Transcript DSD nodal baseline

1
Department of Social Development
nodal baseline survey:
Central Karoo results
2
Objectives of overall project
• Conduct socio-economic and demographic baseline study and situational
analyses of DSD services across the 14 ISRDP and 8 URP Nodes
• Integrate existing provincial research activities in the 10 ISRDP nodes of
the UNFPA’s 2nd Country Programme
• Monitor and evaluate local projects, provide SLA support
• Identify and describe types of services being delivered (including Sexual
Reproductive Health Services)
• Establish the challenges encountered in terms of delivery & make
recommendations regarding service delivery gaps and ultimately overall
improvement in service delivery
• Provide an overall assessment of impact of these services
• Project began with baseline & situational analysis; then on-going nodal
support; and will end in 2008 with second qualitative evaluation and a
second survey, a measurement survey that looks for change over time.
3
Methodology for generating these results
• First-ever integrated nodal baseline survey in all nodes,
urban and rural
• All results presented here based on original, primary data
• Sample based on census 2001; stratified by municipality in
ISRDP and wards in URP; then probability proportional to
size (PPS) sampling used in both urban and rural,
randomness via selection of starting point and respondent;
external back-checks to ensure fieldwork quality
• 8387 interviews completed in 22 nodes
• Sample error margin: 1.1% - nodal error margin: 4.9%
• This presentation is only Central Karoo data: national
report and results are available from DSD.
4
How to read these findings
• Baseline survey on 5 major areas of DSD/government work:
– Poverty
– Development
– Social Capital
– Health Status
– Service Delivery
• Indices created to track strengths and challenges in each area;
and combined to create a global nodal index. Allows
comparison within and across node, overall and by sector.
• Using this index, high index score = bad news
• Nodes colour-coded on basis of ranking relative to other nodes
– Red:
Really bad compared to others
– Yellow: OK
– Green: Better than others
5
Findings
•
Detailed baseline report available
– Published November 2006
– Detailed findings across all nodes
– Statistical tables available for all nodes
– Background chapter of secondary data available for each node
– Qualitative situation analysis available per node
•
This presentation
– High level Central Karoo-specific findings
– Central Karoo scorecard on key indicators
– Identify key strengths/weakness for the node and target areas for
interventions
•
What next?
– 2008 will see qualitative evaluation and second quantitative survey to
measure change over time
6
Central Karoo scorecard
Index
Rating
Poverty
J
Social Capital Deficit
K
Development Deficit
K
Service Delivery Deficit
J
Health Deficit
J
Global
J
Compared with other nodes, Central Karoo is by some degree the least troubled, with
green lights flashing in most areas, as well as overall ‘global’ index in the green,
meaning it is doing well compared with the other ISRDP nodes. The only less positive
areas are social capital and awareness of development activities, which score yellow
(‘OK compared with other ISRDP nodes’)
7
Poverty
Maruleng
Kgalagadi
Sekhukhune
Chris Hani
Ukhahlamba
Ugu
Zululand
58%
Umkhanyakude
50%
57%
Umzinyathi
46%
56%
Alfred Nzo
46%
50%
43%
47%
41%
55%
18%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
10%
0%
36%
Central Karoo
50%
40%
30%
20%
52%
Bushbuckridge
70%
60%
O.R. Tambo
Poverty Index - ISRDP Nodes
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting.
Central Karoo is - by some degree - the least poor of the 14 ISRDP nodes.
Female headed households
Overcrowding
Unemployment
No refuse removal
No income
No RDP standard water
Informal housing
No RDP standard sanitation
Functional illiteracy
No electricity for lighting
8
Poverty deficit
54%
38%
29%
2%
Il li terate
Femal eheaded
household
1%
No i ncome
Unemployed
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
20%
-60%
-80%
-100%
-73%
-89%
-87%
-86%
-83%
-68%
-33%
Il li terate
-24%
Femal eheaded
househol d
-38%
No income
Unemployed
No
electri city 4
li ghts
Overcrowding
No RDP
water
No refuse
removal
-40%
Informal
-20%
4%
No RDP
sanitati on
0%
53%
78%
49%
30%
9%
No
electri city 4
li ghts
4%
1%
Overcrowding
11%
No RDP
water
65%
75%
11%
No refuse
removal
7%
51%
Central Karoo
Informal
9%
No RDP
sanitati on
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
80%
Poverty Measures: Central Karoo vs. ISRDP Avg
For example, read as:
Central Karoo respondents
89% more likely than
ISRDP average to have
RDP sanitation; 87% less
likely to live in informal
dwellings; etc. Only point
where doing worse than
ISRDP average is 4% more
likely to have female-headed
households.
9
Social capital deficit
Social Capital Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
60%
44%
45%
45%
47%
48%
43%
Zululand
Ugu
Ukhahlamba
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Umkhanyakude
Maruleng
41%
Central Karoo
27%
41%
Chris Hani
30%
39%
O.R. Tambo
40%
38%
Sekhukhune
50%
Umzinyathi
52%
49%
29%
20%
•
Kgalagadi
•
•
Alfred Nzo
0%
Bushbuckridge
10%
This graph measures the social capital deficit - so high scores are bad news.
Social capital includes networks of reciprocation, trust, alienation and
anomie, membership of civil society organisations, and so on.
Central Karoo has the 6th highest level of social capital among ISRDP
nodes. Scoring better than it are a number of eastern Cape nodes, where
social capital seems strongest. Social capital got an ‘average’ score in the
node.
10
Social capital deficit
20%
32%
People
only care
4 selves
No CSO
mmbrship
Anomie
58%
76%
61%
49%
31%
35%
54%
38%
56%
C'ty can't
solve own
problems
Central Karoo ISRDP Av g
Must be
careful
with
people
9%
3%
Religion
0
Social
Capital
Index
0
0
0.2
Alienation
21%
0.6
0.4
48%
0.8
Politics a
waste of
time
1
70%
Social Capital Measures: Central Karoo vs. ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
80%
59%
60%
40%
25%
-80%
-71%
Priority areas
Peopl e
only care
4 sel ves
No CSO
mmbrship
Anomie
Politics a
waste of
ti me
-31%
-45%
-3%
C'ty can't
solve own
probl ems
-60%
Must be
careful
with
people
-40%
Religi on
0%
Ali enation
20%
-20%
32%
13%
For example, read as: Central
Karoo respondents were 59% more
likely than ISRDP average to
believe people only care for
themselves; 32% more likely not to
belong to a CSO; and so on.
Anomie - the notion that the
individual cannot affect broader
developments - was 25% more
common among Central Karoo
respondents. On the positive side,
FBO membership was higher than
average, alienation was down, and
so on.
11
Development deficit
Development Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
57%
60%
34%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
36%
Central Karoo
34%
35%
Sekhukhune
27%
31%
Bushbuckridge
30%
30%
Chris Hani
40%
Umzinyathi
50%
38%
40%
44%
46%
49%
23%
20%
•
Maruleng
O.R. Tambo
Ugu
Alfred Nzo
Zululand
Umkhanyakude
•
Ukhahlamba
0%
Kgalagadi
10%
This index measures respondents’ awareness of development projects, of all
types, carried out by government and/or CSOs. It is a perception measure not an objective indication of what is actually happening on the ground.
Central Karoo rates in the middle of ISRDP nodes on development
awareness, its other average scoring area alongside social capital.
12
Development deficit
Central Karoo
Schools
31%
48%
49%
35%
Health
41%
31%
Water
48%
44%
33%
Farming
35%
40%
34%
Creches
Other
Dev
32%
32%
Gardens
DevtNPOs
DevtGovt
24%
32%
Houses
29%
36%
25%
34%
Com Halls
Food
Roads
0%
Sport
25%
34%
HIV/Aids
15%
8%
20%
26%
40%
31%
60%
46%
54%
80%
60%
67%
Development Measures:Central Karoo vs. ISRD Avg
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRD Avg
80%
56%
-60%
-80%
39%
40%
Other Dev
Health
The positives, in
green,
show-23%
better-19%
than average awareness of various
-27%
-28%
interventions
as well as role of govt. and CSO in delivery
-51%
-69%
Schools
-2%
Creches
-11%
Gardens
-15%
Devt-NPOs
Devt-Govt
Sport
Houses
Com Halls
Food
HIV/Aids
-40%
Roads
-20%
35%
18%
20%
0%
34%
Water
40%
Farming
60%
Awareness lower than
ISRDP average across
a range of types of
development delivery.
13
Service Delivery Deficit
Central Karoo has the best
rating on service delivery
amongst the70%
14 ISRDP nodes
Ukhahlamba
Ugu
O.R. Tambo
61%
62%
Bushbuckridge
Kgalagadi
61%
Maruleng
Umkhanyakude
57%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
51%
57%
Sekhukhune
51%
54%
50%
53%
50%
Alfred Nzo
40%
47%
Umzinyathi
50%
48%
Zululand
60%
Chris Hani
Service Delivery Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
39%
30%
20%
10%
Central Karoo
0%
Service Delivery Index
• Average proportion receiving DSD Grants
• Average proportion making use of DSD Services
• Average proportion rating government services
as poor quality
• Proportion who rarely have clean water
• Proportion with no/limited phone access
• Proportion who believe there is no coordination
in government
• Proportion who believe local council has
performed badly/terribly
• Proportion who have not heard of IDPs
14
Service delivery – weaknesses
65%
42%
19%
9%
40%
20%
60%
47%
25%
25%
80%
60%
72%
64%
98%
89%
88%
84%
91%
89%
99%
97%
120%
100%
99%
98%
Service Delivery Measures: Central Karoo vs. ISRDP Avg
Central Karoo
Participation
IDPs
Child
support
grant
Pension
point
Old age
pension
Child
welfare
Grants
Mean
DSD
Services
Mean
Place of
safety
Phone
Disability
workshop
0%
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
112%
120%
100%
80%
53%
60%
40%
Phone
Place of
safety
DSD
Services
Mean
Grants
Mean
0%
10%
Participation
IDPs
5%
Child
support
grant
2%
Pension
point
1%
Old age
pension
1%
Child
welfare
1%
Disability
workshop
20%
27%
13%
Weaknesses, i.e. where
doing worse than ISRDP
average, are largely to do with
grants. For instance, access to
the Child Support Grant
(rated 53% lower than
ISRDP), access to pension
points (27% lower in the node
than the ISRDP average) and
so on.
15
Service delivery – strengths
13%
13%
8%
12%
18%
40%
41%
42%
60%
20%
69%
80%
56%
67%
Service Delivery Measures: Central Karoo vs. ISRDP Avg
Strengths: Respondents are
Central Karoo
Qualityhealth
Qualitywater
Qualitysewerage
Qualityhousing
Qualityrefuse
0%
ISRDP Avg
-80%
-90%
-100%
-58%
-79%
-87%
-74%
-69%
-68%
-66%
Staff
helpfulness
Mean
Quality
Qualityhealth
Qualitywater
Qualityelectricity
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
Qualitysewerage
Qualityhousing
0%
-10%
-20%
Qualityrefuse
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-55%
less likely to complain about
access to/ quality of aspects of
basic service delivery in the node
when compared with the ISRDP
average. For instance,
respondents in this node are
87% less likely to rate the
quality of refuse collection as
poor than the ISRDP average
16
Service Delivery: Main Features
Central Karoo
ISRDP
• Of the households receiving grants a third (35%) are
receiving Child Support Grants
• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support
Grants is half (50%)
• A quarter (28%) of households receiving grants are
receiving Pensions
• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a
third (31%)
• Half (50%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office
• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at
a DSD office
• Four out of ten (40%) of the respondents interact with
the DSD at a Pension Pay Out point
• A third (31%) across all nodes will receive DSD services
at a Pension Pay Out point
•
•
Other important services provided by DSD such as Children Homes,
Rehabilitation Centres and Drop-In Centres worryingly received no mention by
respondents and signals very low awareness of these critical services.
Urgent thought should be given as to how best to raise awareness across the
node with respect to these under utilised services - and how to increase
penetration of DSD services as well as grants in the node.
17
Health deficit
Central Karoo is ranked as the
best ISRDP node in respect to
health measures
58%
58%
58%
Bushbuckridge
Chris Hani
Zululand
63%
Umkhanyakude
57%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Kgalagadi
56%
Umzinyathi
Alfred Nzo
53%
56%
Ukhahlamba
47%
55%
O.R. Tambo
46%
54%
Maruleng
46%
Ugu
45%
Sekhukhune
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Central Karoo
He alth De ficit Inde x - ISRDP Node s
Health Index
• Proportion of household infected by malaria
• Proportion who had difficulty in doing daily
past 12 months
• Proportion who experience difficulty
accessing health care
• Proportion who rated their health
poor/terrible during past 4 weeks
work
• Proportion whose usual social activities were
limited by physical/emotional problems
18
Health deficit
61%
46%
37%
22%
Access
ISRDP Av g
Ltd
Social
Activities
Central Karoo
Poor
Health
Malari
0%
Cannot
work
1%
3%
40%
20%
39%
60%
54%
80%
55%
64%
Health Measures: Central Karoo vs. ISRDP Av g
-30%
-32%
-40%
-44%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-81%
-90%
-28%
Ltd Social
Activities
Cannot work
-20%
Poor Health
-10%
Malari
0%
Access
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-11%
Strengths:
Central Karoo, because of
its high health rating when
compared with other
ISRDP nodes, is better on
all the key health variables.
For instance, respondents
are 44% less likely to rate
their health as poor than
the ISRDP average, and
32% less likely to report
that poor health has
prevented them from
working than the ISRDP
average
19
Health
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alcohol Abuse was reported as the major health problem in the Central Karoo, by a third of
the respondents (34%, higher than the average of 28% across all nodes)
HIV and AIDS was also reported as a major health problem in node, by a further third of all
respondents (32%, slightly higher than the average of 30% across all nodes), as was TB (20%
cited this in the node vs. ISRDP average of 16%)
Men were as likely as women to rate their health as poor
Youth were as likely as older adults to rate their health as poor
Access to services which has been perceived as a major issue in other nodes was surprisingly not
seen to be a major obstacle, with respondents in the node 28% less likely than the ISRDP average
to report access to health services as a problem, thus we find that only
– 23% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem
– 37% of respondents reported paying for health services as being a problem
These findings highlight the key health issues facing those in the node and point to the need for
an integrated approach that focuses on the issues of alcohol abuse, HIV and AIDS, and TB
A sectoral or targeted approach is need to focus on these disease related issues in this node
Poverty and the health challenge of HIV and AIDS and cannot be separated and whatever
intervention is decided upon should be in the form of an integrated response to the challenges
facing Central Karoo residents
20
Proportion who agree that both parties in a
relationship should share decision - making
Ave rage
Ce ntr al Kar oo
88
Agr ee whether to use fami ly
planni ng
65
95
Agr ee on when to have chi ldr en
78
79
Agr ee on usi ng income to pay
for health car e or medicines
68
63
Agr ee on whether to take a sick
chil d to the clinic
Read as: Majority
the node support
the view that
most decisions
in the household
require joint
decision-making
by both partners
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
21
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
Ave rage
Ce ntr al Kar oo
25
Agree that contraception
leads to promiscuity
Read as: myths
about contraception
are not nearly as
widely held as the
ISRDP average.
30
Agree that w omen w ho
use contraception risks
being sterile
24
39
Agree that female
contraception is a
w omen's business and
nothing to do w ith men
25
43
Agree that w omen get
pregnant so w omen m ust
w orry about
contraception
39
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
22
Proportion who agreed that a man is justified in hitting or
beating his partner in the following situations
Average
Central Karoo
Is unfaithful
23
24
Does not look after the children
21
40
Goes out without telling him
16
18
Argues with him
15
18
Refuses to have sex with him
9
19
Burns the food
7
8
Read as: Support for violence against women is higher in this node than the ISRDP
average, which points to worryingly high, negative attitudes towards Gender Based
Violence in the node - contrasting with positive views on reproductive health issues.
Disturbing to note that the differences between males and females, and young and
old, in terms of attitudes towards Gender Based Violence are not large - these
negative attitudes have been absorbed by men and women, young and old, and
interventions are needed to break this cycle
23
Attitudes towards abortion
Agree that abortion should only be allowed if mother's life in danger
Agree that abortion is morally wrong and should never be allowed
Agree that abortion on request should be the right of every women
Central Karoo
54
Total
Read as: Abortion is NOT
supported by a third of all
respondents (36%) lower
0%
than the ISRDP average
(42%)
36
49
10%
20%
10
42
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
9
80%
90%
100%
24
Sexual Reproductive Health & GBV
•
•
•
•
•
Findings point to the need for nuanced campaigns around contraception and
their very close link with inappropriate attitudes to women in the node
Disturbing to note the high levels of support for Gender Based Violence, coupled
to qualified support for abortions. Nevertheless the node is relatively progressive
when compared to other ISRDP nodes with regards to myths about
contraception. Hence the need for a campaign that is based on a solid
understanding of local attitudes towards both sexual reproductive health and
GBV as opposed to the interests of a national campaign
Whilst many in the node support the idea that decisions in the household require
joint decision-making by both partners, those who do not support joint decisionmaking have taken it further and endorsed physically abusing women
Need to develop an integrated approach that takes poverty and the health
challenges facing nodal residents into account and also integrate critical aspects
of GBV and Sexual Reproductive Health
Challenge is to integrate Sexual Reproductive Health and GBV issues with other
related services being provided by a range of governmental and nongovernmental agencies - integration and co-ordination remain the core
challenges in the ISRDP and URP nodes.
25
HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels
Ave rage
If household member was
infected woul d want to keep it
secret?
Read as: Prevalence
rates are high and
secrecy is relatively low,
suggesting
stigmatization may be
dropping in face of
unavoidability of the
epidemic
Ce ntr al Kar oo
10
18
72
Heard about those who have
died of AIDS in community?
64
65
Heard about those i n
community with AIDS?
63
0
10
20
30
40
% Yes
50
60
70
80
26
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following
statements
Ave rage
Ce ntr al Kar oo
79
Condoms prevent tr ansmissi on
of HIV
83
72
One can g et AIDS from shar ing
razors
85
79
Healthy looki ng per son can have
AIDS
82
85
Infected mother s can pass on
vi rus thr ough breastfeeding
80
37
Mosq uitoes pass on HIV
Read as: High awareness
of how HIV is transmitted
33
0
10
20
30
40
50
% who agr ee
60
70
80
90
27
HIV and AIDS
•
•
•
•
Evidence suggests that previous campaigns (and the high incidence of the
pandemic in the node) have led to high awareness of impact of HIV and
AIDS.
Encouraging to see how many in the node have correct knowledge about
the transmission of the disease (the node is only slightly lower than the
average scores for the ISRDP on most of the items), nevertheless the
previous slide does show areas which should be prioritised in future
campaigns
Despite high levels of poverty in this node, there is some evidence that
respondents are trying to actively assist those community members who
are infected and suffering
– 17% are providing Home Based Care (HBC)
– 17% providing direct support to orphans
These findings support the need for an urgent integrated intervention in the
node that incorporates health, poverty, GBV, HIV and AIDS
28
Conclusion
Central Karoo has a positive J Global Development Rating. Key existing
challenges and strengths emerging from the statistical analysis appear
below.
Index
Poverty J
Priorities
Strengths
• Least poor node. Some challenges are
female-headed households, illiteracy
• Good scores on sanitation, low
informal dwelling, refuse removal
Social Capital K • Low sense of caring in c’ty, low CSO
membership
• High FBO membership,
trust/care evident
Health J
• GBV & Sexual Reproductive Health;
alcohol abuse; low HBC & orphan
support initiatives
• Access to health facilities
Service Delivery
J
• Generally good but can improve
access to grants & DSD service delivery
• Basic service delivery sores well
Development K
• Low awareness of school building,
health
• Higher awareness of road
building, food projects, HIV
projects