Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Alexandra results
description
Transcript of Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Alexandra results
1
Department of Social Department of Social Development nodal baseline Development nodal baseline
survey:survey:
Alexandra resultsAlexandra 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 Alexandra 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 Alexandra-specific findings
– Alexandra 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
Alexandra scorecardIndex Rating
Poverty
Social Capital Deficit
Development Deficit
Service Delivery Deficit
Health Deficit
Global
Compared with other nodes, Alexandra scores positively (above average)
on health, below average on service delivery, and all other areas are within
the URP average. The red warning light for service delivery highlights
Alexandra’s weak point compared with other URP nodes.
7
Poverty deficitPoverty Index - URP Nodes
11%
14%16% 17% 17%
19%
26%27%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%M
itchells
Pla
in
Kw
aM
ashu
Mdants
ane
Moth
erw
ell
Ale
xandra
Gale
shew
e
Inanda
Khayelitsha
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal
weighting. Alexandra is the 4th poorest urban node (alongside Motherwell). In
other words, poverty is clearly an issue within Alexandra, but is lower than in
other 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
8
Poverty deficit
Electricity for Electricity for
lighting is a key lighting is a key
priority in priority in
Alexandra, coming Alexandra, coming
in 79% above the in 79% above the
URP average. URP average. In In
green are the green are the
positive scorespositive scores - -
where incidence where incidence
were lower than the were lower than the
URP average, and URP average, and
give positive results give positive results
for water provision, for water provision,
refuse removal, and refuse removal, and
so on.so on.
Poverty Measures: Alexendra vs. URP Avg3% 3% 2% 2%
10% 15
%
12%
47%
63%
9%7% 8%
3% 3%
13% 19
%
14%
47%
63%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
No
RD
Pw
ater
No
refu
sere
mov
al
Ove
r-cr
owdi
ng
No
inco
me
No
RD
Psa
nita
tion
Info
rmal
dwel
ling
Fun
ctio
nal
illite
racy
Fem
ale
head
ed H
H
Une
mpl
oyed No
elec
tric
ity(l
ight
s)
Alexandra URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-66% -62%
-32% -27% -22% -20% -19%
1% 1%
79%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No
RD
Pw
ater
No
refu
sere
mov
al
Ove
r-cr
owdi
ng
No
inco
me
No
RD
Psa
nita
tion
Info
rmal
dwel
ling
Func
tiona
lill
itera
cy
Fem
ale
head
ed H
H
Une
mpl
oyed N
oel
ectr
icity
(ligh
ts)
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, the key challenges facing Alexandra include:– A rate of unemployment of 63% (the same as the URP
average, compared with an ISRDP average of 78%)– 47% of households sampled were female-headed– 15% of respondents lived in shacks– 12% of respondents were functionally illiterate– 19% of respondents were without RDP-level
sanitation (below the URP average of 13%)– 9% of respondents lacked electricity for lighting (URP
average is 5%)
10
Social capital deficitSocial Capital Deficit Index - URP Nodes
42% 44% 46% 46% 48% 49%52%
59%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Gal
eshe
we
Mda
ntsa
ne
Mot
herw
ell
Alex
andr
a
Khay
elits
ha
Mitc
hells
Pla
in
Inan
da
KwaM
ashu
• 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.
• Alexandra lies in the middle range of URP nodes on the social capital index; but it is important to note that poor social capital is a feature of all urban nodes, which are generally worse in this area than ISRDP nodes.
11
Social Capital Measures: Alexendra vs. URP Avg
37% 42
% 48%
40% 52
%
88%
41%
23%
50% 57
%
58%
42% 55
%
84%
30%
11%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Alie
natio
n
Ano
mie
Pol
itics
aw
aste
of
time
C'ty
can
'tso
lve
prob
lem
s
No
CSO
mm
brsh
ip
Be
care
ful
with
peo
ple
C'ty
mm
brs
only
car
e 4
them
selv
es
No
Rel
igio
n
Alexandra URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-27% -25%-17%
-7% -5%
5%
40%
117%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
Alie
natio
n
Ano
mie
Pol
itics
aw
aste
of
time
C'ty
can
'tso
lve
prob
lem
s
No
CSO
mm
brsh
ip
Be
care
ful
with
peo
ple
C'ty
mm
brs
only
car
e 4
them
selv
es
No
Rel
igio
n
Social capital deficit
Priority areas Priority areas
(where Alexandra is (where Alexandra is
above the URP above the URP
average) include average) include
mistrust and a mistrust and a
sense that sense that
community community
members only care members only care
for themselves; as for themselves; as
well as non-well as non-
membership of a membership of a
faith-based faith-based
organisation. But organisation. But
alienation and alienation and
anomie were better anomie were better
than in the URP than in the URP
generally, generally, as were as were
other items in other items in
green.green.
12
Development deficitDevelopment Deficit Index - URP Nodes
31% 33%38% 38% 39%
43%47%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Kh
ayeli
tsha
Mitc
hells
Plai
n
Inan
da
Alex
andr
a
Mot
herw
ell
Gale
shew
e
Mda
ntsa
ne
KwaM
ashu
• 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.
• Development awareness is in the mid-URP range in Alexandra.
13
Development Measures: Alexendra vs. URP Avg28
%
21%
41%
35%
60%
37%
40%
29% 41
%
36% 42%
42%
39%
42%
43%
39%
27%
50%
40%
68%
41%
42%
30% 42
%
36%
40%
40%
37%
38%
36%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
No
Sch
ools
No
Roa
ds
No
Dev
t-G
ovt
No
Spo
rt
No
Dev
t-N
PO
s
No
Oth
er D
ev
No
Cre
ches
No
Hou
ses
No
Hea
lth F
acilit
ies
No
wat
er
No
Far
min
g
No
C'ty
hal
ls
No
HIV
/AID
S p
roje
ct
No
food
pro
ject
No
Gar
dens
Alexandra URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-29%-23%
-18%-13% -13% -11%
-6%-4% -2%
1%3% 3% 6%
11%
20%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
No
Sch
ools
No
Roa
ds
No
Dev
t-G
ovt
No
Spo
rt
No
Dev
t-N
PO
s
No
Oth
er D
ev
No
Cre
ches
No
Hou
ses
No
Hea
lth F
acilit
ies
No
wat
er
No
Far
min
g
No
C'ty
hal
ls
No
HIV
/AID
S p
roje
ct
No
food
pro
ject
No
Gar
dens
Development deficit
Priorities in red Priorities in red
show areas where show areas where
scores for scores for
Alexandra were Alexandra were
above the URP above the URP
average. These average. These
include low include low
awareness of a awareness of a
range of range of
development types development types
- though there are - though there are
more positives (in more positives (in
greengreen, where , where
awareness is higher awareness is higher
than the URP than the URP
average) - across average) - across
types of project and types of project and
who is providing who is providing
themthem.
14
Service delivery deficitService Delivery Deficit Index - URP Nodes
45%48% 49% 50% 52% 53%
56%60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%G
ales
hew
e
Inan
da
Mot
herw
ell
Kha
yelit
sha
Mda
ntsa
ne
Kw
aMas
hu
Ale
xand
ra
Mitc
hells
Pla
in
Alexandra ranks 7th worst out of the 8 URP nodes on service delivery
Alexandra ranks 7th worst out of the 8 URP nodes on service delivery
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
15
Service Delivery Measures: Alexandra vs. URP Avg
62%
62%
59%
62%
15%
45%
32%
66%
49%
31%
53%
53%
51%
52%
12%
36%
24% 44
%
30%
17%
0%
20%
40%60%
80%
DS
D S
taff
know
ledg
epo
or
DS
D S
taff
unhe
lpfu
ll
DS
DC
lean
lines
sP
oor
Poo
r DS
DS
ervi
ces
No
Pho
ne
Qua
lity-
secu
rity
poor
Qua
lity-
sew
erag
epo
or
Gov
t Dep
tC
o-or
dina
tion
poor
Qua
lity-
hous
ing
poor
Qua
lity-
elec
trici
typo
or
Alexandra URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
15% 17% 17% 18% 21% 26% 33%49%
63%84%
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
DSD
Staff
know
ledge po
or
DSD
Staff
unhe
lpfull
DSD
Clea
nline
ss Poor
Poor
DSD
Serv
ices
No P
hone
Quali
ty-se
curity po
or
Quali
ty-se
wera
ge poor
Govt
Dept Co
-or
dinati
on poor
Quali
ty-ho
using po
or
Quali
ty-ele
ctrici
ty poor
Service delivery – weaknesses
WeaknessesWeaknesses, i.e. , i.e.
where doing worse where doing worse
than URP average, than URP average,
are largely to do are largely to do
with delivery of with delivery of
basic services. For basic services. For
instance, instance,
respondents are respondents are
84% more likely to 84% more likely to
rate the electricity rate the electricity
supply as poor than supply as poor than
the URP averagethe URP average
16
Service Delivery Measures: Alexandra vs. URP Avg
7% 6%
12%
6% 7%
17%
13%
25%
12%
10%
0%
20%
40%
Wat
er n
otcl
ean
Qua
lity-
tran
spor
tpo
or
Qua
lity-
road
s po
or
Qua
lity-
educ
atio
npo
or
Not
part
icip
ated
in ID
P
Alexandra URPAvgDifference vs URP Avg
-58% -57%-54%
-50%
-36%
-19%
-9%
0%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Wa
ter
no
tcl
ea
n
Qu
alit
y-tr
an
spo
rt p
oo
r
Qu
alit
y-ro
ad
sp
oo
r
Qu
alit
y-e
du
catio
np
oo
r
No
tp
art
icip
ate
d in
IDP
Qu
alit
y-re
fuse
po
or
Qu
alit
y-w
ate
rp
oo
r
No
Ho
me
ba
sed
ca
re
Service delivery – strengths
Strengths: Strengths:
Respondents are less Respondents are less
likely to complain likely to complain
about access to/ about access to/
quality of certain quality of certain
aspects the delivery of aspects the delivery of
basic services when basic services when
compared with the compared with the
URP average. For URP average. For
instance, respondents instance, respondents
in this node are 58% in this node are 58%
less likely to rate the less likely to rate the
quality of water as not quality of water as not
clean than the URP clean than the URP
averageaverage
17
Service Delivery: Main Features
• 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.
Alexandra URP
• Of the households receiving grants a third (31%) are receiving Child Support Grants
• Average for households receiving Child Support Grants is a third (37%)
• One out of ten (13%) receiving grants are receiving Pensions
• Average for households receiving pensions is two out of ten (22%)
• Four out of ten (43%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office
• Four out of ten (44%) experience DSD services at a DSD office
• Three out of ten (28%) 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
18
Health deficitHealth Deficit Index - URP Nodes
29%34%
37%
42%45%
53% 53% 54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%M
itche
llsP
lain
Ale
xand
ra
Gal
eshe
we
Kha
yelit
sha
Mda
ntsa
ne
Kw
aMas
hu
Mot
herw
ell
Inan
da
Alexandra is ranked as the
2nd best URP node in respect
to health measures
Alexandra is ranked as the
2nd best URP node in respect
to health measures
Health Index• Proportion of household infected by malaria past 12 months• Proportion who experience difficulty accessing health care • Proportion who rated their health poor/terrible during past 4 weeks
• Proportion who had difficulty in doing daily work • Proportion whose usual social activities were limited by physical/emotional problems
19
Health Measures: Alexandra vs. URP Avg15
% 24%
22% 30
%
1%
39%
42%
33% 44
%
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Diff
icul
tyac
cess
ing
heal
thca
re
Can
not
wor
k
Poo
rH
ealth
Ltd
Soc
ial
Act
iviti
es
Mal
aria
inci
denc
e
Alexandra URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-61%
-42%
-32% -31%
0%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Difficu
lty
acce
ssin
gh
ea
lth
ca
re
Ca
nn
ot
wo
rk
Po
or
He
alth
Ltd
So
cia
lA
ctivitie
s
Ma
lari
ain
cid
en
ce
Health deficit
Strengths: Strengths:
Alexandra, because of its Alexandra, because of its
high health rating when high health rating when
compared with other compared with other
URP nodes, is better on URP nodes, is better on
many of the key health many of the key health
variables. For instance, variables. For instance,
respondents are 61% respondents are 61%
less likely to report less likely to report
difficulty accessing difficulty accessing
health care when health care when
compared with the URP compared with the URP
average, and 42% less average, and 42% less
likely to report that poor likely to report that poor
health prevented them health prevented them
from working when from working when
compared with the URP compared with the URP
average average
20
Health
• HIV and AIDS was seen by the vast majority in the node (60%) as the major health problem facing Alexandra (much higher than the average of 42% across all URP nodes)
• Alcohol Abuse was also reported as the major health problem in the node, by a quarter of the respondents (24%, equivalent to the 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 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– 8% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem– 8% 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 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 Alexandra residents
21Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share
decision - making
67
77
84
68
67
76
80
71
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Agree on whether to take a sickchild to the clinic
Agree on using income to payfor health care or medicines
Agree on when to have children
Agree whether to use familyplanning
URP Average Alexandra
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
the URP average on
certain issues
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
the URP average on
certain issues
22
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
71
49
46
30
72
35
37
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Agree that women getpregnant so women must
worry aboutcontraception
Agree that femalecontraception is a
women's business andnothing to do with men
Agree that women whouse contraception risks
being sterile
Agree that contraceptionleads to promiscuity
URP Average Alexandra
Read as: Node is
relatively
progressive as
most myths about
contraception are
not as widely held
as the average,
except in one
instance
Read as: Node is
relatively
progressive as
most myths about
contraception are
not as widely held
as the average,
except in one
instance
23Proportion who agreed that a man is
justified in hitting or beating his partner in the following situations
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
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
URP Average Alexandra
Is unfaithful 16 23
Does not look after the children
12 15
Goes out without telling him
7 13
Argues with him 7 11
Refuses to have sex with him
4 7
Burns the food 4 10
24
Attitudes towards abortion
49
50
42
32
9
18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
Alexandra
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
Read as: Abortion is NOT
supported by a third of all
respondents (32%) lower
than the average (42%)
Read as: Abortion is NOT
supported by a third of all
respondents (32%) lower
than the average (42%)
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. Nevertheless the node is relatively progressive when compared to other nodes with regards to most 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 decision-making 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.
26
HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels
66
67
19
68
67
18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Heard about those incommunity with AIDS?
Heard about those who havedied of AIDS in community?
If household member wasinfected would want to keep it
secret?
% Yes
URP Average Alexandra Read as: Prevalence
rates are high and
secrecy is relatively low,
suggesting
stigmatization may be
dropping in face of
unavoidability of the
epidemic
Read as: Prevalence
rates are high and
secrecy is relatively low,
suggesting
stigmatization may be
dropping in face of
unavoidability of the
epidemic
27
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements
19
80
88
85
85
14
89
88
80
95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mosquitoes pass on HIV
Infected mothers can pass onvirus through breastfeeding
Healthy looking person can haveAIDS
One can get AIDS from sharingrazors
Condoms prevent transmissionof HIV
% who agree
URP Average Alexandra
Read as: Very high
awareness of how HIV is
transmitted
Read as: Very high
awareness of how HIV is
transmitted
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 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
29
Conclusions• Alexandra has an average Global Development Rating , compared with
other URP nodes. Its key challenges and strengths are listed below.
Challenges Strengths
Poverty • Unemployment and electricity for lighting
• Water & refuse removal
Development
• Low awareness of some development esp. HIV/AIDS
• Better awareness of school building, roads, government delivery
Service Delivery
• Poor quality electricity, housing, government co-ordination
• Clean water, transport, roads
Health • HIV and AIDS & alcohol abuse• GBV and Sexual Reproductive Health
• Access to health care • Health status has low impact on work or social activities
Social Capital
• Low religious affiliation; mistrust of neighbours
• Low level alienation and anomie, faith in politics