CONSULTATIVE CITIZENS' REPORT CARD - CCRC - SURVEY CITY OF TSHWANE, SOUTH AFRICA MAIN SURVEY REPORT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CONSULTATIVE CITIZENS’ REPORT CARD
– CCRC – SURVEY
CITY OF TSHWANE, SOUTH AFRICA
MAIN SURVEY REPORT
4 September 2006
Prepared by:
M Roefs, J du Toit and C.A.Schwabe
Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC)
Prepared for:
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433 USA
1TABLE OF CONTENT
CONSULTATIVE CITIZENS’ REPORT CARD – CCRC – SURVEY ....................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................1
1.2 CITY OF TSHWANE ....................................................................................................................2
2. THE CONSULTATIVE CITIZENS REPORT CARD METHOD ....................................... 8
2.1 BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................8
2.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................................12
2.3 CCRC SURVEY ......................................................................................................................12
3. THE TSHWANE CCRC SURVEY.................................................................................. 15
3.1 FOCUS GROUPS .....................................................................................................................15
3.2 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................16
3.3 SAMPLING ..............................................................................................................................17
3.4 REALISATION OF THE INTERVIEWS AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS ...................................18
3.5 ETHICS ..................................................................................................................................19
4. FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... 20
4.1 WATER ..................................................................................................................................21
4.1.1 Access .............................................................................................................................21
4.1.2 Interruptions .....................................................................................................................22
4.1.3 Billing ...............................................................................................................................23
4.1.4 Free water........................................................................................................................25
4.1.5 Complaints .......................................................................................................................26
4.1.6 Paying ..............................................................................................................................28
4.1.7 Satisfaction ......................................................................................................................29
4.2 REFUSE REMOVAL ..................................................................................................................30
4.2.1 Access .............................................................................................................................30
4.2.2 Complaints .......................................................................................................................31
4.2.3 Satisfaction ......................................................................................................................32
4.3 SANITATION............................................................................................................................33
4.3.1 Access to toilet facilities...................................................................................................33
4.3.2 Complaints .......................................................................................................................35
4.3.3 Paying ..............................................................................................................................36
4.3.4 Satisfaction ......................................................................................................................364.4 ENERGY .................................................................................................................................37
4.4.1 Access .............................................................................................................................37
4.4.2 Billing ...............................................................................................................................38
4.4.3 Free electricity..................................................................................................................39
4.4.5 Paying ..............................................................................................................................39
4.4.6 Complaints .......................................................................................................................40
4.4.7 Satisfaction.................................................................................................................................. 40
4.5 LAND TENURE / HOUSING ........................................................................................................42
4.5.1 Ownership........................................................................................................................42
4.5.2 Complaints .......................................................................................................................43
4.5.3 Satisfaction ......................................................................................................................43
4.6 TRANSPORT ...........................................................................................................................45
4.6.1 Modes of transport...........................................................................................................45
4.6.2 Distance to transport........................................................................................................46
4.6.3 Complaints .......................................................................................................................50
4.6.4 Satisfaction ......................................................................................................................50
4.7 ENGAGEMENT WITH MUNICIPALITY ...........................................................................................50
4.7.1 Knowledge of the IDP ......................................................................................................51
4.7.2 Attendance of public meetings on service delivery and perceived change.....................51
4.8 PERCEPTIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITY ........................................................................................53
4.9 FEEDBACK .............................................................................................................................55
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS........................................................................ 57Definitions
Household All persons in the household who eat from the same cooking pot
and who were resident 15 out of the past 30 days before the
interview took place.
Urban area An area in which most of the dwellings are formal, usually brick,
structures.
Informal urban area An area in which the majority of dwellings are shanties or shacks.
Tribal area An area, which, under the old apartheid system, was administered
by a tribal authority.
Formal rural area An area, which is dominated by large-scale commercial agriculture
or animal husbandry and other rural parts of the country, such as
small villages or mission stations.
Piped water Piped tap water in dwelling metered or pre-paid meter, on site/yard
meter or pre-paid meter or no meter, public/communal tap free or
paid, and from the neighbour free or paid.
Unpiped water All water sources that do not fit the ‘piped water’ description.
Private water sources In house or on site tap, water tanker, borehole or rainwater tank, or
neighbours’ tap.
Public water sources Communal tap, or off site water tanker or borehole
Natural water sources Flowing river/stream, dam/pool, stagnant pond, well and spring
Improved toilets Flush toilet connected to a municipal sewage system or to a septic
tank or a pit latrine with ventilation pipe (long drop)
Unimproved toilets Pit latrine without ventilation pipe (long drop), a chemical toilet, a
bucket toilet or any other toilet that does not fit the description of
improved toilets.
Living Standards The most widely used segmentation in South Africa and divides
Measure (LSM) the population into ten groups, 10 (highest) to 1 (lowest). It is a
unique means of segmenting the South African population and
does so according to their living standards using criteria such as
degree of urbanisation and ownership of household assets.1. INTRODUCTION
The World Bank has commissioned the Human Sciences Research Council to conduct a
pilot of the Consultative Citizen Report Card (CCRC) survey in the City of Tshwane, the
capital of South Africa. The primary purpose of this report is to focus on the methodology
followed and the findings of this survey.
Before the CCRC method will be discussed in more detail, a background of municipal reform
in South Africa and an introduction to the City of Tshwane, the pilot area, is provided below.
1.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
South Africa has seen a fundamental restructuring of local government over the past
decade. The enactment of the Municipal Structures (1998) and Municipal Systems (2000)
Acts1 was followed by the demarcation of municipal boundaries which resulted in the
amalgamation of over 800 municipalities into 248. The key purpose of this process was to
ensure a more equal spread of resources and to improve administrative efficiency. By
means of better integration of various services and developments – integrated development
planning (IDP) – municipalities are expected to ensure an appropriate distribution of
improved services to their residents. In this process, municipalities need to engage
thoroughly and structurally with their residents.
The main avenue through which residents are involved in municipal governance is the ward
committee system, which provides representation and interaction on a more localized level
every time the IDP and municipal budget needs to be developed and reviewed. However,
this happens once a year with a select group of ward committee members in those areas
where ward committees exist (currently estimated at 80% of wards nationally) and where
they are active.
The legal and financial systems guide and monitor municipal performance and accountability
and provide a framework for engaging with the public. This engagement is crucial for
municipal officials’ and councilors’ awareness and understanding of the public’s need as well
1
Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000)
Local Government: Municipal Structure Act, 1998 (Act No. 117 of 1998)
1as service delivery inefficiencies. Residents on the other hand, need to be aware of their
role in holding the municipality accountable and able to use opportunities available to them
to influence planning and decision-making.
Obviously, with just six years of development and participatory local government down the
road, South Africans are only beginning to understand how local government works, what it
is supposed to deliver, at what standards and against what cost. Also their role as residents
in this process is something many South Africans are not aware of. A study by Roefs and
Atkinson (2005) showed that 23% of the population did not know whether there was a ward
committee in their neighbourhood, and 10% indicated explicitly that they had never heard of
a ward committee. Interestingly, among those people who said that they had participated in
the IDP process, 91% said they feel they have some or much influence on local government
decision-making. Among those who said they had not participated in the IDP process,
however, this was only 28%.2
The CCRC work program seeks to trial a CCRC survey as a means of strengthening
municipal-client accountability. By asking residents about their experiences with and views
on services and providing feedback to the municipality on these public perceptions as well
as to the residents themselves, it is intended to increase awareness of the deficiencies in
service delivery and to provide a platform for constructive engagement between residents
and the municipality.
1.2 CITY OF TSHWANE
The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (CTMM) is classified as a Category A urban
municipality and was established on 5 December 2000. As part of its establishment, 14
municipalities and councils that had previously served the greater Pretoria and surrounding
areas were integrated. The following local authorities were amalgamated to form the new
municipality:
The Greater Pretoria Metropolitan Council urban
The City Council of Pretoria urban
2
Roefs, M. % Atkinson, A. (2005). Public perceptions of local government: Evidence of democratic
maturity, or deepening alienation? Research paper.
2The Town Council of Centurion urban
The Northern Pretoria Metropolitan Substructure urban
The Eastern Gauteng Services Council rural
The Pienaarsrivier Transitional Representative Council rural
The Crocodile River Transitional Council rural
The Hammanskraal Local Area Committee peri-urban
The Western Gauteng Services Council peri-urban
The Winterveld Transitional Representative Council peri-urban
The Temba Transitional Representative Council peri-urban
The Mabopane Transitional Representative Council peri-urban
The Ga-Rankuwa Transitional Representative Council peri-urban
The Eastern District Council. peri-urban
The CTMM covers an extensive municipal area (3,200 km2), stretching for almost 60 km
east/west and 70 km north/south. The municipal area includes Pretoria, Centurion, Akasia,
Soshanguve, Mabopane, Atteridgeville, Ga-Rankuwa, Winterveld, Hammanskraal, Temba,
Pienaarsrivier, Crocodile River and Mamelodi.
The area is inhabited by approximately 2.2 million people, according to the City of Tshwane
website (www.tshwane.gov.za). The census data provided on the Municipal Demarcation
Board website (www.demarcation.org.za) provides the following information. In terms of
race, the proportion Blacks with 73% is less than the national average and that of whites with
24% is somewhat higher than the national average. Coloureds and Indians account for
about 2% and 1.5% respectively.
An estimated 32% of the economically active population is unemployed. Sepedi (22%),
Afrikaans (21%) and Setswana (17%) are the largest language groups. Three quarters of
the residents live in formal areas. Almost a quarter (23%) lives in informal areas with the
rest (about 2%) living in traditional areas. Access to basic services follows this pattern with
81% having access to grid electricity, 78% having refuse removal on a weekly basis and
72% having access to flush toilets and 23% to VIP toilets.
Tshwane is one of six metropolitan municipalities and is the fifth largest in South Africa
according to population statistics from the 2001 census. The metropolitan municipality
3coordinates the delivery of services to the whole area. The other metropolitan municipalities
in South Africa are Johannesburg, Cape Town, eThekwini (Durban), Nelson Mandela (Port
Elizabeth) and the Ekurhuleni.
Tshwane municipality is divided into 11 metropolitan councils and 76 wards (see map
below). Each ward has a ward committee. The purpose of a ward committee is:
• to get better participation from the community to inform council decisions;
• to make sure that there is more effective communication between the council and the
community; and
• to assist the ward councillor with consultation and report-backs to the community.
Ward committees are normally elected by the communities they serve. A ward committee
generally has more than ten members with women being well represented. The ward councillor
serves on the ward committee and acts as the chairperson. Ward committees have no formal
powers but can advise the ward councillor or make submissions directly to council. They also
participate in drawing up the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) of the area.
The structure of the municipal council consists of elected councillors from the community, and
appointed administrative staff members. Half of the metropolitan councillors are elected through
a proportional representation ballot, where voters vote for a party. The others are elected as
ward councillors by the residents in each ward.
4According to the Constitution, local municipalities have original powers. Section 156(1)(a) of the
Constitution states that a municipality has executive authority in respect of, and has the right to
administer the local government matters listed in Part B of Schedule 4 and Part B of Schedule 5
of the Constitution.3 Therefore, Tshwane is responsible for providing the following services:
• Water services
• Electricity services
• Local roads and transport services
• Solid waste disposal services
• Community services (community halls, sport and recreation facilities, bathhouses and public
toilets, libraries, arts and culture, resorts, beaches and swimming pools, child care, old age
homes, cemeteries and crematoria)
• Emergency services (fire fighting)
• Security services (traffic policing, crime prevention, by-law enforcement)
• Public works (maintenance of municipal infrastructure and facilities)
• Environmental health services
• Public housing.
The municipality’s administration has been arranged into ten departments, each headed by a
strategic executive officer. The departments are Metropolitan Police, Economic Development,
Marketing and Tourism, Social Development, Corporate Services, Emergency Management
Services, Service Delivery, Legal Services, Finance, and City Planning, Housing and
Environmental Management. The strategic areas that the City of Tshwane will focus on in 2005,
include the following:
• “Installing electricity networks to connect an additional 8 000 households in the next
financial year and increasing the value of contracts to be awarded to emerging
contractors by 23,9% to R4,1 million.
3
The Schedules provide a very limited range of Part B functions, particularly in the light of the
developmental mandate of municipalities - as articulated in the Local Government White Paper, the
Municipal Systems Act, and numerous pieces of national sectoral legislation (Atkinson, D., Abrahams,
D., Buso, N., Goldman, I., Mokgoba, S., Meyer, M., Mokgoro, J., Olivier, J., Pienaar, D., Reitzes,
M.N., Roefs, M.M.I., & Wiechers, M. (2003). Review of Schedules 4 & 5 of the Constitution. Volume 1:
Report for Department of Provincial and Local Government, D&G, HSRC, Pretoria, p26).
5• [ .. ] install 8 200 meters of bulk water pipelines and 14 168 meters of internal sewer
networks as well as 5 000 new meters to non-metered households in the City. Through
the implementation of projects we are planning to create 1 400 jobs for local labour,
which is an increase of 40% compared to the current year and further appoint 23
emerging contractors which shows an increase of 35,3%.
• The Roads and Stormwater Department will appoint 57 emerging contractors as part
of the Expanded Public Works Programme which will create approximately 788 jobs.
We are planning to complete 1 600 kilometers of road markings, repair 2 500
dangerous potholes and rutting, and build and upgrade 42 kilometres of road and
maintain 480 kilometres of roads.
• On the housing front we are planning to provide 5 000 top structures, appoint 47
emerging contractors, plan 22 000 new and 10 000 serviced sites in the coming
financial year.
• We will continue embarking on our HIV/AIDS programmes, increase clinics to allow
access for people with disabilities from 78% to 82% and increase the number of
antenatal clinics providing Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT)
services from 47% to 73% in the next financial year.
• Our Fire and Rescue Services, will ensure that a total of 47 Fire fighting vehicles are
available throughout the City on a daily basis and will further ensure a response time
of within 8 minutes to risk category A incidents and a response time of within 13
minutes to risk category C incidents.
• In terms of the provision of Emergency Medical and Ambulance Services we will
ensure that no less than 21 ambulances are operationally available throughout the City
on a daily basis to ensure a response time of within 18 minutes to high risk (priority 1)
incidents within urban areas and a response time of within 40 minutes to high risk
(priority 1) incidents within rural areas as well as a response time of within 40 minutes
to low risk.
• On the tourism front, we as a City recognise the potential economic spin-offs from this
sector, hence we are planning to aggressively promote the City as a unique tourist
destination and expand our market share from 2% to 2,5% in the next financial year.
• The annual Tshwane Business week held earlier this month continues to provide an
important forum for promoting smart business partnerships and promoting international
economic and trade opportunities for the City. As part of the City’s key performance
area of developing our economy, we are planning to create about 3 000 jobs through
6the municipality’s economic development projects and to spend 40% of our
procurement budget promoting Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE).
• We want to improve the market share of the Fresh-produce Market over the next three
years and to increase its operating surplus to ensure continued financial viability.”
The CCRC focuses on a selection of these key performance areas. In particular it focuses
on water, electricity, refuse, sanitation, transport and housing although it is not completely a
local function.
72. THE CONSULTATIVE CITIZENS REPORT CARD METHOD
Clearly, the City of Tshwane has identified backlogs and the delivery of certain services as a
priority. The delivery of these services is generally a benchmark against which the city
assesses its performance. The recipients of services, on the other hand, often have their
own priorities and, consequently, may use different standards in assessing the delivery and
quality of services. A pioneer of the Citizen Report Card (CRC) method, Paul Samuel,
provides a clear insight into this.4 He said, “there is no unique way to define the outcomes of
government’s policies and services. Often, policy-makers report outcomes in terms of
physical achievements, outputs and growth rates. The outcome of a road transport service
may be represented by the passenger kilometres run or the tonnage of goods carried.
Sometimes, the rate of return or the surplus generated by the service may be shown as the
outcome. While each of these measures captures aspects of outcomes, a summative
measure of outcomes needs to reflect the quality and other attributes of the service that
gives satisfaction to its users.” Samuel’s quote underscores the importance of assessing
performance from both the service provider and the recipient’s perspectives including those
without access to services but who are eligible to receive them.
The Consultative Citizen Report Card (CCRC) method used in this South African pilot is
closely related to and derived from the CRC method. The following section provides a
background to the methodological roots of the CCRC.
2.1 BACKGROUND
The complexity in service delivery makes it often difficult to monitor and evaluate service
delivery and to hold the service provider accountable for its performance. The World
Development Report of 2004 describes the service delivery chain as a set of voice, contract
and service relationships between three agents: (a) policy makers, (b) service providers, and
(c) citizen-clients. According to Singh & Shah (2003), “these relationships are plagued with
the problem of having to deal simultaneously with multiple principals and / or agents who
have numerous and sometimes conflicting objectives. This results in huge difficulties of
monitoring, defining objectives clearly, and ensuring accountability. The way to improve
4
Samuel, P. (2006). Public Spending, Outcomes and Accountability: Citizen Report Card as a
Catalyst for Public Action. Economic and Political Weekly. January.
8upon public service delivery, especially for the poor, is thus to find mechanisms by which to
surmount these difficulties.” 5 The CRC is one such mechanism.
Citizen Report Cards are participatory surveys that solicit user feedback on the performance
of public services. According to Waglé, Singh &Shah (2004), they are a useful medium
through which citizens can credibly and collectively ‘signal’ to agencies about their
performance and pressure for change. CRCs are used in situations where demand side
data, such as user perceptions on quality and satisfaction with public services, is absent.6
Some of the actual applications include (i) using CRCs as a basis for performance based
budget allocations to pro-poor services (Philippines), (ii) cross-state comparisons on access,
use, reliability and satisfaction with public services (India), (iii) supplementing national
service delivery surveys (Uganda), and (iv) governance reform projects (Ukraine and
Bangladesh).
In an insightful discussion on why and how to institutionalise the CRC in the Philippines,
three main types (models) of institutional arrangements for the report cards are described.7
Under the Report Card by Civil Society Organization model, the initiative for preparation of
the report cards comes from a civil society organization - often a policy research and
advocacy institute. A primary example of this is the Public Affairs Centre in Bangalore,
Karnataka State, India. The Centre initiated the preparation of a report card on public
services "as a means to help civil society address issues of service quality and
accountability, with the power of information." The survey they used had two significant
components: (i) citizen feedback on the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of the
selected public services, and (ii) independent assessment of the facilities/services by the
survey personnel which are useful for triangulating (user/client, observer/enumerator and
service provider) the survey findings.
5
Singh, J., & Shah, P. (2003). Making Services Work for Poor People - The Role of Participatory
Public Expenditure Management (PPEM). Social development notes: participation & civic
engagement note No. 81 March.
6
Swarnim Waglé, Janmejay Singh and Parmesh Shah (2004). Citizen Report Card Surveys - A Note
on the Concept and Methodology. Social development notes: participation & civic engagement, note
No. 91 February.
7
World Bank (2001). Philippines: Filipino Report Card on Pro-Poor Services, Environment and Social
Development Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region, Report No. 22181-PH, May 30.
9The strength of this model is that it is independent of the government / public service
providers and interest groups. The report card findings are taken seriously by all parties,
although some public service providers may not act on them. The limitations of this model
relate to the difficulties in replicating the unique situation, since not many civil society
organizations are likely to have the technical capacity and willingness to undertake and
sustain such an exercise.
The report card by government service provider model is characterized by a government
service provider agency (e.g. a municipality) initiating the preparation of the report card, with
the actual survey and draft report preparation often contracted out to a commercial
organization. The results of the report card surveys are disseminated to the public and often
fed back into the public expenditure allocation processes in the form of either voluntary or
mandated reporting requirements to legislatures. Examples of countries using this model
include Canada and the United Kingdom (UK).
In the third, government oversight (coordinating) agency model, a government coordinating
agency engages an independent civil society organization to undertake the design and
preparation of the report card in consultation with (but independent of) the public service
provider agencies. The experience in the United States of America is instructive in this
context. Legislation requires the executive branch of the federal government to report to
Congress (legislative branch) on the performance of various government agencies and the
results achieved. The following text block sketches the method employed in the USA.
The General Accounting Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog agency of the government, has
been reviewing the plans, suggesting improvements and presenting its findings on progress in
preparation of the plans to Congress during the latter's review of federal agency budget
submissions. However, an independent monitoring of the results (e.g., improvements in service
delivery) on implementation of the plans was missing. To fill this gap, the General Services
Administration (GSA), a government coordination agency, was instructed to devise a mechanism
for assessing performance of the federal agencies. … Under the sponsorship of the President's
Management Council, the GSA engaged a consortium to undertake the 1999 Customer Satisfaction
Survey of Federal Agencies in the United States. The survey covered 30 customer segments of 29
federal agencies, which included most of the high impact agencies that dealt with 90% of the
federal government's customers. The results of the survey were presented to Congress. Thus, a
link between agency performance, as measured by a report card based on client satisfaction, and
the budget allocations to the agencies has been established
(World Bank (2001). Philippines: Filipino Report Card on Pro-Poor Services, Environment and
Social Development Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region, Report No. 22181-PH, May 30).
10A number of suggestions can be extracted from the various CRCs (of which most were
incorporated in the third model):
• Legislation provides for a mandate, and resources, for undertaking the report card
• Ensure the independence of the survey, i.e. not sponsored by service provider
• An independent and credible team of institutions should prepare the report card
• A well-established methodology to assess the performance needs to be adhered to
• The consultation process with public service providers is appropriate, but not dominant
• The report card findings (results) should be fed back not only to the service providing
agencies and the public but also into the public expenditure allocation process
• Institutionalize the Report Card mechanism as an ongoing process to be repeated
periodically
• This means that the CRC will be internally funded and that its long-term sustainability
(i.e. repetition of the report card surveys) is more certain
• Ensure the usefulness of the findings (e.g. package for the consumption of and
advocacy by, average citizen groups)
• The scope of future Report Cards should be limited to a few principal performance
indicators which overlap with those used by the sate in monitoring outputs and
processes
• A short questionnaire helps better focusing the attention on improved service delivery
to the poor.
Waglé, Singh &Shah (2004) state that the CRC requires the skilled combination of four
things: i) an understanding of the socio-political context of governance and the structure of
public finance, ii) technical competence to scientifically execute and analyze the survey, iii) a
media and advocacy campaign to bring out the findings into the public domain, and iv) steps
aimed at institutionalizing the practice for iterative civic actions. In addition they maintain
that the success of CRCs depends in large part on the ability to negotiate change, the
degree of participation, and the presence (or absence) of a political champion.
The CRC method piloted in Tshwane is largely based on the government oversight
(coordinating) agency model but focuses on local service delivery. In South Africa, local
government is mandated to enhance public participation and to perform basic services, as
was described in the previous section. The Consultative Citizen Report Card is thus an
adapted type of CRC method, which follows the same principles and stages, but differs from
11it in that it is carried out at a local level. The consultative component entails thorough
interaction on the development of the questionnaire with local government specialist, officials
and local residents.
2.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Based on the Citizen Report Card, the Consultative Citizen’s Report Card (CCRC) pilot
reported on here provides a means to assess the expectations and perceptions of public,
municipal services among recipients. This information can be used as a diagnostic tool for
better targeting services by the municipality thus at a local level. However, in addition to
collecting information that sheds lights on the residents’ priorities and assessments of
services, the CCRC method entails sharing of this information among residents and the
municipal officials and politicians. In this manner, the CCRC is also an accountability tool; it
is a means for the public to monitor delivery and to hold the municipality accountable.
The CCRC method ultimately aims to improve: (i) municipalities’ performance on core
service delivery and (ii) municipalities’ accountability and responsiveness to their citizens /
clients. In order to achieve this the CCRC tries to: (a) facilitate an open comparison by
municipal decision-makers and residents of municipal service delivery, quality and cost
within councils/wards of the City of Tshwane, (b) establish mechanisms to strengthen two-
way communication between municipal decision makers and residents, and (c) to empower
residents with quantitative information on municipal performance for them to use in
monitoring the delivery of core services.
2.3 CCRC SURVEY
The key tool in the CCRC is the survey. The survey aims to provide focused information on
municipal services and performance from the residents’ perspective. When this information
is disseminated it will put the municipality in the “public scanner”. As Samuels (2005) notes,
“evidence from the corporate world shows that measuring and quantifying work and outputs
tend to make organisations pay more attention to what is being measured. The objectives of
the survey are to find out: 1) how satisfactory the public services from the user’s perspective;
122) what aspects of the services were satisfactory and what were not; and 3) what were the
direct and indirect costs incurred by the users for these services.”8
The CCRC survey provides information on access to service delivery, the cost associated
with this, and how delivery is being perceived. In order to collect relevant information on
these aspects, the survey questionnaire is based on findings from qualitative focus groups
with residents. The interviews focus on the question which services and what aspects of
these services are relevant to monitor from the recipients’ and / or residents’ perspectives.
The CCRC survey is based on a longitudinal approach that allows for over-time comparisons
so that improvement or deterioration of services can be assessed. It is believed that
residents’ experiences with and perceptions of services need to be collected simultaneously
with the over time monitoring of performance by the municipality itself. Only in this way both
the actual inputs and outputs by the municipality can be compared with the outcomes
experienced by the residents. For assessing progress in delivery and outcomes of the
programmes and developments formulated in the Integrated Development Plan (IDP), the
survey would ideally be repeated every 5 years when the IDP is being reviewed.
Tshwane municipality has just formulated it 2006-2011 IDP as well as a 20 year
development plan. The current pilot, if satisfactory, could function as a baseline for these
programmes and serve as a benchmark tool for assessing the longer-term impact of service
delivery on livelihoods and well-being of residents. Although the City of Tshwane
municipality is obliged to monitor and evaluate its activities and outputs on a regular basis, it
has no system in place yet to assess the actual outcomes of programmes and services
among its residents. The CCRC could be part of such a system.
In addition to the relatively obvious, diagnostic, accountability, and benchmarking functions
of the CCRC, the method forms a means to stimulate public participation in governance.
Public participation not only relates to a means to hold the municipality and politicians
accountable, but also to people’s broader interest in and active contribution to development,
as the well-known scholar Putnam and followers have shown. Being informed about
developments in one’s environment and able to use this knowledge to influence policy
8
Samuel, P. (2006). Public Spending, Outcomes and Accountability: Citizen Report Card as a
Catalyst for Public Action. Economic and Political Weekly. January.
13making and service delivery, also tends to enhance feelings of ownership, efficacy and
responsibility.
In piloting the CCRC, much attention has been given to the quality of the survey, since it is of
crucial importance that it is of a high scientific standard. The validity and reliability of the
survey findings always elicit a heated debate when the findings will be questioned by the
various stakeholders. If one cannot assure all stakeholders of the good quality of the survey,
its utility will be undermined. This means among other things that the CCRC survey needs
to be informed by qualitative information on the subject matter, based on a representative
sample of municipal residents, conducted by well-trained, experienced and trustworthy
interviewers, and analysed with intense scrutiny of quality of the data.
143. THE TSHWANE CCRC SURVEY
The development of a questionnaire for the survey component of the CCRC was informed by
the functions of the municipality, its key performance areas and indicators and focus groups
with residents across Tshwane.
3.1 FOCUS GROUPS
The focus groups were selected in such a way that people from informal, older and newer
formal areas and higher and lower class areas were included. One group of eight
participants was selected in the informal settlements in Winterveld (North Eastern), one from
the close by formal areas in the township of Ga-Rankuwa and two in the established inner
part of the city of which one was in a higher class predominantly white area and the other
from flat residents who are predominantly black. The participants represent the ordinary
residents of their respective areas. Sex and age were mixed but given the historically
politicized separation in South Africa race was generally not combined.
Professional fieldwork service providers conducted the focus group interviews. No one-
sided mirrors or videos were used. The interviews were simply held in local venues and
taped. The interviews were conducted in English in the central area and in Setswana in the
other areas. The interview schedule asked about the relative importance attached to
services, access to services and satisfaction with services and the municipality (see box
below). At the end of the group interview, participants were asked to fill out the draft
questionnaire. This was followed by a discussion of the questionnaire’s content and format.
The findings of the focus groups and pilot testing are presented in a previous report. The
focus groups provide very useful information for the development of the questionnaire and
the interpretation of the findings.
The Tshwane council agreed to participate in the Citizen Report Card survey when
approached by the World Bank in 2005. The municipality thought originally that it would be
advantageous to conduct a survey like this before the local government elections in March
2006. However, due to tensions surrounding the elections and protest actions in various
parts of the country and in Tshwane in particular, the survey was postponed for two weeks
15until after the local elections. Several efforts were made to organise key informant
interviews with the City of Tshwane officials but without success.
Box 1. Focus group schedule:
- What services are most important to you? Why are these especially important?
- Do you have access to all these services?
- For those services which you do get, do you encounter problems with these services? Are
they reliable, do they function well? Explain any problems you may have/have had with these
services?
- Has there been any improvement or deterioration in these services over the past 5 years.
If so, what improvement or deterioration?
What aspects of these services are most important to you? (e.g. costs, reliability,, timely
delivery, etc.)
- What do you think of the municipality? Is it doing a good job in terms of delivering
services, and in listening and responding to citizens’ needs?
- Do you think the municipality gets enough money through property taxes and fees for
services to provide services to everyone in the community? If the municipality were to have
a budget shortage and services could not be expanded and provided to everyone, which
services do you think are least important to you and your community?
- How would you like to be informed about the outcomes of the study? (newspapers, radio,
meetings, leaflets etc.)
3.2 SURVEY
Through these focus group interviews a better understanding was gained of residents’
experiences with and attitudes and expectation of services in their respective areas. Focus
group participants were also asked to go through the draft survey instrument and give their
inputs. The survey instrument was also tested in 60 randomly selected households in
different areas of the City of Tshwane.
An examination of the responses from participants coming from the more informal and
township areas of Kromkuil and Soshanguve respectively showed that a greater diversity of
services are important to them with no particular one being prominent. These services
include water, sanitation, housing, electricity, health facilities and road infrastructure. The
reason that these facilities were identified in these areas relate mainly to their necessity for
people’s survival and having a good standard of living. Furthermore, it is probably because
these communities often lack these types of services. Other services that were identified
included police services, which is more of a national government responsibility.
16The questionnaire developed for the survey tried to address key services issues and
attitudes of residents towards the municipality. The questionnaire was designed so that the
interviews could be completed within 30 minutes. Appendix 2 contains the final survey
instrument. Overall, the survey covered the following topics:
• Access to services
• Payment for services
• Billing for services
• Amount of free basic services received
• Complaints about services
• Satisfaction with services
• Perceptions of the municipality
3.3 SAMPLING
The stratified random probability sample used for the CCRC in Tshwane Metropolitan
Municipality incorporates both formal and informal (i.e., unplanned) urban settlements; high,
middle and low-density areas; lower, middle and higher income areas; and reflects the
geodemographic diversity found in the municipality (Figure 1).
Marokolong
Soshanguve
Ga Rankuwa
Mamelodi
Pretoria Central
Atteridgeville
Moreleta Park
The Reeds
Figure 1: Geo-demographics of the population in the City of Tshwane.
17The sample size was 1 200 respondents and was drawn from the 2001 national Census
data. The target population includes all people 16 years and older. The Primary Sampling
Unit (PSU) was the enumeration area (EAs) from the 2001 Census. The Secondary
Sampling Unit (SSU) was a visiting point within each PSU. A visiting point is a stand in a
formal urban area, a flat in a block of flats, a dwelling in an informal or traditional rural
settlement, etc. Data from the 2001 Census at an EA level were used to define the
Measurement of Size (MOS). The MOS was used to define what interval to use to
systematically select visiting points in an EA. A standard number of visiting points was
selected in each EA in order to derive a self-weighting sample. The Ultimate Sampling Unit
(USU) was a randomly selected individual in the 16 years and older age category. All
individuals from different households9 at the visiting point that qualified were listed before
one respondent was randomly selected. Fieldwork maps were produced in a GIS to enable
fieldworkers to accurately navigate into the field, to enter the PSU, and to accurately select
visiting points.
3.4 REALISATION OF THE INTERVIEWS AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
A 100% sample realisation was achieved in the study. This is very high for surveys in South
Africa and can be explained by the high levels of interest of the people in service delivery
issues and the approaches implemented in the fieldwork. The table below shows the
unweighted and weighted absolute numbers and proportions of respondents coming from
the different types of areas in Tshwane with further breakdowns by age and gender. For
each of the age and gender groups, percentages are presented based on the weighted
sample.
Table 3.4.1. Sample realisation.
10 11 12 13
Urban formal Informal Tribal Rural formal Total
Total unweighted 912 180 66 42 1200
% Unweighted 76.0% 15.0% 5.5% 3.5% 100%
Total weighted 1107297 234856 84951 50516 1477619
% Weighted 74.9% 15.9% 5.7% 3.4% 100%
9
Defined as all persons in the household who eat from the same cooking pot and who were resident 15 out of
the past 30 days before the interview took place.
10
An area in which most of the dwellings are formal, usually brick, structures.
11
An area in which the majority of dwellings are shanties or shacks.
12
An area, which, under the old apartheid system, was administered by a tribal authority.
13
An area, which is dominated by large-scale commercial agriculture or animal husbandry and other rural parts
of the country, such as small villages or mission stations.
1810 11 12 13
Urban formal Informal Tribal Rural formal Total
Under 21 years 10.6% 15.2% 11.5% 3.2% 11.1%
21 – 35 Years 37.3% 46.8% 47.0% 38.4% 39.4%
36 – 65 Years 44.9% 36.0% 37.7% 54.5% 43.4%
Over 65 7.3% 2.0% 3.9% 3.9% 6.1%
Male 40.9% 24.2% 40.0% 31.2% 37.9%
Female 59.1% 75.8% 60.0% 68.8% 62.1%
LSM- low 7.1% 67.2% 23.3% 23.0% 18.0%
LSM- middle 48.7% 32.2% 76.7% 40.6% 47.4%
LSM- high 44.2% .6% 36.5% 34.5%
Black 65.7% 100% 100% 71.2% 73.3%
Coloured 1.9% 1.4%
Indians 1.5% 8.6% 1.4%
White 30.9% 20.3% 23.9%
3.5 ETHICS
As is standard practice at the HSRC, the CCRC proposal and questionnaire was submitted
to the organisation’s Ethics Committee for ethical clearance. This was secured following
minor amendments that were recommended by the committee.
In accordance with the specifications of the HSRC’s Ethics Committee, the survey made use
of consent forms. This ensured that the participant understood the objectives of the survey
and agreed to participate, while assuring the respondent that the HSRC will treat the
responses provided as strictly confidential. Two versions of the consent form were
employed in the survey. The first was a standard Adult Consent Form for respondents aged
18 years and older, while the second was an Adolescent Consent Form. If the respondent
was 16 or 17 years old, the interviewer sought the consent of a parent/guardian in addition to
the consent of the respondent.
With regard to conducting interviews on farms, use was made of AgriSA’s Protocal for
Access to Farms. Therefore, when a farm EA needed to be visited, permission was sought
from the farm owner. The protocol also involved securing permission from the local farm
association in the area. The association was informed of the survey, after which they would
assisted in identifying the farms and setting up appointments with relevant farmers.
194. FINDINGS
The presentation of the findings largely follows the order of topics as laid out in the
questionnaire (Appendix 1). The analysis of the results is a summary of the findings and is
descriptive rather than analytical in nature. This is because the survey is not underpinned by
the need to test hypotheses or to explore interrelationships and explanations for access,
perceptions, attitudes or behaviours. Secondly, in order to keep the presentation
comprehensible, the analysis has been restricted to geographic, living standard (Living
Standard Measure – LSM14) and race categories. Thirdly, the findings of the focus groups
have not been optimally used for triangulation with the survey results, although a superficial
comparison of the focus group findings does suggest major similarities. The survey and
focus group data do offer, however, a rich information source for further more in-depth
analysis.
The map above shows where respondents falling into the different LSM classes (i.e. lower,
middle and higher) can be found in the different metropolitan councils of Tshwane. The
lower LSM classes are generally rural in nature and include poor informal settlements in
urban areas with incomes below R1 900 per month. The middle LSM classes are urban,
have access to some services and their monthly incomes are between R1 900 and R4 200.
14
The LSM (Living Standards Measure) is the most widely used segmentation in South Africa and
divides the population into ten groups, 10 (highest) to 1 (lowest). It is a unique means of segmenting
the South African population and does so according to their living standards using criteria such as
degree of urbanisation and ownership of household assets.
20The higher LSM classes are urban, have full access to services and their monthly incomes
are higher than R6 500.
4.1 WATER
Water is a scarce resource in South Africa. Demand for water is very high in Gauteng,
especially as a number of large water consumers, such as mines, heavy industries and a
large population are located in the province. The following sections describe the various
water sources, challenges to access water and satisfaction with services in Tshwane.
4.1.1 ACCESS
The report card findings show that most people in Tshwane have access to piped water at or
near their premises. Overall, 96% said that their household has access to a tap in their
dwelling, in the yard, a public/communal tap, or from the neighbour.15 Noticeable differences
exist though between rural and other types of areas. Over half (53%) of residents in formal
rural areas have to rely on un-piped water, whereas in tribal (13%), informal urban (6%) and
formal urban (1%), few resident have no access to piped water. Although less frequent than
in urban areas, access to piped water is relatively high in the tribal areas compared to
national figures, which suggest that 35% of tribal households in the country do not have
access to piped water.16
Table 4.1.1 Source of water by geographic area
Urban formal Urban informal Tribal Rural formal Total
Piped water 99.4% 93.8% 87.3% 46.9% 96.0%
Un-piped water .6% 6.2% 12.7% 53.1% 4.0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
In addition to geographic differences, the survey points towards differential access between
lower LSM households and those that are better off. As is shown in Table 4.1.2, access to
piped water is 89% in the low LSM category versus 98% in the middle to higher LSM
categories.
15
It is estimated that nationally 85% has access to piped water (HSRC DWAF study 2005).
16
Ibid.
21Table 4.1.2 Source of water by LSM
Low Middle High Total
Piped water 88.8% 97.6% 98.0% 96.2%
Un-piped water 11.2% 2.4% 2.0% 3.8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Little variation in access to piped water was found between racial groups, as is indicated by
the relatively comparable percentages not having access to un-piped water in Table 4.1.3.
Table 4.1.3 Source of water by race of respondent
Black Coloured Indian White Total
Piped water 95.4% 100% 100% 97.3% 96.0%
Un-piped water 4.6% 2.7% 4.0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.1.2 INTERRUPTIONS
Reported experiences of interruptions in water supply over the past year were quite common
with about 30% of residents indicating that an interruption had occurred. Interruptions of
water supply, however, are much more frequently reported in the tribal areas than in the
other areas. Almost two thirds (62%) of residents in the tribal areas reported that they
experienced an interruption of water over the past year (see Table 4.1.4). Moreover, these
interruptions occurred regularly with 88% indicating they happened at least once a week.
Table 4.1.4 Interruption of water supply over the past year by geographic type
Urban formal Urban informal Tribal Rural formal Total
Yes 28.5% 28.6% 61.6% 19.8% 30.1%
No 69.4% 70.7% 36.8% 80.2% 68.1%
Do not know 2.0% .7% 1.6% 1.7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
22In contrast, about 70% of respondents in urban areas and 80% in rural areas reported
experiencing water supply interruptions. Among those who had experienced interruptions,
the majority of residents (59%) in rural areas and almost half (47%) of those in informal
urban areas experienced interruptions at least once a week. Interruptions were less
frequent in formal urban areas, with a quarter (25%) of residents experiencing interruptions
at least once a week. Interruptions were mainly associated with metered taps outside the
dwelling in the yard or on site and with public taps within 200 meters from the dwelling.
A clear majority of residents (82%) indicated that the amount of water they received was
enough.
Table 4.1.5 Sufficient water supply by geographic area
Urban formal Urban informal Tribal Rural formal Total
Yes 87.2% 75.8% 44.2% 71.1% 82.4%
No 12.1% 23.6% 54.3% 28.9% 16.9%
Do not know .7% .6% 1.5% .7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
In line water supply interruptions presented above, similar disparities are apparent between
the different areas with 54% of residents in tribal areas reporting insufficient supply as
apposed to 12% in formal urban areas. Residents in urban informal and rural formal areas
fall in between these levels with 24% and 29% reporting insufficient supply respectively.
4.1.3 BILLING
Tshwane issues monthly bills to residents receiving piped water and that have metered
connections. Residents that make use of pre-paid options, or who depend on public taps or
on un-piped water do not have water accounts with the municipality. Therefore, billing is
limited to those residents that receive piped water that is metered per household and that is
not pre-paid for by means of water cards or vouchers. Table 4.1.6 shows the percentages of
residents receiving bills by different systems of piped water.
23Table 4.1.6 Receipt of bills by different systems of piped water
Yes, but Do not
Yes, each less often know or
No Total
month than once a refuse to
month answer
Piped tap water in dwelling- 84.1% 6.4% 9.3% .1% 100%
metered (n=685) (n=53) (n=72) (n=1) (n=817)
Piped tap water in dwelling- 70.3% 29.7% 100%
pre-paid meter (n=30) (n=12) (n=42)
Piped tap water on site or 79.2% 1.0% 17.8% 2.0% 100%
yard-meter (n=42) (n=1) (n=10) (n=1) (n=54)
The majority of residents using piped water receive monthly bills. However, a noticeable
group of 9% of those who have metered piped tap water in their dwelling said they do not
receive a bill. This group is even twice this large (18%) among those who have metered
piped water on site or in the yard.
An unexpected finding is that a noticeable percentage (70%) of residents using a pre-paid
system indicated that they do receive a monthly bill. This could indicate an over reporting of
bills received.
Those who indicated that they do receive bills from the municipality were also asked how
accurate they thought the bills were. There are two main findings with regard to perceived
accuracy. Firstly, 58% of residents in rural areas regarded the bills as accurate, as opposed
to 64% in formal urban areas and 79% among the small group of urban informal residents
(see Table 4.1.7).
Table 4.1.7 Accuracy of water bill by geographic area
Urban formal Urban informal Rural formal Total
Yes 63.9% 78.9% 58.1% 64.3%
No 24.6% 17.9% 19.4% 24.2%
Do not know 11.6% 3.2% 22.5% 11.5%
Total # 778 31 18 827
In addition, recipients of water bills were asked if the bill was clear to them. The most
difficulty in understanding the bill was experienced in formal rural areas, where 29%
24You can also read
