department of social development nodal baseline survey: motherwell results

1

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

survey:survey:Motherwell resultsMotherwell 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 Motherwell 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 Motherwell-specific findings– Motherwell 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

Motherwell scorecardIndex RatingPoverty

Social Capital Deficit

Development Deficit

Service Delivery Deficit

Health Deficit

Global

Compared with other urban nodes, Motherwell scores generally on

average (for social capital, development awareness, health and the

composite global index); with health status flashing a red warning light.

7

Poverty deficitPoverty Index - URP Nodes

11%14%

16% 17% 17%19%

26%27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

MitchellsPlain

KwaMashu Mdantsane Motherwell Alexandra Galeshewe

Inanda

Khayelitsha

Female headed households Overcrowding

Unemployment 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. Motherwell is in the middle of the URP nodes, 4th of 8.

8

Poverty deficit

Priority areas in Priority areas in

red - where the red - where the

Motherwell score Motherwell score

is above the URP is above the URP

average - include average - include

refuse removal refuse removal

(22% above the (22% above the

URP average) and URP average) and

the rate of the rate of

unemployment. unemployment.

Far more items Far more items

are in green,are in green,

meaning they are meaning they are

better than the better than the

URP average, URP average,

including including

infrastructure infrastructure

items as well as items as well as

illiteracy and illiteracy and

female-headed female-headed

households.households.

Poverty Measures: Motherwell vs. URP Avg

0% 0% 1% 1%16% 13%

44%

3%10%

78%

7% 13%5% 3%

19% 14%

47%

3% 8%

63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No RDPwater

No RDPsanitation

No

electricity(lights) Over-

crowding InformaldwellingFunctional

illiteracy Female

headed HHNo incomeNo refuseremoval

UnemployedMotherwell URPAvg

Difference vs URP Avg

-100% -98%

-75% -71%

-16%-9% -7%

0%

22% 24%

-120%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

No RDPwater

No RDPsanitation

No

electricity(lights) Over-

crowdingInformaldwellingFunctional

illiteracy Female

headed HHNo incomeNo refuseremoval

Unemployed

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, Motherwell is the 4th poorest (of 8) node, and key challenges include the following:– A rate of unemployment of 78% (above the URP

average of 63%)– 44% incidence of female-headed households– 16% of respondents were living in shacks– 13% of respondents were functionally illiterate– 10% had no refuse removal– But there also positives, including above average

access to RDP water and sanitation, and to electricity (for lighting).

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 Alexandra KhayelitshaMitchells 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.• Motherwell has the 3rd highest level of social capital among the URP nodes.

11

Social Capital Measures: Motherwell vs. URP Avg

3%

16%

32%

79%

53%59% 60% 64%

11%

30%

42%

84%

55% 57% 58%50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No Religion C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselvesC'ty can't

solveproblems

Be carefulwith peopleNo CSOmmbrship

AnomiePolitics awaste of

time

Alienation

Motherwell URPAvg


-72%

-47%

-24%

-6% -4%

4% 4%

28%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

No Religion C'ty mmbrsonly care 4themselvesC'ty can't

solveproblems

Be carefulwith peopleNo CSOmmbrship

Anomie Politics awaste oftime

Alienation

Social capital deficit

Priority areas - where Priority areas - where

the Motherwell score the Motherwell score

is higher than the is higher than the

URP average - URP average -

includes anomie and includes anomie and

alienation and lack of alienation and lack of

faith in politics. The faith in politics. The

positives are also positives are also

evident, evident, in greenin green, ,

including better than including better than

average CSO average CSO

membership, trust, membership, trust,

and so on.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.

• Social capital was 3rd highest in Motherwell, but is not reflected in development awareness, where Motherwell is 4th worst.

13

Development Measures: Motherwell vs. URP Avg

36% 35%24% 27%

38% 33% 36% 38% 39% 41% 36% 39%51%

40%

74%

41% 40%27% 30%

42%36% 39% 40% 40% 42%

36% 38%50%

37%

68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Other DevNo FarmingNo RoadsNo Houses

No Health Facilities

No GardensNo SchoolsNo C'ty halls

No SportNo Creches

No water

No food projectNo Devt-Govt

No HIV/AIDS project

No Devt-NPOs

Motherwell URPAvg


-13% -13% -12% -12%-10%

-9%-7% -7%

-4% -4%

0%2% 2%

7%8%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

No Other DevNo FarmingNo RoadsNo Houses

No Health Facilities

No GardensNo SchoolsNo C'ty halls

No Sport

No CrechesNo water

No food projectNo Devt-Govt

No HIV/AIDS project

No Devt-NPOs

Development deficit

Priorities include Priorities include

below average below average

awareness of CSO awareness of CSO

or government or government

delivery; or of delivery; or of

HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS,

emergency food or emergency food or

water projects. water projects.

Better than Better than

average awareness average awareness

was recorded for was recorded for

the items the items in greenin 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

Motherwell ranks 3rd 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: Motherwell vs. URP Avg

100% 93%80%

58%74%

49%

72%

14% 12% 21%

99% 92%78%

56%70%

44%

65%

12% 10% 17%

0%20%

40%

60%80%

100%

120%

No Centre forolder peopleNone use of

DSDServicesNo Old age

pensionNo DSDoffice

Local GovtPerformance

poorGovt Dept

Co-ordination

poorNo Pension

pointNo PhoneQuality-

water poorWater not

clean

Motherw ell URPAvg


0% 0% 2% 3% 5%11% 12%

17%20% 21%

0%

20%

40%

No Centre forolder peopleNone use of

DSDServicesNo Old age

pensionNo DSDoffice

Local GovtPerformance

poorGovt Dept

Co-ordination

poorNo Pension

pointNo Phone Quality-

water poorWater notclean

Service delivery – weaknesses

WeaknessesWeaknesses, i.e. , i.e.

where doing where doing

worse than URP worse than URP

average, include, average, include,

for instance, for instance,

respondents are respondents are

21% more likely 21% more likely

not to rate their not to rate their

water as clean water as clean

than the URP than the URP

average.average.

16

Service Delivery Measures: Motherwell vs. URP Avg

6%10%

15%

8%

14%17%

24%

30%

11%

20%

0%

20%

40%

Quality-electricitypoor

Quality-seweragepoor Quality-housing

poorQuality-refusepoor Poor

Quality ofServices

Motherwell URPAvg


-65%

-58%

-49%

-34%-30%

-22% -20% -18%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

Quality-electricitypoor

Quality-seweragepoor Quality-housing

poorQuality-refusepoor Poor

Quality ofServicesQuality-securitypoor

Quality-roads poorNo Access

to DSDfacility

Service delivery – strengths

Strengths: Strengths:

Respondents are Respondents are

less likely to less likely to

complain about complain about

access to/ quality access to/ quality

of certain aspects of certain aspects

the delivery of the delivery of

basic services basic services

when compared when compared

with the URP with the URP

average. For average. For

instance, instance,

respondents in respondents in

this node are 65% this node are 65%

less likely to rate less likely to rate

the electricity the electricity

supply as poor supply as poor

than the URP than the URP

averageaverage

17Service 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.

Motherwell URP• Of the households receiving grants four out of ten (40%) are receiving Child Support Grants

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

• Two out of ten (21%) receiving grants are receiving Pensions

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

• Four out of ten (42%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office

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

• Three out of ten (28%) 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

Motherwell is ranked as the

second worst URP node with

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: Motherwell vs. URP Avg

44%54%

64% 62%

2%

33%39% 44% 42%

1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

PoorHealth

Difficultyaccessinghealthcare

Ltd SocialActivitiesCannotwork

MalariaincidenceMotherwell URPAvg


35% 38%47% 48%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

PoorHealth

Difficultyaccessinghealthcare

Ltd SocialActivitiesCannotwork

Malariaincidence

Health deficit

Priority AreasPriority Areas, i.e. , i.e.

where doing worse where doing worse

than URP average, than URP average,

include, for instance include, for instance

respondents are 38% respondents are 38%

more likely to have more likely to have

difficulty accessing difficulty accessing

health care than the health care than the

URP average, 35% URP average, 35%

more likely to rate more likely to rate

their health as poor their health as poor

than the URP average, than the URP average,

and 47% more likely and 47% more likely

to report that poor to report that poor

health limits their health limits their

social activities.social activities.

20

Health • HIV and AIDS was seen by the vast majority in the node (59%) as the major

health problem facing Motherwell (much higher than the average of 42% across all URP nodes)

• Alcohol Abuse was also reported as a major health problem in the node (16% of respondents noted this, lower than the URP average of 27%)

• 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 more likely to be perceived as a major issue in this

node when compared with other URP nodes, in particular– 43% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a problem– 44% 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 HIV and AIDS, alcohol abuse and access to health care facilities

• A sectoral or targeted approach is need to focus on these health issues in this node

• Poverty and the health challenges of HIV and AIDS 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 Motherwell residents

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

decision - making

67

77

84

68

67

73

81

77

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

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 Motherwell

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

53

32

42

29

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


Read as: Node is

relatively

progressive as all

these myths about

contraception are

not as widely held

as the URP

average, though

still problematic

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 most situations is higher in this node than the URP average and points to a 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

URP Average MotherwellIs unfaithful 16 15Does not look after the children

12 15

Goes out without telling him

7 8

Argues with him 7 12Refuses to have sex with him

4 5

Burns the food 4 7

24

Attitudes towards abortion

49

58

42

29

9

13

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

Total

Motherwell

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: Abortion is NOT

supported by just over a

quarter of all respondents

(29%), lower than the

average (42%).

25Sexual 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

• Disturbing to note the negative attitudes towards Gender Based Violence, coupled to qualified support for abortions. Nevertheless 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

• 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

66

70

14

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 Motherwell Read as: Prevalence

rates are high and

secrecy is relatively low,

suggesting

stigmatization may be

dropping in face of

unavoidability of the

epidemic

27HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following

statements

19

80

88

85

85

24

78

69

74

78

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


Read as: High awareness

of how HIV is

transmitted, albeit

weaker than the URP

average in all instances

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 (albeit the node compares unfavourably with the URP average on all the items), nevertheless the previous slide does show areas which should be prioritised in future campaigns

• 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– 9% are providing Home Based Care (HBC)– 5% 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

29

Conclusions• Motherwell has an “average” Global Development Rating . Challenges and strengths emerging form the statistical

analysis appear below.

Priorities StrengthsPoverty • Poor scores on

unemployment, refuse removal, regular income

• Generally above average scores especially re access to water, sanitation, electricity

Development

• Lower than average awareness of who provides development

• Positive awareness of roads

Service Delivery

• Poor showing re quality of water• Penetration of grants

• More positive re electricity, sewerage, housing

Health • Access to health care • Poor health impacting negatively on ability to work/social activities• GBV/ Increasing support to orphans and HBC initiatives

• Awareness of HIV transmission

Social Capital

• Alienation and anomie a problem, also lack of faith in politics

• High religiosity, sense of caring in c’ty and c’ty solving own problems

department of social development nodal baseline survey: motherwell results

Documents