Transcript DSD nodal baseline

1
Department of Social Development
nodal baseline survey:
Mitchell’s Plain 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 Mitchell’s Plain 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 Mitchell’s Plain-specific findings
– Mitchell’s Plain 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
Mitchell's Plain scorecard
Index
Rating
Poverty
J
Social Capital Deficit
K
Development Deficit
J
Service Delivery Deficit
L
Health Deficit
J
Global
J
A brief glance at the scorecard shows that Mitchell’s Plain is a place of contrasts scoring below the URP average on social capital and service delivery, and above
average on poverty, development awareness, health and the composite global index.
Overall, the node emerges as scoring better than the URP average in most instances.
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.
Mitchell’s Plain emerges as the least poor of the URP 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
-20%
-40%
-120%
0%
-60%
-80%
-100%
-81%
-100%
-52%
-50%
-46%
-45%
-35%
-33%
Female
headed HH
-10%
Informal
dwelling
20%
1%
Informal
dwelling
Overcrowding
Female
headed HH
3%
3%
5%
3%
19%
19%
63%
47%
31%
14%
8%
34%
60%
Overcrowding
No
electricity
(lights)
Functional
illiteracy
8%
4%
7%
4%
40%
No
electricity
(lights)
URPAvg
Unemployed
No refuse
removal
No RDP
water
13%
3%
80%
Functional
illiteracy
Unemployed
No refuse
removal
No RDP
water
Mitchells Plain
No RDP
sanitation
3%
0%
0%
No RDP
sanitation
No income
20%
No income
8
Poverty deficit
Poverty Measures: Mitchells Plain vs. URP Avg
Difference vs URP Avg
Every item scores better
than the URP average,
barring incidence of
informal dwelling, 1%
above the norm. These are
very positive results.
9
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, Mitchell’s Plain scored well on
poverty - but does the reverse on social capital, where it lags behind as 6th
worst of the 8 nodes.
10
Social capital deficit
Mitchells Plain
58%
74%
57%
72%
30%
32%
42%
42%
Politics a
waste of
time
Anomie
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
Be careful
with people
C'ty can't
solve
problems
Alienation
No Religion
0%
No CSO
mmbrship
11%
20%
6%
40%
50%
39%
60%
39%
80%
55%
100%
84%
87%
Social Capital Measures: Mitchells Plain vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
27%
29%
Politics a
waste of
time
30%
Anomie
40%
20%
3%
8%
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
C'ty can't
solve
problems
-20%
Alienation
-10%
No Religion
0%
No CSO
mmbrship
0%
Be careful
with people
10%
The positives - below-29%
the URP -23%
average - include lower than average
-40%
alienation, higher than average CSO membership including FBOs.
-30%
-50%
-60%
-48%
Priority areas in red where Mitchell’s Plain
scores above the URP
average - include lack
of faith in politics
(29% higher than
average), anomie, lack
of faith in community
solving its own
problems, and so on.
11
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.
Mitchell’s Plain has the 2nd highest level of development awareness among
the URP nodes.
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-44%
-32% -29%
No Other Dev
-29% -28%
No C'ty halls
-28% -25%
No HIV/AIDS project
No Creches
-23%
No Farming
-19%
No Gardens
-13%
2%
No Devt-Govt
70%
70%
68%
50%
27%
27%
No Roads
No Devt-NPOs
31%
36%
No water
80%
No Devt-Govt
-1%
No Devt-NPOs
20%
No Roads
No water
31%
42%
No Creches
29%
36%
29%
40%
No C'ty halls
No Gardens
30%
42%
No Health Facilities
31%
40%
29%
41%
No Other Dev
No Farming
26%
38%
No food project
28%
37%
25%
39%
No Schools
No HIV/AIDS project
23%
40%
No Sport
0%
No Health Facilities
-60%
-36%
No food project
Mitchells Plain
No Schools
20%
12%
30%
40%
No Sport
No Houses
60%
No Houses
12
Development deficit
Development Measures: Mitchells Plain vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
60%
40%
40%
Awareness is only low
regarding who provides
development - CSOs or
government. Scores are
above the URP average
for all types of
development delivery.
13
Service delivery deficit
Mitchell’s Plain ranks last out
of the 8 URP nodes on service
delivery 70%
50%
52%
53%
KwaMashu
45%
49%
Khayelitsha
50%
48%
Motherwell
60%
Mdantsane
Service Delivery Deficit Index - URP Nodes
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
14
Service delivery – weaknesses
53%
76%
72%
51%
76%
54%
74%
53%
73%
52%
74%
55%
60%
74%
56%
56%
44%
80%
79%
63%
100%
81%
65%
Service Delivery Measures: Mitchells Plain vs. URP Avg
40%
Mitchells Plain
DSD Staff
knowledge
poor
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
DSD Staff no
comparssion
DSD Staff
unhelpfull
Poor DSD
Services
No Access
to DSD
facility
No DSD
office
Govt Dept
Co-ordination
poor
No Child
support grant
0%
No Pension
point
20%
URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
41%
43%
DSD Staff
knowledge
poor
40%
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
Govt Dept
Co-ordination
poor
40%
DSD Staff
unhelpfull
No Child
support grant
34%
39%
Poor DSD
Services
26%
32%
No Access
to DSD
facility
26%
27%
No Pension
point
40%
No DSD
office
60%
0%
DSD Staff no
comparssion
20%
Weaknesses, i.e. where
doing worse than URP
average, include DSD
service delivery. For
instance, respondents are
43% more likely to rate the
knowledge of DSD staff
as poor than the URP
average, 41% more likely
to rate the cleanliness of
DSD offices as poor than
the URP average and so on
15
Service delivery – strengths
Service Delivery Measures: Mitchells Plain vs. URP Avg
12%
5%
4%
Qualityrefuse
poor
10%
5%
Qualitytransport
poor
8%
20%
11%
13%
24%
25%
40%
Mitchells Plain
No Phone
Qualityroads poor
Qualitysewerage
poor
0%
Strengths: Respondents
URPAvg
Qualityhousing
poor
Qualitywater poor
Water not
clean
No Phone
Qualityroads poor
-20%
Qualitytransport
poor
-10%
Qualitysewerage
poor
0%
Qualityrefuse
poor
Difference vs URP Avg
-46%
-46%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-63%
-68%
-63%
-60%
-58%
-54%
are less likely to complain
about access to/ quality
of certain aspects the
delivery of basic services
when compared with the
URP average. For
instance, respondents in
this node are 68% less
likely to rate the quality
of sewerage services as
poor than the URP
average
16
Service Delivery: Main Features
Mitchell’s Plain
URP
• Of the households receiving grants two out of ten
(21%) are receiving Child Support Grants
• Average for households receiving Child Support Grants
is a third (37%)
• One out of ten (16%) receiving grants are receiving
Pensions
• Average for households receiving pensions is two out of
ten (22%)
• A quarter (26%) encounter DSD services at a DSD
office
• Four out of ten (44%) experience DSD services at a
DSD office
• Two out of ten (19%) 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.
17
Health deficit
Mitchell’s Plain is ranked as the
best URP node with 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
18
Health deficit
10%
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
1%
Poor
Health
Mitchells Plain
Poor
Health
Ltd Social
Activities
Cannot
work
0%
Malaria
incidence
0%
10%
20%
10%
40%
24%
33%
42%
44%
60%
39%
Health Measures: Mitchells Plain vs. URP Avg
URPAvg
-20%
Malaria
incidence
-10%
Cannot
work
0%
Ltd Social
Activities
Difference vs URP Avg
-30%
-40%
-39%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
-69%
-78%
-75%
-75%
Strengths:
Mitchell’s Plain because of its
high health rating when
compared with other URP
nodes, is better on many of the
key health variables. For
instance, respondents are 78%
less likely to report that poor
health limits their social
activities when compared with
the URP average, and 75%
less likely to report that poor
health prevented them from
working when compared with
the URP average
19
Health
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Drug Abuse was seen as the major health problem facing Mitchell’s Plain (37% made mention of
this, much higher than the average of 14% across all URP nodes)
Alcohol Abuse was also reported as a major health problem in the node, by a third of the
respondents (35%, higher than the URP average of 27%)
HIV and AIDS was only seen to be a major health problem by 6% of respondents, far lower
than the UPR average of 42%
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 which has been perceived as a major issue in other nodes was not seen to be a
major obstacle, with respondents in the node far less less likely than the URP average to report
access to health services as a problem, thus we find that only
– 7% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem
– 21% 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 drug and alcohol abuse
A sectoral or targeted approach is need to focus on these drug and alcohol abuse related issues in
this node
Poverty and the health challenges of drug and alcohol abuse cannot be separated and whatever
intervention is decided upon should be in the form of an integrated response to the challenges
facing Mitchell’s Plain residents
20
Proportion who agree that both parties in a
relationship should share decision - making
URP Ave r age
Mitche ll's Plain
91
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 (note:
this node is much
higher than URP
average on all
statements).
Agr ee on when to have chi ldr en
Agr ee on usi ng income to pay
for health car e or medicines
99
84
96
77
91
Agr ee on whether to take a sick
chil d to the clinic
67
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
21
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
URP Ave r age
Mitche ll's Plain
22
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
20
Read as: Node is
relatively progressive
as these myths about
contraception are not
as widely held as the
URP average though still common
46
39
49
Agree that w omen get
pregnant so w omen m ust
w orry about
contraception
56
71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
22
Proportion who agreed that a man is justified in hitting or
beating his partner in the following situations
URP Average
Mitchell’s Plain
Is unfaithful
16
4
Does not look after the children
12
1
Goes out without telling him
7
0
Argues with him
7
0
Refuses to have sex with him
4
1
Burns the food
4
0
Read as: Support for violence against women in all situations is much lower in
this node than the URP average and points to very few 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
23
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
Mitchell's Plain
61
Total
Read as: Abortion is NOT
supported by a quarter of all
respondents (24%), much0%
lower than the average (42%)
24
49
10%
20%
15
42
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
9
80%
90%
100%
24
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 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
Need to develop an integrated approach that takes poverty and the health
challenges facing nodal residents into account and also integrate critical aspects
of Sexual Reproductive Health
Challenge is to integrate Sexual Reproductive Health 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.
25
HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels
URP Ave r age
If household member was
infected woul d want to keep it
secret?
Read as: Awareness levels
are in sharp contrast with
the URP average, portraying
a picture of a node that has
largely been unaffected by
the pandemic
Mitche ll's Plain
18
19
9
Heard about those who have
died of AIDS in community?
67
8
Heard about those i n
community with AIDS?
66
0
10
20
30
40
% Yes
50
60
70
80
26
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following
statements
URP Ave r age
Mitche ll's Plain
75
Condoms prevent tr ansmissi on
of HIV
85
Read as: Majority aware of
how HIV is transmitted,
despite low prevalence rates
in the node
One can g et AIDS from shar ing
razors
75
85
95
Healthy looki ng per son can have
AIDS
88
64
Infected mother s can pass on
vi rus thr ough breastfeeding
80
14
Mosq uitoes pass on HIV
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
% who agr ee
60
70
80
90
100
27
HIV and AIDS
• Evidence suggests that despite extremely low prevalence rates, in
stark contrast to the UPR average, there are nevertheless high levels
of knowledge about the transmission of HIV.
• It is 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
• The low levels of awareness of AIDS sufferers in their communities
no doubt helps explain why few respondents actively assist
– Less than 1% in the node made mention of providing support to
orphans or providing Home Based Care
• These findings suggest that it any integrated intervention would
need to be based on one that incorporates health, poverty, and
Sexual Reproductive Health and consolidates the gains already
made in terms of GBV an HIV and AIDS
28
Conclusions
•
Mitchell’s Plain has an “above average” J Global Development Rating
Challenges
Strengths
Poverty J
• Above average incidence of
Informal dwellings
• Better than average access to
regular income, RDP water &
sanitation
Development J
• Low awareness of who provides
development (CSO/govt.)
• Above average awareness of all
types of development esp. housing,
sport, schools
Service Delivery L
• Poor scores re DSD service
delivery
• Penetration of grants
• Positive scores on sanitation,
transport, refuse removal
Health J
• Awareness of HIV and AIDS in the • Little impact of health on social
node
activities or ability to work
• Relatively progressive on GBV and
Sexual Reproductive Health
Social Capital K
• Lack of faith in politics, anomie
evident
• Higher than average CSO/FBO
membership, low alienation