department of social development nodal baseline survey: umkhanyakude results

1

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

survey:survey:Umkhanyakude resultsUmkhanyakude 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 Umkhanyakude 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 Umkhanyakude -specific findings– Umkhanyakude 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

Umkhanyakude ScorecardIndex RatingPoverty Social Capital Deficit Development Deficit Service Delivery Deficit Health Deficit Global

Compared with other nodes, Umkhanyakude is clearly amongst the

poorest in the ISRDP, with red warning lights flashing in the areas of

poverty, social capital, health and the overall, composite index. In all

these areas the nodal score is above the average for ISRDP nodes, and

high scores are bad news (because we they show high poverty, or high

deficits in other indexed areas).

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

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

weighting. Umkhanyakude has the highest poverty rate in the ISRDP. Female headed households Overcrowding

Unemployment No refuse removalNo income No RDP standard waterInformal housing No RDP standard sanitationFunctional illiteracy No electricity for lighting

8

Poverty deficit

Priority areas are Priority areas are

in redin red, where they , where they

are above the are above the

ISRDP average; ISRDP average;

and include lack of and include lack of

electricity for electricity for

lighting (131% lighting (131%

more likely than more likely than

ISRDP average), ISRDP average),

incidence of incidence of

informal dwellings informal dwellings

(51% above (51% above

average) and so on. average) and so on.

Lower than Lower than

average positives average positives

are in green - are in green -

incidence of no incidence of no

regular income and regular income and

female-headed female-headed

households both households both

better than ISRDP better than ISRDP

average.average.

Poverty Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg

0%

45%

82%

41%

76%91% 97%

5%

77%69%

2%

53%

78%

38%

65%75% 80%

4%

51%

30%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

No incomeFemale

headed HHUnemployedFunctional

illiteracy No RDPwater

No refuseremoval No RDPsanitation

Over-crowding Informaldwelling

No

electricity(lights)

Umkhanyakude ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-88%

-15%

4% 10% 17% 21% 21% 27%51%

131%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

No incomeFemale

headed HHUnemployedFunctional

illiteracy No RDPwater

No refuseremoval No RDPsanitation

Over-crowdingInformaldwelling

No

electricity(lights)

9

Poverty analysis• We saw that Umkhanyakude is the poorest of

the ISRDP nodes, measured using this index. Among the key challenges are the following:– 97% of respondents did not have RDP-level sanitation– 91% had no refuse removal– The rate of unemployment was 82% (against an

ISRDP average of 78%)– 76% did not have RDP-level water– 77% lived in informal (incl.traditional) dwellings– Functional illiteracy, at 41%, was extremely high– On a slightly more positive note, the node has lower

incidence of female-headed households at 45% (compared with an ISRDP average of 53%)

– All respondents had some regular source of income

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.

• Umkhanyakude has the 3rd worst level of social capital in the ISRDP, compounding poverty problems already identified.

11

Social Capital Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg

37%

17%

43%

82%

11%

69% 75%

50%49%

20%

38%

70%

9%

56% 58%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Anomie

C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselvesAlienation Be carefulwith people No Religion

Politics awaste oftime

No CSOmmbrship C'ty can'tsolve

problems


Dif ference vs ISRDP Avg

-24%

-13%

12%17% 17%

23%29%

61%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Anomie

C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselvesAlienation Be carefulwith people No Religion

Politics awaste oftime

No CSOmmbrship C'ty can'tsolve

problems

Social capital deficit

Priority areas are Priority areas are

those above the those above the

ISRDP average: ISRDP average:

the sense that the sense that

communities can’t communities can’t

solve their own solve their own

problems (61% problems (61%

above average), above average),

lack of CSO lack of CSO

membership, membership,

disaffection with disaffection with

politics, and so on. politics, and so on.

The positives are The positives are

in greenin green, including , including

lower than lower than

average anomie.average anomie.

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.

• Development awareness is in the mid-ISRDP range in Umkhanyakude. Given the poor levels of social capital in the node, this is a positive finding, suggesting that local networks persist even though civil society structures are weak and mistrust evident.

13

Development Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRD Avg

24% 29% 33% 34% 34% 35% 34% 32% 36% 35% 35% 29%36%

65%

85%

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

54%67%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

No SchoolsNo CrechesNo Other Dev

No Sport

No Health FacilitiesNo HIV/AIDS project

No FarmingNo water

No C'ty hallsNo GardensNo HousesNo Roads

No food projectNo Devt-GovtNo Devt-NPOs


Difference vs ISRD Avg

-22%

-14%

-6%-3% -3%

2%5% 5%

7% 8% 9% 11%

17%21%

26%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

No SchoolsNo CrechesNo Other Dev

No Sport

No Health FacilitiesNo HIV/AIDS project

No FarmingNo water

No C'ty hallsNo GardensNo HousesNo Roads

No food projectNo Devt-GovtNo Devt-NPOs

Development deficit

Respondents had Respondents had

lower than average lower than average

awareness of a awareness of a

range of range of

development development

interventions, most interventions, most

particularly particularly

awareness of who is awareness of who is

providing providing

development development

services - services -

government or government or

CSOs.CSOs.

Awareness of school Awareness of school

building, crèches, building, crèches,

sport facilities and sport facilities and

health facilities was health facilities was

above the ISRDP above the ISRDP

averageaverage

Some positives, where the node performs better than the ISRDP Some positives, where the node performs better than the ISRDP

average, include awareness of school building, crèche, sport average, include awareness of school building, crèche, sport

and health.and health.

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

Umkhanyakude ranks 5th 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: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg

68%79%

56%72%

62%52%

96% 95%

68% 73%64% 67%

47%58%

48% 41%

69% 67%

42% 34%

0%

20%

40%

60%80%

100%

120%

No Old agepension

Local GovtPerformance

poor Water notclean

Quality-security poorPoor Qualityof Services

Quality-health poor

Quality-seweragepoor

Quality-refuse poor

Quality-water poor

Quality-electricitypoor



6%17% 21% 24% 29% 29%

38% 41%

64%

114%

0%20%

40%60%80%

100%

120%140%

No Old agepension

Local GovtPerformance

poor Water notclean

Quality-security poorPoor Qualityof Services

Quality-health poor

Quality-sewerage

poorQuality-

refuse poorQuality-

water poorQuality-electricity

poor

Service delivery – weaknesses

Weaknesses

include most

aspects of basic

service delivery,

e.g. quality of/

access to

electricity supply

was rated as 114%

worse than the

average for ISRDP

nodes, water

quality and supply

was rated as 64%

worse than the

ISRDP average and

so on

16

Service Delivery Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg

27%18%

31% 34%

67%

44%

25%

42% 47%

89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DSD

Cleanliness

PoorNo Phone

No Childsupportgrant

No Pension

point No Childwelfare



-38%

-27% -27% -27%-25% -24% -24% -24%

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

DSD

Cleanliness

PoorNo Phone No Childsupportgrant

No Pensionpoint No Childwelfare

DSD Staffknowledgepoor No DSDoffice

Quality-educationpoor

Service delivery – strengths

Strengths:

Respondents are less

likely to complain about

DSD services in this

node when compared

with the ISRDP

average. For instance,

respondents in this

node are 24% less

likely to identify no

DSD office as a

problem than the

ISRDP average,

similarly they are 27%

less likely to cite no

pension point when

compared to the ISRDP

average.

17Service 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 penetration of DSD services as well as grants in the node.

Umkhanyakude ISRDP• Of the households receiving grants seven out of ten (70%) are receiving Child Support Grants

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

• Three out of ten (32%) households receiving grants are receiving Pensions

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

• Six out of ten (63%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office

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

• Two thirds (66%) interact with the DSD at a Pension Pay Out point

• A further 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

Umkhanyakude is rated the

worst ISRDP node in

respect of 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: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg

71%78%

67%

51%

14%

61% 64%54%

39%

3%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ltd SocialActivities Difficultyaccessinghealthcare Cannotwork PoorHealth

MalariaincidenceUmkhanyakude ISRDP Avg


16% 22% 25% 29%

378%

0%50%

100%150%200%250%300%350%400%

Ltd SocialActivities Difficultyaccessinghealthcare Cannotwork PoorHealth

Malariaincidence

Health deficit

Priority Areas: Priority Areas:

Malaria incidence Malaria incidence

is deemed a high is deemed a high

priority by priority by

respondents, as is respondents, as is

access to health access to health

care. Respondents care. Respondents

are 25% more likely are 25% more likely

to report that their to report that their

health has health has

prevented them prevented them

from working than from working than

the ISRDP average. the ISRDP average.

Poor health has Poor health has

also limited their also limited their

social activities. social activities.

20

Health • HIV and AIDS was reported as the major health problem in Umkhanyakude, by a

third of all respondents (38%, higher than the average of 30% across all nodes).• A further quarter of all respondents (23%) cited TB as a significant health

problem in the node (ISRDP average is 22% ) • Two other health problems cited by respondents as problematic in the node were

Alcohol Abuse (17% reported this, nevertheless lower the ISRDP average of 28%), and Cholera (11% of respondents, v.s. ISRDP average of 6%)

• 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, in particular

– 59% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem– 61% 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, TB, alcohol abuse and Cholera and also takes into account the challenges respondents face in accessing health care

• With respect to Cholera, previous mention was made of the fact that respondents in this node are far more likely to perceive their water quality as poor than the ISRDP average. Hence the urgent need for an integrated approach that addresses both poverty and the health challenges of alcohol abuse, HIV and AIDS, TB and Cholera

21

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

57

68

78

65

18

34

51

43

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 Umkhanyakude

Read as:

Minority in the

node 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

62

58

53

49

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


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 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. 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 UmzinyathiIs unfaithful 23 42Does not look after the children

21 43

Goes out without telling him

16 41

Argues with him 15 41Refuses to have sex with him

9 14

Burns the food 7 14

24

Attitudes towards abortion

49

47

42

48

9

5

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

Total

Umkhanyakude

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

NOT supported by

half the respondents

(48%) in this node,

higher than the

ISRDP average (42%)

25Sexual Reproductive Health & GBV

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

• 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

• Not only is there limited support for joint decision-making by both partners on matters of importance, many across the node 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.

26

HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels

63

64

18

72

70

23

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 Umkhanyakude 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

53

82

82

97

89

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

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


Read as: High

awareness of how

HIV is transmitted,

except with regards

to 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 (node better than average scores for ISRDP), except in the case of Mosquitoes.

• This is a worrying response in an area which IS usually affected by mosquito-borne diseases such as Malaria– HIV and AIDS campaigns in this node need to address this gap in

peoples’ knowledge• 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– 14% 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, in particular to providing targeted support to increase the numbers of households providing HBC and/or supporting orphans

29

Conclusions• Umkhanyakude has a “poor” Global Development Rating, is the poorest ISRDP

node, and faces challenges across the board. Challenges and strengths, as they emerged from the statistical analysis, are listed below.

Challenges StrengthsPoverty • Poorest node beset with

challenges: Electricity, informal housing, over-crowding

• Regular income sources, lower than average female headed households

Development

• Low awareness on many issues including Govt./CSO provision

• Aware of schools and crèche building

Service Delivery

• Low quality or availability of electricity, water, refuse removal

• Cleanliness of DSD offices•High uptake of Child Support Grants

Social Capital

• Common view that “Community can’t solve problems”, low CSO membership

• Low levels of anomie and some sense of community caring

Health • Malaria and general poor health•Access to health care•Negative attitudes to GBV

• Some evidence of community support to AIDS orphans and through HBC provision

department of social development nodal baseline survey: umkhanyakude results

Documents