1. Design and implementation evaluation of the Urban Settlement Development Grant
SCOA Presentation

2. Background to the evaluation
Evaluation assessed the design integrity and intervention logic of the USDG as an interlocutory fiscal instrument supporting existing national human settlement programmes (the HSDG) and other built environment programmes towards greater settlement functionality.
1 of 7 evaluations with NDHS
Important interventions (UISP, IRDP, Social Housing, Affordable Housing, USDG) and impact on access and asset
Design, implementation and impacts of Housing
Contribute to human settlement policy review
Complementary to Expenditure reviews

3. Background to the USDG
Conditional supplementary capital grant allocation of approximately R 10 billion per annum to 8 metropolitan municipalities
Introduced in 2011 and replaced MIG Cities
Fiscal instrument to support existing programmes and in particular the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG). Cannot be expected to produce results separate from those delivered through the programmes it supports

4. Findings - grant intent
Design appropriately structured and scheduled as 4b supplementary conditional capital grant
Lack of consensus between NDHS (accounting officer), Treasury (responsible for Built Environment Performance plans - planning instrument for built environment grant including USDG), metros and provinces on intent of Grant and what it funds
Intergovernmental tension for cities about purpose and performance accountability

5. Findings - roles and responsibilities
NT coordinates BEPPs, gives significant influence in policy direction and management of USDG
DHS struggled with oversight, policy direction, guidance and support to cities in implementation
Provinces struggled with their role in USDG
Monitoring difficult in absence of finalised policy. Replicated and dispersed performance reporting with overlapping performance indices.
Result: poor coordination between fiscal support instrument and human settlements programmes

6. Findings - what the grant funds
100 and 200 p/a
Directed to peripheral and poor areas and along cities’ special development nodes
very few can be considered catalytic or transformative.

7. Findings - gearing
Minimal gearing of additional funds through the USDG (Johannesburg and Cape Town being the exceptions)
In smaller metros there is a risk of the USDG displacing other sources of funding and exacerbating grant dependency.
Concerns about erosion of cities’ own revenue

8. Findings - integration of built environment interventions
Metros are ideally placed to ensure integration of built environment functions
Impeded by limited interface between HSDG and USDG, exacerbated by lack of assignment of housing function to cities
Impacted on coordinated service delivery for poor to medium income households

9. Evaluation recommendations
USDG retained as Schedule 4B suppl. grant.
DHS to clarify grant intent, identifying existing programmes and outcomes associated with USDG to which it contributes, in a revised policy framework
DHS/NT to revise monitoring framework (outcome, outputs, and selected indicators) to focus on changes at beneficiary level.
DHS and NT to amend USDG policy framework to stipulate portion (max of 5%) that may be used to procure technical/project management expertise to implement capital projects
Improvement plan developed and implementation being monitored

10. Thank you