Upload
henrik
View
18
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Galeshewe results. 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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Department of Social Department of Social Development nodal baseline Development nodal baseline
survey:survey:
Galeshewe resultsGaleshewe 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 Galeshewe 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 Galeshewe-specific findings
– Galeshewe 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
Galeshewe scorecard
Index Rating
Poverty
Social Capital Deficit
Development Deficit
Service Delivery Deficit
Health Deficit
Global
Compared with other urban nodes, Galeshewe scores generally average
(for poverty, health and development awareness); or is above average for
social capital, and service delivery, and scores above average - compared
to other URP nodes - on the composite ‘global’ index.
7
Poverty indexPoverty Index - URP Nodes
11%
14%16% 17% 17%
19%
26%27%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
MitchellsPlain
KwaMashu Mdantsane Motherwell AlexandraGaleshewe
Inanda
Khayelitsha
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
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal
weighting. Galeshewe is the 3rd poorest URP node.
8
Poverty deficit
Priority areas in red Priority areas in red
are items scoring are items scoring
above the URP above the URP
average and include average and include
the rate of the rate of
unemployment unemployment
(19% higher), over-(19% higher), over-
crowding, and so crowding, and so
on. The positives, on. The positives, in in
greengreen, are below , are below
the URP deficit the URP deficit
average, such as average, such as
access to RDP-level access to RDP-level
water and water and
sanitation.sanitation.
Poverty Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg
1% 3%9%
4% 8%
75%
4%
57%
20%
6%7%13%
19%
5% 8%
63%
3%
47%
14%3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
No RDPwater
No RDPsanitation
Informaldwelling
No
electricity(lights)
No refuseremoval
Unemployed
Over-
crowdingFemale
headed HHFunctionalilliteracy
No income
Galeshewe URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-83% -76%-55%
-30%
-2%
19% 19% 22%
44%
129%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
No RDPwater
No RDPsanitation
Informaldwelling
No
electricity(lights)
No refuseremoval
Unemployed
Over-
crowdingFemale
headed HHFunctionalilliteracy
No income
9
Poverty analysis• Poverty scores in urban nodes are generally better than
those in rural nodes, for obvious reasons - greater connectivity to services, more economic opportunity, and so on. That said, Inanda is the 3rd poorest urban node, and key challenges include:– A rate of unemployment of 75% compared with a URP
average of 63%– 57% incidence of female-headed households compared
with a URP average of 47%– Functional illiteracy at 20% (compared with URP average
of 14%)– Other items that were better than the URP average (i.e.
incidence was lower) included informal dwellings (9%), access to electricity for lighting (4% had no access), access to RDP-level water (1% lacked access), 3% lacked access to RDP sanitation
– In short: infrastructural issues scored positively, while social and economic items were in negative territory
10
Social capital deficitSocial Capital Deficit Index - URP Nodes
42% 44%46% 46% 48% 49%
52%
59%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Galeshewe Mdantsane Motherwell AlexandraKhayelitsha
Mitchells Plain
Inanda
KwaMashu
• 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.
• Galeshewe has the highest level of social capital among the URP nodes.
11
Social Capital Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg
2%
29% 29%
43%
69%
57%
73%
40%
11%
50%42%
58%
84%
57% 55%
30%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No Religion Alienation C'ty can't
solveproblemsPolitics awaste of
time
Be carefulwith people
AnomieNo CSOmmbrship
C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselvesGaleshewe URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-81%
-43%
-32%-26%
-18%
0%
33% 34%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
No Religion Alienation C'ty can't
solveproblemsPolitics awaste of
time
Be carefulwith people
AnomieNo CSOmmbrship
C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselves
Social capital deficit
Priority areas Priority areas
where Galeshewe where Galeshewe
scores above the scores above the
URP average URP average
include low CSO include low CSO
membership (33% membership (33%
above the average) above the average)
and sense that and sense that
people only care people only care
for themselves. for themselves.
Other items, Other items, in in
greengreen, are , are
positives including positives including
trust, faith in trust, faith in
politics, and so on.politics, and so on.
12
Development deficitDevelopment Deficit Index - URP Nodes
31% 33%
38% 38% 39%43%
47%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
KhayelitshaMitchells Plain
Inanda
Alexandra Motherwell Galeshewe Mdantsane KwaMashu
• 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.
• While Galeshewe enjoys robust social capital, development awareness is low - possibly reflecting already high levels of infrastructural provision in the node.
13
Development Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg
13%
37% 40% 41% 41% 41% 42% 41% 41% 39% 42%
78%
41%
61%
41%27%
41% 42% 42% 40% 40% 40% 39% 38% 36% 37%
68%
36%50%
30%
0%20%
40%
60%
80%100%
No Roads
No Other DevNo Creches
No Health Facilities
No Sport
No C'ty hallsNo FarmingNo Schools
No food project
No water
No HIV/AIDS project
No Devt-NPOsNo Gardens
No Devt-GovtNo Houses
Galeshewe URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-54%
-9%-5% -3%
1% 3% 3% 4%9% 9%
13% 13%17%
22%
35%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
No Roads
No Other DevNo Creches
No Health Facilities
No Sport
No C'ty hallsNo FarmingNo Schools
No food project
No water
No HIV/AIDS project
No Devt-NPOsNo Gardens
No Devt-GovtNo Houses
Development deficit
Awareness
is low across
items in red.
The
positives are
in green
14
Service delivery deficitService Delivery Deficit Index - URP Nodes
45%48% 49% 50% 52% 53%
56%60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Galeshewe
Inanda
Motherwell Khayelitsha Mdantsane KwaMashu Alexandra MitchellsPlain
Galeshewe ranks best out of the 8 URP nodes on service delivery
Galeshewe ranks best out of the 8 URP nodes on 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: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
70%
11%
39% 44%
99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 97%
63%
10%
25%17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
No Centrefor olderpeopleNo
DisabilityworkshopNo Home
basedcareNo Old
age homeNo Placeof safetyNo Childwelfare No Childsupport
grant Quality-waterpoorQuality-roadspoor
Water notclean
Galeshew e URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 11% 12%
54%
153%
0%20%40%60%80%
100%120%140%160%180%
No Centrefor olderpeopleNo
DisabilityworkshopNo Home
basedcareNo Old
age homeNo Placeof safety No ChildwelfareNo Childsupportgrant
Quality-waterpoorQuality-
roadspoor
Water notclean
Service delivery – weaknesses
WeaknessesWeaknesses, i.e. , i.e.
where doing worse where doing worse
than URP average, than URP average,
are not many due to are not many due to
the high service the high service
delivery rating given delivery rating given
to this node. to this node.
Nevertheless Nevertheless
respondents were respondents were
153% more likely to 153% more likely to
rate the water supply rate the water supply
as not clean than the as not clean than the
URP average, and URP average, and
54% more likely to 54% more likely to
report the quality of report the quality of
roads as poor roads as poor
compared with the compared with the
URP average.URP average.
16
Service Delivery Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg
7%4% 4%
13% 11%
23%
12% 10%
30%
24%
0%
20%
40%
Quality-health poor
Quality-education
poor Not
participated
in IDP Quality-housingpoor
Quality-sewerage
poor
Galeshewe URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-69%
-63%-58% -57%
-53% -52%
-46% -44%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Quality-health poor
Quality-education
poor Not
participated
in IDP Quality-housingpoor
Quality-sewerage
poor Quality-securitypoor
Quality-electricitypoor
No Pension
point
Service delivery – strengths
Strengths: Respondents Strengths: Respondents
are less likely to are less likely to
complain about a range complain about a range
of different services of different services
delivered in this node delivered in this node
when compared with when compared with
the URP average. For the URP average. For
instance, respondents in instance, respondents in
this node are 69% less this node are 69% less
likely to rate the quality likely to rate the quality
of health services as of health services as
poor than the URP poor than the URP
average and 63% less average and 63% less
likely than the URP likely than the URP
average to report that average to report that
that quality of education that quality of education
was poor and so on.was poor and so on.
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.
Galeshewe URP
• Of the households receiving grants three out of ten (30%) are receiving Child Support Grants
• Average for households receiving Child Support Grants is a third (37%)
• Three out of ten (29%) receiving grants are receiving Pensions
• Average for households receiving pensions is two out of ten (22%)
•Half (50%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office
• Four out of ten (44%) experience DSD services at a DSD office
• Two thirds (64%) of the respondents interact with the DSD at a Pension Pay Out point
• A third (35%) will receive DSD services at a Pension Pay Out point
18
Health deficitHealth Deficit Index - URP Nodes
29%34%
37%
42%45%
53% 53% 54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
MitchellsPlain
Alexandra Galeshewe Khayelitsha Mdantsane KwaMashu Motherwell
Inanda
Galeshewe is ranked as the
3rd best of the 8 URP nodes
in respect to health measures
Galeshewe is ranked as the
3rd best of the 8 URP nodes
in respect to 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: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg
13%
33%35% 38%
2%
39%44% 42%
33%
1%0%
20%
40%
60%
Difficultyaccessinghealthcare
Ltd SocialActivitiesCannotwork PoorHealth
Malariaincidence
Galeshewe URPAvg
Difference vs URP Avg
-66%
-25%
-15%
15%
51%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Difficultyaccessinghealthcare
Ltd SocialActivitiesCannotwork PoorHealth
Malariaincidence
Health Deficit
Priority areas: Priority areas:
Respondents in this Respondents in this
node are 15% more node are 15% more
likely to rate their likely to rate their
health as poor health as poor
compared with the compared with the
URP average, URP average,
Malaria has also been Malaria has also been
identified as a identified as a
priority, but its priority, but its
incidence is so incidence is so
minuscule (2% vs. an minuscule (2% vs. an
URP average of 1%) URP average of 1%)
it should not be seen it should not be seen
as a major priority.as a major priority.
20
Health
• Alcohol Abuse is perceived to the major health problem in Galeshewe, with nearly half the respondents (49%) reporting this, much higher than the average of 24% across all URP nodes
• HIV and AIDS was also seen to be a major health problem in the node (34% mentioned this, slightly lower than the URP average of 42%)
• Drug abuse also received mentioned, albeit by far fewer respondents (10%, lower than the URP average of 14%)
• 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 was far less likely to be perceived as a major issue in
this node when compared with other URP nodes• 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 HIV and AIDS and the other identified health problems
• A sectoral or targeted approach is need to focus on these disease related issues 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 Galeshewe residents
21Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share
decision - making
67
77
84
68
64
88
89
65
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
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
URP Average Galeshewe Read as: Majority in
the node support the
view that most
decisions in the
household require
joint decision-
making by both
partners, albeit that
this node is below
average on certain
issues
Read as: Majority in
the node support the
view that most
decisions in the
household require
joint decision-
making by both
partners, albeit that
this node is below
average on certain
issues
22
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
71
49
46
30
52
23
28
21
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
URP Average Galeshewe
Read as: Node is
relatively
progressive as all
myths about
contraception are
not as widely held
as the URP
average
Read as: Node is
relatively
progressive as all
myths about
contraception are
not as widely held
as the URP
average
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 much lower in this node than the URP average and points to a high proportion of positive 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
Read as: Support for violence against women in all situations is much lower in this node than the URP average and points to a high proportion of positive 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
URP Average Galeshewe
Is unfaithful 16 8
Does not look after the children
12 5
Goes out without telling him
7 2
Argues with him 7 2
Refuses to have sex with him
4 1
Burns the food 4 2
24
Attitudes towards abortion
49
55
42
39
9
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
Galeshewe
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 (39%),
lower than the average
(42%)
Read as: Abortion is NOT
supported by four out of
ten respondents (39%),
lower than the 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
• Encouraging to note the positive attitudes towards Gender Based Violence, coupled to qualified support for abortions. Moreover, the node is relatively progressive when compared to other nodes with regards to most 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 in the node support the idea that decisions in the household require joint decision-making by both partners, those who do not support joint decision-making have taken it further and endorsed 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
66
67
19
57
63
13
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
URP Average Galeshewe 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
19
80
88
85
85
12
84
89
79
91
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
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
URP Average Galeshewe
Read as: Very high
awareness of how HIV is
transmitted
Read as: Very high
awareness of how HIV is
transmitted
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 compares favourably with the URP average on most of the items), nevertheless the previous slide does show areas which should be prioritised in future campaigns
• 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 Galeshewe, 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
29
ConclusionsGaleshewe has an above average Global Development Rating, with key challenges
and existing strengths (as indicated by the statistical analysis) below.
Challenges Strengths
Poverty • Above average incidence of no regular income, illiteracy, female-headed households
• Infrastructure scored high
Development
• Generally low awareness of development interventions
• Awareness of roads, crèches
Service Delivery
• Problems re access/quality of water and roads• Increasing penetration of grants
• Quality of health services, education and IDP participation all positive
Health • Poor health a problem• Initiating HBC and support to orphans
• Access to health services
Social Capital
• Lack of community care, low CSO membership, higher than average anomie
• Strong religious affiliations, low alienation, sense that c’ty can solve its own problems