Transcript DSD nodal baseline

1
Department of Social Development
nodal baseline survey:
Inanda 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 Inanda 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 Inanda-specific findings
– Inanda 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
Inanda scorecard
Index
Rating
Poverty
L
Social Capital Deficit
L
Development Deficit
K
Service Delivery Deficit
J
Health Deficit
L
Global
L
Compared with other urban nodes, Inanda scores positively (above average) only on
service delivery; it has an average score for development awareness, but has red lights
flashing in all other areas as well as the global composite index.
7
Poverty deficit
Poverty Index - URP Nodes
30%
26%
27%
25%
17%
Motherwell
15%
16%
Mdantsane
19%
20%
17%
14%
11%
10%
Khayelitsha
Inanda
Galeshewe
Alexandra
KwaMashu
0%
Mitchells
Plain
5%
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting.
Inanda emerges as the second poorest URP node.
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
Inanda
13%
57%
No RDP
sanitation
3%
13%
Overcrowding
No RDP
water
7%
12%
30%
19%
Informal
dwelling
8%
11%
No refuse
removal
Female
headed HH
Functional
illiteracy
3%
3%
No income
Unemployed
0%
No
electricity
(lights)
5%
20%
5%
19%
40%
14%
55%
60%
47%
53%
80%
63%
Poverty Measures: Inanda vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
345%
No RDP
sanitation
Overcrowding
No refuse
removal
60%
No RDP
water
Functional
illiteracy
58%
Informal
dwelling
34%
Female
headed HH
-11%
16%
38%
0%
No income
-16%
No
electricity
(lights)
310%
Unemployed
400%
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50%
Priority areas (in red) show
where the Inanda score was
above the URP average. Femaleheaded households were
16%higher than the average, as
was illiteracy (34%) higher and
so on. The few positives, in
green, included unemployment
and lack of electricity, slightly
lower than the URP average.
9
Poverty analysis
• Poverty scores in urban nodes are generally better than those in rural
nodes, for obvious reasons - greater connectivity to services, more
economic opportunity, and so on. That said, Inanda is the second
poorest urban node, and key challenges (which closely resemble those
in the ISRDP) include:
– 57% of respondents lacked RDP-level sanitation
– 55% of households were female-headed
– The rate of unemployment was 53%
– 30% lived in shacks
– Functional illiteracy stood at 19% (compared with a URP average of
14%)
– 13% of respondents report over-crowding, compared with a URP
average of 3%
10
Social capital deficit
Social Capital Deficit Index - URP Nodes
70%
59%
46%
Khayelitsha
49%
Mitchells Plain
46%
Alexandra
44%
48%
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.
Social capital is under pressure in Inanda, which has the 2nd worst urban
score on the index; although poor social capital is a feature of all urban
nodes, it is particularly acute in Inanda and KwaMashu.
11
Social capital deficit
Inanda
68%
17%
Alienation
C'ty can't
solve
problems
Politics a
waste of
time
11%
50%
53%
42%
58%
66%
57%
Anomie
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
Be careful
with people
0%
No CSO
mmbrship
20%
No Religion
40%
30%
31%
60%
61%
63%
80%
55%
100%
55%
84%
Social Capital Measures: Inanda vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
70%
58%
60%
50%
36%
40%
25%
30%
20%
13%
C'ty can't
solve
problems
No Religion
-24%
Alienation
-30%
Politics a
waste of
time
-20%
3%
Anomie
-10%
Be careful
with people
0%
No CSO
mmbrship
0%
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
10%
8%
Priorities in red are items
where the Inanda score is
higher than the URP
average. The belief that
community members only
care for themselves is 3%
higher than average,
anomie is 8% higher, and
so on. The positives, in
green, include trust and
CSO membership.
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.
Even though social capital is under pressure in Inanda, the node scored well
on development awareness, with the 3rd highest rate in the URP.
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-50%
-27%
-44%
-14%
-13% -13%
No C'ty halls
No Sport
-13%
-10%
No Farming
-5%
No HIV/AIDS project
-4%
No Schools
-3%
3%
5%
No Roads
30%
No Devt-Govt
35%
40%
35%
40%
37%
42%
37%
40%
35%
37%
37%
39%
No Sport
No C'ty halls
No Health Facilities
No Farming
No HIV/AIDS project
No Schools
No Devt-Govt
No Devt-NPOs
29%
27%
74%
68%
62%
50%
37%
36%
No Gardens
No Roads
39%
38%
No food project
30%
30%
37%
42%
No Creches
No Houses
30%
41%
80%
No Devt-NPOs
1%
No Gardens
10%
No food project
No Houses
Inanda
No Health Facilities
-40%
No Other Dev
0%
No Creches
20%
20%
36%
40%
No Other Dev
No water
60%
No water
13
Development deficit
Development Measures: Inanda vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
24%
20%
8%
Awareness is low as to
who provides development
in the node - government
or civil society. But across
different types of
developmental
intervention, awareness
(in green) is generally
higher than average.
14
Service delivery deficit
Inanda ranks 2nd out of the 8
URP nodes on service delivery
Service Delivery Deficit Index - URP Nodes
50%
52%
53%
KwaMashu
45%
49%
Khayelitsha
50%
48%
Motherwell
60%
Mdantsane
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
11%
17%
59%
Qualitysewerage
poor
Qualitytransport
poor
54%
Qualityhousing poor
46%
Qualitysecurity poor
Qualitysewerage
poor
Qualitytransport
poor
Qualityhousing poor
Qualityeducation
poor
Qualitysecurity poor
Qualityrefuse poor
Poor Quality
of Services
24%
22%
13%
54%
47%
30%
18%
12%
53%
36%
16%
11%
28%
20%
13%
10%
60%
Qualityeducation
poor
42%
Qualityrefuse poor
23%
41%
Poor Quality
of Services
Inanda
Qualitywater poor
82%
70%
80%
Local Govt
Performance
poor
100%
Qualitywater poor
0%
Local Govt
Performance
poor
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
13%
12%
20%
No Phone
40%
No Phone
15
Service delivery – weaknesses
Service Delivery Measures: Inanda vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
122%
71%
Weaknesses, i.e. where
doing worse than URP
average, are largely to do
with delivery of basic
services. For instance,
respondents are 122%
more likely to rate the
quality of sewerage
services as poor than the
URP average
16
Service delivery – strengths
51%
51%
40%
Inanda
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
No Child
support
grant
17%
13%
Water not
clean
Qualityelectricity
poor
0%
Govt Dept
Coordination
poor
20%
17%
12%
40%
31%
60%
44%
80%
63%
Service Delivery Measures: Inanda vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
No DSD
office
No Access
to DSD
facility
Poor DSD
Services
No Child
support
grant
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
-10%
Water not
clean
-5%
Qualityelectricity
poor
0%
Govt Dept
Coordination
poor
Difference vs URP Avg
-18%
-18%
-17%
-15%
-20%
-19%
-21%
-25%
-25%
-30%
-35%
-31%
-31%
Strengths: Respondents are
less likely to complain about
DSD service delivery when
compared with the URP
average. For instance,
respondents in this node are
17% less likely to rate the
quality of DSD services as poor
than the URP average and 18%
less likely than the URP average
to report that that they had no
access to DSD facilities
17
Service Delivery: Main Features
Inanda
URP
• Of the households receiving grants half (49%) are
receiving Child Support Grants
• Average for households receiving Child Support Grants
is a third (37%)
• Two out of ten (21%) receiving grants are receiving
Pensions
• Average for households receiving pensions is two out of
ten (22%)
•More than half (54%) encounter DSD services at a DSD
office
• Four out of ten (44%) experience DSD services at a
DSD office
• Slightly less than half (46%) 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
Inanda is ranked as the worst URP
node 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
49%
33%
40%
39%
61%
44%
60%
42%
49%
80%
57%
Health Measures: Inanda vs. URP Avg
1%
2%
20%
Inanda
Malaria
incidence
Poor
Health
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
Ltd Social
Activities
Cannot
work
0%
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
120%
100%
100%
39%
46%
48%
Poor
Health
60%
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
80%
40%
Malaria
incidence
Ltd Social
Activities
0%
17%
Cannot
work
20%
Priority areas: Respondents in
this node are 48% more likely
to rate their health as poor
compared with the URP
average, 46% more likely to
cite difficulty accessing health
care when compared with the
URP average, and 39% more
likely to report that poor
health has limited their social
activities when compared with
the URP
20
Health
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HIV and AIDS was seen by the vast majority in the node (74%) as the major health problem
facing Inanda (much higher than the average of 42% across all URP nodes)
Other problems that received mention, albeit far less frequently, included TB (8% vs. an URP
average of 12%), Drug abuse (6% vs. URP average of 14%) and Alcohol Abuse (5%, vs. an
average of 24% across all URP nodes)
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 has been perceived as a major issue in this node and far more of a challenge
when compared with other URP nodes, in particular
– 34% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem
– 39% 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 HIV and AIDS and the other identified
health problems
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 Inanda residents
21
Proportion who agree that both parties in a
relationship should share decision - making
URP Ave r age
Inanda
52
Agr ee whether to use fami ly
planni ng
68
Read as: Majority in the
node support the view
that most decisions in
the household require
joint decision-making
by both partners, albeit
that this node is below
average on all the items
Agr ee on when to have chi ldr en
72
84
69
Agr ee on usi ng income to pay
for health car e or medicines
77
51
Agr ee on whether to take a sick
chil d to the clinic
67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
22
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
URP Ave r age
Inanda
25
Agree that contraception
leads to promiscuity
Read as: Node is
relatively progressive
in some instances,
but conservative in
other instances where
the node fares worse
than the URP average
30
Agree that w omen w ho
use contraception risks
being sterile
37
46
Agree that female
contraception is a
w omen's business and
nothing to do w ith men
61
49
Agree that w omen get
pregnant so w omen m ust
w orry about
contraception
72
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
Inanda
Is unfaithful
16
25
Does not look after the children
12
23
Goes out without telling him
7
15
Argues with him
7
13
Refuses to have sex with him
4
7
Burns the food
4
6
Read as: Support for violence against women in all situations is much higher in
this node than the URP average and points to a high proportion of very
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
Inanda
42
Total
Read as: Abortion is NOT
supported by a four out ten
respondents (39%),
0%slightly10%
lower than the average (42%)
39
49
20%
19
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
Disturbing to note the negative attitudes towards Gender Based Violence,
coupled to qualified support for abortions. Moreover the node is relatively
conservative when compared to other nodes with regards to 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 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 woul d want to keep it
secret?
Read as: Prevalence rates are
very high and secrecy is
relatively low, albeit nearly
double the URP average,
suggesting stigmatization
may be dropping in face of
unavoidability of the
epidemic
Inanda
32
19
85
Heard about those who have
died of AIDS in community?
67
84
Heard about those i n
community with AIDS?
66
0
10
20
30
40
50
% Yes
60
70
80
90
27
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following
statements
URP Ave r age
Inanda
80
Condoms prevent tr ansmissi on
of HIV
85
97
One can g et AIDS from shar ing
razors
85
87
Healthy looki ng per son can have
AIDS
88
73
Infected mother s can pass on
vi rus thr ough breastfeeding
80
Read as: High awareness of
how HIV is transmitted
16
Mosq uitoes pass on HIV
19
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 compares favourably with most of
the items), nevertheless the previous slide does show areas which should be
prioritised in future campaigns
Despite high levels of awareness of AIDS sufferers in their communities
few respondents can actively assist
– Less than 3% in the node reported on providing support to orphans or
providing Home Based Care
Despite high incidence of HIV across Inanda, levels of poverty are so
crippling few can do much to assist those who are infected and suffering
These findings support the need for an urgent integrated intervention in the
node that incorporates health, poverty, GBV, HIV and AIDS
29
Conclusions
Inanda has a below average L global development rating, compared with other URP nodes,
making Inanda a priority URP node
Challenges
Strengths
Development
K
• Low awareness of who provides
development
• Generally high awareness of
development services
Service
Delivery J
• Problems with availability and quality
of sewerage, transport and housing
• DSD services positive, also
government co-ordination, water
and electricity
Poverty L
• Below average scores for RDP
sanitation and water, over crowding
• Rate of unemployment
relatively low
Social Capital • Low membership of religious bodies,
higher than average alienation and sense
L
that c’ty can’t solve own problems
• Trust above average
Health L
• High awareness of how HIV is
transmitted
• Service access, generally poor health
status, malaria prevalence, HIV and
AIDS, GBV & Sexual Reproductive
Health