BASELINE FOR FUTURE IMPACT EVALUATION FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS TARGETED FOR UPGRADING

January 2013

National Department of Human Settlements

Chief Directorate: Monitoring and Evaluation

  1. Background

Informal settlements, pose a major challenge for managers and planners in South African cities. Since 1994 the number of households living in informal settlements has risen in both absolute and as a share of the total number of households in the country. In 2006 South Africa was said to have about 2600 informal settlements, most of which were located in major cities. This means that 13.4 per cent of households (and in absolute number 1.4 million households[1]) in the country live in informal conditions. The number of informal settlements has persisted to increase despite government delivering in access of 3.4 million housing opportunities to date[2].

In an attempt to address the upgrading of informal settlements, the National Planning Commission in the National Development Plan (NDP) prepared and adopted by government, calls for government to build on its experience and work proactively with people, which is aligned to one of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme’s objectives which is community empowerment. The NDP also addresses the transformation of spatial arrangements and spatial governance. The NDP proposes overarching principles that all spatial development should conform to, which include spatial justice, spatial sustainability, spatial resilience, spatial quality and spatial efficiency. To be able to incorporate these principles into the operational principles of upgrading informal settlements, information,knowledge and an improved understanding needs to be developed through structured surveys, evaluations, research and analysis the information in this proposed survey will be the first step to produce the plan to guide the development as envisaged in the NDP.

The NDP also proposes that the role that informal settlements play in human settlements development should be recognised and enhanced by developing tailored responses to support the upgrading of informal settlements. This role can best be recognised by better understanding informal settlements socio-economic and political understanding.Such an understanding is best derived through the gathering of relevant information on the informal settlements households.

In order to accurately monitor and report on the number of informal dwelling units and characteristics of each individual settlement in all nine provinces in the country, the Department needs to conduct a baseline study on informal settlements targeted for upgrading in 2012/13 financial year, and households living in those informal dwelling units and settlements.

1.1 Definition of Informal Settlements

In South Africa the term informal settlements has been adopted while internationally the concept of slums is widely and acceptably utilised. The Cities Alliances define slums as neglected parts of the cities where housing and living conditions are appallingly poor, these settlements range from high density squalid central-city tenements to spontaneous squatter settlements without legal recognition or rights (Cities Alliance, 1999). Huchzemeyer and Karam, 2006 define informal settlements as areas of the urban poor where development happens without authorised occupation of land. Further Huchzemeyer and Karam see insecurity of tenure as a central defining feature of informal settlements. This is in line with the UN Habitat (1996) that defines informal settlements as: i) residential areas where a group of housing units has been constructed on land to which the occupants have no legal claim, or which they occupy illegally; ii) unplanned settlements and areas where housing is not in compliance with current planning and building regulations (unauthorized housing)[3]. Informal settlements typically can be identified on the basis of the following characteristics: illegality and informality; inappropriate locations; Restricted public and private sector investment; Poverty and vulnerability; and social stress[4].

Over the years public response to informal settlements has been to formalize them by increasing access to services and in case of South Africa, also provide formal houses. In South Africa, the main instrument for addressing development challenges of informal settlements is the upgrading of informal settlement programme (UISP). In line with international best practices, the main objectives of the UISP is to upgrade informal settlement in their locality, relocating settlements is a last resort in cases were land cannot be secured or is unsuitable for development. Because of the challenges of informal settlements as reflected in preceding subsections, the UISP has three broad objectives, (1) to institute tenure security; (2) to promote secure and healthy living environment; and (3) to address social and economic exclusion of the poor.

The UISP recognises that informal settlements are not just about housing and adopts an approach that is holistic, developmental and encourages the support of livelihoods of the poor. In this regard, the implementation of the UISP is done in phases, of which housing development is the last phase of development. The programme is implemented in four phases, phase one to three apply to the settlement in its entirety with no exclusions from benefits. The benefits of phase one to three include community empowerment through engagements, supply of basic services and tenure security for all residents. Only phase four of the programme excludes other members of the community. In the housing consolidation phase, only households who qualify for housing assistance from government access housing.

Since the establishment of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme, therehave been minimal efforts to conduct real impact evaluations to measure the actual change that happen as a result of the Upgrading of Informal Settlement Programme. Within the Department efforts were made in 2009/10 financial year, when the Department conducted a limited series of Impact Assessment studies in selected subsidised housing projects in Limpopo, Free State and Gauteng Provinces. The studies attempted to measure the impact of providing subsidised housing to a set of individuals, in contrast to another group which did not receive housing. The main benefit of this technique was the simplicity in interpreting results between the two groups. The results that were arrived at show strong correlations in relation to change in household demographics, asset accumulation, social interactions, satisfaction levels, household upgrading, crime rates, health and unemployment.

However, these studies took place without previously established baseline data, which affected the ability to generalisethe results in a wider scale. To mitigate against this challenge in future evaluations the Department intends to collect baseline data in selected informal settlements that are targeted for upgrading. This baseline data will then be used to conduct future evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the UISP as an intervention and the outcomes produced both at individual household and communal level.

  1. Purpose

The purpose of the baseline study will be to collect data that will be used to conduct future impact evaluations targeted at achieving the following:

2.1.Strengthen implementation and improve the performance of the programme

2.2.Determine the nature and sustainability of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme outcomes

2.3.Determine measurable impacts on beneficiaries and communities that the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme produces

3.Baseline questions

The baseline should collect data that will allow the Department to assess the implementation process followed and the effectiveness of the programme in producing the desired change in informal settlements. The base line data should therefore be collected to respond to the following:

Conceptualisation

3.1.Is there a theory of change that informs the UIS programme in responding to the informal settlements? Is it valid and appropriate for the South African context?

Implementation

3.2.What are the institutional arrangements put in place to facilitate the implementation of the UISP in the targeted settlements?

3.3.Are the settlements going to be upgraded employing an incremental approach?

3.4.What influences the decisions to either upgrade settlements in-situ or through relocations?

3.5.Are there plans to ensure active community participation in the design and implementation of the projects?

3.6.How are communities engagingin the planning of the project (representation, community politics, trade-offs that community make, voice)?

3.7.How are implementers managing the local context?

3.8.What are the funding flows arrangements in place and how will they affect the implementation of the programme?

3.9.What is the level of current tenure security enjoyed by the residents?

3.10.Do the residents have access to basic services such as electricity, sanitation, well maintained demarcated roads and streets, drinkable water?

3.11.How is the upgrading affecting the community social capital?

The baseline should do the following:

  • Establish state/sense of tenure security, households sense of belonging (as it relates to the city/municipal jurisdiction)
  • The extent of personal investment that households are making in their residential space
  • Determine the level of access to basic services; and quality of life of informal settlement dwellers
  • Establish households’ sense of security
  • Examine the state of social capital
  1. Scope of the Evaluation

The Study consists of 3 phases outlined below:

Phase 1: Desktop Review

4.1.What is the theoretical basis of the UIS programme?

4.1.1.Desktop study which discusses the theoretical basis of the UIS programme

4.1.2.An analysis of the achievements of the UIS programme.

4.2.Collation of maps of informal settlements

4.2.1. Desktop study which will cover 86 Local Municipalities with 396 settlements targeted for upgrading (Annexure A). Maps of the informal settlements will be collated. GPS/GIS coordinates should be taken of all important infrastructure, amenities and other services/developments in the settlement and border areas including (but not restricted to) schools, clinics, transport hubs and links, significant shopping areas, crèches, etc.

4.3.Record of number of households in each informal settlements

4.3.1.Desktop study which will record the number of households in each of the 396 settlements targeted for upgrading. This will be supplemented by information gathered from provincial departments, municipalities and other similar studies (HDA enumeration, STATSA, etc). The number of households living within each settlement will be recorded.

4.4.Key features of the informal settlements

4.4.1.The checklist of key features for classifying the 396 settlements will be developed based on the following descriptive factors of settlements:

  • Basic Services – water, sanitation, electricity
  • Settlement serviced or not serviced
  • Current levels of service – none, rudimentary, emergency, interim (i.e. RDP minimum standard but upgradeable), full levels of service (household connection and waterborne sewerage, VIP where waterborne is not feasible)
  • Location
  • Settlements with /without fairly good public transport and/or pedestrian access to economic opportunities and social amenities (in particular, schools and health facilities).
  • Roads and storm water drainage
  • Dirt, gravel, blacktop
  • Simple open drains, Red Book or local authority standard drainage
  • Electricity and Lighting
  • No connections, household connections
  • None, area lighting (high-masts, Apollo masts), street lights
  • Planning
  • Services planned (bulk and/or connector services required)
  • Non-planned areas with land and bulk services available at close proximity
  • Layout plan in place
  • Settlement Tenure
  • Settlement is on public/private land
  • Settlement is unauthorized / has permission to occupy / is recognized under local by-law or town planning scheme
  • Risk and vulnerability
  • To be obtained from feasibility studies: Factors could include: Settlement is high-density; prone to flooding; prone to fire (wind direction); next to heavy industrial or service infrastructure (e.g. slimes dams, railway reserves/road reserves); adverse geotechnical conditions (e.g. dolomite); environmental constraints (e.g. wetlands); planning constraints (e.g. zoned agricultural)
  • History and age of settlement

These factors are descriptive:

  • When the settlement came into existence
  • Where the people came from
  • The reasons why people settled in the area
  • Community empowerment
  • Governance structures in place: Promotion of social and economic integration (is there integration in the plans? is there settlement development committees?)
  • Building social capital through participative processes and addressing the broader social needs of communities (were/ are beneficiaries consulted? Were/ are their needs taken into consideration – Community needs assessment? Did beneficiaries participate/ are they participating in the upgrading process? If yes, how?)
  • Assess social capital (active community structures, WCs, CPFs, School Governing Bodies, faith-based groups etc).
  • Collaborative planning, community action, community change, capacity building, outcomes, adaptation, and institutionalization

Phase 2: Field research

4.5.Household survey

The survey will record information from a statistically sound sample of households randomly selected from the list of informal settlements targeted for upgrading. Household information about demographics, health and safety, employment, consumption and productive activities, and the empowerment of local communities will be collected using the questionnaire that will be provided by the Department. The following data will be collected from households:

4.5.1.Demographics, education levels, labour/employment and other information.

4.5.2.Data related to tenure; form of household tenure e.g. occupation of site (formal/informal), rental of land, rental of shack, etc and whether households enjoy any security of tenure

4.5.2.1.Data on state of social capital i.e. active community structures, WCs, CPFs, School Governing Bodies, faith-based groups etc and households involvement in community structures.

4.5.3.Households sense of safety and security

4.5.4.Households access to basic services

4.5.5.State of households Health, recording of recent illness symptoms of all household members, and relevant health indicators.

4.5.6.A household economy module, including expenditures, assets and productive activities.

4.5.7.In addition the survey willcollect detailed tracking data in order to followthe movement of respondents following the upgrade process and also to trace groups for follow-up surveys. This should include some contact information about the respondents’ networks, including family members and close friends and where possible, employers contacts.

4.6.Qualitative data

4.6.1.The service provider must determine a scientifically sound sample from which qualitative data would be drawn. Qualitative data must be used to explain the observations expressed through the quantitative data enabling the baseline to not only determine the current household circumstances (prevailing conditions) but also determine the reasons for settling in the area.

4.7.Key stakeholders interviews

Data must also be collected from key stakeholder to establish the understanding of the UISP and the plans for each of the sampled settlements. The interviews should respond to the following:

4.7.1. What institutional arrangements are put in place to facilitate the implementation of the UISP in the targeted settlements?

4.7.2.Are the projects employing an incremental approach to settlement upgrade?

4.7.3.Are the projects in-situ upgrading or relocations and what are the reasons for the decision?

4.7.4.Are there plans to ensure active community participation in the design and implementation of the projects?

Phase 3: Data Analysis and Report writing

4.8.Data analysis and Report writing

4.8.1.Quantitative data should be analysed using statistical analysis packages that would be agreed upon with the Steering Committee such as CSPro, SPSS, STATA

4.8.2.Qualitative data should be analysed using qualitative analysis techniques

4.8.3.Report to have all sections of academic report. Findings to be presented in tables and graphic forms for each of the test items.

  1. Evaluation design
  2. Methodology and approach

A mixed methods approach utilising both quantitative and qualitative research methods is preferred for this project. Bidders should propose an appropriate research design.

5.2.Sample: a statistically sound sampling methodology should be developed for sampling projects and households to be surveyed. The household sample must reflect both the survey sample and sampling for the qualitative component.

5.3.Document analysis: the following documents are considered key and must be analysed in this evaluation:

5.3.1.the Housing Act of 1997, the housing code, the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme,

5.3.2.National documents: National Planning Commission (NPC) documents, National Treasury benchmarking reports,

5.3.3.National Upgrading Support Programme (NUSP) documents

5.3.4.Any other relevant document about baseline studies, design, sampling methodologies relevant to the study.

5.4.Interviews with key stakeholders/officials involved in the implementation of the UIS programme. The interviews will record information from a purposively drawn sample of key stakeholders.

5.4.1.The service provider should clearly indicate the data gathering methods that are used, the key informants, the analysis and interpretation and how findings will be tested and validated to arrive at the final conclusions and recommendations.

5.4.2.Key stakeholder’s questionnaire: The service provider will develop a key stakeholder’s questionnaire that will illustrate the respondents’ understanding of the implementation of the programme.

5.5.Any other methods that respond to the key questions and scope of work will be considered

5.6.Data Analysis

5.6.1.Quantitative data should be analysed using statistical analysis packages that would be agreed upon with the Steering Committee such as CSPro, SPSS, STATA

5.6.2.Qualitative data should be analysed using qualitative analysis techniques

5.7.Guiding principles and values

5.7.1.The evaluation should be development-orientated and should address key developmental priorities of Government and of citizens.

5.7.2.The evaluation should be undertaken ethically and with integrity.

5.7.3.The evaluation should be utilisation orientated.

5.7.4.The evaluation methods should be sound.

5.7.5.The evaluation should advance Government’s transparency and accountability.

5.7.6.The evaluation must be undertaken in a manner which is inclusive and participatory.

5.7.7.The evaluation must promote learning.

5.7.8.Evaluators must display honesty and integrity in their own behaviour and should ensure the integrity of the entire evaluation process.

5.7.9.The evaluation is expected to build the capacity of previously disadvantaged individuals (evaluators and researchers), as well as providing all the data in a usable format