1
Department of Social Department of Social Development nodal baseline Development nodal baseline
survey:survey:
Ugu resultsUgu 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 Ugu 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 Ugu-specific findings
– Ugu 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
Ugu Scorecard
Index Rating
Poverty Social Capital Deficit Development Deficit Service Delivery Deficit Health Deficit Global
Compared with other nodes, Ugu has one sector-based red (warning) light,
for development awareness. The global index - a composite index - is also
red, indicating that Ugu is among the worst-off of the 14 ISRDP nodes.
7
PovertyPoverty 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 Karoo
Thabo
MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge
MarulengKgalagadiSekhukhune
Chris HaniUkhahlamba
Ugu
ZululandO.R. TamboAlfred NzoUmzinyathi
Umkhanyakude
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal
weighting. Ugu has the equal 6th worst 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 Measures: Ugu vs. ISRDP Avg
1%
33%
74%
51%
4%
83%
32%
72%
84%
71%
2%
38%
78%
53%
4%
80%
30%
65%75%
51%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No incomeFunctionalilliteracy
Unemployed
Femaleheaded HH
Over-crowding
No
sanitation
No
electricity(lights)
No water No refuseremoval Informaldwelling
Ugu ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-74%
-12%-6% -3% -2%
3% 6%11% 12%
39%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
No incomeFunctionalilliteracy
Unemployed
Femaleheaded HH
Over-crowding
No
sanitation
No
electricity(lights)
No water No refuseremoval Informaldwelling
Poverty deficit
Priority areas
Strengths - where score is better than ISRDP average - Strengths - where score is better than ISRDP average -
include access to regular income, lower illiteracy, etc.include access to regular income, lower illiteracy, etc.
For example, read as: For example, read as:
respondents from Ugu respondents from Ugu
were 39% more likely were 39% more likely
than ISRDP average to than ISRDP average to
live in shacks/traditional live in shacks/traditional
dwellings, 12% more dwellings, 12% more
likely to have no refuse likely to have no refuse
removal, 11% less likely removal, 11% less likely
to have RDP-level water, to have RDP-level water,
etc.etc.
9
Poverty analysis
• We saw that Ugu is the 6th poorest ISRDP node (alongside Ukhahlamba).
• Key challenges facing Ugu include the following, many of which relate to service delivery:– 7 in 10 respondents were living in informal dwellings
(the ISRDP average was 51%)– 84% had no refuse removal– 83% had no sanitation to RDP standards– 72% had no water to RDP standards– The node had a rate of unemployment of 74%– 51% of households were female-headed
• Looking for positives is challenging, but the data do suggest that illiteracy was lower (at 33%) than the ISRDP average (38%), while just 1% of respondents told us they had no regular source of income.
10
Social capital deficit
• 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.• Ugu has the 6th worst score on the social capital index, again with
Ukhahlamba, suggesting that building a sense of community and local trust are important.
• Two-thirds (67%) of Ugu respondents belonged to no CSO body
Social 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. Tambo
Chris Hani
Central KarooUmzinyathi
Zululand
Ugu
Ukhahlamba
Thabo
MofutsanyaneUmkhanyakude
Maruleng
Bushbuckridge
11
Social Capital Measures: Ugu vs. ISRDP Avg
27%
16%
34%
11%
67%
84%
71%
47%49%
20%
38%
9%
58%
70%
56%
31%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Anomie
C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselvesAlienation
No Religion
No CSOmmbrshipBe carefulwith people
Politics awaste oftime
C'ty can'tsolve
problems
Ugu ISRDP Avg
Dif ference vs ISRDP Avg
-45%
-19%-11%
12% 15%19%
27%
50%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Anomie
C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselvesAlienation
No Religion
No CSOmmbrshipBe carefulwith people
Politics awaste of
time
C'ty can'tsolve
problems
Social capital deficit
Priority areas Ugu Priority areas Ugu
residents were 50% residents were 50%
more likely than more likely than
ISRDP average to say ISRDP average to say
their community their community
cannot solve its own cannot solve its own
problems; 27% more problems; 27% more
likely to see politics as likely to see politics as
a waste of time; and a waste of time; and
so on. The positives, so on. The positives,
in greenin green, include , include
lower than average lower than average
alienation and anomie, alienation and anomie,
as well greater sense as well greater sense
of care in community of care in community
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.
• Ugu rates 3rd worst of the ISRDP nodes, receiving a red score; either little is happening on the ground and/or respondents were unaware of it.
13
Development deficit
Priorities are Priorities are
across the across the
board, board,
barring some barring some
awareness of awareness of
government’s government’s
role in role in
deliverydelivery
Development Measures: Ugu vs. ISRD Avg
47%
35%
49%
79%
47% 48%45%
50% 49%
41% 39%35%
43%49%
34%34% 34%
54%
67%
33% 31% 32% 35% 34%32%
35%
26%31%
36%31%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No CrechesNo C'ty hallsNo Devt-GovtNo Devt-NPOs
No Farming
No food projectNo Gardens
No HealthFacilities
No HIV/AIDS
project
No HousesNo Other Dev
No RoadsNo Schools
No SportNo water
Ugu ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRD Avg
39%
4%
-8%
17%
45%
54%
39%
45%43%
30%
14%
33%
41%
37%
11%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No CrechesNo C'ty hallsNo Devt-GovtNo Devt-NPOs
No Farming
No food projectNo Gardens
No HealthFacilities
No HIV/AIDS
project
No HousesNo Other Dev
No RoadsNo Schools
No SportNo water
14
Service delivery deficit
Service 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
Zululand
UmzinyathiAlfred Nzo
Umkhanyakude
KgalagadiUkhahlamba
Ugu
O.R. TamboChris Hani
SekhukhuneThabo
Mofutsanyane
Maruleng
Bushbuckridge
Ugu has the 8th best rating on service delivery amongst the 14 ISRDP nodes
Ugu has the 8th best rating on service delivery amongst 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: Ugu vs. ISRDP Avg
75%
54% 51% 54% 58%69%
85%
11%
50%
84%
67%
48% 44% 47% 50%58%
69%
9%
41%
67%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Local GovtPerformance
poorDSD Staffunhelpfull
DSD
Cleanliness
PoorPoor DSDServices No Access
to DSDfacility Quality-
security poor
Quality-sewerage
poor Not
participated
in IDP Quality-health poor
Quality-refuse poor
Ugu ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
12% 13%16% 16% 17% 18%
22% 23% 24% 25%
0%
20%
40%
Local GovtPerformance
poorDSD Staffunhelpfull
DSD
Cleanliness
PoorPoor DSDServices No Access
to DSDfacility Quality-
security poor
Quality-sewerage
poor Not
participated
in IDP Quality-health poor
Quality-refuse poor
Service delivery – weaknesses
WeaknessesWeaknesses include include
most aspects of DSD most aspects of DSD
service delivery in the service delivery in the
node, e.g. access to node, e.g. access to
DSD facilities of DSD facilities of
offices were rated offices were rated
17% worse than the 17% worse than the
average for ISRDP average for ISRDP
nodes, staff nodes, staff
helpfulness was rated helpfulness was rated
as 13% worse than as 13% worse than
the ISRDP average the ISRDP average
and so onand so on
16
Service Delivery Measures: Ugu vs. ISRDP Avg
9%
21%16%
31%36%
15%
34%
25%
47%44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Quality-education
poor
Govt Dept
Co-
ordinationpoor
No Phone Water notclean Quality-transport
poor
Ugu ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-42%
-39%-36%
-33%
-17%-15%
-10%-8%
-45%
-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
Quality-education
poor
Govt Dept
Co-
ordinationpoor
No Phone Water notclean Quality-transport
poor No DSDoffice
No Childwelfare No Oldage
pension
Service delivery – strengths
Strengths: Strengths: Respondents Respondents
are less likely to are less likely to
complain about access complain about access
to/ quality of aspects of to/ quality of aspects of
basic service delivery in basic service delivery in
the node when compared the node when compared
with the ISRDP average. with the ISRDP average.
For instance, For instance,
respondents in this node respondents in this node
are 42% less likely to are 42% less likely to
rate the quality of rate the quality of
education as poor than education as poor than
the ISRDP averagethe ISRDP average
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.
Ugu ISRDP
• Of the households receiving half (54%) are receiving Child Support Grants
• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support Grants is half (50%)
• Six out of ten (58%) of households receiving grants are receiving Pensions
• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a third (31%)
• Six out of ten (58%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office
• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at a DSD office
• Half (52%) 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
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
Maruleng
O.R. TamboUkhahlambaUmzinyathiThabo
MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge
Chris HaniZululand
Umkhanyakude
Ugu is rated the fifth best
ISRDP node in respect to
health measures,
nevertheless more than half
of all respondents (53%)
perceive their health status
as poor.
Ugu is rated the fifth best
ISRDP node in respect to
health measures,
nevertheless more than half
of all respondents (53%)
perceive their health status
as poor.
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: Thabo Mafutsanyane vs. ISRDP Avg
0%
32%
66% 65%60%
3%
39%
64% 61%54%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Malariaincidence
PoorHealth
Difficultyaccessinghealthcare
Ltd SocialActivitiesCannotwork
Ugu ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-91%
-18%
4% 6%11%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
Malariaincidence
PoorHealth
Difficultyaccessinghealthcare
Ltd SocialActivitiesCannotwork
Health deficit
Priority Areas: Priority Areas:
Poor health is deemed Poor health is deemed
a high priority by a high priority by
respondents, with respondents, with
respondents 11% more respondents 11% more
likely to report that likely to report that
poor health prevents poor health prevents
them from working them from working
than the ISRDP than the ISRDP
average, and 6% more average, and 6% more
likely to have it limit likely to have it limit
their social activities. their social activities.
On the positive sideOn the positive side, ,
malaria incidence is malaria incidence is
low, and generally low, and generally
poor health lower than poor health lower than
averageaverage
20
Health • Alcohol Abuse was reported as the major health problem in Ugu, by half the
respondents (48%, higher than the average of 28% across all nodes)• HIV and AIDS was also reported as a major health problem in node (24%
made mention of this, slightly lower than the average of 30% across all nodes), as was TB (12% 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, with
respondents 4% more likely than the ISRDP average to cite this as a problem, moreover, – 51% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem– 49% 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 alcohol abuse, HIV and AIDS, TB and access to health
• A sectoral or targeted approach is needed to focus on these disease related issues and access challenges 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 Ugu residents
21
Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share
decision - making
57
68
78
65
29
36
55
44
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
Average Ugu
Read as: Many
in the node do
not support the
view that most
decisions in the
household
require joint
decision-making
by both partners
Read 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
61
33
45
48
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
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 Ugu
Read as: Node is
deeply conservative
as most myths
about contraception
are widely shared
Read as: Node is
deeply conservative
as most myths
about contraception
are widely shared
23
Proportion 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 certain situations is higher in this node than the ISRDP average, which points to 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
Read as: Support for violence against women in certain situations is higher in this node than the ISRDP average, which points to 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
Average Ugu
Is unfaithful 23 19
Does not look after the children
21 21
Goes out without telling him
16 20
Argues with him 15 20
Refuses to have sex with him
9 10
Burns the food 7 6
24
Attitudes towards abortion
49
48
42
45
9
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
Ugu
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 four
out of ten respondents (45%), slightly
higher than the ISRDP average (42%)
Read as: Abortion is NOT supported by four
out of ten respondents (45%), slightly
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 inappropriate attitudes to women in the node
• Disturbing to note the high levels of support for Gender Based Violence in certain instances, 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
• Whilst many do not support the idea that decisions in the household require joint decision-making by both partners, some have gone further and not only do they not support joint decision-making but actually 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.
26
HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels
63
64
18
73
72
20
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
Average Ugu 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
33
80
82
85
83
47
86
95
99
85
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
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
Average Ugu
Read as: High awareness
of how HIV is
transmitted, except
about half (47%) who
gave incorrect answer re
mosquitoes
Read as: High awareness
of how HIV is
transmitted, except
about half (47%) who
gave incorrect answer re
mosquitoes
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 is slightly better than the average scores for the ISRDP on most of the items), 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 poverty in this node, there is some evidence that respondents are trying to actively assist those community members who are infected and suffering– 18% are providing Home Based Care (HBC)– 3% 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
Conclusion
Index Challenges Strengths
Poverty • Generally poor scores, esp. re informal dwellings, RDP water, refuse removal
• Positives include access to regular income, lower illiteracy
Social Capital
• Challenges include sense that c’ty cannot solve problems and lack of faith in politics
• Lower than average anomie
Health • Poor health generally, esp. GBV & Sexual Reproductive Health
• Knowledge of HIV and AIDS (impact & transmission)
Service Delivery
• DSD service delivery generally and penetration of grants in particular
• Quality of education a positive
Development
• Generally poor scores, especially re food/farming and health facilities
Ugu has a “poor” Global Development rating. Key challenges and strengths emerging from the statistical analysis appear below.