part a: strategic overview - Department of Education

� Large numbers of dependents
� Low levels of literacy
� Small proportions of the population with tertiary education
� Low levels of basic household services such as electricity and piped water
Using this index the most disadvantaged district (see Graph 6) in the Eastern Cape was
Lusikisiki with a score of 0.972, followed closely by Dutywa with 0.970 and Bizana with
0.908. Other districts with high relative deprivation index scores were Mt Fletcher,
Libode and Maluti, all of which have high proportions of 7-18 year olds in relation to their
total populations, and hence many dependents. Poorer districts such as these should be
targeted for greater development assistance and school support.
At the other end of the spectrum are the districts of Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, East
London and Grahamstown, which, in comparative terms have much lower deprivation
index scores and could be considered better off. It should however be noted that the
Eastern Cape as a whole is one of the poorest provinces in South Africa.
The main winners and losers are shown in Table 29 and 30. The tables show that
Umzimkulu District has improved its overall ranking the most, followed by Libode and
Cradock. In relative provincial terms, these districts improved socio-economically during
the period 1996 to 2001. By contrast, the districts of Queenstown and Maluti
experienced a relative decline. In 1996, Queenstown was ranked 20 th in terms of district
poverty but by 2001, it had worsened to 16 th position. Similarly, Maluti went from 9 th most
poor to 6 th during the 5-year period. Seven districts remained in the same relative
position.
Graph 6: Comparative Socio-Economic Deprivation by District
Bizana
Butter wor th
Cof imvaba
Cr adock
East London
Ngcobo
For t Beauf or t
Gr aaf f -Reinet
Gr ahamstown
Dutywa
King Williams Town
Lady Fr er e
Libode
Lusikisiki
Maluti
Mt Fletcher
Mt Fr er e
Por t Elizabeth
Queenstown
Qumbu
Ster kspr uit
Uitenhage
Mthatha
Umzimkulu
Comparative Soc io-Ec onomic Deprivation by District, 2001 Census
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000
0 = Least Po o r, 1 = M o st Po o r
5 Year ECDoE Strategic Plan for 2005-06 2005/06 to 2009-10. 2009/10 March 21 F (4) 2006 Page 65 Page 69