42percent of the population has noeducation, 29 percent has some primary,

and 24 percent has completed primary.

e total population age 12 an above by marital sta s

Table 2.6: Percent distribution of the total population age 5 and

above by socio-economic group

Self-em

Employee Agric

Total 1.3 26

Cluster Location

Accessible 2.0 23.5 16.3 58.3 100.0

Remote 0.5 30.1 2.1 67.3 100.0

Poverty StatusPoor 0.0 23.0 4.7 72.3 100.0

Non-poor 1.7 27.3 11.7 59.3 100.0

Age

5- 9 0.0 0.0 0.4 99.6 100.0

10-14 0.0 0.9 1.2 97.9 100.0

15-19 1.0 15.0 2.6 81.4 100.0

20-29 1.3 36.0 21.3 41.4 100.0

30-39 2.8 49.0 28.1 20.0 100.0

40-49 5.5 57.6 12.6 24.2 100.0

50-59 2.7 65.1 8.6 23.6 100.0

60 and abov

ployed Self-employed

ulture Other Other Total

.4 10.1 62.2 100.0

e 0.0 71.0 5.3 23.7 100.0

Gender

Male 2.2 34.4 13.3 50.0 100.0

Female 0.6 19.2 7.3 72.9 100.0Source:CWIQ 2006 Bukombe DC

10


27/103


The remaining levels have shares of atmost 2 percent each.

The breakdown by cluster location shows

rt a higher share of

opulation with completed primary.

2.4 Main Characteristics of

the Heads of Household

married and monogamous, 15 percentivorced, separated or widowed, 24

amous increases. The

la

evel of education

Nursery Some Completed Some Completed Post

None school primary primary secondary secondary secondary Total

Total 42.0 1.9 28.5 24.3 1.5 0.2 1.5 100.0

Cluster Location

Accessible 38.7 2.8 27.6 26.6 1.8 0.4 2.2 100.0

Remote 46.3 0.7 29.8 21.3 1.2 0.0 0.6 100.0

Poverty Status

Poor 48.8 1.0 31.5 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Non-poor 40.1 2.1 27.7 25.9 2.0 0.3 1.9 100.0

Age

5- 9 77.5 7.1 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

10-14 17.0 1.0 80.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

15-19 23.2 0.0 38.4 35.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 100.0

20-29 30.4 0.0 16.8 48.2 3.7 0.0 1.0 100.0

30-39 25.7 0.0 11.2 59.7 1.5 0.0 1.9 100.0

40-49 39.5 0.0 17.2 31.5 4.5 2.5 4.8 100.0

50-59 60.1 0.0 18.1 18.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 100.0

60 and above 68.8 0.0 18.1 2.9 0.7 0.0 9.5 100.0

Gender

Male 36.3 2.6 28.5 27.8 2.0 0.3 2.4 100.0

Female 47.0 1.2 28.6 21.2 1.2 0.1 0.7 100.0


that remote clusters report a higher share

with no education and a lower share ofcomplete primary than accessibleclusters. In turn, the breakdown by

poverty status shows that poor householdsreport higher shares of population with noeducation or some primary than non-poorhouseholds, who repo

pThe age breakdown shows that 77 percentof the children between 5 and 9 have no

formal education, but 81 percent of thechildren 10-14 have at least some primary.Rates of no education are lowest for thepopulation 10-14 (17 percent) and higher

for the older groups. In the groupsbetween 20 and 39 years old, the mostcommon is completed primary.

The gender breakdown shows that femaleshave a higher share of uneducatedpopulation than males: 47 against 36percent, while the share of males reporting

complete primary is higher than that offemales (28 and 31 percent, respectively).

Table 2.8 shows the percent distribution of

household heads by marital status.O erall, 58 percent of the household heads

tion age 5 and above by highest

visd

percent is married and polygamous, 1percent has never been married and a 3percent lives in an informal union.

The breakdown by cluster location andpoverty status shows that accessiblevillages and poor households report highershares of married and monogamous

household heads, whereas remote villagesand non-poor households report highershares of married and polygamoushousehold heads.

Analysis by age-groups shows thatmarried-monogamous is the category with

the highest share of household heads after20 years old, whereas the heads in the 15-19 age-groups are concentrated in nevermarried (78 percent) and informal union

(23 percent). The married-monogamouscategory decreases with age, as the sharein married-polyg

share of divorced, widowed or separatedhousehold heads peaks at 36 percent of the60+ age-group.

Table 2.7: Percent distribution of the total popu

l

11


28/103


Most female household heads aredivorced, separated or widowed (87

percent), whereas for males, this categoryroughly represents 5 percent. Most malehousehold heads are married,

monogamous or polygamous (91 percent).

Table 2.9 shows the percent distribution ofhousehold heads by socio-economic

group. It is worth remembering that thesocio-economic group of the household isdetermined by the type of employment ofthe main income earner of the household,

old by marital status

Divorced

who not always the household head. Asexpected, the great majority of the

districts household heads belongs to theself-employed in agriculture, with a shareof 68 percent. The self-employed in non-

agricultural activities represent 25 percentof the household heads, the othercategory (unemployed, inactive, unpaid,and household workers) represents 3

percent, and the employees are a further 3

eh

M rried Informal, Separated

1.2 53.6

overty Status

percent.

ygamous loose u nion Widowed Total

23.9 2.9 14.5 100.0

18.7 5.0 14.5 100.030.5 0.1 14.5 100.0

Table 2.8: Percent distribution of heads of hous

Never Married

married monogamous pol

Total 0.9 57.8

Cluster Location

Accessible 0.6 61.2Remote

a

P

Poor 2.9 63.8 15.1 0.0 18.2 100.0

Non-poor 0.5 56.6 25.7 3.4 13.8 100.0

Age

15-19 77.5 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 100.0

20-29 2.1 74.9 9.8 6.5 6.6 100.0

30-39 0.0 66.2 22.0 0.6 11.2 100.0

40-49 0.3 55.4 29.6 3.9 10.8 100.0

50-59 0.0 43.8 35.1 6.7 14.4 100.0

60 and above 0.0 36.0 28.3 0.0 35.7 100.0

Gender

Male 0.9 65.0 26.1 3.3 4.7 100.0

Female 0.5 4.6 7.7 0.0 87.1 100.0Source:CWIQ 2006 Bukombe DC

Table 2.9: Percent distribution of heads of household by socio-economic group

Employed Self-employed Self-employed Other

Agriculture Other Total

Total 3.9 68.1 24.7 3.3 100.0

Cluster Location

Accessible 5.5 53.4 39.6 1.5 100.0

Remote 2.0 86.7 5.8 5.6 100.0

Poverty Status

Poor 0.0 83.8 15.3 0.9 100.0

Non-poor 4.7 65.0 26.6 3.8 100.0

Age15-19 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

20-29 2.1 58.8 39.0 0.0 100.0

30-39 4.3 57.4 36.8 1.6 100.0

40-49 7.8 69.7 16.0 6.6 100.0

50-59 4.2 81.6 10.0 4.2 100.0

60 and above 0.0 90.4 3.4 6.2 100.0

Gender

Male 4.1 68.1 24.5 3.3 100.0

Female 2.3 67.7 26.5 3.4 100.0


12


29/103


The analysis by location shows that theshare of household heads self-employed inagriculture in remote villages is higher

than in accessible villages, with shares of87 and 53 percent, respectively. Inaccessible villages, household heads aremore likely to be in the self-employed

other group than heads of households inremote villages, with shares of 40 and 6percent, respectively.

he breakdown by age of the household

ent for

e 20-29 group and then decreases

Table 2.10 shows the percent distributionof the heads of household by highest levelof education. Overall, only around 9

percent of the household heads has anyeducation after primary. Around 31percent of the household heads has noeducation, 17 percent some primary and

45 percent has completed primary.

wn by cluster location showsat household heads in remote villages

. Thisould be no surprise, since education of

eme, whereasirtually no head of poor households has

e

Total

4 5.2 100.0

50 100.0

38.9 19.8 37 100.0

Poverty Status

Poor 30.2 23.7 46.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Non-poor 30.8 15.2 44.1 3.1 0.7 6.2 100.0

Age

15-19 22.5 0.0 77.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

20-29 22.9 14.7 57.1 2.6 0.0 2.6 100.0

30-39 17.0 13.4 64.7 1.6 0.0 3.4 100.0

40-49 29.4 16.0 37.6 7.6 2.9 6.5 100.0

50-59 50.6 20.6 24.6 0.0 0.0 4.2 100.0

60 and above 59.0 24.4 4.1 1.0 0.0 11.5 100.0

Gender

Male 27.0 16.8 47.3 3.0 0.6 5.3 100.0

Female 57.2 14.6 23.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 100.0


Heads of poor households belong to theself-employed agriculture group more

frequently than non-poor households, at84 and 65 percent, respectively. On the

other hand, the heads of non-poorhouseholds belong to the employee orself-employed other groups more often

than the heads of poor households.

T

head shows interesting insights. For allage-groups, self-employed agriculture isthe most important category, representingat least 3 out of 5 household heads in each

age-group, and increasing with age. Theemployee category peaks at 8 percent forthe 40-49 age-groups. The self-employed other category starts at 39 perc

thsteadily down to 3 percent for the cohortaged 60 and above. The other category ishigher for the 40+ cohorts.

The breakdown by gender of thehousehold head shows no strongdifferences.

hold by highest level of education

pleted Some Completed Post

ary secondary secondary secondary

.5 2.6 0.5

The breakdo

.2 3.3 1.0 7.6

.3 1.8 0.0 2.1

th

are more likely to have no education or just some primary than the ones from

accessible villages, who in turn are morelikely to have completed primary or have

post-secondary education.

Poverty status is correlated with the

education of the household headsshthe household head is one of the poverty

predictors used to define poverty status.However, the difference is still important:while whereas 24 percent of heads of poorhouseholds have only some primary, the

share for non-poor households is 15percent. At the other extrvpost-secondary education, the figure for

non-poor households is higher, at 6percent.

The age breakdown shows that 59 percent

of household heads aged 60 or over has noeducation, and a further 24 percent justsome primary. Completed primary is themost common category for the groups

between 20 and 49.

Table 2.10: Percent distribution of heads of hous

Some Com

None primary prim

Total 30.6 16.5 4

Cluster Location

Accessible 24.1 13.9

Remote

13


30/103


The analysis by gender shows that femalehousehold heads are more likely to haveno education than males, with rates of 57and 27 percent, respectively. Almost half

the male household heads (47 percent) hascompleted primary, against 24 percent offemales.

2.5 Orphan and Foster

Status

ildren who

mother only

Children who

lost father only

both father &

mother

2.2 5.3 1.0

3.4 3.5 1.3

Table 2.11 shows the percent distributionof children under 18 years old who havelost at least one parent. Overall, about 1percent of children under 18 lost both

parents, 2 percent lost only their motherand 5 percent lost only their father. This

ounts to 8 percent of all children under

e time

tus is correlated with cluster

cation and poverty status, with children

he children between 15 and7 years lost a parent, and 14 percent of

s old by foster status is shown in

able 2.12. A child is defined as living in

e table shows that

he analysis of age-groups shows that the

Table 2.11 - Orphan status

Ch

lost

Children who lost

Total

Cluster Location

Accessible

Remote 0.6 7.9 0.6

Poverty Status

Poor 0.5 9.8 0.1

Non-poor 2.8 3.7 1.4

Age

0-4 0.0 2.7 0.0

5-9 3.5 4.0 0.9

10-14 3.3 8.2 0.9

15-17 3.3 13.7 5.9

Gender

Male 1.4 5.6 1.2

Female 2.8 5.2 0.9Source:CWIQ 2006 Bukombe DC

am

18 who lost at least one parent at thof the survey.

Orphan sta

lofrom remote villages and poor householdsreporting higher shares having lost their

father.

The age breakdown shows that orphanstatus is correlated with age: as can beexpected older children are more likely tobe orphans than younger children. Around

23 percent of t1the children in that age-group lost their

father. There does not seem to be a gendertrend in orphan status.

The percent distribution of children under18 year

Ta nuclear household when both parentslive in the household and as living in anon-nuclear household when at least one

parent is absent from the household. Note

that this makes it a variable defined at thelevel of the child, rather than thehousehold (a household may be nuclear

with respect to one child, but not withrespect to another). Th26 percent of children under 18 wereliving in non-nuclear households at the

time of the survey.

There is no strong relation between clusterlocation and foster status, but children

from poor households tend to be fosteredmore often than children from non-poorhouseholds (with shares of 33 and 24percent, respectively). The main

difference arises from children living withtheir mother only: 19 percent for poorhouseholds and 10 percent for non-poor

households.

Tshare of children living in non-nuclear

households increases steadily with age,from 17 percent for children between 0and 4 years old, to 50 percent for childrenbetween 15 and 17 years old.

There appears to be no strong correlationbetween gender and foster status.

of children under 18 years old

14


31/103


15

Table 2.12 - Foster status of children under 18 years old

Children living

with mother only

Children living

with father only

Children living

with no parents

Children living in

non-nuclear

households

Total 12.7 3.4 10.2 26.3

Cluster Location

Accessible 11.9 4.2 10.9 27.0

Remote 13.9 2.2 9.2 25.4

Poverty Status

Poor 19.2 2.1 12.0 33.4

Non-poor 10.4 3.8 9.6 23.8

Age

0-4 12.8 1.3 3.1 17.2

5-9 10.0 3.4 13.1 26.5

10-14 12.2 5.7 13.1 31.0

15-17 23.7 5.6 20.9 50.2

Gender

Male 12.4 3.8 10.1 26.3

Female 13.0 3.0 10.3 26.4



32/103


33/103

3 EDUCATION

This chapter examines selected educationindicators in Bukombe DC. These include

literacy rate, access to schools, satisfaction

rate, dissatisfaction rate and enrolment.

The first section presents an overview on

selected education indicators. The secondsection provides information ondissatisfaction and non-attendance alongwith the reasons behind them. School

enrolment and drop-out rates are presentedin the fourth section. These give a pictureon the enrolment patterns according to theage of pupils. The final section of the

chapter gives information on adult andyouth literacy status within the district.

3.1 Overview of theEducation indicators

3.1.1 Literacy

Table 3.1 shows the main educationindicators for the district. Literacy is

defined as the ability to read and write inany language, as reported by therespondent. Individuals who are able toread but cannot write are considered

illiterate. The adult literacy rate1 is 62

percent. Literacy rates differ betweenaccessible and remote villages at 67 and56 percent respectively. Likewise, the

literacy rate among non-poor householdsis higher than that of poor households at63 and 58 percent respectively.

The breakdown by socio-economic groupof the household shows that literacy ratesare higher among households where themain income earner is an employee (80

percent) than in the remaining categories.

The gender breakdown shows animportant literacy rate gap between men

and women. The literacy rate among menis 23 percentage points higher than that of

women at 74 percent and 51 percentrespectively.

Orphaned children have a literacy rate of

68 percent, whereas the rate for non-

1 The Adult literacy rate is defined for the

population aged 15 and over.

orphaned children is 5 points higher, at 73percent. Finally, 79 percent of non-

fostered children are literate compared to

40 percent of fostered children.

3.1.2 Primary School

Access

Primary school access rate is defined as

the proportion of primary school-agechildren (7 to 13 years) reporting to livewithin 30 minutes of the nearest primaryschool. Overall, 73 percent of primary

school-age children live within 30 minutesof a primary school. Primary school access

is remarkably higher in accessible clustersthan in remote clusters, at 83 and 60

percent respectively.

The majority (79 percent) of the childrenaged 7 to 13 living in non-poor

households lives within 30 minutes of thenearest primary school compared to 61percent of those living in poor households.

The breakdown by socio-economic groupshows that virtually all children living in

households belonging to the employeecategory live within 30 minutes of thenearest primary school compared to 75

percent of the children living inhouseholds where the main income earnerbelongs to the other category and 65percent of children living in householdsbelonging to the self-employed

agriculture category.

Non-orphaned children have a higheraccess rate to primary schools than

orphaned, at 74 and 66 percentrespectively. Similarly, 75 percent of non-fostered children has access to primaryschools, whereas the rate for fostered

children is 47 percent. Finally, gender

does not show strong correlation withprimary school access.

Enrolment

The two main measures of enrolment, theGross Enrolment Rate (GER) and the NetEnrolment Rate (NER) are analysed in thissection. GER is defined as the ratio of all

individuals attending school, irrespective


34/103

3 Education

Table 3.1: Education indicators

gross net gross net

access enrollment enrollment satisfaction access enrollment enrollment satisfaction

Total 62.1 73.4 88.7 67.6 50.8 6.3 4.7 4.1 80.7

Cluster Location

Accessible 67.2 83.3 86.7 69.4 57.8 13.1 5.9 4.5 71.7

Remote 55.7 59.7 91.5 65.2 41.6 0.0 3.7 3.7 94.0

Poverty Status

Poor 57.7 60.5 71.5 55.5 41.8 0.0 1.6 1.1 100.0

Non-poor 63.1 79.0 96.2 73.0 53.7 8.4 5.7 5.1 78.9


Employee 80.0 100.0 85.6 79.1 79.2 0.0 81.1 66.2 81.7

Self-employed - agriculture 57.5 64.7 88.7 65.2 51.0 4.9 1.1 0.9 49.7

Self-employed - other 73.5 94.1 90.0 75.6 45.2 16.9 7.0 7.0 100.0

Other 48.6 74.5 82.6 50.0 54.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gender

Male 74.3 72.7 91.3 63.8 54.6 6.1 7.2 6.0 75.3

Female 50.9 73.9 86.6 70.7 47.5 6.5 2.1 2.1 100.0

Orphan statusOrphaned 68.1 65.9 106.7 69.9 61.7 10.9 3.4 3.4 100.0

Not-orphaned 72.9 74.4 86.8 67.5 49.2 5.1 3.1 3.1 87.0

Foster status

Fostered 40.0 47.1 65.4 50.8 77.1 9.2 4.6 4.6 100.0

Not-fostered 79.3 75.1 88.7 68.8 48.1 4.8 2.5 2.5 83.1


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.

Primary Secondary

Adult Literacy

rate

of their age, to the population of school-age children. If there are a largeproportion of non-school-age individuals

attending school, the GER may exceed100 percent. Primary school GER informson the ratio of all individuals in primary

school to the population of individuals ofprimary school-age (7 to 13 years) in thedistrict.

NER is defined as the ratio of school-agechildren enrolled at school to thepopulation of school-age children.

Therefore, primary school NER is the ratioof children between the ages of 7 and 13years in primary school to the populationof children in this age-group in the district.

The NER provides more information foranalysis than the GER. While trends in the

actual participation of school-age childrenin formal education are in part captured bythe NER, the GER, at best provides a

broad indication of general participation ineducation and of the capacity of theschools. The GER gives no preciseinformation regarding the proportions of

individuals of school and non-school-agesat school, nor does it convey any

information on the capacity of the schoolsin terms of quality of education provided.

The primary school GER was 89 percent

at the time of the survey. This figureindicates that all individuals who were atprimary school constitute 89 percent of allchildren of primary school-age in the

district. The NER further shows that 68percent of all primary school-age childrenwere attending school.

18


35/103


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

Total 46.3 15.3 12.2 86.0 2.0 21.2 29.9 0.0 4.1

Cluster Location

Accessible 39.0 13.7 16.7 82.4 1.1 29.0 30.0 0.0 6.6

Remote 56.6 16.9 7.8 89.5 2.8 13.7 29.8 0.0 1.6

Poverty Status

Poor 57.4 17.0 8.4 87.1 0.0 12.3 22.2 0.0 5.3

Non-poor 43.0 14.7 13.6 85.6 2.7 24.7 32.9 0.0 3.6


Employee 16.8 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 80.0 26.7 0.0 0.0

Self-employed - agriculture 48.0 19.3 12.7 82.7 0.4 10.9 31.3 0.0 6.0

Self-employed - other 48.0 8.7 10.2 92.9 6.4 39.5 30.5 0.0 0.0

Other 50.0 0.0 12.4 100.0 0.0 45.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gender

Male 43.0 18.8 10.0 89.0 2.5 22.3 28.3 0.0 4.6

Female 49.2 12.7 13.7 83.8 1.5 20.4 31.0 0.0 3.6

Type of school

Primary 49.2 15.5 11.9 86.5 2.0 20.9 29.3 0.0 4.2

Government 49.6 15.5 11.9 86.5 2.0 20.9 29.3 0.0 4.2

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

Secondary 19.3 31.3 0.0 68.7 0.0 56.3 87.6 0.0 0.0

Government 22.2 31.3 0.0 68.7 0.0 56.3 87.6 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

Other 14.9 0.0 30.8 69.3 0.0 19.6 30.7 0.0 0.0

Government 24.1 0.0 36.8 82.7 0.0 23.4 17.3 0.0 0.0

Private 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 33.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0


1. Base for column 1 is enrolled students. For columns 2 to 9, dissatisfied students

Other

Reasons for dissatisfaction

Percent

dissatisfied

Books/

supplies

Poor

Teaching

Lack of

teachers

Facilties in bad

condition High fees

Teachers

absent

Lack of

space

While the GER for households located inremote clusters is 92 percent, the share forhouseholds located in accessible clusters is

87 percent. In contrast, NER forhouseholds in accessible clusters is higherthan that of households in remote clustersat 69 and 65 percent respectively.

Furthermore, while GER for non-poorpoor households is 96 percent, the sharefor poor households is 72 percent.Similarly, NER for non-poor households

is higher than that of poor households at73 and 56 percent respectively.

GER is highest among people living inhouseholds belonging to the self-employed other category at 90 and NER

is highest among households where themain income earner is an employee at 79percent. On the other hand, GER and NERare lowest among households where the

main income earner belongs to the othercategory at 83 and 50 percent respectively.

Furthermore, while GER for males is 91percent, the share for females is 87percent. In contrast, females have higher

NER than males at 71 and 64 percentrespectively.

Surprisingly, the breakdown by orphan

status shows higher GER and NER fororphaned children. On the other hand non-fostered children have higher GER thanfostered children at 89 and 65 percent

respectively. Likewise, while NER fornon-fostered children is 69 percent, the

share for fostered children is 51 percent. Itis worth remembering the small samplesize in the orphaned and fostered category(see chapter 2), as well as that foster and

orphan status is strongly correlated withage: orphaned and fostered children havehigher mean ages than non-orphaned andnon-fostered children.

19


36/103

3 Education

Satisfaction

The satisfaction rate informs on theproportion of primary school pupils who

cited no problems with their schools.Information on satisfaction was obtained

by asking respondents to identifyproblems they faced with school.

Around half (51 percent) of all primaryschool pupils were satisfied with school. A

higher share of pupils living in accessibleclusters reported to be satisfied with theirschools than pupils living in remoteclusters, at 58 and 42 percent respectively.

Likewise, while 54 percent of pupils livingin poor households reported to be satisfiedwith school, the share for pupils living innon-poor households is 42 percent.

The breakdown by socio-economic group

of the household shows that the employeeshave the highest rate of satisfaction with

their primary schools at 79 percent, whilepupils living in households where themain income earner is self-employed innon-agricultural activities have the lowest

satisfaction rate at 45 percent.

Furthermore, 62 percent of orphaned

children reported to be satisfied withprimary school compared to 49 percent ofnon-orphaned children. Likewise, the

percentage of fostered children who reportto be satisfied with school is higher thanthat of non-fostered, at 77 and 48 percent

respectively.

Finally, the percentage of boys whoreported to be satisfied with primaryschool is higher than that of girls at 55 and

48 percent respectively.

3.1.3 Secondary School

Access

Secondary school access rate is defined asthe proportion of secondary school-age

children (14 to 19 years) reporting to livewithin 30 minutes of the nearest secondaryschool.

Only 6 percent of all pupils in secondary

school live within 30 minutes of thenearest secondary school. While 13percent of pupils living in accessiblevillages live within 30 minutes of thenearest secondary school, the share for

pupils living in remote villages is virtuallynull. Similarly, 8 percent of pupils livingin non-poor households live within 30minutes of the nearest secondary school,

whereas the share for pupils living in poorhouseholds is virtually null.

The socio-economic status of thehousehold seems to be strongly correlatedwith the rate of access to secondaryschool. While pupils living in householdsbelonging to the self-employed other

category have the highest rate of access tosecondary school at 17 percent, followedby those who belong to the self-employedagriculture category (5 percent), the share

for the other and employee categoriesis virtually null.

Gender does not show strong correlationwith secondary school access, but theaccess rate for orphaned children is 11

percent, higher than that for non-orphanedchildren, at 5 percent. Likewise, while 9percent of fostered children live within 30minutes of the nearest secondary school,

the share for non-fostered children is 5percent.

Enrolment

As explained before, Gross EnrolmentRate (GER) is defined as the ratio of all

individuals attending school, irrespectiveof their age, to the population of school-age children while the Net Enrolment Rate

(NER) is defined as the ratio of school-agechildren enrolled at school to thepopulation of school-age children. Thesecondary school-age is between 14 and19 years old.

The GER and NER at secondary schoolare very low compared to primary schoollevel. Overall, GER was 5 percent andNER was 4 percent. While secondary

school NER does not show strongcorrelation with cluster location, thesecondary school GER for householdslocated in accessible clusters is 2

percentage points higher than that ofhouseholds located in remote clusters.Both secondary GER and NER are higher

in non-poor households than in poorhouseholds, with a difference of 4percentage points.

The breakdown by socio-economic groupof the household shows that employees arethe category with highest GER and NER

at 81 and 66 percent respectively, whereas

20


37/103


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

Percent not

attending

Completed

school Distance Cost Work Illness Pregnancy

Got

married

Useless/

uninteresting

Failed

exam

Awaits

admission Dismi

Total 16.2 31.7 0.0 11.0 3.7 5.5 0.8 8.5 18.2 22.4 22.6 0.Cluster Location

Accessible 13.4 36.8 0.0 8.9 2.5 8.5 0.0 10.5 19.7 21.1 17.2 0.

Remote 19.5 27.5 0.0 12.7 4.7 3.1 1.5 6.8 17.1 23.6 27.0 1.

Poverty Status

Poor 17.7 15.6 0.0 0.0 9.9 6.2 0.0 2.1 36.2 16.2 28.1 0.

Non-poor 15.7 37.6 0.0 15.0 1.4 5.3 1.1 10.8 11.7 24.7 20.5 1.


Employee 13.2 68.4 0.0 31.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.4 0.

Self-employed - agric 17.4 32.5 0.0 10.6 3.6 6.3 0.0 11.4 22.5 21.2 20.0 0.

Self-employed - other 9.1 35.4 0.0 16.3 8.3 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.3 13.1 0.

Other 35.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 16.1 21.8 37.4 8.

Gender

Male 15.8 19.7 0.0 5.6 2.5 6.8 0.0 0.0 17.6 24.2 31.2 0.

Female 16.6 41.6 0.0 15.4 4.7 4.5 1.5 15.5 18.8 21.0 15.4 1.

Age

7-13 3.1 19.3 0.0 7.0 8.4 6.2 0.0 0.0 48.3 0.0 19.3 6.

14-19 40.9 33.5 0.0 11.6 3.0 5.5 1.0 9.7 14.0 25.6 23.0 0.


1. Base for column 1 is school-age children. For columns 2 to 13, not enrolled school children

Reasons not currently attending

the shares for the other category is

virtually null. GER is higher among malethan female-headed households, with adifference rate of 5 percentage points.

Similarly, the NER rate is 4 percentagepoints higher among males than females.

Finally, the GER and NER rates do notshow important differences amongorphaned and non-orphaned children. Onthe other hand, while the GER and NERfor fostered children is 5 percent, the share

for non-fostered children is 3 percent.

Satisfaction

Roughly four fifths (81 percent) of thepopulation enrolled in secondary school issatisfied with school. 19 percent of this

population reports to be dissatisfied withthe secondary schools they attend. This

satisfaction rate is higher than in primaryschools (51 percent). The satisfaction rate

is noticeably higher among people livingin remote clusters than that of peopleliving in accessible clusters, at 94 and 72percent respectively. On the other hand,

virtually all pupils living in poorhouseholds reported to be satisfied withtheir secondary schools, compared to 79

percent of those living in non-poorhouseholds.

The breakdown by socio-economic group

shows that virtually all pupils living inhouseholds belonging to the self-employed other category are satisfied

with secondary school, while the share forthose living in households where the mainincome earner belongs to the other

category is virtually null.

Virtually all female pupils were satisfiedwith their school compared to 75 percentof males.

Among the individuals enrolled insecondary schools, orphaned childrenwere more satisfied with their schools than

non-orphaned children. While virtually all(100 percent) orphaned children aresatisfied with their schools, the share fornon-orphaned children is 87 percent.

Similarly, virtually all fostered childrenreports to be satisfied with their secondary

schools compared to 83 percent of non-fostered children.

3.2 DissatisfactionOne of the aims of the survey is to informon perceptions of quality of servicesreceived among individuals for whom

these are provided. To obtain thisinformation, primary and secondary

21


38/103

3 Education

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

Male Female Total Male Female Total

Total 63.8 70.7 67.6 0.6 2.1 1.4

7 25.0 37.5 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

8 38.3 58.3 51.3 0.9 1.2 1.1

9 88.2 75.5 80.9 0.0 1.6 0.9

10 80.2 87.9 83.4 0.0 2.7 1.1

11 81.2 82.5 82.0 4.9 0.0 2.1

12 76.9 83.7 81.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

13 90.4 77.8 83.8 0.0 12.9 6.8


1. Base for table is primary school-age population (age 7-13)

Drop out ratesNet enrollment rates

school students who were not satisfied

with school at the time of the survey wereasked to provide reasons for theirdissatisfaction. Complaints regarding lackof books and other resources were

allocated into the Books/Suppliescategory, while those relating to quality of

teaching and teacher shortages weregrouped into the Teaching category. The

Facilities category incorporatescomplaints regarding overcrowding and

bad condition of facilities. The results ar

Documents

Tanzania BUKOMBE DC CWIQ 2006