Local Government Assessment
-
Upload
lenore-hancock -
Category
Documents
-
view
19 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Local Government Assessment
![Page 1: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Local Government Assessment
Premier’s Co-ordinating Forum18-19 November 2009
![Page 2: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
PURPOSEPURPOSE
• National initiative to assess service delivery in municipalities• Get un-mediated feedback from communities• Identify the challenges that need to be addressed in the Local Government Turn-Around Strategy• Departmental objective: all personnel to develop an understanding of the conditions our communities are exposed to
![Page 3: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY
• Phase 1: Desktop ReportPhase 1: Desktop Report•Sources: Sources:
•LGMTEC Report (July 2009)LGMTEC Report (July 2009)•CDW Hot Spot reportsCDW Hot Spot reports•MIG reportsMIG reports•S47 ReportS47 Report•Snapshot informationSnapshot information•Vuna InformationVuna Information•IYM informationIYM information•Economic development reportsEconomic development reports
![Page 4: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
METHODOLOGY CONT’DMETHODOLOGY CONT’D
• Phase 2: Questionnaires on service delivery issuesPhase 2: Questionnaires on service delivery issues• Interviewed:Interviewed:
– Speakers – Ward Committee members – Ward Councillors– Civil society– Labour representatives– Municipal Officials– Residents of the poorest wards
• Mayors & Municipal Managers not interviewed unless available (their inputs captured in LGMTEC visits of May / June 2009)
![Page 5: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
OPERATIONSOPERATIONS
• 8 rural teams and 2 metro teams– Teams comprised officials from national Department of Co-operative Governance & Traditional Affairs, LG&H, and SALGA
• All Western Cape municipalities covered in one week•About 3500 interviews conducted
![Page 6: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Central QuestionCentral Question
“What is the state of local government in 2009 and what must be done to restore the confidence of our people by 2011
and beyond?”
![Page 7: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
FINDINGS: Interviewed GroupsFINDINGS: Interviewed Groups
• Community members: key issuesUnemployment / lack of job creationHealthCrimeLack of basic service delivery in certain areas (e.g. informal settlements)Poor condition of roads Lack of visible change at ward level
![Page 8: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
FINDINGS: Interviewed GroupsFINDINGS: Interviewed Groups
• Councillors / SpeakersMany councillors are hard-working and committed and have good relationships with communities
But community interviews reveal that many councillors are not fulfilling their responsibilities
• OfficialsUnfunded mandates is a cause of concern
• Ward Committee MembersRole Clarification neededPoor interaction with Speaker’s office in some cases
![Page 9: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
FINDINGS: Interviewed GroupsFINDINGS: Interviewed Groups
• Perceptions of CDWs Extremely varied response: CDWs seen to be making positive contribution in some areas and negative or no contribution in others
• LabourVacancies are not filled as a matter of urgencyMore Contract work than permanent workPerceptions of corruptionLLF is attended poorly by councillors
![Page 10: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
FINDINGS: SUMMARYFINDINGS: SUMMARY
• Lack of public participation• Access to basic services in some areas very poor: many citizens still live in abject poverty• Language barrier between municipality and communities • Many allegations of corruption in tender system and appointment of officials• Concern: many people interviewed said the next service delivery protest is “just a matter of time” as this is the only language officials and politicians understand
![Page 11: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
• Findings to be communicated to all municipalities (already done)
• Theme of “visible change” should be adopted by all municipalities
– “Neighborhood Revitalization Plans” should be developed for all poor communities - quickly implementable projects identified by communities
– Focus on basic services for all residents
• Introduce performance scorecards for Councillors
![Page 12: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
RECOMMENDATIONS CONT’DRECOMMENDATIONS CONT’D
• Improve implementation of Indigent Policies
• Develop and implement anti-fraud / anti-corruption strategies and policies
• Effectively manage relationships between Mayco & Section 56 managers
• Municipal language policies to be developed and implemented
![Page 13: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMUNICATIONS RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
• Poor communication with communities identified as single biggest threat to effective service delivery• Public participation should be strengthened
– Speakers to improve oversight with respect to public participation plan and ward committee support plan
– Develop feedback/reporting mechanisms for councillors / ward committees
– Communications training for municipalities and councillors• Introduce community or neighbourhood-based planning and budgeting processes
![Page 14: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROVINCERECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROVINCE
• Assess indigent policy implementation and provide appropriate support
• Assist municipalities to develop and implement anti-fraud / anti-corruption strategies and policies
• Support municipalities in developing & implementing communications policies
• Ensure that provincial plans and resources are aligned in support of municipalities
![Page 15: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
NEXT TIME….NEXT TIME….
• Local government assessment was important “reality check” for provincial officials• If Department does it again –
– Plan well in advance – Assess both provincial & municipal
service delivery– Include municipal officials in visits to
community
![Page 16: Local Government Assessment](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56812de5550346895d933e97/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
THANK YOUTHANK YOU