| Question | Answer | Description | Datasource and Evidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a clear statement of the assessment and categorisation of informal settlements? | Strong 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 2018/2019 review | Categories: In-situ upgrading, Relocation and Township extension |
| # 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) | 73 443 |
| Annual IS growth rate | Strong Evidence | The growth rate of informal settlements is calculated by comparing census 2001 and 2011 data. |
Census 2011 | -4% |
| 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 | 2,991 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. |
Community Survey 2016 | 31 149 housing units |
| Has a systematic assessment and categorisation of informal settlements been carried out? | Strong Evidence | HDA guidelines recommend that city governments conduct a rapid assessment and categorisation of informal settlements. |
IDP/ BEPP 2018/2019 review | Informal Settlements Upgrading Strategy (ISUS) / Informal Settlements Resettlement Plan (ISRP) |
| Is the essence of the upgrading strategy upfront apparent? | Strong 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 2017/18 review | The strategy indicates that incremental upgrading, sites and service and prevention of new settlements is preferred. This is tied together by a borader plan under the BEPP where the highlighted sites are displayed in the broader context of the spatial make of the city. |
| # HH living in informal settlements | Strong Evidence | The number of households residing in informal settlements across the entire city. |
BEPP 2018/2019 review | 25 157 |
| # 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 2018/2019 review | 28 - 34 |
| 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 2017/18 review | Department of Human Settlements |
| % 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 | 30% |
| % 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 | 11% |
| 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 2018/2019 review | Informal Settlements Upgrading Strategy (ISUS) (2012) |
| Is the city council's adopted strategy an appropriate response to the scale of informality? | Strong 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. Detail has improved from previous years. Details such as expenditure and settlements upgraded are stated as well as displayed visually on maps. |
| 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 | 20 years |
| 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. |
IDP/BEPP 2018/2019 review | Yes budgets indicate expenditure on informal settlement upgrading. |
| Is the rapid assessment and categorisation an appropriate response to the nature and extent of informality? | Strong Evidence | Determining the appropriateness of the city government's assessment and categorisation is a qualitative appraisal by Isandla Institute |
IDP/BEPP 2018/2019 review | The city government has an appropriate strategy |
| 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. |
MTREF 2017/18 | 12% (or R134 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. |
MTREF 2017/18 | Projects to exceed MTSF UISP target by 2019. |