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