REVISITING THE INCREMENTAL HOUSING PROCESS AS A POLICY IMPLEMENTATION TOOL FOR ACCELERATING HOUSING SERVICE DELIVERY: A STUDY OF SELECTED RURAL AREAS IN SOUTH AFRICA PRESENTATION BY: MS ANNAH MOKGADINYANE CHIEF PLANNER: NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
GET IN, GET A SHACK, GET SOME SPACE, SETTLE IN, AND YOU HAVE A SHOT AT GETTING ON THE HOUSING LIST ANTON HARBET, AUTHOR OF DIEPSLOOT GET IN, GET A SHACK, GET SOME SPACE, SETTLE IN, AND YOU HAVE A SHOT AT GETTING ON THE HOUSING LIST ANTON HARBET, AUTHOR OF DIEPSLOOT GET IN, GET A SHACK, GET SOME SPACE, SETTLE IN, AND YOU HAVE A SHOT AT GETTING ON THE HOUSING LIST ANTON HARBET, AUTHOR OF DIEPSLOOT
PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 4. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The issue of housing the nation in sustainable human settlements is one of the most demanding challenges facing the government The RDP target of 1 million houses was met in 2001 (government has delivered more than 2.1 million subsidised units by 2010), the country s housing deficit has grown to 2. 1 million households, the number of informal settlements has skyrocked to more than 2, 600 sites, there are 1 million urban poor families living in simple shacks in informal settlements (Worldbank, 2011; FinMark Trust) Housing need in the Eastern Cape stood at 800 000 units in 2006 (Nobrega, 2007), the housing need in the Free State stood at 200 000 units (MEC for Co operative during the 2010/11 budget vote speech), KwaZulu Natal housing need is put at 900 000 houses (Sathekge, 2011) Phago (2010:148) highlights a number of reasons for this challenge: population growth, influx of illegal foreigners, urban migration and unemployment
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS There has been a number of initiatives by government to address the housing challenge, however, the issue of housing delivery remains a challenge for both urban and rural areas, for the poor and the middle class Government s programme of delivering free houses is not meeting demand and is not sustainable (Turner, 1976; Greene and Rojas, 2008; Mills, 2007) The commitment of the banks to extend credit to the poorer households has been repeatedly questioned (Tomlinson, 2007; NHFC, 2003) Few South African households can save sufficient funds to buy a new home and only a fraction of the population qualifies for loans needed to purchase homes built by the formal sector (Greene and Rojas, 2008; UN Habitat, 2008) It is against this background that this study seeks to explore interventions to accelerate housing delivery for South Africa in general, and for the rural poor in particular A house is more than a house, it is a home, a place where a family comes together, where people grow and develop, a place where a person s well being is influenced and one s outlook on life is shaped Williams, 2000
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS.. The primary research question of the study therefore reads as follows: How can the incremental housing process contribute towards the reduction of the housing backlog in South Africa? In other words, can the incremental housing process be advocated as the answer to the housing crisis? Secondary research questions are as follows: a) What motivated households to improve their housing conditions? b) How have the rural poor households in South Africa been able to improve their housing conditions? c) What are the critical success factors for the incremental housing process? d) Is the incremental housing process still relevant to South Africa today?
3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to investigate how best can the incremental housing process be utilised by government in order to solve the housing challenge in South Africa: a) Understand how this incremental housing process works and the necessary factors instrument for its success; b) Investigate the effectiveness of the incremental housing process as implemented by Rural Housing Loan Fund (RHLF) since inception, and in part, determine the developmental impact of RHLF and in part, highlight lessons, successes and challenges; c) Understand why families decide to undertake incremental housing projects; d) Obtain local rural detail of incremental housing projects, as well as accompanying successes and challenges; e) Explore the possibility of the incremental housing process as a viable alternative to government s provision of free low cost houses and as part solution to the housing crisis in South Africa; and f) Propose recommendations that can be implemented by the government and/or the RHLF that will have a greater impact.
4. METHODOLIGAL APPROACH A mixed approach was employed for data collection, although there was more biased towards the qualitative approach comprehensive literature review, content analysis, interviews with a sample population through administering questionnaires The sample of the population of the study was 100 beneficiaries across five provinces (KZN, EC, Free State, MP and Gauteng) who had accessed RHLF housing microloans between 2005 2010 A mixed approach was employed in the data analysis stage, although the qualitative data analysis approach was favoured, the data collected was analysed manually using the grounded theory method Data was displayed using graphs, pie charts and tables where relevant and pictoral evidence was also used to illustrate certain points and for validation purposes
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Living arrangements of the respondents prior to the start of their incremental housing projects: 35% lived with parents/ relatives; 15% lived in hostels; 10% rented backyard rooms in townships; 15% lived at work; 25% are beneficiaries of RDP houses Reasons why they decided to solve their own housing issues through the incremental housing process: 70% could not afford a bond, 26% indicated that they did not want to own a bank for long periods, 22% indicated that they did not want a RDP house, 30% indicated that they could not wait any longer for a RDP house, 28% wanted to build a house according to their own specifications -100% indicated that they were not happy with their living conditions (85% indicated overcrowding, 10% indicated living far from work, 5% indicated that they were unhappy with their general living conditions although no particular reason was given for the dissatisfaction an assumption can be made that some respondents have the culture of showing dissatisfaction even though no grounds for such complaints could be established) How did you hear of RHLF s services: 60% word of mouth; 23% saw RHLF buildings; BUILDING 17% were CAPACITY employees FOR or associates SUSTAINABLE DELIVERY
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. Was the loan amount enough for the project: 100% indicated that it was not enough; 55% indicated that they supplemented the loan with their own personal savings; 22% indicated that they lent money from friends/ family to finish the project; 23% indicated that the project was blocked due to a lack of funds 90% of the respondents had not approached other financial institutions prior to the start of the project or when the project got blocked (22% borrowed from friends/ family); 100% indicated that they would approach RHLF for further financing as soon as they could afford; 58% indicating that they wanted to undertake new incremental projects as soon as they finished with the pending projects Respondents indicated that RHLF only provided financial services to them, 39% wanted builder referrals; 27% wanted building materials suppliers referrals
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. ORIGINAL HOUSE EXTENSIONS IN LIVING SPACES
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. EXTENSIONS TO RDP HOUSES BUILDING OF A NEW HOUSE (FOLLOWING THE DEMOLISHING OF A RDP HOUSE)
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. How long did it take to finish the projects, 100% of the respondents indicated that they took less than a year to finish their projects 15% of the projects were completely finished Challenges, 88% indicated issues of funding, 80% indicated issues related to the builder (0nly 10% were happy with their builder): a) Some respondents were of the opinion that the builders were not taking their projects seriously and not coming to work everyday; b) Some respondents questioned the technical skills; c) Some respondents believed that the builders wasted materials, and could have finished the project with the material that was available; d) Some respondents complained that builders were not implementing building plans as planned; and e) Some respondents indicated that the builders kept changing their teams members constantly, a matter which made many respondents very uncomfortable
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. 47% of the respondents were employed, 26% were self employed, 27% were not employed (36% earned R0 R5 000; 52% earned R5 000 R10 000; 6% earned R15 000 R20 000; 6% earned above R20 000) 55% of the respondents indicated that they saved towards their incremental housing projects, 45% not having saved In terms of loan repayments: 66% were comfortable, 12% were not comfortable, 22% did not want to answer the question 100% of the respondents would encourage other poor households to build/ improve their homes incrementally
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions are made: a) RHLF has been partially successful in implementing its mandate, although gaps have been identified b) Even the poorest of the poor want decent housing, and have demonstrated the ability to address their own housing issues c) The incremental housing process has the potential to solve the housing problem, given the right support by government The following recommendations are made: a) Alignment of national incremental inventions b) Shift/change of RHLF mandate and business model c) Making loans more affordable d) Development of a savings scheme for the rural poor for housing purposes e) Political will and public education
THE END THANK YOU