1
Department of Social Department of Social Development nodal baseline Development nodal baseline
survey:survey:
Kgalagadi resultsKgalagadi 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 Kgalagadi 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 Kgalagadi-specific findings
– Kgalagadi 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
Kgalagadi scorecardIndex Rating
Poverty Social Capital Deficit Development Deficit Service Delivery Deficit Health Deficit Global
Compared with other nodes, Kgalagadi scores relatively well across the indexes used here. No red
lights are flashing, and social capital, development awareness and health all score positive, as does the
global composite index, suggesting that Kgalagadi is performing relatively well compared with other
ISRDP nodes.
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 Karoo
Thabo
MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge
MarulengKgalagadiSekhukhune
Chris HaniUkhahlamba
Ugu
ZululandO.R. TamboAlfred NzoUmzinyathi
Umkhanyakude
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. Kgalagadi has the (equal) 5th lowest level of poverty among the 14
ISRDP nodes.
8
Poverty deficit
Priority areas - Priority areas -
higher than higher than
average incidence average incidence
of no regular of no regular
income (119% income (119%
higher than ISRDP higher than ISRDP
average), no RDP-average), no RDP-
level water, level water,
illiteracy, illiteracy,
unemployment and unemployment and
lack of refuse lack of refuse
removal.removal.
Poverty Measures: Kgalagadi vs. ISRDP Avg
6%
38%
3%
50%
78% 79% 83%
42%
72%
4%
30%
51%
4%
53%
80% 75% 78%
38%
65%
2%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No
electricity 4
lightsInformaldwelling
Over-
crowding Female-headedhousehold
No RDPsanitation No refuse
removal
Unemployed
Illiterate No RDPwater
No income
Kgalagadi ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-79%
-26% -24%-4% -2%
5% 6% 12% 12%
119%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
No
electricity 4
lightsInformaldwelling
Over-
crowding Female-headedhousehold
No RDPsanitation No refuse
removal
Unemployed
Illiterate No RDPwater
No income
The positives - lower than average The positives - lower than average
incidence of no electricity, informal incidence of no electricity, informal
dwellings, etc.dwellings, etc.
9
Poverty analysis• We saw that Kgalagadi has the 5th lowest levels of poverty
in the ISRDP. Key challenges remain, in socio-economic as well as service delivery areas:– The rate of unemployment was 83% (the ISRDP average was
78%)– 79% of respondents did not have their refuse removed
(compared with an ISRDP average of 75%)– 78% did not have RDP-level sanitation– 72% did not have water to RDP standard– 42% of respondents were functionally illiterate (ISRDP average
was 38%)
• The node is performing better than others in some areas - though these remain priorities as absolute levels remain high:– 50% of households were female-headed (53% ISRDP average)– 6% had no electricity for lighting (30% ISRDP average)
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. Tambo
Chris Hani
Central Karoo
UmzinyathiZululand
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.
• Kgalagadi rates 2nd best on social capital among the 14 ISRDP nodes, a very positive finding
11
Social capital deficitSocial Capital Measures: Kgalagadi vs. ISRDP Avg
4% 4%15%
27%16%
49%60% 57%
20%9%
38%
56%
31%
58%70%
49%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
People inc'ty only
care 4selves
No
Religion Alienation Politics iswaste of
time
C'ty can'tsolve ownproblems No CSOmmbrship
Must becarefulwith
people Anomie
Kgalagadi ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-78%
-61% -60%-52% -48%
-16% -14%
18%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
People inc'ty only
care 4selves
No
Religion Alienation Politics iswaste of
time
C'ty can'tsolve ownproblems No CSOmmbrship
Must becarefulwith
people Anomie
For example, read For example, read
as: anomie was 18% as: anomie was 18%
higher than the higher than the
ISRDP average, ISRDP average, but but
all other items were all other items were
more positive than more positive than
the ISRDP averagethe ISRDP average
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.
• Kgalagadi enjoys the best level of development awareness among the ISRDP nodes. This is an extremely positive finding.
13
Development Measures: Kgalagadi vs. ISRD Avg
11%18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 17% 19% 17% 19% 19% 16%
59%
51%
31%35% 36% 34% 35% 34% 33% 32% 34%
31% 32% 31%26%
67%
54%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
No WaterNo OtherDev
No Sport
No
CrechesNo HealthFacilities
No ComHalls
No
Farming
NoHouses
No
HIV/Aids
NoSchools
No
GardensNo FoodNo RoadsNo Devt-
NPOsNo Devt-
Govt
Kgalagadi ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRD Avg
-64%
-48% -48% -48% -47% -47% -45% -45% -43% -43% -42%-39% -38%
-12%
-5%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
No Water
No Other Dev
No Sport
No Creches
No Health Facilities
No Com HallsNo FarmingNo Houses
No HIV/AidsNo SchoolsNo Gardens
No FoodNo Roads
No Devt-NPOsNo Devt-Govt
Development deficit
Strengths -
awareness of all
types of
development
project as well as
government and
CSO provision
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
Kgalagadi ranks sixth on
service delivery out of the 14
ISRDP nodes
Kgalagadi ranks sixth 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: Kgalagadi vs. ISRDP Avg
79% 80% 77%
64% 67%
82% 81%
68%75%
62%69% 67%
58%48% 49%
56% 55%
41% 44%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Quality-sewerage
poor Quality-refusepoorQuality-security
poor PoorQuality ofServices
No DSDoffice
Quality-housingpoor
Quality-roads poor
Quality-health poor
Quality-transportpoor
Quality-education
poor
Kgalagadi ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
14% 18%32% 33% 36% 45% 48%
68% 73%
306%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
Quality-sewerage
poor Quality-refusepoor
Quality-securitypoor Poor
Quality ofServicesNo DSDoffice Quality-housing
poor
Quality-roads poor
Quality-health poor
Quality-transportpoor
Quality-educationpoor
Service delivery – weaknesses
WeaknessesWeaknesses include include
most aspects of basic most aspects of basic
service delivery, e.g. service delivery, e.g.
respondents were respondents were
308% more likely in 308% more likely in
this node to rate the this node to rate the
quality of education as quality of education as
poor than the ISRDP poor than the ISRDP
average, 73% more average, 73% more
likely to rate quality of likely to rate quality of
transport as poor, 68% transport as poor, 68%
more likely to rate more likely to rate
health quality as poor health quality as poor
when compared with when compared with
ISRDP average and so ISRDP average and so
on on
16
Service Delivery Measures: Kgalagadi vs. ISRDP Avg
2%
12%
25%21%
36%
9%
34%
42%
34%
47%
0%
20%
40%
60%
No
Participationin IDPs Quality-electricity
poorQuality-
water poorGovt Dept
Co-
ordinationpoor
Water notclean
Kgalagadi ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-73%
-66%
-39% -38%
-22%
-10% -9% -8%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
No
Participationin IDPs Quality-electricity
poorQuality-
water poorGovt DeptCo-ordination
poor Water notclean
No Pension
point
DSD Staff nocomparssion
No Phone
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 39% respondents are 39%
less likely to rate water less likely to rate water
quality as poor than quality as poor than
ISRDP average) and ISRDP average) and
participation in local participation in local
decision making (e.g. decision making (e.g.
respondents are 73% respondents are 73%
less likely to report less likely to report
that they did not that they did not
participate in the IDPs participate in the IDPs
than the ISRDP 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
Kgalagadi ISRDP
• Of the households receiving grants half (57%) are receiving Child Support Grants
• ISRDP average for households receiving Child Support Grants is half (50%)
• A third (34%) of households receiving grants are receiving Pensions
• ISRDP average for households receiving pensions is a third (31%)
• A third (33%) encounter DSD services at a DSD office
• Half across all nodes (50%) experience DSD services at a DSD office
• Six out of ten (58%) 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 KarooSekhukhune
Alfred Nzo Kgalagadi
Ugu
MarulengO.R. TamboUkhahlamba
UmzinyathiThabo
MofutsanyaneBushbuckridge
Chris HaniZululand
Umkhanyakude
Kgalagadi is rated the
fourth best of the 14 ISRDP
nodes in respect to health
measures
Kgalagadi is rated the
fourth 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: Kgalagadi vs. ISRDP Avg
1%
30% 28%32%
70%
3%
61%54%
39%
64%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Malariaincidence Ltd SocialActivities
Cannotwork PoorHealth
Difficultyaccessinghealthcare
Kgalagadi ISRDP Avg
Difference vs ISRDP Avg
-56%-52%
-48%
-19%
10%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Malariaincidence Ltd SocialActivities
Cannotwork PoorHealth
Difficultyaccessinghealthcare
Health deficit
Priority Areas: Priority Areas:
Respondents Respondents
are 10% more are 10% more
likely to likely to
report that report that
they had they had
difficulty difficulty
accessing accessing
health care health care
than the than the
ISRDP ISRDP
average. average.
20
Health • Alcohol Abuse was also reported as the major health problem in Kgalagadi
by 40% of respondents (higher than the average of 28% across all nodes)• HIV and AIDS was also reported as a major health problem in node, by a
quarter of all respondents (26%, lower than the average of 30% across all nodes, as was TB (25% 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 worse than the ISRDP average,
in particular– 65% of respondents reported distance to health facility as being a
problem– 50% 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, and also takes into account the challenges respondents face in accessing health care
• Poverty and the health challenges of HIV and AIDS TB and, alcohol abuse and access to health facilities cannot be separated and whatever intervention is decided upon should be in the form of an integrated response to the challenges facing Kgalagadi residents
21
Proportion who agree that both parties in a relationship should share decision - making
57
68
78
65
79
92
89
75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
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 Kgalagadi Read as:
Majority in the
node support
the view that
most decisions
in the household
require joint
decision-making
by both partners
Read as:
Majority in the
node 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
64
59
35
36
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
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 Kgalagadi
Read as: Node is still
deeply conservative as
myths about
contraception are
widely held, in only one
instance is the node is
better than ISRDP
average.
Read as: Node is still
deeply conservative as
myths about
contraception are
widely held, in only one
instance is the node is
better than ISRDP
average.
23
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 ISRDP average and points to a high proportion of very positive 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
Read as: Support for violence against women in all situations is much lower in this node than the ISRDP average and points to a high proportion of very positive 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 Kgalagadi
Is unfaithful 23 16
Does not look after the children
21 7
Goes out without telling him
16 2
Argues with him 15 4
Refuses to have sex with him
9 4
Burns the food 7 3
24
Attitudes towards abortion
49
69
42
25
9
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
Kgalagadi
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: There is conditional support
for abortion by two thirds of
respondents (69%) in this node, much
higher than the ISRDP average (49%)
Read as: There is conditional support
for abortion by two thirds of
respondents (69%) in this node, much
higher than the ISRDP average (49%)
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 Kgalagadi
• Encouraging to note the the positive attitudes towards Gender Based Violence and conditional support for abortions, but there is also 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
• Strong support for joint decision-making by both partners on matters of importance, has been taken further as very few actually endorse physically abusing women. This is a positive 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
47
49
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
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 Kgalagadi Read as: Prevalence
rates are relatively high
and secrecy is relatively
low, compared with the
ISRDP average
Read as: Prevalence
rates are relatively high
and secrecy is relatively
low, compared with the
ISRDP average
27
HIV & AIDS: Proportion who accept the following statements
33
80
82
85
83
15
81
86
72
73
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
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 Kgalagadi
Read as: Good awareness of how
HIV is transmitted, although
gaps in respondents’ knowledge
can be observed
Read as: Good awareness of how
HIV is transmitted, although
gaps in respondents’ knowledge
can be observed
28
HIV and AIDS • Evidence suggests that previous campaigns (and the high incidence of the pandemic in the
node) have led to some awareness of impact of HIV and AIDS.
• Whilst encouraging to see how many in the node have correct knowledge about the transmission of the disease, Kgalagadi does lag behind the ISRDP average on certain issues
• HIV and AIDS campaigns in this node need to address the gaps observed in peoples’ knowledge
• 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 Kgalagadi, 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
• Kgalagadi has a poor Global Development Rating • Key Priorities and Strengths:
Priorities Strengths
Poverty •Tap water• Education •Unemployment
• Lighting• Low level informal housing • Low crowding
Social Capital
30
ConclusionsKgalagadi has a positive Global Development Rating. Key challenges and
strengths emerging form the statistical analysis are summarised below.
Challenges Strengths
Development
• Generally positive, slightly lower than average on govt./CSO role
• High awareness of a range of development interventions
Service delivery
• Poor scores re access/quality of education, transport, health, grants
• Higher than average participation in IDPs, electricity and water quality
Poverty • Average scores re RDP water, illiteracy, rate of unemployment
• Positive re electricity for lighting, low informal dwelling
Social capital
• Anomie slightly higher than average
• Generally high across the board
Health • Access to facilities, alcohol abuse, need to increase HBC and support to Orphans
• Conditional support for abortion• Health status above average