Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Ugu results

1. Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Ugu 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 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. Poverty 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.

8. Poverty deficit Priority areas For example, read as: respondents from Ugu were 39% more likely than ISRDP average to live in shacks/traditional dwellings, 12% more likely to have no refuse removal, 11% less likely to have RDP-level water, etc. Strengths - where score is better than ISRDP average - include access to regular income, lower illiteracy, 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

11. Social capital deficit Priority areas Ugu residents were 50% more likely than ISRDP average to say their community cannot solve its own problems; 27% more likely to see politics as a waste of time; and so on. The positives, in green, include lower than average alienation and anomie, as well greater sense of care in community

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. • 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 across the board, barring some awareness of government’s role in delivery

14. Service delivery deficit Ugu has the 8th best rating on service delivery amongst the 14 ISRDP nodes

15. Service delivery – weaknesses Weaknessesinclude most aspects of DSD service delivery in the node, e.g. access to DSD facilities of offices were rated 17% worse than the average for ISRDP nodes, staff helpfulness was rated as 13% worse than the ISRDP average and so on

16. Service delivery – strengths Strengths: Respondents are less likely to complain about access to/ quality of aspects of basic service delivery in the node when compared with the ISRDP average. For instance, respondents in this node are 42% less likely to rate the quality of education as poor than 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 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.

18. 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 Deficit

19. Health deficit Priority Areas: Poor health is deemed a high priority by respondents, with respondents 11% more likely to report that poor health prevents them from working than the ISRDP average, and 6% more likely to have it limit their social activities. On the positive side, malaria incidence is low, and generally poor health lower than average

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 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 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

24. Attitudes towards abortion 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 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 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. Ugu has a “poor” L Global Development rating. Key challenges and strengths emerging from the statistical analysis appear below. Conclusion