Content Case Study Hypothesis...women’s home ownership/home non-ownership and the levels of domestic violence they experience. In order to prove, that women, who own the homes they

South Africa case study report full

1

1

Content

1. Theory: The link between women’s home/property ownership and the levels of domestic violence they experience

2. Case Study Hypothesis: Derived from the existing body of theory 3. Testing the Case Study Hypothesis

3.1. Research Methodology 3.1.1. Exploratory Study 3.1.2. Research Design 3.1.3. Questionnaire Design

3.1.3.1. Categories 3.1.3.2. Layout 3.1.3.3. Open-ended vs. Closed-ended questions

3.1.4. Sampling 3.1.4.1. Lenasia 3.1.4.2. Hillbrow 3.1.4.3. Soweto 3.1.4.4. Eldorado Park 3.1.4.5. Randburg

3.1.5. Data Collection/Fieldwork 3.1.5.1. Selection of local partner organisations 3.1.5.2. Workshop 1: Training on the research questionnaire and

discussion of the best fieldwork approach 3.1.5.2.1. Nisaa Institute for Women’s Development (Lenasia) 3.1.5.2.2. People Opposing Women Abuse (POWA) (Hillbrow and

Soweto) 3.1.5.2.3. Eldorado Park Women’s Forum (EPWF) (Eldorado Park) 3.1.5.2.4. Randburg Trauma Counselling Centre (RTCC) (Randburg)

3.1.5.3. Pre-testing the questionnaire 3.1.5.4. Conducting of interviews 3.1.5.5. Workshop 2: Data Contextualization

3.1.6. Data Analysis using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) 3.1.6.1. Description of each sample in terms of demographics and other

variables 3.1.6.2. Sample 1: Cross Tabulation of two variables: Abuse by Abuse 3.1.6.3. Sample 1: Cross Tabulation of two variables: Home Ownership

(Owns/Partly Owns vs. Does not Own) by Abuse 3.1.6.4. Sample 1: Cross Tabulation of two variables: Home Ownership

(Solely Owns vs. Jointly Owns and Contribute to Rent vs. Doesn’t Contribute Rent) by Abuse

3.1.6.5. Comparative Analysis: Comparing Sample 1 demographics of women who never experienced any form of domestic abuse with Sample 2 demographics of women who do experience domestic abuse

4. Conclusion


2

2

Acknowledgements

Without the following organisations and specific individuals, the successful completion of this research case study would not have been feasible: The National Network on Violence Against Women (NNVAW) who assisted me with contact names and numbers of various organisations in and around the urban area of Johannesburg. The five local organisations in and around the urban area of Johannesburg, who agreed to assist me with the data collection process. They are: NISAA Institute for Women’s Development in Lenasia, People Opposing Women Abuse (POWA) in Soweto and Berea, Eldorado Park Women’s Forum (EPWF) in Eldorado Park and the Randburg Trauma Counselling Centre (RTCC) in Randburg. The following specific individuals from the above-mentioned local organisations whose valuable local expertise, insights and contributions were of great value: Pontsho Segwai and Chanaz Mitchell (both from NISAA), Madri Jansen van Rensburg and Tuki Bogatsu (both from POWA), Ruby Williamson (from EPWF) and Elaine Tiossoing (from the RTCC). To all the volunteers at the various organisations who gave of their valuable time and efforts to assist in the data collection process. To Gerald Muller from Datadesk for his assistance and advise during the analysis of the data.


3

3

1. Theory: The link between women’s home/property ownership and the

levels of domestic violence they experience According to existing research literature, a link or correlation does exist between women’s home/property ownership and the levels of domestic violence they experience in their everyday lives. This implies that women who do own their homes/property are more likely to experience lower levels of various forms of domestic violence in their everyday lives, compared to their counterparts who do not own their homes/property. In other words, women who do not own their homes/property are more likely to experience higher levels of various forms of domestic violence in their everyday lives. Women’s home ownership and home non-ownership thus plays a crucial role in the levels of domestic violence they will experience in their day-to-day lives. It is very important to note that according to existing research literature, not only women’s home ownership and home non-ownership will influence the levels of domestic violence they experience, but that a whole range of factors/determinants exist (and have been tested and proved in research), which will influence the levels of domestic violence experienced by them. By focusing on women’s home ownership and home non-ownership as a determinant of the levels of domestic violence experienced by them, I am not trying to lessen the importance of all the other determinants, nor am I trying to isolate the determinant home ownership (and home non-ownership) from the other determinants. Women’s home ownership and home non-ownership is merely the determinant of focus in this particular study of domestic violence experiences.

1.1 International Research done on this topic

.

1.2 National/South African Research done on this topic

2. Case Study Hypothesis: Derived from the existing body of theory

Hypothesis: Women who own the homes they are staying in, will experience lower levels of various forms of domestic violence (verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse) compared to women who do not own the homes they are staying in.


4

4

3. Testing the Case Study Hypothesis

3.1 Research Methodology

3.1.1 Exploratory Study This case study is exploratory in nature and is by no means at all a detailed, in-depth study on the specific topic. The rationale behind conducting this study, is to both explore the correlation between the two hypothesis variables (women’s home ownership/home non-ownership and the levels of domestic violence experienced) and also to explore the research methodology used in researching this specific topic. The lessons learned from this specific study, will make it possible to conduct a similar, but more informed research study in South Africa in the future, on a much bigger scale.

3.1.2 Research Design The central aim of this specific case study is to explore whether or not a link or correlation does exist between the two variables mentioned in the hypothesis, namely women’s home ownership/home non-ownership and the levels of domestic violence they experience. In order to prove, that women, who own the homes they are staying in, will experience lower levels of various forms of domestic violence (verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse), a quantitative research methodology has to be used. The type of research design to be used for this specific case study, will be survey research where data is collected by asking people questions either in self-completed questionnaires (where the various respondents complete the questions themselves) or through interviews (where the questions are completed by the research interviewers/fieldworkers). In the planning phase of the research design to be used, it was decided to design a research questionnaire to be self-completed by the various respondents.


5

5

3.1.3 Questionnaire Design (Appendix 1)

3.1.3.1 Categories The questionnaire consists of three main categories of questions, namely questions on home and property ownership, questions on demographics (general information about the woman respondent and her household) and questions on the woman’s experience of various forms of domestic violence or abuse (see Appendix 1).

3.1.3.2 Layout The specific layout of the questionnaire, where home and property ownership is the first category, demographics is the second category and domestic violence or abuse is the third category, was chosen for the following reasons: Demographics could have been placed as the first category, but seeing that the questionnaire was designed for the purposes of self-completion, I thought that respondents might show less interest in completing the questionnaire when demographics was placed as the first category. According to Babbie and Mouton (2001: 243), duller demographic questions should generally be placed at the end of a self-completion questionnaire, because placing these items at the beginning of the questionnaire, gives the questionnaire the initial appearance of a routine form, and the person receiving it may not be motivated to complete it. Accordingly, I decided to place the home and property ownership questions as the first category of questions on the questionnaire, because they made the questionnaire seem more interesting and unique at a first glance. The domestic violence or abuse questions couldn’t be placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, because it would most probably act as a deterrent for respondents to complete the questionnaire altogether. These questions were placed at the end of the questionnaire, because they were the most personal questions and by far the most difficult to answer. They were also arranged from less severe forms of abuse to more severe forms of abuse, i.e. the first group of questions were on verbal abuse, the following group of questions were on emotional abuse and the final group of questions were on physical abuse. If the respondent indeed experienced any of the above-mentioned forms of abuse in her personal life, she was asked to complete more questions on her personal experiences of domestic abuse. With questions on home and property ownership being placed as the first category of the questionnaire, and domestic abuse questions being placed as the third/final category, questions on demographics were placed as the second/middle category of the questionnaire.

3.1.3.3 Open-ended vs. Closed-ended questions

Out of the total of 34 questions asked in the questionnaire, only four questions are open-ended, while all the others are closed-ended questions with pre-coded answer


6

6

categories to choose an answer/s from. Closed-ended questions (with pre-coded answer categories) makes data analysis much easier when using a quantitative statistical software programme like SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), because closed-ended questions provide a greater uniformity of responses which are more easily processed.

3.1.4 Sampling

The case study was based in the urban area of Johannesburg and its surrounding areas/suburbs. The reasons for wanting to conduct the case study in specifically the urban area of Johannesburg, were as follows: firstly, because the offices of the Human Rights Institute of South Africa was based in the city of Johannesburg and because of time and financial constraints, it would have been more feasible to conduct and complete the case study in Johannesburg and secondly, because the urban area of Johannesburg and its surrounding areas, was a very cosmopolitan or multinational area, probably the most ethnic and racially mixed city in the whole of South Africa. The total population of Johannesburg was thus a very representative population of the total urban population of the whole of South Africa. Furthermore, Johannesburg and its surrounding areas/suburbs also complied to the following two sampling criteria, decided upon as the most essential criteria to base the selection of the sampling population on, namely: firstly, the criteria of socio-economic divide, which means to pull a sample population which will include families from lower income families to higher income families and secondly, the criteria of representative racial composition, which means to pull a sample population which will include the various major racial groups South African society consist of, namely African/Black, Caucasian/White, Coloured and Asian/Indian. Regarding the size/total of the sampling population, it was decided that a target total of 300 completed questionnaires would be both feasible (keeping time and financial constraints in mind) and adequate (to show whether a correlation does or does not exist between the hypothesis variables). The target total of 300 questionnaires was divided into the following breakdown: Sample 1, consisting of a target total of 250 questionnaires to be disseminated in five different areas/suburbs/communities of Johannesburg (which means 50 questionnaires per area) and Sample 2, consisting of a target total of 50 questionnaires to be completed in the same five different areas by women respondents who do experience domestic abuse (which means 10 questionnaires in each area). Keeping the sampling criteria in mind, it was decided that the following five areas/communities/suburbs within the Johannesburg urban area, would be inclusive of the two sampling criteria:

3.1.4.1 Lenasia


7

7

Lenasia is a predominantly Indian/Muslim community including families from lower income families to higher middle-income families.

3.1.4.2 Hillbrow

Hillbrow is a very cosmopolitan inner-city suburb where the racial composition is not only representative of the South African rainbow, but also in terms of South African nationals and foreigners staying within the same community. Although this area mostly consist of people from the lower strata of society, the unique dynamics existing within this area with regards to the racial and ethnic composition, will make it a very important area to include in the case study.

3.1.4.3 Soweto

Soweto is a predominantly African suburb consisting of mainly African people. It is a very cosmopolitan and mixed African suburb, which thus includes African people from most of the ethnic groups in South Africa. It also consist of families ranging from lower income groups to middle and higher middle income groups.

3.1.4.4 Eldorado Park

Eldorado Park is a predominantly Coloured community including families from lower income groups to middle and higher middle income groups.

3.1.4.5 Randburg

Randburg is a predominantly White suburb where most of the families are higher middle to higher income families.

3.1.5 Data Collection/Fieldwork

3.1.5.1 Selection of local partner organisations

The NNVAW (National Network on Violence Against Women) provided me with a contact list of various organizations in and around Johannesburg working with the victims of domestic violence (mostly women) on a daily basis within their specific

suburbs of the city. In each of the five identified sampling areas/suburbs, a suburb-based organization/local organization was approached to assist HURISA (Human Rights Institute of South Africa) with the dissemination of the self-completion questionnaires to various women respondents in those specific geographical areas/suburbs. In all five


8

8

of the identified sampling areas/suburbs, the first local organization that was approached, agreed to assist HURISA with the research fieldwork process.

3.1.5.2 Workshop 1: Training on the research questionnaire and discussion of the best fieldwork approach

This workshop was conducted at each of the local partner organizations. Regarding the training on the questionnaire, the training method at all the local partner organizations, was as follows: Each question contained in the questionnaire was discussed, in chronological order, so that the fieldworkers could have absolute clarity on the meaning of each question from question 1 to question 34. Hereafter, the fieldworkers understanding of the questions was tested through role-play interviewing of the questionnaire. Each fieldworker was given the opportunity to play the role of both the interviewer and the respondent. This role-playing exercise helped the fieldworkers a lot to better understand the meaning of each question in the questionnaire. Regarding the section of the workshop where the best fieldwork approach for the specific area/community was discussed, it was decided in all of the areas/communities, that the method of data collection to be used in all five areas/communities, will not be the self-completion of the questionnaires by the women respondents, but rather that the fieldworkers will collect the data by interviewing the respondents. The reason/s for the various local partner organizations to all prefer data to be collected by means of interviewing and not self-completion, varied from organization to organization, and will be discussed accordingly under the heading of each organization.

3.1.5.2.1 Nisaa Institute for Women’s Development (Lenasia)

A total of four Nisaa trainee counsellors were trained on the research questionnaire. The staff at Nisaa was concerned that the self-completion of the questionnaire would result in a very low questionnaire response rate in the Lenasia area (if the questionnaire was to be mailed to respondents). Through Nisaa’s experience, interviewing achieved much better research results in Lenasia and therefore they preferred the data collection method to be interviewing and not self-completion. Fieldworkers would give respondents the option to either complete the questionnaires themselves (for later pick-up) or to complete the questionnaire through interviewing, depending on the specific needs of the respondent. Instead of setting a target of 50 sample 1 questionnaires to be completed within the Lenasia community, it was decided that the target would be set on 52. The Lenasia area consisted of 13 extensions in total, and if four interviews could be completed in each extension, a total of 52 interviews/completed questionnaires could be reached. Each fieldworker thus had to conduct one interview in each of the 13 extensions. Approaching the fieldwork like this, made it possible that each woman resident in the


9

9

Lenasia community had a chance of being part of the sample population, thus ensuring as representative a sample population of the Lenasia community as possible. Regarding sample 2 (consisting of abused women only), a target was set to complete 10 questionnaires at the Nisaa offices in Lenasia by women respondents who approached the organization for assistance. Each individual respondent would also be given the option to either complete the questionnaire herself or to be interviewed, depending on her specific needs.

3.1.5.2.2 People Opposing Women Abuse (POWA) (Hillbrow and Soweto)

A total of 3 POWA research volunteers were trained on the research questionnaire. The concerns shared by the workshop participants and other POWA staff, regarding the best fieldwork approach for the Hillbrow and Soweto areas, was very similar to the ones given at Nisaa. A senior researcher at POWA had also experienced that self-completion questionnaires didn’t deliver the same research results in these areas, compared to interviewing. Self-completion questionnaires had very low response rates in both these areas, and furthermore there was the obstacle of illiteracy in especially some parts of the Soweto area. Accordingly, it was decided that respondents would also be given the option to either complete the questionnaires themselves (for later pick-up) or to be interviewed, depending on their specific needs. Hillbrow: For sample 1, a target was set to complete 50 questionnaires in 20 apartment blocks, which means that between 2-3 questionnaires had to be completed in each apartment block. This would ensure a good representative sample population of the Hillbrow area. For sample 2 (consisting of abused women only), a target was set to complete 10 questionnaires at the POWA offices located in Berea (an inner-city suburb next to Hillbrow). POWA’s Berea offices, worked mostly with abused women from both Berea and Hillbrow. Soweto: For sample 1, a target was set to complete 50 questionnaires in approximately 42 of the 84 zones/sections of Soweto (such a large area that it can be viewed as a city on its own). We wanted to cover as big a surface area as possible to make the sample population as representative of the area as possible. For sample 2 (consisting of abused women only), the target was to complete 10 questionnaires at the POWA offices located in Soweto.

3.1.5.2.3 Eldorado Park Women’s Forum (EPWF) (Eldorado Park)

A total of 5 EPWF volunteers were trained on the questionnaire. According to the experience of various staff at the organization, people in the Eldorado Park community, in general, tend to show little interest in research and viewed research as a waste of time, because it usually, according to them, never affected their lives in any way. The best fieldwork approach was thus, without a


10

10

doubt, to focus more on interviewing the respondents than to send out the questionnaires by mail for self-completion. The fieldworkers would still give respondents the option to either complete the questionnaires themselves (for later pick-up) or to complete the questionnaire through interviewing, depending on the specific needs of the respondent, but would try and interview the respondents as far as possible (to assure a high as possible questionnaire response rate). For sample 1, a target was set to complete 50 questionnaires. The Eldorado Park area consisted of 10 extensions in total, and if five interviews could be completed in each extension, a total of 50 interviews/completed questionnaires could be reached. Each fieldworker thus had to conduct one interview in each of the 10 extensions. For sample 2 (consisting of abused women only), the target was to complete 10 questionnaires at the EPWF offices.

3.1.5.2.4 Randburg Trauma Counselling Centre (RTCC) (Randburg)

A total of approximately 20 RTCC volunteer trainee counsellors were briefly trained on the questionnaire during one of their evening volunteer meetings at the Randburg Police Station. Two permanent counsellors working at the RTCC and who were training volunteers to become volunteer counsellors, decided to include the research fieldwork as part of the volunteer trainee counsellors training course. As was the case in the other areas, it was decided that the fieldworkers would give respondents the option to either complete the questionnaires themselves (for later pick-up) or to complete the questionnaire through interviewing, depending on the specific needs of the respondent. For sample 1, a target was set to complete 50 questionnaires. Fieldworkers were instructed to conduct interviews in the whole of the Randburg area. For sample 2 (consisting of abused women only), the target was to complete 10 questionnaires at the RTCC offices.

3.1.5.3 Pre-testing the questionnaire The questionnaire was pre-tested through the conducting of ten interviews in the Soweto area. During this pre-testing phase, no major problems were experienced and the data collection/fieldwork process started.

3.1.5.4 Conducting of interviews

Keeping in mind that the average amount of questionnaires targeted to be completed in each of the five identified sampling areas, were 50 sample 1 questionnaires per area and 10 sample 2 questionnaires per area, the following amount of completed questionnaires were received back from each local partner (see Table 1):


11

11

Table 1: Completed questionnaires received back Area/ Organisation

Sample 1 completed questionnaires received back (target in brackets)

Sample 2 completed questionnaires received back (target in brackets)

Total

Lenasia/Nisaa 53 (52) 3 (10) 56(62) Hillbrow/POWA 44 (50) 4 (10) 48(60) Soweto/POWA 53 (50) 7 (10) 60(60) Eldorado Park/EPWF

53 (50) 10 (10) 63 (60)

Randburg/RTCC 22 (50) 5 (10) 27(60) Total 225 (252) 29 (50) 254

(302) By looking at Table 1, it is evident that the sample 1 completed questionnaire targets were much better met than the sample 2 targets. The reason/s for this is as follows: Initially, women clients counselled at the various local organisations were asked to either self-complete the questionnaire or to be interviewed, after their counselling session. Most women clients were exhausted (physically and mostly emotionally) after their counselling session and didn’t have the energy to either self-complete the questionnaire or to be interviewed. The response was to shift the completion of the questionnaire, to before the women clients counselling session, but the problem experienced was that they usually didn’t have the time to complete it, because they arrived at the organisation just before their counselling session started. Furthermore, a lot of women clients also chose not to complete the questionnaire, due to various reasons, e.g. it was infringing on a private and personal matter that was to be only between the women client and her counsellor.

3.1.5.5 Workshop 2: Data Contextualization

After data collection and before data analysis, I thought it necessary to discuss data contextualization. Keeping in mind that a research topic like this one, i.e. on the issue of domestic violence, is of a very sensitive nature, it is important to place the data within a certain context before looking at the actual data/findings. A workshop was conducted at the various local partner organisations entitled ‘Data Contextualization’. During these workshops, the interview experiences of the various fieldworkers were discussed. Please note that the issues discussed in this section, are merely the experiences and interpretations of the fieldworkers and not based on any research findings. The following issues was highlighted by the various fieldworkers and it is important to view the actual data/findings through the lenses of these issues:


12

12

It was experienced/sensed by the fieldworkers in all of the areas that a considerable amount of women respondents were holding back information, while being interviewed. By looking at statements made by some respondents and which, were noted by some fieldworkers, some reasons become apparent for withholding information. Responses like “The questions are getting too personal” and “Are these questions necessary? ”, show that respondents thought that some of the questions asked in the questionnaire, were violating their private life. Fieldworkers experienced that a lot of women view the issue of domestic abuse to be a domestic/private matter to be resolved in the home itself. On the other hand, those women who do talk about domestic abuse and go report it, felt that approaching the police and support organisations, was in a lot of instances a waste of time, because (according to them) a low and unacceptable rate of follow-ups were done on the matter. Keeping in mind the issue of withholding information, it is implied that the actual data/findings should probably have had much higher levels of domestic abuse experienced. Older women were usually more open to talk on the topic of domestic abuse compared to younger women. The fieldworkers experienced that younger women were mostly the ones to withhold information. The fieldworkers also experienced that a lot of women’s interpretation of the concept ‘abuse’, was that verbal and emotional abuse were not forms of abuse, but that physical abuse was the only form of abuse. If a woman didn’t have any scars or injuries on her body, she was not being abused. This also implies that the actual data/findings should probably have had much higher levels of domestic abuse experienced.

3.1.6 Data Analysis using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) During the data analysis, the most important patterns emerging in the data will be highlighted. To view the original complete data set on each of the following headings to be discussed, the relevant appendixes have to be consulted.

3.1.6.1 Description of each sample in terms of demographics and other variables

Sample 1 (See Appendix 2 for complete data version)

Sample 1 consists of a total of 225 cases. Table 2: Breakdown of Sample 1 cases per area

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent Soweto 53 23.6 23.6 23.6 Eldorado Park 53 23.6 23.6 47.1

Lenasia 53 23.6 23.6 70.7 Hillbrow 44 19.6 19.6 90.2 Randburg 22 9.8 9.8 100.0

Valid

Total 225 100.0 100.0


13

13

Demographics

Most of the women respondents (61%) were between the ages of 25 and 44. The racial breakdown of the respondents were as follows: 46% African/Black, 25% Asian/Indian, 23% Coloured and 6% Caucasian/White, which is quite a good representative sample of Johannesburg and its suburbs with regards to racial composition, except for Caucasian/White being a bit on the low side. Regarding the marital/relational status of the women, 42% (95/224) was married. 19% (42/224) was in a relationship, but not married, of which 40% (17/42) specified that they lived with their partner/boyfriend/spouse and 50% (21/42) specified that they did not live with their partner/boyfriend/spouse. 13% (30/224) was not in a relationship at all. Regarding the period of time the woman was in her current relationship: Most of the women (88%) or (166/188) were in their current relationship for more than a year. Only 12% (22/188) was in their current relationship for 1 year or less. Of the 88% who were in their current relationship for more than a year, 27% (50/188) was in their current relationship between (3 – 7 years), 21% (40/188) between (7 – 15 years) and 20% (38/188) between (1 – 3 years) and (more than 15 years) respectively. Regarding the age difference between the woman and her partner, 59% (111/188) of the women differed between (2 – 5 years) from her partner and 21% (39/188) differed between (6 – 8 years). Only 12% (24/188) of the women differed one year or less, in age, from her partner. Regarding the number of children the women respondents had: Most of the women (82%) had children, while only 18% had no children. Of the 82% that had children, 43% had (1 – 2 children) and 32 % had (3 – 5 children). Regarding the number of children who were actually living with the women respondents, 24% of the women had no children living with them in their home, while 76% of the women had children living with them in their home. Of the 76% who had children living with them in their home, 48% had (1 – 2 children) living with them, 20% had (3 – 4 children) living with them and 8% had (more than 4 children) living with them. Regarding the highest level of education completed, 33% of the women completed high school or secondary education, while 42% didn’t complete secondary education. 25% had a tertiary qualification, which means either completed a diploma or degree. Only 3% never received any schooling. Regarding employment, 68% of the women were working, while 32% was not working. Regarding the women who were working, 27% was working with a contract and regular wages. 17% was working, but didn’t have a contract, 11% was working part-time and 9% was self-employed. Regarding the type of work they were doing, most women were working either in a technical or professional position (14%) or were running their own businesses (10%) or were working as a secretary or clerk


14

14

(9%). Regarding the women who were not working, 16% was unemployed, 10% were housewives and 5% were pensioners. Regarding the monthly income of the women respondents, most of the women were from the lower income group. 65% were earning less than R2 500 per month and 37% earned less than R1 000 per month. Only 9% of the women were earning more than R6 000 per month. Regarding the total household income, only 38% of the women were living in homes with a household income of less than R2 500 per month and only 16% in homes with a household income of less than R1 000 per month. 27% of the women were living in homes with a household income of more than R6 000 per month 15% were living in homes with a household income of more than R10 000 per month.

Home Ownership

Most of the women (56%) didn’t own the home they were living in. 44% either owned or partly owned the home they were living in. Table 3: Home ownership


Percent Owns/part owns house 98 43.6 43.6 43.6

Does not own house 127 56.4 56.4 100.0

Valid

Total 225 100.0 100.0

Of the 56% who didn’t own their home, only 16% contributed to the rent, while the majority (40%) did not contribute to the rent at all. Of the 44% that either owned or partly owned their home, 20% owned their home alone and 24% owned their home jointly. Table 4: Home ownership and living costs


Percent Respondent owns alone 44 19.6 19.6 19.6

Respondent own jointly 54 24.0 24.0 43.6

Respondent does not own, but contribute to rent

37 16.4 16.4 60.0

Respondent does not own and does not contribute to rent

90 40.0 40.0 100.0

Valid

Total 225 100.0 100.0


15

15

50% of the women had their name on the rent agreement or title deed, 32% didn’t have their name on it.

Financial issues

53% of the women had their own bank account, while 47% didn’t have their own bank account. 15% had a joint bank account with their partner. Only 4% of the women gave most of their money to their partner and only 3% gave all of their money to their partner. Only 6% of the women were in a relationship where their partner made all of the financial decisions. Only 8% of the women were in a relationship where they had to ask their partner first before spending money. Keeping the above-mentioned figures in mind, 75% of the women didn’t feel in control of their finances and only 33% felt happy with their level of financial control. Strangely enough, only 8% of the women wished that they had more financial control.

Experience of domestic abuse The third/final category of the questionnaire entitled ‘Experience of personal ill-treatment, abuse or violence’ was adjusted for the purposes of data analysis. The questions on abuse were grouped into verbal, emotional and physical abuse groups. Although these were pre-coded, it was answered as scales between 1 and 5. To analyse these groups, the three scores of abuse were calculated by adding the response to get a total score out of 40 in the case of verbal and physical abuse and 30 in the case of emotional abuse. These scores were then re-coded into three categories each, namely ‘Never’, ‘Occasionally’ and ‘Frequently’. In the cases of verbal and physical abuse, a score of 8 were coded as ‘Never’, a score between 9 and 16 were coded as ‘Occasionally’ and a score greater than 16 were coded as ‘Frequently’. In the case of emotional abuse, a score of 6 were coded as ‘Never’, a score from 7 to 12 were coded as ‘Occasionally’ and a score greater than 12 were coded as ‘Frequently’. The cut-off points of the categories were determined by the equal distribution of responses. Regarding the women’s experience of verbal abuse: 51% (100/197) of the women didn’t experience verbal abuse, while 49% (97/197) did experience it. 35% (69/197) experienced occasional verbal abuse, while 14% (28/197) experienced frequent verbal abuse. Table 5: Verbal abuse score

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 100 44.4 50.8 50.8

Occasionally 69 30.7 35.0 85.8 Frequently 28 12.4 14.2 100.0 Total 197 87.6 100.0

Missing System 28 12.4 Total 225 100.0

Regarding the women’s experience of emotional abuse: 60% (118/196) of the women didn’t experience emotional abuse, while 40% (78/196) did experience it. 29%


16

16

(56/196) experienced occasional emotional abuse, while 11% (22/196) experienced frequent emotional abuse. Table 6: Emotional abuse score




Regarding the women’s experience of physical abuse: 52% (101/196) of the women didn’t experience physical abuse, while 48% (95/196) did experience it. 35% (68/196) experienced occasional physical abuse, while 14% (27/196) experienced frequent physical abuse. Table 7: Physical abuse score




Sample 2 (See Appendix 7 for complete data version)

Sample 2 consists of a total of 29 cases. This sample includes abused women only. Table 8: Breakdown of Sample 2 cases per area


Percent Soweto 7 24.1 24.1 24.1 Eldorado Park 10 34.5 34.5 58.6 Lenasia 3 10.3 10.3 69.0 Hillbrow 4 13.8 13.8 82.8 Randburg 5 17.2 17.2 100.0

Valid

Total 29 100.0 100.0

Demographics: Abused Women

As in sample 1, most of the women respondents in sample 2 (55%) were between the ages of 25 and 44 years. The racial breakdown of the abused women respondents were as follows: 55% African/Black, 24% Coloured, 7% Asian/Indian and 14% Caucasian/White. Regarding the marital/relational status of the abused women, 52% (15/29) was married. 21% (6/29) was in a relationship, but not married, of which 50% (3/6)


17

17

specified that they lived with their partner/boyfriend/spouse and 17% (1/6) specified that they did not live with their partner/boyfriend/spouse. 7% (2/29) was not in a relationship at all. Regarding the period of time the abused woman was in her current relationship: Most of the women (92%) or (24/26) were in their current relationship for more than a year. Only 8% (2/26) was in their current relationship for 1 year or less. Of the 92% who were in their current relationship for more than a year, 31% (8/26) was in their current relationship between (1 - 3 years) and 24% (7/26) for (more than 15 years). Regarding the age difference between the abused woman and her partner, 60% of the women differed between (2 – 5 years) from her partner and 24% differed between (6 – 8 years). Only 8% (24/188) of the women differed one year or less, in age, from her partner. Regarding the number of children the abused women respondents had: Most of the women (79%) had children, while only 21% had no children. Of the 79% that had children, 50% had (1 – 2 children) and 29 % had (3 – 5 children). Regarding the number of children who were actually living with the abused women respondents, 36% of the women had no children living with them in their home, while 64% of the women had children living with them in their home. Of the 64% who had children living with them in their home, 32% had (1 – 2 children) living with them, 25% had (3 – 4 children) living with them and 7% had (more than 4 children) living with them. Regarding the highest level of education completed, 48% of the abused women completed high school or secondary education, while 52% didn’t complete secondary education. 15% had a tertiary qualification, which means either completed a diploma or degree. Regarding employment, 48% of the abused women were working, while 52% was not working. Regarding the women who were working, only 7% was working with a contract and regular wages. 17% was working, but didn’t have a contract, 7% was working part-time and 7% was self-employed. Regarding the type of work they were doing, most women were working either as a secretary or clerk (14%) or in a technical or professional position (7%) or as an administrator (7%). Regarding the women who were not working, 45% were unemployed. Regarding the monthly income of the abused women respondents, most of the women were from the lower income group. 71% were earning less than R2 500 per month and 46% earned less than R1 000 per month. Only 8% of the women were earning more than R6 000 per month. Regarding the total household income, only 28% of the women were living in homes with a household income of less than R2 500 per month and only 11% in homes with a household income of less than R1 000 per month. 44% of the women were living in homes with a household income of between R4 000 and R6 000 per month. Only 11% were living in homes with a household income of more than R10 000 per month.


18

18

Home Ownership: Abused Women Most of the abused women (69%) didn’t own the home they were living in. Only 31% either owned or partly owned the home they were living in. Table 9: Home ownership of abused women


Percent Owns/part owns house 9 31.0 31.0 31.0

Does not own house 20 69.0 69.0 100.0

Valid

Total 29 100.0 100.0

Of the 69% who didn’t own their home, only 10% contributed to the rent, while the majority (59%) did not contribute to the rent at all. Of the 31% that either owned or partly owned their home, only 10% owned their home alone/solely, while 21% owned their home jointly. Table 10: Home ownership and living costs (abused women)


Percent Solely owns 3 10.3 10.3 10.3 Jointly owns 6 20.7 20.7 31.0 Contribute to rent 3 10.3 10.3 41.4

Does not contribute to rent

17 58.6 58.6 100.0

Valid

Total 29 100.0 100.0

Financial issues: Abused Women

46% of the women had their own bank account, while 54% didn’t have their own bank account. 11% had a joint bank account with their partner. Only 7% of the women gave most of their money to their partner and only 4% gave all of their money to their partner. Only 14% of the women were in a relationship where their partner made all of the financial decisions. Only 11% of the women were in a relationship where they had to ask their partner first before spending money. Keeping the above-mentioned figures in mind, 86% of the women didn’t feel in control of their finances and only 11% felt happy with their level of financial control. Strangely enough, only 11% of the women wished that they had more financial control.

Experience of domestic abuse: Abused Women


19

19

85% of the abused women felt worthless, under-confident or unattractive. 77% felt scared to meet people or to talk to people. 42% felt scared to go out of the house. 54% needed medical attention for their injuries, while only 19% needed hospitalisation or surgery. 73% of the abused women felt ashamed about themselves or their experiences. Only 12% of the abused women have ever assaulted or caused injuries to their partner. The abused women did the following with regards to obtaining assistance with their situation: 77% talked about the abuse with another person. 50% tried to get help with the situation and they specifically tried to get help from family members, friends, local street committees and professionals working in the field of abuse. 56% tried to leave their home. 42% approached the police or social services for assistance. 77% approached women’s organisations or other organisations for help. The majority of the abused women (89%), either did leave or wanted to leave their partner at some stage. Some of the reasons listed by them for wanting to leave their partners: the partner threatens to kill her; he doesn’t want her to complete her education; he is too jealous and possessive; he fights with her; he forces her to have sex with him; he abuses her; the situation is unhealthy for the children; he makes her feel unhappy; he makes her feel scared; she is tired of being beaten up; so that she can retain her freedom. Regarding the abused women who reported the domestic abuse incident to the police or social services: 62% or (18/29) of the sample 2/abused women respondents reported the domestic abuse incident to either the police or social services. 38% (11/29) had never reported their domestic abuse. Of the 62% (18/29) who did report the domestic abuse incident, in only 72% (13/18) of these cases, the police or social services registered the complaint. In only 33% (6/18) of the cases, they investigated the matter adequately. In only 39% (7/18) of the cases, they took adequate measures to guarantee the safety of the abused woman. In 61% (11/18) of the cases, they offered their support services such as alternative accommodation, counselling or referral of the abused woman to other support organisations. In only 28% (5/18) of the cases, the partner was prosecuted. Other comments made by abused women respondents regarding the reporting of domestic abuse incidents to the police or social services: her application for a protection order was rejected; the hearing was conducted without her being present; she was not taken seriously by the police; she was scared to go and report the incident, because he would have killed her; the complaint was registered, but he was never prosecuted, because the police told her that the docket got lost; the police didn’t investigate the matter and the abuse just continued. Regarding the assistance the abused women respondents could get, if they ever tried or wanted to leave their partner, either for a short time or permanently: Only 42% (9/21) of the abused women were confident that they would be able to stay in their present home. 62% (8/13) were confident that they would be able to find an affordable place where they could move. 72% (13/18) were confident that they would be able to stay with family or friends temporarily. 81% (17/21) knew of a shelter where they could stay temporarily. 61% (11/18) were confident that they had a sufficient income to support themselves and their children (if she had any). 79%


20

20

(11/14) were confident that they would have control over their own or joint bank account. 71% (12/17) were confident that they would have support from their family. 77% (10/13) were confident that they would have support from their neighbours/community. 84% (16/19) knew of and were confident that they would be able to get help from women’s organisations. 50% (7/14) were confident that they would be able to get advice from a lawyer. 75% (9/12) were confident that they would be able to get custody of the children. Only 42% (5/12) were confident that they would be able to get grants or assistance for abused women. 50% (5/10) were confident that they would be able to get support or assistance from their employer. Regarding the abused women who approached a lawyer or tried to get a divorce: 60% (6/10) knew their rights to maintenance, custody or child support. None (0%) were able to afford a lawyer. 40% (2/5) were able to get assistance to pay for a lawyer if they couldn’t afford one. 57% (4/7) were able to get a divorce. 73% (8/11) were able to stay in their own home if they wanted to do so. Some of the abused women made the following comments: “I want to get divorced, but I am scared. I don’t have a job and he also said that he would kill me if I leave him. I don’t trust the police. I do have a protection order, but he says that it is just a piece of paper.” “I would be very happy if I could get a place of my own for me and my children. I am tired of running around with my children. I want my children and I to live in peace on our own, without him close-by.” “My boyfriend doesn’t care about the baby. He doesn’t look after the baby. He only buys alcohol with the money and doesn’t want to give me money to buy food for the baby.” “The street committee spoke to my boyfriend and he treated me fine for a while, but eventually he started abusing me all over again.”

3.1.6.2 Sample 1: Cross Tabulation of two variables: Abuse by Abuse

(See Appendix 3 for complete data version)

Tables 11, 12 and 13 show the three different forms of abuse, i.e. verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse, cross-tabulated with one another. In all of the cross-tabulations, it is evident that the category ‘never’ will have the highest percentage, followed by ‘occasionally’ in the middle and ‘frequently’ with the lowest percentage. This repetitive pattern, i.e. when the frequency/percentage of one form of abuse decreases over the three different categories, so will the frequency/percentage of another form of abuse decrease and vice versa, illustrates that the data gathered on the respondents experience of various forms of domestic abuse, is of very high validity.

Table 11: Cross-tabulation of verbal abuse score by emotional abuse score Emotional abuse score Total


21

21

Never Occasionally Frequently

Count 92 7 99 Never % of Total 47.4% 3.6% 51.0% Count 24 40 4 68 Occasional

ly % of Total 12.4% 20.6% 2.1% 35.1% Count 2 7 18 27

Verbal abuse score

Frequently % of Total 1.0% 3.6% 9.3% 13.9% Count 118 54 22 194 Total % of Total 60.8% 27.8% 11.3% 100.0%

Table 12: Cross-tabulation of verbal abuse score by physical abuse score

Physical abuse score Never Occasionally Frequently Total

Count 91 8 99 Never % of Total 46.9% 4.1% 51.0% Count 10 48 10 68 Occasional

ly % of Total 5.2% 24.7% 5.2% 35.1% Count 10 17 27

Verbal abuse score

Frequently % of Total 5.2% 8.8% 13.9% Count 101 66 27 194 Total % of Total 52.1% 34.0% 13.9% 100.0%

Table 13: Cross-tabulation of emotional abuse score by physical abuse score

Physical abuse score Never Occasionally Frequently Total

Count 94 23 1 118 Never % of Total 48.5% 11.9% .5% 60.8% Count 7 36 11 54 Occasionally % of Total 3.6% 18.6% 5.7% 27.8% Count 7 15 22

Emotional abuse score

Frequently % of Total 3.6% 7.7% 11.3% Count 101 66 27 194 Total % of Total 52.1% 34.0% 13.9% 100.0%

3.1.6.3 Sample 1: Cross Tabulation of two variables: Home Ownership (Owns/Partly Owns vs. Does not Own) by Abuse

(See Appendix 4 for complete data version)


22

22

Regarding the link/correlation between home ownership and verbal abuse at a first glance: 61% of home-owners (women who either owned or partly owned a home), never experienced verbal abuse, while only 44% of non-home-owners (the women who didn’t own a home), never experienced verbal abuse. 32% of home-owners experienced occasional verbal abuse, while 38% of non-home-owners experienced occasional verbal abuse. Only 7% of home-owners experienced frequent verbal abuse, while 19% of non-home-owners experienced frequent verbal abuse. According to the data, women who either owned or partly owned the homes they were staying in experienced lower levels of verbal abuse compared to women who did not own the homes they were staying in.

Table 14: Cross-tabulation of home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. doesn’t own) by verbal abuse score

Ownership of house

Owns/part

owns house Does not

own house Total Count 50 49 99 Never % within Ownership of house

61.0% 43.8% 51.0%

Count 26 42 68 Occasionally % within Ownership of house

31.7% 37.5% 35.1%

Count 6 21 27

Verbal abuse score

Frequently % within Ownership of house

7.3% 18.8% 13.9%

Count 82 112 194 Total % within Ownership of house

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 1: Home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. doesn’t own) by Verbal Abuse score


23

23

Does not own houseOwns/part owns house

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Verbal abuse score

Frequently

Occationally

Never

197

38

32

44

61

Regarding the link/correlation between home ownership and emotional abuse at a first glance: 74% of home-owners (women who either owned or partly owned a home), never experienced emotional abuse, while only 51% of non-home-owners (the women who didn’t own a home), never experienced emotional abuse. 18% of home-owners experienced occasional emotional abuse, while 35% of non-home-owners experienced occasional emotional abuse. Only 7% of home-owners experienced frequent emotional abuse, while 14% of non-home-owners experienced frequent emotional abuse. According to the data, women who either owned or partly owned the homes they were staying in experienced lower levels of emotional abuse compared to women who did not own the homes they were staying in. Table 15: Cross-tabulation of home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. doesn’t own) by emotional abuse score

Ownership of house

Owns/part

owns house Does not

own house Total Count 61 57 118 Never % within Ownership of house

74.4% 50.9% 60.8%


18.3% 34.8% 27.8%

Count 6 16 22

Emotional abuse score


7.3% 14.3% 11.3%


24

24


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 2: Home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. doesn’t own) by emotional abuse score


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Emotional abuse scor

Frequently

Occationally

Never

147

35

18

51

74

Regarding the link/correlation between home ownership and physical abuse at a first glance: 62% of home-owners (women who either owned or partly owned a home), never experienced physical abuse, while only 45% of non-home-owners (the women who didn’t own a home), never experienced physical abuse. 29% of home-owners experienced occasional physical abuse, while 38% of non-home-owners experienced occasional physical abuse. Only 9% of home-owners experienced frequent physical abuse, while 18% of non-home-owners experienced frequent physical abuse. According to the data, women who either owned or partly owned the homes they were staying in experienced lower levels of physical abuse compared to women who did not own the homes they were staying in. Table 16: Cross-tabulation of home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. doesn’t own) by physical abuse score

Ownership of house

Owns/part

owns house Does not

own house Total Physical abuse Never Count 51 50 101


25

25

% within Ownership of house

62.2% 44.6% 52.1%


29.3% 37.5% 34.0%

Count 7 20 27

score


8.5% 17.9% 13.9%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 3: Home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. doesn’t own) by physical abuse score


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Physical abuse score

Frequently

Occationally

Never

189

38

29

45

62


26

26

According to the first category breakdowns of home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. does not own), women who either owned or partly owned the homes they were staying in experienced lower levels of various forms of domestic violence (verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse) compared to women who did not own the homes they were staying in.

3.1.6.4 Sample 1: Cross Tabulation of two variables: Home Ownership (Solely Owns vs. Jointly Owns and Contribute to Rent vs. Doesn’t Contribute

Rent) by Abuse

(See Appendix 5 for complete data version

For this cross-tabulation, the first category breakdown of home ownership, i.e. ‘owns/partly owns’ and ‘doesn’t own’, were each broken down into two more categories. The category ‘owns/partly owns’ was broken down into the new categories ‘solely owns’ and ‘jointly owns’ and the category ‘does not own’ was broken down into the new categories ‘contribute to rent’ and ‘doesn’t contribute to rent’. The four new categories were then cross-tabulated with the various forms of domestic abuse, i.e. verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse. The results were as follows: 48% of women with sole home-ownership never experienced verbal abuse, while 69% of women with joint home-ownership never experienced verbal abuse. In other words, 52% of women with sole home-ownership did experience verbal abuse, while only 31% of women with joint home-ownership experienced verbal abuse. More women with sole ownership experienced occasional and frequent verbal abuse. 36% of sole home-owners experienced occasional verbal abuse, while only 29% of joint home-owners experienced occasional verbal abuse. 15% of sole home-owners experienced frequent verbal abuse, while only a mere 2% of joint home-owners experienced frequent verbal abuse. Figure 4.1: Home ownership (solely owns vs. jointly owns) by verbal abuse score


27

27

Q1REC: 1 Owns/part owns house

Jointly ownsSolely owns

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Verbal abuse score

Frequently

Occationally

Never

1529

36

69

48

36% of women with sole home-ownership experienced emotional abuse, while only 18% of women with joint home-ownership experienced emotional abuse. 21% of sole home-owners experienced occasional emotional abuse, while 16% of joint home-owners experienced occasional emotional abuse. 15% of sole home-owners experienced frequent emotional abuse, while only a mere 2% of joint home-owners experienced frequent emotional abuse. Figure 4.2: Home ownership (solely owns vs. jointly owns) by emotional abuse score


28

28



100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


Frequently

Occationally

Never

1516

2182

64

42% of women with sole home-ownership experienced physical abuse, while only 35% of women with joint home-ownership experienced physical abuse. 27% of sole home-owners experienced occasional physical abuse, while more joint home-owners (31%) experienced occasional physical abuse. 15% of sole home-owners experienced frequent physical abuse, while only a mere 4% of joint home-owners experienced frequent physical abuse. In general, the more in-depth ‘owns/partly owns home’ data show us that women with sole home-ownership experienced higher levels of various forms of domestic abuse (verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse) than women with joint home-ownership. This is a very interesting trend indeed, if we keep in mind that the first category breakdowns of home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. does not own) showed a fairly strong link/correlation between home ownership and the levels of domestic abuse experienced. Figure 4.3: Home ownership (solely owns vs. jointly owns) by physical abuse score


29

29



100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


Frequently

Occationally

Never

1531

27

65

58

68% of women who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced verbal abuse, while only 52% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced verbal abuse. 48% of women who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced occasional verbal abuse, while only 33% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced occasional verbal abuse. 19% of women, who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced frequent verbal abuse. 19% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced frequent verbal abuse.


30

30

Figure 5.1: Home ownership (contribute to rent vs. doesn’t contribute to rent) by verbal abuse score

Does not own house

Does not contributeContribute to rent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Verbal abuse score

Frequently

Occationally

Never

1919

3348

48

32

58% of women who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced emotional abuse, while only 46% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced emotional abuse. 48% of women who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced occasional emotional abuse, while only 30% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced occasional emotional abuse. 10% of women, who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced frequent emotional abuse. 16% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced frequent emotional abuse. Figure 5.2: Home ownership (contribute to rent vs. doesn’t contribute to rent) by emotional abuse score


31

31

Does not own house


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


Frequently

Occationally

Never

1610

30

48

54

42

68% of women who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced physical abuse, while only 51% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced physical abuse. 45% of women who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced occasional physical abuse, while only 35% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced occasional physical abuse. 23% of women, who don’t own a home, but contribute to the rent, experienced frequent physical abuse, while only 16% of women who don’t own a home and don’t contribute to the rent, experienced frequent physical abuse.


32

32

Figure 5.3: Home ownership (contribute to rent vs. doesn’t contribute to rent) by physical abuse score

Does not own house


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


Frequently

Occationally

Never

1623

35

45

49

32

In general, the more in-depth ‘doesn’t own home’ data show us that women who contributed to the rent, experienced higher levels of various forms of domestic abuse (verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse) than women who didn’t contribute to the rent. This is also a very interesting trend indeed, if we keep in mind that the first category breakdowns of home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. does not own) showed a fairly strong link/correlation between home ownership and the levels of domestic abuse experienced.


33

33

3.1.6.5 Comparative Analysis: Comparing Sample 1 demographics of women who never experienced any form of domestic abuse with Sample 2 demographics of women who do experience domestic abuse

(See Appendix 8 and 9 for complete data version)

The comparative analysis between the abused group of women (sample 2) and non-abused group of women (group of women from sample 1 that never experienced any form of abuse), will focus only on the major trends that were identified during the analysis. Regarding home ownership: Only 31% of the abused group owned a home, while 51% of the non-abused group owned a home.

Figure 6: Abused group vs. Non-abused group: Home Ownership

Non-abused groupAbused group

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Ownership of house

Does not own house

Owns/part owns house

4969

51

31

Regarding home ownership and living costs: Only 10% of the abused group solely owned a home, while 18% of the non-abused group solely owned a home. Only 21% of the abused group jointly owned a home, while 32% of the non-abused group jointly

owned a home. 59% of the abused group didn’t contribute to the rent, while only 41% of the non-abused group didn’t contribute to the rent.

The comparative analysis data of the abused group with the non-abused group regarding home ownership, showed that a fairly strong link/correlation does exist between home ownership and the levels of domestic abuse experienced. It showed this correlation, for both the first category breakdowns of home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. does not own) as well as for the majority of the more in-depth


34

34

categories of home ownership (solely owns vs. jointly owns and doesn’t own but contribute to rent vs. doesn’t own and doesn’t contribute to rent).

Figure 7: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Home ownership and living costs


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Ownership and living

Does not contribute

Contribute to rent

Jointly owns

Solely owns

4159

8

10

32

21

18

10

Furthermore, regarding whether the woman respondents name was on the rent agreement or title deed, only 32% of the abused group had their names on the rent agreement or title deed, while 57% of the non-abused group had their names on it.


35

35

Figure 8: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Name on the rent agreement or title deed

Abused or non abused group


Pe

rce

nt

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Name on lease/deed

Don't know

Don't have papers

No

Yes

618

5

33

50

57

32

Regarding marital/relational status, 10% of the abused group who were in a relationship, but not married, lived with their partner, while only 2% of the non-abused group lived with their partner. Furthermore, 17% of the non-abused group didn’t live with their partner, while only 3% of the abused group didn’t live with their partner. These percentages show that women who were not married, but who were in a relationship, experienced higher levels of abuse when they lived with their partner.


36

36

Figure 9: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Marital Status



Pe

rce

nt

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Marital status

Don't live with part

ner

Live with partner

Divorced

Separated

Married

In relationship not

married

Not in relationship

1710

5

55

52

16

21

7

Regarding highest level of education completed, only 15% of the abused group completed a tertiary qualification, while 27% of the non-abused group completed a tertiary qualification.


37

37

Figure 10: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Highest level of education completed



Pe

rce

nt

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Highest education

Masters

Bachelors degree

Diploma

Grade 12

Grade 8 - 11

Grade 1 - 7

No schooling

6

217

38

33

23

33

9

19

Regarding emloyment status, 45% of the abused group were unemployed, while only 20% of the non-abused group were unemployed.


38

38

Figure 11: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Employment status



Pe

rce

nt

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Employment status

Not specified

Pensioner

Self employed

Home maker

Unemployed

Working part-time

Working few months

Working no contract

Working - contract

Other

57

1310

2045

10

7

16

17

29

7

Regarding monthly salary, 46% of the abused group had a monthly salary of R0 – R999, while 36% of the non-abused group were in the same income bracket.


39

39

Figure 12: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Monthly Salary



Pe

rce

nt

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Monthly salary

R20 000 or more

R10 000 - R14 999

R6 000 - R9 999

R4 000 - R5 999

R2 500 - R3 999

R1 000 - R2 499

R0 - R999

78

1213

178

25

25

36

46

Regarding total household income, the majority of the abused group (78%) lived in a home where the total household income was less than R6000 per month, while only 52% of the non-abused group fell into this category. 48% of the non-abused group lived in a home with a total household income of more than R6000 per month, while only 23% of the abused group lived in a home with a total household income of more than R6000 per month.


40

40

Figure 13: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Household Income



Pe

rce

nt

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Household income

Not specified

R20 000 or more

R15 000 – R19 999

R10 000 - R14 999

R6 000 - R9 999

R4 000 - R5 999

R2 500 - R3 999

R1 000 - R2 499

R0 - R999

21

5

6

9

6

13

11

12

44

12

6

2117

711

Regarding joint decisions made in the relationship, only 11% of the women in the abused group made joint decisions with their partners, while 22% of women in the non-abused group made joint decisions with their partners.


41

41

Figure 14: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Joint Decisions



Pe

rce

nt

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Joint decisionsi

Not specified

No

Yes

7689

22

11

Regarding whether the woman respondent felt happy with her level of financial control in her relationship, 11% of the abused group felt happy with their control over the finances, compared to 39% of the non-abused group who felt happy with their control over the finances.


42

42

Figure 15: Abused group vs. Non-Abused group: Happy with finance



Co

un

t

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Happy with finance

Not specified

No

Yes

5989

39

11

4. Conclusion A total of four approaches were used to see whether a correlation does exist between women’s home ownership and the domestic violence/abuse they suffer. The following four approaches were used:

(1) Looking at abused women’s home ownership as a cetegory in the discussion of Sample 2 demographics.

(2) The cross-tabulation of sample 1: home ownership (owns/partly owns vs. doesn’t own) by abuse.

(3) The cross-tabulation of sample 1: home ownership (solely owns vs. jointly owns and doesn’t own, but contribute to the rent vs. doesn’t own and doesn’t contribute to the rent) by abuse.

(4) Comparative Analysis: Comparing Sample 1 women who never experienced any form of domestic abuse with Sample 2 women who did experience domestic abuse.

Three of the four approaches used, i.e. approaches 1, 2 and 4, have showed that women who own the homes they are staying in, will experience lower levels of various forms of domestic violence (verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical abuse) compared to women who do not own the homes they are staying in.


43

43

Only one of the four approaches used, i.e. approach 3, has not showed the correlation, but instead has shown a very unexpected and interesting trend, which can be explored in more depth in future research studies on this topic. To conclude: The majority of the data in this exploratory case study shows that a link or correlation does indeed exist between women’s home/property ownership and the levels of domestic abuse they wil suffer in their everyday lives.

.


44

44

Documents

Content Case Study Hypothesis...women’s home ownership/home non-ownership and the levels of domestic violence they experience. In order to prove, that women, who own the homes they