Low-income household survey

This survey was developed and carried out by the Construction Resource and Development Centre of Jamaica during 1987, and was coordinated by the author. The survey was commissioned by the Regional Housing and Urban Development Office (RHUDO) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of a regional research programme which sought to explore shelter practices within the informal sector in order to reappraise intervention strategies targeted at low-income households.

The survey instrument was composed of a questionnaire designed on the basis of information collected during 33 indepth case studies that had been carried out during April 1987. The questionnaire was presented to a sample of 40 households and some alterations were subsequently made. In particular, questions relating to credit were added at the request of USAID.

The survey sample was composed of 677 households living in the KMA with households being selected using a method of proportionate random sampling based on special areas defined by the Statistical Institute of Jamaica. The KMA was taken to include Bull Bay and Nine Miles and the newly-established fishing settlement on the Causeway.

The special areas were developed during the 1970 and 1980 censuses. Enumeration districts were grouped la to a number of special areas which approximated recognized neighbourhoods within the city. However, the degree of homogeneity within these areas varies somewhat, particularly due to variations in their physical size, and. because in many parts of the city, very mixed forms of residential development have taken place. Very poor households often build shelter adjacent to richer neighbourhoods where they can often obtain employment. In order to ensure that the areas selected could be reliably treated as low-income, town planning maps were overlaid with maps drawn from previous studies of the KMA (National Planning Agency, Urban Growth Study 1978. The Situation of Women, Children and Yough, UNICEF 1981), which had sought to focus on low-income neighbourhoods. The maps used included those focusing on land use, population density, health facilities, educational facilities. percentage of households without water, percentage of dwellings without electricity. male unemployment and female unemployment. Forty-two areas were finally selected for sampling.

The number of households to be interviewed within each area was determined on a proportional basis using 1982 population data. With the help of a numbered grid. starting points for interviews were then randomly identified using random number tables, as was the direction that the interviewers should follow. Every twentieth head of household was then selected in that direction and interviewed. If he or she was not there the interviewer merely continued selection in the required direction. The areas covered and the number of households interviewed in each area are listed in the tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Number Or household interviewed in each area

Area	Number interviewed
Rennock Lodge	12
Johnson Town	8
Norman Gardens	5
Rollington Town	19
Newton Square	7
Passmore Gardens	14
Franklin Town	11
Campbell Town	5
Allman Town	9
Kingston Gardens	2
E. Downtown	31
C. Downtown	9
Fletchers Land	15
W. Downtown	26
Denham Town	10
August Town	19
Hope Tavern	14
Cassava Piece	3
Grants Pen	18
Swallowfield	7
Cross Roads	19
Woodford Park	7
Kencot	20
Richmond Park	13
Jones Town	23
Trench Town	20
Whitfield Town	45
Delacree Pen	33
Greenwich Town	20
Boucher Park	14
Cockburn Gardens	25
Waltham Gardens	13
Balmagie	24
Seaward Pen	11
Tower Hill	15
Penwood	15
Riverton City	7
Patrick City	47
Maverly	15
Whitehall	22
Bull Bay	18
Causeway	5
Total	677

 

Table 2. Distribution different types Or household by area

 

Area	Different types of household (percentage)
	Female- headed	Male-headed	Joint- headed
Rennock Lodge	42	25	33
Johnson Town	33	33	33
Norman Gardens	0	60	40
Rollington Town	29	6	65
Newton Square	29	29	43
Passmore Gardens	23	15	62
Franklin Town	20	40	40
Campbell Town	00	0	40
Allman Town	11	0	89
Kingston Gardens	50	50	0
E. Downtown	53	13	30
C. Downtown	67	0	33
Fletchers Land	27	40	33
W. Downtown	32	18	50
Denham Town	30	20	50
August Town	17	33	50
Hope Tavern	29	7	64
Cassava Piece	50	0	50
Grants Pen	56	19	25
Swallowfield	29	14	57
Cross Roads	59	12	29
Woodford Park	43	14	43
Kencot	61	56	33
Richmond Park	55	64	0
Jones Town	65	4	30
Trench Town	47	16	37
Whitfield Town	58	16	27
Delacree Pen	43	13	43
Greenwich Town	35	15	50
Boucher Park	57	0	43
Cockburn Gardens	24	28	48
Waltham Gardens	62	8	31
Balmagie	50	8	42
Seaward Pen	70	10	20
Tower Hill	60	7	33
Penwood	53	0	47
Riverton City	43	0	57
Patrick City	29	22	49
Maverly	13	20	67
Whitehall	19	24	57
Bull Bay	38	13	50
Causeway	0	25	75

The interviewers were selected from graduates of the Social Work Programme of the University of the West Indies and given extensive training.

Administration of the questionnaire took just over two months. The interview refusal rate was comparatively low with approximately 5 per cent of the households in Patrick City refusing to be interviewed. In general, these were better-off households.

The database resulting from the survey was re-analysed during July and August 1988 with a specific focus on disaggregation on the basis of type of household head. Three types of household were recognized:

Headship was determined by asking members of the household who was the person responsible for making major decisions about the household such as who lived in the household's dwelling, where the household should live and when it should move etc.

Members of the household were considered to be those who ate from the same pot and who spent four nights or more per week in the household dwelling.