local government assessment

Local Government Assessment

Premier’s Co-ordinating Forum18-19 November 2009

PURPOSEPURPOSE

• National initiative to assess service delivery in municipalities• Get un-mediated feedback from communities• Identify the challenges that need to be addressed in the Local Government Turn-Around Strategy• Departmental objective: all personnel to develop an understanding of the conditions our communities are exposed to

METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY

• Phase 1: Desktop ReportPhase 1: Desktop Report•Sources: Sources:

•LGMTEC Report (July 2009)LGMTEC Report (July 2009)•CDW Hot Spot reportsCDW Hot Spot reports•MIG reportsMIG reports•S47 ReportS47 Report•Snapshot informationSnapshot information•Vuna InformationVuna Information•IYM informationIYM information•Economic development reportsEconomic development reports

METHODOLOGY CONT’DMETHODOLOGY CONT’D

• Phase 2: Questionnaires on service delivery issuesPhase 2: Questionnaires on service delivery issues• Interviewed:Interviewed:

– Speakers – Ward Committee members – Ward Councillors– Civil society– Labour representatives– Municipal Officials– Residents of the poorest wards

• Mayors & Municipal Managers not interviewed unless available (their inputs captured in LGMTEC visits of May / June 2009)

OPERATIONSOPERATIONS

• 8 rural teams and 2 metro teams– Teams comprised officials from national Department of Co-operative Governance & Traditional Affairs, LG&H, and SALGA

• All Western Cape municipalities covered in one week•About 3500 interviews conducted

Central QuestionCentral Question

“What is the state of local government in 2009 and what must be done to restore the confidence of our people by 2011

and beyond?”

FINDINGS: Interviewed GroupsFINDINGS: Interviewed Groups

• Community members: key issuesUnemployment / lack of job creationHealthCrimeLack of basic service delivery in certain areas (e.g. informal settlements)Poor condition of roads Lack of visible change at ward level

FINDINGS: Interviewed GroupsFINDINGS: Interviewed Groups

• Councillors / SpeakersMany councillors are hard-working and committed and have good relationships with communities

But community interviews reveal that many councillors are not fulfilling their responsibilities

• OfficialsUnfunded mandates is a cause of concern

• Ward Committee MembersRole Clarification neededPoor interaction with Speaker’s office in some cases

FINDINGS: Interviewed GroupsFINDINGS: Interviewed Groups

• Perceptions of CDWs Extremely varied response: CDWs seen to be making positive contribution in some areas and negative or no contribution in others

• LabourVacancies are not filled as a matter of urgencyMore Contract work than permanent workPerceptions of corruptionLLF is attended poorly by councillors

FINDINGS: SUMMARYFINDINGS: SUMMARY

• Lack of public participation• Access to basic services in some areas very poor: many citizens still live in abject poverty• Language barrier between municipality and communities • Many allegations of corruption in tender system and appointment of officials• Concern: many people interviewed said the next service delivery protest is “just a matter of time” as this is the only language officials and politicians understand

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

• Findings to be communicated to all municipalities (already done)

• Theme of “visible change” should be adopted by all municipalities

– “Neighborhood Revitalization Plans” should be developed for all poor communities - quickly implementable projects identified by communities

– Focus on basic services for all residents

• Introduce performance scorecards for Councillors

RECOMMENDATIONS CONT’DRECOMMENDATIONS CONT’D

• Improve implementation of Indigent Policies

• Develop and implement anti-fraud / anti-corruption strategies and policies

• Effectively manage relationships between Mayco & Section 56 managers

• Municipal language policies to be developed and implemented

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMUNICATIONS RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

• Poor communication with communities identified as single biggest threat to effective service delivery• Public participation should be strengthened

– Speakers to improve oversight with respect to public participation plan and ward committee support plan

– Develop feedback/reporting mechanisms for councillors / ward committees

– Communications training for municipalities and councillors• Introduce community or neighbourhood-based planning and budgeting processes

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROVINCERECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROVINCE

• Assess indigent policy implementation and provide appropriate support

• Assist municipalities to develop and implement anti-fraud / anti-corruption strategies and policies

• Support municipalities in developing & implementing communications policies

• Ensure that provincial plans and resources are aligned in support of municipalities

NEXT TIME….NEXT TIME….

• Local government assessment was important “reality check” for provincial officials• If Department does it again –

– Plan well in advance – Assess both provincial & municipal

service delivery– Include municipal officials in visits to

community

THANK YOUTHANK YOU