Copyright Sociological Research Online, 2000
| PROVINCE | No. Projects | Share of Projects | Population Share | Non-URBAN Share | Poverty Share |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | ||
| Eastern Cape | 12 | 13.33 | 18.94 | 25.20 | 20.43 |
| Free State | 46 | 10.53 | 6.52 | 4.27 | 10.03 |
| Guateng | 6 | 2.69 | 18.94 | 1.20 | 15.33 |
| KwaZulu Natal | 22 | 15.07 | 20.79 | 25.03 | 20.19 |
| Mpumulanga | 19 | 19.36 | 6.99 | 9.00 | 6.41 |
| North West | 5 | 5.36 | 8.04 | 11.03 | 3.25 |
| Northern Cape | 18 | 15.34 | 1.97 | 1.25 | 2.02 |
| Northern | 17 | 14.63 | 10.90 | 20.49 | 18.23 |
| Western Cape | 14 | 6.06 | 10.88 | 2.53 | 4.11 |
| XP | POPS | NURBANS | POVS | |
| XP | 1.0000 ( 9) P= . | -.2155 ( 9) P= .578 | .4297 ( 9) P= .248 | .1495 ( 9) P= .701 |
| POPS | 1.0000 ( 9) P= . | .5664 ( 9) P= .112 | .8215 ( 9) P= .007 | |
| NURBANS | 1.0000 ( 9) P= . | .7467 ( 9) P= .021 | ||
| POVS | 1.0000 ( 9) P= . |
Key
XP: Share of Projects (%)
Pops: Share of Population (%)
NUrbans: Share of Non-Urban Population (%)
Povs: Share of Poverty Population (%)
| Value Label | Sum | Mean |
| 19964 | 125 | |
| Type | ||
| redistribution | 17400 | 114 |
| restitution | 2564 | 366 |
| Date of Transfer | ||
| 1995 | 245 | 245 |
| 1996 | 4977 | 171 |
| 1997 | 7133 | 182 |
| 1998 | 7609 | 84 |
| PROVINCE | ||
| Eastern | 2600 | 216 |
| FS | 2054 | 44 |
| Guateng | 525 | 87 |
| KZN | 2939 | 133 |
| Mpumulanga | 3775 | 198 |
| North W | 1045 | 209 |
| Northern C | 2992 | 166 |
| Northern | 2853 | 167 |
| Western | 1181 | 84 |
| Count | Col % | ||
| How was the profit generated by the communal farm used? | |||
| There was no profit | 45 | 60.8% | |
| All profit reinvested | 9 | 12.2% | |
| Part reinvested, part distributed to comm mem | 2 | 2.7% | |
| Part reinvested, part distributed to participating comm mem | 10 | 13.5% | |
| All distributed to all community members | 2 | 2.7% | |
| All distributed to participating community members | 2 | 2.7% | |
| Other (specify) | 4 | 5.4% | |
| In the last 12 months, did this community receive cash loans from anyone for production or for services? | |||
| Yes | 13 | 14.9% | |
| No | 74 | 85.1% | |
| Are there any funds remaining from the Land Grant? | |||
| Yes | 48 | 56.5% | |
| No | 37 | 43.5% | |
| Has the community received any other form of government grant in the last 12 months? | |||
| Yes | 3 | 4.5% | |
| No | 64 | 95.5% | |
| How long has it been since the last community meeting after the community arrived/received title? | |||
| Less than a week | 19 | 21.8% | |
| 1 week - 4 weeks | 34 | 39.1% | |
| 1 - 2 months | 17 | 19.5% | |
| 7 months to 1 year | 10 | 11.5% | |
| 7 months to 1 year | 4 | 4.6% | |
| More than one year | 3 | 3.4% | |
| Did you have a meeting before the community came here or received title? | |||
| Yes | 79 | 94.0% | |
| No | 5 | 6.0% | |
| Who is the most important person or group in charge of settling disputes in this area? | |||
| Only the people involved | 3 | 3.5% | |
| Anyone chosen by those involved | 1 | 1.2% | |
| The legal entity / committee | 51 | 59.3% | |
| Other committee or group | 7 | 8.1% | |
| The Tribal Authority or Chief | 3 | 3.5% | |
| Induna or Headman | 5 | 5.8% | |
| Other local leader | 2 | 2.3% | |
| The police | 2 | 2.3% | |
| Local government officials | 2 | 2.3% | |
| Other outside officials | 2 | 2.3% | |
| No one | 2 | 2.3% | |
| Other (Specify) | 6 | 7.0% | |
| Are the people on the legal entity/committee able to work together harmoniously? | |||
| OK, harmoniously | 62 | 77.5% | |
| Not OK, problems or blockages | 18 | 22.5% | |
| Does the community often receive report-back briefings from the people on the legal entity / committee? | |||
| Yes, regularly | 52 | 65.0% | |
| Yes, but only when needed | 13 | 16.3% | |
| Sometimes | 7 | 8.8% | |
| Not often | 3 | 3.8% | |
| Never | 5 | 6.3% | |
| Who is the most important person or group in charge of the land in this community now? | |||
| Legal entity / committee | 65 | 74.7% | |
| Other committee | 3 | 3.4% | |
| Tribal Authority or chief | 3 | 3.4% | |
| Induna or headman | 3 | 3.4% | |
| Other individual local leader | 2 | 2.3% | |
| Each family in charge of own | 1 | 1.1% | |
| Outside body or official | 1 | 1.1% | |
| Other (Specify) | 9 | 10.3% | |
| Who is the most important person or group in charge of the water in this community now? | |||
| Legal entity / committee | 38 | 44.7% | |
| Other committee | 14 | 16.5% | |
| Other individual local leader | 7 | 8.2% | |
| Each family in charge of own | 2 | 2.4% | |
| Outside body or official | 2 | 2.4% | |
| No one | 6 | 7.1% | |
| Other (Specify) | 16 | 18.8% | |
| Are there any other important groups or committees in this community other than the legal entity / main committee? | |||
| Yes, a lot | 12 | 13.8% | |
| Yes, a few | 41 | 47.1% | |
| No, not many | 3 | 3.4% | |
| None at all | 31 | 35.6% | |
| If anyone in the community has a grievance, is there a clear and effective procedure? | |||
| Yes, clear and effective | 59 | 71.1% | |
| Clear, maybe not effective | 11 | 13.3% | |
| Not clear | 7 | 8.4% | |
| No procedure | 6 | 7.2% | |
| If there were anyone in authority who was tempted to act badly, would the community be able to ensure he or she acted pr | |||
| Yes, able to keep authority in line | 48 | 57.8% | |
| Probably able to keep authority in line | 14 | 16.9% | |
| Maybe, not sure | 8 | 9.6% | |
| Probably not | 8 | 9.6% | |
| Definitely not | 5 | 6.0% | |
| Has all of the Land Grant money been used? | |||
| Yes | 27 | 34.6% | |
| No | 51 | 65.4% | |
| Has the community received any other form of government grant in the last 12 months? | |||
| Yes | 8 | 10.8% | |
| No | 66 | 89.2% | |
| How would you describe this community? | |||
| trust over most things | 39 | 45.3% | |
| trust over only some things | 26 | 30.2% | |
| trust very little | 10 | 11.6% | |
| no trust for each other | 11 | 12.8% | |
Mean Std Dev Label
Q4X4X2 2.14865 1.79560 How was the profit generated by the comm. spent
Q5X1 1.85057 .35857 In the last 12 months, did this comm...
Q5X4 1.43529 .49874 Are there any funds remaining from the grant
Q5X7 1.95522 .20837 Has the community received any other funds
Q6X3 1.05952 .23802 Did you have a meeting before the community..
Q6X5A .58621 .49537 Most Impt Group/person
Q6X6 1.22500 .42022 Are the people on the legal entity/ctte..
Q6X7A 1.35000 .47998 Regularity of reports
Q6X8A .74713 .43718 Most Impt. Group
Q6X9A 1.55294 .50014 Most Impt. Group
Q6X10X1 2.60920 1.11393 Are there any other important groups..
Q6X11 1.51807 .92869 If anyone in the community has a grievance..
Q6X12 1.89157 1.26888 If there were anyone in authority who..
Q6X13 1.65385 .47882 Has all of the Land Grant money been spent
Q6X16 1.89189 .31264 Has the community received any other grants
Q6X18 1.91860 1.04279 How would you describe this community?
NOHHDS 78.82759 102.44944 No. hhlds
Q6X2 2.48276 1.27464 How long has it been since the last comm. meet
FEMP 35.13585 16.88764 % female
Rotated Factor Matrix:
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Q6X11 .76392 .10682 -.08905 -.20467 .09445
Q6X6 .75240 .07715 .00671 -.13199 .12194
Q6X12 .71491 .04137 .22132 -.12469 .00049
Q6X18 .67222 .08359 .05569 -.03608 .44809
Q6X2 .65893 .20279 -.03164 .11476 -.29583
Q6X7A .59539 .03916 -.23619 .15506 -.03984
Q6X13 .16457 .82474 -.15458 .04316 -.12367
Q5X4 -.28836 -.78218 -.06884 .00981 -.04601
Q6X16 -.02002 .61663 .02693 -.15758 .26063
NOHHDS -.02909 .02890 .86447 -.00403 .06833
Q4X4X2 .05429 -.40030 .65201 -.03495 -.19812
Q5X1 -.05318 -.36682 -.50616 -.17096 .32428
Q6X9A .05964 .01751 -.03896 -.77065 .13012
Q6X8A -.26483 .06983 .03386 .74140 .20378
Q6X10X1 .35479 -.22324 -.32776 .49391 .00432
FEMP -.08760 -.02186 .09070 -.06459 -.86754
Q5X7 -.02219 .21544 .03801 .07031 .03574
Q6X5A -.39287 .02574 -.30958 .35804 .13339
Q6X3 .09221 -.11524 -.11504 -.08651 -.02065
Mean Stddev N Cases
Q6X6: Are the people on the legal entity/commitee getting on
OK, harmoniously .4286 .4994 56
Not OK, problems or .6667 .4880 15
Significance of t-test .1040
Eta = .1946 Eta Squared = .0379
Q6X11 If anyone in the community has a grievance, are procedures..
Yes, clear and effective .5192 .5045 52
Clear, maybe not eff .2000 .4216 10
Not clear .8333 .4082 6
No procedure .5000 .5774 4
Significance of t-test .0972
Eta = .2968 Eta Squared = .0881
Q6X13 Has all of the Land Grant money been used
Yes .6250 .4945 24
No .4130 .4978 46
Significance of t-test .0947
Eta = .2013 Eta Squared = .0405
Q6X16 Has the community received any other grant assistance
Yes .8571 .3780 7
No .4464 .5016 56
Significance of t-test .0411
Eta = .2582 Eta Squared = .0667
PROVINCE Provincial Name
Eastern Cape .7778 .4410 9
Free State .7333 .4577 15
Gauteng .3333 .5774 3
KZN .2500 .4629 8
Mpumulanga .4286 .5136 14
North West .0000 .0000 4
Northern Cape .5000 .5477 6
Northern Province .2857 .4880 7
Western Cape .5000 .5345 8
Significance of t-test .0783
Eta = .4335 Eta Squared = .1879
Size of Project (No. Members)
1-7 .5652 .5069 23
8-10 .6500 .4894 20
11-15 .1875 .4031 16
15 plus .5333 .5164 15
Significance of f-test .0350
Eta = .3391 Eta Squared = .1150