Post on 09-Mar-2018
CITY OF TSHWANE RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY: 2013
Study commissioned by
CITY OF TSHWANE
Study conducted by
BUREAU OF MARKET RESEARCH College of Economic and Management Sciences
CITY OF TSHWANE RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY: 2013
May/June 2013
Study commissioned by
CITY OF TSHWANE
Compiled by
Prof DH Tustin (DCom) Prof AA Ligthelm (DCom)
BUREAU OF MARKET RESEARCH College of Economic and Management Sciences
CR045 Pretoria
2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following people are acknowledged for their inputs during various phases of the research project:
City of Tshwane
MankitiKhaebana (Executive Director, Strategic Customer Relations and Contact Centre Operations) Marié Oosthuizen(Deputy Director, Strategic Customer Relations and Contact Centre Operations) Household survey instrument:
Anton van der Merwe, Acting Deputy Director Business Application Management, IT Shared Services
Charles Motsoagae, Functional Head , Group Audit & Risk Dalene Clark, Liaison Specialist, Ward Administration & Community Mobilization, Office of
the Speaker DayalanPillay, Executive Director, Group Finance DorrisMohutsioa, Customer Care Consultant, Office of the RED, Region 4 Elmarie Meyer, Director: Batho Pele Management, Strategic Customer Relations and Contact
Centre Operations ElmienHaasbroek, Deputy Director, Customer Care, Region 3 Faith Mabindisa, Executive Director: Environmental Management Services Farida Sayed, Customer Care Consultant, Office of the RED, Region 1 Jason Tharratt , Specialist: Management and Strategic Support, City Planning and
Development Department KgomotsoRatsounyane, Research Officer , Communication, Marketing and Events (CME) Lodie Venter, Planning Professional, City Planning and Development Department MankitiKhaebana, Executive Director, Strategic Customer Relations and Contact Centre
Operations Marcell Weiss, Executive Commitments Tracking Specialist – Region 4 Marié Oosthuizen, Deputy Director, Strategic Customer Relations and Contact Centre
Operations Pieter Cronje, Director: Region 2: Customer Care Walk-in Centres. Sean Bolhuis, Commander: Administration & Systems (Office of the Chief of Police) SiphiweMahlangu, Senior Organisational Change Management Specialist, Corporate and
Shared Services Tienie van Vuuren, Sport and Recreation WillemienHamman, Director: Monitoring and Evaluation, Strategic Customer Relations and
Contact Centre Operations
Business survey instrument:
Bernard Hanekom: Regional Director Special Projects, Region 3 Chris de Lange: Regional Director Regulatory Compliance and Performance Management ,
Region 3 Isaac Rampedi: Deputy Director,Prince’s Park, Region 3 James Mokwena: Stakeholder Relations Management, Region 3 Kgomotso Mohlala, Regional Executive Director, Region 3 Laura Lourens: Deputy Director Precinct Management, Region 3 Leah Poto: Regional Director Roads and Transport, Region 3 Lebo Tefu: Executive Commitments Tracking Specialist, Region 3 Pierre Jordaan: Regional Director Water and Sanitation Sibongile: Deputy Director Corporate and Ward Committee Support Services Zelda Breytenbach: Regional Director Sport, Recreation, Arts, Culture and Library Services
Bureau of Market Research
Prof DH Tustin (Executive Research Director, Bureau of Market Research) Prof AA Ligthelm (Research Director, Bureau of Market Research) Ms E Koekemoer (Senior Research Coordinator, Bureau of Market Research) Ms M Goetz (Senior Research Coordinator, Bureau of Market Research) Ms P de Jongh (Senior Research Coordinator, Bureau of Market Research) Ms M Coetzee (Senior Computer Scientist, Bureau of Market Research) Mr A Mnguni (Administrative Officer, Bureau of Market Research) Mr B More (Administrative Officer, Bureau of Market Research)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 CoT SERVICE EVALUATION NARRATION .................................................................. 2 1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE 2013 STUDY ............................................................................... 5 1.4 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT ......................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 6 2.2 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................. 6 2.2.1 Survey population .................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1.1 Sample units .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1.2 Sample elements ....................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1.3 Survey areas .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Household sample design ........................................................................................ 8 2.2.2.1 Sampling methodology and sample size ................................................................... 8 2.2.2.2 Sample selection procedure ...................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Data collection methodology ................................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Research instrument ................................................................................................ 12 2.2.5 Fieldwork .................................................................................................................. 14 2.2.6 Number of questionnaires returned ........................................................................ 15 2.2.7 Coding, data capturing and tabulation .................................................................... 16 2.2.8 Validity of results ...................................................................................................... 16 2.2.8.1 Sampling errors ......................................................................................................... 16 2.2.8.2 Interviewer errors ...................................................................................................... 16 2.2.8.3 Reporting errors ........................................................................................................ 17 2.3 BUSINESS SURVEY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 17 2.3.1 Sample plan design ................................................................................................... 17
ii
2.3.1.1 Business sample population ...................................................................................... 17 2.3.1.1.1 Sample units ............................................................................................................. 18 2.3.1.1.2 Sample elements ...................................................................................................... 21 2.3.1.1.3 Survey areas .............................................................................................................. 21 2.3.1.2 Sampling methodology ............................................................................................. 22 2.3.1.3 Sample size ................................................................................................................ 22 2.3.1.4 Business survey data collection methodology .......................................................... 22 2.4 EMBASSY SURVEY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 23 2.4.1 Research design for embassy survey ....................................................................... 23 2.4.2 Sampling plan for embassy survey .......................................................................... 23 2.4.3 Data collection method for embassy survey ........................................................... 23 2.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS OF THE HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION SURVEY 3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 27 3.2 TYPOLOGY OF THE HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE ............................................................... 27 3.3 GENERAL PERCEPTION OF THE CoT .......................................................................... 29 3.3.1 Level of satisfaction with regard to current service delivery ................................. 29 3.3.2 Change in service performance levels ..................................................................... 31 3.3.3 Confidence in the CoT as a city ................................................................................ 33 3.4 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES OF THE CoT ............................................................... 35 3.5 CORE HOUSEHOLD SERVICES ................................................................................... 40 3.5.1 Electricity ................................................................................................................... 40 3.5.1.1 Electricity meter reading ........................................................................................... 41 3.5.1.2 Electricity service providers ....................................................................................... 42 3.5.1.3 Pre-paid electricity meters ........................................................................................ 43 3.5.2 Water collection ....................................................................................................... 46 3.5.3 Neighbourhood roads .............................................................................................. 47 3.5.4 Sanitation and waste water ..................................................................................... 49 3.5.5 Stormwater drainage ............................................................................................... 50
iii
3.5.6 Water provision ........................................................................................................ 51 3.5.6.1 Water meter readings ............................................................................................... 53 3.5.6.2 Pre-paid water meters .............................................................................................. 54 3.5.7 Street/public lights ................................................................................................... 55 3.5.8 Overview of basic services ....................................................................................... 57 3.6 MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES ........................................................................ 58 3.6.1 Community halls/recreation centres ....................................................................... 58 3.6.2 Fire and rescue services/fire brigade ....................................................................... 60 3.6.3 Emergency medical and ambulance services .......................................................... 62 3.6.4 Municipal bus service ............................................................................................... 63 3.6.5 Municipal cemeteries ............................................................................................... 64 3.6.6 Municipal crematorium ............................................................................................ 66 3.6.7 Municipal clinics ....................................................................................................... 67 3.6.8 Municipal museums ................................................................................................. 69 3.6.9 Parks .......................................................................................................................... 69 3.6.10 Pavements/pedestrian walkways ............................................................................ 71 3.6.11 Public libraries .......................................................................................................... 72 3.6.12 Public sports facilities ............................................................................................... 73 3.6.13 Municipal public toilets ............................................................................................ 74 3.6.14 Dumping (landfill) sites (ie garden refuse, recycling) ............................................. 75 3.6.15 Municipal taxi ranks ................................................................................................. 76 3.6.16 Informal trading facilities ......................................................................................... 76 3.6.17 Public swimming pools ............................................................................................. 77 3.6.18 Municipal nature reserves/resort ............................................................................ 78 3.6.19 Licensing: Learner driver’s licence .......................................................................... 79 3.6.20 Licensing: Driver’s licence (applications/renewals) ............................................... 80 3.6.21 Waste removal .......................................................................................................... 81 3.6.22 Emergency/disaster management ........................................................................... 82 3.6.23 Street sweeping and litter control ........................................................................... 83 3.6.24 Traffic lights/signals ................................................................................................. 84 3.6.25 Grass cutting ............................................................................................................. 85 3.6.26 Road maintenance (repairs, signage, markings, speed bumps) ............................. 86 3.6.27 Street trees ............................................................................................................... 87 3.6.28 Government/social housing (low-cost housing) ..................................................... 88 3.6.29 Overview of satisfaction levels for community services ........................................ 90 3.6.30 Utilisation levels ....................................................................................................... 92 3.7 SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ....................................................................... 96 3.7.1 Living in Tshwane ..................................................................................................... 97
iv
3.7.2 Tshwane after dark ................................................................................................... 98 3.7.3 Own neighbourhood safety ..................................................................................... 99 3.7.4 Safety in Inner City (CBD) ......................................................................................... 100 3.7.5 Safety in business nodes (excluding Inner City) ...................................................... 101 3.7.6 Safety: travelling on municipal buses ..................................................................... 101 3.7.7 Safety: travelling by taxi .......................................................................................... 102 3.7.8 Safety: travelling by own car ................................................................................... 103 3.7.9 Safety: CoT offices/walk-in centres/pay points ..................................................... 104 3.8 SATISFACTION WITH BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES ........................................ 105 3.8.1 Building control/control of illegal land use ............................................................. 105 3.8.2 Control of illegal squatting/occupation ................................................................... 106 3.8.3 Control of illegal street/intersection trading .......................................................... 107 3.8.4 Control of illegal dumping ........................................................................................ 108 3.8.5 Control of illegal water connections ........................................................................ 109 3.8.6 Control of illegal electricity connections ................................................................. 110 3.8.7 Control of visual environment ................................................................................. 111 3.8.8 Control of building/construction rubble ................................................................. 112 3.8.9 Noise control ............................................................................................................. 113 3.8.10 Overview of by-law satisfaction ratings .................................................................. 114 3.9 SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ....................................................................... 115 3.9.1 Traffic control ........................................................................................................... 115 3.9.2 Social crime prevention ............................................................................................ 116 3.9.3 Visible policing .......................................................................................................... 117 3.9.4 Response time of Metro Police ................................................................................ 118 3.9.5 Overview of public safety ........................................................................................ 119 3.10 BILLING AND PAYMENT ............................................................................................ 120 3.10.1 Account received ...................................................................................................... 120 3.10.2 Account criteria ........................................................................................................ 120 3.10.2.1 Clarity of accounts ..................................................................................................... 121 3.10.2.2 Correctness of account .............................................................................................. 121 3.10.2.3 Regularity of account (monthly on time) .................................................................. 122 3.10.2.4 Satisfaction of information to understand billing ..................................................... 123 3.10.3 Current and preferred municipal account payment method ................................. 124 3.11 CUSTOMER CARE SERVICE ........................................................................................ 126 3.12 SERVICE DELIVERY ACCOUNTABILITY ...................................................................... 134
v
3.13 PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION ................................................................ 135 3.13.1 Metro consultative and participatory process ........................................................ 135 3.13.2 Communication modes ............................................................................................ 139 3.13.3 Language of CoT documents .................................................................................... 142 3.14 CORRUPTION ............................................................................................................ 143 3.15 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................... 145 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS OF THE BUSINESS SATISFACTION SURVEY 4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 146 4.2 BUSINESS SAMPLE POPULATION ............................................................................. 146 4.3 CHALLENGES/PRIORITIES OF THE CoT ..................................................................... 148 4.3.1 Level of satisfaction regarding the current performance of the CoT ..................... 148 4.3.2 Change in service performance levels ..................................................................... 149 4.3.3 CoT as a business investment environment ............................................................ 150 4.4 BUSINESS CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................... 151 4.5 BASIC (CORE) BUSINESS SERVICES ........................................................................... 153 4.5.1 Electricity .................................................................................................................. 153 4.5.2 Refuse collection/waste removal ............................................................................ 154 4.5.3 Neighbourhood roads .............................................................................................. 155 4.5.4 Sanitation/waste water/sewerage .......................................................................... 156 4.5.5 Stormwater/drainage/flooding ............................................................................... 157 4.5.6 Water provision ........................................................................................................ 158 4.5.7 Street/public lights ................................................................................................... 159 4.5.8 Overview of business satisfaction with basic service delivery ............................... 160 4.6 COLLECTIVE BUSINESS SERVICES .............................................................................. 163 4.6.1 Pavements/pedestrian walkways ............................................................................ 165 4.6.2 Business licences ...................................................................................................... 166 4.6.3 Street sweeping and litter control ........................................................................... 167 4.6.4 Traffic lights/signals ................................................................................................. 168 4.6.5 Grass cutting ............................................................................................................. 169 4.6.6 Road maintenance .................................................................................................... 170 4.6.7 Municipal bus services ............................................................................................. 171
vi
4.6.8 Municipal taxi ranks .................................................................................................. 172 4.6.9 Street parking ........................................................................................................... 173 4.6.10 Overview of collective business services ................................................................. 174 4.7 PUBLIC SAFETY .......................................................................................................... 175 4.7.1 Safety regarding location of business ...................................................................... 175 4.7.2 Safety aspect of doing business in the CoT ............................................................. 176 4.7.3 Safety of workers in the workplace ......................................................................... 177 4.7.4 Travelling/walking to work ...................................................................................... 178 4.7.5 Safety at CoT offices/paypoints ............................................................................... 179 4.7.6 Safety of government offices ................................................................................... 179 4.8 BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES ........................................ 180 4.8.1 Building control/control of illegal use ..................................................................... 180 4.8.2 Control of squatting/occupation of municipal land ................................................ 181 4.8.3 Control of illegal street/intersection trading .......................................................... 182 4.8.4 Control of illegal dumping ........................................................................................ 182 4.8.5 Control of illegal water connections ........................................................................ 183 4.8.6 Control of illegal electricity connections ................................................................. 184 4.8.7 Environmental control ............................................................................................. 185 4.8.8 Control of building and construction rubble ........................................................... 186 4.8.9 Noise control ............................................................................................................. 187 4.8.10 Traffic control (road policing) .................................................................................. 188 4.8.11 Crime prevention ...................................................................................................... 189 4.8.12 Satisfaction with visible policing .............................................................................. 190 4.8.13 Satisfaction with response time of Metro Police .................................................... 191 4.8.14 Overview: By-law enforcement and safety services satisfaction .......................... 192 4.9 BILLING AND PAYMENT ............................................................................................ 193 4.9.1 Clarity and understandability of accounts .............................................................. 194 4.9.2 Correctness of accounts ........................................................................................... 195 4.9.3 Regularity of accounts (monthly on time) ................................................................ 196 4.9.4 Sufficiency of information provided to understand municipal billing ................... 197 4.9.5 Current and preferred municipal account payment methods ................................ 198 4.10 CUSTOMER CARE SERVICES ...................................................................................... 199 4.11 SERVICE DELIVERY ACCOUNTABILITY ...................................................................... 206 4.12 COMMUNICATION .................................................................................................... 207
vii
4.12.1 Awareness and utilisation of and satisfaction with communication modes ......... 208 4.13 CORRUPTION ............................................................................................................ 209 4.14 BUSINESS RELOCATION ............................................................................................ 211 4.15 INNER CITY REGENERATION ..................................................................................... 213 4.16 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................... 214 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS OF THE EMBASSY SATISFACTION SURVEY 5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 215 5.2 GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE CoT ........................................................................ 215 5.2.1 Level of satisfaction with regard to current service delivery ................................. 216 5.2.2 Change in service performance levels ..................................................................... 216 5.2.3 Confidence in the CoT as a city ................................................................................ 217 5.3 SERVICE SATISFACTION RATINGS OF EMBASSIES ................................................... 218 5.4 DISSATISFACTION WITH CoT .................................................................................... 221 5.5 ADDITIONAL SERVICE FACETS INVESTIGATED AMONG EMBASSIES ...................... 222 5.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................... 223 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 224 6.2 SATISFACTION INDICES ............................................................................................. 224 6.2.1 Methodology for constructing household satisfaction indices .............................. 225 6.2.2 Regional basic services household satisfaction indices .......................................... 229 6.2.3 Regional community services household satisfaction indices ................................ 229 6.2.4 Regional public safety and by-law enforcement household satisfaction Indices ........................................................................................................................ 230 6.2.5 Regional billing, payment and customer care indices ............................................ 231 6.2.6 Regional communication efficiency household satisfaction indices ...................... 232 6.2.7 Composite household satisfaction index ................................................................. 233 6.2.8 Business satisfaction indices .................................................................................... 233
viii
6.2.8.1 Methodology of constructing business satisfaction indices ...................................... 234 6.2.9 CoT service satisfaction index .................................................................................. 236 6.3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 238 6.3.1 Core services ............................................................................................................. 239 6.3.2 Municipal community services ................................................................................ 242 6.3.3 Public safety .............................................................................................................. 245 6.3.4 By-law enforcement ................................................................................................. 246 6.3.5 Public safety .............................................................................................................. 247 6.3.6 Billing and payment .................................................................................................. 247 6.3.7 Customer care services ............................................................................................. 248 6.3.8 Participation and communication ........................................................................... 249 6.3.9 Corruption ................................................................................................................. 249 6.3.10 Service delivery accountability ................................................................................ 250 6.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................ 251
ix
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 2 2.1 Sample distribution of City of Tshwane regions and wards ................................... 8 2.2 Population and sample distribution of City of Tshwane, 2013 .............................. 9 2.3 Number of household questionnaires returned by region, 2013 ........................... 15 2.4 Regions/areas selected for interviewing of informal businesses ........................... 21 2.5 Sample distribution by formal and informal businesses ........................................ 22 CHAPTER 3 3.1 Satisfaction levels for current service delivery performance, 2009 – 2013 ........... 30 3.2 Change in service performance levels during the preceding 12 months, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Confidence in the ability of the CoT to provide a good quality of life, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Future challenges by region, 2013 ........................................................................... 36 3.5 Top five challenges in each region by ranking (1 to 5), 2013 .................................. 37 3.6 Households’ perception of their electricity supplier, 2009 – 2013 ......................... 43 3.7 Satisfaction levels for pre-paid electricity meter system, 2013 ............................. 44 3.8 Satisfaction levels for the pre-paid water meter system, 2009 – 2013 .................. 55 3.9 Satisfaction mean ratings and percentage of dissatisfied households, 2009 – 2013 .............................................................................................................. 57 3.10 Satisfaction mean score ratings and category of classification for municipal community services, 2009 – 2013 ........................................................... 91 3.11 Utilisation of the CoT community services by households, 2009 – 2013 ............... 93 3.12 Safety perceptions of living in Tshwane by region, 2009 – 2013 ........................... 97
x
3.13 Safety perceptions of Tshwane after dark by region, 2009 – 2013 ........................ 98 3.14 Safety perceptions of neighbourhoods by region, 2009 – 2013 ............................. 99 3.15 Safety perceptions regarding the city centre by region, 2009 – 2013 .................... 100 3.16 Safety perceptions regarding safety in businesses nodes (excluding inner city) by region, 2013 ................................................................................................. 101 3.17 Safety perceptions regarding travelling on municipal buses by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 102 3.18 Safety perceptions regarding travelling by taxi by region, 2013 ............................ 103 3.19 Safety perceptions regarding travelling by own car by region, 2013 ..................... 104 3.20 Safety perceptions regarding CoT offices/walk-in centres/pay points by region, 2011 – 2013 .................................................................................................. 105 3.21 Summary of scores attained for by-law enforcement services, 2009 – 2013 ........ 115 3.22 Summary of scores attained by public safety services, 2013 ................................. 119 3.23 Current and preferred payment method for CoT municipal accounts by region, 2013 .............................................................................................................. 125 3.24 Overview of the level of satisfaction with timelines and accuracy of the CoT in dealing with requests/complaints ....................................................................... 131 3.25 Service aspirations agreement scores by region, 2013 ........................................... 135 3.26 Metro consultative or participatory processes by type of involvement, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 137 3.27 Satisfaction with metro consultative/participatory processes, 2009 – 2013 ........ 138 3.28 Utilisation of CoT communication modes, 2013 ..................................................... 140 3.29 Satisfaction with CoT communication modes, 2009 – 2013 ................................... 141 CHAPTER 4 4.1 Sectoral composition of the business sample, 2009 – 2013 ................................... 147
xi
4.2 Satisfaction levels for current service delivery by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 149 4.3 Change in service performance levels during the 12 months preceding the survey by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ................................................................. 150 4.4 Satisfaction with the CoT as a business investment environment by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................... 150 4.5 Business constraints experienced by type of business, 2013 ................................. 152 4.6 Top five business constraints experienced by type of business, 2013 ................... 152 4.7 Business satisfaction levels for basic services, 2009 – 2013 ................................... 162 4.8 Satisfaction levels for collective business services, 2009 – 2013 ........................... 175 4.9 Perception of safety when conducting business at present location by type of business, 2009 – 2013 .................................................................................. 176 4.10 Perception of safety when doing business in the CoT by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 176 4.11 Perception of safety of workers in the workplace by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 177 4.12 Perception of safety of workers travelling/walking to work by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................... 178 4.13 Perception of safety at CoT offices by type of business, 2011 – 2013 ................... 179 4.14 Perception of safety of government offices by type of business, 2013 ................. 180 4.15 Overview of satisfaction with by-law enforcement and public safety services, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 180 4.16 Current and preferred payment method(s) of CoT municipal accounts, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 199 4.17 Enquiries/complaints lodged with CoT during past 12 months by business type, 2013 ................................................................................................................. 200 4.18 Most recent enquiry/complaint by type of interaction and business type, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 201
xii
4.19 Satisfaction with timelines and accuracy of handling most recent requests/complaints ................................................................................................ 203 4.20 Awareness of CoT Service Delivery Charter by business type ................................ 206 4.21 Agreement regarding CoT commitment towards service excellence by business type, 2013 .................................................................................................. 207 4.22 Frequency of utilising CoT communication modes, 2013 ....................................... 208 4.23 Levels of satisfaction with CoT communication modes, 2013 ................................ 209 4.24 Awareness of corruption in the CoT metropolitan structures, 2009 – 2013 .......... 209 4.25 Awareness of type of corruption, 2009 – 2013 ....................................................... 210 4.26 Addressing corruption, 2009 – 2013 ........................................................................ 211 4.27 Percentage of businesses planning or considering relocation in the next 12 months, 2009 – 2013 ........................................................................................... 211 4.28 Planned relocation of business, 2011 – 2013 .......................................................... 212 4.29 Business location within City Improvement District (CID), 2013 ............................ 213 4.30 Satisfaction with CIDs, 2013 ..................................................................................... 213 CHAPTER 5 5.1 Satisfaction levels of embassies with CoT general service delivery Performance, 2009 – 2013 ....................................................................................... 216 5.2 Change in service performance levels during the past 12 months, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 217 5.3 Confidence in the CoT as a city, 2009 – 2013 .......................................................... 217 5.4 Satisfaction ratings of embassies, 2009 – 2013 ....................................................... 219 5.5 Embassy perceptions of safety, 2009 – 2013 .......................................................... 220 5.6 Summary of additional municipal service evaluation facets by embassies, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 222
xiii
CHAPTER 6 6.1 Satisfaction items for constructing satisfaction indices, 2009 – 2013 ................... 227 6.2 Business satisfaction index scores, 2009 – 2013 ..................................................... 236
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 3 3.1 Distribution of sample by type of area, 2013 .......................................................... 28 3.2 Length of time households have lived in the CoT, 2013 ......................................... 29 3.3 Percentage of respondents who reported satisfaction with current service Delivery performance by region, 2013 .................................................................... 31 3.4 Percentage of respondents who reported an improvement in service Performance levels, 2013 ......................................................................................... 34 3.5 Percentage of respondents expressing confidence in the CoT to provide a Good quality of life, 2013 ......................................................................................... 35 3.6 Ranking of challenges to be addressed by the CoT, 2009 – 2013 ........................... 39 3.7 Satisfaction levels for the provision of electricity by region, 2013 ........................ 40 3.8 Reasons for dissatisfaction with electricity provision (ratings below 6), 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 41 3.9 Percentage of respondents (with access to electricity) confirming regular Electricity readings, 2013 ......................................................................................... 42 3.10 Percentage of households (with access to electricity) using prepaid electricity meters, 2013 ............................................................................................................. 44 3.11 Satisfaction levels for refuse collection by region, 2013 ........................................ 46 3.12 Reasons for dissatisfaction with waste collection by region, 2013 ........................ 47 3.13 Satisfaction levels for neighbourhood roads by region, 2013 ................................ 48 3.14 Reasons for dissatisfaction with neighbourhood streets, 2009 – 2013 ................ 48 3.15 Satisfaction levels for sanitation and waste water by region, 2013 ...................... 49 3.16 Reasons for dissatisfaction with sanitation and waste water, 2013 ...................... 50 3.17 Satisfaction levels for stormwater systems by region, 2013 .................................. 50
xv
3.18 Reasons for dissatisfaction with stormwater systems, 2009 – 2013 ..................... 51 3.19 Satisfaction levels for water provision by region, 2013 .......................................... 52 3.20 Reasons for dissatisfaction with water provision, 2009 – 2013 ............................. 53 3.21 Percentage of respondents (with access to water) confirming regular water readings, 2013 ........................................................................................................... 54 3.22 Percentage of households that make use of prepaid water meters, 2013 ............ 55 3.23 Satisfaction levels for street lights by region, 2013 ................................................ 56 3.24 Reasons for dissatisfaction with street lights, 2009 – 2013 .................................... 56 3.25 Satisfaction levels for community halls/recreation centres by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 59 3.26 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with community halls and recreation centres, 2009 – 2013 ................................................................................................. 60 3.27 Satisfaction levels for fire and rescue services/fire brigade by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 61 3.28 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with fire and rescue services/fire brigade, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 61 3.29 Satisfaction levels for emergency medical and ambulance services by region, 2013 .............................................................................................................. 62 3.30 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with emergency medical and ambulance Services, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................... 63 3.31 Satisfaction levels for the municipal bus service by region, 2013 .......................... 63 3.32 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with the municipal bus service of the CoT, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 64 3.33 Satisfaction levels for cemeteries by region, 2013 ................................................. 65 3.34 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with municipal cemeteries, 2009 – 2013 ........... 66 3.35 Satisfaction levels for municipal crematoriums by region, 2013 ........................... 66
xvi
3.36 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with municipal crematoriums, 2013 .................. 67 3.37 Satisfaction levels for municipal clinics by region, 2013 ......................................... 68 3.38 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with municipal clinics, 2009 – 2013 ................... 68 3.39 Satisfaction levels for municipal museums by region, 2013 ................................... 69 3.40 Satisfaction levels for municipal parks by region, 2013 .......................................... 70 3.41 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with municipal parks, 2009 – 2013 .................... 70 3.42 Satisfaction levels for pavement/pedestrian walkways by region, 2003 .............. 71 3.43 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with pavements/pedestrian walkways, 2009 – 2013 .............................................................................................................. 72 3.44 Satisfaction levels for public libraries by region, 2013 ........................................... 72 3.45 Satisfaction levels for public sports facilities by region, 2013 ................................. 73 3.46 Main reasons for dissatisfaction with public sports facilities in the CoT, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 74 3.47 Satisfaction levels for municipal public toilets by region, 2013 ............................. 74 3.48 Satisfaction levels for garden refuse sites by region, 2013 .................................... 75 3.49 Satisfaction levels for municipal taxi ranks by region, 2013 .................................. 76 3.50 Satisfaction levels for informal trading facilities by region, 2013 .......................... 77 3.51 Satisfaction levels for public swimming pools by region, 2013 .............................. 78 3.52 Satisfaction levels for municipal nature reserves/resorts by region, 2013 ........... 79 3.53 Satisfaction levels for licensing: learner driver’s licence by region, 2013 ............. 80 3.54 Satisfaction levels for licensing: driver’s licence (applications/renewals) by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................ 81 3.55 Satisfaction levels for waste removal by region, 2013 ........................................... 82 3.56 Satisfaction levels for emergency/disaster management by region, 2013 ............ 83
xvii
3.57 Satisfaction levels for street sweeping and litter control by region, 2013 ............ 84 3.58 Satisfaction levels for traffic lights/signals by region, 2013 ................................... 85 3.59 Satisfaction levels for grass cutting by region, 2013 ............................................... 86 3.60 Satisfaction levels for road maintenance by region, 2013.......................................... 87 3.61 Satisfaction levels for street trees by region, 2013 ................................................. 88 3.62 Satisfaction levels for government/social housing by region, 2013 ...................... 89 3.63(a) Percentage of population utilising CoT community services during the 12 months preceding the survey, 2009 – 2013 ....................................................... 95 3.63(b) Percentage of population utilising CoT community services during the 12 months preceding the survey, 2009 – 2013 ....................................................... 96 3.64 Satisfaction levels for building control services by region, 2013 ........................... 106 3.65 Satisfaction levels for control of illegal squatting/occupation by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 107 3.66 Satisfaction levels for control of illegal street/intersection trading by region 2013 ............................................................................................................... 108 3.67 Satisfaction levels for control of illegal dumping by region, 2013 ......................... 109 3.68 Satisfaction levels for control of illegal water connections by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 110 3.69 Satisfaction levels for control of illegal electricity connections by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 111 3.70 Satisfaction levels for control of visual environment by region, 2013 ................... 112 3.71 Satisfaction levels for control of building/construction rubble by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 113 3.72 Satisfaction levels for noise control by region, 2013 .............................................. 114 3.73 Satisfaction levels for traffic control by region, 2013 ............................................. 116 3.74 Satisfaction levels for social crime prevention by region, 2013 ............................. 117
xviii
3.75 Satisfaction levels with visible policing by region, 2013 ......................................... 118 3.76 Satisfaction levels with response time of Metro Police by region, 2013 ............... 119 3.77 Percentage of households receiving an account from the CoT, 2013 .................... 120 3.78 Rating of CoT accounts in terms of clarity by region, 2013 .................................... 121 3.79 Rating of CoT accounts in terms of correctness by region, 2013 ............................ 122 3.80 Rating of CoT accounts in terms of regularity of accounts by region, 2013 ........... 123 3.81 Rating of sufficiency of information to understand municipal billing by region, 2013 .............................................................................................................. 124 3.82 Lodging of enquiries or complaints with the CoT, 2013 ......................................... 127 3.83 Type of enquiry/complaint by mode of interaction, 2013 ..................................... 128 3.84 Resolving enquiries/complaints on first contact by region, 2013 .......................... 129 3.85 Awareness of CoT service delivery charter by region, 2013 ................................... 134 3.86 Involvement in metro consultative or participatory processes by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 136 3.87 Satisfaction with language used by CoT by region, 2013 ........................................ 142 3.88 Awareness of corruption by region, 2013 ............................................................... 143 3.89 Awareness of corruption by type of corruption, 2009 – 2011 ................................ 144 3.90 Affirmation regarding CoT satisfactorily addressing corruption by region, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 145 CHAPTER 4 4.1 Location of the business sample by type of area, 2009 – 2013 .............................. 148 4.2 Satisfaction levels for electricity by type of business, 2013 ................................... 153 4.3 Satisfaction levels for refuse collection by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ........... 155
xix
4.4 Satisfaction levels for neighbourhood streets by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 156 4.5 Satisfaction levels for sanitation by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ....................... 157 4.6 Satisfaction levels for stormwater by type of business, 2009 – 2013 .................... 158 4.7 Satisfaction levels for water provision by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............. 159 4.8 Satisfaction levels for street lights by type of business, 2009 – 2013 .................... 160 4.9 Business utilisation levels by collective service types, 2013 .................................. 163 4.10 Business satisfaction ratings for collective services, 2009 – 2013 .......................... 164 4.11 Satisfaction levels for pavements/pedestrian walkways by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................... 166 4.12 Satisfaction levels for business licence by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............. 167 4.13 Satisfaction levels for street sweeping and litter control by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................... 168 4.14 Satisfaction levels for traffic lights/signals by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ....... 169 4.15 Satisfaction levels for grass cutting by type of business, 2009 – 2013 .................. 170 4.16 Satisfaction levels for road maintenance by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ......... 171 4.17 Satisfaction levels with municipal bus services, 2013 ............................................ 172 4.18 Satisfaction with municipal taxi ranks, 2013 ........................................................... 173 4.19 Satisfaction with available street parking, 2013 ..................................................... 174 4.20 Satisfaction levels for building control by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............. 180 4.21 Satisfaction levels for controlling squatting/occupation of municipal land by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................. 181 4.22 Satisfaction levels for controlling street/intersection trading by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................... 182
xx
4.23 Satisfaction levels for controlling illegal dumping by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 183 4.24 Satisfaction levels for the control of illegal water connections, 2009 – 2013 ....... 184 4.25 Satisfaction levels for the control of illegal electricity connections, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 185 4.26 Satisfaction levels for the control of environmental control, 2009 – 2013 ........... 186 4.27 Satisfaction levels for the control of building/construction rubble, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 187 4.28 Satisfaction levels for noise control by type of business, 2009 – 2013 .................. 188 4.29 Satisfaction levels for traffic control by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ................. 189 4.30 Satisfaction levels for social crime prevention by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 190 4.31 Satisfaction levels with visible policing by type of business, 2013 ........................ 191 4.32 Satisfaction with Metro Police by type of business, 2013 ...................................... 192 4.33 Percentage of businesses receiving an account from the CoT by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................... 194 4.34 Satisfaction levels for the clarity of accounts by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 195 4.35 Satisfaction levels for the correctness of accounts by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 196 4.36 Satisfaction levels for regularity of accounts by type of business, 2009 – 2013 ............................................................................................................... 197 4.37 Satisfaction levels for sufficiency of information provided to understand, municipal accounts by type of business, 2013 ........................................................ 198 CHAPTER 6 6.1 Regional basic services household satisfaction indices, 2013 ................................ 229 6.2 Regional community services household satisfaction indices, 2013 ...................... 230
xxi
6.3 Regional public safety and by-law enforcement household satisfaction indices, 2013 ....................................................................................................................... 231 6.4 Regional billing, payment and customer care household satisfaction indices, 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 232 6.5 Regional communication efficiency household satisfaction indices ...................... 232 6.6 CoT household satisfaction index, 2009 – 2013 ...................................................... 233 6.7 Household, business and total satisfaction index for the CoT, 2009 – 2013 ......... 237 6.8 Average satisfaction scores of CoT core services, 2013 .......................................... 239 6.9 Proportion of households and businesses dissatisfied with core municipal services, 2013 ........................................................................................................... 240 6.10 Top and bottom five satisfaction ratings for community services, 2013 households ................................................................................................................ 244 6.11 Average satisfaction ratings for by-law enforcement, 2013 ................................... 246
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Service delivery is a core component of government’s mandate to address key socio-economic
objectives of creating safe, inclusive and equitable environments while addressing, among
others, poverty and unemployment. The provision of water, sanitation, roads, waste removal
and electricity are primarily the focus of service delivery and these services form the core
enablers for economic activity. Consequently, service delivery commitments and improvement
plans are noticeable in many national, provincial and local government documents. For
example, the South Africa Constitution (1996) mandates local government to provide services
to communities in a sustainable manner, to promote social and economic development and a
safe and healthy environment, and to encourage the involvement of communities and
community organisations in the matters of local government. Furthermore, in 2010, the South
African government adopted 12 outcomes to facilitate, among others, measurable performance
and better service delivery. These outcomes focused on basic education, health, safety and
security, employment, skills, infrastructure, rural development, human settlements, local
government, environment, international relations, and public service to facilitate measurable
performance and enhance service delivery performance. At local government level the
aspirations to be responsive, accountable, effective and efficient have been clearly formulated
alongside aspirations to, among others, improve access to basic services. The vision of the
National Development Plan (NDP) pertinently sets out that in 2013 South Africa will have
improved infrastructure (roads, rail, ports, electricity, water, sanitation, public transport and
housing), quality health care for all; safer communities, reformed public service, less corruption
and a transformed society and united country. These aspirations also clearly manifest in the
vision of the City of Tshwane to enhance the quality of life of all the people of Tshwane through
a developmental system of local government and by rendering efficient, effective and affordable
services. Against this background, it is also important to note that the City of Tshwane is a
Category A (metropolitan) municipality and recently transformed into the Capital City of the
Republic of South Africa following the integration of the Metsweding District, Nokeng Tsa
Taemane Local, Kungwini Local and City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipalities to form a new
ii
single metropolitan municipality. Since May 2011 the City of Tshwane (CoT) consciously started
repositioning and rebranding itself, under a new slogan ‘Igniting Excellence’ to cultivate and
deepen a culture of excellence in everything the City does. Notable, its commitment towards
service excellence is exclusively incorporated in the vision of the CoT Customer Relations
Management Division, which states that the CoT aspires to serve customers by ensuring
excellent service delivery at all times.
Within the context of these introductory remarks, the CoT has for the third time since 2009
embarked on a comprehensive service delivery satisfaction evaluation study across all regions
in 2013. Given the boundary changes of the CoT and aspiring long-term service improvement,
the service evaluation research intends to guide the CoT to strategise, develop visions and
policies and mobilise a range of resources to meet its developmental goals. The 2013 study, in
particular, also takes the opportunity to review the City’s development strategy to accelerate
its goal of igniting service excellence. Broadly, the research aims to support the transformation
agenda of the CoT as outlined in the Tshwane 2055 long-term strategy that states the City’s
future growth and development goals and explores ways to develop a responsive CoT capable
of confronting the challenges it faces, thereby maximising its impact on the quality of life for its
residents. Service evaluation studies also support the CoT’s consultative commitments towards
its stakeholders and are seen as an ideal platform to engage with stakeholders on how to make
better use of developmental local government instruments such as infrastructure provision and
collaborative and participatory planning.
Study focus and aim The aim of the 2013 CoT Resident Satisfaction Survey, as was the case with the 2009 and 2011
surveys, was primarily to conduct a household satisfaction survey among 3 300 CoT residents
and a business satisfaction survey among 750 business establishments. As in 2011, the 2013
study also included a sample of 20 embassies. The primary purpose of the research among
households, businesses and embassies was to measure satisfaction levels with regard to
municipal service delivery. The supporting rationale for a study of this nature included the
following:
iii
The commitment of the CoT to continued high level service delivery performance and
quality of life
To identify future challenges and priorities
To identify service delivery priority areas
To support aspirations of service excellence
To support local government developmental goals
To support tactical and operational service delivery planning and strategising
To guide performance assessment
To provide customer inputs into decision making
To track changes in service satisfaction levels
To expand the data mining system of the CoT
To meet this endeavour, the 2013 service assessment model was specifically designed to focus
on the following municipal service-related aspects:
General perceptions of service delivery of the CoT and its ability to provide people with a
good quality of life as well as changes in service performance delivery during the past 12
months.
Identification of major challenges and priorities to be attended to during the next 12
months.
Assessment of core household service delivery such as electricity, refuse collection/waste
removal, neighbourhood roads, sanitation/waste water/ sewerage, stormwater
drainage/flooding, water provision and street/public lights.
Assessment of ownership of and satisfaction with pre-paid electricity and water meters as
well as satisfaction with the installation of pre-paid meters and availability of vending
points.
Assessment of satisfaction with 28 municipal community service delivery items such as
community halls/recreation centres, fire and rescue services/fire brigade, emergency
medical and ambulance services, municipal bus service, municipal cemeteries, municipal
crematoriums, municipal clinics, municipal museums (eg Pretoria Art Museum), parks,
iv
pavements/pedestrian walkways, public libraries, public sports facilities, municipal public
toilets, dumping (landfill) sites, municipal taxi ranks, informal trading facilities, public
swimming pools, municipal nature reserves/resorts, licensing: learner’s driver’s licence
and driver’s licence, (applications/renewals), waste removal, emergency/disaster
management, street sweeping and litter control, traffic lights/signals, grass cutting, road
maintenance (repairs, signage, markings, speed bumps), street trees and
government/social housing (low cost housing). The utilisation levels of each of these 28
service types were also measured.
Assessment of by-law enforcement and public safety services.
Assessment of billing and payment issues.
Assessment of Customer Care services.
Assessment of service delivery accountability.
Assessment of involvement in metro consultative and participatory processes.
Assessment of communication preferences.
Perceived levels of corruption in the CoT.
The service assessment model designed for the CoT resident satisfaction studies also allowed
for determining the percentage of dissatisfied respondents (ie those that allocated a rating of
less than 6.00 out of 10). This add-on presents additional benefits offered by the CoT resident
satisfaction model and serves to direct future operational and strategic planning.
Besides measuring satisfaction levels and determining the proportion of dissatisfied clients
related to the broad service categories outlined above, the research model was also designed
to identify future priority areas/challenges for the CoT. The main research findings based on
the 2013 household and business service assessment models are analysed below in tables A1 to
A10.
v
TABLE A1
CoT TOP FIVE PRIORITY AREAS, 2013
Household survey Unemployment Poverty Job creation Skills development Crime
TABLE A2
TOP CONSTRAINTS EXPERIENCED BY BUSINESS SIZE CLASS, 2013
Large/medium formal business Small formal business Informal business
• Crime and theft • Cost of capital/credit • Lack of access to finance
• Crime and theft • Cost of capital/credit • Lack of access to finance
• Crime and theft • Cost of capital/credit • Tax rates
TABLE A3
BASIC SERVICES SATISFACTION MEAN RATING SCORES, 2009 - 2013
Services items Household survey
Mean rating score* Business survey
Mean rating score* 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013
Electricity 6.99 6.91 7.30 7.06 6.90 7.27 Refuse collection/waste removal 6.57 6.31 7.65 7.19 6.62 7.48 Neighbourhood roads 5.33 6.19 6.85 5.72 6.11 7.31 Sanitation/waste water/sewerage 6.80 7.13 7.59 7.27 7.28 7.67 Stormwater/drainage/flooding 5.44 7.06 7.52 6.14 6.87 7.67 Water provision 7.10 7.29 7.56 7.41 7.50 7.69 Street/public lights 6.15 6.41 6.56 6.77 6.82 7.32 Prepaid electricity meters: Installation 8.37 8.40 8.11 - - - Prepaid electricity meters: Vending points 8.33 7.78 7.55 - - - Prepaid electricity meters: Prepaid meters 8.45 7.94 8.24 - - - Prepaid water meters: Installation 6.50 7.59 8.34 - - - Prepaid water meters: Vending points 6.39 7.15 8.21 - - - Prepaid water meters: Prepaid meters 6.41 7.19 8.27 - - - Average rating 6.83 7.18 7.67 6.79 6.87 7.49 * The service assessment model was designed to measure satisfaction ratings on a 10-point scale with 1 = extremely low and 10 =
extremely high.
vi
TABLE A4
COMMUNITY/COLLECTIVE SERVICES SATISFACTION MEAN RATING SCORES, 2009 – 2013
Service item Household survey
Mean rating score* Business survey
Mean rating score* 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013
Community halls/recreation centres 7.46 7.51 7.49 - - -
Fire and rescue services/fire brigade 7.17 6.82 7.17 6.36 - 7.69 Emergency medical and ambulance services 6.03 6.71 6.69 5.87 7.33 7.60 Municipal bus service 6.75 6.91 7.64 6.31 5.88 7.73
Municipal cemeteries 6.48 6.74 6.72 - - - Municipal crematorium - - 6.33 - - - Municipal clinics 6.15 6.47 7.59 - - -
Municipal museums (eg Pretoria Art Museum) 7.97 7.42 7.83 - - - Parks 6.63 7.11 7.31 Pavements/pedestrian walkways 4.67 6.11 6.61 4.79 6.35 6.66
Public libraries 6.43 7.42 7.52 - - - Public sports facilities 5.98 6.97 7.35 - - - Municipal public toilets 6.14 6.79 6.74 5.99 5.87 7.36
Dumping (landfill) sites 7.10 6.75 7.19 5.15 6.90 7.28 Municipal taxi ranks 6.55 6.13 7.43 6.59 6.12 7.36 Informal trading facilities 5.98 5.90 7.36 5.28 6.00 7.67
Public swimming pools 6.85 6.95 7.50 - - - Municipal/nature reserves/resorts 7.71 7.51 7.93 - - - Licensing: learner driver’s license 6.39 6.96 7.08 - - -
Licensing: driver’s license (applications/renewals) 6.27 6.49 7.05 - - -
Licensing: Business license - - - 6.24 8.15 7.89
Waste removal 6.49 6.88 8.01 - - - Emergency/disaster management 7.29 6.91 7.52 4.50 - 7.63 Street sweeping and litter control 5.61 5.78 6.89 5.64 6.11 7.21 Traffic lights/signals 6.88 6.29 6.93 6.62 6.63 7.30
Grass cutting 5.67 5.57 6.46 5.69 5.98 6.86 Road maintenance (repairs, signage, markings, speed bumps) 6.42 5.89 6.47 6.09 6.00 7.23 Street trees 6.86 6.48 6.93 - - - Government/social housing (low-cost housing) 5.09 6.04 6.66 - - Street parking - - 7.31
Average** 6.48 6.65 7.16 5.79 6.44 7.39 * The service assessment model was designed to measure satisfaction ratings on a 10-point scale with 1 = extremely low and 10 =
extremely high ** Average rating score is based on all satisfaction items rated.
vii
TABLE A5
PUBLIC SAFETY AND BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT SATISFACTION MEAN RATING SCORES, 2009 – 2013
Service item Household survey
Mean rating score* Business survey
Mean rating score* 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013
Building control 7.54 6.85 7.10 7.82 7.35 7.37
Illegal squatting 7.24 6.44 6.74 7.13 6.99 7.07
Illegal street trading 7.28 6.52 7.06 7.24 6.55 7.32
Illegal dumping 6.81 6.49 6.50 7.36 6.98 7.09
Illegal water connections 8.17 7.14 7.46 8.45 7.72 7.58
Illegal electricity connections 8.12 6.92 7.20 8.39 7.61 7.46
Control of visual environment 7.53 7.34 7.33 7.84 7.61 7.48
Control of building or construction rubble 7.59 7.28 7.37 7.73 7.56 7.52
Noise control 6.79 7.10 7.16 7.04 7.48 7.50
Traffic control 6.73 6.67 7.06 5.67 6.01 7.25
Social crime prevention 5.91 6.67 6.74 5.17 6.42 6.88
Visible policing - - 6.41 - - 6.99
Response time from Metro Police - - 6.29 - - 7.00
Average 7.25 6.86 6.96 7.26 7.12 7.27 * The service assessment model was designed to measure satisfaction ratings on a 10-point scale with 1 = extremely low and 10 = extremely high.
TABLE A6
BILLING, PAYMENT AND CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION
MEAN RATING SCORES, 2009 – 2013
Service item Household survey
Mean rating score* Business survey
Mean rating score* 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013
Clear and understandable account 7.63 7.79 7.62 7.69 7.73 7.49 Correctness of account 7.38 7.47 7.25 7.37 7.26 7.05 Regularity of accounts received 7.76 7.96 7.47 7.70 7.79 7.23 Sufficiency of information to understand billing - - 7.41 - - 7.49 Handling enquiries/complaints 4.49 4.42 5.07 4.60 4.29 5.15 Average 6.82 6.91 6.96 6.84 6.77 6.88
* The service assessment model was designed to measure satisfaction ratings on a 10-point scale with 1 = extremely low and 10 = extremely high.
viii
TABLE A7
COMMUNICATION EFFICIENCY SATISFACTION MEAN RATING SCORES, 2009 – 2013
Service item Household survey
Mean rating score* Business survey
Mean rating score* 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013
Ward meetings 7.22 6.63 7.15 - -
Community-based planning 7.06 6.41 7.19 - -
General public meetings, stakeholder summits or consultative meetings 6.96 6.69 7.39 - -
Public hearings - - 7.34 - -
Newsletters 7.68 7.44 7.92 7.53 6.98 8.05 CoT Website 5.06 6.15 7.84 6.94 6.00 7.83 Awareness campaigns 7.12 7.57 7.79 7.57 7.57 7.76 SMS communication - - 7.65 8.04 Local media (radio or printed media) - - 8.00 8.12 Social media (Facebook & Twitter) - - 7.56 Imbizos - - - - - 8.19
Language - 7.96 7.56 - - -
Average 6.85 6.98 7.58 7.35 6.85 8.00 * The service assessment model was designed to measure satisfaction ratings on a 10-point scale with 1 = extremely low and 10 = extremely high.
TABLE A8
LODGING OF ENQUIRIES OR COMPLAINTS WITH THE CoT, 2013
Request/complaint Household survey Business survey
% % Information request 6.1 4.0 Service request 7.4 2.2 Lodge complaint 9.9 6.7 Lodged enquiry and/or complaint 18.7 12.6 Complaint/enquiry resolved on first contact 45.8 43.0
ix
TABLE A9
SERVICE ASPIRATIONS AGREEMENT SCORES, 2013
Service aspiration Households Business
Mean rating score* Mean rating score* The CoT is committed towards achieving service excellence 5.84 6.07 The CoT is effective and efficient in progressively delivering on its mandate to be accountable to local communities
5.81 5.97
The CoT adheres to good service delivery quality standards that effectively address customers’ information and service requests and complaints
5.79 6.02
The CoT has managed to develop a sound service delivery response culture to effectively and efficiently address customer enquiries and complaints
5.74 5.98
The CoT meets reasonable timelines to respond timely to residents’ requests and complaints
5.58 5.90
The CoT addresses residents’ requests and complaints accurately 5.64 5.90 *An agreement scale was used with the scale anchors ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree).
TABLE A10
PERCEIVED EXTENT OF SIGNIFICANT CORRUPTION IN THE CoT METROPOLITAN STRUCTURES, 2009 – 2013
Corruption Household survey Business survey
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 % of respondents who are aware of corruption in CoT municipal structures
27.9 29.0 16.5 25.0 21.6 11.1
% of respondents who confirm satisfaction with addressing corruption
- 7.4 12.5 4.8 5.4 14.9
Service satisfaction indices The service satisfaction model was designed to also allow for the construction of satisfaction
indices (see chapter 7 for methodology). The aim of such indices was to firstly compare the
relative outcome of the household findings by region (for households only). These regional
indices were simply added to compute the composite regional and total satisfaction indices for
the CoT. Besides measuring differences in satisfaction by region, the value of the satisfaction
indices is further to present a reflection of the service satisfaction climate pertaining to the CoT
in 2009, 2011 and 2013.
x
As with the households, a satisfaction index was also computed for businesses. The business
sample largely lacked a regional stratification, which ultimately resulted in a composite
business satisfaction index that was combined with the composite household satisfaction index
to finally arrive at the total CoT resident satisfaction index score for 2009 and 2011.
Against this background, the household and business satisfaction indices are presented to
summarise the outcome of the 2009, 2011 and 2013 resident (households/businesses)
satisfaction surveys. It should be noted that an average index value between 50 and 100 index
points indicates a positive service delivery climate in the CoT, while a value below 50 portrays a
negative service delivery climate. As mentioned, the index approach towards analysing the
survey outcomes allows for monitoring service satisfaction levels continuously, the main
advantage of which is to compare index values over time.
FIGURE A1
REGIONAL BASIC SERVICES HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 78 76 77 79 72 78 68 77
0
20
40
60
80
100
xi
FIGURE A2
REGIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICES HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
FIGURE A3
REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY AND BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 71 70 73 69 73 74 59 72
0
20
40
60
80
100
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 70 75 67 70 69 71 59 70
0
20
40
60
80
100
xii
FIGURE A4
REGIONAL BILLING, PAYMENT AND CUSTOMER CARE HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
FIGURE A5
REGIONAL COMMUNICATION EFFICIENCY HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
Combining the five household satisfaction mean index scores resulted in a total service
satisfaction index for households as a whole, which is reflected by region and over time (2009 –
2013) below.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 70 72 68 69 66 69 60 70
0
20
40
60
80
100
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 73 77 76 78 76 79 69 76
0
20
40
60
80
100
xiii
FIGURE A6
CoT HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDEX BY REGION, 2013
FIGURE A7
CoT HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDEX, 2009 – 2013
As mentioned, the service satisfaction model was also designed to compute a business
satisfaction index, which is outlined below.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 73 74 72 73 71 74 63 73
0
20
40
60
80
100
BSHSI CHHSI PSBEHSI BPCCHSI CEHSI TOTAL
2009 68 65 72 68 69 68
2011 72 66 69 69 70 69
2013 77 72 70 70 76 73
0
20
40
60
80
100
xiv
FIGURE A8
BUSINESS SATISFACTION INDEX SCORES, 2009 - 2013
The household and business satisfaction index scores were combined to finally arrive at the CoT
satisfaction index as reflected below.
FIGURE A9
OVERALL COT SATISFACTION INDEX (SI), 2009 - 2013
The composite index analyses above show that the levels of satisfaction regarding the CoT
service performance increased from 68 in 2009 to 69 in 2011 and 73 in 2013. The lowest scores
were attained by billing, payment and customer care (index value of 69) while the highest score
was yielded by communication efficiency (78).
BSBSI CSBSI PSBEBSI BPCCBSI CEBSI TOTAL
2009 68 58 73 68 73 68
2011 69 64 71 68 69 68
2013 75 74 73 69 80 74
0
20
40
60
80
100
BSSI CSSI PSBESI BPCCSI CESI TOTAL
2009 68 61 73 68 71 68
2011 70 65 70 68 69 69
2013 76 73 71 69 78 73
0
20
40
60
80
100
xv
Chapter overview
Up to this point, the executive summary provided a holistic overview of the outcome of the
2013 CoT service satisfaction study among households and businesses. Where possible some
comparative analysis was presented with 2009 and 2011. A more detailed explanation of the
objectives and rationale of the 2013 study, the research methodology used to collect data and
sample plans as well as the outcome of the service assessment model are presented as follows
in the various chapters contained in this report. These include:
Chapter 1: Introduction and objective of the study
Chapter 2: Research methodology
Chapter 3: Household satisfaction survey findings
Chapter 4: Business satisfaction survey findings
Chapter 5: Embassy survey findings
Chapter 6: Summary and recommendations
Should the CoT aspire to improve service delivery in the near future, the major
recommendations (as discussed in more detail in chapter 6) are summarized below according to
specific service focus areas.
Core service type Recommendation
Electricity Attend to high cost of electricity. Improve on load/power shedding. Improve access to electricity (wards 10, 24 and 40).
Waste collection Improve collection of refuse. Neigbourhood roads Tar roads (wards 14, 19, 24, 37, 95). Water provision Address irregular water interruptions.
Stormwater drainage Maintain stormwater drainage systems. Install stormwater drainage systems (wards 18, 19, 95).
Street/public lights Improve maintenance of street lights (wards 3, 10, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, 37, 51,
67, 77, 90, 95, 97). Sanitation and waste water Improve sanitation and waste water systems (wards 14, 24, 49, 73). Recommendations: Core municipal services Based on the outcome of the 2013 household satisfaction survey the following two priority core service areas require priority attention: Street/public lights Neighbourhood roads
xvi
Recommendation: Community services The CoT should focus on those community services that recorded low satisfaction ratings. In this regard the
following should be targeted as priority areas: municipal clinics (wards 10, 18, 19, 24, 30, 31, 40, 77, 103) and grass cutting (wards 8, 10, 24, 90).
Recommendations: Public safety Safety after dark should be addressed as a priority area. Safety measures in the Inner City and business nodes should be improved and/or awareness campaigns about
Inner City or business nodes safety measures should improve. Crime-related aspects such as robberies and burglaries need to be addressed as priorities. Recommendations: By-law-enforcement Control of land invasions with specific focus on control of illegal foreigners and squatters as well as law
enforcement on illegal dumping and illegal squatting. Recommendations: Crime Increase visibility of crime prevention officers. Improve response time on call-outs. Instruct Metro Police staff to answer phones. Recommendations: Billing and payment Maintain billing and payment performance with respect to clarity/understandability/correctness of accounts,
regularity of accounts received and sufficiency of information to understand municipal bills. Recommendations: Customer services Improve timelines and accuracy of handling enquiries and complaints, specifically related to account
payments, water and electricity meter readings and power failures. Recommendations: Participation and communication Create more awareness of CoT Website, SMS communication and social media. Promote awareness campaigns (ie cable theft awareness, new credit control policy etc) more aggressively. Make CoT communication more informative. Recommendations: Corruption Corruption in general, but with specific reference to bribery, fraud, abuse of power and favouritism should be
dealt with as a serious issue and needs to be urgently addressed by the CoT. Create awareness of corruption cases addressed satisfactorily by CoT. Recommendations: Service delivery accountability Improve awareness of the norms and standards as contained in the CoT Service Delivery Charter. Improve timelines of responding to enquiries/complaints. Improve on accuracy of addressing customer requests and complaints. Improve on resolving enquiries/complaints on first time contact.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION Service delivery is a core component of government’s mandate to address key socio-
economic objectives of creating safe, inclusive and equitable environments while
addressing, among others, poverty and unemployment. The provision of water,
sanitation, roads, waste removal and electricity are primarily the focus of service
delivery and these services form the core enablers for economic activity. Consequently,
service delivery commitments and improvement plans are noticeable in many national,
provincial and local government documents. For example, the South Africa Constitution
(1996) mandates local government to provide services to communities in a sustainable
manner, to promote social and economic development and a safe and healthy
environment, and to encourage the involvement of communities and community
organisations in the matters of local government. Furthermore, in 2010, the South
African government adopted 12 outcomes to facilitate, among others, measurable
performance and better service delivery. These outcomes focused on basic education,
health, safety and security, employment, skills, infrastructure, rural development,
human settlements, local government, environment, international relations, and public
service to facilitate measurable performance and enhance service delivery performance.
At local government level the aspirations to be responsive, accountable, effective and
efficient have been clearly formulated alongside aspirations to, among others, improve
access to basic services. The vision of the National Development Plan (NDP) pertinently
sets out that in 2013 South Africa will have improved infrastructure (roads, rail, ports,
electricity, water, sanitation, public transport and housing), quality health care for all;
safer communities, reformed public service, less corruption and a transformed society
and united country. These aspirations also clearly manifest in the vision of the City of
Tshwane to enhance the quality of life of all the people of Tshwane through a
developmental system of local government and by rendering efficient, effective and
2
affordable services. Against this background, it is also important to note that the City of
Tshwane is a Category A (metropolitan) municipality and recently transformed into the
Capital City of the Republic of South Africa following the integration of the Metsweding
District, Nokeng Tsa Taemane Local, Kungwini Local and City of Tshwane Metropolitan
Municipalities to form a new single metropolitan municipality. Since May 2011 the City
of Tshwane (CoT) consciously started repositioning and rebranding itself, under a new
slogan ‘Igniting Excellence’ to cultivate and deepen a culture of excellence in everything
the City does. Notable, its commitment towards service excellence is exclusively
incorporated in the vision of the CoT Customer Relations Management Division, which
states that the CoT aspires to serve customers by ensuring excellent service delivery at all
times.
Within the context of these introductory remarks, the CoT has for the third time since
2009 embarked on a comprehensive service delivery satisfaction evaluation study across
all regions in 2013. Given the boundary changes of the CoT and aspiring long-term
service improvement, the service evaluation research intends to guide the CoT to
strategise, develop visions and policies and mobilise a range of resources to meet its
developmental goals. The 2013 study, in particular, also takes the opportunity to review
the City’s development strategy to accelerate its goal of igniting service excellence.
Broadly, the research aims to support the transformation agenda of the CoT as outlined
in the Tshwane 2055 long-term strategy that states the City’s future growth and
development goals and explores ways to develop a responsive CoT capable of
confronting the challenges it faces, thereby maximising its impact on the quality of life
for its residents. Service evaluation studies also support the CoT’s consultative
commitments towards its stakeholders and are seen as an ideal platform to engage with
stakeholders on how to make better use of developmental local government
instruments such as infrastructure provision and collaborative and participatory
planning.
3
1.2 CoT SERVICE EVALUATION NARRATION
To date the CoT has conducted five resident satisfaction surveys, one in 2006 and the
others in 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2012.
The 2006 survey served as a baseline study while the 2007 follow-up study served to
detect changes in service satisfaction levels of CoT residents. The 2006 and 2007 studies
involved 1 200 respondents each (800 households and 400 businesses). No study was
conducted in 2008. This, together with the CoT/Unisa MOA signed in 2008, motivated
resident satisfaction surveys in 2009 and 2011.
The need for a far broader study in 2009 also followed from concerns about the sample
sizes of the previous studies (2006 and 2007). Consequently, both the 2009 and 2011
studies included a far broader sample representation of 3 000 households; 750
businesses, distinguishing between formal (500) and informal (250) businesses; and 20
foreign embassies. The 2009 study also included a ‘mirror’ satisfaction survey whereby
CoT employees were requested to indicate the perceived level of satisfaction of
residents with the provision of municipal services by the CoT. The advantage of the
study in 2009 was that it provided a more representative overview of residents’
satisfaction levels by not only including a much broader survey audience but also by
identifying understanding gaps between perceived and actual resident satisfaction with
CoT service performance areas. In 2011, a similar research design, excluding a mirror
survey, was conducted. The 2009 and 2011 studies also added the additional advantage
of conducting regional analysis that further supported more confined strategic planning.
Obviously, the revisited and new sampling approach followed in 2009 and 2011 entailed
re-engineering of the entire CoT resident satisfaction model previously used. The 2009
and 2011 surveys included satisfaction ratings of the most contemporary service
performance areas and allowed for identifying specific reasons for dissatisfaction, and
securing the potential of identifying priority service areas to be addressed through
4
carefully constructed strategic management planning. Although the major focus of the
previous and both the 2009 and 2011 resident satisfaction models remained the same in
terms of core service delivery areas, the 2009 and 2011 models were largely confined to
the measurement of purely satisfaction dimensions, which ensured a far better
structured and manageable research model serving the purpose of a true resident
satisfaction study.
Following the new municipal demarcation whereby the Metsweding District, Nokeng
Tsa Taemane Local, Kungwini Local and City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipalities
were integrated to form a new single metropolitan municipality, and based on the fact
that the previous CoT customer satisfaction studies of 2009 and 2011 excluded the
newly integrated areas (regions 5 and 7), the CoT also conducted a customer service
quality audit in regions 5 and 7 in 2012. The aim of this study was to establish
customers’ needs and satisfaction ratings with regard to the standard and quality of
services rendered at the various CoT service interaction points.
Finally, the 2011 and 2012 studies provided a sound foundation for the 2013 customer
satisfaction survey which covers all regions within the newly integrated CoT. In fact, the
previous satisfaction models were largely integrated to construct the 2013 satisfaction
model that, in addition, also included a new and revamped section on customer care
services that focus on the service norms and standards as contained in the CoT Service
Delivery Charter. Despite this major and other minor amendments, the generic service
satisfaction evaluation models used in 2011 and 2012 largely remained unchanged,
although integrated in a single study in 2013. This consistency further supports some
form of comparisons with previous studies. However, the adjustments and additions
and sample size differences between past studies make comparisons between the
2006/07 and 2009/11 studies somewhat difficult and impact on the initial intention of
the CoT to design a resident satisfaction model for longitudinal (tracking) purposes. As a
5
result, longitudinal comparisons of the 2013 study are only presented for the 2009 and
2011 surveys.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE 2013 STUDY
Whereas the rationale for conducting stakeholder satisfaction studies was explained in
the introductory sections, the need for regular and repetitive studies needs to be
emphasised, both from contemporary and longitudinal perspectives. Against this
background, the aim of the 2013 study was to conduct a survey among a representative
sample of stakeholders (households, businesses and embassies) located within the
demarcated area of the CoT. More specifically, the 2013 study aimed to assess the
perceptions of residents and businesses about their awareness, usage, satisfaction and
expectations with regard to service delivery, governance, development priorities as well
as service quality and excellence.
Broadly speaking, the study aimed to improve communication between the CoT and all
its customers, which will help to determine the social, economic and material needs of
the community and to improve the quality of lives and business conditions within the
CoT. The research results will inform the CoT business planning processes as well as the
formulation of strategic plans (among others, the the Tshwane 2055 long-term
strategy).
1.4 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
The Executive Summary at the beginning of the report highlights the core issues
contained in the report. The first chapter provides background to the study, defines its
objective and outlines the structure of the report. A detailed description of the survey
methodology is provided in chapter 2. Chapter 3 deals with the findings of the
household survey. Chapter 4 discusses the findings of the business survey while chapter
5 reports on the findings of the embassy survey. Finally, chapter 6 provides a summary
and some recommendations based on the 2013 service satisfaction study.
6
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
To establish the levels of satisfaction of primarily households and businesses regarding
municipal service delivery, surveys were conducted in the jurisdiction areas of the City
of Tshwane (CoT). For the first time the new areas (regions 5 and 7) were included
following the integration of the Metsweding District, Nokeng Tsa Taemane Local,
Kungwini Local and City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipalities to form a new single
metropolitan municipality. Overall, three surveys were conducted among key
stakeholder groups of the CoT. One survey was conducted among households, a
second among businesses and a third among embassies. This chapter elaborates on
the research methodology applied during the execution of the 2013 household,
business and embassy surveys that largely resembles the sampling methodology
applied in 2009 and 2011. The discussion will provide a basis for the scientific
foundation of the study and hence the quality, validity and reliability of the data. The
first part of the chapter focuses on the research methodology used for the household
satisfaction survey. This is followed by a discussion of the business survey research
methodology. Finally, the chapter focuses on the research methodology used to
survey the embassies.
2.2 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology applied to collect primary data from households residing in
the CoT is explained below.
2.2.1 Survey population
The survey population is defined below in terms of sample units, sample elements and
the geographical demarcation of the survey area.
7
2.2.1.1 Sample units The sample population of the survey comprised all households residing in the CoT. For
purposes of selecting sample units for interviewing, the following dwelling types
(sample units) were eligible for inclusion:
• Formal dwellings such as houses, flats/apartments, townhouses/cluster houses
and rooms (division within a dwelling occupied by a separate household).
• Informal dwellings/shacks on own stand, backyard informal dwellings/shacks
and outbuildings/cottages.
Households occupying any of the above types of dwellings are defined as a person or a
group of persons, who occupy a common dwelling (or part of it) and who provide
themselves with food and other necessities of life. In other words, they live together
as a unit. People occupying the same dwelling, but not sharing food and other
necessities, are regarded as separate households.
2.2.1.2 Sample elements
Heads of households were identified as the sample elements for the survey. Heads of
households that were not available/willing for interviewing were substituted with
his/her spouse.
2.2.1.3 Survey areas The survey area comprised of the seven regions located within the demarcated areas
of the CoT. These regions were subdivided into 105 municipal wards. Each ward was
further subdivided into the following four types of areas by dwelling type:
• formal township area
• inner city
• suburbs
• informal settlement area
8
The wards and the above strata were used for sample stratification purposes.
Table 2.1 depicts the seven CoT regions by ward count and number. The sample size
(n) by regions is also displayed and will be discussed in more detail in section 2.2.2.
The contents of the table clearly show the inclusion of all 105 wards across all seven
regions.
TABLE 2.1
SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION OF CITY OF TSHWANE REGIONS AND WARDS
Region Number of wards Wards Sample size
1 28 2; 4; 9; 11; 12; 19; 20; 21; 22; 24; 25; 26; 27; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 39; 88; 89; 90; 94; 98
915
2 12 5; 8; 13; 14; 49; 50; 73; 74; 75; 76; 95; 96 384
3 23 1; 3; 7; 42; 51; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56; 58; 59; 60; 62; 63; 68; 71; 72; 80; 81; 82; 84; 92
662
4 11 48; 57; 61; 64; 65; 66; 69; 70; 77; 78; 79 428
5 3 87; 99; 100 103
6 24 6; 10; 15; 16; 17; 18; 23; 28; 38; 40; 41; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 67; 97; 83; 85; 86; 91; 93; 101
684
7 4 102; 103; 104; 105 124
Total 105 3 300
2.2.2 Household sample plan design The sample plan design for the household survey is explained below in terms of the
sampling methodology, sample size and sample selection procedure.
2.2.2.1 Sampling methodology and sample size In an attempt to facilitate the analysis on a regional level, a sample plan was designed
to meet this endeavour. This required a multistage sampling approach by firstly listing
the size of the population according to the seven CoT regions. To guide this process,
the regional population distribution for the City of Tshwane as contained in the 2011
Census for South Africa was used to benchmark the sampling distribution by region
9
and ward. Table 2.2 displays the population distribution (N) for the City of Tshwane
according the 2011 census (2.9 million people) and the initial sample distribution for
the 2013 study.
TABLE 2.2
POPULATION AND SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION OF CITY TSHWANE REGIONS, 2013
Region Census (2011) Total sample (2013)
N % n % 1 811 575 27.8 915 27.7 2 339 182 11.6 384 11.6 3 585 158 20.0 662 20.1 4 379 347 13.0 428 13.0 5 90 900 3.1 103 3.1 6 605 556 20.7 684 20.7 7 109 766 3.8 124 3.8 Total 2 921 484 100.0 3 300 100.0
The 2011 census figures as displayed in table 2.2 allowed for a representative sample
approach whereby the sample sizes (n) were allotted to each region in proportion to
population numbers (N). Once the regional sample sizes were proportionately
distributed to the total sample of 3 300, the population ward information based on the
2011 census, was used to further distribute the sample among the wards within each
region.
Within each region the following variables were also taken into account when
allocating the final sample sizes to the four identified dwelling types (formal township,
informal settlement, suburb and inner city):
(a) Dwelling typology to distinguish between formal and informal dwellings.
(b) Landline telephone ownership to facilitate the application of both telephone and
face-to-face interviews. Telephone interviews were conducted in suburbs and
10
the inner city, and face-to-face interviews in township areas and informal
settlements.
(c) Sample representivity, implying that a minimum of 30 questionnaires were
completed in each ward per region to support statistical analyses.
2.2.2.2 Sample selection procedure
It is also important to note that the sampling plan was designed to support both
telephone (45.1%) and personal face-to-face (54.9%) interviews. For the telephonic
interviews, the Pretoria telephone directory was used as sampling frame to
judgementally select households primarily residing in suburban and inner city areas.
The sample selection procedure for the telephone interviews was designed as follows:
(a) Survey areas
Firstly, the survey area (suburb) was identified (see table 2.1) in the telephone
directory. Once the survey area had been selected, the sample unit (household)
and sample element (respondent) was chosen. This selection procedure is
outlined below.
(b) Sample unit selection
Any household (sample unit) listed in the Pretoria telephone directory qualified
for inclusion in the sample. As mentioned, the selection of the survey area as
main sample selection criterion allowed for a representative inclusion of sample
units across the Tshwane area.
(c) Sample element (respondent) selection
The heads of households qualified as the sample elements or respondents for the
survey. Heads of households that were not available/willing for interviewing
could be substituted with his/her spouse.
11
(d) Time of interviewing
The interviews among households were concluded during the months of April
and May 2013. The interviewer schedule also secured an equal spread of
interviews conducted during the day, evenings and weekends.
Whereas telephone interviews were concluded with households residing in surburbs
and the inner city of Tshwane, personal face-to-face interviews were primarily
concluded with households residing in formal township areas and informal
settlements. More specifically, the following selection rules governed the personal
face-to-face interviews:
• Formal dwellings were selected according to street names and numbers. Any
house in a street with a house number divisible by 10 (eg 20, 170 or 220) was
selected. Only one house per street was eligible for selection. For flats, cluster
homes, semi-detached homes or duets, any flat, home or duet number divisible
by 10 was eligible for selection.
• For informal dwellings the selection of households was according to stand
number. Any stand number divisible by 10 was selected. For informal
dwellings without stand numbers, the painted census numbers were used. If
there were no numbers, fieldworkers could select any house in the settlement
– followed by every 10th household. The address, as stipulated on the
questionnaire, had to be such that a return visit to the informal dwelling could
be made for control purposes. No more than one respondent per household
was interviewed.
• Furthermore, if there were more than one but fewer than 10 dwellings on a
stand, the ‘A’ unit was selected.
• Substitution. Should the selected household be unavailable (at least twice) or
unwilling to participate, a cluster sample approach was followed. This
procedure allows for the selection of a ‘next door neighbour’ household. The
household located to the right or directly opposite the unavailable/unwilling
12
household was selected. Only one household per cluster and street was
allowed.
2.2.3 Data collection methodology As mentioned, households residing in suburbs and the inner city were primarily
interviewed telephonically. Security measures applied by residents in these areas
often make personal face-to-face interviews difficult to conduct. In turn, the survey of
households residing in formal township areas and informal settlements was primarily
conducted through personal in-home face-to-face interviews. This data collection
method was preferred to prevent the potential of duplicating sample unit selection by
area (suburb, inner city, formal township and informal settlements) and due to the fact
that inhabitants of informal settlement areas in particular often do not have access to
in-home landlines. Ultimately, the latter sample cluster group would not have been
eligible for inclusion should the telephone interview method, using the local telephone
directory as sampling frame, have been solely applied.
2.2.4 Research instrument
In close consultation with the Customer Relations Management Division of the CoT
(who was delegated to oversee the 2013 customer satisfaction survey as an integral
part of the City of Tshwane/Unisa MOA), the BMR used previous customer satisfaction
survey instruments used in past CoT studies (2009, 2011 and 2012) to compile the
2013 survey instrument. Past survey instruments and the newly designed Service
Delivery Charter of the CoT were used as primary inputs to finally construct the 2013
survey instruments. The contents of the survey instruments for households,
businesses and embassies were discussed at various collaborative meetings with the
CoT prior to finally being approved by the CoT. Units within the CoT that participated
in this consultative process are listed at the beginning of this report.
13
The 2013 survey instrument largely resembled the 2009 and 2011 questionnaires to
facilitate the construction of longitudinal trends. However, changes worth noting
include the removal of the rating question on ‘municipal tariffs and rates’ and the
entire section on ‘customer care services’. The latter section differed somewhat from
previous studies and was newly constructed to reflect on the perceptions of
stakeholders regarding service norms and standards as contained in the newly
designed CoT Service Delivery Charter. Also, the sections on ‘government principles’
and ‘democratic accountability’ were removed and replaced by ‘service delivery
accountability’. Also, the question on ‘democratic accountability’ that was included in
the 2011 instrument due to the approaching local government elections in 2011, was
removed from the 2013 instrument.
Overall, the 2013 questionnaires were closely aligned to the aims of the survey (as set
out in the CoT/Unisa MOA and the more confined BMR research proposal), namely to
measure customer satisfaction levels regarding broad service issues without going into
detail with regard to each function/department within the CoT. The following main
issues were addressed in the 2013 questionnaires:
(a) General perceptions of service delivery of the CoT and its ability to provide
people with a good quality of life as well as changes in service performance
delivery during the past 12 months.
(b) Identification of major challenges and priorities to be attended to during the next
12 months.
(c) Assessment of core household service delivery such as electricity, refuse
collection/waste removal, neighbourhood roads, sanitation/waste water/
sewerage, stormwater drainage/flooding, water provision and street/public
lights.
(d) Assessment of ownership of and satisfaction with pre-paid electricity and water
meters as well as satisfaction with the installation of pre-paid meters and
availability of vending points.
14
(e) Assessment of satisfaction with 28 municipal community service delivery items
such as community halls/recreation centres, fire and rescue services/fire brigade,
emergency medical and ambulance services, municipal bus service, municipal
cemeteries, municipal crematoriums, municipal clinics, municipal museums (eg
Pretoria Art Museum), parks, pavements/pedestrian walkways, public libraries,
public sports facilities, municipal public toilets, dumping (landfill) sites, municipal
taxi ranks, informal trading facilities, public swimming pools, municipal nature
reserves/resorts, licensing: learner’s driver’s licence and driver’s licence,
(applications/renewals), waste removal, emergency/disaster management, street
sweeping and litter control, traffic lights/signals, grass cutting, road maintenance
(repairs, signage, markings, speed bumps), street trees and government/social
housing (low cost housing). The utilisation levels of each of these 28 service
types were also measured.
(f) Assessment of by-law enforcement and public safety services.
(g) Assessment of billing and payment issues.
(h) Assessment of Customer Care services.
(i) Assessment of service delivery accountability.
(j) Assessment of involvement in metro consultative and participatory processes.
(k) Assessment of communication preferences.
(l) Perceived levels of corruption in the CoT.
2.2.5 Fieldwork
The fieldwork was conducted by several well-trained fieldworker teams. The majority
of personal face-to-face interviewers owed their selection to the fact that they lived in
the survey areas and/or to their experience and continuous involvement in fieldwork.
Strict interviewer control was exercised and 20% checkbacks were conducted. To
support fieldworkers in their task, they were all provided with a detailed training
manual highlighting, inter alia, the following:
• aim and background of the study
15
• guidelines on conducting the interview
• sampling procedure
• sample size
• coding manual for open-ended responses
Completed questionnaires returned by fieldworkers were checked by field managers
appointed for the study. Questionnaires not complying with sample requirements
were either returned by the field managers to the fieldworkers for correction or,
where possible, were followed up telephonically. Once the questionnaires had been
completed satisfactorily they were handed to the BMR for central editing. This process
entailed a thorough scrutiny of the questionnaires by the BMR to determine whether
the data recorded were reliable. This was followed by data coding, capturing, cleaning
and storing.
2.2.6 Number of questionnaires returned
Table 2.3 shows the number of questionnaires returned by region in 2013. A total of
3 329 questionnaires were returned, which are virtually the same number as the
intended sample of 3 300 as outlined in table 2.3.
TABLE 2.3
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED BY REGION, 2013
Region Initial sample Realised sample
Total % Total % 1 915 27.7 916 27.5 2 384 11.6 386 11.6 3 662 20.1 670 20.1 4 428 13.0 433 13.0 5 103 3.1 102 3.1 6 684 20.7 696 20.9 7 124 3.8 126 3.8 TOTAL 3 300 100.0 3 329 100.0
16
It is clear from table 2.3 that the intended and realised sample sizes per region are very
similar and matched the propotional distribution of the 2013 survey.
2.2.7 Coding, data capturing and tabulation
The BMR handled the data coding, capturing and verification process. All information
captured was in the form of a dataset that was cleaned prior to and during the data
tabulation process. The data were captured and analysed in SPSS format.
2.2.8 Validity of results
Any sample survey is subject to error, and as such, yields useful estimates but no
precise values. The most common errors, namely sampling errors, interviewer errors,
and reporting errors are discussed below.
2.2.8.1 Sampling errors
Sampling errors occur when the sample selected is not perfectly representative of the
population. To avoid or minimise administrative sampling errors that relate to
problems in the administration or execution of the sample, Stats SA data were used to
avoid any possible underrepresentation of the population by region and type of area.
The care with which the sample was designed and executed largely ruled out
administrative sampling errors.
2.2.8.2 Interviewer errors
Three types of errors can occur as a result of an interviewer’s behaviour, namely errors
when asking questions, errors when recording answers and errors due to cheating.
The level of experience of fieldworkers largely eliminated the first two types of errors.
During checkbacks no cheating was detected.
17
2.2.8.3 Reporting errors Reporting errors usually stem from memory errors, misunderstanding of questions or
reluctance to answer them. The need to minimise reporting errors in the survey was
borne in mind when constructing the questionnaire and with the selection and training
of interviewers. The questionnaire was also successfully applied in the previous two
CoT surveys.
2.3 BUSINESS SURVEY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The level of satisfaction regarding CoT service provision from a business perspective
was also included in the study. This section highlights the survey population, survey
methodology, sampling and number of questionnaires completed with regard to the
business survey. Other methodological aspects of the business survey such as the
development of the research instrument, organisation of the fieldwork, coding and
data capturing are similar to the household survey and will not be repeated.
Furthermore, with the nonprobability sampling method approach used in the case of
the business survey, it was not possible to compute sample errors for the business
survey results.
2.3.1 Sample plan design 2.3.1.1 Business sample population The business sample population is described below in terms of sample units, elements
and survey area.
18
2.3.1.1.1 Sample units
The sample population for the business survey comprised all businesses operating in
the jurisdiction of the CoT. The following two subbusiness populations were included:
(a) Formal businesses
(b) Businesses (mainly informal) established in townships and informal settlements.
(Informal businesses are defined as businesses not registered for VAT purposes.)
For the purpose of the study informal businesses were defined to include categories of
the following:
(i) Small township businesses located in a brick and mortar structure often located
in demarcated business areas/stands. (All businesses located in newly-
constructed shopping malls were excluded from this category).
(ii) Businesses such as spaza/tuck shops operating from a residential home/stand.
(iii) Hawkers/street vendors often concentrated at transport intersections, central
business areas or next to main transport arteries.
For purposes of this survey only informal businesses falling within category (a) above
should be interviewed. This implies that informal businesses located on residential
premises or in residential homes as well as street vendors/hawkers are excluded from
the survey.
As most informal businesses operate in the retail industry more informal businesses
were anticipated to be included in the final sample. However, attempts were made to
sample informal businesses operating especially in the manufacturing, construction,
19
business service and transport and communication industries. Exhibit 2.1 provides an
overview of the type of informal businesses included in the sample by sector.
EXHIBIT 2.1
INFORMAL BUSINESSES BY SECTOR TYPE ______________________________________________________________Retail:
• Food and vegetables • Cool drinks, cigarettes and sweets • Clothing • Retail trade in second-hand goods in stores • Sale of motor vehicles • Sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories • Alcoholic beverages (shebeens/taverns)
Manufacturing:
• Food (cooked prepared food) • Bricks • Clothing, textiles and leather goods • Furniture • Brushes and brooms • Manufacture of games and toys • Number plates, signs • Engraving • Jewellery
Construction:
• Construction of buildings (construction of buildings such as houses, flats, farm buildings and industrial and commercial buildings)
• Plumbing, electrical contracting and shopfitting (assembly and/or installation of equipment, such as counters, shelves, cupboards and shop fronts, on the premises of the client in buildings)
• Plumbing (laying of sewerage pipes, the installation of water pipes, wash basins, baths, water heating systems, solar heating systems, sprinkler systems and gutters and sheet metal work in all structures)
• Electrical contracting (installation of electrical wiring and lighting in buildings) installation of alarm systems
• Building completion (glazing, painting and decorating, floor and wall tiling or covering with other materials such as parquet, carpets, wallpaper, etc; floor sanding, finish carpentry, acoustical work, cleaning of the exterior, etc.)
20
Transport and Communication
• Travel agency and related activities • Telecommunications
Business Services:
• Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles • Repair of personal and household goods • Bed and Breakfast and Guest House Accommodation • Real estate activities • Legal, accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities • Computer and related activities • Photographic activities • Money lending (micro lender) • Crèche, motor vehicle driving schools/tutors and music, dancing and other art
schools • Car wash • Hairdressing and other beauty treatment • Funeral and related activities • Washing and (dry-) cleaning of textiles and fur products • Investigation and security activities
Personal Services:
• Hair salons • Phone shops
__________________________________________________________
Only businesses where the owner/manager could express an informed opinion on CoT
service delivery were included in the survey. Survivalist businesses such as, for
example, hawkers utilising municipal services to a limited extent were therefore
excluded from the sample population. The lack of business registers containing
businesses by size class (employment or turnover) and economic sector largely ruled
out the possibility of selecting businesses by size class or sector.
21
2.3.1.1.2 Sample elements Interviews were conducted with the manager or owner of smaller businesses and
where possible, with the owner or a senior manager of larger corporations.
2.3.1.1.3 Survey areas All businesses established in the area of jurisdiction of the CoT were eligible for
inclusion in the sample. The bold entries in the Pretoria telephone directory
constituted the sample population for telephone interviews with formal businesses.
Although the businesses included in the sample operated across all seven regions of
the CoT, a representative sample per region was not considered, as with the
household survey.
The Pretoria telephone directory excludes the listing of informal businesses.
Consequently, township areas and informal settlements were used as demarcated
areas for sampling informal businesses. Table 2.4 shows the selected regions/areas for
interviews with informal business owners/managers.
TABLE 2.4
REGIONS/AREAS SELECTED FOR INTERVIEWING OF INFORMAL BUSINESSES Region Areas Sample size
1 Winterveld, Mabopane, Soshanguve and Garankuwa 50 2 Hammanskraal, Temba (Dilopye), Suurman, Ramotse, Babelegi 50 3 Attridgeville and Saulsville 50 5 Refilwe 15 6 Mamelodi 50 7 Ekandustria, Zithobeni, Rethabiseng, Ekangala 35
Total 250
22
2.3.1.2 Sampling methodology
For the formal business survey, a systematic random sample was drawn mainly from
the business entries contained in the Pretoria telephone directory. However, this
database only contained contact names and telephone numbers, which largely ruled
out sample selection by sector, region and size. Comparisons according to these strata
should therefore be exercised with caution.
Due to the lack of a comprehensive list of informal businesses operating in the CoT, a
judgemental sampling procedure was used to sample informal businesses according to
the regions outlined in table 2.4.
2.3.1.3 Sample size
Table 2.5 reflects the distribution of the initial and realised sample of businesses. A
total of 582 formal and 265 informal businesses were included in the 2013 realised
sample.
TABLE 2.5
SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY FORMAL AND INFORMAL BUSINESSES
Type of business Initial sample Realised sample
n % n % Large/medium formal business 185 23.9 174 20.5 Small formal business 334 43.1 408 48.2 Informal business 256 33.0 265 31.3 Total 775 100.0 847 100.0
2.3.1.4 Business survey data collection methodology
Whereas the owners/managers of formal businesses were interviewed telephonically,
interviews with informal business were conducted face-to-face. Interviews were
conducted in April and May 2013 during business hours and over weekends.
23
2.4 EMBASSY SURVEY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section highlights the survey and sampling designs and data collection
methodology with regard to the embassy survey. Other methodological aspects of the
embassy survey such as the development of the research instrument, organisation of
the fieldwork, coding and data capturing are similar to the discussions presented as
part of the household/business surveys and will not be replicated.
2.4.1 Research design for embassy survey
The household survey questionnaire was used to interview a random sample of 20
embassies in the CoT.
2.4.2 Sampling plan for embassy survey
As mentioned, a total of 20 embassies were sampled for survey purposes. In this
regard the Pretoria Telephone Directory was used as sample frame.
2.4.3 Data collection method for embassy survey All sampled embassies were interviewed telephonically.
2.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter provided an overview of the research methodology for the 2013 Customer
Satisfaction Survey conducted among 3 329 households, 847 businesses and 20
embassies. The outcomes of the research findings are presented as follows in each of
the consecutive chapters:
• Chapter 3: Household satisfaction survey findings
• Chapter 4: Business satisfaction survey findings
• Chapter 5: Embassy survey findings
• Chapter 6: Summary and recommendations
24
Prior to a discussion of the outcomes of the various survey results, it is important to
note that the report provides a longitudinal analysis for 2009, 2011 and 2013, a major
benefit associated with regular satisfaction surveys. Trend data facilitate the
development of a service performance model for the CoT aimed at guiding strategic
planning in terms of either:
• maintaining the service performance levels of those departments/units that
reflect high levels of satisfaction with service quality
• improving on the service delivery of under-performing departments/units.
A prerequisite for constructing trend data is the standardisation of the research model
over time. Of particular importance in this regard are the following:
• The same satisfaction variables should be measured in repetitive surveys.
• The same rating scale should be applied in repetitive surveys. The latter should
preferably be a 10-point numerical scale that is sensitive enough to detect even
small changes in service delivery performance.
• The same sampling plan design should be maintained to ensure that variations in
service satisfaction ratings originate from actual changes in service delivery
performance and not from research methodological adjustments.
After taking these criteria into account, a critical comparison of the 2009, 2011 and
2013 CoT satisfaction surveys with the 2006 and 2007 CoT surveys was conducted.
Unfortunately, the outcome of this investigation largely proved that the 2009, 2011
and 2013 and previous studies are wholly incompatible for constructing longitudinal
trend analysis. The quantitative incompatibility between the research instruments with
regard to electricity can be used to illustrate the problems with regard to constructing
longitudinal trends:
25
(a) The 2009 and 2011 research instrument measures the following satisfaction
levels on a 10-point numerical scale: electricity provision, prepaid meters with
regard to installation/vending points/prepaid meters, control of illegal electricity
connections, billing (including electricity) with regard to the
clarity/correctness/regularity of CoT accounts, methods of payment, staff
attitudes at payment points and Customer Care (including electricity enquiries).
In all the above cases, reasons for any dissatisfaction were requested.
(b) The 2007 research instrument measured the following on a 3-point (often,
sometimes, never) or 5-point (ranging from very poor to excellent) verbal scale:
response of municipality to electricity problems, frequency of experiencing
electricity problems, frequency of experiencing meter readings, frequency of
experiencing problems with electricity account. None of these relate directly to
the measurement of service satisfaction.
The above clearly shows that different variables with regard to electricity provision as
well as different rating scales were used by the 2009, 2011 and 2013 studies compared
to previous studies. Furthermore, the two sets of surveys (2006/07 and 2009/11) also
show notable differentiation in sample sizes, namely 3 000+ households and 750+
businesses in the 2009, 2011 and 2013 surveys against 800 households and 400
businesses in the 2006 and 2007 surveys. This implies that the 2009, 2011 and 2013
models featured an additional advantage of securing regional analysis that was
overlooked in previous CoT customer satisfaction surveys. Clearly the 2009, 2011 and
2013 studies present much richer information in support of aggregate and regional
analysis.
26
Against this background the following recommendations with regard to the research
methodology for future studies are submitted:
(a) Consistency in the sampling methodology approach to ensure proportionate
representation by region and subregion. This will not only allow validation of
survey outcomes with official census data but could also support operational
planning by the CoT in terms of identifying service delivery priorities.
(b) Consistency in maintaining the core research variables used to measure
satisfaction levels. These core measures include:
• core services
• community/business services
• public safety and by-law enforcement services
• billing, payment and Customer Care
• communication and interaction
• city developments
(c) Similarity in measurement scales used to capture satisfaction ratings. As
indicated, the 2009, 2011 and 2013 studies used a 10-point measurement scale
that allows for more variability that supports longitudinal analysis.
The limitation highlighted above, however, did not preclude a qualitative comparison
by, for example, identifying all the services that require improvement by the CoT (eg
improving conditions of roads, create awareness of the CoT Website, etc). The final
chapter presents a more confined focus in this regard.
27
CHAPTER 3
FINDINGS OF THE HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION SURVEY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings of the 2013 survey among 3 329 households
residing in the CoT. The 2009 and 2011 ratings are also presented to facilitate a
longitudinal comparison between the two years. The information is presented by
region. The satisfaction ratings are expressed as mean (satisfaction) scores based on
the ratings provided by respondents for a particular service such as, for example,
electricity or water provision. The mean scores are based on the satisfaction ratings
of respondents on a 10-point scale ranging from 1 (reflecting poor services) to 10
(reflecting excellent services). A mean score of 6.5 for electricity, for example,
reflects a satisfaction score of 6.5 points out of a possible 10 points.
To assist with interpreting and benchmarking the mean satisfaction scores allocated
to the various CoT services, the following classification is applied in the report:
Mean satisfaction rating Status of service level
0.0 – 2.0 Very poor
2.1 – 4.0 Poor
4.1 – 6.0 Adequate
6.1 – 8.0 Good
8.1 – 10.0 Very good
3.2 TYPOLOGY OF THE HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE
To guide the interpretation and to contextualise of the 2013 survey findings, figures
3.1 and 3.2 firstly present an overview of the settlement types as well as the number
of years that respondents have resided in the CoT.
28
Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of households that participated in the 2013 survey
by type of area. The analysis allows a closer scrutiny of the distribution of formal
houses by suburb and township area. Just less than half the respondents (46.0%)
were sampled in formal township areas. A further 45.6% were sampled in suburbs
and 8.4% in informal settlements and villages.
FIGURE 3.1
DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY TYPE OF AREA, 2013
Figure 3.2 shows the length of time that respondents have resided in the CoT area.
Almost seven in every 10 households (69.8%) have lived in the CoT area for more
than 10 years. This outcome is very positive for evaluating municipal services
generally and for making comparisons over time. Only 1.7% of the respondents had
lived in the area for less than a year.
8.4
45.6
46.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Informal settlement/village
Suburb
Formal township
Percentage
29
FIGURE 3.2
LENGTH OF TIME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE LIVED IN THE CoT, 2013
3.3 GENERAL PERCEPTION OF THE CoT 3.3.1 Level of satisfaction with regard to current service delivery
The first evaluative question in the questionnaire enquired about the level of
satisfaction of households with regard to the service delivery performance of the CoT
over the past 12 months. Respondents were requested to rate the service level on a
5-point Likert scale ranging from very poor to very good.
Table 3.1 shows the 2013 satisfaction levels by region. For analysis purposes, the
variables ‘poor’ and ‘very poor’ as well as ‘good’ and ‘very good’ are combined. Also,
to allow for longitudinal analysis, the 2013 satisfaction levels are also compared to
2009 and 2011. No regional analysis over time is presented due to ward demarcation
changes.
39.1
30.8
17.2
7.3
4.1
1.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
20+ years
10 years – 20 years
5 years – 10 years
3 years – 5 years
1 year – 3 years
6-12 months
Percentage
30
TABLE 3.1
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CURRENT SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE, 2009 – 2013
Regions Very poor and poor
Neither good nor
poor
Good and very good
Total
% % % % 1 30.9 27.8 41.3 100.0
2 36.3 29.0 34.7 100.0 3 16.3 41.6 42.1 100.0 4 10.6 45.3 44.1 100.0 5 15.7 51.0 33.3 100.0 6 18.1 35.2 46.7 100.0 7 14.3 49.2 36.5 100.0 Total 2013 22.2 36.1 41.8 100.0 Total 2011 21.4 35.8 37.1 100.0
Total 2009 27.0 34.3 44.3 100.0
Table 3.1 reflects that 48.1 %of respondents are satisfied and 22.2% dissatisfied with
the service delivery performance of the CoT in 2013. However, significant variations
are evident across the different regions in the CoT. Inhabitants of regions 1 and
2were least satisfied with service delivery in 2013. Only 10.6% of region 4 rated
service delivery as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ during the 12 months preceding the survey.
In contrast, respondents in region 6 (46.7%) and region 4 (44.1%) showed the highest
levels of satisfaction. A comparison of 2011 with 2013 shows anincrease in
satisfaction levels (37.1% to 41.8%).
Figure 3.3 shows the ‘good’ and ‘very good’ responses for 2013 by region.Satisfaction
for 2013 ranged from 33.3% in region5 to 46.7% in region 6.
31
FIGURE 3.3
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO REPORTED SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE BY REGION, 2013
3.3.2 Change in service performance levels
Respondents were requested to indicate the change, if any, in the service
performance levels of the CoT during the 12 months preceding the survey.
Responses were recorded on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘deteriorated significantly’
to ‘improved significantly’.
Table 3.2 shows the responses where ‘deteriorated significantly’ and ‘deteriorated’ as
well as ‘improved’ and ‘improved significantly’ are combined. Generally, CoT
households recorded a stable to improved municipal service level during the
preceding 12 months. Just more than one third (36.7%) indicated an improvement or
significant improvement in service delivery during the preceding 12 months, while
53.0% reported no change and only 10.2% reported a deterioration of service
performance levels. Compared to 2011 (17.9%), a far lower proportion of
respondents (10.2%) experienced a drop in satisfaction in 2013. The proportion of
satisfied residents also increased from 33.0% in 2011 to 36.7% in 2013.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 41.3 34.7 42.1 44.1 33.3 46.7 36.5 41.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
32
TABLE 3.2
CHANGE IN SERVICE PERFORMANCE LEVELS DURING THE PRECEDING 12 MONTHS, 2009 – 2013
Regions
Deteriorated significantly and
deteriorated
Remained the same
Improved and improved
significantly Total
% % % % 1 13.3 54.0 32.6 100
2 14.5 55.7 29.8 100
3 10.0 50.9 39.1 100
4 6.2 55.2 38.6 100
5 5.9 51.0 43.1 100
6 6.8 53.0 40.2 100
7 12.7 42.9 44.4 100
Total 2013 10.2 53.0 36.7 100
Total 2011 17.9 49.1 33.0 100
Total 2009 13.7 48.7 37.6 100
Figure 3.4 shows the ‘improved’ and ‘improved significantly’ responses by region for
2013. Regions 5 (43.1%), 6 (40.2%) and 7 (44.4%) experienced the highest
improvement in satisfaction in 2013. Less than a third of respondents in regions 1
(32.6%) and 2 (29.8%) experienced an improvement in service performance levels of
the CoT over the preceding 12 months.
33
FIGURE 3.4
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO REPORTED AN IMPROVEMENT IN SERVICE PERFORMANCE LEVELS, 2013
3.3.3 Confidence in the CoT as a city
Respondents were requested to rate their confidence in the ability of the CoT to
provide its residents with a good quality of life. Their level of confidence in this
regard was recorded on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘not at all confident’ to ‘very
confident’. The 2013 confidence ratings are displayed in table 3.3.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 32.6 29.8 39.1 38.6 43.1 40.2 44.4 36.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
34
TABLE 3.3
CONFIDENCE IN THE ABILITY OF THE CoT TO PROVIDE A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE, 2009 – 2013
Regions
Nota at confident and
not very confident
Not sure Fairly and
very confident Total
% % % %
1 26.7 28.4 44.9 100.0 2 29.8 33.7 36.5 100.0 3 16.9 37.2 46.0 100.0
4 8.1 52.4 39.5 100.0 5 10.8 46.1 43.1 100.0 6 12.9 36.4 50.7 100.0
7 15.9 40.5 43.7 100.0 Total 2013 18.9 36.6 44.5 100.0 Total 2011 24.6 31.3 44.2 100.0
Total 2009 17.4 29.4 53.2 100.0
Table 3.3 shows that less than half the respondents (44.5%) reported being fairly or
very confident regarding the quality of life provided by CoT. Just more than a third
(36.6%) were not sure and 18.9% of households perceived the city as unable to
provide a good quality of life. The 2013 responses showed a higher level of
uncertainty in the ability of the CoT to provide a good quality of life (36.6%)
compared to 2011. In fact, it appears that this uncertainty has increased since 2009.
Respondents reporting fair and high confidence in the CoT’sability to provide a good
quality of lifeis schematically shown in figure 3.5.For the City as a whole it stood at
44.5%, ranging from 36.5% in region2 to 50.7% in region 6.
35
FIGURE 3.5
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS EXPRESSING CONFIDENCE IN THE CoT TO PROVIDE A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE, 2013
3.4 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES OF THE CoT
Households were requested to rate the importance of a list of 25future challenges
that need to be addressed during the next 12 months. Each of the identified
challenges was rated on a 5-point scale where 1 is ‘least important’ and 5 ‘most
important’. Respondents could also select a ‘don’t know’ option if they had no
opinion on a specific challenge.
Table 3.4 shows the mean score and ranking for each of the priorities by region for
2013.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2009 44.9 36.5 46.0 39.5 43.1 50.7 43.7 44.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Perc
enta
ge
36
TABLE 3.4
FUTURE CHALLENGES BY REGION, 2013
Challenges Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
Access to core services (eg water/electricity/waste collection) 4.10 4.52 4.23 4.50 4.53 4.34 4.16 4.29
Cholera 2.57 3.22 3.54 4.14 4.26 3.52 3.21 3.34
Climate change 3.01 3.54 3.80 4.21 4.39 3.81 3.25 3.61
Small business/co-operative development (smallbusiness start-ups) 3.85 4.13 4.09 4.41 4.36 4.13 4.27 4.09
Corruption 4.34 4.25 4.37 4.50 4.47 4.28 4.29 4.34
Crime 4.35 4.34 4.37 4.43 4.50 4.26 4.42 4.35
Education 4.14 4.34 4.24 4.53 4.40 4.24 3.84 4.25
Environmental protection (eg littering/noise/water/air pollution) 3.63 3.99 4.05 4.33 4.53 4.07 3.87 3.98
Health care (eg clinics/hospitals) 4.16 4.21 4.22 4.51 4.56 4.35 3.97 4.27
HIV/Aids 3.95 4.09 4.26 4.43 4.49 4.27 3.79 4.17
Housing 4.10 4.31 4.16 4.44 4.61 4.30 4.35 4.25
Illegal immigrants 3.88 4.07 4.22 4.34 4.42 4.22 3.88 4.12
Inclusiveness: Accessibility of City for disabled people 3.89 3.97 4.12 4.40 4.54 4.19 3.89 4.09
Indigent households 3.82 3.99 4.07 4.23 4.61 4.08 4.43 4.04
Job creation 4.45 4.26 4.30 4.45 4.62 4.38 4.66 4.40
Migration (movement of people from rural areas & outside SA to CoT) 3.30 3.55 4.04 4.17 4.46 3.92 3.55 3.77
Poverty 4.37 4.34 4.28 4.47 4.54 4.47 4.67 4.40
Public transport 3.72 4.03 4.07 4.36 4.46 4.06 3.93 4.01
Safety and security 4.20 4.22 4.27 4.41 4.51 4.23 4.36 4.26
Skills development 4.31 4.33 4.31 4.46 4.51 4.34 4.55 4.35
Social services (eg social workers, counsellors) 3.84 4.05 4.15 4.42 4.49 4.08 4.18 4.08
Tourism 3.22 3.72 3.88 4.15 4.47 3.90 3.47 3.74
Tuberculosis 3.53 3.93 4.02 4.34 4.42 3.98 3.25 3.90
Unemployment 4.77 4.64 4.48 4.56 4.61 4.60 4.83 4.63
Urbanisation 3.49 3.76 3.99 4.25 4.43 3.88 3.77 3.84
37
Table 3.5 also shows the 2013 rankings of the first five challenges in each of the
regions. It is noted from table 3.5 that unemployment, poverty, job creation, skills
development and crime feature as top five priorities in the CoT as a whole.
Unemployment features as top priority among six of the seven regions whereas
poverty is regarded as second priority in regions 6 and 7. Also, job creation recorded
at least the third priority among all regions (except regions2, 3 and 4). The above
analysis confirms that inhabitants of the CoT regarded ‘unemployment’ as the most
pressing challenge in the CoT. This finding closely aligns with the 2009 and 2011
surveys when unemployment was also cited as the most pressing challenge.
TABLE 3.5
TOP FIVE CHALLENGES IN EACH REGION BY RANKING (1 TO 5), 2013
Challenges Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
Unemployment 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1
Poverty 3 4 2 2 2
Job creation 2 5 1 3 3 3
Skills development 4 4 4
Crime 4 5 2 5
Corruption 5 3 4 Access to core services (eg water/electricity/waste collection)
2 5 5
Health care (eg clinics/hospitals) 3 5 4
Education 3 2
Housing 2
Indigent households 4 5
Figure 3.6depicts the 25 listed priorities for the CoT as a whole.The figure displays the
2013 survey findings alongside the outcomes of the 2009 and 2011 studies, where
possible.When conducting comparative analysis over time, it is important to note
that unemployment, job creation and skills development were treated as a single
challenge in the 2009 and 2011 studies. In turn, these items were split in the 2013
study. Other challenges not measured in previous studies (2009 and 2011) include
38
accessibility of the CoT for disabled people, indigent households and climate change.
The challenges with the highest mean score (out of five) are:
Mean score
• Unemployment 4.63
• Poverty 4.40
• Job creation 4.40
• Skills development 4.35
• Crime 4.35
It is important to note that the scores of the first five challenges are extremely high,
ranging from 4.35 to 4.63(out of 5), implying that respondents feel that these
challenges should be addressed urgently. Even the challenges ranked from six to 25
attained scores of 3.34 and above. Although the rating of the challenges by
respondents allows a ranking order, the reader is reminded that the differences in
scores appear to be almost insignificant, implying that the listed challenges are all
regarded by CoT inhabitants as being important.
39
FIGURE 3.6
RANKING OF CHALLENGESTO BE ADDRESSED BY THE CoT, 2009 – 2013
4.8
5.5
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.3
3.8
4.0
3.7
4.1
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
5.5
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.2
3.8
3.8
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.3
1 2 3 4 5 6
Unemployment
Poverty
Job creation
Skills development
Crime
Corruption
Access to core services
Health care
Safety and security
Education
Housing
HIV/AIDS
Illegal immigrants
Inclusiveness: Accessibility of city for disabled people
Small business/co-operative development
Social Services
Indigent households
Public transport
Environmental protection
Tuberculosis
Urbanisation
Migration
Tourism
Climate change
Cholera
Mean score
2013
2011
2009
40
3.5 CORE HOUSEHOLD SERVICES
Households were requested to indicate their levels of satisfaction with seven basic
household service types such as electricity, waste collection and water provision.
Respondents indicated their satisfaction levels on a 10-point scale where 1 reflects a
poor satisfaction rating and 10 reflects an excellent rating. They were also requested
to provide the major reason for a satisfaction rating of less than 6.00 (out of 10). This
section provides the outcome of the research by presenting the mean satisfaction
score for each of the seven basic household services included in the survey as well as
the reasons given for low satisfaction ratings.
3.5.1 Electricity
Figure 3.7 presents the level of satisfaction (mean scores) regarding the provision of
electricity by region. In 2013, the provision of electricity for the city as a whole
recorded a mean score of 7.30.This score is higher than the 6.99 for the 2009 and
2011 studies. The only regions with satisfaction scores below 7.0 are regions 5 and 7.
FIGURE 3.7
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE PROVISION OF ELECTRICITY BY REGION, 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.21 7.74 7.16 7.38 6.87 7.45 6.71 7.30
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
10.00
Mea
n sc
ores
41
The major reasons provided by 429 (12.9%)of the 3 329respondents for a satisfaction
rating of less than 6 in 2013are shown in figure 3.8. These include high tariffs (46.6%)
and Eskom load/power shedding (22.6%). This is followed by service interruptions
(12.1%) and broken electricity meters (5.6%).
FIGURE 3.8
REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH ELECTRICITY PROVISION (RATINGS BELOW 6), 2009 – 2013
The outcome of the dissatisfied responses can also be cross-tabulated by region to
identify the specific regions in which problems are experienced. This report
concentrates only on broad trends in the CoT and space does not allow for any
detailed secondary analysis of this nature.
3.5.1.1 Electricity meter readings
The 2013 questionnaire was constructed to determine whether electricity readings
are done on a regular basis. The outcome of this finding is presented in figure 3.9 by
region.Just more than a quarter ofthe households (28.5%) believed that electricity
Service interruptions
No electricityEskom
load/power shedding
Meter reading
incorrect
High tariffs/ expensive/
unaffordable
Incorrect bills
Electricity meters broken
Slow response to interruption
Other
2009 40.8 25.7 3.3 2.0 16.4 4.8 1.8 3.9 1.4
2011 30.6 6.3 2.4 8.2 47.6 2.4 0.5 1.0 1.0
2013 12.1 0.5 22.6 1.4 46.6 4.0 5.6 1.9 5.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
42
meter readings are done on a regular basis. Large variations are recorded by region,
ranging from below 20% in regions 1, 2 and 7 to above 30% in regions 3 (41.5%), 4
(37.2%) and 6 (30.7%).
FIGURE 3.9
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS (WITH ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY)
CONFIRMING REGULAR ELECTRICITY READINGS, 2013
3.5.1.2 Electricity service providers
Households with access to electricity were requested to indicate the service
providers (Eskom, City of Tshwane, other) supplying household electricity. A ‘don’t
know’ option was also allowed. The outcome of this finding is presented in table 3.6
by region. Almost seven in every 10 (75.2%) households reported the CoT as the
electricity supplier. One in every five households (19.9%) recorded Eskom and 3.9%
indicated ‘don’t know’. Large variations are evident across regions.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 19.4 17.2 41.5 37.2 26.5 30.7 19.3 28.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
43
TABLE 3.6
HOUSEHOLDS’ PERCEPTION OF THEIR ELECTRICITY SUPPLIER, 2009 – 2013
Regions
Service provider Total
Eskom City of Tshwane Other Don’t know
% % % % %
1 30.0 68.0 0.1 1.8 100.0
2 54.1 40.6 1.8 3.4 100.0
3 7.2 86.6 0.6 5.6 100.0
4 8.5 85.2 0.2 6.0 100.0
5 9.8 82.4 0.0 7.8 100.0
6 9.1 86.8 0.9 3.1 100.0
7 16.0 68.9 10.9 4.2 100.0
Total 2013 19.9 75.2 1.0 3.9 100.0
Total 2011 22.5 73.2 0.0 4.1 100.0
Total 2009 18.1 70.1 0.0 11.8 100.0
3.5.1.3 Prepaid electricity meters
Households with electricity were probed on their access to a prepaid electricity
metering system in their homes. Almost half the respondents(53.0%) with access to
electricity indicated that they have a prepaid electricity meter. This percentage
amounted to 48.5% and 51.8% in 2009 and 2011 respectively. By region, the
percentages for 2013vary around30.0% in regions 3, 4 and 5 to 84.4% in region1.
44
FIGURE 3.10
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS (WITH ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY) USING PREPAID ELECTRICITY METERS, 2013
Households with prepaid electricity meters were requested to rate their satisfaction
with the prepaid metering system regarding the following aspects: installation,
vending points and prepaid meters. Table 3.7 shows a very high satisfaction rating
for installation of 8.37, 8.33for vending points and 8.45 for prepaid meters. High
ratings were recorded across all the CoT regions and align closely with the findings of
2009 and 2011.
TABLE 3.7
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR PREPAID ELECTRICITY METER SYSTEM, 2013
Region Aspects
Installation Vending points Prepaid meters Mean rating Mean rating Mean rating
1 8.44 8.40 8.54 2 8.76 8.62 8.75 3 7.99 7.74 7.98 4 8.23 8.34 8.33 5 6.74 6.89 7.52 6 8.65 8.68 8.68 7 6.89 7.38 7.29 Total 2013 8.37 8.33 8.45 Total 2011 8.40 7.78 7.94 Total 2009 8.11 7.55 8.24
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 84.4 71.0 31.0 31.6 26.5 40.6 52.9 53.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
45
With regard to dissatisfaction (rating of below 6), the number of dissatisfied
households was as follows:
• Installation : 74 respondents (4.3% of those with prepaid meters)
• Vending points : 80 respondents (4.6% of those with prepaid meters)
• Prepaid meters : 62 respondents (3.6% of those with prepaid meters)
The major reasons for dissatisfaction were as follows:
• Faulty electricity meters (40.5%)
Installation
• Cards don’t work (24.3%)
• Unreliable readings (17.6%)
• Overload (meters trip in winter) (10.8%)
• Installation not negotiated (6.8%)
• Purchase points too far/off-line (41.3%)
Vending points
• Government subsidies too low (18.8%)
• Cards don’t work (12.5%)
• Faulty electricity meters (48.4%)
Prepaid meters
• Cards don’t work (21.1%)
• Government subsidies too low (14.5%)
• Unreliable readings (9.7%)
46
3.5.2 Waste collection
Figure 3.11depicts the 2013 levels of satisfaction forwaste collectionby region. The
satisfaction with waste collection across the CoT averaged at 7.65 (out of 10) in 2013,
which is higher than the 6.57 and 6.31 of 2009 and 2011 respectively. The mean
score by region ranged from 6.93 in region 2 to 8.08 in region 1.
FIGURE 3.11
SATISFACTION LEVELS FORWASTE COLLECTION BY REGION, 2013
The reasons reported by 216 or 6.5% of respondents who provided a satisfaction
rating score of less than 6.00 (out of 10) for waste collection in 2013are shown in
figure 3.12. These include waste never/seldom collected (45.8%),waste causing a
health hazard (15.7%) and illegal dumping (11.6%).
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 8.08 6.93 7.49 7.68 7.22 7.62 7.36 7.65
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
47
FIGURE 3.12
REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH WASTE COLLECTION, 2009 – 2013
3.5.3 Neighbourhood roads
Figure 3.13 shows a satisfaction mean score of 6.85 for neighbourhood roads in 2013,
representing an improvement from the 5.33 and 6.19 yielded in 2009 and 2011
respectively. By region, the score ranged from a low 5.99 in region 2 to a relatively
high score of 7.40 in region 3.
Health hazard/dirty/messy
Illegal dumpingNo bins
available/returnedRefuse never/seldom
collectedOther
2009 5.9 3.3 7.0 83.0 0.8
2011 6.7 0.7 5.4 61.9 7.4
2013 15.7 11.6 12.0 45.8 14.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
48
FIGURE 3.13
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD ROADS BY REGION,2013
No less than 456 or 13.7% of the respondents were dissatisfied with neighbourhood
streets (see figure 3.14). Untarred streets becoming dusty and muddy were
advanced by approximately half the dissatisfied respondents (48.5%). Poor
maintenance was advanced by 25.4% of the respondents.
FIGURE 3.14
REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD STREETS, 2009 – 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.47 5.99 7.40 7.22 6.83 6.77 6.71 6.85
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
Not tarred/dusty/
muddy
Poor maintenance
Faulty traffic signals
Lack of calming measures
No/limited traffic signals
Other
2009 62.2 21.8 1.6 11.9 0.5 2.0
2011 59.4 33.6 1.2 2.6 1.4 1.7
2013 48.5 25.4 3.9 10.5 7.7 3.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
49
3.5.4 Sanitation and wastewater
Figure 3.15shows a mean satisfaction of 7.59 for sanitation and waste water for 2013
– up from 6.80 and 7.13 in 2009 and 2011 respectively. Large variations are evident
by region – from a mean rating of 6.53 in region 2 to 7.60 in region 6.
FIGURE 3.15
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR SANITATION AND WASTE WATER BY REGION, 2013
The reasons for allocating a score of less than 6.00 by 220 or 6.6% of the 3 329
respondents in 2013 are shown in figure 3.16. A lack of proper sanitation or flush
toilets was mentioned by 49.5% of the households. Blockages/overflows of sewage
were mentioned by 22.7% of households.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.73 6.53 7.71 7.63 7.39 7.60 6.68 7.59
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
50
FIGURE 3.16
REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH SANITATION AND WASTE WATER, 2013
3.5.5 Stormwaterdrainage
Satisfaction with stormwater systems shows an overall mean rating of 7.52 in
2013,representing an increase from the 5.44 and 7.52 yielded in 2009 and 2011
respectively (figure 3.17). Small variations are evident across regions, ranging from a
mean rating of 7.01 in region 7 to 7.63 in region 1.
FIGURE 3.17
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR STORMWATER SYSTEMS BY REGION, 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.63 7.24 7.57 7.48 7.32 7.58 7.01 7.52
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
No proper sanitation/flush
toilets
Blockages/overflow of sewage
Pipe bursts/leakages
Shortage of toilets (share)
Waste water not collected
Other
2009 77.7 7.6 7.4 2.5 3.7 1.0
2011 72.7 10.1 6.8 6.2 0 4.2
2013 49.5 22.7 9.1 4.5 1.4 12.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
51
Dissatisfaction was reported by almost onein every 10 respondents (184 respondents
or 5.5%) in 2013. Figure 3.18 shows that approximately five in every 10of those
giving low scores mentioned blocked systems (47.8%) or no drainage system (26.1%)
as reasons for their dissatisfaction in 2013.
FIGURE 3.18
REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH STORMWATER SYSTEMS, 2009 – 2013
3.5.6 Water provision
Satisfaction with water provision recorded a mean rating of 7.56 in 2013 (figure
3.19).This rating also shows a slight increase on the 7.10 and 7.29 attained in 2009
and 2011 respectively. Only regions 2 and 7 with mean ratings of 6.88and 6.89
respectively scored below 7.0. The ratings of the other regions ranged from 7.11 in
region 5 to a mean score of 7.73 in region 1.
No drainage system/muddy
streets
Blocked systems/no
maintenance
Flooding of houses/area
Missing manhole covers
Other
2009 70.9 15.0 11.4 2.4 0.3
2011 43.8 45.7 3.6 5.4 1.4
2013 26.1 47.8 14.7 3.8 7.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
52
FIGURE 3.19
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR WATER PROVISION BY REGION, 2013
The reasons put forward by the 8.8% (392 respondents) scoring less than 6.0 in
2013are depicted in figure 3.20. The major problems include regular water cuts
(22.6%), broken/burst pipes (14.7%) and inaccurate accounts (13.4%). Reasons linked
to water quality are the following: bad taste and odour (2.7%), water polluted
(2.4%), colour of water (0.3%) and hardness of water (0.3%).
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.73 6.88 7.62 7.67 7.11 7.72 6.89 7.56
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
53
FIGURE 3.20
REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH WATER PROVISION, 2009 – 2013
3.5.6.1 Water meter readings
Households were requested to indicate whether water readings are done on a
regular basis. The outcome of this finding is shown in figure 3.21. A total of 53.2% of
respondents confirmed regular water readings in 2013 – down from 67.1% and 73.4%
in 2009 and 2011 respectively. Across regions, the ratings ranged from 38.0% in
region 5 to 66.3% in region 1.
3.2
2.5
0.2
1.3
1.1
4.8
4.8
7.4
12.8
21.6
40.3
12.9
12.6
0.6
1.1
7.2
1.1
2.9
11.5
6.3
20.4
22.4
13.7
13.4
0.3
5.1
9.6
0.3
2.4
14.7
2.7
22.6
11.3
1.7
2.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other
Account inaccurate
Water quality: hardness of water
Meters broken
Meter reading incorrect
Water quality: colour
Water polluted
Broken/burst pipes
Water quality: bad taste and odour
Regular water cuts
No running water
Slow response time
Water poses health risk
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
54
FIGURE 3.21
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS (WITH ACCESS TO WATER) CONFIRMING REGULAR WATER READINGS, 2013
3.5.6.2 Prepaid water meters
Households with access to water were requested to indicate whether they utilise a
prepaidwater meter for this purpose. Figure 3.22shows the outcome of this research
finding. Only6.3% (204)of respondents make use of prepaidwater meters. By region,
usage ranged from below 5.0% in regions 5, 6 and 7 to a maximum of 12.8% in region
4.The outcome of the research findings presented in figure 3.22 does not correspond
with the fact that the City of Tshwane has up to date only installed pre-paid meters in
region 4 (ward 77 – Olievenhoutbosch). Thus, the households in other wards who
confirmed that they utiliseda prepaid water meter in the 12-months prior to the
survey, most likely include those who reside in an apartment block (flats) or housing
estate (security complex). For these households the CoT only read the common
(bulk) water meter and not individual meters. When only considering the ratings of
households in ward 77 regarding pre-paid water meters, the satisfaction ratings
reflected in table 3.8 lean closer towards a score of 9.00 (out of 10). These higher
scores resonate very high levels of household satisfaction with pre-paid water
meters.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 66.3 45.1 45.9 41.8 38.0 56.6 53.3 53.2
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Perc
enta
ge
55
FIGURE 3.22
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT MAKE USE OF PREPAID WATER METERS, 2013
The 204 households with prepaid water meters were probed on their levels of
satisfaction with their meters. Table 3.8 shows the mean satisfaction ratings for the
installation, vending points and prepaid meters for the CoT as a whole. The mean
scores for the CoT were 8.34 for installation, 8.21 for vending points and 8.27 for
prepaid meters.
TABLE 3.8
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE PREPAID WATER METER SYSTEM, 2009 – 2013
Aspects 2009
Mean score 2011
Mean score 2013
Mean score Installation 6.50 7.59 8.34 Vending points 6.39 7.15 8.21 Prepaid meters 6.41 7.19 8.27
3.5.7 Street/public lights
Satisfaction with street lights received a mean score of 6.56in 2013 – slightly higher
than the 6.15 and 6.41 of 2009and 2011 respectively (figure 3.23). By region,
satisfaction scores ranged between 5.90 in region 1 to 6.99 in region 3.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.3 5.2 7.0 12.8 2.0 3.8 0.8 6.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
56
FIGURE 3.23
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR STREET LIGHTS BY REGION, 2013
Approximately a fifth (20.3%) of the 2013respondents rated their dissatisfaction with
street lighting below 6. Reasons forwarded for dissatisfaction are contained in figure
3.24, the two major reasons being that existing lights do not work properly or are
poorly maintained (70.4%) and there are no/not enough street lights in the
neighbourhood (17.3%).
FIGURE 3.24
REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH STREET LIGHTS, 2009 – 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 5.90 6.52 6.99 6.87 6.84 6.69 6.18 6.56
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ores
Do not always work/poor maintenance
No/not enough lights Lights not bright enoughCrime/security risks due to
no lights
2009 52.2 38.4 6.2 3.3
2011 70.0 12.5 3.3 7.3
2013 70.4 17.3 6.2 6.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
57
3.5.8 Overview of basic services
Table 3.9contains a summary of the mean satisfaction ratings, the classification
thereof, andan indication of the percentage of households expressing their
dissatisfaction with basic services (allocating a score of less than 6.00 out of 10). The
table shows a direct correlation between scores attained and the number of
dissatisfied households. Waste collection (7.65)attained the highest score with only
6.5% of households rating this service below 6.00 in 2013. At the other end of the
spectrum, neighbourhood roadsand street/public lightsattained ratings below
7.00,with 13.7% and 20.3% ofrespondents respectively airing their dissatisfaction
with these core household services in 2013.
A comparison of the ratings of 2011 and 2013 shows that all the core municipal
services (neighbourhood roads, sanitation, stormwater, water provision and street
lights) yielded higher scores in 2013 than in 2011. Of particular importance are the
increases in satisfaction with waste collection.
TABLE 3.9
SATISFACTION MEAN RATINGS AND PERCENTAGE OF DISSATISFIED HOUSEHOLDS,
2009 – 2013
Core Service
% of dissatisfied households scoring less
than 6 Mean score Classification1)
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 Electricity 15.9 19.4 12.9 6.99 6.91 7.30 Good Good Good Waste collection 21.5 23.4 6.5 6.57 6.31 7.65 Good Good Good Neighbourhood roads 44.0 21.6 13.7 5.33 6.19 6.85 Adequate Good Good Sanitation/waste water 16.7 11.4 6.6 6.80 7.13 7.59 Good Good Good
Stormwater/drainage 39.4 9.4 5.5 5.44 7.06 7.52 Adequate Good Good Water provision 16.8 11.9 8.8 7.10 7.29 7.56 Good Good Good Street/public lights 28.2 22.7 20.3 6.15 6.41 6.56 Good Good Good 1) See section 3.1 for classification of ratings
58
3.6 MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
As with basic municipal services, households were asked to rate their levels of
satisfaction with regard to28 different municipal community services on a 10-point
scale ranging from 1, reflecting a very low satisfaction level to 10, reflecting a very
high satisfaction level. Respondents were also requested to advance the major
reasons for ratings of less than 6.00 out of 10. Only respondents who utilised the
facility in the preceding 12 months were requested to rate their level of satisfaction
with regard to the facility/service. A ‘not applicable’ alternative was also available
since many community services such as the municipal bus services, cemeteries,
museums and public toilets are not utilised by all households. The utilisation levels of
municipal community services are discussed at the end of this section. It is also
important to note that several services are provided by both the CoT and other public
or private sector institutions, for example, bus services, clinics, museums and
theatres. To avoid confusion, the 2009,2011 and 2013 questionnaires were
constructed to clearly reflect the focus on municipal service provision. However, this
does not guarantee that only municipal services were rated.
3.6.1 Community halls/recreation centres
Figure 3.25 shows a satisfaction mean score for the CoT as a whole of 7.49 for
community halls/recreation facilities in 2013, representing analmost similar rating of
7.46 and 7.51 attained in 2009 and 2011 respectively. The satisfaction scores across
regions show marked variation and ranged between 5.91in region 7 and 8.05 in
region 6.
59
FIGURE 3.25
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR COMMUNITY HALLS/RECREATION CENTRES BY REGION, 2013
Only 13.1% of the respondents in 2013(113 respondents) who utilised the facility at
least once a year expressed dissatisfaction with community halls or recreation
centres. Figure 3.26 shows the main reasons advanced for dissatisfaction. The fact
that the facility is too far away was advanced by 36.3% of dissatisfied respondents as
the main reason for their dissatisfaction. This is followed by the fact that such
facilities need renovation (22.1%) and arenot available (17.7%).
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.25 7.50 7.93 7.39 6.56 8.05 5.91 7.49
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ores
60
FIGURE 3.26
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH COMMUNITY HALLS AND RECREATION CENTRES,2009 – 2013
3.6.2 Fire and rescue services/fire brigade
Figure 3.27 shows a satisfaction mean score of 7.17 for fire and rescue services/fire
brigade in 2011. This rating is slightly higherthan the 6.82 attained in 2011. All
regions scored satisfaction ratings above 7.00 except regions 4 and 7. Of the total
sample population of 3 329, 18.7% utilised fire and rescue services during the 12
months preceding the survey.
3.1
25.0
3.1
12.5
9.4
46.9
1.6
14.5
17.7
19.4
21.0
25.8
6.2
17.7
7.1
3.5
22.1
36.3
7.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Too small
No facility
Rent too expensive
No chairs/toilets
Need renovation
Too far away
Other
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
61
FIGURE 3.27
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES/FIRE BRIGADE BY REGION, 2013
Only 15.4% of the households(96 respondents) who utilised the facility at least once
during the year expressed dissatisfaction with fire and rescue services. Figure 3.28
shows the main reasons advanced for dissatisfaction. Just more than half (56.3%)
recorded poor or slow response as reason for their dissatisfaction. The fact that this
service is not available in the immediate area (too far) was advanced by 36.5% of
respondents.
FIGURE 3.28
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH
FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES/FIRE BRIGADE, 2009 – 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.08 7.56 7.61 6.36 7.80 7.35 4.74 7.17
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ores
35.3
64.7
25.0
50.0
25.0
7.3
56.3
36.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other (no other indicated in 2009)
Poor/slow response
Too far/none in immediate area
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
62
3.6.3 Emergency medical and ambulance services
Emergency medical and ambulance services yielded a mean satisfaction score of 6.69
in 2013 – up from 6.03 in 2009and similar to 6.71 in 2011 (see figure 3.29). Some
significant differences are evident across regions, ranging from a mean score of 3.95
in region 7 to a high of 7.67 in region 5.
FIGURE 3.29
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOREMERGENCY MEDICAL AND AMBULANCE SERVICES BY REGION, 2013
Just more than a quarter (27.1% or 294)of the respondents who utilised emergency
medical and ambulance services at least once during the year, allocated a score of
less than 6.00 (out of 10) to the service. The main reasons advanced for
dissatisfaction are shown in figure 3.30. Approximately two-thirds of the dissatisfied
respondents (67.0%) attributed their dissatisfaction to poor or slow response of the
emergency medical and ambulance service of the CoT, followed by no assistance
received (16.0%).
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.84 6.77 6.77 6.12 7.67 6.98 3.95 6.69
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ores
63
FIGURE 3.30
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND AMBULANCE SERVICES, 2009 – 2013
3.6.4 Municipal bus service
The levels of satisfaction with regard to the municipal bus service yielded a mean
rating of 7.64 in 2013, representingan increase from 6.75 and 6.91 in 2009 and 2011
respectively (figure 3.31).The mean ratings by regions ranged between 6.13 in region
7 and 7.87 in region 2.
FIGURE 3.31
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE MUNICIPAL BUS SERVICE BY REGION, 2013
2.8
7.3
9.5
80.4
2.6
6.6
14.5
76.3
7.5
9.5
16.0
67.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other
Take too long to answer phone
No assistance received
Poor/slow response
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.77 7.87 7.51 7.24 7.67 7.82 6.13 7.64
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
64
Approximately one in every 10 (10.6% or 106)of the regular users of the municipal
bus service (used at least once during the preceding year) reported dissatisfaction
with the service in 2013. Figure 3.32 shows that buses are too crowded
(25.5%),buses not arrivingornot arriving on time (19.8%) and lack of shelters (18.9%)
were advanced as the most important reasons for dissatisfaction. This was followed
by the fact that there are too few buses (14.2%).
FIGURE 3.32
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE MUNICIPAL BUS SERVICE OF THE CoT, 2009 – 2013
3.6.5 Municipal cemeteries
The household satisfaction score for municipal cemeteries in 2013 stood at 6.72
(figure 3.33). Differences in mean scores per region suggest discrepancies for
municipal cemetery service delivery in 2013, ranging from 5.62 in region 7 to 7.30 in
region 6.
4.6
2.3
10.3
19.5
42.5
20.7
3.2
0.0
0.0
9.7
38.7
48.4
17.0
18.9
25.5
14.2
4.7
19.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other
Lack of shelters
Crowded
Too few
Too expensive
Not on time
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
65
FIGURE 3.33
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CEMETERIES BY REGION, 2013
Approximately a quarter (29.2% or 340) ofrespondents visiting cemeteries in 2013(at
least once during the preceding year) reported dissatisfaction with them. Figure 3.34
shows the reasons for allocating a score of less than 6.00 (out of 10). Crowded
cemeteries (31.8%) and poorly maintained cemeteries (30.3%) were mentioned as
the elements of most concern. A further 20.3% of respondents mentioned that they
were too far away.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.69 6.10 6.83 6.98 7.20 7.30 5.62 6.72
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
66
FIGURE 3.34
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH MUNICIPAL CEMETERIES, 2009 – 2013
3.6.6 Municipal crematorium
This item was first introduced in 2013. Figure 3.35 shows that the satisfaction mean
score was 7.59 in 2013.The aggregate levels of satisfaction for municipal
crematoriums ranged from 6.67 in region 7 to 8.29 in region 5.
FIGURE 3.35
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR MUNICIPAL CREMATORIUMS BY REGION, 2013
0.7
2.6
2.6
3.1
3.1
35.2
8.5
44.2
1.3
1.3
2.3
2.6
5.2
10.7
12.3
64.3
3.2
2.9
3.8
2.4
5.3
20.3
31.8
30.3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other
Too expensive
Poor infrastructure
Unsafe (robberies)
Poor identification of graves
Too far away
Crowded/congested
Not maintained
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.23 6.95 7.70 7.21 8.29 8.12 6.67 7.59
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
67
Approximatelyone in every ten respondents(9.8% or 23) who visited a municipal
crematorium at least once in the preceding year expressed dissatisfaction with it.
Figure 3.36 shows that 49.7 % of the dissatisfied respondents attributed their
dissatisfaction to the fact that crematoriums are located far away (34.8%), crowded
(21.7%) or not maintained (21.7%).
FIGURE 3.36
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH MUNICIPAL CREMATORIUMS, 2013
3.6.7 Municipal clinics
The aggregate levels of satisfaction for municipal clinics yielded a rating of 6.33 in
2013, representing a slight decrease from the 6.47 yielded in 2011 (figure 3.37). By
region, satisfaction ranged from a mean score of 4.03 in region 7 to 7.29 in region 3.
17.4
34.8
4.3
21.7
21.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other
Too far away
Poor service
Not maintained
Crowded/congested
Percentage
68
FIGURE 3.37
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR MUNICIPAL CLINICS BY REGION, 2013
Just more than athird of respondents (35.3% or 538)who visited a municipal clinic at
least once in the preceding year expressed dissatisfaction with it in 2013. Figure 3.38
shows that approximately athird (34.4%) of the dissatisfied respondents attributed their
dissatisfaction to slow serviceand that clinics are too far (24.3%).
FIGURE 3.38
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH MUNICIPAL CLINICS,2009 – 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.49 6.07 7.29 5.40 6.57 6.28 4.03 6.33
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
1.5
6.8
13.6
11.1
13.6
20.6
32.8
1.9
0.6
0.6
3.8
7.5
7.7
13.1
64.8
6.3
3.9
0.7
12.8
24.3
5.8
11.7
34.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other (not indicated in 2009)
Not clean
Unqualified staff
No/shortage of doctors/nurses
Travel far
No/shortage of medicine
Staff attitude/uncommitted
Slow service/wait
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
69
3.6.8 Municipal museums
Satisfaction scores for municipal museums in 2013 can be typified as being good,
attaining a mean score of 7.83 (figure 3.39). All regions reported fairly high
satisfaction scores of above 7.00.
FIGURE 3.39
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR MUNICIPAL MUSEUMS BY REGION, 2013
A small minority of respondents (4.4% or 22) visiting museums at least once during
the year expressed dissatisfaction with them. These few respondents advanced the
following reasons for dissatisfaction: not properly maintained, not sufficient
information and the need for more museums.
3.6.9 Parks
Figure 3.40 reflects a mean overall rating for parks of 7.31 in 2013. All regions
yielded a score of above 6.00, with the exception ofregion 7 with a mean score of
5.98.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.82 7.59 7.79 7.81 8.17 7.93 8.00 7.83
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
70
FIGURE 3.40
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR MUNICIPAL PARKS BY REGION, 2013
Visitors to parks (at least once a year) recording a score of less than 6.00 amounted
to 14.0% (179 respondents). Figure 3.41 shows the reasons advanced for
dissatisfaction. The major reasonslisted in 2013were not enough parks (30.7%), must
be upgraded (30.2%) and poor maintenance (long grass and overgrown – 10.6%).
FIGURE 3.41
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH MUNICIPAL PARKS, 2009 – 2013
3.6.10 Pavements/pedestrian walkways
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.17 7.23 7.42 7.16 7.54 7.65 5.98 7.31
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
0.8
12.7
15.7
16.1
26.2
28.5
4.1
8.2
10.7
13.9
27.0
36.1
8.9
11.7
30.2
30.7
7.8
10.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other
Too far
Must be upgraded
Not enough/no parks
Security risk
Grass not cut/overgrown
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
71
The satisfaction level for pedestrian walkways in 2013 yielded a score of 6.61that is
slightly higher than the 6.11 in 2011. By region the scores varied markedly with
regions 2 and 7 recording scores below 6.00 while regions 3 and 6 recorded scores of
around 7.20.
FIGURE 3.42
SATISFACTION LEVELS FORPAVEMENTS/PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
BY REGION, 2013
Approximately a quarter (22.4%) ofrespondents allocated a score of less than 6.00 to
pedestrian walkways in 2013 (418respondents). Figure 3.43 confirms that unpaved
walkways were a major concern (76.1%), followed by the fact that they were
littered/not cleaned (9.6%).
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.22 5.12 7.27 6.80 7.11 7.21 4.79 6.61
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
72
FIGURE 3.43
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH PAVEMENTS/PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS, 2009 – 2013
3.6.11 Public libraries
The satisfaction level for public libraries in the CoTyielded a mean satisfaction score
of 7.52 in 2013 (figure 3.44). Variations are evident across regions, ranging from 6.90
in region 4 to 8.04 in region 6.
FIGURE 3.44
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES BY REGION, 2013
0.0
3.0
3.3
13.0
80.6
1.7
2.9
7.1
22.7
67.7
6.9
3.1
4.3
9.6
76.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other (not indicated in 2009)
Too narrow pavements
Grass too long
Lots of litter/not cleaned
Not paved
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.19 7.23 7.88 6.90 7.50 8.04 7.85 7.52
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
73
Only 13.6% of respondents (120) recorded satisfaction scores of below 6.00 (out of
10). Of these, 62.5% advanced the fact that libraries are too far. This is followed by
not enough libraries (19.2%) and poor variety (11.7%).
3.6.12 Public sports facilities
Public sports facilities yielded a satisfaction score of 7.35 in 2013. Figure 3.45 shows
that the satisfaction levels across all regions range from 5.99 in region 4 to 8.11 in
region 6.
FIGURE 3.45
SATISFACTION LEVELS FORPUBLIC SPORTS FACILITIES BY REGION, 2013
Just more than one in every 10 (15.1%)of users of public sports facilities (at least once
in the preceding year) voiced their dissatisfaction with such facilities in 2013 (114
respondents). Figure 3.46 shows that 53.5% advanced the fact that there are not
enough facilities. This is followed by a lack of proper maintenance of facilities
(22.8%) and the need for upgrading (18.4%).
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.25 7.50 7.41 5.99 7.23 8.11 6.68 7.35
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
74
FIGURE 3.46
MAIN REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SPORTS FACILITIES IN THE CoT, 2009 – 2013
3.6.13 Municipal public toilets
Figure 3.47 shows that in 2013, the satisfaction with municipal public toilets was
6.74. The variation across regions ranged from 5.73 in region 7 to 7.49 in region 6.
FIGURE 3.47
SATISFACTION LEVELS FORMUNICIPAL PUBLIC TOILETS BY REGION, 2013
24.7
33.8
39.8
5.1
18.6
72.9
22.8
18.4
53.5
5.3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Facilities not maintained
Require upgrading
Not enough facilities (too far)
Other
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.54 6.21 6.73 6.65 7.24 7.49 5.73 6.74
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
75
Of the respondents making use of municipal public toilets during the year preceding
the survey, 23.1% were dissatisfied in 2013 (114 respondents). The following major
reasons were advanced:
• Lack of hygiene : 54.4%
• Problems with paying to use toilets : 20.2%
• Lack of toilets : 14.9%
3.6.14 Dumping (landfill) sites (ie garden refuse, recycling)
It is clear from figure 3.48that the mean household score ofdumping sitesrecorded an
overall average score of 7.19 in 2013. This is an improvement from 2011 when a
mean score of 6.75 was recorded. Regional ratings ranged from 5.13 in region 7 to
7.67 in region 5.
FIGURE 3.48
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR GARDEN REFUSE SITES BY REGION, 2013
Only 17.6% of the regular users of garden refuse sites voiced dissatisfaction with such
sites (116 respondents) in 2013. Most raised concern that there are not enough
refuse sites (62.1%).
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.33 6.68 7.65 6.91 7.67 7.40 5.13 7.19
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
76
3.6.15 Municipal taxi ranks
This item attained a mean satisfaction score of 6.55 in 2009 and dropped to 6.13 in
2011.In 2013, the satisfaction score for municipal taxi ranks increased to 7.43. By
region, scores range between 6.13 in region 4and 7.70 in region 2.
FIGURE 3.49
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR MUNICIPAL TAXI RANKS BY REGION, 2013
The 14.8% dissatisfied 2013respondents (159) advanced lack of shelters (37.7%), too
crowded (18.9%)and dirty/untidy taxi ranks (13.8%) as the major reasons for
dissatisfaction with municipal taxi ranks.
3.6.16 Informal trading facilities
The mean satisfaction score of 5.98in 2009 is similar to the 5.90 recorded in 2011
2009. However, the satisfaction score increased to 7.36 in 2013(figure 3.50). By
region, average scores range between 5.97in region 7and 7.85 in region 5.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.69 7.70 7.60 6.13 7.00 7.42 6.38 7.43
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
77
FIGURE 3.50
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR INFORMAL TRADING FACILITIES BY REGION, 2013
The10.9% dissatisfied respondents (115) allocating a rating of below 6.00in 2013
advanced the following reasons for their dissatisfaction:
• Uncontrolled trading/foreigners : 35.7%
• Dirty/not maintained : 27.8%
• Lack of informal business shelters : 23.5%
3.6.17 Public swimming pools
Mean satisfaction scores of 6.85and 6.95 were recorded in 2009 and 2011
respectively. Satisfaction scores increased to 7.50 in 2013(figure 3.51). By region,
average scores ranged between 3.82 in region 7 and 8.13 in region 5.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.60 7.38 7.34 6.96 7.85 7.21 5.97 7.36
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
78
FIGURE 3.51
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR PUBLIC SWIMMING POOLS BY REGION, 2013
The15.2% dissatisfied respondents (58), with a rating of below 6.00, advanced the
following reasons for their dissatisfaction:
• Not maintained properly : 53.4%
• Too far : 36.2%
3.6.18 Municipal nature reserves/resorts
A mean satisfaction score of 7.71 was recorded formunicipal nature
reserves/resortsin 2009 and a slightly lower score of 7.51 in 2011. In 2013,
satisfaction increased to 7.93(figure 3.52). By region, average scores ranged between
7.36 in region 2 and 8.24 in region 6.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.69 7.60 7.60 7.23 8.13 7.92 3.82 7.50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
79
FIGURE 3.52
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR MUNICIPAL NATURE RESERVES/RESORTS BY REGION, 2013
The4.9% dissatisfied respondents (27), with a rating of below 6.00 in 2013, advanced
the following reasons for their dissatisfaction:
• Not properly maintained : 70.4%
• Entrance fee too high : 11.1%
3.6.19 Licensing: Learner driver’s licence A mean satisfaction score of 6.39 was recorded for learner driver’s licensing in 2009
and 6.96 in 2011. The satisfaction increased further in 2013 to 7.08(figure 3.53). By
region, average scores ranged between 6.25 in region 7 and 7.50 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 8.10 7.36 7.77 7.72 8.24 8.24 7.69 7.93
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
80
FIGURE 3.53
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR LICENSING: LEARNER DRIVER’S LICENCE BY REGION, 2013
The10.8% dissatisfied respondents (108), with a rating of below 6.00 in 2013,
advanced the following reasons for their dissatisfaction:
• Application process cumbersome (queuing) : 37.0%
• Too long a process : 16.7%
• Long waiting lists/difficult to get appointment : 14.8%
3.6.20 Licensing: Driver’s licence (applications/renewals)
A mean satisfaction score of 6.49 was recorded for driver’s licensing (application and
renewals) in 2011 – slightly up from the 6.27 in 2009. The satisfaction increased to
7.05 in 2013(figure 3.54). By region, average scores ranged between 6.16 in region 7
and7.67 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.23 7.50 6.63 7.06 6.43 7.27 6.25 7.08
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
81
FIGURE 3.54
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR LICENSING: DRIVER’S LICENCE (APPLICATIONS/RENEWALS) BY REGION, 2013
The12.6% dissatisfied respondents (111), allocating a rating of below 6.00 in 2013,
advanced the following reasons for their dissatisfaction:
• Application process cumbersome (queuing) : 41.4%
• Too long a process : 21.6%
• Forms to be completed cumbersome : 8.1%
• Understaffed : 4.5%
• Computer system down too often : 3.6%
3.6.21 Waste removal
A mean satisfaction score of 6.88 was recorded for waste removalin 2011, which
increased to 8.01 in 2013(figure 3.53). By region, average scores ranged between
7.36 in region 2 and 8.48 in region 1.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.33 7.67 6.52 6.51 6.90 7.26 6.16 7.05
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
82
FIGURE 3.55
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR WASTE REMOVAL BY REGION, 2013
The6.2% dissatisfied respondents (118), allocating a rating of below 6.00 in 2013,
advanced the following major reasons for their dissatisfaction:
• Waste not collected regularly : 28.8%
• Waste never collected : 22.9%
3.6.22 Emergency/disaster management
Mean satisfaction scores of 7.29and 6.91 were recorded for emergency/disaster
management in 2009 and 2011 respectively. For 2013 the figure was 7.52(figure
3.56). By region, average scores ranged between 4.67in region 7 and 8.13 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 8.48 7.36 7.82 7.78 7.81 7.85 7.50 8.01
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
83
FIGURE 3.56
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR EMERGENCY/DISASTER MANAGEMENT BY REGION, 2013
The11.4% dissatisfied respondents (6), allocating a rating of below 6.00 in 2013,
advanced the following major reasons for their dissatisfaction:
• Lack of education campaign on disaster plan : 55.8%
• Poor disaster management system : 25.6%
3.6.23 Street sweeping and litter control
On average, street sweeping and litter control in the CoT yielded a satisfaction score
of 5.78 in 2011 – slightly up from the 5.61 in 2009. The satisfaction level improved
further in 2013 to 6.89 in 2013(figure 3.57). Variations in regions ranged from 6.25 in
region 7 to 7.13 in region 4.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.73 8.13 7.13 7.73 7.00 7.68 4.67 7.52
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
84
FIGURE 3.57
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR STREET SWEEPING AND LITTER CONTROL BY REGION, 2013
One in every 10 (11.1%)of the respondents (365) allocated a rating of less than 6.00
to street sweeping and litter control in 2013.Major reasons advanced for
dissatisfaction include the following:
• Irregular street cleaning : 31.0%
• Only sweep main roads : 23.6%
• Dirty streets/not clean : 20.0%
3.6.24 Traffic lights/signals
For the CoT as a whole, satisfaction levels for traffic lights/signals yielded a
satisfaction rating of 6.29 in 2011, representing a slightly lower rating than the 6.88 in
2009. The satisfaction increased in 2013 to 6.93 (figure 3.58). By region, ratings
ranged from 5.68 in region 7 to 7.13 in region 4.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.87 6.74 7.00 7.13 6.59 6.87 6.25 6.89
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
85
FIGURE 3.58
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR TRAFFIC LIGHTS/SIGNALS BY REGION, 2013
One in every ten (9.4%) respondents (313) recorded dissatisfaction with traffic
lights/signals in 2013. The main reasons advanced were the following:
• No/limited traffic signals (robots) : 44.4%
• No/limited pedestrian safety measures at schools : 22.7%
• No/limited traffic signs (eg stop signs, 60 km signs) : 8.9%
• Regular faulty traffic signals (robots) : 7.3%
3.6.25 Grass cutting
A mean satisfaction score on grass cutting services of 5.67 was yielded in 2009 and
5.57 in 2011. A score of 6.46 was recorded for 2013 (figure 3.59). The level of
satisfaction ranged from below 6 in region 2 to 6.84 in region 4.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.78 6.67 7.12 7.13 6.64 7.09 5.68 6.93
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
86
FIGURE 3.59
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR GRASS CUTTING BY REGION, 2013
Just more than one in every ten households (13.5% or 451) recorded their
dissatisfaction with the grass cutting services of the CoT in 2013. The major reasons
advanced for dissatisfaction are the following:
• Not cut at all : 47.2%
• Not regularly cut : 30.4%
• Long grass is security risk : 13.5%
3.6.26 Road maintenance (repairs, signage, markings, speed bumps)
Road maintenance yielded a satisfaction score of 6.42 in 2009 and dropped to 5.89 in
2011.The satisfaction score improved in 2013 to 6.47 (figure 3.60). The ratings varied
between 6.00 in regions 1 and 2 to 7.00in region 4.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 5.85 5.98 6.73 6.84 6.35 6.72 6.04 6.46
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
87
FIGURE 3.60
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE BY REGION, 2013
Only 16.4 %of respondents (546) rated road maintenance in the CoT below 6.00 in
2013. The main reasons advanced for dissatisfaction are the following:
• Poor maintenance/potholes : 35.2%
• Not tarred/dusty/muddy : 34.1%
• No/limited road markings/signage : 15.6%
3.6.27 Street trees Figure 3.61 shows that street trees for the CoT as a whole yielded a mean satisfaction
score of 6.93 in 2013 as compared to 6.86 in 2009 and 6.48 in 2011. Across regions,
the 2013 scoresranged between 5.88 in region 7 and 7.19 in region 5.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 5.50 5.65 6.98 7.00 6.81 6.71 6.43 6.47
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
88
FIGURE 3.61
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR STREET TREES BY REGION, 2013
The proportion of respondents (9.0% or 301) who recorded a rating of less than 6
(out of 10) for street trees in 2013, advanced the lack of pruning/maintenance
(49.2%), and the need for more trees (34.6%) as their main concerns.
3.6.28 Government/social housing (low-cost housing)
Figure 3.62shows that government/social housing (low cost housing) yielded a score
of 6.06 in 2013 as compared to 5.09 in 2009 and 6.04 in 2011. The ratings across
regions in 2013 ranged from 6.36in region 2 to 6.96 in region 4.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.08 6.55 7.11 6.93 7.19 6.96 5.88 6.93
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
89
FIGURE 3.62
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR GOVERNMENT/SOCIAL HOUSINGBY REGION, 2013
The proportion of respondents (11.0% or 367 households) who recorded a rating of
less than 6.00 (out of 10) for government/social housing in 2013, advanced the
following reasons for their concern:
• Slow application process : 22.1%
• Poor quality houses : 21.8%
• Corruption/unfair allocation : 20.4%
• Lack of low cost housing : 19.9%
• Slow pace of delivery : 11.2%
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.51 6.36 6.64 6.96 6.81 6.76 6.42 6.66
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
90
3.6.29 Overview of satisfaction levels for community services
Table 3.10 shows the satisfaction levels for municipal community services in 2009,
2011and 2013 according to the following classification (see section 3.1):
Service level Mean satisfaction scores
Very poor 0.0 – 2.0
Poor 2.1 – 4.0
Adequate 4.1 – 6.0
Good 6.1 – 8.0
Very good 8.1 – 10.0
91
TABLE 3.10
SATISFACTION MEAN SCORE RATINGS AND CATEGORY OF CLASSIFICATION FOR MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES, 2009 – 2013
Community service Mean score Classification
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 Community halls/recreation centres 7.46 7.51 7.49 Good Good Good
Fire and rescue services/fire brigade 7.17 6.82 7.17 Good Good Good Emergency medical and ambulance services 6.03 6.71 6.69 Good Good Good Municipal bus service 6.75 6.91 7.64 Good Good Good
Municipal cemeteries 6.48 6.74 6.72 Good Good Good Municipal crematorium - - 6.33 Good Good Good Municipal clinics 6.15 6.47 7.59 Good Good Good
Municipal museums (eg Pretoria Art Museum) 7.97 7.42 7.83 Good Good Good Parks 6.63 7.11 7.31 Good Good Good Pavements/pedestrian walkways 4.67 6.11 6.61 Adequate Good Good
Public libraries 6.43 7.42 7.52 Good Good Good Public sports facilities 5.98 6.97 7.35 Adequate Good Good Municipal public toilets 6.14 6.79 6.74 Good Good Good
Dumping (landfill) sites 7.10 6.75 7.19 Good Good Good Municipal taxi ranks 6.55 6.13 7.43 Good Good Good Informal trading facilities 5.98 5.90 7.36 Adequate Adequate Good
Public swimming pools 6.85 6.95 7.50 Good Good Good Municipal/nature reserves/resorts 7.71 7.51 7.93 Good Good Good Licensing: learner driver’s licence 6.39 6.96 7.08 Good Good Good
Licensing: driver’s licence (applications/renewals) 6.27 6.49 7.05 Good Good Good
Waste removal 6.49 6.88 8.01 Good Good Very good
Emergency/disaster management 7.29 6.91 7.52 Good Good Good Street sweeping and litter control 5.61 5.78 6.89 Adequate Adequate Good Traffic lights/signals 6.88 6.29 6.93 Good Good Good Grass cutting 5.67 5.57 6.46 Adequate Adequate Good Road maintenance (repairs, signage, markings, speed bumps) 6.42 5.89 6.47 Good Good Good
Street trees 6.86 6.48 6.93 Good Good Good Government/social housing (low-cost housing) 5.09 6.04 6.66 Adequate Good Good
The table confirms that residents of the CoT perceived the community services
supplied by the CoT as ranging between ‘good’ and ‘very good’. It is further
important to note that the following five community services yielded the lowest
scores in 2013:
92
• Municipal clinics : 6.33
• Grass cutting : 6.46
• Road maintenance : 6.47
• Pavements/pedestrian walkways : 6.61
• Government/social housing : 6.66
In turn, the following fiveservices yielded thehighest scoresin 2013:
• Waste removal : 8.01
• Recreation resorts/nature conservation : 7.93
• Municipal museums : 7.83
• Municipal bus services : 7.64
• Municipal crematorium : 7.59
3.6.30 Utilisation levels
The question on satisfaction levels for municipal community services also enquired
about the utilisation of these facilities by households. Respondents were requested
to indicate their frequency of utilisation (weekly, monthly, once a year, less than once
a year or never). Table 3.11 shows the utilisation pattern of municipal
facilities/services by households according to the above categories. The table shows
relative variation in the frequency of utilising municipal services. For example, in
2013, 89.9% never utilised the municipal crematorium and 84.0% never used public
swimming pools.The intensity of service usage in 2013 is also illustrated by the
following: 20.7 % of respondents used taxi ranks on a weekly basis while only 2.4 %
visited municipal museums on a weekly basis.
93
TABLE 3.11
UTILISATION OF THE CoT COMMUNITY SERVICES BY HOUSEHOLDS, 2009 – 2013
Community service Weekly Monthly Once a year
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 % % % % % % % % %
Community halls/recreation centres 0.2 0.6 6.9 10.8 8.5 9.5 9.8 10.9 9.6 Fire and rescue services/fire brigade 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.1 4.6 3.1 0.8 11.6 Emergency medical and ambulance services 0.2 0.1 4.2 2.6 1.4 9.2 13.3 8.3 19.2 Municipal bus service 2.3 2.3 14.5 12.8 2.0 9.0 10.8 2.6 6.6 Municipal cemeteries 1.2 6.4 4.7 49.5 24.9 11.6 9.2 14.2 18.7 Municipal crematorium - - 2.0 - - 2.8 - - 2.3 Municipal clinics 0.9 2.5 13.8 45.2 33.6 23.4 12.7 17.7 8.6 Municipal museums (eg Pretoria Art Museum) 0.4 0.1 2.4 1.3 0.7 4.7 5.1 5.2 7.8 Parks 5.6 2.0 15.7 23.5 6.6 15.1 13.7 18.7 7.6 Pavements/pedestrian walkways 50.4 31.8 46.8 12.2 14.1 6.2 4.2 4.4 3.1 Public libraries 3.6 5.0 13.1 12.9 9.2 7.9 12.5 5.3 5.6 Public sports facilities 3.3 2.9 9.6 9.3 4.8 8.0 8.9 7.1 5.0 Municipal public toilets 2.9 2.4 4.1 29.0 11.8 6.5 4.7 6.7 4.3 Dumping (landfill) sites 1.2 1.5 7.7 4.7 3.0 7.1 5.7 6.9 5.0 Municipal taxi ranks 30.6 22.7 20.7 18.5 17.5 8.1 3.3 6.5 3.5 Informal trading facilities 25.3 17.6 16.4 9.0 12.6 10.5 5.5 6.7 4.8 Public swimming pools 0.8 0.2 3.5 3.2 1.0 3.8 2.4 2.3 4.2 Municipal nature reserves/resorts 0.5 0.1 2.5 1.9 0.9 4.7 6.8 6.7 9.4 Licensing: learner driver’s licence 0.4 0.1 4.9 2.0 0.7 3.5 9.0 2.7 21.8 Licensing: driver’s licence (applications/renewals) 0.6 0.4 5.2 2.2 0.7 3.0 20.6 9.3 18.1 Waste removal 39.9 34.1 48.2 6.3 2.2 4.6 4.3 1.7 4.6 Emergency/disaster management 1.0 0.1
2.8 1.3 0.4 3.4 2.3 2.1 5.2
cont…
94
TABLE 3.11 (continued)
Community service Less than once a year Never Total
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 % % % % % % % % %
Community halls/recreation centres 6.3 17.7 8.5 72.8 62.3 65.6 100.0 100.0 100.0
Fire and rescue services/fire brigade 10.1 8.2 7.1 86.1 90.9 74.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Emergency medical and ambulance services 12.5 11.8 6.8 71.3 78.4 60.6 100.0 100.0 100.0
Municipal bus service 6.5 8.4 4.5 67.7 84.6 65.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Municipal cemeteries 5.4 18.3 7.4 34.7 36.2 57.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Municipal crematorium - - 3.6 - - 89.3 - - 100.0
Municipal clinics 4.3 7.8 4.5 37.0 38.4 49.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Municipal museums (eg Pretoria Art Museum) 10.4 17.3 10.3 82.9 76.7 74.8 100.0 100.0 100.0
Parks 9.5 16.8 6.5 47.7 55.8 55.1 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pavements/pedestrian walkways 2.0 8.0 2.0 31.2 41.7 41.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Public libraries 9.2 12.0 6.1 61.7 68.5 67.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Public sports facilities 9.0 15.6 5.3 69.6 69.6 72.1 100.0 100.0 100.0
Municipal public toilets 4.1 15.7 4.7 59.4 63.4 80.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Dumping (landfill) sites 5.3 15.0 5.6 83.1 73.5 74.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Municipal taxi ranks 2.0 3.8 3.2 45.5 49.5 64.5 100.0 100.0 100.0
Informal trading facilities 2.9 6.0 3.2 57.2 57.2 65.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Public swimming pools 3.5 8.1 4.6 90.1 88.3 84.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Municipal nature reserves/resorts 8.1 18.3 8.7 82.7 74.1 74.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Licensing: learner driver’s licence 12.8 15.0
13.4 75.7 81.5 56.5 100.0 100.0 100.0
Licensing: driver’s licence (applications/renewals) 12.8 24.0 22.2 63.8 65.6 51.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Waste removal 2.9 3.8 3.1 46.7
58.2 39.5 100.0 100.0 100.0
Emergency/disaster management 3.9 7.1 5.0 91.4 90.3 83.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
95
Figures 3.63(a) and 3.63(b) show the percentage usage of community services in
graphic format. (Due to technical reasons the usage is shown in two figures.)
FIGURE 3.63(a)
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION UTILISING CoT COMMUNITY SERVICES DURING THE
12 MONTHS PRECEDING THE SURVEY, 2009 – 2013
29
20.8
36.6
42.8
39.8
50.5
59.9
52.4
66.8
58.8
19.5
20.0
20.9
27.3
36.9
38.0
45.5
46.7
50.3
53.8
26.5
26.0
14.8
38.4
7.1
31.7
57.4
35.0
32.4
56.1
54.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Public libraries
Community halls/recreation centres
Municipal public toilets
Parks
Municipal crematorium
Informal trading facilities
Waste removal
Municipal cemeteries
Municipal taxi ranks
Pavements/pedestrian walkways
Municipal clinics
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
96
FIGURE 3.63(b)
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION UTILISING CoT COMMUNITY SERVICES DURING THE 12 MONTHS PRECEDING THE SURVEY, 2009 – 2013
3.7 SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SAFETY
As indicated in section 3.4, safety and security issues are perceived by the residents
of the CoT as one of the major challenges to be addressed in the CoT. The
questionnaires enquired on the respondents’ perceptions of their safety in the CoT.
The questions focused on how safe it is to live in Tshwane, safety after dark, safety of
neighbourhoods,safety in the city centre, safety on municipal buses, travelling by taxi
and own car. Safety of CoT offices/walk-in centres and pay points was also added to
the 2011 and 2013 questionnaires. Respondents recorded their perceptions on a 5-
3.8
16.1
6.4
23.4
6.8
25.9
9.2
4.6
11.4
21.5
11.6
0.9
2.6
3.5
3.5
6.0
6.9
7.7
9.8
10.4
14.8
19.5
18.7
32.5
11.4
26.4
14.9
30.1
16.6
11.4
30.1
22.6
19.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fire and rescue services/fire brigade
Emergency medical and ambulance services
Public swimming pools
Licensing: Driver's licence (applications/renewals)
Municipal museums
Municipal bus service
Municipal nature reserves/resorts
Emergency/disaster management
Licensing: Learner driver's licence application/renewal
Public sports facilities
Dumping (landfill) sites
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
97
point scale ranging from ‘very dangerous’ to ‘very safe’. Households that recorded a
‘dangerous’ or ‘unsafe’ response were requested to provide the major reason for
doing so.
3.7.1 Living in Tshwane
Table 3.12 portrays the results of the rating of households of their perceived safety of
living in the CoT by region. On aggregate, more than halfthe households (58.8%)
perceived living in the CoT as safe or very safe. Approximately one in every ten
(12.5%) feel that it is dangerous or unsafe to live in the CoT.Some variations occurred
across regions. Feeling safe or very safe ranged from 51.0% for households in region
5 to 69.2% in region 2. The 2013 figures largely correspond with the 2011figures.
TABLE 3.12
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS OF LIVING IN TSHWANE BY REGION, 2009 – 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions Total Dangerous and
unsafe Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % % %
1 12.8 22.4 64.8 100.0
2 10.6 20.2 69.2 100.0
3 12.7 34.6 52.7 100.0
4 15.2 32.6 52.2 100.0
5 3.9 45.1 51.0 100.0
6 11.5 30.5 58.0 100.0
7 17.5 23.8 58.7 100.0 Total 2013 12.5 28.4 59.2 100.0 Total 2011 14.6 26.6 58.8 100.0
Total 2009 27.1 34.3 38.6 100.0
The major reasons cited for feeling unsafe are all crime related. The following
reasons were recorded in 2013:
• High crime/robberies : 83.1%
98
• Dangerous driving : 7.0%
• Drug/alcohol abuse : 2.7%
• Foreigners : 0.7%
3.7.2 Tshwane after dark
Table 3.13 depicts the safety after dark perceptions of households in the CoT. On
aggregate, approximately a quarterof the households (24.9%) feel unsafe or feel that
the CoT is a dangerous place after dark in 2013. Figuresdiffer somewhat by region
ranging from 9.8% in region 5 to 31.6% in region 1 for those households that feel
unsafe or feel that the CoT is a dangerous place after dark.
In contrast to the above finding,just more than a third (34.1%) of the households feel
safe or very safe after dark in Tshwane in 2013. This is slightly lower than the 34.6%
recorded in 2011. Overall, more households feel neither safe/nor unsafe after dark in
Tshwane in 2013 than in 2011.
TABLE 3.13
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS OF TSHWANE AFTER DARK BY REGION, 2009 – 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions
Total Dangerous and unsafe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % % % 1 31.6 37.6 30.9 100.0 2 22.3 34.2 43.5 100.0 3 22.5 43.4 34.0 100.0 4 26.1 40.4 33.5 100.0 5 9.8 59.8 30.4 100.0 6 21.4 44.5 34.1 100.0 7 24.6 41.3 34.1 100.0 Total 2013 24.9 41.0 34.1 100.0 Total 2011 30.0 33.6 36.4 100.0 Total 2009 38.6 47.9 13.5 100.0
99
The major reasons cited in 2013 for feeling unsafe (24.9%) are mostly crime related
and included aspects such as crime, robberies and burglaries (77.4%). Aspects such
as dangerous driving (7.7%) and drug/alcohol abuse (3.7%) were also cited.
3.7.3 Own neighbourhood safety
Table 3.14 confirms that 13.1% of households perceived their neighbourhoods as
being dangerous and unsafe, while 32.7% felt neither safe nor unsafe in 2013. Just
more than half (54.1%)perceived their neighbourhoods as being safe and very safe in
2013. In 2013, differentiations in safety perceptions were evident across regions.
Feeling safe or very safe ranged from 39.2% in region 5 to 59.3% in region 2. Unsafe
ranged from 5.9 % in region 5 to 18.2% in region 1.
TABLE 3.14
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS OF NEIGHBOURHOODS BY REGION, 2009 – 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions
Total Dangerous and unsafe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % % % 1 18.2 27.3 54.5 100.0
2 12.4 28.2 59.3 100.0
3 13.6 33.6 52.8 100.0
4 12.2 38.8 49.0 100.0
5 5.9 54.9 39.2 100.0
6 9.2 33.3 57.5 100.0
7 6.3 39.7 54.0 100.0 Total 2013 13.1 32.7 54.1 100.0
Total 2011 14.8 23.2 61.9 100.0 Total 2009 25.9 26.7 47.4 100.0
The major reasons cited for feeling unsafe are mainly crime related.Approximately
two-thirds (68.9%) cited high crime/robberies and burglaries as their major concerns
in 2013.
100
3.7.4 Safety in Inner City (CBD)
In the research instrument the CoT Central Business District was defined as the Inner
City. Table 3.15 shows that just less than a quarter (21.9%) of respondents perceived
the city centre as dangerous or unsafe in 2013. Almost two in every five
(41.1%)perceived it as safe or very safe. Respondents in region 3 perceived the city
centre as more dangerous/unsafe than respondents in the other regions. The
perception of safety in the Inner City dropped slightly from 43.8% in 2011 to 41.1% in
2013.
TABLE 3.15
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE CITY CENTRE BY REGION, 2009 – 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions
Total Dangerous and unsafe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % % %
1 16.2 38.8 45.0 100.0
2 16.8 34.6 48.6 100.0
3 29.1 36.3 34.5 100.0
4 26.3 41.0 32.7 100.0
5 15.3 50.6 34.1 100.0
6 23.1 32.2 44.8 100.0
7 25.0 34.5 40.5 100.0 Total 2013 21.9 36.9 41.1 100.0
Total 2011 28.5 27.7 43.8 100.0 Total 2009 37.8 46.1 16.1 100.0
Just less than a quarter (21.9%) of the respondents regard the city centre as
dangerous or unsafe. The major reasons cited in 2013 for feeling unsafe include
crime (robberies, killings, burglaries – 70.7%).
101
3.7.5 Safety in business nodes (excluding Inner City)
Measurement of this safety aspect was first introduced in 2013. Table 3.16 captures
the outcome of the research findings for 2013 and shows that 10.2% of households
regard business nodes outside the inner city as dangerous. In turn, 53.7% regard
safety in business nodes as safe and very safe. When compared across regions, this
figure varies from 35.1% for region 5 to 62.1% in region 2.
TABLE 3.16
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS REGARDING SAFETY IN BUSAINESS NODES (EXCLUDING INNER CITY) BY REGION, 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions
Total Dangerous and unsafe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % 5 % 1 8.4 32.6 59.0 100.0
2 11.6 26.4 62.1 100.0
3 11.6 41.0 47.3 100.0
4 9.0 45.2 45.9 100.0
5 2.6 62.3 35.1 100.0
6 11.4 33.3 55.4 100.0
7 17.3 35.5 47.3 100.0 Total 2013 10.2 36.0 53.7 100.0
Of those respondents who perceived business nodes as unsafe or dangerous, cited
crime/robberies/burglaries as the major reason for reeling unsafe (70.1%).
3.7.6 Safety: travelling on municipal buses
The data in table 3.17 depict the safety perceptions of households regarding
travelling on municipal buses.The data is only presented for 2013 as the previous
studies (2009 and 2011) measured safety perceptions with travelling on public
transport in general that make direct comparisons impossible. Approximately sixin
102
every 10 (59.6%) regard travelling on municipal busesas safe or very safe in 2013. In
contrast, only 7.4% regard travelling on municipal busses as dangerous or unsafe and
32.9% feel neither safe nor unsafe. By region, the feeling of safety on municipal
buses ranges from 41.2% in region 5 to 72.5% in region 1.
TABLE 3.17
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TRAVELLING ON MUNICIPAL BUSES BY REGION, 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions
Total Dangerous and unsafe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % % %
1 3.4 24.1 72.5 100.0
2 6.7 21.3 71.9 100.0
3 9.3 39.3 51.3 100.0
4 9.6 41.7 48.7 100.0
5 5.9 52.9 41.2 100.0
6 8.6 35.6 55.8 100.0
7 16.0 41.3 42.7 100.0
Total 2013 7.4 32.9 59.6 100.0
Only 7.4% respondents regard travelling on municipal busses as dangerous or unsafe.
The major reasons cited in 2013 for feeling unsafe when travelling on municipal
buses include crime (55.7%) and dangerous driving by taxi drivers (22.2%).
3.7.7 Safety: travelling by taxi
This item was introduced for the first time in 2013 and table 3.18 captures the safety
perception of households regarding travelling by taxi. It is evident from table 3.18
that people travelling by taxi in region 5 feel less safe when compared to people
travelling by taxi in regions 1 and 2.
103
TABLE 3.18
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TRAVELLING BY TAXI BY REGION, 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions
Total Dangerous and unsafe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % % %
1 10.4 24.3 65.3 100.0
2 8.9 23.2 67.9 100.0
3 17.9 35.1 46.9 100.0
4 16.1 40.1 43.8 100.0
5 11.1 46.0 42.9 100.0
6 9.2 32.4 58.3 100.0
7 20.2 32.5 47.4 100.0
Total 2013 12.5 30.4 57.1 100.0
Of those respondents who indicated that they feel unsafe when travelling by taxi
(12.5%), approximately a third (38.7%) advanced dangerous driving as a major reason
for feeling unsafe. A further third (35.1%) regarded crime as an additional reason.
3.7.8 Safety: travelling by own car
This item was introduced for the first time in 2013. Table 3.19 captures the safety
perceptions of households travelling by own car. Compared to safety travelling by
taxi, far much higher proportion of respondents feel safe travelling with their own car
(76.0%). Residents in region 7 feel most unsafe when travelling by own vehicle
(11.2%).
104
TABLE 3.19
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TRAVELLING BY OWN CAR BY REGION, 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions
Total Dangerous and unsafe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % % %
1 2.4 13.5 84.1 100.0
2 5.6 10.2 84.2 100.0
3 9.6 19.5 70.2 100.0
4 7.4
23.7 68.9 100.0
5 2.6 39.7 57.7 100.0
6 5.3 19.2 75.6 100.0
7 11.2 23.6 65.2 100.0
Total 2013 5.9 18.1 76.0 100.0
The two major reasons advanced by respondents who feel unsafe when travelling by
own car, included crime (60.6%) and dangerous driving (20.1%).
3.7.9 Safety: CoT offices/walk-in centres/pay points As in 2011, the 2013 questionnaire also enquired on the perceived feeling of safety
inCoT offices. It is clear from table 3.20 that almost seven in every 10 (67.0%)
respondents feel safe or very safe inCoT offices in 2013. Only 5.4% feel unsafe (table
3.20). When compared to 2011, residents in 2013 feel less safe visiting CoT
offices/walk-in centes/pay points.
105
TABLE 3.20
SAFETY PERCEPTIONS REGARDING CoT OFFICES/WALK-IN CENTRES/PAY POINTS BY REGION, 2011 – 2013
Regions
Safety perceptions
Total Dangerous and unsafe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Safe and very safe
% % 5 %
1 2.5 18.3 79.2 100.0
2 4.0 24.6 71.4 100.0
3 8.0 34.5 57.5 100.0
4 8.0 40.8 51.2 100.0
5 3.7 41.5 54.9 100.0
6 6.4 27.6 66.0 100.0 7 8.0 24.8 67.3 100.0 Total 2013 5.4 27.6 67.0 100.0 Total 2011 1.6 20.4 78.0 100.0
3.8 SATISFACTION WITH BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Households were asked to rate each service associated with by-law enforcement on a
10-point scale ranging from 1 (poor service) to 10 (excellent service). The responses
of respondents with no exposure to these services were recorded as not applicable.
Respondents were also requested to advance reasons for ratings below 6.
3.8.1 Building control/control of illegal land use
Building control services yielded a satisfaction mean score of 6.85 in 2011 – down
from 7.54 in 2009. The average score for 2013 was 7.10 (figure 3.64). The regional
rating scores ranged from 5.66 in region 7 to 7.70 in region 2.
106
FIGURE 3.64
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR BUILDING CONTROL SERVICES BY REGION, 2013
Major reasons put forward by the 9.5% households (316 respondents) for their
dissatisfaction with building control in 2013 included the following:
• Illegal erection of houses in open spaces : 30.1%
• Illegal land use on private property : 23.4%
• Buildings invaded by foreigners/illegals : 22.5%
• Limited control : 11.4%
3.8.2 Control of illegal squatting/occupation
Satisfaction with the control of illegal squatting/occupation yielded an overall mean
rating of 6.74 in 2013 – slightly up from 6.44 in 2011 (figure 3.65). Across regions, the
rating ranged between 5.51 in region 7and7.61 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.44 7.70 6.55 7.11 6.90 7.22 5.66 7.10
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
107
FIGURE 3.65
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROL OF ILLEGAL SQUATTING/OCCUPATION BY REGION, 2013
A total of 491 (or 14.7%) of respondents rated the control of squatting below 6.00 in
2013. The major reasons advanced for dissatisfaction with the enforcement of by-
laws governing illegal squatting in buildings are the following:
• Overcrowded/overpopulation : 35.8%
• No/limited by-law enforcement : 34.0%
• Squatters return immediately after being evacuated : 13.6%
• Too many squatters : 7.9%
3.8.3 Control of illegal street/intersection trading
The control of illegal street/intersection trading was rated at 6.52 in 2011,
representing a decline in the 2009 score of 7.28. The satisfaction score for 2013 was
up from 2011 (7.06)(figure 3.66). Regional mean satisfaction ratings in 2013 ranged
from 5.81 in region 7 to 7.45 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.78 7.61 6.17 6.91 6.77 6.95 5.51 6.74
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
108
FIGURE 3.66
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROL OFILLEGAL STREET/INTERSECTION TRADING BY REGION,2013
The major reasons provided by 9.7% of respondents (322) for their dissatisfaction
with street trading in 2013 are the following:
• Lack of control over location of traders : 37.9%
• Create security risks : 26.1%
• Cause of irritation : 19.3%
3.8.4 Control of illegal dumping
Satisfaction with control of illegal dumping was rated at 6.49 in 2011 compared with
6.81 in 2009. The corresponding figure for 2013 is 6.50(figure 3.67). Ratings ranged
from 5.29in region 7 to 6.80 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.73 7.45 6.53 7.00 6.69 7.28 5.81 7.06
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
109
FIGURE 3.67
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROL OF ILLEGAL DUMPING BY REGION, 2013
Major reasons advanced for dissatisfaction with the control of illegal dumping
(reported by 20.4% of respondents) were the following:
• Lack of law enforcement : 35.5%
• People dump everywhere/area not clean : 25.3%
• No proper facilities (containers) : 21.9%
• Lack of education campaign : 15.0%
3.8.5 Control of illegal water connections
Control of illegal water connections yielded a rating of 7.14 in 2011, representing a
substantial decline from the 8.17 of 2009. The 2013 rating score is 7.46 (figure 3.68).
By region, ratings ranged between 5.64in region 7 and 8.07 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.35 6.80 6.64 6.92 6.30 6.43 5.29 6.50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
110
FIGURE 3.68
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROL OF ILLEGAL WATER CONNECTIONS BY REGION, 2013
The 7.8% of respondents (261) allocating a rating of less than 6.00 (out of 10) in
2013advanced the following major reasons:
• No frequent checks by inspectors : 37.2%
• Illegal connections too easy : 33.0%
• High incidence of illegal connections : 25.3%
3.8.6 Control of illegal electricity connections
A mean rating of 6.92 was attained for this item in 2011, representing a considerable
drop from the 8.12 of 2009. The corresponding figure for 2013 is 7.20 (figure 3.69).
Across regions, the mean rating ranged from 5.31 in region 7 to 7.98 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.83 8.07 7.05 7.42 6.95 7.50 5.64 7.46
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
111
FIGURE 3.69
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROL OF ILLEGAL ELECTRICITY CONNECTIONS BY REGION, 2013
The 10.5% dissatisfied households (350) recorded the following reasons for their
dissatisfaction in 2013:
• No frequent checks/law enforcement : 41.4%
• Illegal connections too easy : 39.7%
• No/limited control : 12.6%
3.8.7 Control of visual environment
The visual environment includes aspects such as outdoor advertising and graffiti. An
average rating score of 7.34was attained in 2011, which is slightly lower than the 7.53
attained in 2009. The 2013 score was similar to 2011 (7.33)(figure 3.70). By region,
ratings ranged between 6.57 in region 7 and 7.92 in region 2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.50 7.98 6.77 7.40 7.00 7.10 5.31 7.20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n ra
ting
112
FIGURE 3.70
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROL OF VISUAL ENVIRONMENT BY REGION, 2013
The 6.9% dissatisfied households (230) recorded the following major reasons for their
dissatisfaction in 2013:
• Erection of unauthorised posters : 26.1%
• Electronic outdoor advertising distracting : 24.8%
• Destroying the visual environment : 21.3%
• Expired posters/bill boards not removed : 16.6%
3.8.8 Control of building/construction rubble
Control of building/construction rubble attained an aggregate mean score of
7.28,which is slightly lower than the 7.59 of 2009. The satisfaction score for 2013 for
this item remained at the same level as in 2011 (7.37) (figure 3.71). Average rating
scoresof above 7.00 were recorded for all regions, except region 7.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.62 7.92 6.81 7.18 7.04 7.54 6.57 7.33
0123456789
10
113
FIGURE 3.71
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROL OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE BY REGION, 2013
The6.2% dissatisfied households (207) recorded the following major reasons for their
dissatisfaction in 2013:
• No proper facilities : 57.5%
• No signage for dumping : 19.3%
• High incidence of construction rubble : 10.6%
3.8.9 Noise control
Noise control yielded a score of 7.10 in 2011, representing an increase from the score
of 6.79 attained in 2009. Satisfaction with noise control recorded an average score of
7.16 for 2013(figure 3.72). The average satisfaction ratings of all regionswere above
6.00.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.77 7.87 7.05 7.21 7.04 7.32 6.02 7.37
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
114
FIGURE 3.72
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR NOISE CONTROL BY REGION, 2013
The 11.2% of dissatisfied respondents advanced several reasons for their
dissatisfaction, the major reasons being:
• Human noise : 60.9%
• Barking dogs : 22.0%
• Aircraft noise : 4.3%
3.8.10 Overview of by-law satisfaction ratings
Satisfaction levels for by-law enforcement services can be typified on the basis of the
following classification:
Rating
Very poor 0.0 – 2.0
Poor 2.1 – 4.0
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.06 7.68 6.94 7.28 6.91 7.42 6.23 7.16
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
115
Average 4.1 – 6.0
Good 6.1 – 8.0
Very good 8.1 – 10.0
Table 3.21reflects that the satisfaction of households with all by-law enforcement
services falls into the ‘good’ category in 2011 and 2013.
TABLE 3.21
SUMMARY OF SCORES ATTAINED FOR BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES, 2009 – 2013
By-law enforcement service Scores
(out of 10) Classification
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 Building control 7.54 6.85 7.10 Good Good Good Illegal squatting 7.24 6.44 6.74 Good Good Good Illegal street trading 7.28 6.52 7.06 Good Good Good Illegal dumping 6.81 6.49 6.50 Good Good Good Illegal water connections 8.17 7.14 7.46 Very good Good Good Illegal electricity connections 8.12 6.92 7.20 Very good Good Good Control of visual environment 7.53 7.34 7.33 Good Good Good Control of building or construction rubble 7.59 7.28 7.37 Good Good Good Noise control 6.79 7.10 7.16 Good Good Good
3.9 SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SAFETY
Households were requested to rate their satisfaction with the following public safety
services on a 10-point scale: traffic control, social crime prevention, visible policing
and response time of Metro Police. The last two items were introduced for the first
time in 2013.
3.9.1 Traffic control
Traffic control (road policing) relates to the reduction in accidents, fatalities, serious
injuries and lawlessness.Residents yielded a score of 6.67for traffic control in 2011 –
116
slightly lower than the 6.73 of 2009. The corresponding figure for 2013 is 7.06(figure
3.73). The satisfaction ratings by region ranged from 6.74in region 7 to 7.59 in region
2.
FIGURE 3.73
SATISFACTION LEVELSFOR TRAFFIC CONTROL BY REGION, 2013
The 9.3% of dissatisfied respondents advanced several reasons for their
dissatisfaction in 2013, including:
• Limited law enforcement/traffic policing : 45.6%
• Corruption/bribing : 21.0%
• No commitment to job : 10.7%
3.9.2 Social crime prevention
Social crime prevention includes, for example, education and awareness of
preventing violence against women and children, enforcement against drug abuse,
safer school programmes and scholar patrols. Households rated social crime
prevention ata slightly lower level thantraffic control, resulting in a score of 6.74 (out
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.93 7.59 6.96 7.03 6.93 7.26 6.56 7.06
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
117
of 10) for 2013 (figure 3.74). Substantial variations are evident by region, ranging
from 6.35 in region 7 to 7.15 in region 2.
FIGURE 3.74
SATISFACTION LEVELS FORSOCIAL CRIME PREVENTION BY REGION, 2013
The 13.2% of respondents who rated social crime prevention below 6.00 (out of 10)
in 2013advanced the following reasons as their main concerns:
• Lack of awareness campaigns : 59.3%
• Corruption (bribery and power abuse) : 15.2%
• No/slow response to callouts : 6.8%
• Not visible or enough officers : 5.7%
3.9.3 Visible policing
Visible policing is done through CCTV, surveillance, vehicle patrols, motorcycle
patrols, bicycle patrols, foot patrols, etc. Satisfaction with visible policing was first
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.58 7.15 6.50 6.80 6.77 7.06 6.35 6.74
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
118
introduced in 2013. Figure 3.75 shows that an average rating score of 6.41 was
recorded for visible policing ranging from 5.85 in region 1 to 6.90 in region 5.
FIGURE 3.75
SATISFACTION LEVELS WITH VISIBLE POLICING BY REGION, 2013
The 17.4% (or 578) respondents that indicated that they are dissatisfied with visible
policing (ratings below 6.00) advanced no clear surveillance (46.5%), limited patrols
(33.2%) and lack of visibility (14.9%) as major reasons.
3.9.4 Response time of Metro Police
This item was first introduced in 2013 and the satisfaction scores with the response
time of Metro Police are displayed by region in figure 3.76. All scores are above 6.00,
except for region 7 (5.72).
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 5.85 6.85 6.37 6.76 6.90 6.74 6.44 6.41
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
119
FIGURE 3.76
SATISFACTION LEVELS WITH RESPONSE TIME OF METRO POLICE BY REGION, 2013
The 17.9% or (597) respondents who indicated that they are dissatisfied with the
response time of the Metro Police in 2013, cited no answering of telephones (63.3%),
slow response to call-outs (24.0%) and availability of vehicles (10.7%) as major
reasons.
3.9.5 Overview of public safety
Satisfaction levels for public safety services are summarised and classified in table
3.22.
TABLE 3.22
SUMMARY OF SCORES ATTAINED BY PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES, 2013
Scores (out of 10)
Classification
Traffic control 7.06 Good Social crime prevention 6.74 Good Visible policing 6.41 Good Response time of Metro Police 6.29 Good
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 6.17 6.36 6.34 6.16 6.94 6.46 5.72 6.29
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
120
Table 3.22 reflects that the satisfaction of households with public safety services
could be classified as ‘good’.
3.10 BILLING AND PAYMENT 3.10.1 Account received
Approximatelyeight in every 10 (79.8%) respondents received an account from the
CoT in 2013. Figure 3.77 shows that the percentage of households receiving CoT
accounts differs substantially by region. It ranges from 53.9% in region 2 to 89.2% in
region 5.
FIGURE 3.77
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING AN ACCOUNT FROM THE CoT, 2013
3.10.2 Account criteria
Households that received accounts from the CoT were requested to rate their
satisfaction with the following account criteria: clarity, correctness, regularity of
accounts and sufficiency of information provided to understand municipal water,
sanitation and electricity usage and billing. The latter item was first introduced in
2013.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 79.9 53.9 84.2 79.9 89.2 88.3 78.60 79.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
121
3.10.2.1 Clarity of accounts
Figure 3.78 shows the level of satisfaction with the clarity and understandabilityof
CoT accounts. The mean rating score of 7.62 suggests a fairly high level of
satisfaction with regard to the clarity of the CoT accounts in 2013,which is almost
similar to the 7.79 in 2011. Some regional variation is evident from mean scores
ranging from 6.94 in region 7 to 7.96 in region 2.
FIGURE 3.78
RATING OF CoT ACCOUNTS IN TERMS OF CLARITY BY REGION, 2013
Only 4.6% (or 154) of the respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the
clarity of accounts (rating below 6.00) in 2013. The major reason for dissatisfaction
wasthat the accounts are too complex/unclear (75.3%).
3.10.2.2 Correctness of account
Figure 3.79 shows that the satisfaction rating for 2013 with regard to the correctness
of accounts is 7.25 – similar to the 7.38 in 2011.All regions recorded ratings of above
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.93 7.96 7.30 7.52 6.97 7.70 6.94 7.62
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
122
6.00. The ratings with regard to the correctness of accounts ranged from 6.74 in
region 7 to 7.48 in region 6.
FIGURE 3.79
RATING OF CoT ACCOUNTS IN TERMS OF CORRECTNESS BY REGION, 2013
Those dissatisfied with the correctness of accounts (8.9%) in 2013,listed the following
reasons:
• Figures on statements are incorrect : 56.6%
• Meter readings not correct/wrong readings : 20.2%
• Errors not corrected after reporting : 16.8%
3.10.2.3 Regularity of account (monthly on time)
Respondents were also requested to rate their satisfaction with the regularity of
accounts received. The outcome of this finding is presented in figure 3.80. Fairly
high satisfaction levels are evident from the fact that all regions (except regions 5 and
7) recorded ratings above 7.00 with an aggregate mean rating of 7.47. This is slightly
lower than the 7.96 recorded for 2011.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.40 7.42 6.87 7.26 6.89 7.48 6.74 7.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mea
n sc
ore
123
FIGURE 3.80
RATING OF CoT ACCOUNTS IN TERMS OF REGULARITY OF ACCOUNT BY REGION, 2013
A mere7.0% of the respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the
regularity of accounts received in 2013. Issues of concern are the following:
• Irregular receipt of accounts : 55.8%
• Accounts posted to wrong address : 15.9 %
3.10.2.4 Satisfaction of information to understand billing This item was first introduced in 2013 and the findings of the satisfaction with the
sufficiency of information to understand municipal billing is reflected in figure 3.81.
The average satisfaction is shown at 7.41 ranging from 6.67 for region 7 to 7.77 for
region 1.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.8 7.75 7.09 7.24 6.84 7.67 6.67 7.47
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
124
FIGURE 3.81
RATING OF SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND MUNICIPAL BILLING BY REGION, 2013
A total of 198 respondents (5.9%) indicated that they were dissatisfied with the
sufficiency of information to understand municipal billing. The major reasons cited
include bills not understandable (35.9%), incorrect figures (32.8%) and insufficient
information (25.3%).
3.10.3 Current and preferred municipal account payment method
The final subsection included in the ‘billing and payment’ section of the questionnaire
requested respondents to indicate the current and preferred method of payment of
CoT accounts. These research findings are displayed in table 3.23.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.77 7.72 7.02 7.28 6.91 7.50 6.67 7.41
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
125
TABLE 3.23
CURRENT AND PREFERRED PAYMENT METHOD FOR CoT MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTS BY REGION, 2013
Payment method
Region Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Current Preferred Current Preferred Current Preferred Current Preferred Current Preferred Current Preferred Current Preferred Current Preferred
Municipal office/Cashier desk at pay point
58.7 56.4 48.1 42.3 22.5 19.9 17.3 15.3 22.0 22.0 41.8 36.7 54.5 53.5 39.5 36.3
Drive-through cashiers
1.4 1.5 2.9 2.9 2.3 2.3 0.3 0.9 3.3 4.4 2.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.0
Debit Order 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.8 5.9 5.3 8.4 7.8 4.4 5.5 3.4 3.4 8.1 7.1 4.4 4.4
Bank deposit: Over-the-counter and Internet payment at bank
2.6 1.2 3.8 4.8 9.0 7.1 6.6 6.6 6.6 7.7 3.9 4.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.6
Electronic payments (Internet banking)
6.0 5.6 26.9 25.5 33.3 33.3 50.9 52.3 47.3 36.3 33.0 31.5 24.2 27.3 27.6 27.0
Approved external pay point
29.1 31.3 14.9 16.3 26.6 27.3 15.3 13.6 15.4 8.8 15.1 18.2 7.1 5.1 21.1 22.2
Telephone banking
.1 1.4 0.0 4.3 .4 4.8 1.2 3.5 1.1 15.4 .2 2.9 1.0 2.0 0.4 3.5
126
Table 3.23 shows no real significant differences between current and preferred
methods of payments. Overall it appears that residents would prefer less municipal
office/pay point payments and more telephone banking in the foreseeable future.
However, the ratio of residents preferring telephone banking are very low.
3.11 CUSTOMER CARE SERVICE
This section of the satisfaction model for the CoTwas revamped in 2013. The
rationale was to reflect on the integrated Service Delivery Charter of the CoT. This
Charter reflects on the CoT including service performance measures such as
responsiveness, accountability, effectiveness, efficiency and service
standards/quality. The Charter outlines the norms and standards that the CoT
aspires to and was subsequently used as a key denominator to construct the
‘customer service’ section of the 2013 satisfaction study. Specific focus areas
included satisfaction with the CoT in handling information and service requests, as
well as complaints lodged by customers regarding the standard of services.
Against this background, the ‘customer service’ section commenced with a general
question to establish whether respondents had lodged any enquiries or complaints
with the CoT in the 12 months prior to the study. Figure 3.82 displays the outcome of
this finding by region.
127
FIGURE 3.82
LODGING OF ENQUIRIES OR COMPLAINTS WITH THE CoT, 2013
It is clear from figure 3.82 that, on average, approximately one in every five
respondents (18.7%) lodged an enquiry or complaint in the 12 months prior to the
survey. These figures range from 8.1%in region 4 to 27.8% in region 1.
For those respondents (18.7%) who lodged a complaint or made an enquiry, a follow-
up question was used to determine the nature (information request, service request
or lodged a complaint) of the enquiry or complaint as well as the type of interaction
(telephonic, customer care/walk-in centres, or written communication – e-mail, fax
or postal) used to enquire/complain.
Due to too low incidences (complaints/enquiries) reflected across regions, the
analysis is limited to a holistic overview of the research outcomes presented in figure
3.83.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 27.8 13.2 19.0 8.1 8.8 16.2 25.4 18.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
Perc
enta
ge
128
FIGURE 3.83
TYPE OF ENQUIRY/COMPLAINT BY MODE OF INTERACTION, 2013
Prior to analysing the information in figure 3.83 it is important to note the following
low percentages for respondents who indicated that they enquired or lodged a
complaint with the CoT during the 12 months prior to the study:
• Information request : 6.1%
• Service request : 7.4%
• Lodge complaint : 9.9%
The above figures show very low levels of respondents lodging a complaint or
enquiring via any of the three interaction modes reflected in figure 3.83. Of those
who complained/enquired about information or services, most did so via a personal
visit to a customer care/walk-in centre. Compared across interaction mode, more
respondents were inclined to lodge a complaint at the customer care/walk-in centre
1.5
2.4
7.4
81.9
79.3
70.8
16.6
18.3
21.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Lodge a complaint
Service request
Information request
Telephone
Customer care/walk-in centre
Writing
129
rather than enquireabout information or request services. In turn, telephones and
written communication are preferred for requesting information.
Of those respondents who used a customer care/walk-in centre to complain/enquire,
almost all used a centre in the region where they reside. Also, for those respondents
who have lodged an enquiry or complaint with the CoT during the past 12 months
(622 or 18.1%), the survey also aimed to establish whether the most recent
complaint/enquiry had been resolved on first contact. Only 285 or 45.8% of such
respondents indicated that their most recent complaint/enquiry was in fact resolved
on first contact. Figure 3.84 shows the regional views on resolving
enquiries/complaints on first contact.
FIGURE 3.84
RESOLVING ENQUIRIES/COMPLAINTS ON FIRST CONTACT BY REGION, 2013
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 48.6 64.7 39.4 40.0 22.2 46.0 31.3 45.8
0102030405060708090
100
Perc
enta
ge
130
Regional experiences and differences are clear from figure 3.84 that ranges from as
low as 22.2% in region 5 to as high as 64.7% in region 2. However, due to relative
small sample cases across regions (especially regions 4, 5 and 7), readers are
cautioned not to overgeneralise the findings presented in figure 3.84. The same
applies to the information contained in table 3.24 that provides an overview of the
level of satisfaction with the timelines and accuracy of the CoT in dealing with
requests/complaints lodged by respondents in the 12 months preceding to the 2013
study.
131
TABLE 3.24
OVERVIEW OF THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH TIMELINES AND ACCURACY OF THE CoT IN DEALING WITH REQUESTS/COMPLAINTS
Enquiry/complaint type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Account payments (electricity, water and sanitation) 5.30 4.40 4.58 4.74 3.75 4.81 3.44 4.80 Blocked street sewers 4.63 4.80 5.50 4.67 4.50 6.00 4.88 Building plans (time taken for approval) 3.50 8.00 5.11 5.17 5.00 4.75 5.04 Bus services 3.50 5.45 5.20 5.00 5.50 5.18 By-law offences (ie illegal street trading, illegal night club activities) 3.50 6.00 4.50 5.00 5.33 5.22 Cable/electrical equipment theft 4.20 5.00 5.30 5.50 5.00 3.67 4.75 Cemeteries 4.60 3.75 4.89 5.00 5.00 4.33 4.63 Clinics 2.67 5.33 5.20 5.00 5.00 4.92 Electricity meter readings: Finance 5.44 6.75 4.15 5.17 3.25 3.87 4.50 4.63 Electricity: Faulty street lights 5.22 6.00 4.86 4.67 3.00 6.00 5.09 Electricity: Illegal connections or tampering with electrical equipment 3.00 6.50 5.27 6.00 3.00 5.25 5.03 Electricity: Power failure 5.84 5.92 5.59 6.50 3.00 6.09 2.00 5.76 Electricity: Reconnection after wrong cut (6 -8 hours) or after payment (48 hours) 5.67 5.36 5.67 5.00 4.00 5.35 Electricity: Repair/replace mast pole 5.20 10.00 4.65 4.33 5.00 2.71 3.67 4.45 Emergency medical & ambulance service 3.25 5.11 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.42 Finance/refunds: Make deposit refunds after move-out 3.50 4.75 6.00 5.00 4.00 4.76 Fire Brigade 3.50 5.71 5.20 5.00 4.50 5.12 Flooded drains 3.71 5.27 4.33 5.00 5.00 4.66 Housing: Issue title deeds 2.75 2.50 5.67 5.00 5.00 5.50 2.00 4.58 Housing: Respond to queries on provincial waiting list 3.77 4.50 4.19 4.60 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.25 Illegal buildings 4.75 5.14 4.40 5.00 6.00 4.95 Land use rights/rezoning (time taken for approval) 3.50 5.88 5.40 5.00 6.00 5.39 Landfill sites/recycling 4.33 5.38 4.83 5.00 6.50 5.14 Licensing 3.50 5.30 6.40 5.00 6.33 5.50 Metro Police 4.60 5.43 4.33 5.00 5.00 5.00 Noise control 4.71 5.14 6.83 5.00 6.67 5.50 Parks 5.25 5.50 5.17 5.00 7.00 5.46
cont…
132
TABLE 3.24 (continued)
Enquiry/complaint type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Road maintenance (pothole repairs) 3.50 7.00 5.50 6.60 5.00 3.50 4.97 Sidewalks/pedestrian 5.50 5.36 5.80 5.00 4.00 5.23 Stormwater drainage/flooding 3.25 5.91 5.83 5.00 5.33 5.34 Waste collection/refuse removal 3.50 5.50 5.40 5.00 4.80 5.15 Water connections & reconnections 3.50 5.33 5.73 6.80 5.00 5.50 5.36 Water leakages, pipe bursts/no water supply 5.30 9.00 5.82 5.14 4.00 5.44 4.25 5.45 Water meter readings: Finance 5.10 5.40 4.39 5.00 5.00 5.32 4.00 4.99 Water: Drinking quality 3.17 3.00 6.50 7.17 6.50 7.00 5.81 Water: Faulty meters 4.94 1.00 6.08 6.83 6.50 5.75 4.00 5.58 Water: Free basic water 2.75 6.20 5.25 6.50 6.75 5.18
*Readers are cautioned not to generalise the survey findings by regions due to small samples
133
Table 3.24 shows extremely low satisfaction levels for all 37 service
requests/complaints investigated in the 2013 study. Readers are yet again cautioned
not to overgeneralise the regional analysis. When analysing the overall satisfaction
scores reflected in table 3.24 the following trends emerge:
• Account payments (85.2% of most recent enquiries)
Top ‘most recent’ enquiries
• Water meter readings (40.4% of most recent enquiries)
• Electricity: Power failures (31.9% of most recent enquiries)
• Electricity meter reading (28.4% of most recent enquiries)
• Water leakages/pipe bursts (21.1% of most recent enquiries)
Bottom satisfaction scores
• Housing: Respond to queries on provisional waiting list
(below 4)
• Emergency medical and ambulance service
• Electricity: Repair/replace mast pole
• Cemeteries
• Electricity meter readings
Although still below average ratings of 6.00, requests/complaints for the following
items were dealt with slightly better in terms of time and accuracy:
• Water: Drinking quality (5.81)
• Electricity: Power failure (5.76)
• Water: Faulty meters (5.58)
• Noise control: (5.50)
• Licensing (5.50)
134
3.12 SERVICE DELIVERY ACCOUNTABILITY
Building on the customer service section aimed to evaluate the service aspirations of
the CoT as contained in the Service Delivery Charter, a separate section was included
to measure householdss awareness and perceptions regarding service excellence.
Firstly, respondents were requested to indicate their levels of awareness of the still
to be published ‘Service Delivery Charter’. The outcome of this research finding is
reflected in figure 3.85 by region.
FIGURE 3.85
AWARENESS OF CoT SERVICE DELIVERY CHARTER BY REGION, 2013
Despite the fact that the CoT Service Delivery Charter has not yet been released,
about a quarter (24.4%) of respondents claimed that they were aware of the Charter.
This surprising proportion ranged from 14.3% in region 7 to 29.6% in region 4.
Furthermore, residents were challenged to indicate the extent to which they agree
with five pre-determined service aspirations of the CoT aimed to ignite service
excellence. For this purpose, an agreement scale was used with the scale anchors
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). The outcome of this research
finding is presented in table 3.25 that displays the average agreement scores of
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 23.5 21.5 27.2 29.6 19.6 23.7 14.3 24.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Perc
enta
ge
135
respondents. Logically, scores close to ‘1’ display lower agreement levels while
scores closer to ‘10’ reflect higher levels of agreement. Similarly a score of 5 =
undecided, 6 = slightly agree, 7 = moderately agree and 8+ = strongly agree.
TABLE 3.25
SERVICE ASPIRATIONS AGREEMENT SCORES BY REGION, 2013
Service aspiration Region
Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The CoT is committed towards achieving service excellence 6.21 5.45 6.11 5.89 5.23 5.48 5.21 5.84 The CoT is effective and efficient in progressively delivering on its mandate to be accountable to local communities 6.14 5.40 6.11 5.87 5.35 5.46 5.13 5.81 The CoT adheres to good service delivery quality standards that effectively address customers’ information and service requests and complaints 6.11 5.34 6.15 5.83 5.33 5.41 5.08 5.79 The CoT has managed to develop a sound service delivery response culture to effectively and efficiently address customer enquiries and complaints 6.03 5.31 6.08 5.85 5.34 5.39 5.02 5.74 The CoT meets reasonable timelines
5.79 to respond
timely to residents’ requests and complaints 5.14 5.92 5.75 5.41 5.27 4.90 5.58 The CoT addresses residents’ requests and complaints 5.83 accurately 5.23 5.97 5.84 5.46 5.34 4.97 5.64
It is clear from table 3.25 that respondents are not highly convinced that the CoT is
delivering service excellence. In fact, most scores show that most respondents only
slightly agreed (scores of around 6.00) that the CoT has succeeded in delivering
service excellence or inproviding good service quality or standards.
3.13 PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION 3.13.1 Metro consultative and participatory process
As in 2009 and 2011, the 2013 study was designed to determine involvement of CoT
residents in any metro consultative or participatory processes (eg ward councillor
outreach, ward committee meetings or ward public meetings, ward/community-
136
based planning processes,general public/consultation meetings, stakeholder
summits, mayoral road shows, consultation around development projects, mayoral
izimbozos, etc) during the 12 months preceding the survey. The outcome of this
finding is presented in figure 3.86 by region.
It is clear from figure 3.86 that approximately a third (32.9%) of respondents
confirmed their participation in the metro consultative or participatory processes.
The 2013 figure closely resembles the 2009 (37.6%) and 2011 (36.0%) figures.
Residents in region 1 (49.7%) and region 2 (44.0%) claimed to be more involved in
these processes than other regions. Only 12.5% of residents in region 5 claimed to be
involved in any such processes.
FIGURE 3.86
INVOLVEMENT IN METRO CONSULTATIVE OR PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES BY REGION, 2013
Those respondents (32.9% or 1 094) who indicated that they were involved in any
metro consultative or participatory processes, were also offered the opportunity to
indicate how actively they had been involved in either ward meetings, community-
based planning or general public meetings/stakeholder summits or consultative
meetings. The outcome of this finding is reflected in table 3.26.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 49.7 44.0 17.5 17.1 12.7 31.5 36.5 32.9
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Perc
enta
ge
137
TABLE 3.26
METRO CONSULTATIVE OR PARTICIPATORY PROCESSESBY TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT, 2013
Consultative and participatory processes
Frequency Regions*
Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % % % % % % % %
Ward meetings
Once in the last year 23.9 20.7 15.0 9.5 7.7 16.1 4.4 18.9 More than once in the last year 28.2 29.0 25.7 23.0 53.8 34.1 57.8 30.4 Often in the last year 29.8 37.3 34.5 60.8 15.4 39.6 35.6 35.7 None in the last year 18.1 13.0 24.8 6.8 23.1 10.1 2.2 15.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Community based planning process
Once in the last year 6.4 5.9 9.1 5.4 8.3 5.1 4.4 6.2 More than once in the last year 26.5 35.3 22.7 20.3 8.3 33.2 35.6 28.6 Often in the last year 25.4 28.2 23.6 55.4 41.7 27.6 33.3 28.7 None in the last year 41.6 30.6 44.5 18.9 41.7 34.1 26.7 36.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
General public meetings, consultative meetings
Once in the last year 12.9 13.6 9.7 8.1 0.0 12.9 6.8 12.0 More than once in the last year 20.9 30.2 18.6 18.9 33.3 24.4 50.0 24.1 Often in the last year 22.1 26.0 26.5 54.1 8.3 30.4 4.5 26.3 None in the last year 44.0 30.2 45.1 18.9 58.3 32.3 38.6 37.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Public hearings
Once in the last year 7.8 3.6 7.2 2.7 0.0 3.2 2.3 5.4 More than once in the last year 8.8 13.0 16.2 12.2 25.0 15.2 2.3 11.7 Often in the last year 12.1 17.2 17.1 55.4 25.0 23.5 6.8 18.8 None in the last year 71.3 66.3 59.5 29.7 50.0 58.1 88.6 64.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
*Readers are cautioned not to over-generalise regional data, especially data for regions 4, 5 and 7 with small sample cases
138
It should be noted that table 3.26 reflects the proportion of all respondents (1 094
respondents) who claimed involvement at any of the three levels reflected in table
3.26. It is clear from the table that ward meetings top the list of participatory
processes with 85.0% of all respondents indicating that they were involved in ward
meetings during the 12 months preceding the survey (ie the first three rows of ward
meetingsin table 3.26). Also, approximately 60% ofrespondents indicated that they
had participated in community-based planning processes (63.6%) and general public
meetings/consultative meetings(62.5%) at least once in the year preceding the
survey. Only a third (35.9%) of the respondents indicated that they had participated
in public hearings during the past 12 months prior to the survey.
Finally, table 3.27 reflects the satisfaction levels of the 1 094respondents who
claimed to be involved in any metro consultative or participatory process at least
once in the year preceding the survey.
TABLE 3.27
SATISFACTION WITH METRO CONSULTATIVE/PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES, 2009 – 2013
Region Ward meetings
Community based planning
General public meetings,
stakeholder summits or consultative
meetings
Public hearings
Mean rating Mean rating Mean rating Mean rating 1 6.91 6.81 7.00 6.55 2 7.23 7.35 7.76 7.22 3 7.69 8.10 7.64 8.09 4 7.70 8.07 7.90 8.02 5 6.50 8.29 5.40 7.83 6 7.36 7.22 7.72 7.68 7 6.11 5.91 6.22 7.00 Total 2013 7.15 7.19 7.39 7.34 Total 2011 6.63 6.41 6.69 Total 2009 7.22 7.06 6.96
139
Table 3.27 reflects relativelyhigh satisfaction levels with metro consultative processes
in 2013 with all the scores being above 7.00. Ward meetings yielded a mean rating of
7.15, community-based planning 7.91 and general public meetings and stakeholder
summits 7.39. These scores are somewhat higher than those of 2011.
3.13.2 Communication modes
In addition to participation in metro processes, the 2013 questionnaire was also
designed to capture respondents’ awareness and utilisation of methods used by the
CoT to communicate its issues, policies and activities to citizens. The outcome of
these findings as well as the satisfaction levels recorded for the various
communication modes (ienewsletters, official Tshwane Website,issue-specific
information/awareness campaigns, SMS communication, local media (radio or print
media) and social media (Facebook and Twitter) are reflected below.
Table 3.28 provides a breakdown of only the frequency of utilisation of the various
CoT communication modes. The table shows a fairly low frequency of utilising CoT
communication media in 2013. In fact, 51.2% had not read any CoT newsletters
during the preceding year. The figure not using the official Tshwane Website
amounted to87.3% while 78.8% did not note issue-specific information/awareness
campaigns. However, it should be noted that 48.8% read Tshwane newslettersat
least once a year, 12.7% visited the Tshwane Website at least once a year and 21.2%
noted issue-specific information and awareness campaigns at least once a
year.Furthermore, 12.4% relied on SMS communication to update themselves on CoT
issues, policies or activities. Similar figures for local (radio-/print media) and social
media are 28.6% and 7.6% respectively.
140
TABLE 3.28
UTILISATION OF CoT COMMUNICATION MODES, 2013
Communication modes Frequency Region
Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % % % % % % % %
Newsletters (Tshwane Update Newsletter)
Once in the last year 10.2 2.9 9.5 8.8 4.9 9.7 3.2 8.5 More than once in the last year 9.6 9.6 13.9 9.7 5.9 10.9 15.1 10.8 Often in the last year 22.0 21.1 33.7 33.3 32.4 36.2 34.1 29.5 None in the last year 58.2 66.4 42.9 48.1 56.9 43.3 47.6 51.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Official Tshwane Websites
Once in the last year 4.1 1.3 6.8 3.5 5.9 4.3 0.8 4.2 More than once in the last year 3.6 5.4 5.3 6.9 2.0 6.4 2.4 5.1 Often in the last year 3.0 1.8 5.5 2.5 4.9 3.2 3.2 3.4 None in the last year 89.3 91.5 82.4 87.1 87.3 86.1 93.7 87.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Awareness campaigns (ie Cable Theft Awareness, new Credit Control Policy)
Once in the last year 7.0 2.6 8.6 3.5 6.9 4.0 2.4 5.6 More than once in the last year 7.3 14.0 6.8 8.3 3.9 7.9 6.4 8.1 Often in the last year 10.9 5.2 9.2 3.2 2.9 6.8 4.0 7.5 None in the last year 74.8 78.2 75.3 85.0 86.3 81.2 87.2 78.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
SMS communication
Once in the last year 3.0 2.1 6.8 3.2 4.9 3.8 0.8 3.8 More than once in the last year 2.5 4.7 5.8 8.3 2.9 4.8 0.0 4.6 Often in the last year 3.3 1.6 6.2 5.8 2.9 3.9 0.0 4.0 None in the last year 91.1 91.7 81.2 82.7 89.2 87.6 99.2 87.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Local media (radio or printed media)
Once in the last year 5.4 7.5 7.3 3.9 4.9 7.7 2.4 6.2 More than once in the last year 12.5 9.1 10.0 5.8 3.9 5.4 3.2 8.6 Often in the last year 17.1 15.3 11.2 12.5 19.6 13.3 2.4 13.8 None in the last year 65.0 68.1 71.6 77.8 71.6 73.7 92.1 71.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Social media (Facebook & Twitter)
Once in the last year 2.3 1.3 5.8 2.8 4.9 3.9 0.8 3.3 More than once in the last year 1.5 3.9 1.7 3.5 2.0 1.9 0.8 2.1 Often in the last year 1.4 1.3 3.5 2.8 2.9 1.6 2.4 2.1 None in the last year 94.7 93.5 89.1 91.0 90.2 92.6 96.0 92.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
141
Finally, table 3.29 shows the mean satisfaction ratings of those respondents who
indicated that they are aware of or utilised the relevant communication modes.
TABLE 3.29
SATISFACTION WITH CoT COMMUNICATION MODES, 2009 – 2013
Region
Newsletters (Tshwane Update
Newsletter)
Official Tshwane Websites
Awareness campaigns (ie
Cable Theft Awareness, new
Credit Control Policy)
SMS communication
Local media (radio or printed media)
Social media (Facebook &
Twitter)
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean 1 7.94 7.23 7.86 7.74 8.00 6.96 2 8.10 8.30 8.12 7.53 8.33 7.92 3 7.64 7.53 7.71 7.27 7.73 7.08 4 8.06 8.04 7.55 7.65 7.70 7.87 5 7.91 8.00 8.14 7.91 7.55 8.40 6 8.16 8.50 7.91 8.10 8.34 8.16 7 7.17 8.00 5.56 8.00 6.80 8.20 Total 2013 7.92 7.84 7.79 7.65 8.00 7.56
Total 2011 7.44 6.15 7.57
Total 2009 7.68 5.06 7.12
Table 3.29 shows fairly high satisfaction levels with all CoT communication modes –
ratings between 7.56 and 8.00 respectively.
Respondents that had utilised/notedCoT communication media were offered the
opportunity to voice the reasons for dissatisfaction (rating below 6.00). No more
than 2.5% showed dissatisfaction for any of the communication modes. Households
dissatisfied with CoT newsletters stated the following to substantiate their
dissatisfaction: not informative, not relevant news or old news. Respondents
dissatisfied with the Tshwane Website, all indicated that the Website is not user-
friendly and/or difficult to read. Those dissatisfied with issue-specific information
campaigns said that it was difficult to understand and that it was not advertised
sufficiently. Also, SMS communication and local media are regarded by dissatisfied
142
respondents as uninformative. Once again, with the relatively small number of
households that responded to this question, readers are cautioned not to
overgeneralise the outcome of these findings.
3.13.3 Language of CoT documents
Respondents were requested to rate their level of satisfaction with the language in
which CoT citizens are serviced (eg language used in billing, telephone and face-to-
face communication and CoT publications). Figure 3.87 displays the outcome of this
research finding by region.
FIGURE 3.87
SATISFACTION WITH LANGUAGE USED BY CoT BY REGION, 2013
An average score of 7.38 was recorded for the satisfaction with the language used by
the CoT to communicate with residents. This figure ranged from 6.71 in regions 2
and 7 to 7.72 in region 1.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 7.72 6.71 7.51 7.53 7.24 7.24 6.71 7.38
0123456789
10
Mea
n sc
ore
143
3.14 CORRUPTION
Firstly, the levels of awareness of corruption in CoT metropolitan structures were
determined. The outcome of this showed that 16.9% of households indicated that
they are aware of corruption occurring in CoT metropolitan structures in 2013. This
figure is lower than the 29.0% recorded in 2011. Figure 3.88 reflects that the
percentage of respondents who were aware of corruption by region ranged between
4.6% in region 4 to 25.2% in region 1.
FIGURE 3.88
AWARENESS OF CORRUPTION BY REGION, 2013
As in 2011, the 2013 study also requested respondents to specify the type of
corruption they are aware of. The outcome of this finding is presented in figure 3.90.
The figure reflects the percentage of respondents who are aware of corruption by
type of corruption.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 25.2 19.4 15.4 4.6 6.9 13.8 14.30 16.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
144
FIGURE 3.89
AWARENESS OF CORRUPTION BY TYPE OF CORRUPTION, 2009 – 2013
Figure 3.89shows that 45.8% of the respondents who claimed to be aware of
corruption in 2013 indicated that they are aware of bribery occurring in the CoT.
Approximately a third of the respondents (35.1%) claimed that they are aware of
fraudulent activities in the CoT.A similar percentage (34.2%) claimed that they are
aware of favouritism or that CoT officials abuse their positions (36.2%). About a
quarter (28.2%) claimed to be aware of nepotism and 14.9% of conflict of interest.
Compared to 2011, a lower portion of respondents claimed to be aware of bribery,
but a slightly higher percentage seem to be more aware of CoT officials abusing their
practice of nepotism.
Households were also requested to indicate whether they think the CoT municipality
is responding satisfactorily to address corruption. The proportion of households that
affirmed that corruption is being addressed satisfactorily is reflected in figure 3.90 by
region.
11.4
14.6
23.6
31.9
68.5
24.3
27.6
28.8
44.3
62.9
14.9
28.2
36.2
35.1
45.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Conflict of interest
Nepotism
Abuse of power
Fraud
Bribery
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
145
FIGURE 3.90
AFFIRMATION REGARDING CoT SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSING CORRUPTION BY REGION, 2013
It is clear from the above figure that the confidence of CoTcitizens in the CoT
addressing corruption satisfactorilyis fairly low at 12.5% of households (affirming
their awareness of corruption) in 2013 – slightly up from 7.4% in 2011.By region,
disagreement with the CoT addressing corruption satisfactorily ranged from 28.6% in
region 5 to 61.0% in region 1.
3.15 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter contains a discussion of the satisfaction ratings of households in the CoT.
A summary of the ratings is presented in chapter 6.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 13.0 10.7 15.5 5.0 42.9 11.5 0.00 12.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge
146
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS OF THE BUSINESS SATISFACTION SURVEY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 provided an overview of the research methodology for conducting the 2013
business satisfaction survey among 582 formal and 265 informal businesses. This
chapter highlights the findings of the 2013 business survey in comparison with the 2009
and 2011 business surveys. The information is presented by employment size class
distinguishing between the following three formal business categories:
• Large and medium-sized business (20 or more employees)1
• Small business (fewer than 20 employees)
• Informal businesses (not disaggregated by business size category).
A total of 847 businesses participated in the 2013 study.
4.2 BUSINESS SAMPLE POPULATION
Prior to a presentation of the survey findings, a brief exposition of the 2013 business
population is provided. This allows the reader to evaluate the results against the
characteristics of the business sample population. Table 4.1 shows the sectoral
composition according to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of the sample. The
two most important sectors in the business sample in 2013 are wholesale and retail
businesses (30.8%) and community, social and personal services (26.4%). This economic
structure closely resembles the 2009 and 2011 sectoral business composition.
The 2013 survey findings also revealed that 47.8% of participating businesses are owned
while approximately half the businesses (50.4%) are rented. Almost a quarter of the
participating businesses had operated in Tshwane for up to five years (26.0%). More
1 For analysis purposes, the survey results for the large (200+ employees) and medium (20 – 199 employees) businesses were integrated due to the sample of large businesses (n = 14) being too small.
147
than half (56.0%) were in existence for between five and 20 years and 17.6% for more
than 20 years.
Table 4.1 shows the sectoral composition of the business sample for 2009, 2011 and
2013. In both 2009 and 2011 ‘wholesale and retail’ constituted more than a third of the
sample (37.7% in 2009 and 35.4% in 2011). This is followed by ‘community, social and
personal services’ (26.2% in 2009 and 25.9% in 2011).
TABLE 4.1
SECTORAL COMPOSITION OF THE BUSINESS SAMPLE, 2009 – 2013
Sector 2009 total
%
2011 total
%
2013 total
% Wholesale and retail 36.7 35.4 30.8 Community, social and personal services 26.2 25.9 26.4 Manufacturing 16.3 10.8 10.2 Financial insurance, real estate and business services 15.5 18.2 15.2 Transport, storage and communication 2.9 4.0 4.6 Construction 2.0 4.5 4.0 Other* 0.4 1.2 8.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
* ‘Other’ includes electricity, gas and water supply (4.4%), agriculture/hunting/forestry/fishing (3.2%) and mining and quarrying (1.2%)
The location of businesses by type of area is shown in figure 4.1. The largest percentage
of businesses are located in the suburbs (45.1%), followed by townships (23.4%),
industrial areas (13.1%), the Inner City (16.6%) and informal settlement areas (1.8%).
148
FIGURE 4.1
LOCATION OF THE BUSINESS SAMPLE BY TYPE OF AREA, 2009 – 2013
4.3 CHALLENGES/PRIORITIES OF THE CoT
Service delivery levels and business development were measured by requesting
businesses to rate the following issues on a 5-point Likert scale:
• satisfaction with service delivery over the preceding 12 months
• changes in service performance levels during the preceding 12 months
• confidence in the CoT as a good investment environment
The results of these ratings are discussed in this section.
4.3.1 Level of satisfaction regarding the current performance of the CoT
Table 4.2 shows the response to the statement: ‘Indicate your level of satisfaction
regarding the service delivery performance of the municipality of the CoT over the past
12 months’. The satisfaction levels show that more than half (56.1%) the respondents
38.5
26.5
17.3
9.1
7.4
1.2
41.9
27.4
12.9
11.1
1.2
5.6
45.1
23.4
13.1
16.6
1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50
Suburb
Formal township
Industrial area
Inner City
Informal settlement
Other
Percentage
2013
2011
2009
149
regarded service delivery performance as good or very good in 2013. Only one in ten of
the businesess rated service delivery as very poor or poor (10.2%). It is important to
note that the informal businesses in township areas (21.5% poor and very poor ratings)
scored satisfaction levels lower than the formal businesses, where service delivery is
generally of a higher standard. In turn, informal businesses rated their satisfaction
(59.6% good and very good) on more or less a similar level as formal businesses. When
compared to 2009 and 2011, the overall satisfaction of businesses with the service
delivery performance of the CoT improved.
TABLE 4.2
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CURRENT SERVICE DELIVERY
BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Type Very poor and poor
Neither good nor poor
Good and very good
Total
% % % % Large/medium formal business 5.7 39.7 54.6 100.0 Small formal business 4.7 40.9 54.4 100.0 Informal business 21.5 18.9 59.6 100.0 Total 2013 10.2 33.8 56.1 100.0 Total 2011 21.2 35.9 43.0 100.0 Total 2009 15.3 41.5 43.1 100.0
4.3.2 Change in service performance levels
Businesses were requested to indicate changes in the service performance level of the
CoT during the 12 months preceding the 2013 survey. Table 4.3 shows that just more
than a third of the businesses (36.8%) confirmed an improvement in 2013, just more
than half (57.7%) reported no change while only 5.4% experienced a deterioration in
service delivery. Relative to the formal businesses, the informal businesses established
in township areas perceived the lowest level of positive change in 2013. Compared to
2009 and 2011, a higher proportion of businesses experienced a positive change in the
service performance of the CoT in 2013.
150
TABLE 4.3
CHANGE IN SERVICE PERFORMANCE LEVELS DURING THE 12 MONTHS PRECEDING THE SURVEY BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Type
Deteriorated significantly and
deteriorated Remained the same
Improved and improved
significantly Total
% % % %
Large/medium formal business 4.6 52.9 42.5 100.0 Small formal business 2.0 54.2 43.9 100.0 Informal business 11.3 66.4 22.3 100.0
Total 2013 5.4 57.7 36.8 100.0 Total 2011 14.2 53.7 32.1 100.0 Total 2009 11.5 60.1 28.4 100.0
4.3.3 CoT as a business investment environment
Businesses were requested to rate their confidence in the ability of the CoT to provide a
good business investment environment (table 4.4). Just more than half (56.4%) the
respondents expressed their confidence in the CoT as a business investment location in
2013. The highest confidence was recorded by informal businesses. A low 10.4% of
businesses expressed low confidence in the ability of the CoT to provide a good
investment environment. Compared to 2009 and 2011, the business confidence levels
increased substantially.
TABLE 4.4
SATISFACTION WITH THE CoT AS A BUSINESS INVESTMENT ENVIRONMENT BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Type
Not at all confident and not
very confident %
Not sure %
Fairly confident and very confident
%
Total %
Large/medium formal business 6.9 37.4 55.7 100.0 Small formal business 6.9 38.5 54.7 100.0
Informal business 18.1 22.3 59.6 100.0 Total 2013 10.4 33.2 56.4 100.0 Total 2011 16.8 33.6 49.6 100.0
Total 2009 23.2 43.0 33.8 100.0
151
4.4 BUSINESS CONSTRAINTS
Businesses were requested to specify and rank the top three constraints experienced.
The outcomes of these findings are reflected in tables 4.5 and 4.6. These tables only
reflect the 2013 outcomes that are not directly comparable to the 2009 and 2011
studies due to methodological changes. Whereas businesses were allowed to select one
or more constraints in the 2009 and 2011 studies, response options were limited to a
maximum of three in the 2013 study. It should be noted that the ranking scores
displayed in table 4.6 are based on the top three priority constraints ranked by
respondents. The top priority areas were weighted three times higher than the second
and third ranked options to finally compute the relative priorities of all constraints.
Finally the total weighted score of each constraint was computed whereafter the sum of
the highest weighted total for each constraint was equated to 100. The relative
importance of the ‘other’ constraints was computed by dividing the weighted total of
each by the weighted total of the highest weighted constraint and multiplying the result
with ‘100’. These relative weighted scores were finally ordered in sequence as displayed
in table 4.6 that only reflect the overall top 5 ordered constraints. These constraints are
the only significant ones to report on from the 2013 findings, which overwhelmingly
cited crime and theft as major constraints.
152
TABLE 4.5
BUSINESS CONSTRAINTS EXPERIENCED BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2013
Constraint Large/medium
formal business
Small formal
business
Informal business
Total
Crime and theft 59.8 50.2 78.1 60.9 Cost of capital/credit 9.8 8.3 19.2 12.0 Lack of access to finance 5.7 4.7 43.8 17.1 Labour regulations/actions 0.0 0.2 3.8 1.3 Tax rates 0.0 0.0 38.5 12.0 Availability of skills 0.0 0.0 8.7 2.7 Weakening rand/exchange rate 0.0 0.0 10.6 3.3 Infrastructure provision and quality eg roads, electricity 0.0 0.0 15.5 4.8 Regulations for expanding new business 0.0 0.0 10.2 3.2 Export and import regulations/procedures 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.2 CoT tender procedures 0.0 0.0 33.6 10.5 Other (specify) 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5
TABLE 4.6
TOP FIVE BUSINESS CONSTRAINTS EXPERIENCED BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2013
Constraint Large/medium formal business
Small formal business
Informal business
Total
Crime and theft 1 1 1 1 Cost of capital/credit 2 2 5 3 Lack of access to finance 3 3 2 2 Tax rates
3 4
CoT tender procedures
4 4 5
Approximately 60% of the businesses regarded crime and theft as their major constraint,
which also featured as the top ranked constraint experienced by all business types.
Other pertinent obstacles faced by especially informal businesses include lack of finance
(43.8% of informal businesses cited this obstacle) and tax rates (38.5% of informal
businesses cited this as an obstacle).
153
4.5 BASIC (CORE) BUSINESS SERVICES
Basic (core) business services were rated by respondents on a 10-point scale ranging
from poor to excellent. This section reflects the mean (average) rating of each service as
well as a comparison with previous ratings by type of business.
4.5.1 Electricity
Satisfaction with electricity recorded a rating of 7.27 in 2013, representing a slight
increase on the 6.90 recorded in 2011 (figure 4.2). Some notable variations occurred
across business type, ranging from 6.93 for informal businesses to 7.43 for small formal
businesses in 2013. Less than 10% of business respondents (9.9%) rated satisfaction
with electricity below 6.00 on a 10-point scale. The major reasons advanced for
dissatisfaction with electricity included high tariffs (35.7% of the businesses, with the
majority being informal), Eskom load/power shedding (23.8% of all businesses with the
majority being formal) and service interruptions (17.9% of all businesses with all being
informal).
FIGURE 4.2
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR ELECTRICITY BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2013
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 6.99 6.69 7.58 7.06
2011 6.49 6.86 7.26 6.90
2013 7.41 7.43 6.93 7.27
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
154
When compared to 2009/11, the satisfaction levels of electricity have increased among
formal businesses but decreased among informal businesses since 2009. In addition to
measuring the satisfaction with electricity, businesses were also requested to indicate
whether electricity meter readings take place monthly. The outcome of the survey
findings revealed that 45.7% confirmed that electricity meter readings by business size
were as follows:
• Large/medium formal business : 44.8%
• Small formal business : 50.2%
• Informal business : 39.2%
4.5.2 Refuse collection/waste removal
Refuse collection by the CoT yielded a satisfaction rating of 7.48 in 2013 compared to
the 6.62 yielded in 2011 (figure 4.3). Generally all business categories appear to be on
par with their satisfaction with refuse collection (mean scores of between 7.40 and
7.53).
Only 3.5% of businesses allocated a rating of less than 6.00 on a 10-point scale. Of those
dissatisfied, almost half the businesses (46.7%) (only small formal and informal
businesses) recorded irregular or no collection of refuse as the main reason for their
dissatisfaction. This is followed by bins not available/not returned (20.0%) and illegal
dumping (20.0%) – also only small formal and informal businesses.
155
FIGURE 4.3
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
When compared across years, it is evident that the satisfaction ratings with refuse
collection increased in 2013 across all business categories.
4.5.3 Neighbourhood roads
The overall business satisfaction level for neighbourhood roads recorded a mean score
of 7.31, which was slightly higher than the 6.11 recorded for 2011 (figure 4.4). Large/
medium formal businesses recorded the lowest rating of 7.25 in 2013.
Only 6.7% (or 57 businesses) rated neighbourhood roads below a score of 6.00
Approximately a third (33.3%) of the businesses (mainly informal) advanced untarred/or
muddy neighbourhood roads as the major cause of concern. Other reasons mentioned
were lack of calming measures (26.3%) and poor neighbourhood road maintenance
(15.8%).
Large/medium formal
Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.37 7.68 6.48 7.19
2011 6.50 6.65 6.67 6.62
2013 7.46 5.53 7.4 7.48
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
156
FIGURE 4.4
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD STREETS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
It is clear that the satisfaction levels with neighbourhood streets improved in 2013
across all business categories.
4.5.4 Sanitation/waste water/sewerage
Satisfaction ratings for sanitation/waste water/sewerage recorded an average of 7.67 in
2013 (figure 4.5). The satisfaction level of informal businesses yielded a score of 7.53,
which is slightly lower than the score attained from formal businesses.
Only 3.9% of respondents advanced a score below 6.00 (out of 10). Approximately half
the businesses who indicated that they are dissatisfied with sanitation/waste
water/sewerage, indicated that the relatively low ratings in 2013 stemmed from the lack
of proper sanitation/flush toilets (48.5%). Furthermore, a third (33.3%) listed the
shortage of toilets as an additional concern.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 5.82 6.01 5.29 5.72
2011 6.03 6.28 5.92 6.11
2013 7.25 7.37 7.27 7.31
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
157
FIGURE 4.5
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR SANITATION BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
It is clear from figure 4.5 that the satisfaction level of sanitation is higher in 2013 than it
was in 2009 and 2011.
4.5.5 Stormwater/drainage/flooding
Figure 4.6 shows that the overall business satisfaction level for stormwater drainage/
flooding was 7.67 in 2013. No real differences are notable between the satisfaction
levels of businesses across size categories.
The 1.5% of businesses that scored a level of satisfaction below 6.00 (out of 10) cited
flooding (30.8% of those dissatisfied) and a lack of drainage systems (23.1%) as major
concerns.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.73 7.63 6.48 7.27
2011 7.44 7.51 6.86 7.28
2013 7.60 7.77 7.53 7.67
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
158
FIGURE 4.6
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR STORMWATER BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
It is clear from figure 4.6 that the satisfaction levels for stormwater across business size
class are higher in 2013 than in 2011.
4.5.6 Water provision
Water provision recorded the highest mean score of 7.69 for the CoT as a whole in 2013
(figure 4.7). All business types scored above 7.00 for this service while informal
businesses scored the highest at 7.95.
The relatively small percentage (3.3%) of respondents who reported scores below 6.00
advanced broken or burst pipes (25.0%), incorrect meter reading (17.9%) and regular
water cuts (17.9%) as major concerns.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.03 6.98 4.47 6.14
2011 6.77 7.07 6.58 6.87
2013 7.59 7.71 7.67 7.67
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
159
FIGURE 4.7
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR WATER PROVISION BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
It is clear from figure 4.7 that the satisfaction levels for water provision have improved
across all business size categories. In addition to measuring the satisfaction of
businesses with water provision, businesses were also requested to indicate whether
water meter readings are done by the CoT on a monthly basis. In this regard, half the
businesses (51.0%) indicated that water meter readings are done on a monthly basis.
Variations across business size class were as follows:
• Large/medium formal businesses : 46.0%
• Small formal businesses : 52.7%
• Informal businesses : 51.7%
4.5.7 Street/public lights
It can be noted from figure 4.8 that the aggregate satisfaction level with regard to street
lighting was 7.22 for 2013, slightly higher than in 2011 (6.82). Informal businesses
recorded the lowest satisfaction of 7.03.
Large/medium formal
Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.46 7.33 7.47 7.41
2011 7.18 7.40 7.86 7.50
2013 7.46 7.62 7.95 7.69
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
160
Dissatisfaction with street lighting, reported by 6.7% of respondents, was mainly as a
result of poor maintenance/do not always work (71.9% of those dissatisfied) and
security risks due to no street lights (10.5% of those dissatisfied).
FIGURE 4.8
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR STREET LIGHTS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Figure 4.8 shows improvement in satisfaction levels across all business size categories in
2013.
4.5.8 Overview of business satisfaction with basic service delivery
Table 4.7 depicts the satisfaction levels for basic municipal services for 2009, 2011 and
2013 by type of business (formal and informal). The satisfaction levels are classified
according to the following classification:
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.22 6.92 6.28 6.77
2011 6.83 6.89 6.72 6.82
2013 7.33 7.49 7.03 7.32
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
161
Service level Satisfaction score (out of 10)
Very poor 0.0 – 2.0
Poor 2.1 – 4.0
Adequate 4.1 – 6.0
Good 6.1 – 8.0
Very good 8.1 – 10.0
Table 4.7 provides an overview of the business satisfaction levels for all basic services.
In 2013, satisfaction levels yielded a ‘good’ classification across all core service types.
162
TABLE 4.7
BUSINESS SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR BASIC SERVICES, 2009 – 2013
Satisfaction rating Electricity Refuse collection Neighbourhood roads
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 Large/medium formal business score 6.99 6.49 7.41 7.37 6.50 7.46 5.82 6.03 7.25 Large/medium formal business level Good Good Good Good Good Good Adequate Good Good Small formal business score 6.69 6.86 7.43 7.68 6.65 7.53 6.01 6.28 7.37 Small formal business level Good Good Good Good Good Good Adequate Good Good Informal business score 7.58 7.26 6.93 6.48 6.67 7.40 5.29 5.92 7.27 Informal business level Good Good Good Good Good Good Adequate Adequate Good Total business score 7.06 6.90 7.27 7.19 6.62 7.48 5.72 6.11 7.31 Total business level Good Good Good Good Good Good Adequate Good Good % of businesses with > 6 score 12.8 48.2 9.9 11.5 18.6 3.5 35.8 28.8 6.7
Satisfaction rating Sanitation Stormwater Water provision Street lights
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 Large/medium formal business score 7.73 7.44 7.60 7.03 6.77 7.59 7.46 6.83 7.46 7.22 7.18 7.33 Large/medium formal business level Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Small formal business score 7.63 7.51 7.77 6.98 7.07 7.71 7.33 6.89 7.62 6.92 7.40 7.49 Small formal business level Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Informal business score 6.48 6.86 7.53 4.47 6.58 7.67 7.47 6.72 7.95 6.28 7.86 7.03 Informal business level Good Good Good Adequat
Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good
Total business score 7.27 7.28 7.67 6.14 6.87 7.67 7.41 6.82 7.69 6.77 7.50 7.32 Total business level Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good % of businesses with > 6 score 12.1 9.1 3.9 28.6 14.3 1.5 11.2 14.3 3.3 17.1 7.7 6.7
163
4.6 COLLECTIVE BUSINESS SERVICES
Business respondents were asked to rate 15 collective business services on a 10-point
scale ranging from 1 (reflecting poor services) to 10 (reflecting excellent services). This
section presents the findings of these ratings.
Prior to a discussion of the outcome of the business ratings, the utilisation levels of the
selected collective services are firstly analysed. This analysis is presented in figure 4.9.
FIGURE 4.9
BUSINESS UTILISATION LEVELS BY COLLECTIVE SERVICE TYPES, 2013
Figure 4.9 reflects the proportion of business who in 2013 indicated that they had
utilised the service at least once a year. Clearly, a very low proportion of businesses
indicated that they had used emergency/disaster management (9.0%) during the past
year. More than a quarter of the businesses had utilised informal trading facilities
(27.5%), municipal taxi ranks (27.7%), municipal business licence services (44.9%) and
pedestrian walkways (67.2%).
67.2
44.9
27.7
27.5
15.0
21.5
22.4
24.8
9.0
22.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pavements/pedestrian walkways
Licensing: Business licence
Municipal taxi ranks
Informal trading facilities
Municipal public toilets
Municipal bus service
Dumping sites
Emergency medical and ambulance services
Emergency/disaster management
Fire and rescue services/fire brigade
%
164
Due to the low business usage levels of businesses of most collective service items
reflected in figure 4.9, it was not possible to provide detailed analysis by business type
(formal/informal) on the outcome of the satisfaction ratings of these services. In fact,
businesses were not allowed to rate their satisfaction with collective services never used
or used less than once a year. This resulted in fairly low numbers of businesses who
qualified to rate their satisfaction with the applicable collective service item. Against
this background, figure 4.10 reflects the average satisfaction scores of the entire survey
populations (formal and informal businesses), with no detailed breakdown by business
type.
FIGURE 4.10
BUSINESS SATISFACTION RATINGS FOR COLLECTIVE SERVICES, 2009 – 2013
4.50
4.79
5.15
5.28
5.64
5.69
5.87
5.99
6.09
6.24
6.31
6.36
6.59
6.62
6.35
6.90
6.00
6.11
5.98
5.87
6.00
8.15
5.88
6.12
6.63
7.63
6.66
7.28
7.67
7.21
6.86
7.60
7.36
7.23
7.89
7.73
7.69
7.36
7.30
7.31
0 2 4 6 8 10
Emergency/disaster management
Pavements/pedestrian walkways
Dumping sites
Informal trading facilities
Street sweeping and litter control
Grass cutting
Emergency medical and ambulance services
Municipal public toilets
Road maintenance
Licensing: Business licence
Municipal bus service
Fire and rescue services/fire brigade
Municipal taxi ranks
Traffic lights/signals
Street parking
% 2013 2011 2009
165
When analysing the data in figure 4.10, it is important not to overgeneralise in terms of
all service items showing low response rates. In this regard, an item such as
emergency/disaster management recorded fairly low sample sizes to ensure any
reasonable statistical analysis by business size class. Although all the other service items
recorded sample sizes above 100, participation numbers are still regarded as insufficient
to support representative analysis by business size class. The only collective service
items that secured sufficient ratings (250+ respondents) to support constructive
statistical analysis by type of business included the following:
• Pavements/pedestrian walkways
• Licensing: Business licence
• Street sweeping and litter control
• Traffic lights/signals
• Grass cutting
• Road maintenance
• Municipal bus services
• Municipal taxi ranks
• Available of street parking
Figures 4.11 to 4.19 reflect the average rating scores for these six collective services by
business type.
4.6.1 Pavements/pedestrian walkways
Business satisfaction with pavements/pedestrian walkways recorded an average rating
of 6.66 in 2013, which is slightly higher than the 6.35 attained in 2011 and 4.79 in 2009
(figure 4.11). All the business categories recorded ratings above 6.00 (out of 10) in 2013
except informal businesses, which is the only category displaying lower satisfaction
levels in 2013 when compared to 2011.
166
FIGURE 4.11
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR PAVEMENTS/PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
A relatively low 13.0% of businesses scored below 6.00 (out of 10) for their satisfaction
with pavements/pedestrian walkways. Almost eight in every 10 businesses (75.5%) (of
the dissatisfied businesses) cited walkways not paved as major reason for
dissatisfaction. Alternative reasons advanced include pavements/pedestrian walkways
not clean (10.9%) and grass too long (10.0%).
4.6.2 Business licences
Business satisfaction with business licences recorded an average rating of 7.89 in 2013.
All business types recorded ratings close to or above 7.50 (out of 10) (figure 4.12).
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 5.97 6.01 3.52 4.79
2011 6.29 6.43 6.29 6.35
2013 7.26 7.33 5.58 6.66
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
167
FIGURE 4.12
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR BUSINESS LICENCES BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
A mere 0.8% of businesses scored below 6.00 (out of 10) for their satisfaction with
business licences. The major reasons cited by businesses for dissatisfaction included the
cumbersome application process (57.1% of those dissatisfied).
4.6.3 Street sweeping and litter control
A satisfaction level of 7.21 was attained for street sweeping and litter control in 2013.
This is higher than the 6.11 attained in 2011 (figure 4.13). Satisfaction ratings of formal
businesses do not differ significantly. In turn, informal businesses seem less satisfied
with street sweeping and litter control (6.5%).
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 6.09 6.30 6.34 6.24
2011 8.21 8.22 7.96 8.15
2013 7.98 7.76 7.95 7.89
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
168
FIGURE 4.13
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR STREET SWEEPING AND LITTER CONTROL BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Only (6.0%) of businesses expressed their dissatisfaction with street sweeping and litter
control (rating below 6.00). The major reason advanced was irregular street cleaning
(54.9%)
4.6.4 Traffic lights/signals
Figure 4.14 depicts a mean score of 7.30 for traffic lights/signals for 2013 – higher than
the 6.63 in 2011. Informal businesses scored 6.72, which was lower than that of formal
businesses (above 7.00).
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 6.00 5.56 5.09 5.64
2011 6.00 3.36 5.74 6.11
2013 7.42 7.46 6.48 7.21
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
169
FIGURE 4.14
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR TRAFFIC LIGHTS/SIGNALS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Only 5.1% of the respondents showed dissatisfaction with traffic lights (rating below
6.00). Regular faulty traffic signals were advanced by the majority (60.5%) of those
businesses who recorded their dissatisfaction.
4.6.5 Grass cutting
A satisfaction score of 6.86 was attained in 2013 for grass cutting, ranging from 5.83 for
informal businesses to above 7.00 among small formal businesses (figure 4.15).
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 6.40 6.26 7.85 6.62
2011 6.43 6.61 6.89 6.63
2013 7.29 7.48 6.72 7.30
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
170
FIGURE 4.15
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR GRASS CUTTING BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Less than one in every ten (8.9%) of businesses scored ratings below 6.00 (out of 10) for
their satisfaction with grass cutting. Major reasons cited for dissatisfaction included
grass not cut at all (65.3%) and grass not cut regularly (20.0%).
4.6.6 Road maintenance
Overall business satisfaction with road maintenance such as pothole repairs and signage
yielded a score of 7.23 in 2013 compared to the 6.09 yielded in 2009 (figure 4.16).
Businesses operating in all the business categories rated road maintenance above 7.00
(out of 10).
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 5.71 5.48 6.17 5.69
2011 6.08 6.35 5.23 5.98
2013 7.15 7.22 5.83 6.86
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
171
FIGURE 4.16
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
A very small percentage (5.8%) of businesses reported dissatisfaction with road
maintenance (score below 6.00). Problems reported by the majority of dissatisfied
businesses (44.9%) included poor maintenance/potholes not attended to and no/limited
road markings/signage (22.4%).
4.6.7 Municipal bus services
The overall satisfaction with municipal bus services was 7.73% for 2013. Figure 4.17
displays the business ratings by size class. No comparisons with 2009/11 are made, due
to too small samples.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 5.95 5.83 6.82 6.09
2011 5.87 6.17 5.81 6.00
2013 7.28 7.57 6.56 7.23
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
172
FIGURE 4.17
SATISFACTION LEVELS WITH MUNICIPAL BUS SERVICES, 2013
Figure 4.17 shows that all satisfaction scores for municipal bus services are above 7.00
across all business size classes. Less than 1% of all businesses were dissatisfied with
municipal bus services. Of these, 75.0% based their dissatisfaction on buses being too
crowded.
4.6.8 Municipal taxi ranks
Figure 4.18 shows the 2013 ratings for municipal taxi ranks by business size class, which
displays average ratings of above 7.00. Due to small samples in 2009/11, no
comparisons are made.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2013 7.39 7.68 7.95 7.73
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
173
FIGURE 4.18
SATISFACTION WITH MUNICIPAL TAXI RANKS, 2013
Only 2.8% of businesses showed dissatisfaction (ratings below 6.00) with municipal taxi
ranks. The major reasons advanced for this dissatisfaction included lack of shelters
(62.5%) and dirty/untidy taxi ranks (20.8%).
4.6.9 Street parking
This item was measured for the first time in 2013. Figure 4.19 shows the ratings of
businesses by size class for the availability of street parking.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2013 7.21 7.54 7.27 7.36
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
174
FIGURE 4.19
SATISFACTION WITH AVAILABLE STREET PARKING, 2013
Figure 4.19 shows slightly lower ratings among informal businesses than formal
businesses. However, only 3.8% of respondents cited that street parking is not available
(56.3%) and that it is unsafe to park in streets (37.5%).
4.6.10 Overview of collective business services Table 4.8 shows a summary of the mean scores attained by collective business services
provided by the CoT for 2009, 2011 and 2013. It is clear from the table that all collective
business services attained ‘good’ satisfaction scores based on the following
classification:
Service level Satisfaction score (out of 10) Very poor 0.0 – 2.0 Poor 2.1 – 4.0 Adequate 4.1 – 6.0 Good 6.1 – 8.0 Very good 8.1 – 10.0
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2013 7.44 7.52 6.83 7.31
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
175
TABLE 4.8
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR COLLECTIVE BUSINESS SERVICES, 2009 – 2013
Service 2009 2011 2013
Mean score Classification Mean
Classification Mean Classification Fire and rescue services/fire
6.36* Good - - 7.69 Good
Emergency medical and ambulance
5.87* Adequate 7.33 Good 7.60 Good
Municipal bus service 6.31 Good 5.88 Adequate 7.73 Good
Pavements/pedestrian walkways 4.79 Adequate 6.35 Good 6.66 Good
Municipal public toilets 5.99 Adequate 5.87 Adequate 7.36 Good
Municipal taxi ranks 6.59 Good 6.12 Good 7.36 Good
Informal trading facilities 5.28 Adequate 6.00 Adequate 7.67 Good
Licensing: Business licence 6.24 Good 8.15 Very good 7.89 Good
Dumping sites 5.15* Adequate 6.90 Good 7.28 Good
Emergency/disaster management 4.50* Adequate - -* 7.63 Good
Street sweeping and litter control 5.64 Adequate 6.11 Good 7.21 Good
Traffic lights/signals 6.62 Good 6.63 Good 7.30 Good
Grass cutting 5.69 Adequate 5.98 Adequate 6.86 Good
Road maintenance 6.09 Adequate 6.00 Adequate 7.23 Good
Street parking - - - - 7.31 Good * Less than 30 respondents. The reader is cautioned not to overgeneralise due to sample sizes being too small.
4.7 PUBLIC SAFETY
Businesses were asked to rate their perceived levels of safety. This section highlights
the findings of this rating process and provides major reasons for dissatisfaction (score
below 6.00 out of 10).
4.7.1 Safety regarding location of business
Respondents rated their feeling of safety on a 5-point scale ranging from dangerous to
very safe. The result of these ratings for 2013 is shown in table 4.9. Almost two thirds
of the businesses (66.4%) confirmed that they feel safe or very safe at their present
locations in 2013. This is similar to 2011. All business categories reported the same
level of safety regarding their current business location in 2013.
176
TABLE 4.9
PERCEPTION OF SAFETY WHEN CONDUCTING BUSINESS AT PRESENT LOCATION BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Type of business Dangerous and unsafe
%
Neither safe nor unsafe
%
Safe and very safe
%
Total %
Large/medium formal 4.1 27.8 68.0 100.0
Small formal 5.4 30.0 64.6 100.0
Informal 16.4 15.6 67.9 100.0
Total 2013 8.6 25.0 66.4 100.0 Total 2011 14.9 19.1 66.0 100.0 Total 2009 22.0 32.8 45.2 100.0
Respondents were asked to advance reasons if they rated their location as unsafe or
dangerous. Only 8.4% of businesses met this criteria. Respondents attributed feeling
unsafe to, inter alia, high crime, robberies and burglaries (84.5%).
4.7.2 Safety aspect of doing business in the CoT
The ratings of respondents on the safety of doing business in the CoT are contained in
table 4.10. Just more than half the businesses (51.5%) indicated that they felt safe or
very safe when doing business in the CoT in 2013. Informal businesses perceived their
level of safety to be far lower than that of formal businesses. However, only 11.3% of
informal businesses indicated that it is dangerous to conduct business in the CoT.
TABLE 4.10
PERCEPTION OF SAFETY WHEN DOING BUSINESS IN THE CoT BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Type of business Dangerous and unsafe
%
Neither safe nor unsafe
%
Safe and very safe
%
Total %
Large/medium formal 2.4 46.1 51.5 100.0
Small formal 2.3 38.3 59.4 100.0 Informal 11.3 49.6 39.1 100.0 Total 2013 5.1 43.4 51.5 100.0 Total 2011 20.8 34.4 44.7 100.0 Total 2009 26.5 49.4 24.1 100.0
177
Only 4.8% of businesses feel unsafe when doing business in the CoT. High crime and
robberies were listed by almost seven in ten businesses (68.3%) as major reasons for
feeling unsafe.
4.7.3 Safety of workers in the workplace
Table 4.11 shows the perception of businesses regarding the safety of workers in the
workplace. Approximately two thirds (68.1%) of the businesses perceived their workers
to be safe or very safe in the workplace in 2013. This finding is slightly higher than in
2011. This perception also differs significantly across business type, with a far higher
proportion of informal businesses (80.2%) regarding their workers as safe or very safe in
the workplace.
TABLE 4.11
PERCEPTION OF SAFETY OF WORKERS IN THE WORKPLACE BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Type of business Dangerous and
unsafe %
Neither safe nor unsafe
%
Safe and very safe
%
Total %
Large/medium formal 1.2 40.2 58.5 100.0
Small formal 1.0 34.9 64.0 100.0 Informal 5.4 14.3 80.2 100.0 Total 2013 2.5 29.4 68.1 100.0 Total 2011 5.7 22.8 64.4 100.0 Total 2009 13.8 34.4 51.8 100.0
Only 2.4% of respondents reported problems with safety in the workplace (ie the
dangerous and unsafe category). The reasons put forward in this regard were high
crime and robberies around the workplace (60.0%) and dangerous driving by taxis
(25.0%).
178
4.7.4 Travelling/walking to work
Table 4.12 shows that approximately half the businesses (53.3%) perceived travelling to
work as safe and very safe in 2013. This figure differs across business type from 50.3%
for large/medium formal businesses to 97.2% for informal businesses. Clearly, informal
businesses feel their workers are less safe when travelling to work when compared to
formal businesses. Compared to previous years (2009/2011), businesses rated the
safety of their employees travelling/walking to work higher.
TABLE 4.12
PERCEPTION OF SAFETY OF WORKERS TRAVELLING/WALKING TO WORK BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Type of business Dangerous and
unsafe %
Neither safe nor unsafe
%
Safe and very safe
%
Total %
Large/medium formal 5.1 44.6 50.3 100.0
Small formal 1.7 36.7 61.6 100.0
Informal 5.8 15.1 79.2 100.0 Total 2013 3.8 31.0 65.2 100.0 Total 2011 8.0 38.7 53.3 100.0 Total 2009 11.7 45.8 42.6 100.0
Only 3.4% businesses reported problems with the safety of their workers when
travelling/walking to work. Dangerous driving by taxi owners (37.9%) and crime,
robberies and burglaries (58.6%) were mentioned as the major reasons for feeling
unsafe when travelling to work.
179
4.7.5 Safety at CoT offices/paypoints Table 4.13 shows that seven in every 10 businesses (70.1%) feel safe or very safe when
visiting the CoT offices. This shows a similar outcome to the 2011 survey.
Large/medium and small formal businesses feel far less safe than informal businesses.
All businesses advanced crime/robberies/burglaries at CoT offices as the main reasons
for their feeling unsafe. This finding applied to only 2.1% of businesses that indicated
that they feel unsafe at CoT offices/paypoints.
TABLE 4.13
PERCEPTION OF SAFETY AT CoT OFFICES BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2011 – 2013
Type of business Dangerous and
unsafe %
Neither safe nor unsafe
%
Safe and very safe
%
Total %
Large/medium formal 3.5 37.8 58.7 100.0
Small formal 2.2 38.2 59.6 100.0
Informal 2.5 7.0 90.5 100.0 Total 2013 2.6 27.4 70.1 100.0 Total 2011 8.4 20.6 70.9 100.0
4.7.6 Safety of government offices
This item was first introduced in 2013. Table 4.14 shows the outcome of businesses
with the satisfaction with the safety of government offices (national and provincial). The
table reflects a similar trend among businesses as displayed in table 4.13. Clearly,
informal businesses are far more satisfied than formal businesses with the safety of
government offices.
180
TABLE 4.14
PERCEPTION OF SAFETY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICES BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2013
Type of business Dangerous and
unsafe %
Neither safe nor unsafe
%
Safe and very safe
%
Total %
Large/medium formal 4.3 42.4 53.2 100.0
Small formal 2.3 42.1 55.6 100.0
Informal 2.1 7.2 90.7 100.0 Total 2013 2.7 30.0 67.4 100.0
Of those businesses who were dissatisfied with the safety of government offices (a mere
2.1%), cited crime/robberies/burglaries as the major reason for their dissatisfaction.
4.8 BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Businesses were requested to rate their levels of satisfaction regarding various by-law
enforcement services as well as with public safety services on a 10-point scale.
4.8.1 Building control/control of illegal use
Business satisfaction with building control/control of illegal use yielded a mean score of
7.37 in 2013, which is similar to 2011 – 7.35 (see figure 4.20). Scores ranged from 6.76
for large/medium formal businesses to 7.49 for informal businesses.
FIGURE 4.20
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR BUILDING CONTROL BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Largemedium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.67 7.62 8.22 7.82
2011 7.28 7.33 7.42 7.35
2013 6.76 7.54 7.49 7.37
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
181
Less than one in every ten (6.5%) respondents expressed dissatisfaction with building
control. Just more than four in every ten (45.5%) of these businesses attributed their
dissatisfaction mainly to illegal erection of houses in open spaces. Additional reasons for
dissatisfaction included buildings invaded by foreigners/illegal immigrants (21.8%) and
illegal land use on private property (16.4%).
4.8.2 Control of squatting/occupation of municipal land
The level of satisfaction for controlling squatting/occupation of municipal land is shown
in figure 4.21. A satisfaction score of 7.07 was recorded for the control of illegal
squatting/occupation in 2013. This is slightly higher than the 6.99 recorded in 2011.
FIGURE 4.21
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROLLING SQUATTING/OCCUPATION OF MUNICIPAL LAND BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Approximately one in every ten respondents (9.7%) expressed dissatisfaction with the
control of illegal squatting in buildings (rating below 6.00). The reasons advanced were
overcrowding/overpopulated (53.7%) and no or limited law enforcement (23.2%).
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 6.96 6.87 7.58 7.13
2011 6.90 7.06 6.97 6.99
2013 6.54 7.38 6.99 7.07
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
182
4.8.3 Control of illegal street/intersection trading
Figure 4.22 shows a business satisfaction level of 7.32 for controlling illegal street
trading in 2013 – up from 6.55 in 2011. Across business types, scores ranged from 6.68
for large/medium formal businesses to 7.53 for small formal businesses.
FIGURE 4.22
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROLLING STREET/INTERSECTION TRADING BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Only 5.9% of businesses reported dissatisfaction with the CoT’s efforts to control illegal
street trading. The dissatisfaction stemmed from creating security risks (44.0%) and a
lack of control over the location of street traders (24.0%), as well as street trading
causing dissatisfaction (20.0%).
4.8.4 Control of illegal dumping
The CoT’s control of illegal dumping yielded a mean score of 7.02 for 2013 and 6.98 in
2011 (figure 4.23). Average scores ranged from 6.86 by large/medium formal businesses
to 7.52 by small formal businesses.
Largemedium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 6.91 6.63 8.36 7.24
2011 6.24 6.43 6.96 6.55
2013 6.68 7.53 7.41 7.32
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
183
FIGURE 4.23
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR CONTROLLING ILLEGAL DUMPING BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Approximately one in every ten (9.8%) of the businesses rated control of illegal dumping
below 6.00 (out of 10). Dissatisfaction was due to people dumping anywhere (34.9%)
while 25.3% cited lack of law enforcement and lack of an education campaign (22.9%) as
alternative reasons for dissatisfaction.
4.8.5 Control of illegal water connections
Figure 4.24 shows that a score of 7.58 was attained for the control of illegal water
connections in 2013. A score above 7.00 was recorded by the formal small and informal
business categories and 6.86 by large/medium formal businesses.
Large formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.57 7.40 7.19 7.36
2011 7.14 7.31 6.4 6.98
2013 6.87 7.52 6.72 7.09
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
184
FIGURE 4.24
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE CONTROL OF ILLEGAL WATER CONNECTIONS, 2009 – 2013
Only 3.8% of respondents reported a score of less than 6.00 (out of 10). Reasons
advanced for dissatisfaction were the ease of effecting illegal connections (43.8%) and
no frequent checks by inspectors (37.5%).
4.8.6 Control of illegal electricity connections Figure 4.25 shows a satisfaction rating for the control of illegal electricity connections of
7.46 in 2013 and 7.61 in 2011. All the business categories recorded high ratings above
7.00 (out of 10) except large/medium formal businesses.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 8.34 8.26 8.63 8.45
2011 8.80 8.06 7.28 7.72
2013 6.86 7.69 7.84 7.58
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
185
FIGURE 4.25
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE CONTROL OF ILLEGAL ELECTRICITY CONNECTIONS, 2009 – 2013
A full 5.3% of businesses expressed their dissatisfaction with illegal electricity
connections. Reasons advanced were ease of effecting illegal connections (53.3%), no
frequent checks (31.1%) and limited control (11.1%).
4.8.7 Environmental control
As is evident from figure 4.26, this item recorded a satisfaction score of 7.48 in 2013 and
7.61 in 2011. Scores ranged from 7.16 by large/medium formal businesses to 7.63 by
small formal businesses.
Large/medium formal
Small formal Informal Total
2009 8.26 8.18 8.60 8.39
2011 7.93 7.88 7.25 7.61
2013 6.93 7.74 7.42 7.46
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
186
FIGURE 4.26
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE CONTROL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, 2009 – 2013
Less than one in ten (6.1%) businesses indicated that their main dissatisfaction is due
to the distraction of electronic outdoor advertising (51.9%) and destroying the visual
environment (15.4%).
4.8.8 Control of building and construction rubble All business categories except large/medium formal businesses (6.98) recorded ratings
above 7.00 in 2013 (figure 4.27).
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.70 7.53 8.44 7.84
2011 7.52 7.42 7.96 7.61
2013 7.16 7.63 7.47 7.48
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
187
FIGURE 4.27
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE CONTROL OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE, 2009 – 2013
The major concern expressed by less than one in 10 dissatisfied businesses (4.0%) is no
proper facilities (64.7%) and no signage for dumping (26.5%).
4.8.9 Noise control Fairly satisfactory ratings for noise control are evident from figure 4.28. All satisfaction
ratings were above 7.00, with large/medium businesses recording the lowest
satisfaction (7.29) in 2013.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.82 7.62 7.80 7.73
2011 7.77 7.76 7.11 7.56
2013 6.98 7.68 7.61 7.52
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
188
FIGURE 4.28
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR NOISE CONTROL BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Only 5.7% of the businesses were dissatisfied with noise control. The major reasons
advanced by those dissatisfied related to human noise (45.8%) and barking dogs
(43.8%).
4.8.10 Traffic control (road policing)
Business satisfaction with traffic control (see figure 4.29) attained a mean score of 7.25
in 2013, which is higher than the 6.01 yielded in 2011. Satisfaction levels for all
business categories were above 7.00.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.63 7.59 6.06 7.04
2011 7.56 7.68 7.16 7.48
2013 7.29 7.70 7.38 7.50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
189
FIGURE 4.29
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Only 5.8% of businesses rated traffic control below 6.00 (out of 10). Major reasons
advanced for dissatisfaction are limited law enforcement/traffic policing (44.9%), and
corruption and bribing (28.6%).
4.8.11 Social crime prevention
Social crime prevention refers to education and awareness to prevent violence against
women and children, enforcement against substance abuse, safer school programmes
and scholar patrols.
Business satisfaction levels for social crime prevention (figure 4.30) scored a mean
rating of 6.88 in 2013 and 6.42 in 2011. Lower satisfaction levels are notable for
large/medium formal businesses.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 5.14 4.60 7.37 5.67
2011 5.54 5.51 6.99 6.01
2013 7.07 7.25 7.37 7.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
190
FIGURE 4.30
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR SOCIAL CRIME PREVENTION BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Only 7.9% of the businesses showed dissatisfaction (ratings below 6.00) with social
crime prevention. A lack of awareness campaigns (76.4%) was cited as the major
reason for dissatisfaction.
4.8.12 Satisfaction with visible policing
This item was first introduced in 2013 and the satisfaction scores across business
category are displayed in figure 4.31.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 4.84 4.69 5.97 5.17
2011 6.21 6.04 7.07 6.42
2013 6.76 6.98 6.82 6.88
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
191
FIGURE 4.31
SATISFACTION LEVELS WITH VISIBLE POLICING BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2013
Just less than one in every ten of businesses (8.6%) showed dissatisfaction (ratings
below 6.00) with visible policing. No CCTV surveillance (43.8%) and no/limited patrol
(37.0%) were advanced as major reasons for dissatisfaction.
4.8.13 Satisfaction with response time of Metro Police
This item was first introduced in 2013. Figure 4.32 shows that across business size
category, average satisfaction scores ranged around 7.00.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2013 6.87 7.17 6.80 6.99
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
192
FIGURE 4.32
SATISFACTION WITH METRO POLICE BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2013
The major reasons advanced for dissatisfaction by only 8.5% of businesses are
unanswered phones (40.3%) and slow response to call outs (38.9%).
4.8.14 Overview: By-law enforcement and safety services satisfaction
Table 4.15 shows the mean satisfaction levels attained for by-law enforcement and
safety services for 2009, 2011 and 2013. The mean scores for 2013 ranged from 6.88
for social crime prevention to 7.58 for control of illegal water connections.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2013 6.79 7.10 7.01 7.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
193
TABLE 4.15
OVERVIEW OF SATISFACTION WITH BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES, 2009 – 2013
Law enforcement and safety services 2009 2011 2013
Mean score
Classification Mean score
Classification Mean score
Classification
Building control/illegal land use 7.82 Good 7.35 Good 7.37 Good Control of squatting/occupation of municipal land 7.13 Good 6.99 Good 7.07 Good Control of illegal street/intersection trading 7.24 Good 6.55 Good 7.32 Good Control of illegal dumping 7.36 Good 6.98 Good 7.09 Good Illegal water connections 8.45 Very good 7.72 Good 7.58 Good Illegal electricity connections 8.39 Very good 6.41 Good 7.46 Good Environmental control 7.84 Good 6.41 Good 7.48 Good Control: Building/construction rubble 7.73 Good 7.56 Good 7.52 Good Noise control 7.04 Good 6.01 Good 7.50 Good Traffic control 5.67 Adequate 6.01 Adequate 7.25 Good Social crime prevention 5.17 Adequate 6.42 Good 6.88 Good
Visible policing - - - - 6.99 Good
Response time from Metro Police - - - - 7.00 Good
4.9 BILLING AND PAYMENT
In this section of the questionnaire, businesses were firstly requested to indicate
whether they received an account from the CoT. Figure 4.33 shows that almost eight in
every ten (78.7%) businesses received an account for services such as electricity, water,
refuse removal, sanitation and property rates from the CoT in 2013. This percentage
was 69.4% in 2011 and 69.6% in 2009.
194
FIGURE 4.33
PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESSES RECEIVING AN ACCOUNT FROM THE CoT BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
Those businesses that indicated that they received an account from the CoT were also
requested to rate their satisfaction (on a 10-point scale) with the
clarity/understandability of accounts, correctness of accounts, regularity of accounts
and sufficiency of information received to understand municipal bills. The outcome of
these findings is discussed in the sections below.
4.9.1 Clarity and understandability of accounts
Regarding the clarity and understandability of the account, a mean satisfaction rating of
7.46 was attained in 2013 that is slightly lower than 7.69 in 2011 (figure 4.34). All
business categories allocated relatively high ratings (all above 7.00) for the clarity and
understandability of their accounts. It should be noted that only those businesses who
indicated that they receive an account from the CoT (78.7%) were eligible to rate their
satisfaction with the clarity and understandability of accounts received.
A very low proportion of businesses (2.6%) indicated that they were not satisfied with
the clarity and understandability of accounts received. Accounts being too complex was
cited as a major reason for dissatisfaction (54.5% of dissatisfied respondents).
Large/medium formal
Small formal Informal Total
2009 74.3 70.2 65.7 69.6
2011 80.0 68.0 63.7 69.4
2013 87.4 87.7 59.2 78.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
195
FIGURE 4.34
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE CLARITY OF ACCOUNTS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
4.9.2 Correctness of accounts
With regard to the correctness of accounts, a satisfaction score of 7.05 was attained in
2013 that is slightly lower than the 7.37 in 2011. The 2013 ratings could be classified as
‘good’ (figure 4.35). Once again, it should be noted that only those businesses that
indicated that they receive an account from the CoT (78.7%) were eligible to rate their
satisfaction with the correctness of accounts received.
A very low proportion of businesses (6.6%) indicated that they were not satisfied with
the correctness of accounts received. Incorrect figures reflected on statements (46.4%)
and incorrect meter readings (35.7%) were cited as major reasons for dissatisfaction.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.68 7.67 7.72 7.69
2011 7.49 7.58 8.16 7.73
2013 7.46 7.05 7.23 7.49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
196
FIGURE 4.35
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF ACCOUNTS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
4.9.3 Regularity of accounts (monthly on time) With regard to the regularity of receiving accounts, businesses responded extremely
positively. Across all business categories, mean scores of above 7.00 were recorded
(figure 4.36). Once again, it should be noted that only those businesses that indicated
that they receive an account from the CoT (78.7%) were eligible to rate their satisfaction
with the regularity of accounts received.
A very low proportion of businesses (3.5%) indicated that they were not satisfied with
the regularity (monthly on time) of accounts received. Accounts received on an irregular
basis was cited as a major reason for dissatisfaction (70.0%).
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.21 7.35 7.52 7.37
2011 6.93 7.04 7.89 7.26
2013 7.22 7.18 6.59 7.05
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
197
FIGURE 4.36
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR REGULARITY OF ACCOUNTS BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2009 – 2013
4.9.4 Sufficiency of information provided to understand municipal billing
This item was first introduced in 2013. The satisfaction scores of businesses regarding
the sufficiency of information to understand municipal water and sanitation and
electricity usage and billing are displayed in figure 4.37. The figure shows average
satisfaction scores above 7.00 across all business size categories.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2009 7.78 7.67 7.67 7.70
2011 7.70 7.59 8.18 7.79
2013 7.06 7.25 7.36 7.23
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
198
FIGURE 4.37
SATISFACTION LEVELS FOR SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO UNDERSTAND MUNICIPAL BILLING BY TYPE OF BUSINESS, 2013
A mere 3.1% of businesses indicated that they are dissatisfied with the sufficiency of
information provided to understand municipal billing. The major reason advanced for
dissatisfaction included incorrect figures (80.8%).
4.9.5 Current and preferred municipal account payment methods
The section on billing and payment finally requested businesses to indicate the current
and preferred method(s) of payment of their CoT municipal account. These findings are
displayed in table 4.16.
Large/medium formal Small formal Informal Total
2013 7.35 7.54 7.54 7.49
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
199
TABLE 4.16
CURRENT AND PREFERRED PAYMENT METHOD(S) OF CoT MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTS, 2013
Payment method
Large/medium formal business
Small formal business
Informal business Total
Current Preferred Current Preferred Current Preferred Current Preferred
% % % % % % % % Municipal office/ cashier desk at pay point 3.3 2.6 7.8 7.0 70.1 66.7 20.7 19.3
Drive-through cashiers 1.3 1.3 5.0 5.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 3.3
Debit order 4.6 4.6 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.9 2.4
Bank deposit: Over-the-counter and Inter-net payment at bank 8.6 8.6 10.1 9.8 11.6 14.3 10.0 10.5
Electronic payments (Internet banking) 80.3 66.4 70.4 57.8 7.5 6.8 58.6 48.4 Approved external pay point (Easy Pay counter Pick n Pay or Shoprite/Checkers) 2.0 2.6 4.2 2.2 6.8 5.4 4.3 3.0
Telephone banking 0.0 13.8 0.0 16.2 2.0 4.1 .5 12.9
It is clear from table 4.16 that more businesses generally intend using telephone banking
more often in the foreseeable future. Whereas most informal businesses currently
prefer municipal offices/cashier desks (70.1%), most formal businesses use electronic
payments (Internet banking) to pay their CoT municipal bill (80.3% of large/medium and
20.0% of small formal businesses respectively).
4.10 CUSTOMER CARE SERVICES
As with the household questionnaire, this section of the CoT service satisfaction study
among businesses was revamped in 2013 as explained in chapter 3. Firstly, businesses
were requested to indicate whether they had lodged any enquiry or complaint with the
CoT during the 12 months preceding the 2013 survey. The outcome of this finding is
displayed in table 4.17 by business size class.
200
TABLE 4.17
ENQUIRIES/COMPLAINTS LODGED WITH CoT DURING PRECEDING 12 MONHTS BY BUSINESS TYPE, 2013
Business type %
Large/medium formal 10.3 Small formal 7.1 Informal 22.6 Total 12.6
Table 4.17 shows that only 12.6% of all business respondents lodged an
enquiry/complaint during the 12 months preceding the 2013 survey. Clearly a higher
portion of informal businesses lodged an enquiry/complaint when compared to formal
businesses. The 107 or 12.6% of businesses that lodged an enquiry/complaint with the
CoT during the preceding 12 months, were requested to indicate the nature of the most
recent enquiry/complaint by type of interaction. This finding is displayed in table 4.18.
201
TABLE 4.18
MOST RECENT ENQUIRY/COMPLAINT BY TYPE OF INTERACTION AND BUSINESS TYPE, 2013
Type of request Business type Telephonic
Customer Care/Walk-in
Centre Writing Total
% % % %
Information request
Large/medium formal business 44.4 0.0 0.0
44.4 Small formal business 51.7 0.0 0.0
51.7 Informal business 0.0 18.3 0.0 18.3 Total 21.5 10.3 0.0 31.8
Service request
Large/medium formal business 16.7 0.0 0.0
16.7 Small formal business 34.5 3.4 0.0
37.9 Informal business 0.0 8.3 0.0 8.3 Total 12.1 5.6 0.0 17.8
Lodge a complaint
Large/medium formal business 38.9 0.0 0.0
38.9 Small formal business 10.3 0.0
0.0 10.3
Informal business 25.0 68.3 1.7 78.3 Total 14.0 38.3 0.9 53.3
It is clear from table 4.18 that large/medium businesses mainly lodge an enquiry or
complaint telephonically. In turn, informal business mainly use customer care centres.
Of all businesses, just more than half (53.3%) have lodged a complaint, while 17.8%
made a service request and 31.8% an information request. Whereas more formal
business lodged an information or service request, mainly telephonically, more informal
business lodged complaints (78.3%) mainly at customer care centres.
Of those businesses that enquired or complained at customer care centres, used the
centres in their own region.
202
A follow-up question on customer service was to determine from businesses whether
the most recent enquiry/complaint was resolved on first contact. Of the 107 or 12.6%
businesses that complained, only 46 (or 43.0%) of them confirmed that the most recent
enquiry was resolved on first contact. These findings per business size class were as
follows:
• Large/medium formal : 33.3%
• Small formal : 41.4%
• Informal : 46.7%
• Total : 43.0%
Thus, across all business sizes no more than 50% of the most recent
enquiries/complaints were resolved on first contact.
Finally, businesses were requested to rate their satisfaction with the timelines and
accuracy of the CoT handling their most recent request. Table 4.19 displays these
research findings for the 107 or 12.6% businesses that indicated that they had lodged an
enquiry/complaint during the preceding 12 months.
203
TABLE 4.19
SATISFACTION WITH TIMELINES AND ACCURACY OF HANDLING MOST RECENT REQUESTS/COMPLAINTS
Enquiry/complaint type
Large/medium formal
business
Small formal business
Informal business
Total Large/medium
formal business
Small formal
business
Informal business
Total
% % % % Mean Mean Mean Mean Account payments (electricity, water and sanitation) 72.2 37.9 48.3 49.5 3.00 3.09 4.93 4.08
Blocked sewers 22.2 3.4 8.3 9.3 4.50 6.00 7.80 6.30
Building plans (time taken for approval) 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.33 6.00 10.00 5.80
Bus services 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.33 6.00 9.00 5.60 By-law offences (ie illegal street trading, illegal night club activities) 33.3 3.4 1.7 7.5
3.83 6.00 4.00 4.13
Cable/electrical equipment theft 22.2 3.4 3.3 6.5 2.75 1.00 7.50 3.86
Cemeteries 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.33 6.00 9.00 5.60
Clinics 16.7 3.4 3.3 5.6 4.33 6.00 8.00 5.83 Development application (ie rezoning, building plans, land use, land release) 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7
4.33 6.00 7.00 5.20
Electricity meter readings: Finance 44.4 27.6 25.0 29.0 2.63 2.63 5.20 3.87
Electricity: Faulty street lights 16.7 13.8 3.3 8.4 4.00 3.00 6.50 4.11 Electricity: Illegal connections or tampering with electrical equipment 16.7 3.4 6.7 7.5
3.67 6.00 4.50 4.38
Electricity: Power failure 27.8 20.7 11.7 16.8 4.60 5.50 5.29 5.17 Electricity: Reconnection after wrong cut (6-8 hours) or after payment (48 hours) 16.7 3.4 3.3 5.6
4.00 6.00 4.50 4.50
Electricity: Repair/replace mast pole 16.7 6.9 10.0 10.3 3.67 3.50 5.83 4.82
Emergency medical & ambulance service 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.00 6.00 10.00 5.60
Finance/refunds: Make deposit refunds after move-out 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.00 6.00 7.00 5.00
Fire Brigade 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.00 6.00 9.00 5.40
cont…
204
TABLE 4.19 (CONTINUED)
Enquiry/complaint type
Large/medium formal
business
Small formal business
Informal business
Total Large/medium
formal business
Small formal
business
Informal business
Total
% % % % Mean Mean Mean Mean Flooded drains 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.00 6.00 8.00 5.20
Housing: Issue title deeds 16.7 3.4 3.3 5.6 4.33 6.00 8.00 5.83
Housing: Respond to queries on provincial waiting list 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.00 6.00 3.00 4.20
Illegal buildings 16.7 3.4 3.3 5.6 3.67 6.00 7.00 5.17
Land use rights/rezoning (time taken for approval) 16.7 3.4 6.7 7.5 3.67 6.00 4.25 4.25
Landfill sites/recycling 16.7 3.4 3.3 5.6 4.00 6.00 4.00 4.33
Licensing 16.7 3.4 3.3 5.6 4.33 6.00 8.00 5.83
Metro Police 22.2 6.9 1.7 6.5 3.75 3.50 9.00 4.43
Noise control 16.7 3.4 3.3 5.6 4.00 6.00 4.00 4.33
Parks 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.00 6.00 8.00 5.20
Road maintenance (pothole repairs) 22.2 3.4 1.7 5.6 3.50 6.00 7.00 4.50
Sidewalks/pedestrian 16.7 6.9 1.7 5.6 4.33 4.50 9.00 5.17
Stormwater drainage/flooding 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 4.33 6.00 8.00 5.40
Waste collection/refuse removal 22.2 13.8 3.3 9.3 3.50 3.00 5.50 3.70
Water connections & reconnections 16.7 10.3 3.3 7.5 4.33 5.67 5.00 5.00
Water leakages, pipe burst / no water supply 27.8 17.2 3.3 11.2 3.80 3.20 5.50 3.83
Water meter readings: Finance 27.8 24.1 15.0 19.6 3.00 2.71 6.22 4.29
Water: Drinking quality 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 6.00 6.00 10.00 6.80
Water: Faulty meters 22.2 13.8 1.7 8.4 3.75 2.25 7.00 3.44
Water: Free basic water 16.7 3.4 1.7 4.7 6.33 6.00 9.00 6.80
Total (only averages) - - - - 4.02 5.09 6.86 4.92
205
Prior to analysing table 4.19 it is important to caution readers not to overgeneralise the
findings reflected in the table, due to small samples. When analysing the figures in table
4.19 the following were the top enquiries/complaints by business size:
• Large/medium formal - Account payments (72.2%)
- Electricity meter readings (44.4%)
• Small formal - Account payments (37.9%)
- Electricity meter readings (27.6%)
• Informal - Account payments (49.5%)
- Electricity meter readings (29.0%)
When turning to the satisfaction ratings of businesses, regarding the timelines and
accuracy of the most recent enquiry/complaint, the following trends emerge from table
4.19 by business type:
Top 3 Bottom 3
• Large/medium formal Free basic water Electricity meter readings Drinking water quality Cable theft Power failures Water meter readings
• Small formal Free basic water Cable theft Drinking water quality Faulty water meters Blocked sewers Electricity meter readings
• Informal Drinking water quality Response to queries on provisional waiting list By-law offences Noise control
• All businesses Drinking water quality Faulty water meters Free basic water Waste collection/refuse removal Water leakages
206
4.11 SERVICE DELIVERY ACCOUNTABILITY
As with households, businesses were also requested to reflect on their awareness of the
CoT Service Delivery Charter and whether they agree with a pre-selected set of
statements to reflect on their perceptions of the CoT in terms of its commitment
towards achieving service excellence, adhere to good service delivery standards and to
develop a sound service delivery response culture to effectively address customer
queries and complaints. This section deals with these service delivery issues. Firstly,
table 4.20 shows the claimed awareness of business regarding the CoT Service Delivery
Charter.
TABLE 4.20
AWARENESS OF CoT SERVICE DELIVERY CHARTER BY BUSINESS TYPE
Business type % Large/medium formal 10.3 Small formal 11.0 Informal 46.8 Total 22.1
Table 4.20 shows surprisingly fairly high levels of awareness of the CoT Service Delivery
Charter that still needs to be published.
Table 4.21 shows the agreement of businesses regarding the CoT’s commitment towards
service excellence by business type.
207
TABLE 4.21
AGREEMENT REGARDING CoT COMMITMENT TOWARDS SERVICE EXCELLENCE BY BUSINESS TYPE, 2013
Statement
Large/medium formal
business
Small formal business
Informal business
Total
Mean Mean Mean Mean The CoT is committed towards achieving service excellence
6.18 5.69 6.14 6.07
The CoT is effective and efficient in progressively delivering on its mandate to be accountable to local communities and businesses
5.82 5.78 6.02 5.97
The CoT adheres to good service delivery quality standards that effectively address customers’ information and service requests and complaints
5.71 5.76 6.08 6.02
The CoT has managed to develop a sound service delivery response culture to effectively and efficiently address customer enquiries and complaints
5.71 5.82 6.03 5.98
The CoT meets reasonable timelines to respond timely to resident’s requests and complaints
5.65 5.76 5.94 5.90
The CoT addresses residents’ requests and complaints accurately
5.65 5.69 5.95 5.90
It is clear from the data reflected in table 4.21 that businesses are in agreement that the
CoT aspirations towards quality and standard service delivery are reached. Businesses
seem less confident in the timeliness and accuracy of handling enquiries/requests than
the CoT’s overall commitment towards service excellence and good service delivery
quality standards.
4.12 COMMUNICATION
This section explores the preferred communication modes as well as the awareness,
utilisation and satisfaction with communication modes of business owners/managers.
208
4.12.1 Awareness and utilisation of and satisfaction with communication modes The questionnaire was also designed to capture respondents’ awareness and utilisation
of methods used by the CoT to communicate its issues, policies and activities to
residents. The outcome of these findings as well as the satisfaction levels recorded for
the various communication modes (ie Business Newsletters, official Tshwane Website
and issue-specific information/awareness campaigns, SMS communication, local media
and Imbizos) are reflected in table 4.22.
Table 4.22 shows the frequency of utilising the various communication modes by CoT
businesses in 2013. It clearly shows low usage levels, ranging from below 20.0% for SMS
communication and Imbizos to approximately a third (37.5%) for business newsletters.
It is important to note that the figures in table 4.22 reflect usage of communication
modes at least once during the preceding year.
TABLE 4.22
FREQUENCY OF UTILISING CoT COMMUNICATION MODES, 2013
Large/medium formal
business
Small formal
business
Informal business
Total
% % % % Business newsletters 32.8 38.5 39.2 37.5 Official Tshwane Website 22.4 26.7 11.7 21.1 Awareness campaigns (ie Cable Theft Awareness, new Credit Control Policy) 14.4 13.7 55.5 26.9 SMS communication 16.7 16.2 6.0 13.1 Local media (radio or printed media) 13.2 17.6 44.5 25.1 Imbizos 10.3 13.2 20.8 15.0
Those that utilised any of the CoT communication modes at least once during the
preceding year were requested to rate their level of satisfaction with the modes on a
scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent). Table 4.23 shows satisfaction levels ranging from 7.83
209
for the Tshwane Website to 8.19 for Imbizos. Readers are cautioned not to generalise
by business size areas due to small sample sizes.
TABLE 4.23
LEVELS OF SATISFACTION WITH CoT COMMUNICATION MODES, 2013
Large/medium formal
business
Small formal
business
Informal business
Total
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Business newsletters 8.28 8.12 7.83 8.05
Official Tshwane Website 7.97 8.02 7.00 7.83 Awareness campaigns (ie Cable Theft Awareness, new Credit Control Policy)
7.80 8.07 7.63 7.76
SMS communication 8.21 8.29 6.82 8.04
Local media (radio or printed media) 8.13 7.94 8.23 8.12
Imbizo’s 8.22 8.24 8.13 8.19
4.13 CORRUPTION Three questions on corruption were included in the survey questionnaire. The first
question on corruption enquired on the respondents’ awareness of corruption occurring
in the CoT municipal structures. Table 4.24 shows that one in every ten (11.1%) of
businesses in the CoT is aware of corruption within the CoT metropolitan structures.
This figure stood at above 20% in 2009 and 2011.
TABLE 4.24
AWARENESS OF CORRUPTION IN THE CoT METROPOLITAN STRUCTURES, 2009 – 2013
Type of business 2009 2011 2013
% % % Large/medium formal 17.7 46.2 2.3 Small formal 26.2 15.0 1.2 Informal 28.3 34.4 32.1 Total 25.0 21.5 11.1
210
A follow-up question on corruption awareness was put to those businesses that
indicated that they are aware of corruption (11.1%) in the CoT structures. More
specifically, respondents were asked to specify the type of corruption that they are
aware of. The outcome of this finding is presented in table 4.25. Due to small sample
sizes, data analysis by business type is excluded.
TABLE 4.25
AWARENESS OF TYPE OF CORRUPTION, 2009 – 2013
Corruption 2009 Total
2011 Total
2013 Total
% % % Bribery 81.9 76.1 41.5 Fraud 38.4 37.1 38.3 Abuse of power 14.7 24.6 37.2 Conflict of interest 6.8 25.7 16.0 Nepotism 10.2 3.4 24.5 Theft - - 25.5 Favouritism - - 45.7
It is clear from table 4.25 that more businesses are aware of bribery and favouritism
than of any of the other types of corruption measured. Approximately 41.5% of the
respondents who are aware of corruption (11.1% of all businesses) indicated that they
are aware of bribery occurring in the CoT. This is almost half the percentage of
businesses in 2011. Almost half the businesses indicated that they are aware of
favouritism.
Respondents who indicated that they are aware of corruption (11.1%) were also asked
to indicate whether the municipality is responding satisfactorily to address corruption.
The outcome of this survey finding is reflected in table 4.26.
211
TABLE 4.26
ADDRESSING CORRUPTION, 2009 – 2013
Type of business Yes No Don’t know Total % % % %
Total 2013 14.9 66.0 19.0 100.0 Total 2011 5.4 77.2 17.4 100.0 Total 2009 4.8 68.4 26.7 100.0
The analysis presented in table 4.26 reflects a high level of disbelief (66.0%) among
business owners/managers about whether corruption is satisfactorily addressed by the
CoT. This percentage stood at 77.2% in 2011 and 68.4% in 2009.
4.14 BUSINESS RELOCATION
The questionnaire was constructed also to determine whether businesses operating in
Tshwane plan to relocate. The outcome of this finding is presented below.
Table 4.27 shows the response to the question: ‘Do you plan to relocate or consider
relocating your business during the next 12 months?’ Less than one in every ten (4.7%)
businesses confirmed that they plan to relocate or consider relocating. This percentage
is fairly high (12.1%) among informal businesses.
TABLE 4.27
PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESSES PLANNING OR CONSIDERING RELOCATION IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, 2009 – 2013
Business type 2009 2011 2013
% % % Large/medium formal 2.9 3.2 0.6 Small formal 5.5 3.3 1.7 Informal 16.8 21.8 12.1 Total 8.7 9.2 4.7
212
Table 4.28 shows the possible area of relocation by those (4.7% of businesses) that
confirmed the possibility of relocating.
TABLE 4.28
PLANNED RELOCATION OF BUSINESS, 2011 – 2013
Type of business
Relocate to other area
inside Tshwane
Relocate to other area in
Gauteng
Relocate to other area in
SA
Relocate abroad
% % % % Large/medium formal 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Small formal 85.7 0.0 14.3 0.0 Informal 78.1 9.4 12.5 0.0 Total 2013 77.5 7.5 15.0 0.0 Total 2011 82.8 7.3 2.4 0.0
It is clear from table 4.28 that 77.5% of the business owners/managers indicated that
they are considering relocating within the Tshwane area. Only a small percentage is
considering relocating to other areas in Gauteng (7.5%).
The major reasons advanced for planned relocation, mainly by the informal businesses,
included the following:
• Market growth in other areas (25.0% of those who plan to relocate)
• Personal circumstances (17.5%)
• Changes in the direction of business (15.0%)
• Competition such as increased business developments, eg mall developments (7.5%)
• Increasing rental (17.5%)
• Deterioration of area (7.5%)
213
4.15 INNER CITY REGENERATION
This item was first introduced in 2013 and requested from businesses to indicate
whether they are located within a City Improvement District (CID). The outcome of this
finding is displayed in table 4.29.
TABLE 4.29
BUSINESS LOCATION WITHIN CITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CID), 2013
Business type % Large/medium formal 10.3 Small formal 5.9 Informal 3.8 Total 6.1
Only 6.1% of businesses indicated that they are located in a CID. Of these, 28.8% are in
the Church Street CID, while 23.1%, 19.2% and 28.8% indicated that they are in the
Sunnyside, Arcadia and Hatfield CIDs respectively.
The satisfaction ratings of the 52 or 6.1% businesses that are located in a CID area, are
displayed in table 4.30.
TABLE 4.30
SATISFACTION WITH CIDs, 2013
Business type Large/medium
formal business
Small formal business
Informal business
Total
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Management and administration 6.83 6.79 6.40 6.73 Business benefits of the CID (eg promote sustainable development, curb degeneration)
6.72 6.58 6.70 6.65
Additional costs incurred by the CID concept (ie CID levies)
6.17 6.00 6.80 6.21
214
It is clear from table 4.30 that the satisfaction of businesses with CIDs is all above 6.00.
Large/medium formal businesses (6.17) appear to be less satisfied with CIDs than
informal businesses (6.80). Overall, businesses appear to be most satisfied with the
management and administration of CIDs when compared to the benefits and costs.
The fairly high levels of satisfaction are also evident in the fact that 86.5% of businesses
indicated that they will recommend the CID concept to other businesses. These range
from 83.3% and 87.5% for large/medium and small formal businesses respectively, to
90.0% of informal businesses.
4.16 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter contains a discussion of the outcome of the 2013 business satisfaction
survey among 847 businesses operating in the CoT. These findings were summarised
alongside the survey outcomes of the 2009 and 2011 business satisfaction surveys
where possible.
215
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS OF THE EMBASSYSATISFACTION SURVEY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In addition to households and businesses, the 2009, 2011 and 2013 CoT resident
satisfaction survey also included a survey amongst a sample of 20 embassies using the
services of the City of Tshwane. This chapter summarises the outcome of the survey
findings emanating from the embassy survey.
Prior to a discussion of the survey findings, it should be noted that only 20 embassies
were sampled for survey purposes. In this regard the list of embassies and high
commissions, including consulate and liaison officesin Tshwane, as published in the
Pretoria Telephone Directory, was used as a sample frame. A random sample of 20 was
selected from this sample frame.It should also be noted that embassies completed the
same questionnaire as households.
Although the sample is relatively small, it provides insight into the perceived level of
satisfaction experienced by embassies regarding the services provided by the CoT. The
small sample also dictates the format of presenting the survey findings. In the analysis
presented in this chapter, the ‘n-value’ (number of respondents) is supplied together
with the mean ratings and percentages.
5.2 GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE CoT
The general perceptions of the embassies of the current and past service performance
of the CoT and their confidence in the CoT as municipal service provider, are presented
in the opening sections of this chapter, while their satisfaction levels regarding service
delivery are discussed in more detail in the remainder of the chapter.
216
5.2.1 Level of satisfaction with regard to current service delivery
Embassies were requested to indicate their level of satisfaction with regard to the
service delivery performance of the CoT during the 12 months preceding the survey.
Respondents were requested to rate the service level on a 5-point scale, ranging from
very poor to very good. These research outcomes are summarised in table 5.1. It
should be noted that the variables ‘poor’ and ‘very poor’ as well as ‘good’ and ‘very
good’ are combined.
TABLE 5.1
SATISFACTION LEVELS OF EMBASSIES WITH CoT GENERAL SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE, 2009- 2013
Satisfaction levels 2009 2011 2013
n % n % n % Very poor and poor 3 15.0 1 5.0 8 40.0 Neither good nor poor 9 45.0 8 40.0 0 0.0 Good and very good 8 40.0 11 55.0 12 60.0 Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0
Table 5.1 reflects that more embassies indicated that they perceive the service delivery
performance of the CoT as good (60.0%) rather than poor (40.0%). The 2013
satisfaction levels were an improvement compared to the 2009 and 2011 survey
findings.
5.2.2 Change in service performance levels
Participating embassies were also requested to indicate the change, if any, in the service
performance levels of the CoT during the 12 months preceding the survey. Responses
were recorded on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘deteriorated significantly’ to ‘improved
significantly’. The outcome of these survey findings are reflected in table 5.2.
217
TABLE 5.2
CHANGE IN SERVICE PERFORMANCE LEVELS DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, 2009 - 2013
Satisfaction levels 2009 2011 2013
n % n % n % Deteriorated significantly and deteriorated 5 25.0 2 10.0 0 0.0 Remained the same 9 45.0 11 55.0 0 0.0 Improved and improved significantly 6 30.0 7 35.0 20 100.0 Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0
In 2013, all embassies reported an improvement in the service performance levels of the
CoT during the year preceding the survey. The perceived changes reported by
respondents, reflect a more positive picture than was the case in 2009 and 2011.
5.2.3 Confidence in the CoT as a city
Embassies were also requested to rate their confidence in the CoTbeing able to provide
people with a good quality of life. The level of confidence in this regard was recorded
on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘not at all confident’ to ‘very confident’. The confidence
levels of embassies in the CoT being able to provide people with a good quality of life
are reflected in table 5.3.
TABLE 5.3
CONFIDENCE IN THE CoTAS A CITY, 2009 - 2013
Satisfaction levels 2009 2011 2013
n % n % n % Not at all confident and not very confident 5 25.0 2 10.0 0 0.0 Not sure 10 50.0 8 40.0 4 20.0 Fairly and very confident 5 25.0 10 50.0 16 80.0 Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0
Table 5.3 reflects that half the embassies expressed their confidence in the CoT being
able to provide a good quality of life to its citizens in 2013. This finding shows that the
vision of the CoT to enhance the quality of life of all people in the City of Tshwane
through a developmental system of local government and rendering of efficient,
218
effective and affordable services has been accomplished as can be seen from the
positive results obtained during the 2013survey in particular.
5.3 SERVICE SATISFACTION RATINGS OF EMBASSIES
As with households and businesses, embassies were requested to rate their satisfaction
with core and community municipalservices as well as municipal tariffs/rates, public
safety, by-law enforcement, billing and payment, customer care, communication and
city developments. Allrelevant satisfaction rating scores of embassies related to these
aspects are reflected in table 5.4. It should be noted that the satisfaction ratings of the
embassies reflected in table 5.4 only reflect those that have relevance to embassies. In
this regard it is important to note that embassies never or seldom utilise many of the
community services measured in the household research (eg community halls, bus
services, cemeteries, clinics, parks, public swimming pools, etc). Of the 28 community
services measured by the household satisfaction model only environmental, street
sweeping and litter control, grass cutting and street trees, traffic (lights/signals) and
road maintenance (repairs, signage, markings, speed bumps) had relevance to
embassies. Furthermore, embassies indicated that neither prepaid electricity nor water
meters apply to them as they receive full municipal services from the CoT (electricity,
water, etc). Involvement of embassies in metro consultative or participatory processes
is also nonexistent. Consequently, detailed analysis of these aspects waseliminated for
purposes of this report, as were questions related to those service areas that do not
relate to or reflect limited usage or awareness among the participating embassies.
219
TABLE 5.4
SATISFACTION RATINGS OF EMBASSIES, 2009 - 2013
Item 2009 2011 2013
Core municipality services n Mean score n Mean score n Mean score
Electricity 20 5.15 20 5.85 20 7.15
Waste collection 20 7.20 20 6.55 20 7.84
Neighbourhood roads 20 5.55 20 6.60 20 7.40
Sanitation/wastewater/sewerage 20 6.15 20 6.85 20 7.55
Stormwater drainage/flooding 20 6.15 20 6.30 20 7.15
Water provision 20 6.10 20 6.65 20 7.35
Street/public lights 20 6.20 20 6.35 20 7.80
Municipal community services n Mean score n Mean score n Mean score Street sweeping and litter control 20 4.25 20 6.35 20 7.90
Traffic lights/signals 20 6.00 20 7.30 20 6.75
Grass cutting 19 4.21 20 6.15 20 7.80
Road maintenance (repairs, signage, markings, speed bumps)
20 5.40 20 7.05 20 6.65
Street trees 20 4.90 20 7.75 20 8.20
Public safety services n Mean score n Mean score n Mean score
Traffic control 20 4.35 20 6.90 20 7.10
Social crime prevention 19 3.32 20 7.75 20 7.45
Visible policing - - - - 20 7.20
Response time of Metro Police - - - - 20 6.40
Customer care: Billing and payment n Mean score n Mean score n Mean score
Clear & understandable account 18 5.33 20 5.55 20 7.15
Correctness of account 18 5.33 20 6.35 20 6.55
Regularity of account 18 6.33 20 7.85 20 7.16
Sufficiency of information provided to understand municipal billing
- - - - 20 6.85
Table 5.4 shows that satisfaction with core services ranged from 7.15 for electricity and
stormwater drainage to 7.84 for waste collection. Satisfaction with community services
yielded ratings from 6.65 for road maintenance to 8.20 for street trees. Public safety
services attained average scores of 6.40for response time of Metro Police to 7.45 for
social crime prevention.
The fact that a different measurement scale as the one used above (ie a 10-point scale)
was used to determine the perceptions of embassies on public safety, calls for a
separate analysis. Table 5.7 reflects the outcome of the perceptions of safety in the CoT
as perceived by embassies.
220
TABLE 5.5
EMBASSY PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY, 2009 - 2013
Safety
Dangerous/
unsafe Neither safe nor unsafe Safe/very safe Total
2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Living in Tshwane 25.0 25.0 40.0 45.0 45.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tshwane after dark 100.0 35.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 10.0 0.0 15.0 40.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Own neighbourhood 40.0 20.0 15.0 60.0 60.0 10.0 0.0 20.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Inner City (CBD) 95.0 40.0 25.0 5.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Business nodes - - 15.0 - - 15.0 - - 70.0 - - 100.0
Travelling on municipal buses - - 10.0 - - 15.0 - - 75.0 - - 100.0
Travelling by own car - - 20.0 - - 10.0 - - 70.0 - - 100.0
CoT offices - 0.0 20.0 - 92.3 20.0 - 7.7 60.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
221
Table 5.5 shows that participating embassies have lower confidence in safety in the CoT,
especially after dark. The high crime rate and robberies were cited as the major reasons
for feeling unsafe after dark or in the inner city.
5.4 DISSATISFACTION WITH CoT
The survey questionnaire also allowed embassies to list reasons for dissatisfaction
(ratings below 6.00 on a 10-point scale) with the services/performance of the CoT. The
outcome can be summarised as follows:
• Generally, embassies appear to be satisfied with the core services provided by
the municipality. Dissatisfaction with stormwater drainage (15.0%) elicited the
highest response among embassies, with blocked systems cited as major
concerns.
• Embassies showed no dissatisfaction with any of the community service items in
2013.
• Traffic control, with traffic officers being perceived as corruptive (15.0% of
embassies).
• Social crime prevention, with the lack of awareness campaigns cited by 25.0% of
embassies.
• Visible policing, with the lack of CCTV surveillance (5.0%) and police not visible
enough (5.0%) cited as major concerns.
• Response time of Metro Police with ‘not answering telephones’ cited as major
concerns by 25.0% of embassies.
Generally, embassies appeared fairly optimistic with the public safety service items such
as living in Tshwane, living in Tshwane after dark, own neighbourhood, inner city (CBD),
business nodes, travelling on municipal buses and own car, and the CoT offices/walk-in
centres. Most dissatisfaction was recorded for Tshwane after dark where half the
embassies (50%) cited crime/robberies/burglaries as the major reason for
dissatisfaction. In fact, the latter was advanced as the major reason for dissatisfaction
222
with any of the other public safety items, which in general showed fairly high levels of
satisfaction among embassies.
Generally, embassies rated their satisfaction with billing and payment as good (above
6.50). Participating embassies appear to prefer telephone banking and drive-through
cashiers.
5.5 ADDITIONAL SERVICE FACETS INVESTIGATED AMONG EMBASSIES
The primary focus of the embassy study was to determine the levels of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction regarding CoT service delivery. These survey results were discussed in
sections 5.3 and 5.4. The remainder of this chapter deals with additional facets also
included in the embassy survey, whichare indirectly related to satisfaction with
municipal service delivery. These are summarised in table 5.6.
TABLE 5.6
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL SERVICE EVALUATION FACETS BY EMBASSIES, 2013
Evaluation facet Core municipal service facets
Proportion of embassies indicating that electricity readings are conducted on a regular basis 15 % Proportion of embassies indicating that water readings are conducted on a regular basis 15 % Billing and payment facets Proportion of embassies receiving a monthly account from the CoT 95.0 % Most used current method of CoT account payment Bank deposits and
Internet Preferred method of CoT account payment Telephone banking &
drive-through Municipal account payment methods Current: Bank deposit 90% Internet 90% Prefer: Telephone banking 85% Drive-through cashiers 80% Customer care services: Enquiries and complaints Proportion of embassies lodging an enquiry/complaint 70.0% Proportion of embassies lodging information request via telephone 78.6% Proportion of embassies lodging service request via telephone 50.0% cont...
223
TABLE 5.6 (continued)
Customer care services: Enquiries and complaints (continued) Proportion of embassies lodging service request via Customer Care Centre 50.0% Proportion of embassies lodging a complaint via telephone 64.3% Proportion of embassies lodging a complaint via post 21.4% Proportion of embassies indicated that most recent complaint/enquiry was resolved on first contact 92.9% Satisfaction score for most recent enquiry/complaint1 Electricity meter reading (35.7% of embassies that enquired/complained) 4.00 Electricity power failure (28.6% of embassies that enquired/complained) 6.00 Service delivery accountability Proportion of embassies aware of CoT service delivery charter 5.0 % Service aspirations agreement scores* - The CoT is committed towards achieving service excellence 5.65 - The CoT is effective and efficient in progressively delivering on its mandate to be accountable to local communities
5.61
- The CoT adheres to good service delivery quality standards that effectively address customers’ information and service requests and complaints
5.53
- The CoT has managed to develop a sound service delivery response culture to effectively and efficiently address customer enquiries and complaints
6.00
- The CoT meets reasonable timelines 5.68 to respond to residents’ requests and complaints - The CoT addresses residents’ requests and complaints 5.74 accurately
*An agreement scale was used with the scale anchors ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). 5.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Due to the relatively low number of embassies included in the survey, readers are
cautioned not to overgeneralise the survey findings emerging from the embassy survey.
However, the survey findings presented in the chapter provide a good overview of the
satisfaction with and confidencein the CoT of participating embassies.In general,
participating embassies seemed to rate the general service performance of the CoT
asgood.
1Only embassies that enquired/complained 12 months prior to the 2013 survey (n = 14 or 70.0%)
224
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter firstly constructs regional satisfaction indices based on the outcome of the
2013 household satisfaction survey in comparison with the 2009 and 2011 findings. The
methodology for constructing these indices is discussed in detail. Also, indices based on
the outcome of the business survey are presented. These indices are not reflected by
region but were used to construct the composite CoT satisfaction index for 2009, 2011
and 2013. The value of the composite CoT index is to allow for future longitudinal
analysis to specifically track changes in the satisfaction climate in the CoT. The 2009
indices serve as a base-line to monitor future service climate changes within the CoT.
The satisfaction index analysis section is finally followed by an overview of the outcome
of the core findings of the 2009, 2011 and 2013 household and business satisfaction
surveys and some recommendations to the CoT.
6.2 SATISFACTION INDICES
It should be noted that the value of constructing indices is firstly to measure the average
service satisfaction climate in the CoT. All indices vary between 0 and 100 where a value
of 0 reflects an extremely low satisfaction rating while a value of 100 portrays an
extremely high satisfaction rating. On average, an index value above 50 indicates a
positive service delivery climate in the CoT, while a value below 50 portrays a negative
service delivery climate. The index approach towards analysing the survey outcomes
allows for monitoring service satisfaction levels continuously, the main advantage of
which is to compare index values over time.
The design of the household and business satisfaction model lends itself to the
construction of service satisfaction indices. The methodology for constructing such
225
indices and the magnitudes of the mean index scores are explained below. The
discussion is restricted to households as the same methodology applies to the
construction of the business satisfaction indices.
The service indices computed for the CoT included the following:
• Basic (core) Services Household Satisfaction Index (BSHSI)
• Community Services Household Satisfaction Index (CSHSI)
• Public Safety and By-law Enforcement Household Satisfaction Index (PSBEHSI)
• Billing, Payment and Customer Care Household Satisfaction Index (BPCCHSI)
• Communication Efficiency Household Satisfaction Index (CEHSI)
The methodology used to construct the average household satisfaction index scores as
outlined above, is explained in detail below.
6.2.1 Methodology for constructing household satisfaction indices
The information resulting from the 2009, 2011 and 2013 household survey provided a
sound base for computing specifically regional satisfaction indices. The final household
satisfaction index for the CoT as a whole was obtained by computing the average index
value of the various subindices (basic services, community services, public safety and by-
law enforcement, billing, payment and customer care services, and communication
efficiency).
226
As a statistical notation the computation of the CoT household satisfaction index can be
formulated as follows:
HSICoT = (HSIBS + HSICS + HSIPSBE + HSIBPCC + HSICE)
HSI = Household Satisfaction Index
HSIBS = Basic Services Household Satisfaction Index
HSICS = Community Services Household Satisfaction Index
HSIPSBE = Public Safety and By-law Enforcement Household Satisfaction Index
HSIBPE = Billing, Payment and Customer Care Household Satisfaction Index
HSICE = Communication Efficiency Household Satisfaction Index
The satisfaction items used as input for designing the household satisfaction indices are
shown in table 6.1. Please note that the 2009 and 2011 BSHSI included ratings on basic
service rates/tariffs. These items were excluded to allow for direct comparisons with
the 2013 study. Also, the 2009 and 2011 studies included a city development household
satisfaction index that was also removed to support direct comparisons.
5
Where:
227
TABLE 6.1
SATISFACTION ITEMS FOR CONSTRUCTING SATISFACTION INDICES, 2009 - 2013
Index Satisfaction items 2009
Mean index score (out of 100)
2011 Mean index score
(out of 100)
2013 Mean index score
(out of 100) Basic Services Household Satisfaction Index (BSHSI)
Electricity
68 72 77
Waste collection Neigbourhood roads Sanitation/wastewater/sewerage Stormwater drainage/flooding Street lights Water provision Prepaid electricity meters Prepaid water meters
Community Services Household Satisfaction Index (CSHSI)
Community halls/recreation centres
Fire and rescue services/fire brigade
Emergency medical and Ambulance services Municipal bus service Municipal cemeteries Municipal crematoriums
Municipal clinics
Municipal museums (eg Pretoria Art Museum) Parks Pavements/pedestrian walkways Public libraries Public sports facilities Municipal public toilets 65 66 72 Dumping (landfill) sites Municipal taxi ranks Informal trading facilities Public swimming pools Municipal nature reserves/resorts Licensing: Learner’s driver’s licence Licensing: Driver’s licence
(applications/renewals)
Waste removal Emergency/disaster management Street sweeping and litter control Traffic lights/signals Grass cutting Roads (pothole repairs, signage, markings,
speed bumps)
Street trees Government /social housing (low cost housing) Public Safety and By-law Enforcement Household Satisfaction Index (PSBEHSI)
Building control/control of illegal land use
Control of illegal squatting/occupation Control of illegal street trading/intersection trading
Control of illegal dumping Ilegal water connections Illegal electricity connections 72 69 70 Control of visual environment Control of building or construction rubble Noise control Traffic control Social crime prevention Visible policing Response time of Metro Police
228
TABLE 6.1 (continued)
Index Satisfaction items 2009
Mean index score (out of 100)
2011 Mean index score
(out of 100)
2013 Mean index score
(out of 100) Billing, Payment and Customer Care Household Satisfaction Index (BPCCHSI)
Clarity/understandability of accounts
68 69 70
Correctness of accounts Regularity of account
Sufficiency of information provided to understand municipal billing
Timely and accuracy of handling customer request (37 service items)
Communication Efficiency Household Satisfaction Index (CEHSI)
Metro consultative/participatory process:
69 70 76
• Ward meetings • Community based planning
• General public meetings/consultative meetings
• Public hearings Communication modes:* • Newsletters* • Official Tshwane Website • Awareness campaigns*
• SMS communication • Local media • Social media • Language in which serviced**
AVERAGE ALL ITEMS 68 69 73
* Rated in 2009 only ** Rated in 2011 only
The mean index scores in table 6.1 reflect a positive service climate (index scores above
50) in all main service areas for 2009, 2011 and 2013. The overall average score
increased from 68 in 2009 to 69 in 2011 and 73 in 2013. The highest increase between
2011 and 2013 was attained in the CEHSI (increasing from 70 in 2011 to 76 in 2013) in
2013. All index scores improved between 2011 and 2013 with BPCCHSI and PSBEHSI
showing the lowest increases in 2013 (almost similar than 2011). To add value from a
comparative view, regional index scores are also reflected in the sections to follow. Due
to boundary changes, regional analysis is only presented for 2013.
229
6.2.2 Regional basic services household satisfaction indices
The regional basic services household satisfaction indices (BSHSI) for the CoT for 2013
are presented by region and for the CoT as a whole in figure 6.1.
FIGURE 6.1
REGIONAL BASIC SERVICES HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
The overall regional trend for the CoT reflects the highest satisfaction index for region 4
(79) in 2013. In turn, region 7 recorded the lowest BSHSI of 68.
6.2.3 Regional community services household satisfaction indices
The 2013 regional and total CSHSIs for the CoT are shown in figure 6.2.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 78 76 77 79 72 78 68 77
0
20
40
60
80
100
230
FIGURE 6.2
REGIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICES HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
The overall regional trends for the CSHSI reflect the highest index scores for regions 3, 5
and 6. In turn, region 7 shows the lowest CSHSI for 2013.
6.2.4 Regional public safety and by-law enforcement household satisfaction indices
The regional and total PSBEHSIs for the CoT for 2013 are shown in figure 6.3.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 71 70 73 69 73 74 59 72
0
20
40
60
80
100
231
FIGURE 6.3
REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY AND BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
By region PSBEHSI scores ranged from a low of 59 in region 7 to 75 in region 2.
6.2.5 Regional billing, payment and customer care indices
The regional and total BPCCHSIs for 2013 are shown in figure 6.4.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 70 75 67 70 69 71 59 70
0
20
40
60
80
100
232
FIGURE 6.4
REGIONAL BILLING, PAYMENT AND CUSTOMER CARE HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
The overall BPCCHSI score for 2013 was recorded at 70. Households residing in regions
5 and 7 reflect the lowest BPCCHSI indices of 66 and 60 respectively. In turn, the highest
BPCCHSI was recorded in region 2 (72 index points).
6.2.6 Regional communication efficiency household satisfaction indices
The regional and total CEHSIs for 2013 are shown in figure 6.5.
FIGURE 6.5
REGIONAL COMMUNICATION EFFICIENCY HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDICES, 2013
The CEHSI for the CoT as a whole was 76 for 2013. In 2013, the regional indices ranged
from 69 in region 7 to 79 in region 6.
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 70 72 68 69 66 69 60 70
0
20
40
60
80
100
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Total
2013 73 77 76 78 76 79 69 76
0
20
40
60
80
100
233
6.2.7 Composite household satisfaction index
Combining the five household satisfaction mean index scores resulted in a total service
satisfaction index for households as a whole. The 2013 result is reflected in figure 6.6.
The figure also compares the 2013 study with the 2009 and 2011 studies.
FIGURE 6.6
CoT HOUSEHOLD SATISFACTION INDEX, 2009 - 2013
The index analysis in figure 6.6 shows that the levels of household satisfaction regarding
the CoT service performance increased from 68 in 2009 to 69 in 2011 and 73 in 2013.
With all indices households recorded an increase in their overall satisfaction levels
between 2011 and 2013.
6.2.8 Business satisfaction indices
To compute a total satisfaction index for the CoT, the service satisfaction levels of the
business survey must also be included. Adding this component extends the total service
satisfaction index formula to the following:
BSHSI CHHSI PSBEHSI BPCCHSI CEHSI TOTAL
2009 68 65 72 68 69 68
2011 72 66 69 69 70 69
2013 77 72 70 70 76 73
0
20
40
60
80
100
234
SI HSI BSICoJ = +
Where: IndexonSatisfactiBusinessBSI
IndexonSatisfactiHouseholdHSIIndexonSatisfactiSI
==
=
The methodology and magnitude of the household satisfaction index scores were
explained in the previous sections. As remaining input to construct a total services
satisfaction level for the CoT, the methodology and magnitude of the business
satisfaction index scores will be discussed in the following sections.
6.2.8.1 Methodology of constructing business satisfaction indices
The majority of the satisfaction items used for the 2009, 2011 and 2013 household
surveys also applied to the business survey. However, no regional comparisons are
made due to a lack of representative sample sizes per region. Also, model
differentiations between business classifications prevented the 2009, 2011 and 2013
research outcomes from being compared by business type (formal/informal). This
restricted the analysis options to the calculation of the following business satisfaction
indices:
• Basic Services Business Satisfaction Index (BSBSI)
• Collective Services Business Satisfaction Index (CSBSI)
• Public Safety and By-law Enforcement Business Satisfaction Index (PSBEBSI)
• Billing, Payment and Customer Care Business Satisfaction Index (BPCCBSI)
• Communication Efficiency Business Satisfaction Index (CEBSI)
235
The satisfaction items used to construct the BSBSI are the same (except for prepaid
electricity and water meter readings) as those used for constructing the BSHSI. When
constructing the CSBSI, only the following satisfaction items were included:
• Fire and rescue services/fire brigade
• Emergency medical and ambulance services
• Municipal bus service
• Pavements/pedestrian walkways
• Municipal public toilets
• Municipal taxi ranks
• Informal trading facilities
• Licensing: Business licence
• Dumping sites
• Emergency/disaster management
• Street sweeping and litter control
• Traffic lights/signals
• Grass cutting
• Road maintenance
• Availability of street parking (introduced in 2013)
Largely the same satisfaction items used to construct the PSBEHSI, BPCCHSI and CEHSI
for households were used to construct the PSBEBSI, BPCCBSI and CEBSI for businesses.
The index scores for businesses are shown in table 6.2, and ideally should serve as a
baseline to measure changes in business satisfaction over time.
The BPCCBSI, however, included satisfactory scores with payment methods in 2009 and
2011. These were excluded in 2013.
236
TABLE 6.2
BUSINESS SATISFACTION INDEX SCORES, 2009 - 2013
Index Index scores
2009 Index scores
2011 Index scores
2013 BSBSI 68 69 75 CSBSI 58 64 74 PSBEBSI 73 71 73 BPCCBSI 68 68 69 CEBSI 73 69 80 TOTAL 68 68 74
The business indices reflect a positive business satisfaction climate increasing from 68 in
2009/2011 to 74 in 2013. All indices showed increases between 2011 and 2013. The
biggest increases were recorded for CSBSI and CEBSI. These indices increased by 10 or
more index points between 2011 and 2013.
Compared to households, business satisfaction levels in 2013 was at a similar level than
in 2009 and 2011. The overall business satisfaction index was six index points higher in
2013 than in previous years.
6.2.9 CoT service satisfaction index
Combining the household and business satisfaction mean index scores resulted in a total
service satisfaction index for the CoT as a whole. As mentioned, the overall service
satisfaction index is based on the following statistical formula:
SI HSI BSICoJ = +
SI = Satisfaction Index
HSI = Household Satisfaction Index
BSI = Business Satisfaction Index
Where
237
The magnitude of the total service satisfaction index score for the CoT is reflected in
figure 6.7.
FIGURE 6.7
HOUSEHOLD, BUSINESS AND TOTAL SATISFACTION INDEX FOR THE CoT, 2009 - 2013
HSI
BSI
BSHSI CSHSI PSBEHSI BPCCHSI CEHSI TOTAL
2009 68 65 72 68 69 68
2011 72 66 69 69 70 69
2013 77 72 70 70 76 73
0
20
40
60
80
100
BSBSI CSBSI PSBEBSI BPCCBSI CEBSI TOTAL
2009 68 58 73 68 73 68
2011 69 64 71 68 69 68
2013 75 74 73 69 80 74
0
20
40
60
80
100
238
SI (TOTAL)
The index analysis in figure 6.7 show that the levels of satisfaction regarding the CoT
service performance increased for households from 69 in 2011 to 73 in 2013, for
businesses from 68 to 74 and for the total satisfaction index (households and
businesses) from 69 to 73.
6.3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This final section of the report presents an overview of the core findings of the 2013
household study among 3 329 households as well as the business survey conducted
among 847 formal and informal businesses. The chapter presents some
recommendations to the CoT based on the 2013 resident (household and business)
survey findings. This approach attempts to add some additional value from an
operational and strategic planning perspective. The analysis is presented thematically
with some recommendations suggested at the end of the discussion of each theme.
BSSI CSSI PSBESI BPCCSI CESI TOTAL
2009 68 61 73 68 71 68
2011 70 65 70 68 69 69
2013 76 73 71 69 78 73
0
20
40
60
80
100
239
6.3.1 Core services
Figure 6.8 reflects the average satisfaction scores for core services for 2013. The table
reflects the satisfaction ratings of households and businesses from high to low. Items
topping the list in 2013 included water provision and sanitation.
FIGURE 6.8
AVERAGE SATISFACTION SCORES OF CoT CORE SERVICES, 2013
Other major findings and conclusions from the 2013 study are summarised below. The
summary also presents some recommendations based on the major findings of the 2013
household and business satisfaction surveys. Key among the recommendations are
those referring to areas of dissatisfaction among respondents.
The proportions of households/businesses showing dissatisfaction with the core
municipal services in 2013 are summarised in figure 6.9.
6.85
7.52
6.56
7.65
7.30
7.59
7.56
7.31
7.67
7.32
7.48
7.27
7.67
7.69
0 2 4 6 8 10
Neighbourhood roads
Stormwater/drainage/flooding
Street lights
Waste collection
Electricity
Sanitation/waste water/sewerage
Water provision
Businesses Households
240
FIGURE 6.9
PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND BUSINESSES DISSATISFIED WITH CORE MUNICIPAL SERVICES, 2013
Households
Businesses
Against this background the following is recommended:
Recommendations: Core municipal services
Based on the outcome of the 2013 household satisfaction survey the following two priority core service areas require priority attention: Street/public lights Neighbourhood roads
20.3
13.7
12.9
8.8
6.6
6.5
5.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Street/public lights
Neighbourhood roads
Electricity
Water provision
Sanitation/waste water/sewerage
Waste collection
Stormwater drainage/flooding
9.9
6.7
6.7
3.9
3.5
3.3
1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Electricity
Neighbourhood roads
Street/public lights
Sanitation/waste water/sewerage
Waste collection
Water provision
Stormwater drainage/flooding
241
More specific recommendations related to each core service area are discussed in more
detail below.
Core service type Major findings
Electricity
• This item was among the top three household satisfaction ratings on core services in 2013.
• 12.9% and 9.9% of households and businesses respectively were dissatisfied with electricity in 2013. o Of those dissatisfied, 46.6% of households and 35.7% of businesses cited
high tariffs as the major reason for their dissatisfaction. 22.6% of households and 23.8% of businesses cited load/power shedding as major concerns.
Recommendation:
Attend to high cost of electricity. Improve on load/power shedding. Improve access to electricity (wards 10, 24 and 40).
Waste collection
• This item recorded good satisfaction ratings from both households and businesses in 2013.
• 6.5% of households and 3.5% of businesses were dissatisfied with waste collection in 2013. o Of those dissatisfied, 45.8% of households and 46.7% of businesses indicated
that waste is never/seldom collected. Recommendation
Improve collection of refuse.
Neigbourhood roads
• Of all core service items, this item recorded the second lowest satisfaction among both households and businesses in 2013.
• 13.7% of households and 6.7% of businesses were dissatisfied with neighbourhood streets in 2011. o Of those dissatisfied households and businesses, 48.5% and 33.3%
respectively claimed that roads are not tarred or are dusty/muddy. Recommendation Tar roads (wards 14, 19, 24, 37, 95).
Water provision
• Satisfaction ratings for this item were above 7.00 among both households and businesses in 2013.
• 8.8% of the households and 3.3% of businesses showed dissatisfaction with water provision.
• Regular water cuts (22.6% of dissatisfied households and 17.9% of dissatisfied businesses) were advanced as the major reason for dissatisfaction with water provision.
Recommendation Address irregular water interruptions.
242
Stormwater drainage
• This item rated good satisfaction ratings of core services among both households and businesses in 2013.
• 5.5% of households and 1.5% of businesses showed dissatisfaction with stormwater drainage.
• Lack of drainage (26.1% of dissatisfied households and 23.1% of dissatisfied businesses) was advanced as the major reason for dissatisfaction with stormwater systems. 47.8% of households and 15.4% of businesses reported blocked systems as their major concern.
Recommendation Maintain stormwater drainage systems. Install stormwater drainage systems (wards 18, 19, 95).
Street/public lights
• This item recorded relatively lower satisfaction scores from both households and businesses in 2013.
• 20.3% of the households and 6.7% of businesses indicated that they are dissatisfied with street/public lights. o Of those dissatisfied households and businesses, 70.4% and 71.9%
respectively, cited poor maintenance as the major reason for dissatisfaction. Recommendation Improve maintenance of street lights (wards 3, 10, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, 37, 51, 67,
77, 90, 95, 97).
Sanitation and waste water
• Fairly high levels of satisfaction were recorded among both households and businesses for this item in 2013.
• 6.6% of the households and 3.9% of businesses showed dissatisfaction with sanitation and waste water. o Of those dissatisfied, 49.5% of households and 48.5% of businesses cited no
proper sanitation/flush toilets as major concern. Recommendation Improve sanitation and waste water systems (wards 14, 24, 49, 73).
6.3.2 Municipal community services
The utilisation (preceding 12 months) levels of the top and bottom five of the municipal
community services investigated in 2013 are summarised below.
HOUSEHOLDS
TOP 5 SERVICES BOTTOM 5 SERVICES
Service item % households Service item % households Waste removal 6.2 Municipal clinics 35.3 Municipal nature reserves/resorts 4.9 Grass cutting 13.5 Municipal museums 4.4 Roads 16.4 Municipal bus services 10.6 Pavements/pedestrian walkways 22.4 Municipal crematorium 9.8 Government/social housing 11.0
243
BUSINESSES
TOP 5 SERVICES BOTTOM 5 SERVICES Service item % households Service item % households
Business licences 0.8 Pavements/pedestrian walkways 13.0 Municipal bus services 0.5 Grass cutting 8.9 Fire and rescue services 0.6 Street sweeping and litter control 6.0 Informal trading facilities 0.9 Road maintenance 5.8 Emergency disaster management 0.6 Building and construction rubble 2.8
The percentage of households who indicated that they had never used the following
community services are as follows:
Community service % households
Municipal crematorium 89.3
Public swimming pools 84.0
Emergency/disaster management 83.7
Municipal public toilets 80.5
Municipal museums 74.8
The percentage of businesses who indicated that they had never used the following
community services are as follows:
Community service % businesses Emergency/disaster management 88.1
Municipal public toilets 81.3
Dumping sites 74.7
Municipal bus services 74.9
Fire and rescue services/fire brigade 70.4
Finally, the satisfaction ratings for the top and bottom community services are reflected
in figure 6.10.
244
FIGURE 6.10
TOP AND BOTTOM FIVE SATISFACTION RATINGS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, 2013 HOUSEHOLDS
TOP 5 SATISFACTION ITEMS BOTTOM 5 SATISFACTION ITEMS
BUSINESSES
TOP 3 SATISFACTION ITEMS BOTTOM 3 SATISFACTION ITEMS
7.59
7.64
7.83
7.93
8.01
0 2 4 6 8 10
Municipal crematoriums
Municipal bus services
Municipal museums
Municipal nature reserves/resorts
Waste removal
Average rating
6.33
6.46
6.47
6.61
6.66
0 2 4 6 8 10
Municipal clinics
Grass cutting
Road maintenance
Pavement/pedestrian walkways
Government/social housing (low cost housing)
Average rating
7.69
7.73
7.89
0 2 4 6 8 10
Fire and rescue services
Municipal bus services
Licensing: Business licenses
Average rating
6.66
6.86
6.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
Pavements/pedestrian walkways
Grass cutting
Street sweeping and litter control
Average rating
245
Recommendation: Community services The CoT should focus on those community services that recorded low satisfaction
ratings. In this regard the following should be targeted as priority areas: municipal clinics (wards 10, 18, 19, 24, 30, 31, 40, 77, 103) and grass cutting (wards 8, 10, 24, 90).
6.3.3 Public safety
The major findings and some recommendations based on the section dealing with public
safety are highlighted below.
Major findings: Public safety • Approximately 12.5% of households feel that it is dangerous or unsafe to live in the CoT. • Approximately a quarter 8.6% of businesses indicated that it is dangerous or unsafe to
conduct business at their present location in the CoT. The corresponding figure for doing business in greater Tshwane is 5.1%.
• Household perceptions of safety after dark were very low in all regions. On average,
24.9% of households indicated that the CoT is dangerous, very dangerous/unsafe after dark.
• Overall, the perceptions of households of safety in neighbourhoods are fairly positive in
2013 with 54.0% feeling safe/very safe. Households in region 1 showed less confidence in the safety of their neighbourhoods with 18.2% indicating that their neighbourhoods are perceived as dangerous/unsafe.
• Just less than a quarter (21.9%) households regard the CoT Inner City as
unsafe/dangerous. This can be directly attributed to crime.
• Approximately 10.2% of households regard travelling on municipal buses as dangerous/unsafe. Of those who regard travelling as dangerous/unsafe, 70.1% cited crime as a major concern.
• Only 5.4% of households regarded visiting CoT offices as unsafe/dangerous.
Recommendations: Public safety Safety after dark should be addressed as a priority area. Safety measures in the Inner City and business nodes should be improved and/or
awareness campaigns about Inner City or business nodes safety measures should improve.
Crime-related aspects such as robberies and burglaries need to be addressed as priorities.
246 6.3.4 By-law enforcement
The major findings and some recommendations based on the section dealing with by-
law enforcement are highlighted below.
Major findings: By-law enforcement
• Generally, the perceptions of households and businesses regarding by-law enforcement were
positive in 2013 with all ratings (except land invasions) related to by-law enforcement showing average scores above 6.00.
FIGURE 6.11
AVERAGE SATISFACTION RATINGS FOR BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2013
6.74
6.50
7.06
7.10
7.20
7.16
7.46
7.37
7.33
0 2 4 6 8 10
Illegal squatting
Illegal dumping
Illegal street trading
Building control
Illegal electricity connections
Noise control
Illegal water connections
Control of building or construction rubble
Control of visual environment
Average rating
Households
7.32
7.09
7.07
7.37
7.50
7.52
7.48
7.46
7.58
0 2 4 6 8 10
Control of illegal street trading
Control of illegal dumping
Control of illegal squatting
Building control
Noise control
Control: Building/construction rubble
Control: Visual environment
Illegal electricity connections
Illegal water connections
Average rating
Businesses
247
• Against the above-mentioned background and based on the levels of dissatisfaction expressed by households and businesses on by-law enforcement issues, the following areas were identified as problematic (ratings of below 7.00):
o Illegal dumping o Illegal squatting
Recommendations: By-law-enforcement
Control of land invasions with specific focus on control of illegal foreigners and squatters as
well as law enforcement on illegal dumping and illegal squatting. 6.3.5 Public safety
The major findings and some recommendations based on the section dealing with public
safety are highlighted below.
Major findings: Crime
• Visible policing and response time of Metro Police recorded average rating scores of below
6.50. Almost half the households (46.5%) indicated a lack of CCTV surveillance as a major reason for dissatisfaction with visible policing. Also, 63.3% of households indicated that unanswered telephones are perceived as most annoying.
Recommendations: Crime Increase visibility of crime prevention officers. Improve response time on call-outs. Instruct Metro Police staff to answer phones.
6.3.6 Billing and payment
The major findings and some recommendations based on the section dealing with billing
and payment are highlighted below.
248
Major findings: Billing and payment • Approximately 79.8% of households and 78.7% of businesses indicated that they received an
account from the CoT.
• Satisfaction with the clarity, understanding, correctness and regularity of accounts received average ratings above 7.00 out of 10 among both households and businesses. This reflects fairly high satisfaction levels with CoT accounts received.
Recommendations: Billing and payment
Maintain billing and payment performance with respect to
clarity/understandability/correctness of accounts, regularity of accounts received and sufficiency of information to understand municipal bills.
6.3.7 Customer care services
The major findings and some recommendations based on the section dealing with
customer services are highlighted below.
Major findings: Customer services • Most enquiries from households and businesses related to account payments, water meter
readings, power failures and electronic meter readings. • The lowest satisfaction with customer care services were recorded for response to house
queries on provincial housing list, emergency medical and ambulance services, repair of mast poles and issuing of title deeds.
Recommendations: Customer services Improve timelines and accuracy of handling enquiries and complaints, specifically related to
account payments, water and electricity meter readings and power failures.
249
6.3.8 Participation and communication
The major findings and some recommendations based on the section dealing with the
metro consultative or participatory processes and communication-related issues are
highlighted below.
Major findings: Participation and communication
• Approximately a third (32.9%) of households participated in metro consultative and
participatory processes in 2013. No more than 2.5% of households were dissatisfied with the way in which the CoT communicates its issues, policies and actions.
Recommendations: Participation and communication
Create more awareness of CoT Website, SMS communication and social media. Promote awareness campaigns (ie cable theft awareness, new credit control policy etc)
more aggressively. Make CoT communication more informative. 6.3.9 Corruption
The major findings and some recommendations based on the section dealing with
corruption in the CoT are highlighted below.
Major findings: Corruption
• Approximately 16.5% of households and 11.1% of businesses are aware of corruption in
the CoT.
• Bribery was mentioned as a key corruption type in the CoT by households (45.8%) and business owners/managers (4.6%).
• Satisfaction with addressing corruption is at a very low level. Only 7.4% of the
households and 14.9% of businesses indicated that corruption is addressed satisfactorily by the CoT.
250
Recommendations: Corruption Corruption in general, but with specific reference to bribery, fraud, abuse of power and
favouritism should be dealt with as a serious issue and needs to be urgently addressed by the CoT.
Create awareness of corruption cases addressed satisfactorily by CoT. 6.3.10 Service delivery accountability
The major findings and some recommendations based on the section dealing with
service delivery accountability are highlighted below.
Major findings: Service delivery accountability • A quarter of households (24.4%) and businesses (22.1%) are aware of the CoT Service
Delivery Charter.
• The overall satisfaction with the timelines and accuracy of dealing with enquiries/complaints recorded average ratings of below 6.00 for 37 different enquiries/complaints.
• Just less than half the enquiries/complaints are resolved on first contact.
Recommendations: Service delivery accountability Improve awareness of the norms and standards as contained in the CoT Service Delivery
Charter. Improve timelines of responding to enquiries/complaints. Improve on accuracy of addressing customer requests and complaints. Improve on resolving enquiries/complaints on first time contact.
251
6.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter summarised the outcome of the 2013 CoT household and business
satisfaction surveys concluded among 3 329 households and 847 businesses. To add
value to the resident satisfaction study, some recommendations have been highlighted
for the CoT to consider for implementation at various levels. Should the CoT intend
improving the satisfaction scores as reflected in this report it is recommended that
those highlighted in this chapter receive priority attention. To support the CoT in
improving its service delivery climate in the foreseeable future, it is recommended that
all business units be supplied with a copy of the research findings and become involved
in a concerted effort to improve the service delivery of the CoT and support its vision in
becoming a world class African city.