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.