Multiple Concurrent Partnerships and the

ChurchA Pilot Study to Assess the Attitudes and

Perceptions of Community Leaders of Faith by PACANet

Chinyelu K. Lee, Rose A. Nesbitt and Dorothy Brewster-Lee

CCIH Annual Conference, May 24, 2009

Objective

• Assess beliefs about the prevalence and causes of multiple concurrent partnerships (MCP) in churches from the perspective of active members of the faith community.

• Learn more about the response of the church to MCP.

• Test questions for larger future study.

We Talked To…

• Small pilot study (n=65).

• Participants at PACANet’s pre-ICASA conference (Dakar, December 2008).

Table 1. Respondent Demographics (n=65)

Sex Age RegionMale 69.2% 25 – 34 16.9% Non-SADC Africa 64.6%Female 30.8% 35 – 44 32.3% SADC 23.1%

45 – 54 38.5% Euro. & N. America 12.3%55 – 64 12.3%

Residence* Marital Status Organization

Urban 67.7% Married 81.2% FBO 16.9%Peri-urban 13.8% Single 18.8% NGO 32.3%Rural 13.8% Church 38.5%DK/NR† 4.6% CBO 12.3%

Religious Affiliation Religious Attendance

Mainline Protestant 50.8% Multiple weekly 35.4%Evangelical 33.8% Weekly 55.4%Catholic 10.8% Monthly 3.1%Muslim 3.1% Yearly 1.5%Monotheist 1.5% None 3.1%

DK 1.5%

*The categories of residence do not add to 100.0 percent primarily due to a rounding error involvingperi-urban and rural (both 13.846 percent).† Don’t know/No response.

What Did We Find? (Part 1)

• Most said that they “don’t know” about the pervasiveness of MCP in their church.

• Of those that gave a different response, a plurality believed that it was less than 10 percent of their fellow church members.

9.2%

24.6%

49.2%

12.3% 4.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

None Less than10%

10% to 20% More than20%

Don't knowNone Less than 10%

10% to 20%

More than 10%

Don't know

7.7%

29.2%

56.9%

3.1% 3.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

None Less than10%

10% to 20% More than20%

Don't knowNone Less than 10%

10% to 20%

More than 10%

Don't know

Men in Church

Women in

Church

What Did We Find? (Part 1)

• Evangelicals that attended church more than once per week were significantly more likely to report less than 10 percent of fellow church members (male and female) engaged in MCP.

Male MCP < 10% O.R.Non-evangelical/Once Weekly or Less Attend.

0.00

Non-evangelical/Multiple Times Per Week Attend.

2.60

Evangelical/Once Weekly or Less Attend.

2.38

Evangelical/Multiple Times Per Week Attend.

9.72**

Female MCP < 10% O.R.

Non-evangelical/Once Weekly or Less Attend.

0.00

Non-evangelical/Multiple Times Per Week Attend.

3.57

Evangelical/Once Weekly or Less Attend.

3.47

Evangelical/Multiple Times Per Week Attend.

9.72**

What Did We Find? (Part 2)• Plurality “don’t know” the most common

type of MCP in their church.

• Spouse and steady or occasional boyfriend or girlfriend next most frequent responses (i.e., not one night stands or sex workers).

• MCP economics for women and biology or status for men — not unavoidable for either.

• No substantive or significant differences when we ask about the cause of MCP for men in the community as compared to men in the church.

• Respondents most likely to turn to church leader compared to other available options in the community if they suspect marital infidelity.

• Monogamy is possible and desirable.

• Evangelical Protestants and Catholics report more activities geared toward addressing MCP than mainline Protestants. However, the key difference, once again, was frequency of church attendance.

What Did We Find? (Part 3)

• Pilot study — does not generalize very far.

• Difference in perceptions about why males and females engage in MCP.

• There is appears to be a clear difference in the perceptions of frequent church attendees and others with respect to MCP. Is it just a matter of exposure or is there an actual difference?

What Does It All Mean?

• Hopefully, we can randomly sample from an expanded population in the near future.

• Work to get larger studies (e.g., DHS) to include a question about frequency of religious observance.

• Thank you!

Where Do We Go From Here?