Performance of Municipalities in 2015

Performance of Municipalities in 2015 ( SERVICE DELIVERY, INDIGENT AND EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS FROM MUNICIPALITIES) 9 June 2016 Dr Pali Lehohla 1

Context NDP: Address the triple challenge of Poverty Inequality and Unemployment

No income education 80% 70% 60% No schooling 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 20 30 40 50 60 70 80+ Age Grade 11 Grade 12 Diploma Bachelors degree

Proportion completing a bachelor's degree after completing grade 12 0.3 White The alarming evidence points to regressive proportions in Bachelor s completion rates amongst Blacks 0.2 0.1 Indian/Asia n Black African Coloured Year 0.0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Black African Coloured Indian White Percentage of workers in each age group who are skilled (managers, professionals, technicians) 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 15-24 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 15-24 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 15-24 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 15-24 The percentage of workers in skilled occupations increased in all age and all race groups, except for black Africans aged 25-34, which decreased 1994 2014 There were much weaker gains in the black African group for all ages 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Inequality in South Africa 0.80 0.70 % 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.54 0.57 0.53 0.43 0.56 0.55 0.52 0.53 0.50 RSA 0.45 Black African 0.39 0.42 Coloured Indian/Asian White 0.20 0.10 0.00 2006 2009 2011

Geography as a dimension: Human Settlements policy The 2011 settlement patterns illustrate that policy intentions and public action are at variance with densification on the margins Population Density - Census 2001 Census 2011 shows increasing urban sprawl on the periphery instead Spatio-Cultural and Temporal Dimensions of Measurement

Real GDP decreased by -1,2% in Q1 2016 (quarter-on-quarter) Real GDP decreased by -0,2% in Q1 2016 (year-on-year) Seasonally adjusted and annualised Unadjusted

Table of contents: NFCM 2015 1. Background 2. General Results i. Basic Services ii. Free Basic Services iii. Indigent Households iv. Employment 3. Concluding Remarks 2

What is asked NFCM questionnaire Household Questionnaires Employment in municipalities By division, type, gender Infrastructure Basic and free basic services: Water Electricity Sewerage & sanitation Solid waste management Compliance Indigents Service provided: Funded by municipality, and /or Agreements with service providers and/or Agreements with national and provincial departments (where the municipality does not have the funds or infrastructure to provide service) CONSUMER UNITS Services - various Income Areas Employment Various other demography Population census Community survey 2016 GHS Etc HOUSEHOLDS 3

4 Consumer Unit explained - illustration Households = 140 reporting units + + + 1 12 27 100 Consumer units = 5 minimum; 70? maximum reporting units + + + + 1 1 1 1 1 12 27 20? Consumer unit Household 1 10?

Free Basic Service Policy: Introduced in 2001 6kl of water free per household per month 50kwh of electricity free per household per month R50 average for Sewerage and Sanitation R50 average for Solid Waste Management 5

Indigent household These are poor households as determined by municipalities. The basis on which a municipality determines if a household is indigent (and the criteria used for such determination) can vary. Not necessarily consistent across municipalities, even in same province. 6

Mechanisms used for provision of Free Basic Services Broad-based approach: Each consumer unit in that municipality receives free basic services on the current billing system of the municipality. Geographical approach: The process whereby consumers living in a particular area are assumed to have the same socio-economic profile and therefore tariffs can be set on location. Self-targeting approach: It is essentially an income-based system which municipalities use as a basis to determine if the household receives the service at lower, discounted or on a free basis. Technical targeting approach: The process whereby technology is used to regulate the provision of free basic services (including water and electricity meters). Other targeting methods: Consumption-based Property value Plot size 7

NFCM 2015: KEY FINDINGS Water: consumer units 12,2 million (BS) 4,7 million (FBS) 12,5 million (BS) 4,6 million (FBS) Solid Waste Management: consumer units 8,6 million (BS) 2,4 million(fbs) 9,0 million (BS) 2,3 million (FBS) Indigent households registered with municipalities 3,5 million 3,6 million Electricity: consumer units Bucket toilets provided by municipalities 10,4 million (BS) 2,6 million (FBS) 10,9 million (BS) 2,7 million (FBS) Sewerage & Sanitation: consumer units 10,4 million (BS) 3,3 million (FBS) 10,9 million (BS) 3,3 million (FBS) 85 718 80 119 BS: Basic Service FBS: Free Basic Service Based on all 278 municipalities (100% response rate) 2014* 2015 8

WATER 9

Context NDP: Increase in the percentage of households with access to a functional water service from 85% in 2013 to 90% by 2019.

Consumer units Basic water and free basic water consumer units: 2011-2015 14 000 000 12 000 000 10 000 000 Basic Water 11 027 242 11 422 425 11 661 295 12 208 266 12 518 180 8 000 000 6 000 000 Free Basic Water 4 000 000 4 190 397 4 896 539 5 129 163 4 672 586 4 588 790 2 000 000 Year 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 10

Consumer units receiving basic water: 2015 Top 3 municipalities per province EC 1. Nelson Mandela MM (334 275) 2. O.R. Tambo DM (319 385) 3. Amathole DM (247 500) FS 1. Mangaung MM (171 050) 2. Maluti-A-Phofung (119 411) 3. Matjhabeng LM (100 379) GP 1. Johannesburg MM (978 406) 2. Ekurhuleni MM (837 180) 3. Tshwane MM (794 649) KZN 1. Ethekwini MM (896 895) 2. Msunduzi LM (1605 97) 3. Ugu DM (152152) LP 1. Mopani DM (262 987) 2. Vhembe DM (249 824) 3. Greater Sekhukhune (218 679) MP 1. Mbombela LM (224 885) 2. Bushbuckridge LM (145 174) 3. Govan Mbeki LM (101 197) NW 1. Matlosana LM (167 225) 2. Madibeng LM (129 512) 3. Rustenburg LM (129 234) NC 1. Sol Plaatjie LM (63 224) 2. Ga-Segonyana LM (24 791) 3. Joe Morolong LM (24 250) WC 1. Cape Town MM (823 206) 2. Drakenstein LM (43 711) 3. Stellenbosch LM (37 846) 12

Percentage of households with access to piped or tap water in their dwellings, off-site or on-site 2015: 89% 2002: 85%

Percentage of households with access to piped or tap water in their dwellings, off-site or on-site by province, 2002 2015 There were very high proportions of households in Western Cape (99,2%), Gauteng (97,7%), Northern Cape (96,5%) with access to piped or tap water off and on site 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% WC, 99.2 GP, 97.7 FS, 96.1 MP, 85.5 KZN, 84.2 LP, 78.8 EC, 74.9 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Percentage of households rating the quality of water services provided by the municipality as good, and those that reported water interruptions, by province, 2015 vs An inverse relationship between the perceived quality of services and the number of interruptions seems to exist. Quality Interruptions WC 86.4% 3.1% NW 76.8% 6.6% SA 62.0% 25.4% FS 57.5% 30.7% KZN EC GP 51.1% 49.4% 51.6% 36.1% 26.1% 37.8% NC MP LP 32.4% 40.2% 40.2% 50.8% 59.4% 60.9% LP MP NC GP EC KZNLP FSMP SA NCNWGP WCEC KZN FS SA NW WC

Percentage of households rating the quality of water services provided by the municipality as good, and those that reported water interruptions, by Metro, 2015 An inverse relationship between the perceived vs quality of services and the number of interruptions seems to exist. Quality Interruptions City of Cape Town ethekwini 84.4% 87.8% 3.6% 7.1% City of Johannesburg All Metros Ekurhuleni City of Tshwane Nelson Mandela Bay Buffalo City Mangaung 52.9% 55.6% 58.0% 79.6% 77.4% 75.9% 73.7% 6.0% 7.6% 6.3% 9.6% 5.9% 15.2% 31.1% Mangaung has a significantly higher percentage of interruptions than the average for all metros City of Cape Town ethekwini City of Johannesburg All Metros Ekurhuleni City of Tshwane Nelson Mandela Bay Buffalo City Mangaung

Electricity 17

Context NDP: The proportion of people with access to the electricity grid should rise to at least 90 percent by 2030

Consumer units Number of consumer units basic electricity and free basic electricity: 2011-2015 12 000 000 10 000 000 8 000 000 Basic Electricity 10 885 520 10 440 888 9 748 720 9 998 039 9 119 756 6 000 000 4 000 000 Free Basic 2 000 000 0 Year 0 2 476 100 2 555 177 2 528 672 2 623 343 2 747 490 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 18

Number of consumer units receiving basic electricity : 2015 Top 3 municipalities per province EC 1. Nelson Mandela MM (314 398) 2. Buffalo City MM (148 065) 3. King Sabata Dalindyebo (53 362) FS 1. Mangaung MM (197 243) 2. Maluti-A-Phofung LM (100 228) 3. Matjhabeng LM (91 185) GP 1. Johannesburg MM (807 000) 2. Tshwane MM (704056) 3. Ekurhuleni MM (544 540) KZN 1. Ethekwini MM (707 068) 2. Msunduzi LM (149 676) 3. Newcastle LM (81 412) LP 1. Polokwane LM (159 928) 2. Makhado LM (104 292) 3. Thulamela LM (96 467) MP 1. Bushbuckridge LM (130 650) 2. Mbombela LM (118 487) 3. Nkomazi LM (86 492) NW 1. City of Matlosana (167 225) 2. Madibeng LM (136 488) 3. Rustenburg LM (97 791) NC 1. Sol Plaatjie LM (64 297) 2. Joe Morolong LM (25 500) 3. //Khara Hais LM (21 874) WC 1. Cape Town MM (855 081) 2. Drakenstein LM (56 809) 3. George LM (44 920) 20 28

The percentage of South African households that were connected to the mains electricity supply 2015: 86% 2002: 77%

The percentage of households connected to the mains electricity supply by province The percentage of South African households that were connected to the mains electricity supply increased from 77,1% in 2002 to 86% in 2015. 100% 90% 80% 93% 92% 90% 89% 88% 86% 84% 83% 82% 82% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LP NC WC FS MP SA NW GP EC KZN

Percentage distribution of wood as a source of energy used for cooking by province, 2015 Less than one per cent of households usually used wood for cooking in Western Cape and Gauteng (0,7% and 0,5% respectively). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Wood still represent a significant source of energy for cooking in Limpopo, along with other provinces with significant rural communities 30% 20% 10% 0% LP MP KZN EC RSA NW NC FS WC GP

Rating of the quality of the electricity supply services, 2010-2015 The percentage of households in the country that rated electricity supply as good increased to 66,5% in 2014 before dropping to 60,2% in 2015. 90% 80% EC quality of the electricity supply services has been consistently declining over the time period 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 10% 0% WC EC NC FS KZN NW GP MP LP RSA

SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 25

Context NDP: Increase in the percentage of households with access to a functional sanitation service from 84% in 2013 to 90% by 2019,

Consumer units Number of consumer units receiving basic sewerage and sanitation and free basic sewerage and sanitation : 2011-2015 12 000 000 Basic Sewerage and Sanitation 10 000 000 8 000 000 9 367 622 9 400 682 9 853 993 10 434 584 10 870 460 6 000 000 4 000 000 Free Basic Sewerage and Sanitation 2 000 000 2 681 875 2 813 507 3 135 604 3 285 393 3 308 837 Year 0 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 26

Sewerage and sanitation consumer units: 2015 Top 3 municipalities per province EC 1. Nelson Mandela Bay (334 275) 2. O.R. Tambo DM (317 043) 3. Buffalo City MM (218 101) FS 1. Mangaung MM (176 460) 2. Maluti-A-Phofung (119 651) 3. Matjhabeng LM (86 474) GP 1. Johannesburg MM (759 268) 2. Ekurhuleni MM (717 100) 3. Tshwane MM (596 753) KZN 1. Ethekwini MM (801 562) 2. Msunduzi LM (157 554) 3. Uthukela DM (130 379) LP 1. Polokwane LM (189 930) 2. Greater Sekhukhune (164 101) 3. Vhembe DM (127 994) MP 1. Bushbuckridge LM (222 375) 2. Mbombela LM (175 993) 3. Govan Mbeki LM (94 717) NW 1. City of Matlosana (167 225) 2. Rustenburg LM (125 638) 3. Mahikeng LM (77 232) NC 1. Sol Plaatjie LM (63 233) 2. //Khara Hais LM (23 381) 3. Joe Morolong LM (19 095) WC 1. Cape Town MM (679 571) 2. Drakenstein LM (51 227) 3. Mossel Bay LM (36 862) 27 36

Percentage of households that have access to RDP standard sanitation per province, 2002 2015 vs Nationally, the percentage of households with access to RDP standard sanitation increased from 62,3% in 2002 to 80% in 2015. 100% 90% 80% WC, 93.3 GP, 91.0 NC FS, 81.1 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% NW KZN, 77.3 MP, 65.8 LP, 53.8 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Percentage of households that have access to RDP standard sanitation per province, 2012 2015 Nationally, the percentage of households with vs access to RDP standard sanitation increased from 62,3% in 2002 to 80% in 2015. 100% 90% 80% NC WC 93.3 GP 91.0 FS 81.1 RSA 79.9 77.3 70% 60% 50% 67.4 KZN has shown steady increases in improving access to RDP sanitation standard over the last 3 years KZN MP LP 66.4 65.8 53.8 40% 2012 2013 2014 2015

Percentage of households that have no toilet facility or were using a bucket toilet, 2003-2015 vs Percentage without toilet facilities, or buckets, improved from 12,3% in 2002 to 4,9% in 2002, nationally. Largest decrease in EC (28,3 pct pts to 8,5%) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of households Municipality provision of bucket toilets: 2011-2015 105 000 90 000 75 000 89 751 100 618 85 718 80 119 60 000 67 419 45 000 30 000 15 000 0 Year 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 32

Number of consumer units using bucket toilets provided by the municipalities in each province: 2014 and 2015 Gauteng Limpopo North West Mpumalanga Northern Cape Free State KwaZulu-Natal Eastern Cape Western Cape No bucket toilet system provided by municipality in 2015 33

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 38

Number of consumer units receiving solid waste management: 2015 9,0 million consumer units nationally received basic solid waste management services Just over 1 in 4 of these units received free basic services 58% of indigent households benefitted from indigent support on solid waste management 39

Consumer units Number of consumer units receiving basic solid waste management and free basic solid waste management: 2011-2015 10 000 000 9 000 000 8 000 000 7 000 000 Basic Solid Waste Management 7 923 100 8 008 583 8 391 693 8 575 102 9 027 572 6 000 000 5 000 000 4 000 000 3 000 000 Free Basic Solid Waste Management 2 000 000 1 000 000 2 171 894 2 554 059 2 428 389 2 359 365 2 306 036 Year 0 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 40

Number of consumer units receiving basic solid waste management services: 2015 Top 3 municipalities per province EC 1. Nelson Mandela Bay (317 206) 2. Buffalo City MM (159 359) 3. King Sabata Dalindyebo (30 000) FS 1. Mangaung MM (189 155) 2. Matjhabeng LM (112 480) 3. Metsimaholo LM (42 500) GP 1. Johannesburg MM (1 015 257) 2. Tshwane MM (830 815) 3. Ekurhuleni MM (652 498) KZN 1. Ethekwini MM (945 910) 2. Msunduzi LM (120 000) 3. umhlathuze LM (64 000) LP 1. Polokwane LM (100 309) 2. Mogalakwena LM (52 342) 3. Thulamela LM (49 700) MP 1. Nkomazi LM (82 126) 2. Thembisile LM (74 822) 3. Govan Mbeki LM (68 215) NW 1. Rustenburg LM (90 000) 2. City of Matlosana (88 400) 3. Moses Kotane LM (63 000) NC 1. Sol Plaatjie LM (56 540) 2. //Khara Hais LM (23 245) 3. Gamagara LM (14 791) WC 1Cape Town MM (781 290) 2. George LM (53 200) 3. Drakenstein LM (41 515) 41 45

Number of consumer units receiving basic solid waste management services: 2015 Magareng 2014*: 4 985 2015: 7 363 Change: +2 378 Service extended to various communities, including Warrenvale and Ikhutseng areas 42

Percentage of households whose refuse is removed by the municipality Households refuse removal by geotype, 2015 Households in urban areas were much more likely to receive some rubbish removal service than those in rural areas, and rural households were therefore much more likely to rely on their own rubbish dumps LP 6% 100% 90% 80% 8.6% 70% 60% 50% 40% 84.1% 86.4% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6.6% Removed at least once a weak Removed less often than once a week Urban Communal refuse dump Own refuse dump Rural Dump or leave rubbish anywhere Other

The percentage of households who experience specific kinds of environmental problems,2003-2015 The proportion of households that felt that there were problems with littering and waste removal in their areas increased notably since 2003 when 28,8% of households regarded this as a problem. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% NDP urges the rapid expansion of recycling infrastructure, and encouraging the composting of organic domestic waste to bolster economic activity in poor urban communities Waste, 39% Land, 31% Air, 19% Water, 16% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of consumer units receiving basic solid waste management services: 2015 Msinga 2014*: 0 2015: 2 112 Change: +2 112 Municipality solid waste management services was provided for the first time in Keates Drift, Tugela Ferry and Pomeroy 43

Number of consumer units receiving basic solid waste management services: 2015 Nyandeni 2014*: 1 081 2015: 3 000 Change: + 1 919 Services extended to: a. Various wards in Ntlaza; b. The Ziphunzana area 44

Indigents 45

Number of indigent households registered with municipalities per province: 2014 & 2015 2014*: 3 478 158 2015: 3 570 602 2,7% (92 444) increase in indigent identified by the municipalities in 2015 Northern Cape 71 274 76 458 Gauteng North West 184 510 172 322 484 861 689 859 Free State 122 611 165 333 Limpopo 465 548 401 765 Mpumalanga 140 777 126 405 KwaZulu-Natal 770 049 735 041 Western Cape 413 259 360 238 Eastern Cape 825 269 843 181 46

Benefitting Indigent households in each province and services they receive: 2015 WC EC NC FS KZN NW GP MP LP Identified 360 238 843 181 76 458 165 333 735 041 172 322 689 859 126 405 401 765 359 334 543 739 70 302 133 874 599 696 114 373 292 991 121 952 183 693 356 521 329 900 68 527 133 685 231 679 153 162 689 018 121 112 158 289 354 145 541 507 64 524 133 958 413 690 87 162 300 351 90 655 108 843 353 424 223 940 64 327 133 947 648 403 88 713 360 154 90 827 94 082 3,6 million indigent households 47

EMPLOYMENT 48

Gender breakdown of executive mayors and mayors: 2014 & 2015 38% 38% 278 posts 62% 62% 2014* 2015 49

Gender breakdown of executive mayors and mayors (%)*: 2015 Limpopo Mpumalanga Eastern Cape North West Northern Cape Gauteng KwaZulu-Natal Free State Western Cape 33% 33% 29% 27% 60% 43% 42% 39% 38% 67% 67% 71% 73% 40% 57% 58% 61% 62% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% * Rounded off Female Male 50

Municipality positions* per province: 2014 & 2015 2014*: 305 648 2015: 310 559 Gauteng 93 647 93 728 North West 15 410 16 619 Limpopo 16 914 17 440 Mpumalanga 15 509 16 962 Northern Cape 9 858 9 270 Free State 21 229 21 553 KwaZulu-Natal Western Cape 48 297 48 387 Eastern Cape 31 384 32 928 *Including: full time + part-time + vacant + managerial positions 51

Province Employment by type* of municipality : 2014 & 2015 Type of municipality Metros Districts Locals Total 2014* 2015 2014* 2015 2014* 2015 2014* 2015 Western Cape 29 242 28 675 2 105 2 504 16 950 17 208 48 297 48 387 Eastern Cape 12 534 13 493 4 886 5 605 13 964 13 830 31 384 32 928 Northern Cape 0 0 769 640 9 089 8 630 9 858 9 270 Free State 6 256 7 803 546 588 14 427 13 162 21 229 21 553 KwaZulu-Natal 26 655 24 725 5 575 6 375 21 170 22 572 53 400 53 672 North West 0 0 1 571 2 234 13 839 14 385 15 410 16 619 Gauteng 78 819 78 567 1 137 1 149 13 691 14 012 93 647 93 728 Mpumalanga 0 0 548 658 14 961 16 304 15 509 16 962 Limpopo 0 0 4 465 4 749 12 449 12 691 16 914 17 440 South Africa 153 506 153 263 21 602 24 502 130 540 132 794 305 648 310 559 *Including: full time + part-time + vacant + managerial positions 52

Municipal staff vacancy rates by province: 2015 13,3% (41 303) of 310 559 municipal posts throughout the country are vacant Northern Cape 15,9% Gauteng 10,8% North West 19,4% Free State 25.6% Limpopo 18,4% Mpumalanga 12,4% KwaZulu-Natal 9,2% Western Cape 10,3% Eastern Cape 17,6% 53

Vacancy rates in ALL MUNICIPALITIES per department: 2015 Environmental protection Health Finance & administration Sport & recreation 10% 11% 9% 23% 13% vacancy rate in all departments 20% Electricity 18% 16% Road transport Waste water management 11% Waste management 12% 11% 12% 14% Community & Social services Excludes managerial positions & other. Public safety Water 54

Vacancy rates in District municipalities per department: 2015 Excludes managerial positions & other. Community & Social services Water Waste management 11% 8% 1% 41% 13% vacancy rate in all departments Electricity 37% Environmental protection 24% 18% Sport & recreation Road transport Waste water management 13% Finance & administration 13% 16% Health 18% Public safety 55

Vacancy rates in Metropolitan municipalities per department: 2015 Waste water management Excludes managerial positions & other. Environmental protection 4% 28% 20% Electricity Sport & recreation Public safety 7% 5% 10% vacancy rate in all departments 11% 10% Water Road transport Finance & administration 7% Community & Social services 7% 8% Health 10% Waste management 56

Vacancy rates in Local municipalities per department: 2015 Excludes managerial positions & other. Waste management 13% 36% Health 28% Environmental protection Waste water management Sport & recreation 14% 13% 18% vacancy rate in all departments 24% 21% Road transport Public safety 16% Finance & administration Water 16% 21% Electricity 21% Community & Social services 57

Results Survey date is October to November 2015

Background There are five types of Municipalities in KZN Type A1 Type B1 Type B2 Type B3 Type B4

Municipal Infrastructure Investment Framework (MIIF) used to distinguish Municipalities TYPE A : 1 MUNICIPALITY 1 Metropolitan municipalities (metros) TYPE B1: 3 MUNICIPALITIES TYPE B2: 6 MUNICIPALITIES 6 3 Secondary cities, local municipalities with the largest budgets Local municipalities with a large town as core TYPE B3: 13 MUNICIPALITIES 13 Local municipalities with small towns, relatively small population, significant proportion of urban population but with no large town as core TYPE B4: 28 MUNICIPALITIES 28 Local municipalities which are mainly rural with communal tenure and with, at most, one or two small towns in their area

Background in terms of service delivery Kzn has shown progressive improvements over time which includes water, sanitation and electricity amongst others and this has resulted in the B4 Municipalities reducing head count poverty the greatest

Context: KZN Service Delivery Progress Access to piped water Electricity for lighting Sanitation 76% 87% 82% 76% 69% 51% 2002 2014 2002 2014 2002 2014 Source GHS 2014

Context: Poverty headcount by municipality 2001-2011 (South African multidimensional Poverty index (SAMPI)

Poverty headcount by municipality 2001-2011 (SAMPI)

Reductions in intensity and Headcount Poverty headcount by municipality 2001-2011 (SAMPI) SAMPI 2011 SAMPI 2001

Drivers of Poverty in KZN 2011 (SAMPI) Unemployment Years of Schooling Sanitation Water Heating Dwelling Cooking Lighting Assets School Attendance Child Mortality 3% 2% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 15% 35% Strong linkage between years of schooling and unemployment

Inequality has remained high especially amongst the Blacks with a gini that dropped marginally from 0.53 to 0.51 Inequality amongst Indians has declined overtime from a gini of 0.53 to 0.46 Amongst Whites the gini is low showing more equality with a gini that dropped from 0.39 to 0.37

Significant variations in inequality by population group Note that Colored population Numbers too small in KZN to make conclusive determination on inequality trends Gini-coefficient: KwaZulu- Natal 2006-2011 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.66 0.61 0.53 0.54 0.46 0.39 0.48 0.42 0.38 0.64 0.56 0.51 0.46 0.37 KZN Coloured* Black African Indian/Asian White 0.3 0.2 0.1 KwaZulu Natal Black African Coloured Indian/Asian White 0 2006 2009 2011 *Small sample size for Coloured persons in KZN province may influence figure provided

in real life circumstances have rapidly increased Yet despite this level of change the Level of satisfaction with overall performance of Kwazulu-Natal provincial government shows surprising results Now the Results follow

36% Dissatisfaction with overall performance of KwaZulu-Natal provincial government 31% Somewhat Satisfied with overall performance of KwaZulu-Natal provincial government 33% Outright Satisfaction with overall performance of KwaZulu-Natal provincial government

Satisfaction rates are similar across age and Sex However marked differences in the ratings by population group, education level, income level and district

Outright Satisfaction with overall performance of provincial government differs by Population Group but colored population numbers too few to be conclusive Coloured 48.0% Satisfaction of Performance of Provincial Government White 35.7% Black African 32.5% Indian/Asian 31.1%

Changes in ranking of population groups when viewed from dissatisfaction perspective Outright Dissatisfaction with overall performance of provincial government Dissatisfaction of Performance of Provincial Government Black African 37.6% White 32.4% Indian/Asian 20.1% Coloured 16.2%

Lower Educational attainment linked with lower rates of outright satisfaction Outright Satisfaction with performance of provincial government by educational level Certificate with Matric 36% Completed Matric 33% Some High School 34% Some Primary 30% No Education 28%

Outright satisfaction with performance of provincial government by Income 50% level 45% Those Households with the least income show the least outright satisfaction More than twice as likely to be satisfied than low income earners 40% 42% 40% 44% 42% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 21% 26% 31% 34% 31% 33% 34% 33% 34% 10% 5% 0% R1 - R2400 R2401- R6000 R6001 - R12000 R12001 - R18000 R18001 - R30000 R30001 - R42000 R42001 - R54000 R54001 - R72000 R72001 - R96000 R96001 - R132000 R132001 - R192000 R192001 - R360000 R360000+ Annual Household Income

Locality is also a key differentiator in rates of satisfaction Different municipalities have differing abilities to serve the citizens given based on financial, technical and management resources

Outright satisfaction with performance of provincial government by municipality Outright satisfaction 6.5 10.5% 10.51 25.5% 25.51 35.8% 35.81 50.1% 50.11 64.5% Areas with higher outright satisfaction with overall performance of provincial government more dispersed

Outright dissatisfaction with performance of provincial government by municipality Outright dissatisfaction 15.2 24.2% 24.21 33.5% 33.51 49.8% 49.81 65.3% 65.31 78.8% Evidence of clustering with regards to outright dissatisfaction with overall performance of provincial government

Outright dissatisfaction with performance of provincial government by Municipality Outright Dissatisfaction 15.2 24.2% 24.21 33.5% 33.51 49.8% 49.81 65.3% 65.31 78.8%! Many of the most Outright Dissatisfied areas are governed by coalition

Municipal Type Outright satisfaction with performance of provincial government by Municipal Status B1 Despite more resources Ethekwini (only type A municipality) does not rank as high 45% B2 37% A 34% B4 27% B3 23% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Outright Satisfaction

Outright Dissatisfaction is particularly apparent in umkhanyakude, Zululand and uthukela districts Where nearly 7 out of every 10 respondents reported that they are dissatisfied with the overall performance of their local municipality.

Perceived importance of municipal services and programmes

What are the top three priority areas?

KZN Citizens Priority Areas by population group! For All Population Groups Job Creation is the Main Priority Black African #1 #1 Job Creation #2 Provision Housing #3 Provision Housing Coloured #1 #1 Job Creation Education & skills #2 Poverty eradication Development #3 Indian/ Asian #1 #1 Job Creation #2 Crime prevention #3 Fighting corruption White #1 #1 Job Creation #2 Poverty eradication #3 Fighting corruption

Ratings of performance of KZN Provincial Government in selected areas

Performance Of KZN Provincial Government in selected areas Overall 62.6% of KZN citizens were satisfied* with the provincial government in providing basic education Providing healthcare and maintaining provincial roads also ranked relatively higher performance ratings at around 50% satisfaction rating * Satisfied rating is based on Good, Very Good or Excellent responses

Performance Of KZN Provincial Government in selected areas 49.1% Of KZN citizens ranked provincial government as poor in eliminating fraud and corruption Promoting accountable government and enhancing entrepreneurship and SMME were also ranked relatively poorly

Municipal services and programmes viewed as critically Important Water 52% Electricity Clinics Sanitation Housing 40% 39% 36% 34% More than 50% view Water as critically important 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage Critically Important

What are the satisfaction rates, of services that are viewed as critically important by type of municipality?

Outright Satisfaction with services provided Affordable Housing ranks lowest amongst all MIIF categories High Satisfaction with Electricity services almost universal B3 and B4 Municipality have particular concerns with Quality of water provision Type A Type B1 Type B2 Type B3 Type B4-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percentage Outright Satisfied

Poverty headcount by municipality 2001-2011 (SAMPI) Mapping the poverty headcount by Municipality Eastern Cape 2001-2011 (SAMPI) 3

Poverty headcount by municipality 2001-2011 (SAMPI) 4

Poverty headcount by municipality 2001-2011 (SAMPI) 5

Economic activity Living standar d Unemployment Assets Dwelling Sanitation Water Cooking Heating Lighting School attendance Education Years of schooling Health Child mortality 2011 2001 39.8 32.9 4.5 6.6 5.4 5.4 7.4 7.0 6.5 6.3 6.3 7.3 7.3 7.5 5.2 5.9 2.3 3.6 13.7 16.3 1.5 1.3 Poverty drivers in South Africa are multidimensi onal 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Men Total Women Unemployment rate 2001 2011 2012 2013 Unemployment is now the major driver of poverty in the country

Unit data for all 278 municipalities for 2014 and 2015 is available on the Stats SA website (or on request) Technical queries: Mr Malibongwe Mhemhe (malibongwem@statssa.gov.za) (Cell: 0829068964 Office: 012 3106928) Dr Patrick Naidoo (patrickn@statssa.gov.za) (Cell: 0828882509 Office: 012 3108307) Thank you 58