Transcript DSAD nodal baseline results

1
Department of Social Development
nodal baseline survey:
Ugu 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 Ugu data: national report &
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 Ugu-specific findings
– Ugu 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
Ugu Scorecard
Index
Poverty
Social Capital Deficit
Development Deficit
Service Delivery Deficit
Health Deficit
Global
Rating


L


L
Compared with other nodes, Ugu has one sector-based red (warning) light, for
development awareness. The global index - a composite index - is also red, indicating
that Ugu is among the worst-off of the 14 ISRDP nodes.
7
Poverty
58%
Umkhanyakude
Sekhukhune
57%
Umzinyathi
Kgalagadi
56%
Alfred Nzo
Maruleng
47%
55%
O.R. Tambo
46%
Zululand
46%
52%
Ugu
43%
50%
Ukhahlamba
41%
50%
18%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
10%
0%
36%
Central Karoo
50%
40%
30%
20%
Bushbuckridge
70%
60%
Chris Hani
Poverty Index - ISRDP Nodes
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting.
Ugu has the equal 6th worst level of poverty 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
Ugu
71%
51%
84%
75%
Informal
dwelling
No refuse
removal
No water
No
electricity
(lights)
Female
headed HH
No
sanitation
4%
4%
ISRDP Avg
Unemployed
No income
0%
Functional
illiteracy
1%
2%
20%
Overcrowding
40%
32%
30%
33%
38%
60%
72%
65%
80%
51%
53%
74%
78%
100%
83%
80%
Poverty Measures: Ugu vs. ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
60%
39%
-60%
-80%
12%
Strengths - where score is better than ISRDP average - include access to
regular income, lower illiteracy, etc.
-74%
Informal
dwelling
11%
No refuse
removal
6%
No
electricity
(lights)
-2%
3%
No
sanitation
-3%
Overcrowding
-6%
Female
headed HH
-40%
-12%
Unemployed
-20%
Functional
illiteracy
0%
No income
20%
No water
40%
Priority areas
For example, read as: respondents
from Ugu were 39% more likely
than ISRDP average to live in
shacks/traditional dwellings,
12% more likely to have no refuse
removal, 11% less likely to have
RDP-level water, etc.
9
Poverty analysis
• We saw that Ugu is the 6th poorest ISRDP node (alongside
Ukhahlamba).
• Key challenges facing Ugu include the following, many of which relate
to service delivery:
– 7 in 10 respondents were living in informal dwellings (the ISRDP average
was 51%)
– 84% had no refuse removal
– 83% had no sanitation to RDP standards
– 72% had no water to RDP standards
– The node had a rate of unemployment of 74%
– 51% of households were female-headed
• Looking for positives is challenging, but the data do suggest that
illiteracy was lower (at 33%) than the ISRDP average (38%), while just
1% of respondents told us they had no regular source of income.
10
Social capital deficit
Social Capital Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
45%
45%
Ugu
Ukhahlamba
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
49%
Maruleng
44%
48%
Umkhanyakude
43%
Zululand
41%
Central Karoo
27%
41%
Chris Hani
30%
39%
O.R. Tambo
40%
38%
Sekhukhune
50%
47%
Umzinyathi
60%
52%
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.
Ugu has the 6th worst score on the social capital index, again with
Ukhahlamba, suggesting that building a sense of community and local trust
are important.
Two-thirds (67%) of Ugu respondents belonged to no CSO body
11
Social capital deficit
31%
C'ty can't
solve
problems
Politics a
waste of
time
Be careful
with people
No Religion
Alienation
47%
56%
71%
67%
Ugu
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
Anomie
0%
No CSO
mmbrship
34%
38%
9%
20%
11%
16%
40%
27%
60%
20%
49%
80%
58%
100%
70%
84%
Social Capital Measures: Ugu vs. ISRDP Avg
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
60%
50%
40%
-40%
-45%
-60%
-11%
C'ty can't
solve
problems
-19%
Alienation
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
-20%
Anomie
0%
Politics a
waste of
time
15%
Be careful
with people
12%
No CSO
mmbrship
20%
No Religion
27%
19%
Priority areas Ugu residents
were 50% more likely than
ISRDP average to say their
community cannot solve its
own problems; 27% more
likely to see politics as a waste
of time; and so on. The
positives, in green, include
lower than average alienation
and anomie, as well greater
sense of care in community
12
Development deficit
Development Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
57%
60%
34%
34%
35%
36%
Sekhukhune
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Central Karoo
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.
Ugu rates 3rd worst of the ISRDP nodes, receiving a red score; either little is
happening on the ground and/or respondents were unaware of it.
-10%
-20%
-8%
0%
No water
No Sport
39%
No Schools
No Roads
No Other Dev
No Houses
45%
No HIV/AIDS
project
45%
No Health
Facilities
39%
No Gardens
No food project
50%
No Farming
20%
No water
No Sport
No Schools
No Roads
No Other Dev
No Houses
49%
49%
43%
36%
34%
31%
50%
45%
48%
41%
35%
26%
31%
49%
54%
47%
39%
35%
32%
34%
32%
31%
33%
35%
34%
No HIV/AIDS
project
0%
35%
20%
No Health
Facilities
No Gardens
No food project
No Farming
No Devt-NPOs
No Devt-Govt
No C'ty halls
47%
67%
79%
80%
No Devt-NPOs
U gu
No Devt-Govt
40%
34%
40%
No C'ty halls
No Creches
60%
No Creches
13
Development deficit
Development Measures: Ugu vs. ISRD Avg
100%
ISR D P Av g
Difference vs ISRD Avg
60%
54%
43%
41%
30%
33%
37%
30%
17%
14%
10%
4%
11%
Priorities are
across the board,
barring some
awareness of
government’s role
in delivery
14
Service delivery deficit
Ugu has the 8th best rating on
service delivery amongst the 14
ISRDP nodes
51%
53%
54%
Umkhanyakude
Kgalagadi
Ukhahlamba
Ugu
O.R. Tambo
61%
61%
62%
Bushbuckridge
51%
57%
Maruleng
50%
57%
Sekhukhune
50%
Alfred Nzo
40%
48%
Umzinyathi
50%
47%
Zululand
60%
Chris Hani
70%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
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
20%
0%
23%
24%
25%
Not
participated
in IDP
Qualitysewerage
poor
84%
67%
50%
41%
85%
69%
69%
58%
58%
50%
No Access
to DSD
facility
Qualitysecurity poor
54%
47%
Poor DSD
Services
0%
51%
44%
11%
9%
20%
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
Qualityrefuse poor
18%
22%
Qualityrefuse poor
17%
Qualityhealth poor
40%
Qualityhealth poor
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
Not
participated
in IDP
16%
Qualitysecurity poor
ISRDP Avg
Qualitysewerage
poor
16%
No Access
to DSD
facility
12%
13%
Poor DSD
Services
Ugu
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
40%
54%
48%
60%
DSD Staff
unhelpfull
75%
67%
80%
DSD Staff
unhelpfull
Local Govt
Performance
poor
100%
Local Govt
Performance
poor
15
Service delivery – weaknesses
Service Delivery Measures: Ugu vs. ISRDP Avg
Weaknesses include most
aspects of DSD service
delivery in the node, e.g.
access to DSD facilities
of offices were rated 17%
worse than the average
for ISRDP nodes, staff
helpfulness was rated as
13% worse than the
ISRDP average and so on
16
Service delivery – strengths
Ugu
36%
31%
Qualitytransport
poor
Water not
clean
No Phone
Qualityeducation
poor
Govt Dept
Coordination
poor
0%
16%
21%
15%
20%
9%
40%
25%
34%
47%
60%
44%
Service Delivery Measures: Ugu vs. ISRDP Avg
ISRDP Avg
-15%
-17%
-20%
-25%
-30%
-35%
-33%
-36%
-40%
-45%
-39%
-42%
-10%
-15%
No Old
age
pension
No Child
welfare
No DSD
office
Qualitytransport
poor
Water not
clean
-10%
No Phone
-5%
Qualityeducation
poor
0%
Govt Dept
Coordination
poor
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-8%
Strengths: Respondents are 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 42% less likely to
rate the quality of education as
poor than the ISRDP average
17
Service Delivery: Main Features
Ugu
ISRDP
• Of the households receiving half (54%) are receiving
Child Support Grants
• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support
Grants is half (50%)
• Six out of ten (58%) of households receiving grants are
receiving Pensions
• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a
third (31%)
• Six out of ten (58%) encounter DSD services at a DSD
office
• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at
a DSD office
• Half (52%) 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.
Ugu is rated the fifth best
ISRDP node in respect to
health measures, nevertheless
more than half of all
respondents (53%) perceive
their health status as poor.
18
Health Deficit
Health Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
70%
58%
58%
Bushbuckridge
Chris Hani
Zululand
Kgalagadi
58%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Alfred Nzo
57%
Umzinyathi
47%
55%
56%
Ukhahlamba
46%
54%
O.R. Tambo
46%
53%
Maruleng
45%
Sekhukhune
50%
Central Karoo
60%
Ugu
63%
56%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Health Index
Umkhanyakude
0%
• 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
32%
Ugu
54%
61%
65%
Cannot
work
Ltd Social
Activities
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
Malaria
incidence
0%
Poor
Health
0%
20%
3%
40%
60%
60%
39%
80%
64%
66%
Health Measures: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. ISRDP Avg
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
-91%
11%
Cannot
work
6%
Ltd Social
Activities
-18%
4%
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
-20%
Malaria
incidence
0%
Poor
Health
20%
Priority Areas:
Poor health is deemed a
high priority by
respondents, with
respondents 11% more
likely to report that poor
health prevents them from
working than the ISRDP
average, and 6% more
likely to have it limit their
social activities. On the
positive side, malaria
incidence is low, and
generally poor health
lower than average
20
Health
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alcohol Abuse was reported as the major health problem in Ugu, by half the respondents (48%,
higher than the average of 28% across all nodes)
HIV and AIDS was also reported as a major health problem in node (24% made mention of
this, slightly lower than the average of 30% across all nodes), as was TB (12% 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 also impacts the health of those in the node, with respondents 4% more
likely than the ISRDP average to cite this as a problem, moreover,
– 51% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem
– 49% 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, TB and
access to health
A sectoral or targeted approach is needed to focus on these disease related issues and access
challenges 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 Ugu residents
21
Proportion who agree that both parties in a
relationship should share decision - making
Ave rage
Ugu
44
Agr ee whether to use fami ly
planni ng
65
55
Agr ee on when to have chi ldr en
78
36
Agr ee on usi ng income to pay
for health car e or medicines
68
29
Agr ee on whether to take a sick
chil d to the clinic
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Read as: Many in
the node do not
support the view
that most
decisions in the
household
require joint
decision-making
by both partners
80
90
22
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
Ave rage
Ugu
48
Agree that contraception
leads to promiscuity
Read as: Node is
deeply conservative
as most myths about
contraception are
widely shared
30
Agree that w omen w ho
use contraception risks
being sterile
45
39
Agree that female
contraception is a
w omen's business and
nothing to do w ith men
33
43
Agree that w omen get
pregnant so w omen m ust
w orry about
contraception
61
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
23
Proportion who agreed that a man is justified in hitting or
beating his partner in the following situations
Average
Ugu
Is unfaithful
23
19
Does not look after the children
21
21
Goes out without telling him
16
20
Argues with him
15
20
Refuses to have sex with him
9
10
Burns the food
7
6
Read as: Support for violence against women in certain situations is higher in
this node than the ISRDP average, which points to negative attitudes towards
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
Ugu
Total
48
45
49
42
Read as: Abortion is NOT supported by four
0%
10%
20% higher
30%
out of ten respondents
(45%), slightly
than the ISRDP average (42%)
40%
50%
60%
70%
7
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
Disturbing to note the high levels of support for Gender Based Violence in
certain instances, coupled to very limited support for abortions and widespread
belief in certain 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 do not support the idea that decisions in the household require joint
decision-making by both partners, some have gone further and not only do they
not support joint decision-making but actually endorse 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
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
Ugu
20
18
72
Heard about those who have
died of AIDS in community?
64
73
Heard about those i n
community with AIDS?
63
0
10
20
30
40
% Yes
50
60
70
80
27
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following
statements
Ave rage
Ugu
85
Condoms prevent tr ansmissi on
of HIV
83
99
One can g et AIDS from shar ing
razors
85
95
Healthy looki ng per son can have
AIDS
82
86
Infected mother s can pass on
vi rus thr ough breastfeeding
80
Read as: High awareness
of how HIV is transmitted,
except about half (47%)
who gave incorrect
answer re mosquitoes
47
Mosq uitoes pass on HIV
33
0
20
40
60
% who agr ee
80
100
120
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 is slightly better than the average
scores for the ISRDP 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
– 18% are providing Home Based Care (HBC)
– 3% 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
Conclusion
Ugu has a “poor” L Global Development rating. Key challenges and
strengths emerging from the statistical analysis appear below.
Index
Challenges
Strengths
Poverty 
• Generally poor scores, esp. re informal
dwellings, RDP water, refuse removal
• Positives include access to regular
income, lower illiteracy
Social Capital

• Challenges include sense that c’ty cannot
solve problems and lack of faith in politics
• Lower than average anomie
Health 
• Poor health generally, esp. GBV & Sexual
Reproductive Health
• Knowledge of HIV and AIDS
(impact & transmission)
Service
Delivery 
• DSD service delivery generally and
penetration of grants in particular
• Quality of education a positive
Development
L
• Generally poor scores, especially re
food/farming and health facilities