ActionAid International Southern Africa Partnership Programme (SAPP-Zimbabwe) where over 60% of the affected resided. Furthermore, 30% of the respondents said they were not able to quantify in dollar terms how much they had lost. Therefore the figures presented here a just a drop as to exactly quantify the amounts individuals had invested before the Operation. 3.5 Coping mechanisms being employed by affected communities Figure 10: “Not managing” vulnerable groups Coping mechanisms are behavioural HH with children not attending school changes made at HH hosting mentally ill/physically household level to challenged adjust to HH hosting chronically ill unexpected and expected shocks. It HH hosting orphan(s) becomes extremely prudent to establish Elderly headed HH how households are Women headed HH coping as a result of the sheer magnitude Child headed HH of the operation. Coping mechanisms 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% employed paint a good picture on the vulnerability status of the affected communities. Furthermore, Coping strategies are the measures people resort to when normal livelihood options are not adequate to meet the needs of their households. The monitoring of trends (deterioration/improvement) in coping strategies can provide an early and fairly reliable indication of disaster and/or recovery. Currently, only 49% households reported that they were using their own resources to sustain the family. A further 24% claimed to be getting assistance from relatives, whilst government, community based organizations and non-governmental organizations accounted for a mere 7%. Coping mechanisms across sites sampled were (refer to Appendix 6.10) more importantly is the realization that 28% of households were not managing at all. In this bracket, the majority were child-, elderly- and female headed households, households hosting orphans, chronically ill, mentally and physically challenged persons and those with children not attending school (Figure 10). This proportion is in urgent need of assistance, whilst those that are being supported by relative may not be in immediate need, will require help in the near future, since relatives’ support may be temporary and stretched as these find themselves in the same predicament. The following are general observations made from the analysis; Harare had 35% of respondents claiming not managing currently, followed by Bulawayo with 22%; Fewer respondents in Mutare (12%), Kariba (13%), Beitbridge (5%) and Victoria Falls (11%) were not managing as a result of the Operation. Households in Kariba seem to have been coping better than all areas with 77% claiming to be surviving from own resources. Relative support was cited as the commonest (62%) coping mechanism being employed by people residing in Beitbridge. The remaining urban areas Zimbabwe Operation Murambatsvina/Restore Order National Survey Report 27