Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Zululand results

1. Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Zululand 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 Zululand data: national report and 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 Zululand-specific findings • Zululand 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. Zululand scorecard Compared with other nodes, Zululand has largely average scores. A red warning light is highlighting health; awhile service delivery is looking more positive. The remainder are yellow ‘OK’ scores, as is the the global, composite index.

7. Poverty index The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting. Zululand is towards the upper end of the scale, the 5th poorest ISRDP node, with above ISRDP average levels of poverty.

8. Poverty deficit Priority areas where the node average is above that of the ISRDP include incidence of informal dwellings (53% higher than average), lack of electricity for lighting, illiteracy, and so on. The positives, in green, include less than average over-crowding, better than average access to a regular income, and so on.

9. Poverty analysis • We saw earlier that Zululand is the 5th poorest of the ISRDP nodes. It faces key challenges in a number of areas including social, economic and service delivery: • 88% of respondents lacked RDP-level sanitation • The rate of unemployment was 81% • 78% lived in informal dwellings (including traditional structures which pose particular challenges for water, sanitation and other RDP delivery) • 69% had no refuse removal • 61% did not have RDP-level water (though better than the ISRDP average of 65%) • 57% of households were headed by women (the ISRDP average was 53%)

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. • Zululand is in the middle of the range on the social capital index. Fully 77% of respondents belonged to no CSO, which makes partnerships between government and civil society more challenging - but still necessary, given the challenges facing the node.

11. Social capital deficit Priority areas include hostility to politics (39% above the ISRDP average), low CSO membership (33% higher than the ISRDP average), above average mistrust, and so on. On the positiveside, anomie and alienation are lower than the ISRDP average, as is a sense of communal care.

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. • Zululand has the 5th worst level of development awareness among the ISRDP nodes. This is a negative finding, compounding the low CSO membership and less than ideal social capital.

13. Development deficit Respondents from Zululand had above average lack of knowledge about the full range of development interventions barring water.

14. Service delivery deficit Zululand ranks second best on service delivery out of the 14 ISRDP nodes

15. Service delivery – weaknesses Weaknesses include most aspects of basic service delivery, e.g. respondents are 30% more likely in this node to rate the quality of/ access to water as poor than the average for ISRDP nodes, 28% more likely in this node than the ISRDP average to rate the quality of sewerage services as poor 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 48% less likely to identify no DSD office as a problem than the ISRDP average, similarly they are 30% less likely to report the cleanliness of the DSD office as poor 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 penetration of DSD services as well as grants in the node.

18. Health Deficit Zululand is rated the second worst ISRDP node in respect of health measures

19. Health Deficit Priority Areas: Malaria incidence is deemed a high priority by respondents, as is poor health. Respondents are 26% more likely to report that their health has prevented them from working than the ISRDP average. Poor health has also limited their social activities.

20. Health • HIV and AIDS was reported as the major health problem in Zululand, by a four out of ten respondents (40%, higher than the average of 30% across all nodes). • Another major health problem identified by respondents was Alcohol Abuse (21% reported this, nevertheless lower the ISRDP average of 28%), • Two other health problems cited by respondents as problematic in the node were TB (16% identified this vs. ISRDP average of 22%) and Cholera (14% of respondents, vs. 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 with respondents 2% more likely to say they have trouble accessing health care than the ISRDP average, in particular • 41% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem • 52% 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 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 still deeply conservative as myths about contraception are widely held, node above average in all but one instance

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 and points to 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

24. Attitudes towards abortion Read as: Abortion is NOT supported by half the respondents (54%) in this node, 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 Zululand • 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 Read as: Prevalence rates are high and secrecy is relatively low (albeit higher than ISRDP average), suggesting stigmatization may be dropping in face of unavoidability of the epidemic

27. HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements Read as: Very high awareness of how HIV is transmitted, except with regards to via 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 • 13% are providing Home Based Care (HBC) • 1% 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 Zululand has an “average”  Global Development Rating, and faces challenges in a number of areas. Challenges and strengths as they emerge from the statistical analysis are listed below.