city of tshwane resident satisfaction … cot resident satisfaction... · anton van der merwe,...

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



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




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




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




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


2013 71 70 73 69 73 74 59 72

0

20

40

60

80

100


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.


2013 70 72 68 69 66 69 60 70

0

20

40

60

80

100


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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%)


• Faulty electricity meters (48.4%)

Prepaid meters


• 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%).


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


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.


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


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%).


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.


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.


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


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%).


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


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%).


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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%).


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


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%).


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


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%).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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,


• 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.


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,


• 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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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%


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


• 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.


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


• 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.


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


Poor 2.1 – 4.0


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


General public meetings, consultative meetings


Public hearings


*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)


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)


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.


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.


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.


This chapter contains a discussion of the satisfaction ratings of households in the CoT.

A summary of the ratings is presented in chapter 6.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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:


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)


Poor 2.1 – 4.0

Adequate 4.1 – 6.0

Good 6.1 – 8.0


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


Licensing: Business licence





Dumping sites




%

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



Dumping sites


Street sweeping and litter control

Grass cutting



Road maintenance

Licensing: Business licence




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).


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%).


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).


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).


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).


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.


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.


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.


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


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

%


%

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


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

%


%

Safe and very safe

%

Total %


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 %


%

Safe and very safe

%

Total %


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


unsafe %


%

Safe and very safe

%

Total %


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


unsafe %


%

Safe and very safe

%

Total %


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


unsafe %


%

Safe and very safe

%

Total %


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%).


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.


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


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


the regularity (monthly on time) of accounts received. Accounts received on an irregular

basis was cited as a major reason for dissatisfaction (70.0%).


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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%)


• Informal - Account payments (49.5%)


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


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 % % % %


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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)


(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


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


Index Satisfaction items 2009

Mean index score (out of 100)


(out of 100)


(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.


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.


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.


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.


2013 70 72 68 69 66 69 60 70

0

20

40

60

80

100


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


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



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).


• 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


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


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


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


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.

city of tshwane resident satisfaction … cot resident satisfaction... · anton van der merwe,...

Documents