1

Department of Social Department of Social Development nodal baseline Development nodal baseline

survey:survey:

Galeshewe resultsGaleshewe 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

Index Rating

Poverty

Social Capital Deficit

Development Deficit

Service Delivery Deficit

Health Deficit

Global

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 indexPoverty Index - URP Nodes

11%

14%16% 17% 17%

19%

26%27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

MitchellsPlain

KwaMashu Mdantsane Motherwell AlexandraGaleshewe

Inanda

Khayelitsha

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

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 Priority areas in red

are items scoring are items scoring

above the URP above the URP

average and include average and include

the rate of the rate of

unemployment unemployment

(19% higher), over-(19% higher), over-

crowding, and so crowding, and so

on. The positives, on. The positives, in in

greengreen, are below , are below

the URP deficit the URP deficit

average, such as average, such as

access to RDP-level access to RDP-level

water and water and

sanitation.sanitation.

Poverty Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg

1% 3%9%

4% 8%

75%

4%

57%

20%

6%7%13%

19%

5% 8%

63%

3%

47%

14%3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No RDPwater

No RDPsanitation

Informaldwelling

No

electricity(lights)

No refuseremoval

Unemployed

Over-

crowdingFemale

headed HHFunctionalilliteracy

No income

Galeshewe URPAvg

Difference vs URP Avg

-83% -76%-55%

-30%

-2%

19% 19% 22%

44%

129%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

No RDPwater

No RDPsanitation

Informaldwelling

No

electricity(lights)

No refuseremoval

Unemployed

Over-

crowdingFemale

headed HHFunctionalilliteracy

No income

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 deficitSocial Capital Deficit Index - URP Nodes

42% 44%46% 46% 48% 49%

52%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Galeshewe Mdantsane Motherwell AlexandraKhayelitsha

Mitchells Plain

Inanda

KwaMashu

• 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 Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg

2%

29% 29%

43%

69%

57%

73%

40%

11%

50%42%

58%

84%

57% 55%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No Religion Alienation C'ty can't

solveproblemsPolitics awaste of

time

Be carefulwith people

AnomieNo CSOmmbrship

C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselvesGaleshewe URPAvg

Difference vs URP Avg

-81%

-43%

-32%-26%

-18%

0%

33% 34%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

No Religion Alienation C'ty can't

solveproblemsPolitics awaste of

time

Be carefulwith people

AnomieNo CSOmmbrship

C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselves

Social capital deficit

Priority areas Priority areas

where Galeshewe where Galeshewe

scores above the scores above the

URP average URP average

include low CSO include low CSO

membership (33% membership (33%

above the average) above the average)

and sense that and sense that

people only care people only care

for themselves. for themselves.

Other items, Other items, in in

greengreen, are , are

positives including positives including

trust, faith in trust, faith in

politics, and so on.politics, and so on.

12

Development deficitDevelopment Deficit Index - URP Nodes

31% 33%

38% 38% 39%43%

47%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

KhayelitshaMitchells Plain

Inanda

Alexandra Motherwell Galeshewe Mdantsane KwaMashu

• 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 Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg

13%

37% 40% 41% 41% 41% 42% 41% 41% 39% 42%

78%

41%

61%

41%27%

41% 42% 42% 40% 40% 40% 39% 38% 36% 37%

68%

36%50%

30%

0%20%

40%

60%

80%100%

No Roads

No Other DevNo Creches

No Health Facilities

No Sport

No C'ty hallsNo FarmingNo Schools

No food project

No water

No HIV/AIDS project

No Devt-NPOsNo Gardens

No Devt-GovtNo Houses

Galeshewe URPAvg

Difference vs URP Avg

-54%

-9%-5% -3%

1% 3% 3% 4%9% 9%

13% 13%17%

22%

35%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

No Roads

No Other DevNo Creches

No Health Facilities

No Sport

No C'ty hallsNo FarmingNo Schools

No food project

No water

No HIV/AIDS project

No Devt-NPOsNo Gardens

No Devt-GovtNo Houses

Development deficit

Awareness

is low across

items in red.

The

positives are

in green

14

Service delivery deficitService Delivery Deficit Index - URP Nodes

45%48% 49% 50% 52% 53%

56%60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Galeshewe

Inanda

Motherwell Khayelitsha Mdantsane KwaMashu Alexandra MitchellsPlain

Galeshewe ranks best out of the 8 URP nodes on service delivery

Galeshewe ranks best out of the 8 URP nodes on service delivery

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

15

Service Delivery Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

70%

11%

39% 44%

99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 97%

63%

10%

25%17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

No Centrefor olderpeopleNo

DisabilityworkshopNo Home

basedcareNo Old

age homeNo Placeof safetyNo Childwelfare No Childsupport

grant Quality-waterpoorQuality-roadspoor

Water notclean

Galeshew e URPAvg

Difference vs URP Avg

1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 11% 12%

54%

153%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%160%180%

No Centrefor olderpeopleNo

DisabilityworkshopNo Home

basedcareNo Old

age homeNo Placeof safety No ChildwelfareNo Childsupportgrant

Quality-waterpoorQuality-

roadspoor

Water notclean

Service delivery – weaknesses

WeaknessesWeaknesses, i.e. , i.e.

where doing worse where doing worse

than URP average, than URP average,

are not many due to are not many due to

the high service the high service

delivery rating given delivery rating given

to this node. to this node.

Nevertheless Nevertheless

respondents were respondents were

153% more likely to 153% more likely to

rate the water supply rate the water supply

as not clean than the as not clean than the

URP average, and URP average, and

54% more likely to 54% more likely to

report the quality of report the quality of

roads as poor roads as poor

compared with the compared with the

URP average.URP average.

16

Service Delivery Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg

7%4% 4%

13% 11%

23%

12% 10%

30%

24%

0%

20%

40%

Quality-health poor

Quality-education

poor Not

participated

in IDP Quality-housingpoor

Quality-sewerage

poor

Galeshewe URPAvg

Difference vs URP Avg

-69%

-63%-58% -57%

-53% -52%

-46% -44%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

Quality-health poor

Quality-education

poor Not

participated

in IDP Quality-housingpoor

Quality-sewerage

poor Quality-securitypoor

Quality-electricitypoor

No Pension

point

Service delivery – strengths

Strengths: Respondents Strengths: Respondents

are less likely to are less likely to

complain about a range complain about a range

of different services of different services

delivered in this node delivered in this node

when compared with when compared with

the URP average. For the URP average. For

instance, respondents in instance, respondents in

this node are 69% less this node are 69% less

likely to rate the quality likely to rate the quality

of health services as of health services as

poor than the URP poor than the URP

average and 63% less average and 63% less

likely than the URP likely than the URP

average to report that average to report that

that quality of education that quality of education

was poor and so on.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.

Galeshewe URP

• Of the households receiving grants three out of ten (30%) are receiving Child Support Grants

• Average for households receiving Child Support Grants is a third (37%)

• Three out of ten (29%) receiving grants are receiving Pensions

• Average for households receiving pensions is two out of ten (22%)

•Half (50%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office

• Four out of ten (44%) experience DSD services at a DSD office

• Two thirds (64%) of the respondents interact with the DSD at a Pension Pay Out point

• A third (35%) will receive DSD services at a Pension Pay Out point

18

Health deficitHealth Deficit Index - URP Nodes

29%34%

37%

42%45%

53% 53% 54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

MitchellsPlain

Alexandra Galeshewe Khayelitsha Mdantsane KwaMashu Motherwell

Inanda

Galeshewe is ranked as the

3rd best of the 8 URP nodes

in respect to health measures

Galeshewe is ranked as the

3rd best of the 8 URP nodes

in respect to health measures

Health Index• Proportion of household infected by malaria past 12 months• Proportion who experience difficulty accessing health care • Proportion who rated their health poor/terrible during past 4 weeks

• Proportion who had difficulty in doing daily work • Proportion whose usual social activities were limited by physical/emotional problems

19

Health Measures: Galeshewe vs. URP Avg

13%

33%35% 38%

2%

39%44% 42%

33%

1%0%

20%

40%

60%

Difficultyaccessinghealthcare

Ltd SocialActivitiesCannotwork PoorHealth

Malariaincidence

Galeshewe URPAvg

Difference vs URP Avg

-66%

-25%

-15%

15%

51%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Difficultyaccessinghealthcare

Ltd SocialActivitiesCannotwork PoorHealth

Malariaincidence

Health Deficit

Priority areas: Priority areas:

Respondents in this Respondents in this

node are 15% more node are 15% more

likely to rate their likely to rate their

health as poor health as poor

compared with the compared with the

URP average, URP average,

Malaria has also been Malaria has also been

identified as a identified as a

priority, but its priority, but its

incidence is so incidence is so

minuscule (2% vs. an minuscule (2% vs. an

URP average of 1%) URP average of 1%)

it should not be seen it should not be seen

as a major priority.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

21Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share

decision - making

67

77

84

68

64

88

89

65

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Agree on whether to take a sickchild to the clinic

Agree on using income to payfor health care or medicines

Agree on when to have children

Agree whether to use familyplanning

URP Average Galeshewe 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

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

71

49

46

30

52

23

28

21

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Agree that women getpregnant so women must

worry aboutcontraception

Agree that femalecontraception is a

women's business andnothing to do with men

Agree that women whouse contraception risks

being sterile

Agree that contraceptionleads to promiscuity

URP Average Galeshewe

Read as: Node is

relatively

progressive as all

myths about

contraception are

not as widely held

as the URP

average

Read as: Node is

relatively

progressive as all

myths about

contraception are

not as widely held

as the URP

average

23Proportion 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

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

URP Average Galeshewe

Is unfaithful 16 8

Does not look after the children

12 5

Goes out without telling him

7 2

Argues with him 7 2

Refuses to have sex with him

4 1

Burns the food 4 2

24

Attitudes towards abortion

49

55

42

39

9

6

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Total

Galeshewe

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

Read as: Abortion is NOT

supported by four out of

ten respondents (39%),

lower than the average

(42%)

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

66

67

19

57

63

13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Heard about those incommunity with AIDS?

Heard about those who havedied of AIDS in community?

If household member wasinfected would want to keep it

secret?

% Yes

URP Average Galeshewe Read as: Prevalence

rates are high and

secrecy is relatively low,

suggesting

stigmatization may be

dropping in face of

unavoidability of the

epidemic

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

19

80

88

85

85

12

84

89

79

91

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mosquitoes pass on HIV

Infected mothers can pass onvirus through breastfeeding

Healthy looking person can haveAIDS

One can get AIDS from sharingrazors

Condoms prevent transmissionof HIV

% who agree

URP Average Galeshewe

Read as: Very high

awareness of how HIV is

transmitted

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

ConclusionsGaleshewe has an above average Global Development Rating, with key challenges

and existing strengths (as indicated by the statistical analysis) below.

Challenges Strengths

Poverty • Above average incidence of no regular income, illiteracy, female-headed households

• Infrastructure scored high

Development

• Generally low awareness of development interventions

• Awareness of roads, crèches

Service Delivery

• Problems re access/quality of water and roads• Increasing penetration of grants

• Quality of health services, education and IDP participation all positive

Health • Poor health a problem• Initiating HBC and support to orphans

• Access to health services

Social Capital

• Lack of community care, low CSO membership, higher than average anomie

• Strong religious affiliations, low alienation, sense that c’ty can solve its own problems