Transcript DSAD nodal baseline results

1
Department of Social Development
nodal baseline survey:
Thabo Mofutsanyane results*
* The baseline survey sampled Thabo Mofutsanyane (the DM) in line with the first StatsSA baseline,
which did the same, to allow comparability of results. In this presentation, most results are at DM level;
where possible we provide data for Maluti-a-Phofung as well.
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 Thabo Mofutsanyane (and some
Maluti) 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 Thabo Mofutsanyane-specific findings
– Thabo Mofutsanyane 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
Thabo Mofutsanyane Scorecard
Index
Poverty
Social Capital Deficit
Development Deficit
Service Delivery Deficit
Health Deficit
Global
Rating
J
L

L


Compared with other nodes, Thabo Mofutsanyane has a range of scores - warning
lights are flashing for social capital and service delivery; poverty is less severe than the
ISRDP average; while development awareness and health get an average score, as
does the overall global rating. Social capital and service delivery are priority issues for
this node, when compared with others in the ISRDP.
7
Poverty index
Chris Hani
58%
Umkhanyakude
Sekhukhune
57%
Umzinyathi
Kgalagadi
56%
Alfred Nzo
Maruleng
55%
O.R. Tambo
46%
52%
Zululand
46%
50%
Ugu
43%
47%
41%
50%
18%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
10%
0%
36%
Central Karoo
50%
40%
30%
20%
Bushbuckridge
70%
60%
Ukhahlamba
Poverty Index - ISRDP Nodes
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting.
Thabo Mofutsanyane has the second lowest 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
5%
`no regular
income
Illiterate
No RDP
sanitation
Femaleheaded HH
2%
38%
35%
78%
73%
80%
69%
53%
43%
75%
60%
30%
No refuse
removal
Unemployed
ISRDP Avg
No electrcity
4 lights
Informal
dwelling
4%
20%
51%
30%
Thabo Mafutsanyane
Overcrowding
2%
27%
No RDP
water
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
65%
Poverty Measures: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
200%
151%
150%
100%
50%
Priority
Lack of regular
income is far
more common
in this node
than other
ISRDP nodes.
-6%
`no regular
income
-7%
Illiterate
-14%
Unemployed
-18%
No RDP
sanitation
-21%
Femaleheaded HH
-34%
No refuse
removal
-41%
No electrcity
4 lights
-56%
Informal
dwelling
-59%
Overcrowding
-100%
No RDP
water
0%
-50%
Thabo Mofutsanyane is less poor than most ISRDP nodes, indicated by the green bars - these indicate areas where the
node is performing better than other ISRDP nodes
9
Poverty: comparing Thabo Mofutsanyane with Maluti-a-Phofung
5%
No regular
income
Illiterate
Unemployed
No RDP
sanitation
Femaleheaded HH
No refuse
removal
14%
35%
31%
83%
73%
74%
69%
47%
43%
69%
14%
20%
No electrcity
4 lights
30%
30%
Thabo Mafutsanyane
Maluti-a-Phofung
Informal
dwelling
2%
Overcrowding
2%
30%
27%
No RDP
water
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
60%
Poverty Measures: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. Maluti-a-Phofung Avg
The graph contrasts the DM with the actual node, Maluti-a-Phofung (the dark blue bars). Note
that on virtually every indicator, the node scores worse than the DM, pointing to higher levels of
poverty in Maluti than in the DM more generally.
10
Poverty analysis
• Relative to other ISRDP nodes, poverty levels are low in
Thabo Mofutsanyane, with only Central Karoo enjoying
lower poverty levels.
• 1 in 20 (5%) respondents reported no regular income
(compared with an ISRDP average of 2%), higher at 7% in
Maluti-a-Phofung itself.
• This does not mean poverty is not a problem:
–
–
–
–
the rate of unemployment was 73%,
69% lacked RDP sanitation,
60% did not have their refuse removed, and
30% of respondents were functionally illiterate.
11
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.
Thabo Mofutsanyane has the fourth worst score on the social capital index,
suggesting that building a sense of community and local trust are important.
Nearly half (48%) of Maluti respondents (and 50% of DM respondents) did
not belong to any CSO, which will impact on partnerships, outreach, and so
on.
12
Social capital deficit
89%
Social Capital Measures: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. ISRDP Avg
5%
46%
38%
58%
49%
40%
31%
20%
20%
9%
40%
45%
38%
60%
50%
56%
80%
62%
70%
100%
Alienation
People only
care 4
selves
Thabo Mafutsanyane
ISRDP Avg
C'ty can't
solve own
problems
Must be
careful with
people
Anomie
No CSO
mmbrship
Politics is
waste of
time
No Religion
0%
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
140%
130%
120%
100%
80%
60%
27%
29%
C'ty can't
solve own
problems
40%
Must be
careful with
people
60%
20%
-60%
-49%
People only
care 4
selves
-9%
Alienation
-14%
Anomie
-32%
No CSO
mmbrship
-40%
Politics is
waste of
time
-20%
No Religion
0%
Read as: respondents in
Thabo Mofutsanyane were
27% more likely than the
ISRDP average to believe
they need to be careful
dealing with people; 29%
more likely to believe their
community couldn’t solve its
own problems; and so on.
On the positive side, in
green, anomie was down,
CSO membership better
than average and so on.
13
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.
Thabo Mofutsanyane rates 7th of the 14 ISRDP nodes, suggesting that
development activities are happening on the ground and that people are
aware of them. This is despite poor social capital seen earlier.
14
Development deficit
36%
31%
No Water
No Other
Dev
37%
32%
39%
36%
No Sport
No
Gardens
35%
33%
No
Farming
No DevtNPOs
36%
34%
27%
34%
No
HIV/Aids
No Com
Halls
24%
31%
No Food
Thabo Mafutsanyane
ISRDP Avg
33%
34%
26%
35%
No Health
Facilities
No Roads
No
Schools
0%
No
Creches
23%
32%
20%
No
Houses
18%
40%
19%
26%
31%
60%
No DevtGovt
52%
54%
80%
45%
35%
73%
67%
Development Measures: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. ISRD Avg
Difference vs ISRD Avg
40%
29%
-40%
-50%
-42%
17%
No Other Dev
-21%
-24% -23%
than -28%
average-28%
awareness
of school
building (42% above average)
and others, as well as provision by government
15%
No Water
9%
No Gardens
6%
9%
No Devt-NPOs
-2%
5%
No Farming
-3%
No Creches
No Devt-Govt
No Food
No HIV/Aids
-30%
Higher
No Health Facilities
-20%
No Houses
-10%
No Roads
0%
No Schools
10%
No Com Halls
20%
No Sport
30%
Low awareness of
various development
activities, and of
provision by civil
society.
15
Service delivery deficit
51%
53%
54%
Umkhanyakude
Kgalagadi
Ukhahlamba
Ugu
O.R. Tambo
61%
61%
62%
Bushbuckridge
51%
57%
Maruleng
50%
57%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
50%
Alfred Nzo
40%
48%
Umzinyathi
50%
47%
Zululand
60%
Sekhukhune
Service Delivery Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
Chris Hani
Thabo Mofutsanyane has the
third worst rating on service
delivery amongst the 14 ISRDP
nodes
70%
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
40%
19%
0%
25%
35%
38%
42%
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
100%
No
Participation
in IDPs
Govt Dept
Co-ordination
poor
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
DSD Staff
knowledge
poor
Poor DSD
Services
DSD Staff
unhelpfull
No Access
to DSD
facility
DSD Staff no
comparssion
17%
9%
20%
No
Participation
in IDPs
80%
Govt Dept
Co-ordination
poor
34%
DSD Staff
knowledge
poor
20%
33%
Poor DSD
Services
29%
DSD Staff
unhelpfull
60%
No Access
to DSD
facility
Thabo Mafutsanyane
DSD Staff no
comparssion
0%
No DSD
office
40%
62%
34%
62%
64%
55%
44%
46%
63%
47%
48%
64%
66%
50%
62%
48%
49%
41%
34%
80%
No DSD
office
Qualityelectricity
poor
60%
Qualityelectricity
poor
16
Service delivery – weaknesses
Service Delivery Measures: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. ISRDP
Avg
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
86%
61%
Weaknesses include
most aspects of
DSD service delivery
in the DM, e.g.
cleanliness of
offices were rated
42% worse than the
average for ISRDP
nodes, staff
knowledge was rated
as 38% worse than
the ISRDP average
and so on.
17
Service delivery – strengths
42%
25%
16%
20%
28%
41%
24%
40%
29%
60%
55%
58%
80%
67%
Service Delivery Measures: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. ISRDP Avg
Strengths: Respondents are
Thabo Mafutsanyane
ISRDP Avg
Qualityrefuse
poor
Qualitywater
poor
Qualitysecurity
poor
Qualityhealth
poor
No
Phone
0%
-20%
-19%
-30%
-34%
-40%
-42%
-50%
-51%
-60%
-34%
-17%
-14%
No
Pension
point
Qualityhousing
poor
Poor
Quality of
Services
Qualityrefuse
poor
Qualitywater
poor
No Phone
-10%
Qualitysecurity
poor
0%
Qualityhealth
poor
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-9%
less likely to complain about
access to/ quality of aspects
of basic service delivery in the
DM when compared with the
ISRDP average. For
instance, respondents are
42% less likely to identify the
quality of health care as a
problem than the ISRDP
average.
18
Service delivery: main features
Maluti-a-Phofung
ISRDP
• Of the households receiving grants six out of ten (57%)
are receiving Child Support Grants
• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support
Grants is half (50%)
• A third (32%) of households receiving grants are
receiving Pensions
• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a
third (31%)
• Four out of ten (42%) encounter DSD services at a
DSD office
• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at
a DSD office
• Six out of ten (63%) 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.
Thabo Mofutsanyane is rated
5th worst in respect of health
measures, with more than half
of all respondents (57%)
perceiving their health status
as poor.
19
Health deficit
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
20
Health deficit
Health Measures: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. ISRDP Avg
39%
64%
61%
62%
54%
53%
60%
64%
55%
80%
40%
3%
2%
20%
Poor Health
Ltd Social
Activities
Cannot
work
Malaria
incidence
Difficulty
accessing
health care
0%
Thabo Mafutsanyane
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
70%
62%
60%
50%
40%
30%
-30%
-23%
-13%
1%
Ltd Social
Activities
-20%
0%
Cannot
work
-10%
Malaria
incidence
0%
Difficulty
accessing
health care
10%
Poor Health
20%
Priority areas were
generally poor health
- 62% higher than
the ISRDP average and its impact on
social activities.
Positives were lower
than average
incidence of malaria
and less access
problems than the
ISRDP average.
21
Health
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alcohol Abuse was reported as the major health problem in Maluti-a-Phofung, by a a third of
respondents (32%, higher than the average of 28% across all nodes)
HIV and AIDS was also reported as a major health problem in node (29% reported this, slightly
lower than the average of 30% across all nodes), as was TB (29% 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, but only roughly a third cited
specific issues:
– 35% 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, TB and alcohol abuse
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 Maluti-a-Phofung residents
22
Proportion who agree that both parties in a
relationship should share decision - making
Average
Maluti a Phofung
76
Agree whether to use
family planning
65
Read as: Majority in
the node support the
view that most
decisions in the
household require
joint decision-making
by both partners
Agree on when to have
children
Agree on using income to
pay for health care or
medicines
77
78
70
68
54
Agree on whether to take
a sick child to the clinic
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
23
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
Average
Maluti a Phofung
29
Agree that contraception
leads to promiscuity
30
Read as: Node is
conservative, with
some myths about
contraception widely
held.
Agree that women who
use contraception risks
being sterile
54
39
Agree that female
contraception is a
women's business and
nothing to do with men
32
43
Agree that women get
pregnant so women must
worry about
contraception
63
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
24
Proportion who agreed that a man is justified in hitting or
beating his partner in the following situations
Average
Maluti-a-Phofung
Is unfaithful
23
52
Does not look after the children
21
45
Goes out without telling him
16
37
Argues with him
15
46
Refuses to have sex with him
9
34
Burns the food
7
27
Read as: Support for violence against women in all situations is much higher in
this node than the ISRDP average and points to very 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
25
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
Maluti a Phofung
48
42
10
49
42
9
Total
Read as: Abortion is
NOT supported by
four out of ten
respondents (42%) the
same as the ISRDP
average (42%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
26
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 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
In theory, at least, majority support the idea that many decisions in the household require
joint decision-making by both partners
But 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 non-governmental agencies integration and co-ordination remain the core challenges in the ISRDP and URP nodes.
27
HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels
Average
If household member
was infected would want
to keep it secret?
Maluti a Phofung
Read as: Prevalence
rates are high and
secrecy is relatively low
17
18
Heard about those who
have died of AIDS in
community?
49
64
50
Heard about those in
community with AIDS?
63
0
10
20
30
40
% Yes
50
60
70
28
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following
statements
Average
Maluti a Phofung
79
Condoms prevent
transmission of HIV
83
90
One can get AIDS from
sharing razors
85
Healthy looking person
can have AIDS
86
82
Infected mothers can
pass on virus through
breastfeeding
82
80
59
Mosquitoes pass on HIV
33
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% who agree
Read as: High awareness
of how HIV is transmitted,
gave
70 except
80 half (59%)
90
100
incorrect answer re
mosquitoes
29
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 most of
the average scores for the ISRDP), 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 awareness of AIDS sufferers in their communities
few respondents can actively assist
– Less than 5% in the node reported on providing support to orphans
or providing Home Based Care
• Despite high incidence of HIV across Maluti-a-Phofung, 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
30
Conclusion
Thabo Mofutsanyane has an “average”  Global Development Rating. Key challenges and
strengths emerging from the statistical analysis are set out below:
Index
Challenges
Strengths
Poverty J
• Below average access to regular income
• Above average RDP-level water
access and electricity for lights,
lower than average informal
housing
Social Capital
L
• Generally poor scores, notably sense that
community cares or can solve its own
problems
• Above average religious affiliation
and faith in politics
Health 
• Generally poor health with impact on
social activities
• Access to health services
Service
Delivery L
• Participation in IDPs low, perceptions of
government co-ordination low, DSD office
cleanliness rated below par
• Above average scores for security,
quality of health services (for those
who could access them)
Development

• Below average awareness of water
projects, c’ty gardens, civil society role in
delivery
• Scores generally OK, above
average awareness of school, road
and house building