Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: KwaMashu results 2 Objectives of overall project • Conduct socio-economic and demographic baseline study and situational analyses of DSD.
Download ReportTranscript Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: KwaMashu results 2 Objectives of overall project • Conduct socio-economic and demographic baseline study and situational analyses of DSD.
1 Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: KwaMashu 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 KwaMashu 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 KwaMashu-specific findings – KwaMashu 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 KwaMashu scorecard Index Poverty Rating J Social Capital Deficit Development Deficit Service Delivery Deficit L L K Health Deficit Global K L A brief glance at the scorecard shows that KwaMashu is among the poorer urban nodes, with red warning lights flashing in the areas of social capital, development awareness and as the overall, composite score for the node. Poverty is not as acute as in other urban nodes, while service delivery and health are on average for the URP. 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. KwaMashu is the second least poor urban 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 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100% -79% -73% -51% -21% 0% -9% 14% 16% Overcrowding 20% Functional illiteracy Difference vs URP Avg 40% Overcrowding Functional illiteracy No refuse removal Female headed HH 3% 4% 14% 16% 8% 8% 7% 6% 47% 43% 63% 49% 60% No refuse removal URPAvg Unemployed No RDP water 80% Female headed HH Unemployed -45% -22% No RDP water 19% 9% 3% 1% No 3% electricity (lights) 5% Informal dwelling No income 40% No electricity (lights) Informal dwelling KwaMashu No income 0% No RDP 3% sanitation 13% 20% No RDP sanitation 8 Poverty deficit Poverty Measures: KwaMashu vs. URP Avg The two areas scoring above the URP average are illiteracy and overcrowding; on all other poverty indicators, in green, KwaMashu did better or as well as the URP average. 9 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. By comparison with other URP nodes, social capital is in real trouble in KwaMashu, which has the worst score in this area, suggesting that building social capital must be a nodal priority. 10 Social capital deficit KwaMashu 18% No Religion C'ty can't solve problems Alienation Politics a waste of time Be careful with people Anomie C'ty mmbrs only care 4 themselves 0% No CSO mmbrship 20% 11% 42% 61% 50% 71% 55% 73% 58% 30% 40% 29% 60% 57% 80% 57% 100% 69% 96% 120% 84% Social Capital Measures: KwaMashu vs. URP Avg URPAvg Difference vs URP Avg 80% 72% 70% 40% 44% 33% 30% 14% 20% 10% 20% No Religion Politics a waste of time Be careful with people Anomie C'ty mmbrs only care 4 themselves -2% No CSO mmbrship 0% 0% -10% 41% C'ty can't solve problems 50% Alienation 60% Priority areas - where the nodal average was higher than the URP average - include mistrust (14% higher than the average), lack of faith in politics, low CSO membership, high alienation 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. KwaMashu has the worst level of development awareness, reflecting its poor social capital score. 12 Development deficit 75% 72% No Sport No Other Dev No food project No Sport No Other Dev 41% 38% No food project 77% 40% 42% No Creches 74% No Creches 66% 74% 39% No Schools 73% 82% 71% No Schools 67% 69% 42% No Health Facilities 42% 27% No Roads 55% 37% No HIV/AIDS project 60% 40% 51% 36% No Gardens No Farming 57% 40% No C'ty halls 48% 36% 30% 30% KwaMashu No water 0% No Devt-NPOs 20% No Devt-Govt 40% 19% 60% No Houses 50% 80% 55% 68% Development Measures: KwaMashu vs. URP Avg URPAvg Difference vs URP Avg 100% 80% No Roads 44% 52% No HIV/AIDS project 40% 41% 50% No Farming 34% No Gardens 60% No C'ty halls 63% 49% -80% -62% No Health Facilities -60% -20% -2% No water -40% No Houses -20% No Devt-NPOs 0% No Devt-Govt 20% Awareness is lower than the URP average across board - the only less gloomy scores relate to whether civil society or government is providing development services. But across all types of development activity, awareness in KwaMashu was lower than the URP average. 13 Service delivery deficit KwaMashu ranks 6th worst 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 14 Service delivery – weaknesses Kw aMashu 21% 12% 24% 10% Not participated in IDP Qualityhealth poor Qualitysecurity poor Qualityeducation poor Local Govt Performance poor Qualitysewerage poor Water not clean Govt Dept Co-ordination poor Poor Quality of Services 0% No Phone 20% 15% 12% 19% 17% 40% 21% 20% 60% 29% 24% 48% 44% 80% 32% 23% 100% 49% 36% 89% 70% Service Delivery Measures: KwaMashu vs. URP Avg URPAvg Difference vs URP Avg 131% Not participated in IDP Qualitysecurity poor 42% No Phone 36% Qualityhealth poor 32% Qualityeducation poor 18% 26% Local Govt Performance poor 9% Qualitysewerage poor 9% Water not clean 2% Govt Dept Co-ordination poor 74% Poor Quality of Services 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Weaknesses, i.e. where doing worse than URP average, include issues such as respondents are 42% more likely to rate the quality of access to health services as poor than the URP average, and 32% more likely than the URP average to report the quality of/ access to education as poor, and so on. 15 Service delivery – strengths 68% 100% 80% 78% Service Delivery Measures: KwaMashu vs. URP Avg 30% 26% 25% 19% 13% 7% 20% 7% 40% 17% 60% KwaMashu Qualityhousing poor No Old age pension Qualityelectricity poor Qualitytransport poor Qualityroads poor 0% URPAvg -40% -44% -50% -60% -60% -70% -9% DSD Staff unhelpfull -12% Poor DSD Services Qualityhousing poor -13% -8% DSD Staff no comparssion -23% -30% No Old age pension -20% Qualitytransport poor -10% Qualityelectricity poor 0% Quality-roads poor Difference vs URP Avg -7% Strengths: Respondents are less likely to complain about a range of different services delivered in this node when compared with the URP average. For instance, respondents in this node are 60% less likely to rate the quality of/ access to the electricity supply poor than the URP average, and 44% less likely than the URP average to report that that quality of transport is poor and so on. 16 Service Delivery: Main Features KwaMashu URP • Of the households receiving grants a third (37%) are receiving Child Support Grants • Average for households receiving Child Support Grants is a third (37%) • A third (33%) receiving grants are receiving Pensions • Average for households receiving pensions is two out of ten (22%) •Four out of ten (44%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office • Four out of ten (44%) experience DSD services at a DSD office • A third (37%) 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 Mdantsane is ranked as the 6th best of the 8 URP nodes 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 18 Health deficit 44% 42% 62% 39% 40% 33% 44% 60% 53% 80% 66% Health Measures: KwaMashu vs. URP Avg Cannot work Ltd Social Activities 49% 51% Cannot work Ltd Social Activities KwaMashu Difficulty accessing health care Poor Health 1% Malaria incidence 0% 0% 20% URPAvg Difference vs URP Avg 33% 36% Difficulty accessing health care 40% Poor Health 60% 20% -20% -40% Malaria incidence 0% -60% -80% -100% -75% Priority areas: Respondents in this node are 51% more likely to report that poor health limits their social activities than the URP average, 49% more likely than the URP average to state that poor health prevented them from working, and 36% more likely to say that they had difficulty accessing health care when compared with the URP average. 19 Health • HIV and AIDS was seen to be the major health problem in the node (37% mentioned this, lower than the URP average of 42%), • Drug and Alcohol Abuse were also perceived as major health problems in KwaMashu – Drug abuse received mention by a third of all respondents (33%, more than double the URP average of 14%) – Alcohol abuse was mentioned by two out of ten respondents (20%, vs. URP average of 24%) • 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 health services was erceived to be worse than the IRDP average, in particular • – 19% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem – 45% 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, alcohol and drug abuse and improving access to health facilities • A sectoral or targeted approach is need to focus on these health challenges in this node • Poverty and the health challenges noted in this node cannot be separated and whatever intervention is decided upon should be in the form of an integrated response to the challenges facing KwaMashu residents 20 Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share decision - making URP Ave r age Kw aMas hu 29 Agr ee whether to use fami ly planni ng 68 57 Read as: Minority in the node support the view that most decisions in the household require joint decision-making by both partners, far lower than the URP average Agr ee on when to have chi ldr en Agr ee on usi ng income to pay for health car e or medicines 84 44 77 34 Agr ee on whether to take a sick chil d to the clinic 67 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 21 Proportion supporting statements about female contraception URP Ave r age Kw aMas hu Read as: Node is relatively progressive on some issues as these myths about contraception are not as widely held as the URP average, but on other items it is very conservative when compared to the URP average. 27 Agree that contraception leads to promiscuity 30 Agree that w omen w ho use contraception risks being sterile 42 46 Agree that female contraception is a w omen's business and nothing to do w ith men 69 49 Agree that w omen get pregnant so w omen m ust w orry about contraception 81 71 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 22 Proportion who agreed that a man is justified in hitting or beating his partner in the following situations URP Average KwaMashu Is unfaithful 16 41 Does not look after the children 12 26 Goes out without telling him 7 15 Argues with him 7 12 Refuses to have sex with him 4 6 Burns the food 4 8 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 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 KwaMashu 44 Total Read as: Abortion is NOT supported by nearly half the respondents (48%), higher 0% 10% than the average (42%) 48 49 20% 8 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 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 There are those in the node who support the idea that decisions in the household require joint decision-making by both partners, but there are many who do not support joint decision-making. Moreover, many of these respondents 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 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: Prevalence rates are high and secrecy is more than double the URP average, suggesting stigmatization has yet to drop in the face of the epidemic. Kw aMas hu 43 19 88 Heard about those who have died of AIDS in community? 67 89 Heard about those i n community with AIDS? 66 0 10 20 30 40 50 % Yes 60 70 80 90 100 26 HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements URP Ave r age Kw aMas hu 89 Condoms prevent tr ansmissi on of HIV 85 98 One can g et AIDS from shar ing razors 85 98 Healthy looki ng per son can have AIDS 88 82 Infected mother s can pass on vi rus thr ough breastfeeding 80 Read as: Very high awareness of how HIV is transmitted 5 Mosq uitoes pass on HIV 19 0 20 40 60 % who agr ee 80 100 120 27 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. – Worrying that so many in the node would want to keep their status secret if they were infected. – Further research is urgently needed on this issue in the node in order to inform a nuanced campaign that takes the fears and concerns of the local communities into account. • • Encouraging to see how many in the node have correct knowledge about the transmission of the disease (the node compares favourably with the URP average on all the items. 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 – 9% are providing Home Based Care (HBC) – 5% 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. 28 Conclusions • KwaMashu has a below average L Global Development Rating. Key challenges and existing strengths, emerging from the statistical analysis, are below. Challenges Strengths Poverty J • Illiteracy Development L • Low across the board, worst rate in the URP Service Delivery K • Low participation in IDPs • Challenges include phone and health services • Positives include electricity, transport, roads Health K • Poor health impacts on social activities and ability to work; access to health care facilities a challenge, as is GBV, Sexual Reproductive Health, HIV and AIDS (esp. stigmatisation) • High awareness of HIV/AIDS issues Social Capital L • Low across the board, worst rate in the URP • Above average scores for sanitation, regular income and incidence of shacks