1
Department of Social Development
nodal baseline survey:
Umkhanyakude 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 Umkhanyakude 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 Umkhanyakude -specific findings
– Umkhanyakude 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
Umkhanyakude Scorecard
Index
Poverty
Social Capital Deficit
Development Deficit
Service Delivery Deficit
Health Deficit
Global
Rating
L
L


L
L
Compared with other nodes, Umkhanyakude is clearly amongst the poorest in the
ISRDP, with red warning lights flashing in the areas of poverty, social capital, health
and the overall, composite index. In all these areas the nodal score is above the
average for ISRDP nodes, and high scores are bad news (because we they show high
poverty, or high deficits in other indexed areas).
7
Poverty index
Sekhukhune
Chris Hani
Ukhahlamba
58%
Umkhanyakude
Kgalagadi
57%
Umzinyathi
Maruleng
56%
Alfred Nzo
46%
55%
O.R. Tambo
46%
52%
Zululand
43%
47%
41%
50%
18%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
10%
0%
36%
Central Karoo
50%
40%
30%
20%
50%
Bushbuckridge
70%
60%
Ugu
Poverty Index - ISRDP Nodes
The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal weighting.
Umkhanyakude has the highest poverty rate in the ISRDP.
Female headed households
Overcrowding
Unemployment
No refuse removal
No income
No RDP standard water
Informal housing
No RDP standard sanitation
Functional illiteracy
No electricity for lighting
8
Poverty deficit
5%
4%
30%
51%
69%
77%
80%
97%
91%
76%
2%
20%
0%
40%
65%
41%
60%
38%
82%
45%
80%
53%
100%
78%
120%
75%
Pove rty Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg
ISRDP Avg
No
electricity
(lights)
Informal
dwelling
Overcrowding
No RDP
sanitation
No refuse
removal
No RDP
water
Functional
illiteracy
Unemployed
Umkhanyakude
Female
headed HH
No income
0%
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
150%
131%
100%
51%
21%
21%
No RDP
sanitation
Overcrowding
Functional
illiteracy
17%
No refuse
removal
10%
27%
No RDP
water
4%
Unemployed
50%
No
electricity
(lights)
-88%
-15%
Informal
dwelling
-100%
Female
headed HH
-50%
No income
0%
Priority areas are in red,
where they are above the
ISRDP average; and
include lack of electricity
for lighting (131% more
likely than ISRDP
average), incidence of
informal dwellings (51%
above average) and so on.
Lower than average
positives are in green incidence of no regular
income and female-headed
households both better
than ISRDP average.
9
Poverty analysis
• We saw that Umkhanyakude is the poorest of the ISRDP
nodes, measured using this index. Among the key
challenges are the following:
– 97% of respondents did not have RDP-level sanitation
– 91% had no refuse removal
– The rate of unemployment was 82% (against an ISRDP average of
78%)
– 76% did not have RDP-level water
– 77% lived in informal (incl.traditional) dwellings
– Functional illiteracy, at 41%, was extremely high
– On a slightly more positive note, the node has lower incidence of
female-headed households at 45% (compared with an ISRDP
average of 53%)
– All respondents had some regular source of income
10
Social capital deficit
Social Capital Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
60%
44%
45%
45%
47%
Ugu
Ukhahlamba
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Umkhanyakude
49%
Maruleng
43%
Zululand
41%
Central Karoo
27%
39%
41%
Chris Hani
30%
38%
O.R. Tambo
40%
Sekhukhune
50%
Umzinyathi
52%
48%
29%
20%
•
Kgalagadi
•
•
Alfred Nzo
0%
Bushbuckridge
10%
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.
Umkhanyakude has the 3rd worst level of social capital in the ISRDP,
compounding poverty problems already identified.
11
Social capital deficit
31%
50%
C'ty can't
solve
problems
Politics a
waste of
time
No CSO
mmbrship
11%
No Religion
Be careful
with people
Alienation
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
Anomie
0%
Umkhanyakude
58%
75%
56%
43%
38%
9%
20%
20%
17%
40%
37%
60%
49%
80%
69%
82%
100%
70%
Social Capital Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
70%
61%
60%
50%
40%
29%
30%
17%
17%
No Religion
20%
Be careful
with people
23%
12%
C'ty can't
solve
problems
Politics a
waste of
time
-24%
-13%
Alienation
-30%
-10%
C'ty mmbrs
only care 4
themselves
-20%
Anomie
0%
No CSO
mmbrship
10%
Priority areas are those
above the ISRDP
average: the sense that
communities can’t solve
their own problems (61%
above average), lack of
CSO membership,
disaffection with politics,
and so on. The positives
are in green, including
lower than average
anomie.
12
Development deficit
Development Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
57%
60%
34%
34%
35%
36%
Sekhukhune
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Central Karoo
27%
31%
Bushbuckridge
30%
30%
Chris Hani
40%
Umzinyathi
50%
38%
40%
44%
46%
49%
23%
20%
•
Maruleng
O.R. Tambo
Ugu
Alfred Nzo
Zululand
Umkhanyakude
•
Ukhahlamba
0%
Kgalagadi
10%
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-ISRDP range in Umkhanyakude.
Given the poor levels of social capital in the node, this is a positive finding,
suggesting that local networks persist even though civil society structures
are weak and mistrust evident.
13
Development deficit
Umkhanyakude
85%
67%
No Devt-NPOs
65%
54%
No Devt-Govt
36%
31%
No food project
29%
26%
No Roads
35%
32%
No Houses
35%
32%
No Gardens
36%
34%
No C'ty halls
32%
31%
No water
34%
33%
No Farming
35%
34%
No HIV/AIDS project
34%
35%
No Health Facilities
34%
36%
No Sport
33%
35%
No Other Dev
29%
34%
No Creches
No Schools
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
24%
31%
Development Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRD Avg
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRD Avg
30%
26%
21%
17%
Some
positives, where the node performs better than the ISRDP average, include
-14%
awareness of school building, crèche, sport and health.
-22%
No Devt-NPOs
No Devt-Govt
No food project
11%
No Roads
9%
No Houses
5%
8%
No Gardens
-3%
5%
7%
No C'ty halls
No Sport
-3%
No HIV/AIDS project
-30%
-6%
No Health Facilities
-20%
No Other Dev
-10%
No Creches
0%
No Schools
2%
No water
10%
No Farming
20%
Respondents had lower
than average awareness of
a range of development
interventions, most
particularly awareness of
who is providing
development services government or CSOs.
Awareness of school
building, crèches, sport
facilities and health
facilities was above the
ISRDP average
14
Service delivery deficit
51%
53%
Umkhanyakude
Kgalagadi
Ukhahlamba
Ugu
O.R. Tambo
61%
61%
62%
Bushbuckridge
51%
57%
Maruleng
50%
57%
Sekhukhune
50%
54%
Alfred Nzo
40%
48%
Umzinyathi
50%
47%
Zululand
60%
Chris Hani
70%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Service Delivery Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
Umkhanyakude ranks 5th on service
delivery out of the 14 ISRDP nodes
39%
30%
20%
10%
Central Karoo
0%
Service Delivery Index
• Average proportion receiving DSD Grants
• Average proportion making use of DSD Services
• Average proportion rating government services
as poor quality
• Proportion who rarely have clean water
• Proportion with no/limited phone access
• Proportion who believe there is no coordination
in government
• Proportion who believe local council has
performed badly/terribly
• Proportion who have not heard of IDPs
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
21%
24%
Poor Quality
of Services
41%
Qualityelectricity
poor
Qualitywater poor
Qualityrefuse poor
42%
34%
40%
Qualityelectricity
poor
Qualitywater poor
38%
Qualityrefuse poor
29%
Qualitysewerage
poor
95%
96%
73%
68%
67%
69%
52%
41%
62%
48%
72%
58%
56%
47%
79%
67%
120%
Qualitysewerage
poor
Qualityhealth poor
Poor Quality
of Services
Qualitysecurity poor
Water not
clean
Local Govt
Performance
poor
60%
Qualityhealth poor
17%
Qualitysecurity poor
6%
29%
Water not
clean
Umkhanyakude
Local Govt
Performance
poor
0%
68%
64%
80%
No Old age
pension
100%
No Old age
pension
15
Service delivery – weaknesses
Service Delivery Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg
20%
ISRDP Avg
Weaknesses include
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
114%
64%
most aspects of basic
service delivery, e.g.
quality of/ access to
electricity supply was
rated as 114% worse
than the average for
ISRDP nodes, water
quality and supply
was rated as 64%
worse than the ISRDP
average and so on
16
Service delivery – strengths
89%
Service Delivery Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg
67%
100%
Umkhanyakude
34%
42%
31%
47%
No Child
welfare
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
No Phone
0%
No Pension
point
20%
No Child
support
grant
25%
18%
40%
27%
60%
44%
80%
ISRDP Avg
Qualityeducation
poor
-27%
No DSD
office
-27%
DSD Staff
knowledge
poor
-27%
No Child
welfare
No Pension
point
-10%
No Child
support
grant
-5%
No Phone
0%
DSD
Cleanliness
Poor
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-24%
-24%
-24%
-15%
-20%
-25%
-30%
-35%
-40%
-38%
-25%
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 24% less
likely to identify no DSD
office as a problem than
the ISRDP average,
similarly they are 27% less
likely to cite no pension
point when compared to
the ISRDP average.
17
Service delivery: main features
Umkhanyakude
ISRDP
• Of the households receiving grants seven out of ten
(70%) are receiving Child Support Grants
• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support
Grants is half (50%)
• Three out of ten (32%) households receiving grants are
receiving Pensions
• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a
third (31%)
• Six out of ten (63%) encounter DSD services at a DSD
office
• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at
a DSD office
• Two thirds (66%) interact with the DSD at a Pension
Pay Out point
• A further third (31%) across all nodes will receive DSD
services at a Pension Pay Out point
•
•
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
Umkhanyakude is rated the
worst ISRDP node in respect
of health measures
Health Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes
70%
58%
Bushbuckridge
Chris Hani
Zululand
Kgalagadi
58%
Thabo
Mofutsanyane
Alfred Nzo
56%
58%
Umzinyathi
47%
55%
57%
Ukhahlamba
46%
54%
O.R. Tambo
46%
53%
Maruleng
45%
Sekhukhune
50%
Central Karoo
60%
Ugu
63%
56%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Health Index
Umkhanyakude
0%
• Proportion of household infected by malaria
• Proportion who had difficulty in doing daily
past 12 months
• Proportion who experience difficulty
accessing health care
• Proportion who rated their health
poor/terrible during past 4 weeks
work
• Proportion whose usual social activities were
limited by physical/emotional problems
19
Health deficit
20%
3%
14%
39%
40%
51%
54%
60%
67%
64%
61%
80%
71%
100%
78%
Health Measures: Umkhanyakude vs. ISRDP Avg
Umkhanyakude
Malaria
incidence
Poor
Health
Cannot
work
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
Ltd Social
Activities
0%
ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
22%
25%
29%
Cannot
work
Poor
Health
Malaria
incidence
16%
Difficulty
accessing
health
care
378%
Ltd Social
Activities
400%
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
Priority Areas:
Malaria incidence is
deemed a high priority
by respondents, as is
access to health care.
Respondents are 25%
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 Umkhanyakude, by a third of all
respondents (38%, higher than the average of 30% across all nodes).
A further quarter of all respondents (23%) cited TB as a significant health problem in the node
(ISRDP average is 22% )
Two other health problems cited by respondents as problematic in the node were Alcohol Abuse
(17% reported this, nevertheless lower the ISRDP average of 28%), and Cholera (11% of
respondents, v.s. 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, in particular
– 59% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem
– 61% 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
Average
Umkhanyakude
43
Agree whether to use
family planning
65
51
Agree on when to have
children
78
Agree on using income to
pay for health care or
medicines
34
68
18
Agree on whether to take
a sick child to the clinic
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Read as:
Minority in the
node support the
view that most
decisions in the
household
require joint
decision-making
by both partners
80
90
22
Proportion supporting statements about female contraception
Average
Umkhanyakude
49
Agree that contraception
leads to promiscuity
30
Agree that women who
use contraception risks
being sterile
53
Read as: Node is
still deeply
conservative as
myths about
contraception are
widely held
Agree that female
contraception is a
women's business and
nothing to do with men
39
58
43
Agree that women get
pregnant so women must
worry about
contraception
62
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
23
Proportion who agreed that a man is justified in hitting or
beating his partner in the following situations
Average
Umzinyathi
Is unfaithful
23
42
Does not look after the children
21
43
Goes out without telling him
16
41
Argues with him
15
41
Refuses to have sex with him
9
14
Burns the food
7
14
Read as: Support for violence against women in all situations is higher in this
node than the ISRDP 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
Agree that abortion should only be allowed if mother's life in danger
Agree that abortion is morally wrong and should never be allowed
Agree that abortion on request should be the right of every women
Umkhanyakude
47
48
Total
49
42
Read as: Abortion is
NOT supported by
half the respondents
(48%) in this node,
higher than the ISRDP
average (42%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
5
9
80%
90%
100%
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 Umkhanyakude
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 nongovernmental agencies - integration and co-ordination remain the core
challenges in the ISRDP and URP nodes.
26
HIV & AIDS: Awareness levels
Average
If household member
was infected would want
to keep it secret?
Read as: Prevalence
rates are high and
secrecy is relatively low,
suggesting
stigmatization may be
dropping in face of
unavoidability of the
epidemic
Umkhanyakude
23
18
Heard about those who
have died of AIDS in
community?
70
64
72
Heard about those in
community with AIDS?
63
0
10
20
30
40
% Yes
50
60
70
80
27
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following
statements
Average
Umkhanyakude
89
Condoms prevent
transmission of HIV
83
97
One can get AIDS from
sharing razors
85
Healthy looking person
can have AIDS
82
82
Infected mothers can
pass on virus through
breastfeeding
82
80
Read as: High
awareness of how HIV
is transmitted, except
with regards to
mosquitoes
53
Mosquitoes pass on HIV
33
0
20
40
60
% who agree
80
100
120
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 mosquitoborne 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
– 14% 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, in particular to
providing targeted support to increase the numbers of households providing
HBC and/or supporting orphans
29
Conclusions
•
Umkhanyakude has a “poor” L Global Development Rating, is the poorest
ISRDP node, and faces challenges across the board. Challenges and
strengths, as they emerged from the statistical analysis, are listed below.
Challenges
Strengths
Poverty L
• Poorest node beset with
challenges: Electricity, informal
housing, over-crowding
• Regular income sources, lower than
average female headed households
Development

• Low awareness on many issues
including Govt./CSO provision
• Aware of schools and crèche building
Service
Delivery 
• Low quality or availability of
electricity, water, refuse removal
• Cleanliness of DSD offices
•High uptake of Child Support Grants
Social Capital
L
• Common view that “Community
can’t solve problems”, low CSO
membership
• Low levels of anomie and some sense
of community caring
Health L
• Malaria and general poor health
•Access to health care
•Negative attitudes to GBV
• Some evidence of community
support to AIDS orphans and through
HBC provision