Question | Answer | Description | Datasource and Evidence | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|
# of people living in informal settlements | Strong Evidence | By multiplying the number of households with the city's average household size according to census 2011 data, we get a sense of how many people live in informal settlements |
# HH * household size (2016). 359,057. | |
# HH living in informal settlements | Strong Evidence | The number of households residing in informal settlements across the entire city. |
HDA Report, 2013. 138,099. | |
% of municipal population | Strong Evidence | This figure represents the proportion of the city's population living in informal settlements. In other words, one in ten people live in an informal settlement. |
Census 2011. 14%. | |
Has a department been assigned to take responsibility for the strategy? | Strong Evidence | A leading department needs to take responsibility for the strategy. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. Department of Human Settlements. | |
Does the council have an official informal settlements upgrading strategy? | Strong Evidence | Every city should have an informal settlement upgrading strategy articulated in their core municipal doucmentation. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. Human Settlements Strategy (2011). | |
Timeframe to eradicate backlog conventionally (years) | Strong Evidence | This indicator seeks to understand if the city government can realistically deliver each informal settlement household a house in a reasonable (<15 years) time period |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. 211 years. | |
What percentage of municipal capital budget is reserved for upgrading informal settlements? | Strong Evidence | City governments should clearly indicate the proportion of capital budgets, like the Urban Settlements Development Grant, is reserved for informal settlement upgrading. |
National Treasury evaluation, 2016. 46% (or R819 million). | |
Does the budget align with the municipal targets for upgrading informal settlements? | Strong Evidence | There should be a clear alignment between the strategy and the budgets allocated to implement that strategy. |
National Treasury evaluation, 2016. Aims to upgrade 59 000 households – lack of coherence in targets = 45 000 households to be upgraded and 11 000 to be relocated. | |
Is there a clear statement of the assessment and categorisation of informal settlements? | No Evidence | The HDA has developed guidelines to assess informal settlements. The following categories are used: A: Full upgrade - consisting of full services, top-structures and formal tenure B1: Interim basic services - where/full upgradingis feasible but not imminent B2: Emergency basic services - Where full upgrading is not viable or appropriate C: Relocations - Where there are urgent health or safety threats |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. No data. | |
Has a systematic assessment and categorisation of informal settlements been carried out? | No Evidence | HDA guidelines recommend that city governments conduct a rapid assessment and categorisation of informal settlements. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. No data. | |
% of Provincial total | Strong Evidence | This figure indicates that 41% of informal settlements in the Eastern Cape Province is located in East London. |
HDA Report, 2013. 32%. | |
# of IS (smallest unit defined) | Strong Evidence | Informal settlements are differently defined by cities, and are sometimes called settlements, pockets, or clusters. The number presented here is the smallest measurable unit. |
BEPP 2016 & HDA report. 119. | |
Is the city council's adopted strategy an appropriate response to the scale of informality? | Partial Evidence | This indicator is a qualitative assessment by Isandla Institute when taking into account the nature of the upgrading strategy. |
Qualitative assessment. The strategy responds to the scale of informality. However, insufficient detail is provided. | |
Is the rapid assessment and categorisation an appropriate response to the nature and extent of informality? | No Evidence | Determining the appropriateness of the city government's assessment and categorisation is a qualitative appraisal by Isandla Institute |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. No data. | |
Annual IS growth rate | Strong Evidence | The growth rate of informal settlements is calculated by comparing census 2001 and 2011 data. |
Census 2011. -2%. | |
How many houses are delivered per annum? | Strong Evidence | Knowing the annual housing delivery rate will provide evidence of whether the city government can meet the needs of informal settlements through the conventional housing programme. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. 2,133 units per annum. | |
Is there a clear indication of the extent of housing demand/ backlog? | Strong Evidence | It is important to know if the city government is prioritising housing as a response to informal settlements. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. 449,507 households. | |
Is there a clear breakdown of budgets reserved for informal settlement upgrading in the city's capital budget? | Strong Evidence | City governments should clearly indicate the proportion of capital budgets, like the Urban Settlements Development Grant, is reserved for informal settlement upgrading. |
MTREF Budget 2016/17. Yes budgets indicate expenditure on informal settlement upgrading. | |
Is the essence of the upgrading strategy upfront apparent? | Partial Evidence | Every strategy should be clearly state, without ambiguity and uncertainty, what the city's strategy of upgrading informal settlements is. In this way, citizens can hold their governments to account. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. The strategy indicates that housing, incremental upgrading and the provision of serviced sites is the primary services delivered. Insufficient detail of the split of these services are provided. |