1

Department of Social Department of Social Development nodal baseline Development nodal baseline

survey:survey:Maruleng resultsMaruleng 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 Maruleng 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 Maruleng-specific findings– Maruleng 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

Maruleng scorecard

Compared with other nodes, Maruleng has only red or yellow lights - no

green lights at all. Poverty levels are less severe than in many other ISRDP

nodes, and the health deficit (unlike Bushbuckridge) is less severe. But

social capital, development and service delivery are all worse than in many

other nodes, as is the global index. The data suggest Maruleng should be a

priority node.

Index RatingPoverty

Social Capital Deficit

Development Deficit

Service Delivery Deficit

Health Deficit

Global

7

Poverty deficitPoverty 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

The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal

weighting. Maruleng is less poor than many other ISRDP nodes. The difference in

poverty between Bushbuckridge and neighbouring Maruleng is not statistically

significant.

Female headed households OvercrowdingUnemployment No refuse removalNo income No RDP standard waterInformal housing No RDP standard sanitationFunctional illiteracy No electricity for lighting

8

Poverty Measures: Maruleng vs. ISRDP Avg

0% 0%9%

26%38%

4%

81% 77%

98% 98%

2%

51%

30%38%

53%

4%

78%65%

80% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Income Informal LightingEducation

WomenCrowding

UnemployedTap Water

Toilets Refuse

Maruleng ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-100% -100%

-69%

-31% -27%

-12%

3%

19% 23%31%

-120%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

Income Informal LightingEducation

WomenCrowding

UnemployedTap Water

Toilets Refuse

Poverty deficit: strengths & weaknesses

Priority Areas

For example, read as: For example, read as:

respondents in Maruleng respondents in Maruleng

were 3% more likely than were 3% more likely than

the ISRDP to be the ISRDP to be

unemployed; were 19% unemployed; were 19%

more likely not to have more likely not to have

water to RDP standard; and water to RDP standard; and

so on.so on.

Note the positives: lower than average incidence of no income source, Note the positives: lower than average incidence of no income source,

informal dwelling, etc.informal dwelling, etc.

9

Poverty analysis• Poverty levels in Maruleng are lower compared with other ISRDP

nodes. Respondents were less likely to have no income (none said they had no regular income), to live in shacks/traditional dwellings (2%), to lack electricity for lighting (9% had no electricity at all) or to be functionally illiterate.

• At the other end of the scale, Maruleng respondents were a third more likely not to have their refuse removed (98% said their refuse was not removed), to have RDP level sanitation (2% had internal flush toilets - 92% use a pit latrine and 6% use the veldt) or RDP-level water.

• Unemployment is a crisis afflicting all nodes, rural and urban. In Maruleng the situation is worse than many, with 71% of respondents out of work - a rate of unemployment of 81%.

• On the other hand, incidence of female-headed households (at 38%) is considerably lower than the ISRDP average of 53%.

• Poverty (using this matrix) is kept high by poor service delivery in key areas - water, sanitation, refuse removal - and unemployment. The positives are low incidence of no income and of shacks.

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.

• Maruleng is second only to Bushbuckridge (formerly the other half of the Bohlabela node) in scoring badly on social capital amongst the 14 ISRDP nodes, indicating the compounding impact of poverty and the history of the area on the local population. Building community networks and trust is critical in this node.

11Social capital deficit

Read as: Read as:

respondents from respondents from

Maruleng are 16% Maruleng are 16%

more likely than more likely than

the ISRDP average the ISRDP average

to suffer from to suffer from

alienation, 20% alienation, 20%

more likely to more likely to

suffer from suffer from

anomie, and so on. anomie, and so on.

On the positive On the positive

side, side, in greenin green, ,

CSO membership, CSO membership,

faith in politics faith in politics

and trust scored and trust scored

better than the better than the

ISRDP average.ISRDP average.

Social Capital Measures: Maruleng vs. ISRDP Avg

0

48% 49%

68%

45%

58%

15%

40%

68%

0

58% 56%

70%

38%

49%

9%

20%

31%

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

SocialCapitalIndex

No CSOmmbrship Politics iswaste of

time

Be carefulof people AlienationAnomie

Religion People

only care4 selves C'ty can'tsolve ownproblemsMaruleng ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-18% -12%-4%

16% 20%

64%

102%118%

-40%-20%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%

No CSOmmbrshipPolitics iswaste of

time

Be carefulof people AlienationAnomie

Religion People

only care4 selves C'ty can'tsolve ownproblems

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-18% -12%-4%

16% 20%

64%

102%118%

-40%-20%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%

No CSOmmbrshipPolitics iswaste of

time

Be carefulof people AlienationAnomie

Religion People

only care4 selves C'ty can'tsolve ownproblems

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.

• Maruleng rates as the worst ISRDP node on development awareness, a very negative finding for a node already suffering from high social capital deficit, limited CSO penetration and low inter-communal trust. This is very different from the situation in Bushbuckridge, where respondents were far more aware of development activities.

13

Development Measures: Maruleng vs. ISRD Avg

14%

48%

82%

49%55% 55%

62% 63%55%

49%

65% 65% 65% 63% 60%

31%

54%

67%

35% 33% 32% 35% 36% 31% 26%34% 34% 34% 32% 31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Food

Devt-GovtDevt-NPOsOther DevFarmingHouses Health Sport Water Roads

HIV/AidsCrechesCom HallsGardensSchools

Maruleng ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRD Avg

-55%

-11%

21%

42%

70% 75% 77% 77% 81% 88% 89% 90% 90% 95% 95%

-80%

-60%-40%

-20%

0%20%

40%60%

80%

100%120%

Food

Devt-GovtDevt-NPOsOther DevFarmingHouses

Health Sport Water RoadsHIV/AidsCrechesCom HallsGardensSchools

Development deficit

Priorities

There are few positives: There are few positives:

respondents were only above respondents were only above

the average in awareness of the average in awareness of

emergency food parcels - and emergency food parcels - and

below the ISRDP average on below the ISRDP average on

all other types of development all other types of development

interventionintervention

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

Maruleng has the second worst rating on

service delivery amongst the 14 ISRDP

nodes, i.e. it was rated only slightly

better than neighbouring

Bushbuckridge, the worst in terms of

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: Maruleng vs. ISRDP Avg

3%

22%

48% 49%

20%9%

34%

69% 67%

25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Participation

IDPs Quality-electricity Quality-sewerageQuality-refuse Phone

Maruleng ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-65%

-37%-31%

-27%

-18%

-6% -6%-2%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

Participation

IDPs Quality-electricity Quality-sewerageQuality-refuse Phone

Local GovtPerformanceGovt DeptCo-ordination

Child

dependency

grant

Service delivery – weaknesses

Weaknesses

Read as: Quality of basic

service delivery is worse

in Maruleng than the

average for all ISRDP

nodes, e.g. electricity is

perceived to be a third

(37%) worse than across

all ISRDP nodes.

Read as: Opportunities to

participate in local

governance structures

were rated as poor by

respondents from

Maruleng, e,g. participation

in IDPs by those who knew

about the IDP process in

this node is two thirds

(65%) worse than the

average across all ISRDP

nodes

16Service 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.

Maruleng ISRDP• Of the households receiving grants half (46%) are receiving Child Support Grants

• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support Grants is half (50%)

• Four out of ten (43%) households receiving grants are receiving Pensions

• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a third (31%)

• A fifth of the Households (22%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office

• Half of households across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at a DSD office

• A quarter of households (25%) interact with the DSD at a Pension Pay Out point

• A further third of households (31%) across all nodes will receive DSD services at a Pension Pay Out point

17

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 Nzo Kgalagadi

Ugu

MarulengO.R. TamboUkhahlambaUmzinyathiThabo

MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge

Chris HaniZululand

Umkhanyakude

Maruleng is the sixth best

ISRDP node on health

measures, nevertheless

half of all individuals (54%)

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

18

Health • HIV and AIDS was reported to be the most significant health problem in the

node (34% reported this, greater than an average of 30% across all nodes)• TB was also seen as major problems by three out of ten respondents (30%) in

Maruleng (the average was 22% across all nodes). • 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 in Maruleng 44% more likely than the ISRDP average to report access to health services as a problem, in particular– 83% of individuals reported distance to health facility as being a problem– 90% of individuals 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, and TB and also takes into account the challenges respondents face in accessing health care

• Difficult to see how a sectoral or targetted approach would work to improve access to health, rather it requires a provincial or even national intervention to remove this obstacle

• Poverty and the dual health challenge of HIV and AIDS and access to health cannot be separated and whatever intervention is decided upon should be in the form of an integrated response to the challenges facing Maruleng residents

19Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share decision - making

57

68

78

65

75

86

87

91

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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 Maruleng

Read as: Majority in

the node support the

view that most

decisions in the

household require

joint decision-making

by both partners

20

Proportion supporting statements about female contraception

60

43

39

30

66

52

67

48

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 Maruleng Read as: Node is still

deeply conservative

as myths about

contraception are

widely held.

21Proportion who agreed that a man is justified in hitting or beating his partner in

the following situations

Read as: Support for violence against women is generally close to or lower than the ISRDP average, barring infidelity where it is higher. 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 MarulengIs unfaithful 23 40Does not look after the children

21 6

Goes out without telling him

16 15

Argues with him 15 5Refuses to have sex with him

9 3

Burns the food 7 3

22

Attitudes towards abortion

49

86

42

12

9

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Total

Maruleng

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: Abortion is

supported by vast

majority (86%), but

only under certain

circumstances.

Far fewer (12%)

reject abortion

outright compared

with ISRDP average

(42%)

23Sexual Reproductive Health & GBV

• Findings point to the need for nuanced campaigns around contraception and their very close link with inappropriate attitudes to women in Maruleng

• Encouraging to see that there is some support for abortion, albeit under certain circumstances, which is not there in many other nodes. Hence the need for a campaign that is based on a solid understanding of local attitudes towards abortion as opposed to the interests of a national campaign

• In theory, at least, majority support the idea that many decisions in the household require joint decision-making by both partners

• But many across the nodes not only do not support joint decision-making but go further and 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.

24

HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels

63

64

18

49

55

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

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 MarulengRead as: Prevalence

rates are high and

secrecy is relatively low,

suggesting

stigmatization may be

dropping in face of

unavoidability of the

epidemic

25

HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements

33

80

82

85

83

26

62

77

85

92

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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 Maruleng

Read as: High

awareness of how

HIV is transmitted

26

HIV and AIDS • High awareness of impact of HIV and AIDS (node close to average scores for

ISRDP)• Whilst many have the correct knowledge on how HIV is transmitted, confusion

persists amongst a third of respondents (38%) with regards to whether mothers with HIV and AIDS can pass on the virus by breastfeeding their babies

– Particular attention needs to be paid to this issue in future awareness campaigns in this node

• Despite high levels of awareness of AIDS sufferers in their communities few respondents can actively assist

– No one in the node reported on providing support to orphans or providing Home Based Care

• Despite high incidence of HIV across Maruleng, 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

27

Conclusions• Maruleng has a poor Global Development Rating : its current challenges and strengths, as they emerged

from the statistical analysis, are set out below.

Current challenges StrengthsPoverty • Refuse removal,

sanitation, water• Average access to regular income, low level of informal housing

Development

• Respondents unaware of schools, c’ty gardens, c’ty halls

• Emergency food supplies are known about

Service Delivery

• Problems include quality of transport, pension points, and DSD’s own offices

• No strengths found, as both basic service delivery and DSD service delivery perceived to be of poor quality

Health • Access to health services, HIV and AIDS and TB all common, conservative approach to Sexual Reproductive Health

• Sense of good health; health not hindering ability to work

Social Capital

• No sense that people can solve own problems

• Membership of CSOs and faith in the efficacy of politics