Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Galeshewe results

1. Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Galeshewe 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 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 index 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 are items scoring above the URP average and include the rate of unemployment (19% higher), over-crowding, and so on. The positives, in green, are below the URP deficit average, such as access to RDP-level water and sanitation.

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 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. • Galeshewe has the highest level of social capital among the URP nodes.

11. Social capital deficit Priority areas where Galeshewe scores above the URP average include low CSO membership (33% above the average) and sense that people only care for themselves. Other items, in green, are positives including trust, faith in politics, and so on.

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. • While Galeshewe enjoys robust social capital, development awareness is low - possibly reflecting already high levels of infrastructural provision in the node.

13. Development deficit Awareness is low across items in red. The positives are in green

14. Service delivery deficit Galeshewe ranks best out of the 8 URP nodes on service delivery

15. Service delivery – weaknesses Weaknesses, i.e. where doing worse than URP average, are not many due to the high service delivery rating given to this node. Nevertheless respondents were 153% more likely to rate the water supply as not clean than the URP average, and 54% more likely to report the quality of roads as poor compared with the URP average.

16. Service delivery – strengths Strengths: Respondents are less likely to complain about a range of different services delivered in this node when compared with the URP average. For instance, respondents in this node are 69% less likely to rate the quality of health services as poor than the URP average and 63% less likely than the URP average to report that that quality of education 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.

18. Galeshewe is ranked as the 3rd best of the 8 URP nodes in respect to health measures Health deficit

19. Health Deficit Priority areas: Respondents in this node are 15% more likely to rate their health as poor compared with the URP average, Malaria has also been identified as a priority, but its incidence is so minuscule (2% vs. an URP average of 1%) it should not be seen 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

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 average on certain issues

22. Proportion supporting statements about female contraception Read as: Node is relatively progressive as all myths about contraception are not as widely held as the URP average

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 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

24. Attitudes towards abortion 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 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 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. Conclusions Galeshewe has an above average JGlobal Development Rating, with key challenges and existing strengths (as indicated by the statistical analysis) below.