Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Umkhanyakude results
Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: O R Tambo results
description
Transcript of Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: O R Tambo results
1
Department of Social Department of Social Development nodal baseline Development nodal baseline
survey:survey:O R Tambo resultsO R Tambo 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 O R Tambo data: national
report and 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 O R Tambo-specific findings– O R Tambo 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
OR Tambo scorecard
Compared with other nodes, O R Tambo does not fare well. It has red warning lights flashing in the
areas of poverty and development awareness, and the global composite index is also flashing warning
signs. This should be a priority node within the ISRDP.
Index RatingPoverty
Social Capital Deficit
Development Deficit
Service Delivery Deficit
Health Deficit
Global
7
Poverty indexPoverty Index - ISRDP Nodes
18%
36%41% 43% 46% 46% 47% 50% 50% 52% 55% 56% 57% 58%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Central KarooThabo
MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge
MarulengKgalagadiSekhukhune
Chris HaniUkhahlamba
Ugu
ZululandO.R. TamboAlfred NzoUmzinyathi
Umkhanyakude
Female headed households OvercrowdingUnemployment No refuse removalNo income No RDP standard waterInformal housing No RDP standard sanitationFunctional illiteracy No electricity for lighting
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal
weighting. OR Tambo has the 4th highest level of poverty in the ISRDP.
8
Poverty deficit
Priority areas Priority areas
include above include above
average average
incidence of incidence of
no RDP-level no RDP-level
water, no water, no
regular regular
income, income,
informal informal
dwellings, dwellings,
etc.etc.
Poverty Measures: OR Tambo vs. ISRDP Avg
3%
28%
55%
84%94%
35%
95%
66%
3%
92%
4%
38%53%
78% 80%
30%
75%
51%
2%
65%
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
Over-crowding Illiterate Female-headed
householdUnemployed
No RDPsanitation
No
electricity 4
lights
No refuseremoval Informaldwelling
No regularincome No RDP
water
OR Tambo ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-34%-25%
4% 7%
18% 19%27% 28%
38%43%
-40%-30%-20%-10%
0%10%20%30%40%50%
Over-crowding Illiterate Female-headed
householdUnemployed
No RDPsanitation
No
electricity 4
lights
No refuseremoval Informaldwelling
No regularincome No RDP
water
The positives - below average The positives - below average
incidence of illiteracy & over-incidence of illiteracy & over-
crowdingcrowding
9
Poverty analysis• Poverty is one of the key challenges facing O R
Tambo, which has the 4th worst poverty levels among the 14 ISRDP nodes.
• Challenges range across the following:– 95% of O R Tambo respondents had no refuse removal– 94% had no RDP-level sanitation provision– 92% had no RDP-level water provision– The rate of unemployment was 84% (the ISRDP
average was 78%)– 66% were living in informal dwellings– 55% of households were female-headed (the ISRDP
average was 53%)– Illiteracy was at 28%, but better than the ISRDP
average of 38%
10
Social capital deficitSocial Capital Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
27%29%
38% 39% 41% 41% 43% 44% 45% 45% 47% 48% 49%52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Alfred Nzo KgalagadiSekhukhuneO.R. TamboChris Hani
Central KarooUmzinyathi
Zululand
Ugu
UkhahlambaThabo
MofutsanyaneUmkhanyakude
Maruleng
Bushbuckridge
• 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.
• O R Tambo has the 4th best score on the social capital index. That said, over half (55%) of respondents belonged to no CSO, although church membership was high at 91%.
11
Social capital deficit
Incidence of Incidence of
anomie and anomie and
mistrust were mistrust were
higher in O R higher in O R
Tambo than Tambo than
the ISRDP the ISRDP
average.average. Other Other
items (in items (in
green)green) were were
better than the better than the
ISRDP ISRDP
average.average.
Social Capital Measures: OR Tambo vs. ISRDP Avg
25%
49%34%
65%55%
9%
51%
27%31%
56%
38%
70%58%
9%
49%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
C'ty can'tsolve ownproblems Politics awaste of
time
AlienationMust be
careful with
peopleNo CSO
mmbrshipNo religion
Anomie
People care
4
themselvesOR Tambo ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-19%-13% -10% -8% -6% -5%
4%
34%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
C'ty can'tsolve ownproblems Politics awaste of
time
AlienationMust be
careful with
peopleNo CSO
mmbrshipNo religion
Anomie
People care
4
themselves
12
Development deficitDevelopment Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
23%27%
30% 31%34% 34% 35% 36%
38% 40%44% 46%
49%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
KgalagadiUkhahlamba
Chris Hani
Bushbuckridge
UmzinyathiSekhukhune
Thabo
MofutsanyaneCentral KarooUmkhanyakude
ZululandAlfred Nzo
Ugu
O.R. TamboMaruleng
• 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.
• O R Tambo has the 2nd worst level of development awareness among the ISRDP nodes. This is a negative finding, particularly given the high levels of social capital in the node.
13
Development Measures: OR Tambo vs. ISRD Avg
64%
33%
62%
39%48% 49% 49% 46%
51% 54%46%
52%47%
52%44%
67%
33%
54%
32% 35% 35% 34% 31% 34% 36%31% 34% 31% 32%
26%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
No Devt-NPOs
NoFarmingNo Devt-
GovtNo
GardensNo HealthFacilitiesNo OtherDev No
CrechesNo FoodNo
HIV/AidsNo SportNo WaterNo ComHallsNo
SchoolsNo
HousesNo Roads
OR Tambo ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRD Avg
-4%
2%
15%20%
38% 42% 45% 49% 50% 51% 52% 52% 53%
66% 67%
-10%0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
No Devt-NPOs
No FarmingNo Devt-Govt
No Gardens
No Health Facilities
No Other DevNo Creches
No Food
No HIV/Aids
No SportNo Water
No Com HallsNo SchoolsNo HousesNo Roads
Development deficit
Respondents Respondents
were less aware were less aware
than the ISRDP than the ISRDP
average of average of
development development
activities across activities across
the board, the board,
including including
whether whether
government or government or
CSOs were CSOs were
involved.involved.
14
Service delivery deficitService Delivery Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
39%
47% 48% 50% 50% 51% 51% 53% 54%57% 57%
61% 61% 62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Central Karoo
ZululandUmzinyathiAlfred Nzo
Umkhanyakude
KgalagadiUkhahlamba
Ugu
O.R. TamboChris Hani
SekhukhuneThabo
Mofutsanyane
Maruleng
Bushbuckridge
OR Tambo ranks ninth (from
best to worst) on service
delivery out of the 14 ISRDP
nodes
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: OR Tambo vs. ISRDP Avg
55% 57%
40%
69%
87% 87%
61%
77%
60%
35%48% 49%
34%
56%69% 67%
47%58%
42%
25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PoorQuality ofServicesNo DSDoffice
Quality-electricitypoor Quality-housing
poorQuality-sewerage
poor Quality-refusepoor
Water notclean Quality-security
poorQuality-
water poorNo Phone
OR Tambo ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
13%16% 18%
22%26%
30% 31% 33%
43% 43%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
PoorQuality ofServices
No DSDofficeQuality-electricity
poor Quality-housingpoor
Quality-sewerage
poor Quality-refusepoor
Water notclean Quality-security
poorQuality-
water poorNo Phone
Service Delivery – Weaknesses
WeaknessesWeaknesses
include most include most
aspects of basic aspects of basic
service delivery, service delivery,
e.g. respondents e.g. respondents
were 43% more were 43% more
likely in this node likely in this node
to rate the quality to rate the quality
of water as poor of water as poor
than the ISRDP than the ISRDP
average, 30% more average, 30% more
likely to rate likely to rate
quality of refuse quality of refuse
removal as poor, removal as poor,
and so onand so on
16
Service Delivery Measures: OR Tambo vs. ISRDP Avg
31%
45% 40% 36%
59%
44%55%
47% 42%
67%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Quality-transportpoor
Quality-roads
poorNo Pension
pointNo Child
support grantLocal GovtPerformance
poor
OR Tambo ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-29%
-19%
-15% -14%-12% -12%
-11%-8%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
Quality-transportpoor
Quality-roads
poorNo Pension
pointNo Child
support grantLocal GovtPerformance
poor Quality-health poorNo Access
to DSDfacility Quality-educationpoor
Service Delivery – Strengths
Strengths: Strengths: Include Include
some aspects of basic some aspects of basic
service delivery (e.g. service delivery (e.g.
respondents are 29% respondents are 29%
less likely to rate less likely to rate
quality of transport as quality of transport as
poor than ISRDP poor than ISRDP
average) and aspects average) and aspects
of DSD service of DSD service
delivery (e.g. delivery (e.g.
respondents are 15% respondents are 15%
less likely to report less likely to report
that they did not have that they did not have
access to a pension access to a pension
point than the ISRDP point than the ISRDP
average)average)
17
Service Delivery: Main Features
• Other important services provided by DSD such as Children Homes, Rehabilitation Centres and Drop-In Centres worryingly received almost 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 greater penetration of DSD services as well as grants in the node even though the node is doing better than the ISRDP average
OR Tambo ISRDP• Of the households receiving grants two thirds (64%) are receiving Child Support Grants
• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support Grants is half (50%)
• A third (36%) of households receiving grants are receiving Pensions
• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a third (31%)
• Four out of ten (43%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office
• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at a DSD office
• Six out of ten (60%) 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
18
Health DeficitHealth Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
45% 46% 46% 47%53% 54% 55% 56% 56% 57% 58% 58% 58%
63%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Central KarooSekhukhuneAlfred NzoKgalagadi
Ugu
MarulengO.R. TamboUkhahlamba
UmzinyathiThabo
MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge
Chris HaniZululand
Umkhanyakude
OR Tambo is rated the
seventh best of the 14
ISRDP nodes 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: OR Tambovs. ISRDP Avg
2%
54% 56%
42%
76%
3%
64%54%
39%
61%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Malariaincidence Difficultyaccessinghealthcare Cannotwork PoorHealth
Ltd SocialActivitiesOR Tambo ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-46%
-16%
5% 7%
24%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Malariaincidence Difficultyaccessinghealthcare Cannotwork PoorHealth
Ltd SocialActivities
Health Deficit
Priority Areas: Priority Areas:
Respondents are 24% Respondents are 24%
more likely to report more likely to report
that their poor health that their poor health
limits their social limits their social
activities than the activities than the
ISRDP average, and ISRDP average, and
5% more likely to 5% more likely to
report that poor report that poor
health prevents them health prevents them
from working than from working than
the ISRDP averagethe ISRDP average
20
Health • HIV and AIDS was reported as the major health problem in OR Tambo by
42% of respondents (higher than the average of 30% across all nodes)• Alcohol Abuse was also reported as a major health problem in OR Tambo
by 22% of respondents, lower than the average of 28% across all nodes), as was TB (18% of respondents mentioned this vs. an 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 health services, perceived to be slightly better than the IRDP
average, nevertheless– 41% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a
problem– 38% 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 focusses on the issues of HIV and AIDS, alcohol abuse and TB
• Poverty and the health challenges of HIV and AIDS TB 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 OR Tambo residents
21
Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share decision - making
57
68
78
65
33
49
65
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Agree on whether to takea sick child to the clinic
Agree on using income topay for health care or
medicines
Agree on when to havechildren
Agree whether to usefamily planning
Average OR TamboRead as: Many
in the node do
not support the
view that most
decisions in the
household
require joint
decision-making
by both partners
22
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
60
43
39
30
71
48
51
43
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
Average OR Tambo
Read as: Node is still
deeply conservative as
myths about
contraception are
widely held
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 ISRDP average and points to a high proportion of very negative attitudes about Gender Based Violence in the node. Encouraging 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 positive attitudes have been absorbed by all within the node
Average OR TamboIs unfaithful 23 45Does not look after the children
21 45
Goes out without telling him
16 40
Argues with him 15 34Refuses to have sex with him
9 23
Burns the food 7 16
24
Attitudes towards abortion
49
30
42
58
9
12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
OR Tambo
Agree that abortion should only be allowed if mother's life in dangerAgree that abortion is morally wrong and should never be allowedAgree that abortion on request should be the right of every women
Read as: More than
half the respondents
(58%) do not support
abortion in any
situation in this
node, much higher
than the ISRDP
average (42%)
25
Sexual Reproductive Health & GBV
• Findings point to the need for nuanced campaigns around contraception and their very close link with conflicting attitudes towards women in OR Tambo
• Disturbing to note the the very negative attitudes towards Gender Based Violence and abortions, not to mention the 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
• Limited support for joint decision-making by both partners on matters of importance has been taken further as many actually endorse physically abusing their female partner. This is a very worrying finding.
• 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
63
64
18
64
68
21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Heard about those incommunity with AIDS?
Heard about those whohave died of AIDS in
community?
If household memberwas infected would want
to keep it secret?
% Yes
Average OR Tambo Read as: Prevalence rates are
relatively high and secrecy is
relatively low (albeit higher
than ISRDP average),
suggesting stigmatization is
gradually dropping in face of
unavoidability of the
epidemic
27
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements
33
80
82
85
83
48
81
78
84
83
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mosquitoes pass on HIV
Infected mothers canpass on virus through
breastfeeding
Healthy looking personcan have AIDS
One can get AIDS fromsharing razors
Condoms preventtransmission of HIV
% who agree
Average OR Tambo
Read as: Good
awareness of how HIV is
transmitted, although
gaps in respondents’
knowledge can be
observed (e.g.
Mosquitoes)
28
HIV and AIDS • Evidence suggests that previous campaigns (and the high incidence of the pandemic in the
node) have led to a high awareness of impact of HIV and AIDS.• Very encouraging to see how many in the node have correct knowledge about the
transmission of the disease, 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 OR Tambo, 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, in particular to providing targeted support to increase the numbers of households providing HBC and/or supporting orphans
29
Conclusions• OR Tambo has a poor Global Development Rating • Key Priorities and Strengths:
Priorities StrengthsPoverty • Tap water
• Income • Informal housing
• Low level of crowding• Higher levels of education
Social Capital • Sense that people in community care• Sense that people can influence community developments
• Community able to solve problems• Faith in politics
30
ConclusionsOR Tambo has a poor Global Development Rating. Key challenges
and strengths, emerging from the statistical analysis, appear below. Priorities Strengths
Development
• Poor awareness scores on road-building, housing, school building
• Higher than average awareness of CSO delivery
Service Delivery
• Aspects of basic service delivery (e.g. water, electricity & housing)
• Positive scores re transport, pension point access
Poverty • Poorer than average scores for RDP water, access to regular income, housing
• Low over-crowding, better than average education
Social Capital
• The node’s best asset • Strong showing for belief that c’ty can solve own problems, faith in politics
Health • Poor health, limiting social activities ability to work• Appalling scores on GBV and Sexual Reproductive Health
• Access to health facilities