Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Ukhahlamba results

1. Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Ukhahlamba 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 Ukhahlamba 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 Ukhahlamba -specific findings • Ukhahlamba 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. Ukhahlamba scorecard Compared with other nodes, Ukhahlamba scores overwhelmingly in the mid-range on all indexes, barring development awareness, where it is doing better than the ISRDP average.

7. Poverty index The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting. Ukhahlamba is the (equal) 7th poorest of 14 ISRDP nodes.

8. Poverty deficit Priority areas include 89% more likelihood of Ukhahlamba respondents having no income; 25% more likely than ISRDP average to be illiterate; 24% more likelihood of female-headed households; etc. Positives (in green) include less over-crowding, above average incidence of refuse removal, etc.

9. Poverty analysis • We saw earlier that Ukhahlamba is 7th of the 14 ISRDP nodes using this measure of poverty. Key challenges facing the node include the following: • The rate of unemployment was 82% (compared with an ISRDP average of 78%) • 81% of respondents lacked RDP-level sanitation • 68% lacked RDP-level water • 65% of households in our sample were female-headed, compared with an ISRDP average of 53% • 64% had no refuse removal • At 47% of respondents, functional illiteracy was extremely high in this node

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. • Ukhahlamba lies towards the upper end of the social capital deficit, suggesting that building community networks and trust is important in this node.

11. Social capital deficit Key priorities are the well-above average incidence of anomie (84% higher than the ISRDP average) and alienation (80% higher), which come with negative perceptions of politics and low CSO membership. The positives include belief that communities can solve their own problems as well as trust. There are clearly complex processes at work in the node that need to be understood and accommodated.

12. Development deficit • 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 second highest in Ukhahlamba (remembering that low scores are good news, because they mean a low deficit). This is a positive finding, and suggests that although social capital is under pressure, local knowledge and communication networks are functioning well.

13. Development deficit Not surprisingly, the node performs well - i.e. above the ISRDP average - across the range of development interventions.

14. Service delivery deficit Ukhahlamba ranks equal 6th on service delivery out of the 14 ISRDP nodes

15. Service delivery – weaknesses Weaknessesinclude most aspects of basic service delivery, e.g. quality of/ access to refuse removal was rated as 35% worse than the average for ISRDP nodes, quality and access to sewerage services of was rated as 32% worse than the ISRDP average and so on

16. 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 43% less likely to identify no DSD office as a problem than the ISRDP average, similarly they are 40% less likely to cite no pension point when compared to the 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 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

18. Ukhahlamba is rated 8th out of the 14 ISRDP node in respect to health measures Health deficit

19. Health deficit Priority Areas: Malaria incidence is deemed a high priority by respondents.. Respondents are 46% more likely to report that their health has prevented them from working than the ISRDP average. Poor health has also limited their social activities. On the positive side is lower than average access problems and generally poor health scores.

20. Health • Alcohol Abuse was reported as the major health problem in Ukhahlamba by four out of ten respondents (40%, higher than the average of 28% across all nodes) • HIV and AIDS was also reported as a major health problem in node, by a third of all respondents (35%, higher than the average of 30% 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, in particular • 40% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem • 40% 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 and alcohol abuse and also takes into account the challenges respondents face in accessing health care • Poverty and the dual health challenge of HIV and AIDS 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 Ukhahlamba residents

21. Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share decision - making Read as: Majority 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 Read as: Node is relatively progressive when compared with the ISRDP average. Note that in certain instances myths about contraception are NOT widely held

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 all situations is much lower in this node than the ISRDP average and points to a high proportion of positive 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

24. Attitudes towards abortion Read as: Abortion is NOT supported by two thirds of the respondents (63%) in this node, higher than the ISRDP average (42%), despite generally progressive views on other reproductive right issues

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 Ukhahlamba • Encouraging to note the the positive attitudes towards Gender Based Violence and the myths about contraception, but at the same time there is very little support for abortions. 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 • Strong support for joint decision-making by both partners on matters of importance, has been taken further as very few 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 Read as: Prevalence rates are relatively high and secrecy is very low, suggesting stigmatization may be dropping in face of unavoidability of the epidemic

27. HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements Read as: Whilst some awareness of how HIV is transmitted, distinct gaps in respondents’ knowledge can be observed and should be priority areas for future programme design

28. HIV and AIDS • Evidence suggests that previous campaigns (and the high incidence of the pandemic in the node) have led to some awareness of impact of HIV and AIDS. • Encouraging to see how many in the node have correct knowledge about the transmission of the disease, but node is generally worse than the average average scores for ISRDP (except in the case of Mosquitoes) • HIV and AIDS campaigns in this node need to address the gaps observed in peoples’ knowledge • Despite high levels of awareness of AIDS sufferers in their communities few respondents can actively assist • Less than 1% in the node reported on providing support to orphans or providing Home Based Care • Despite high incidence of HIV across Ukhahlamba, 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 • Ukhahlamba has a Global Development Rating in the middle of the ISRDP average. Key challenges and strengths emerging from the statistical analysis are set out below.