Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Mitchell’s Plain results

1. Department of Social Development nodal baseline survey: Mitchell’s Plain 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 Mitchell’s Plain 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 Mitchell’s Plain-specific findings • Mitchell’s Plain 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. Mitchell's Plain scorecard A brief glance at the scorecard shows that Mitchell’s Plain is a place of contrasts - scoring below the URP average on social capital and service delivery, and above average on poverty, development awareness, health and the composite global index. Overall, the node emerges as scoring better than the URP average in most instances.

7. Poverty deficit The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting. Mitchell’s Plain emerges as the least poor of the URP nodes.

8. Poverty deficit Every item scores better than the URP average, barring incidence of informal dwelling, 1% above the norm. These are very positive results.

9. 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. • By comparison with other URP nodes, Mitchell’s Plain scored well on poverty - but does the reverse on social capital, where it lags behind as 6th worst of the 8 nodes.

10. Social capital deficit Priority areas in red - where Mitchell’s Plain scores above the URP average - include lack of faith in politics (29% higher than average), anomie, lack of faith in community solving its own problems, and so on. The positives - below the URP average - include lower than average alienation, higher than average CSO membership including FBOs.

11. 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. • Mitchell’s Plain has the 2nd highest level of development awareness among the URP nodes.

12. Development deficit Awareness is only low regarding who provides development - CSOs or government. Scores are above the URP average for all types of development delivery.

13. Service delivery deficit Mitchell’s Plain ranks last out of the 8 URP nodes on service delivery

14. Service delivery – weaknesses Weaknesses, i.e. where doing worse than URP average, include DSD service delivery. For instance, respondents are 43% more likely to rate the knowledge of DSD staff as poor than the URP average, 41% more likely to rate the cleanliness of DSD offices as poor than the URP average and so on

15. 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 68% less likely to rate the quality of sewerage services as poor than the URP average

16. 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.

17. Mitchell’s Plain is ranked as the best URP node with respect to health measures Health deficit

18. Health deficit Strengths: Mitchell’s Plain 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 78% less likely to report that poor health limits their social activities when compared with the URP average, and 75% less likely to report that poor health prevented them from working when compared with the URP average

19. Health • Drug Abuse was seen as the major health problem facing Mitchell’s Plain (37% made mention of this, much higher than the average of 14% across all URP nodes) • Alcohol Abuse was also reported as a major health problem in the node, by a third of the respondents (35%, higher than the URP average of 27%) • HIV and AIDS was only seen to be a major health problem by 6% of respondents, far lower than the UPR average of 42% • 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 • 7% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem • 21% 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 drug and alcohol abuse • A sectoral or targeted approach is need to focus on these drug and alcohol abuse related issues in this node • Poverty and the health challenges of drug and alcohol abuse cannot be separated and whatever intervention is decided upon should be in the form of an integrated response to the challenges facing Mitchell’s Plain residents

20. 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 (note: this node is much higher than URP average on all statements).

21. Proportion supporting statements about female contraception Read as: Node is relatively progressive as these myths about contraception are not as widely held as the URP average - though still common

22. 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 very few 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

23. Attitudes towards abortion Read as: Abortion is NOT supported by a quarter of all respondents (24%), much lower than the average (42%)

24. 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 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 • Need to develop an integrated approach that takes poverty and the health challenges facing nodal residents into account and also integrate critical aspects of Sexual Reproductive Health • Challenge is to integrate Sexual Reproductive Health 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.

25. HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels Read as: Awareness levels are in sharp contrast with the URP average, portraying a picture of a node that has largely been unaffected by the pandemic

26. HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements Read as: Majority aware of how HIV is transmitted, despite low prevalence rates in the node

27. HIV and AIDS • Evidence suggests that despite extremely low prevalence rates, in stark contrast to the UPR average, there are nevertheless high levels of knowledge about the transmission of HIV. • It is 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 • The low levels of awareness of AIDS sufferers in their communities no doubt helps explain why few respondents actively assist • Less than 1% in the node made mention of providing support to orphans or providing Home Based Care • These findings suggest that it any integrated intervention would need to be based on one that incorporates health, poverty, and Sexual Reproductive Health and consolidates the gains already made in terms of GBV an HIV and AIDS

28. Conclusions • Mitchell’s Plain has an “above average” J Global Development Rating