Everatt, D. et al. (1993, March). Growing Up Tough. Johannesburg: The Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE).

OVERVIEW

Youth in South Africa have been alternately characterised as “the lost generation” or as entirely unproblematic. The truth is far more complex.

Growing Up Tough is the first comprehensive National South African youth survey conducted. It forms an interesting basis of comparison with the Youth 2000 survey done seven years later (although there is a frustrating amount of only “almost” comparable data between the two). It was commissioned by the Joint Enrichment Project as the first of many steps in developing a national South African youth policy and setting up a national youth commission.

1993 Was the year that preceded the momentous first democratic elections of South Africa. In 1993, there was great uncertainty regarding the future, political violence on all sides of the political spectrum, and massive political unrest as well as wide-reaching political negotiations (CODESA). This survey has helped to form youth policy and interventions and is a seminal work that provides demographic, attitudinal, and programmatic information which helps to measure the marginalisation of South African youth. The authors of the survey describe marginalised youth as

those young people who, to different extents, see themselves as having little or no future, who are alienated from their families, job or school; who are out of touch with, or hostile to, the changes taking place in South Africa; and who have been the victims of abuse and/or violence; who have a poor self-image; or who are not involved in any organisation or structure.

DESIGN

Growing Up Tough is a comprehensive survey of the youth of South Africa. The survey was designed through a series of focus groups and consultative workshops that included market research, social research professionals, and youth themselves. The resulting interview questionnaire was piloted and checked for accuracy before being rolled out.

In the end, the 2,200 young people between the ages of 16 to 30 were interviewed face to face, each in the respondent’s language of choice, for up to 1¼ hours each. The interviewers then completed the survey sheet which was captured on computer and analysed. The survey was racially representative, covering all parts of South Africa including the then “homelands” of Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei, and Venda and was careful to include samples from rural, urban, suburban, and informal settlement areas.

FINDINGS

DEMOGRAPHICS

• 10.7 Million South Africans are between 16 and 30.
• 97% Of white, coloured and Indian youth live in a house or a flat. 20% of black youth live in a shack and a further 9% live in a hut.
• 43% Of youth were born in rural areas; 32% in urban areas; 23% in metropolitan areas; and 2% in squatter areas.
• 47% Of young black South Africans live in a home with electricity (compared with coloured 87%, Indian 99% and white 100%).
• 36% Young black South Africans live in a home where there is running water (compared with coloured 84%, Indian 92% and white 97%).

RECREATION AND RELIGION

• 87% Of all youth have access to a radio.
• 53% Of black youth have access to a television, compared to 93% for youth of the other three races.
• Young South Africans are serious about religion: more than 50% of women (37% men) attend services weekly. Only 9% of youth say they never attend church at all.
• Youth are three times more likely to be involved in a church (38%) or a sport’s club (32%) than in political organisations (12%). The latter represents a major shift from the previous generations who were highly politicised.
• 53% Of younger youth between 16 and 20 attend church once a week or more.
• The largest denomination attended by all youth is the Methodist church (17%), followed by Catholic (12%); Apostolic (12%), and Anglican (9%). The trend is similar for young black South Africans except that AICs (African Independent Churches) replace Anglican churches in popularity.

EDUCATION

• 41% Of the youth surveyed are currently studying.
• 12% Of young black and coloured South Africans have only primary education (7 years).
• 20% Of white youth have degrees or diplomas (10% for Indians, 5% for blacks).
• Nearly half of youth have had to stop studying for financial reasons.
• 69% Of youth have plans to continue studying to the level they had originally planned.
• 34% Of respondents would choose correspondence as a way to further their education as opposed to returning to an institution, doing an apprenticeship or participating in an adult education programme.
• 13% Of young women are forced out of education because they were pregnant.

EMPLOYMENT

• 52% Of all economically active youth are unemployed (black 57%, coloured 46%, Indian 17% and white 4%).
• Average unemployment is 14% higher for women than for men.
• 79% Of youth who are unemployed are looking for work.
• 33% Of working young black South Africans earn 500 rand (approximately $50.00) or less per month (coloured 17%, Indian 14% and white 5%).
• 57% Of white youth expressed an interest in self-employment.
• Only 9% of youth overall expressed an interest in micro-enterprise, preferring instead the perceived job security of employment in large corporations.
• Young black youth expressed interest in access to training skills (which would be more sustainable in the long term) over job creation schemes (e.g., public works programmes or schemes which are shorter term).
• 60% Do not expect to fulfill their potential.

SEX AND AIDS

• 29% Of young women who have a child had their first child by the age of 18.
• 68% Of first children were unplanned.
• 43% Of women with children were still at school when they became pregnant.
• 73% Of South Africa’s youth wrongly believe they are not personally at risk from HIV/AIDS.
• 3% Of youth had not heard of AIDS.
• 39% Of youth have factually incorrect information about AIDS.
• 1% Of youth admitted to having been violently abused as a child and another 1%, sexually abused.
• 25% Of women knew of someone who had been raped.
• 5% Of young people are currently being beaten by their partners. Another 23% know of others who are suffering this form of violence.

YOUTH MARGINALISATION

The survey describes 12 dimensions of marginalisation. The figure in brackets represents the % of youth who are deemed to have high scores in each category.

• Abuse. Those who have suffered physical or sexual abuse (1%).
• Legal. Those who belong to gangs; have criminal records or admire rape, fraud, or assault (2%).
• Violence. Perpetrators or victims of violence (2%).
• Disintegrating family. Those from broken families (5%).
• Racial antagonism. Victims and perpetrators of prejudice and racial hated (7%).
• Headspace. Those who describe themselves as violent or angry or who have a low self-image (14%).
• Health/AIDS. Those who have never heard of AIDS or who have inaccurate information about AIDS (24%).
• Political alienation. Those having minority or extremist views outside of the political system (22%).
• Societal involvement. Not involved in organised groups such as church, youth, political, sports, or student groups (26%).
• Occupational situation. Those alienated from school or place of work; those who are unemployed (27%).
• Generational conflict. Those exhibiting unusual hostility towards elders at home and in society (40%).
• Future. General fatalism about the future; no hope for the future; pessimistic (43%).

Additional and related findings:

• Youth of all races are alienated about their own future and that of South Africa.
• African and coloured youth score higher on “generational hostility” and “headspace” than white and Indian youth.
• White youth score low on “occupational situation” but high on “racial antagonism.”
• Women are more isolated and “societally uninvolved” except for church involvement.
• Young men have a poorer self-image than young men.
• The older group (26-30) are more alienated about the future and most “societally uninvolved.”
• Violence and “occupational alienation” in squatter camps is highest while “racial discrimination” is lowest.
• City dwellers are most societally involved.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this survey defines 4 types of youth: those who are “fine” (25%), “at risk” (43%), “marginalised” (27%), or “lost” (5%). There are more young men are in the “lost” category than young women, while, in the marginalised category, this is reversed. There are no gender differences in the “fine” and “at risk” categories. The authors of the survey highlight the fact that youth are not to be put into any one of these categories merely because of their race, educational status, or geographical location. Rather, through categorising youth through the 12 “dimensions of concern” grid, we have a useful tool for those wanting to analyse their community and those sub-grouping within their community.

CRITIQUE AND EVALUATION

CASE has a good reputation in South Africa for being scientifically rigorous. This survey therefore can be trusted as accurate. On the negative, however, is their choice of age group, which follows closely the political demarcation of youth (14-34) rather than the grouping with which most youth practitioners are concerned (12-20). It means that many of the results deal with issues outside of the concern of this younger age group, like employment and parenting (although many do become parents even under the age of 20).

The recommendations are not the most valuable part of this survey. For example, the recommendation that “fine” youth should be trained as peer educators and given leadership training does not take into account that in every group of young people there are leaders and influencers, and that leaders and peer educators are not (nor should not be) confined to one group only.

There is also some confusion with terms and definitions in the survey (i.e., does Apostolic refer to Apostolic Faith Mission, the Orthodox Church, Old Apostolic Church, or an Apostolic African Independent Church?). Each of those churches are poles apart in faith and practice. Similarly does “metro” refer to “township” or “suburb”? Clearer definitions need to be provided.

Finally this survey has caused much debate over the terms “at risk,” “marginalised,” and “lost” youth—a debate which has helped youth practitioners engage with the problems of youth in South Africa. Many youth development programmes concentrate on “at risk” youth—an understandable use of resources, while specialist groups develop interventions for those who are “marginalised.”

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1. Which of these findings do you think apply to the group of young people with whom you have contact?
2. How helpful is it to characterise youth as “fine,” “at risk,” “marginalised,” or “lost”?
3. Compare the findings of this survey with the one done seven years later. What are the major changes? What changes do you anticipate in the coming seven years? On what have you based your predictions?

IMPLICATIONS

1. The basic lack of amenities for youth in township and squatter camps mean that youth do not have equal opportunities to maximise their potential (i.e., having no electricity means having limited light by which to study).
2. Programmes which help youth fulfill their potential are urgently needed, since as youth exhibit some lack of hope because of a lack of financial and structural resources such as education and employment, they also describe themselves as ambitious, happy, caring, confident, and honest. This positiveness should be harnessed in development and intervention programmes.
3. Because of high church attendance, church has a major role to play in programmes aimed at reaching youth of all races, young women in particular.
4. There is a need for correspondence education, because it is cheaper than institutional education and because young people can work while studying.
5. Urgent programmes are needed to educate those who do not know about AIDS and the 8 million youth who believe themselves to be at no personal risk from the disease.

Sharlene Swartz cCYS