Transcript DSD nodal baseline

1
Department of Social Development
nodal baseline survey:
Mdantsane 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 Mdantsane data: national report
and results 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 Mdantsane-specific findings
– Mdantsane 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
Mdantsane scorecard
Index
Rating
Poverty
K
Social Capital Deficit
J
Development Deficit
L
Service Delivery Deficit
K
Health Deficit
K
Global
K
A brief glance at the scorecard shows that Mdantsane is a place of contrasts - scoring
positively (above the URP average) on social capital; below average on development
awareness; and within the URP average on all other items including the composite
‘global’ index.
7
Poverty deficit
Poverty Index - URP Nodes
30%
26%
27%
25%
17%
17%
Motherwell
Alexandra
15%
16%
Mdantsane
19%
20%
14%
11%
10%
Khayelitsha
Inanda
Galeshewe
KwaMashu
0%
Mitchells
Plain
5%
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting.
Mdantsane is the 3rd best performing node in this respect.
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
Poverty Measures: Mdantsane vs. URP Avg
80%
100%
48%
47%
Mdantsane
6%
3%
No income
Functional
illiteracy
URPAvg
Unemployed
4%
5%
No
electricity
(lights)
Informal
dwelling
0%
Female
headed HH
2%
3%
Overcrowding
11%
14%
4%
7%
3%
8%
No refuse
removal
No water
4%
13%
3%
19%
40%
No
sanitation
60%
20%
63%
80%
Difference vs URP Avg
150%
127%
100%
50%
28%
No income
The positives, in green, where Mdantsane scored lower
-24% than the URP
-26% (better)
-42%
-49% - 84% below the URP average - RDP
average, include informal
dwellings
-62%
-67%
sanitation, and so on.
-100%
-84%
-50%
Unemployed
Functional
illiteracy
No
electricity
(lights)
Overcrowding
No water
No refuse
removal
No
sanitation
Informal
dwelling
Female
headed HH
2%
0%
Priority areas - where
Mdantsane scored above
the URP average - a
negative result - include
incidence of no regular
income and the rate of
unemployment.
9
Poverty analysis
• In comparison with other URP nodes, poverty may seem to
be less acute in Mdantsane. But the node faces key
challenges in this regard:
– The rate of unemployment was 80%, compared with a URP
–
–
–
–
average of 63%
48% of households were female-headed
At 11%, functional illiteracy was lower than the URP average
(14%)
6% of respondents had no regular income
But many other indicators were positive, with just 3% of
shack dwellers, 4% without RDP sanitation, 4% without RDP
water, and 3% without refuse removal
10
Social capital deficit
Social Capital Deficit Index - URP Nodes
70%
59%
46%
48%
49%
Alexandra
Khayelitsha
Mitchells Plain
44%
46%
Motherwell
42%
Mdantsane
50%
Galeshewe
60%
52%
40%
30%
20%
•
•
•
KwaMashu
0%
Inanda
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.
By comparison with other URP nodes, Mdantsane scores well on social
capital, with the 2nd highest level of social capital among the urban nodes.
11
Social capital deficit
Mdantsane
Be careful
with people
42%
C'ty can't
solve
problems
40%
57%
55%
51%
Anomie
Politics a
waste of
time
Alienation
46%
48%
41%
30%
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
No Religion
0%
No CSO
mmbrship
11%
20%
6%
40%
24%
60%
50%
80%
58%
100%
84%
94%
Social Capital Measures: Mdantsane vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
The only area scoring
negatively was mistrust
Difference vs URP Avg
20%
12%
-18%
-16%
-6%
-30%
-40%
-50%
All other measures were positive: for example, Mdantsane respondents were 43%
more-43%
likely to have a religious affiliation, 19% less likely to agree people only care for
themselves, and so on.
Be careful
with people
No CSO
mmbrship
-18%
-11%
C'ty can't
solve
problems
Politics a
waste of
time
-19%
Alienation
-20%
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
-10%
No Religion
0%
Anomie
10%
12
Development deficit
Development Deficit Index - URP Nodes
60%
56%
47%
Mitchells Plain
38%
39%
Motherwell
33%
38%
Alexandra
31%
Khayelitsha
40%
Inanda
50%
43%
30%
20%
•
•
KwaMashu
Mdantsane
0%
Galeshewe
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.
Mdantsane had the 2nd best level of social capital but has the 2nd worst
level of development awareness.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-16%
No Houses
No water
No Schools
No Health Facilities
19%
No C'ty halls
No HIV/AIDS project
18%
19%
No Devt-Govt
14%
19%
No Other Dev
12%
18%
No Devt-NPOs
11%
18%
No Sport
9%
No Roads
3%
No Farming
Mdantsane
No Creches
1%
No Gardens
48%
40%
No Sport
48%
40%
47%
39%
46%
36%
46%
30%
No Schools
No water
No Houses
59%
50%
49%
41%
No C'ty halls
No Devt-Govt
No Other Dev
81%
68%
48%
42%
No Health Facilities
No Devt-NPOs
42%
37%
No HIV/AIDS project
31%
27%
46%
42%
No Creches
No Roads
42%
40%
36%
36%
No Gardens
No Farming
32%
38%
No food project
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
No food project
13
Development deficit
Development Measures: Mdantsane vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
50%
27%
Mdantsane respondents
had lower than average
awareness of all types of
development (and who
was providing
development) barring
food-growing projects.
14
Service delivery deficit
45%
49%
50%
Khayelitsha
50%
48%
Motherwell
60%
52%
53%
KwaMashu
Service Delivery Deficit Index - URP Nodes
Mdantsane
Mdantsane ranks 5th out of the
8 URP nodes on service
delivery 70%
56%
60%
40%
30%
20%
10%
• 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
Mitchells
Plain
Service Delivery Index
Alexandra
Inanda
Galeshewe
0%
• 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
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
13%
24%
45%
49%
Poor
Quality of
Services
122%
Qualitytransport
poor
Qualityroads
poor
72%
Qualityeducation
poor
Qualityhealth
poor
40%
Qualitysecurity
poor
31%
Qualityrefuse
poor
Mdantsane
Qualitytransport
poor
Qualityroads
poor
Qualityeducation
poor
Qualityhealth
poor
Poor
Quality of
Services
Qualitysecurity
poor
Qualityrefuse
poor
22%
52%
30%
56%
13%
30%
25%
12%
21%
23%
39%
20%
68%
55%
36%
11%
16%
17%
20%
Qualityelectricity
poor
40%
Qualityelectricity
poor
0%
No
Access to
DSD
facility
52%
59%
60%
No
Access to
DSD
facility
Poor DSD
Services
80%
Poor DSD
Services
15
Service delivery – weaknesses
Service Delive ry Measures: M dantsane vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
Diffe re nce vs URP Avg
129%
82%
Weaknesses, i.e. where
doing worse than URP
average, include
respondents are 129%
more likely to rate the
quality of transport as
poor than the URP
average, and 122% more
likely than the URP
average to report the
quality of roads as poor,
and so on.
16
Service delivery – strengths
Mdantsane
78%
66%
No Old age
pension
Govt Dept
Co-ordination
poor
Local Govt
Performance
poor
Qualitywater poor
No Phone
0%
Strengths: Respondents
12%
7%
20%
5%
40%
10%
60%
44%
51%
80%
34%
100%
70%
Service Delivery Measures: Mdantsane vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
-24%
-30%
-28%
-40%
-46%
-50%
-60%
-56%
-2%
No Foster
child grant
-5%
No DSD grant
-16%
No DSD
office
No Old age
pension
Govt Dept
Co-ordination
poor
-20%
Local Govt
Performance
poor
-10%
Qualitywater poor
0%
No Phone
Difference vs URP Avg
-2%
are less likely to complain
about a range of different
services delivered in this node
when compared with the
URP average. For instance,
respondents in this node are
56% less likely to rate the
quality of/ access to water as
poor than the URP average
and 46% less likely than the
URP average to report that
that quality of/ access to
phone communication was
poor and so on.
17
Service Delivery: Main Features
Mdantsane
URP
• Of the households receiving grants a third (36%) are
receiving Child Support Grants
• Average for households receiving Child Support Grants
is a third (37%)
• A third (35%) receiving grants are receiving Pensions
• Average for households receiving pensions is two out of
ten (22%)
•Nearly half (47%) encounter DSD services at a DSD
office
• Four out of ten (44%) experience DSD services at a
DSD office
• A third (35%) of the respondents interact with the DSD
at a Pension Pay Out point
• A third (35%) 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.
18
Health deficit
Mdantsane is ranked as the 5th
best of the 8 URP nodes in respect
to health measures
Health Deficit Index - URP Nodes
40%
30%
34%
54%
Inanda
42%
53%
Motherwell
50%
53%
KwaMashu
60%
45%
37%
29%
20%
10%
Mdantsane
Khayelitsha
Galeshewe
Alexandra
Mitchells
Plain
0%
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
19
Health deficit
39%
42%
41%
42%
33%
40%
29%
60%
44%
56%
Health Measures: Mdantsane vs. URP Avg
1%
1%
20%
Mdantsane
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
Malaria
incidence
Cannot
work
Ltd Social
Activities
Poor
Health
0%
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
50%
42%
40%
30%
20%
10%
-1%
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
Cannot
work
-12%
-5%
Malaria
incidence
-20%
Ltd Social
Activities
-10%
Poor
Health
0%
0%
Priority areas:
Respondents in this node
are 42% more likely to
report difficulty accessing
health care compared
with the URP average.
20
Health
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alcohol Abuse is perceived to the major health problem in Mdantsane, with three out of ten
respondents (30%) reporting this, higher than the average of 24% across all URP nodes
HIV and AIDS was also seen to be a major health problem in the node (28% mentioned this,
lower than the URP average of 42%), as was TB (mentioned by 24% respondents, slightly higher
than the URP average of 23%)
Drug abuse also received mentioned, albeit by far fewer respondents (10%, lower than the URP
average of 14%)
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 health services was perceived to be worse than the IRDP average, in particular
–
–
•
•
•
45% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem
36% 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 and drug abuse, the other
identified diseases and improving access to health facilities
A sectoral or targeted approach is need to focus on these health challenges in this node
Poverty and the health challenges identified in this node cannot be separated and whatever
intervention is decided upon should be in the form of an integrated response to the challenges
facing Mdantsane residents
21
Proportion who agree that both parties in a
relationship should share decision - making
URP Ave r age
Mdantsane
79
Agr ee whether to use fami ly
planni ng
68
95
Agr ee on when to have chi ldr en
Read as: Majority in the
node support the view
that most decisions in
the household require
joint decision-making
by both partners, higher
than the URP average
Agr ee on usi ng income to pay
for health car e or medicines
84
84
77
75
Agr ee on whether to take a sick
chil d to the clinic
67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
22
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
URP Ave r age
Mdantsane
22
Agree that contraception
leads to promiscuity
Read as: Node is relatively
progressive as all myths
about contraception are not
as widely held as the URP
average - though still
widely shared
30
Agree that w omen w ho
use contraception risks
being sterile
41
46
Agree that female
contraception is a
w omen's business and
nothing to do w ith men
46
49
Agree that w omen get
pregnant so w omen m ust
w orry about
contraception
63
71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
23
Proportion who agreed that a man is justified in hitting or
beating his partner in the following situations
URP Average
Mdantsane
Is unfaithful
16
14
Does not look after the children
12
9
Goes out without telling him
7
5
Argues with him
7
4
Refuses to have sex with him
4
3
Burns the food
4
2
Read as: Support for violence against women in all situations is lower in this
node than the URP average and points to a high proportion of positive
attitudes about Gender Based Violence in the node.
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
24
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
Mdantsane
73
Total
Read as: Abortion is NOT
supported by two out of ten
respondents (22%), far
0%lower 10%
than the average (42%)
22
49
20%
5
42
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
9
80%
90%
100%
25
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
Encouraging to note the positive attitudes towards Gender Based Violence,
coupled to qualified support for abortions. Moreover, the node is relatively
progressive when compared to other nodes with regards to most 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.
26
HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels
URP Ave r age
If household member
was infected would want
to keep it secret?
Read as: Prevalence rates are
high and secrecy is very low,
suggesting stigmatization
may be dropping in face of
unavoidability of the
epidemic
Mdantsane
5
19
Heard about those who
have di ed of AIDS in
com muni ty?
89
67
88
Heard about those in
com muni ty wi th AIDS?
66
0
10
20
30
40
50
% Yes
60
70
80
90
100
27
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following
statements
URP Ave r age
Mdantsane
89
Condoms prevent tr ansmissi on
of HIV
85
One can g et AIDS from shar ing
razors
94
Read as: Very high awareness
of how HIV is transmitted,
except in the case of
Mosquitoes
Healthy looki ng per son can have
AIDS
85
92
88
78
Infected mother s can pass on
vi rus thr ough breastfeeding
80
38
Mosq uitoes pass on HIV
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
% who agr ee
60
70
80
90
100
28
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 compares favourably with the
URP average on most of the items except in the case of Mosquitoes).
– This is however, not a surprising response in an area which is NOT affected by
mosquito-borne diseases such as Malaria
•
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
– 8% are providing Home Based Care (HBC)
– 8% 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
29
Conclusions
•
Mdantsane has an average K Global Development Rating. Key challenges
and existing strengths, emerging from the statistical analysis, are below.
Challenges
Strengths
Poverty K
• Higher than average incidence
of no regular income and high
rate of unemployment
• Low incidence of shacks, positive on
sanitation and refuse removal
Development L
• Low awareness across the
board
• Only above average on food project
awareness
Service Delivery
K
• Concerns re transport, roads,
education
• Positive scores re water, phone
access, local government performance
Health K
• Low scores re access to health
facilities
• Increasing support to HBC
initiatives and orphans
• Positive scores on health generally
Social Capital J
• Above average incidence of
mistrust
• Generally positive scores