1

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

survey:survey:O R Tambo resultsO R Tambo 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 O R Tambo data: national

report and results are 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 O R Tambo-specific findings– O R Tambo 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

OR Tambo scorecard

Compared with other nodes, O R Tambo does not fare well. It has red warning lights flashing in the

areas of poverty and development awareness, and the global composite index is also flashing warning

signs. This should be a priority node within the ISRDP.

Index RatingPoverty

Social Capital Deficit

Development Deficit

Service Delivery Deficit

Health Deficit

Global

7

Poverty indexPoverty Index - ISRDP Nodes

18%

36%41% 43% 46% 46% 47% 50% 50% 52% 55% 56% 57% 58%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Central KarooThabo

MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge

MarulengKgalagadiSekhukhune

Chris HaniUkhahlamba

Ugu

ZululandO.R. TamboAlfred NzoUmzinyathi

Umkhanyakude

Female headed households OvercrowdingUnemployment No refuse removalNo income No RDP standard waterInformal housing No RDP standard sanitationFunctional illiteracy No electricity for lighting

The poverty deficit index is based on 10 indicators (see table below), given equal

weighting. OR Tambo has the 4th highest level of poverty in the ISRDP.

8

Poverty deficit

Priority areas Priority areas

include above include above

average average

incidence of incidence of

no RDP-level no RDP-level

water, no water, no

regular regular

income, income,

informal informal

dwellings, dwellings,

etc.etc.

Poverty Measures: OR Tambo vs. ISRDP Avg

3%

28%

55%

84%94%

35%

95%

66%

3%

92%

4%

38%53%

78% 80%

30%

75%

51%

2%

65%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Over-crowding Illiterate Female-headed

householdUnemployed

No RDPsanitation

No

electricity 4

lights

No refuseremoval Informaldwelling

No regularincome No RDP

water

OR Tambo ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-34%-25%

4% 7%

18% 19%27% 28%

38%43%

-40%-30%-20%-10%

0%10%20%30%40%50%

Over-crowding Illiterate Female-headed

householdUnemployed

No RDPsanitation

No

electricity 4

lights

No refuseremoval Informaldwelling

No regularincome No RDP

water

The positives - below average The positives - below average

incidence of illiteracy & over-incidence of illiteracy & over-

crowdingcrowding

9

Poverty analysis• Poverty is one of the key challenges facing O R

Tambo, which has the 4th worst poverty levels among the 14 ISRDP nodes.

• Challenges range across the following:– 95% of O R Tambo respondents had no refuse removal– 94% had no RDP-level sanitation provision– 92% had no RDP-level water provision– The rate of unemployment was 84% (the ISRDP

average was 78%)– 66% were living in informal dwellings– 55% of households were female-headed (the ISRDP

average was 53%)– Illiteracy was at 28%, but better than the ISRDP

average of 38%

10

Social capital deficitSocial Capital Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes

27%29%

38% 39% 41% 41% 43% 44% 45% 45% 47% 48% 49%52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Alfred Nzo KgalagadiSekhukhuneO.R. TamboChris Hani

Central KarooUmzinyathi

Zululand

Ugu

UkhahlambaThabo

MofutsanyaneUmkhanyakude

Maruleng

Bushbuckridge

• 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.

• O R Tambo has the 4th best score on the social capital index. That said, over half (55%) of respondents belonged to no CSO, although church membership was high at 91%.

11

Social capital deficit

Incidence of Incidence of

anomie and anomie and

mistrust were mistrust were

higher in O R higher in O R

Tambo than Tambo than

the ISRDP the ISRDP

average.average. Other Other

items (in items (in

green)green) were were

better than the better than the

ISRDP ISRDP

average.average.

Social Capital Measures: OR Tambo vs. ISRDP Avg

25%

49%34%

65%55%

9%

51%

27%31%

56%

38%

70%58%

9%

49%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

C'ty can'tsolve ownproblems Politics awaste of

time

AlienationMust be

careful with

peopleNo CSO

mmbrshipNo religion

Anomie

People care

4

themselvesOR Tambo ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-19%-13% -10% -8% -6% -5%

4%

34%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

C'ty can'tsolve ownproblems Politics awaste of

time

AlienationMust be

careful with

peopleNo CSO

mmbrshipNo religion

Anomie

People care

4

themselves

12

Development deficitDevelopment Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes

23%27%

30% 31%34% 34% 35% 36%

38% 40%44% 46%

49%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

KgalagadiUkhahlamba

Chris Hani

Bushbuckridge

UmzinyathiSekhukhune

Thabo

MofutsanyaneCentral KarooUmkhanyakude

ZululandAlfred Nzo

Ugu

O.R. TamboMaruleng

• 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.

• O R Tambo has the 2nd worst level of development awareness among the ISRDP nodes. This is a negative finding, particularly given the high levels of social capital in the node.

13

Development Measures: OR Tambo vs. ISRD Avg

64%

33%

62%

39%48% 49% 49% 46%

51% 54%46%

52%47%

52%44%

67%

33%

54%

32% 35% 35% 34% 31% 34% 36%31% 34% 31% 32%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Devt-NPOs

NoFarmingNo Devt-

GovtNo

GardensNo HealthFacilitiesNo OtherDev No

CrechesNo FoodNo

HIV/AidsNo SportNo WaterNo ComHallsNo

SchoolsNo

HousesNo Roads

OR Tambo ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRD Avg

-4%

2%

15%20%

38% 42% 45% 49% 50% 51% 52% 52% 53%

66% 67%

-10%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

No Devt-NPOs

No FarmingNo Devt-Govt

No Gardens

No Health Facilities

No Other DevNo Creches

No Food

No HIV/Aids

No SportNo Water

No Com HallsNo SchoolsNo HousesNo Roads

Development deficit

Respondents Respondents

were less aware were less aware

than the ISRDP than the ISRDP

average of average of

development development

activities across activities across

the board, the board,

including including

whether whether

government or government or

CSOs were CSOs were

involved.involved.

14

Service delivery deficitService Delivery Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes

39%

47% 48% 50% 50% 51% 51% 53% 54%57% 57%

61% 61% 62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Central Karoo

ZululandUmzinyathiAlfred Nzo

Umkhanyakude

KgalagadiUkhahlamba

Ugu

O.R. TamboChris Hani

SekhukhuneThabo

Mofutsanyane

Maruleng

Bushbuckridge

OR Tambo ranks ninth (from

best to worst) on service

delivery out of the 14 ISRDP

nodes

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: OR Tambo vs. ISRDP Avg

55% 57%

40%

69%

87% 87%

61%

77%

60%

35%48% 49%

34%

56%69% 67%

47%58%

42%

25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PoorQuality ofServicesNo DSDoffice

Quality-electricitypoor Quality-housing

poorQuality-sewerage

poor Quality-refusepoor

Water notclean Quality-security

poorQuality-

water poorNo Phone

OR Tambo ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

13%16% 18%

22%26%

30% 31% 33%

43% 43%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

PoorQuality ofServices

No DSDofficeQuality-electricity

poor Quality-housingpoor

Quality-sewerage

poor Quality-refusepoor

Water notclean Quality-security

poorQuality-

water poorNo Phone

Service Delivery – Weaknesses

WeaknessesWeaknesses

include most include most

aspects of basic aspects of basic

service delivery, service delivery,

e.g. respondents e.g. respondents

were 43% more were 43% more

likely in this node likely in this node

to rate the quality to rate the quality

of water as poor of water as poor

than the ISRDP than the ISRDP

average, 30% more average, 30% more

likely to rate likely to rate

quality of refuse quality of refuse

removal as poor, removal as poor,

and so onand so on

16

Service Delivery Measures: OR Tambo vs. ISRDP Avg

31%

45% 40% 36%

59%

44%55%

47% 42%

67%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Quality-transportpoor

Quality-roads

poorNo Pension

pointNo Child

support grantLocal GovtPerformance

poor

OR Tambo ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-29%

-19%

-15% -14%-12% -12%

-11%-8%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

Quality-transportpoor

Quality-roads

poorNo Pension

pointNo Child

support grantLocal GovtPerformance

poor Quality-health poorNo Access

to DSDfacility Quality-educationpoor

Service Delivery – Strengths

Strengths: Strengths: Include Include

some aspects of basic some aspects of basic

service delivery (e.g. service delivery (e.g.

respondents are 29% respondents are 29%

less likely to rate less likely to rate

quality of transport as quality of transport as

poor than ISRDP poor than ISRDP

average) and aspects average) and aspects

of DSD service of DSD service

delivery (e.g. delivery (e.g.

respondents are 15% respondents are 15%

less likely to report less likely to report

that they did not have that they did not have

access to a pension access to a pension

point than the ISRDP point than the ISRDP

average)average)

17

Service Delivery: Main Features

• 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 greater penetration of DSD services as well as grants in the node even though the node is doing better than the ISRDP average

OR Tambo ISRDP• Of the households receiving grants two thirds (64%) are receiving Child Support Grants

• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support Grants is half (50%)

• A third (36%) of households receiving grants are receiving Pensions

• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a third (31%)

• Four out of ten (43%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office

• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at a DSD office

• Six out of ten (60%) interact with the DSD at a Pension Pay Out point

• A third (31%) across all nodes will receive DSD services at a Pension Pay Out point

18

Health DeficitHealth Deficit Index - ISRDP Nodes

45% 46% 46% 47%53% 54% 55% 56% 56% 57% 58% 58% 58%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Central KarooSekhukhuneAlfred NzoKgalagadi

Ugu

MarulengO.R. TamboUkhahlamba

UmzinyathiThabo

MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge

Chris HaniZululand

Umkhanyakude

OR Tambo is rated the

seventh best of the 14

ISRDP 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: OR Tambovs. ISRDP Avg

2%

54% 56%

42%

76%

3%

64%54%

39%

61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Malariaincidence Difficultyaccessinghealthcare Cannotwork PoorHealth

Ltd SocialActivitiesOR Tambo ISRDP Avg

Difference vs ISRDP Avg

-46%

-16%

5% 7%

24%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Malariaincidence Difficultyaccessinghealthcare Cannotwork PoorHealth

Ltd SocialActivities

Health Deficit

Priority Areas: Priority Areas:

Respondents are 24% Respondents are 24%

more likely to report more likely to report

that their poor health that their poor health

limits their social limits their social

activities than the activities than the

ISRDP average, and ISRDP average, and

5% more likely to 5% more likely to

report that poor report that poor

health prevents them health prevents them

from working than from working than

the ISRDP averagethe ISRDP average

20

Health • HIV and AIDS was reported as the major health problem in OR Tambo by

42% of respondents (higher than the average of 30% across all nodes)• Alcohol Abuse was also reported as a major health problem in OR Tambo

by 22% of respondents, lower than the average of 28% across all nodes), as was TB (18% of respondents mentioned this vs. an ISRDP average of 16%)

• 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 health services, perceived to be slightly better than the IRDP

average, nevertheless– 41% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a

problem– 38% 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, alcohol abuse and TB

• Poverty and the health challenges of HIV and AIDS TB 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 OR Tambo residents

21

Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share decision - making

57

68

78

65

33

49

65

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Agree on whether to takea sick child to the clinic

Agree on using income topay for health care or

medicines

Agree on when to havechildren

Agree whether to usefamily planning

Average OR TamboRead as: Many

in the node do

not support the

view that most

decisions in the

household

require joint

decision-making

by both partners

22

Proportion supporting statements about female contraception

60

43

39

30

71

48

51

43

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

Average OR Tambo

Read as: Node is still

deeply conservative as

myths about

contraception are

widely held

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 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. Encouraging 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 positive attitudes have been absorbed by all within the node

Average OR TamboIs unfaithful 23 45Does not look after the children

21 45

Goes out without telling him

16 40

Argues with him 15 34Refuses to have sex with him

9 23

Burns the food 7 16

24

Attitudes towards abortion

49

30

42

58

9

12

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

Total

OR Tambo

Agree that abortion should only be allowed if mother's life in dangerAgree that abortion is morally wrong and should never be allowedAgree that abortion on request should be the right of every women

Read as: More than

half the respondents

(58%) do not support

abortion in any

situation in this

node, much higher

than the ISRDP

average (42%)

25

Sexual Reproductive Health & GBV

• Findings point to the need for nuanced campaigns around contraception and their very close link with conflicting attitudes towards women in OR Tambo

• Disturbing to note the the very negative attitudes towards Gender Based Violence and abortions, not to mention the widespread belief in certain 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

• Limited support for joint decision-making by both partners on matters of importance has been taken further as many actually endorse physically abusing their female partner. This is a very worrying finding.

• 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

63

64

18

64

68

21

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Heard about those incommunity with AIDS?

Heard about those whohave died of AIDS in

community?

If household memberwas infected would want

to keep it secret?

% Yes

Average OR Tambo Read as: Prevalence rates are

relatively high and secrecy is

relatively low (albeit higher

than ISRDP average),

suggesting stigmatization is

gradually dropping in face of

unavoidability of the

epidemic

27

HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements

33

80

82

85

83

48

81

78

84

83

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Mosquitoes pass on HIV

Infected mothers canpass on virus through

breastfeeding

Healthy looking personcan have AIDS

One can get AIDS fromsharing razors

Condoms preventtransmission of HIV

% who agree

Average OR Tambo

Read as: Good

awareness of how HIV is

transmitted, although

gaps in respondents’

knowledge can be

observed (e.g.

Mosquitoes)

28

HIV and AIDS • Evidence suggests that previous campaigns (and the high incidence of the pandemic in the

node) have led to a high awareness of impact of HIV and AIDS.• Very encouraging to see how many in the node have correct knowledge about the

transmission of the disease, except in the case of Mosquitoes. This is however, not a surprising response in an area which is NOT affected by mosquito-borne diseases such as Malaria

• Despite high levels of awareness of AIDS sufferers in their communities few respondents can actively assist – Less than 5% in the node reported on providing support to orphans or providing

Home Based Care• Despite high incidence of HIV across OR Tambo, 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, in particular to providing targeted support to increase the numbers of households providing HBC and/or supporting orphans

29

Conclusions• OR Tambo has a poor Global Development Rating • Key Priorities and Strengths:

Priorities StrengthsPoverty • Tap water

• Income • Informal housing

• Low level of crowding• Higher levels of education

Social Capital • Sense that people in community care• Sense that people can influence community developments

• Community able to solve problems• Faith in politics

30

ConclusionsOR Tambo has a poor Global Development Rating. Key challenges

and strengths, emerging from the statistical analysis, appear below. Priorities Strengths

Development

• Poor awareness scores on road-building, housing, school building

• Higher than average awareness of CSO delivery

Service Delivery

• Aspects of basic service delivery (e.g. water, electricity & housing)

• Positive scores re transport, pension point access

Poverty • Poorer than average scores for RDP water, access to regular income, housing

• Low over-crowding, better than average education

Social Capital

• The node’s best asset • Strong showing for belief that c’ty can solve own problems, faith in politics

Health • Poor health, limiting social activities ability to work• Appalling scores on GBV and Sexual Reproductive Health

• Access to health facilities