Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Alexandra results

1. Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Alexandra 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 Alexandra 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 Alexandra-specific findings • Alexandra 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. Alexandra scorecard Compared with other nodes, Alexandra scores positively (above average) on health, below average on service delivery, and all other areas are within the URP average. The red warning light for service delivery highlights Alexandra’s weak point compared with other URP nodes.

7. Poverty deficit The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting. Alexandra is the 4th poorest urban node (alongside Motherwell). In other words, poverty is clearly an issue within Alexandra, but is lower than in other URP nodes.

8. Poverty deficit Electricity for lighting is a key priority in Alexandra, coming in 79% above the URP average. In green are the positive scores - where incidence were lower than the URP average, and give positive results for water provision, refuse removal, and so on.

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, the key challenges facing Alexandra include: • A rate of unemployment of 63% (the same as the URP average, compared with an ISRDP average of 78%) • 47% of households sampled were female-headed • 15% of respondents lived in shacks • 12% of respondents were functionally illiterate • 19% of respondents were without RDP-level sanitation (below the URP average of 13%) • 9% of respondents lacked electricity for lighting (URP average is 5%)

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. • Alexandra lies in the middle range of URP nodes on the social capital index; but it is important to note that poor social capital is a feature of all urban nodes, which are generally worse in this area than ISRDP nodes.

11. Social capital deficit Priority areas (where Alexandra is above the URP average) include mistrust and a sense that community members only care for themselves; as well as non-membership of a faith-based organisation. But alienation and anomie were better than in the URP generally, as were other items in green.

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 in the mid-URP range in Alexandra.

13. Development deficit Priorities in red show areas where scores for Alexandra were above the URP average. These include low awareness of a range of development types - though there are more positives (in green, where awareness is higher than the URP average) - across types of project and who is providing them.

14. Service delivery deficit Alexandra ranks 7th worst out of the 8 URP nodes on service delivery

15. Service delivery – weaknesses Weaknesses, i.e. where doing worse than URP average, are largely to do with delivery of basic services. For instance, respondents are 84% more likely to rate the electricity supply as poor than the URP average

16. Service delivery – strengths Strengths: Respondents are less likely to complain about access to/ quality of certain aspects the delivery of basic services when compared with the URP average. For instance, respondents in this node are 58% less likely to rate the quality of water as not clean than the URP 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. Alexandra is ranked as the 2nd best URP node in respect to health measures Health deficit

19. Health deficit Strengths: Alexandra, because of its high health rating when compared with other URP nodes, is better on many of the key health variables. For instance, respondents are 61% less likely to report difficulty accessing health care when compared with the URP average, and 42% less likely to report that poor health prevented them from working when compared with the URP average

20. Health • HIV and AIDS was seen by the vast majority in the node (60%) as the major health problem facing Alexandra (much higher than the average of 42% across all URP nodes) • Alcohol Abuse was also reported as the major health problem in the node, by a quarter of the respondents (24%, equivalent to the URP average of 24%) • 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 which has been perceived as a major issue in other nodes was not seen to be a major obstacle, with respondents in the node far less less likely than the URP average to report access to health services as a problem, thus we find that only • 8% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem • 8% 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 HIV and AIDS and alcohol abuse • 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 Alexandra 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, albeit that this node is below the URP average on certain issues

22. Proportion supporting statements about female contraception Read as: Node is relatively progressive as most myths about contraception are not as widely held as the average, except in 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 all situations is much higher in this node than the URP average and points to a high proportion of very 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 a third of all respondents (32%) 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 • Disturbing to note the negative attitudes towards Gender Based Violence, coupled to qualified support for abortions. Nevertheless 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 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: 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 most of the items), nevertheless the previous slide does show areas which should be prioritised in future campaigns • 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 • 9% are providing Home Based Care (HBC) • 5% 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. Conclusions • Alexandra has an average K Global Development Rating , compared with other URP nodes. Its key challenges and strengths are listed below.