Transcript DSD nodal baseline

1
Department of Social Development
nodal baseline survey:
Zululand 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 Zululand 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 Zululand-specific findings
– Zululand 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
Zululand scorecard
Index
Rating
Poverty

Social Capital Deficit

Development Deficit

Service Delivery Deficit
J
Health Deficit
L
Global

Compared with other nodes, Zululand has largely average scores. A red warning light is
highlighting health; awhile service delivery is looking more positive. The remainder are
yellow ‘OK’ scores, as is the the global, composite index.
7
Poverty index
56%
57%
58%
Alfred Nzo
Umzinyathi
Umkhanyakude
Sekhukhune
50%
55%
O.R. Tambo
Kgalagadi
47%
52%
Zululand
46%
Ugu
46%
Ukhahlamba
43%
50%
Chris Hani
41%
Maruleng
36%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
18%
Central Karoo
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bushbuckridge
Poverty Index - ISRDP Nodes
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting.
Zululand is towards the upper end of the scale, the 5th poorest ISRDP node, with above
ISRDP average levels of poverty.
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
78%
51%
40%
30%
43%
40%
38%
88%
57%
65%
78%
53%
60%
61%
75%
69%
80%
81%
100%
80%
Poverty Measures: Zululand vs. ISRDP Avg
Informal
dwelling
Functional
illiteracy
No RDP
sanitation
No electricity
(lights)
Zululand
ISRDP Avg
Female
headed HH
Unemployed
No RDP
water
No refuse
removal
2%
2%
No income
0%
Over- 3%
crowding 4%
20%
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
60%
53%
50%
40%
34%
30%
20%
8%
10%
11%
13%
3%
-30%
-40%
-27%
Informal
dwelling
No electricity
(lights)
Functional
illiteracy
No RDP
sanitation
Female
headed HH
-6%
Unemployed
-9%
No RDP water
-15%
No refuse
removal
-20%
No income
-10%
Overcrowding
0%
Priority areas where the
node average is above that
of the ISRDP include
incidence of informal
dwellings (53% higher
than average), lack of
electricity for lighting,
illiteracy, and so on. The
positives, in green, include
less than average overcrowding, better than
average access to a regular
income, and so on.
9
Poverty analysis
• We saw earlier that Zululand is the 5th poorest of the
ISRDP nodes. It faces key challenges in a number of areas
including social, economic and service delivery:
– 88% of respondents lacked RDP-level sanitation
– The rate of unemployment was 81%
– 78% lived in informal dwellings (including traditional structures
which pose particular challenges for water, sanitation and other
RDP delivery)
– 69% had no refuse removal
– 61% did not have RDP-level water (though better than the ISRDP
average of 65%)
– 57% of households were headed by women (the ISRDP average was
53%)
10
Social capital deficit
Social Capital Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
60%
45%
45%
Ugu
Ukhahlamba
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
49%
Maruleng
44%
48%
Umkhanyakude
43%
Zululand
41%
Central Karoo
27%
39%
41%
Chris Hani
30%
38%
O.R. Tambo
40%
Sekhukhune
50%
Umzinyathi
52%
47%
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.
Zululand is in the middle of the range on the social capital index. Fully 77%
of respondents belonged to no CSO, which makes partnerships between
government and civil society more challenging - but still necessary, given the
challenges facing the node.
11
Social capital deficit
56%
Politics a
waste of
time
No CSO
mmbrship
Be careful
with people
C'ty can't
solve
problems
No Religion
Alienation
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
Anomie
0%
Zululand
78%
31%
9%
35%
38%
10%
20%
26%
11%
40%
25%
60%
20%
49%
80%
58%
70%
100%
77%
89%
Social Capital Measures: Zululand vs. ISRDP Avg
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
50%
40%
33%
39%
26%
30%
20%
11%
12%
-32%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-49%
-45%
Politics a
waste of
time
Be careful
with people
C'ty can't
solve
problems
No Religion
Alienation
-30%
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
-20%
Anomie
0%
-10%
No CSO
mmbrship
10%
Priority areas include
hostility to politics (39%
above the ISRDP average),
low CSO membership (33%
higher than the ISRDP
average), above average
mistrust, and so on. On the
positive side, anomie and
alienation are lower than the
ISRDP average, as is a
sense of communal care.
12
Development deficit
Development Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
57%
60%
35%
36%
Central Karoo
31%
34%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
30%
34%
Sekhukhune
27%
Bushbuckridge
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.
Zululand has the 5th worst level of development awareness among the
ISRDP nodes. This is a negative finding, compounding the low CSO
membership and less than ideal social capital.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
2%
-10%
12%
No Schools
No Devt-Govt
No Devt-NPOs
15%
No food project
No HIV/AIDS project
15%
No C'ty halls
12%
15%
No Health Facilities
10%
14%
No Houses
10%
No Gardens
34%
31%
No Schools
41%
36%
36%
32%
40%
35%
39%
34%
41%
34%
40%
31%
No Sport
No Houses
No Health Facilities
No C'ty halls
No HIV/AIDS project
No food project
No Devt-NPOs
75%
67%
60%
54%
36%
32%
No Gardens
No Devt-Govt
35%
33%
28%
26%
No Farming
No Roads
36%
34%
No Creches
80%
No Sport
9%
No Farming
5%
9%
No Roads
Zululand
No Creches
0%
36%
35%
20%
No Other Dev
27%
31%
40%
No Other Dev
No water
60%
No water
13
Development deficit
Development Measures: Zululand vs. ISRD Avg
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRD Avg
29%
19%
Respondents from
Zululand had above
average lack of
knowledge about
the full range of
development
interventions
barring water.
14
Service delivery deficit
Umkhanyakude
Kgalagadi
Ukhahlamba
53%
54%
61%
61%
62%
Bushbuckridge
51%
57%
Sekhukhune
51%
57%
Chris Hani
50%
O.R. Tambo
50%
Alfred Nzo
40%
48%
Umzinyathi
50%
47%
Zululand
60%
Ugu
70%
Maruleng
Service Delivery Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Zululand ranks second best on service
delivery out of the 14 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
9%
13%
Qualityelectricity
poor
Qualityrefuse poor
Qualitysecurity poor
Qualitywater poor
24%
28%
28%
30%
Qualitywater poor
40%
Qualitysewerage
poor
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
Qualitysewerage
poor
ISRDP Avg
Qualityelectricity
poor
Qualityrefuse poor
12%
Qualitysecurity poor
20%
Govt Dept
Co-ordination
poor
Qualityhousing poor
Local Govt
Performance
poor
72%
67%
61%
56%
89%
69%
54%
42%
43%
34%
83%
67%
66%
58%
38%
34%
40%
Govt Dept
Co-ordination
poor
Zululand
52%
48%
60%
Poor Quality
of Services
68%
64%
100%
Qualityhousing poor
7%
Local Govt
Performance
poor
0%
7%
8%
Poor Quality
of Services
0%
No Old age
pension
80%
No Old age
pension
15
Service delivery – weaknesses
Service Delivery Measures: Zululand vs. ISRDP Avg
20%
Weaknesses include most aspects
of basic service delivery, e.g.
respondents are 30% more likely
in this node to rate the quality of/
access to water as poor than the
average for ISRDP nodes, 28%
more likely in this node than the
ISRDP average to rate the quality
of sewerage services as poor and so
on
16
Service delivery – strengths
89%
Service Delivery Measures: Zululand vs. ISRDP Avg
100%
Zululand
9%
Not
participated
in IDP
No Phone
No Child
welfare
6%
16%
15%
9%
Qualityeducation
poor
0%
No DSD
office
20%
25%
49%
25%
60%
40%
57%
80%
ISRDP Avg
-35%
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
Not
participated
in IDP
-36%
No Pension
point
No Child
welfare
-36%
-20%
Qualityroads poor
No Phone
-10%
Qualityeducation
poor
0%
No DSD
office
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-31%
-30%
-30%
-30%
-40%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-48%
Strengths: Respondents are less
likely to complain about DSD
services in this node when compared
with the ISRDP average. For
instance, respondents in this node
are 48% less likely to identify no
DSD office as a problem than the
ISRDP average, similarly they are
30% less likely to report the
cleanliness of the DSD office as
poor when compared to the ISRDP
average.
17
Service Delivery: Main Features
Zululand
ISRDP
• Of the households receiving grants two thirds (66%) are
receiving Child Support Grants
• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support
Grants is half (50%)
• Three out of ten (32%) households receiving grants are
receiving Pensions
• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a
third (31%)
• Three out of four (75%) encounter DSD services at a
DSD office
• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at
a DSD office
• Two thirds (67%) 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 almost 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
Zululand is rated the second
worst ISRDP node in respect of
health measures
Health Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
70%
58%
58%
58%
Bushbuckridge
Chris Hani
Zululand
Kgalagadi
56%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Alfred Nzo
56%
Umzinyathi
47%
55%
Ukhahlamba
46%
54%
O.R. Tambo
46%
53%
Maruleng
45%
Sekhukhune
50%
Central Karoo
60%
Ugu
63%
57%
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
6%
20%
3%
39%
40%
50%
54%
60%
67%
61%
69%
65%
80%
64%
Health Measures: Zululand vs. ISRDP Avg
Zululand
Malaria
incidence
Poor
Health
Cannot
work
Ltd Social
Activities
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
0%
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
120%
108%
100%
80%
27%
12%
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
Malaria
incidence
2%
0%
Ltd Social
Activities
20%
26%
Poor
Health
40%
Cannot
work
60%
Priority Areas:
Malaria incidence is
deemed a high priority by
respondents, as is poor
health. Respondents are
26% more likely to report
that their health has
prevented them from
working than the ISRDP
average. Poor health has
also limited their social
activities.
20
Health
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HIV and AIDS was reported as the major health problem in Zululand, by a four out of ten
respondents (40%, higher than the average of 30% across all nodes).
Another major health problem identified by respondents was Alcohol Abuse (21% reported this,
nevertheless lower the ISRDP average of 28%),
Two other health problems cited by respondents as problematic in the node were TB (16% identified
this vs. ISRDP average of 22%) and Cholera (14% of respondents, vs. ISRDP average of 6%)
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 2% more likely to
say they have trouble accessing health care than the ISRDP average, in particular
– 41% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem
– 52% 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 focusses on the issues of, HIV and AIDS, TB, alcohol abuse and Cholera
and also takes into account the challenges respondents face in accessing health care
With respect to Cholera, previous mention was made of the fact that respondents in this node are far
more likely to perceive their water quality as poor than the ISRDP average. Hence the urgent need for
an integrated approach that addresses both poverty and the health challenges of alcohol abuse,
HIV and AIDS, TB and Cholera
21
Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share
decision - making
Ave rage
Zululand
51
Agree w hether to use
family planning
65
59
Agree on w hen to hav e
children
78
Agree on using income to
pay for health care or
medicines
38
68
27
Agree on w hether to take
a sick child to the clinic
0
57
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
Zululand
45
Agree that contraception
leads to promiscuity
30
Agree that w omen w ho
use contraception risks
being sterile
Agree that female
contraception is a
w omen's business and
nothing to do w ith men
51
Read as: Node is
still deeply
conservative as
myths about
contraception are
widely held, node
above average in
all but one
instance
39
60
43
Agree that w omen get
pregnant so w omen m ust
w orry about
contraception
56
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
Zululand
Is unfaithful
23
22
Does not look after the children
21
25
Goes out without telling him
16
21
Argues with him
15
22
Refuses to have sex with him
9
9
Burns the food
7
6
Read as: Support for violence against women in certain situations is higher in
this node than the ISRDP average and points to negative 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
Zululand
43
Total
Read as: Abortion is NOT
10%
supported by half the 0%
respondents
(54%) in this node, higher than the
ISRDP average (42%)
54
49
20%
3
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 Zululand
Disturbing to note the high levels of support for Gender Based Violence, coupled
to very limited support for abortions and widespread belief in a range of
different 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
Not only is there limited support for joint decision-making by both partners on
matters of importance, many across the node not only do not support joint
decision-making but go further and 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 m em ber
w as infected w ould w ant
to keep it secret?
Read as: Prevalence
rates are high and
secrecy is relatively low
(albeit higher than ISRDP
average), suggesting
stigmatization may be
dropping in face of
unavoidability of the
epidemic
Zululand
27
18
Heard about those w ho
hav e died of AIDS in
community?
72
64
72
Heard about those in
community w ith AIDS?
63
0
10
20
30
40
% Yes
50
60
70
80
27
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following
statements
Ave rage
Zululand
92
Condoms prev ent
transm ission of HIV
83
97
One can get AIDS from
sharing razors
85
Healthy looking person
can hav e AIDS
91
82
Infected mothers can
pass on v irus through
breastfeeding
89
80
62
Mosquitoes pass on HIV
33
0
20
40
60
% who agree
80
Read as: Very high
awareness of how HIV
is transmitted, except
with regards to via
mosquitoes
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 (node better than average scores for ISRDP), except
in the case of Mosquitoes.
This is a worrying response in an area which IS usually affected by mosquitoborne diseases such as Malaria
– HIV and AIDS campaigns in this node need to address this gap in peoples’ knowledge
•
•
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
– 13% are providing Home Based Care (HBC)
– 1% 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, in particular to
providing targeted support to increase the numbers of households providing
HBC and/or supporting orphans
29
Conclusions
Zululand has an “average”  Global Development Rating, and faces challenges in a
number of areas. Challenges and strengths as they emerge from the statistical analysis
are listed below.
Challenges
Strengths
Poverty 
• Worse than average scores on
informal/traditional dwellings,
access to electricity
Development

• Low scores for awareness of food, • Awareness high on water projets
HIV projects, community halls
Service
Delivery J
• Generally above average scores
• Low on certain basic services and
could do better re access to grants
• Positive results for DSD offices
Social Capital

• Negative on faith in politics, low
CSO membership
• Low levels of anomie & alienation
Health L
• Above average scores for malaria,
generally poor health and GBV &
Sexual Reproductive Health
• Some evidence of community
support through HBC provision
• Better than average on overcrowding, access to income, refuse
removal