1. 0 Project Amanzi Presentation prepared for City of Cape Town May 2009

2. 1 Introduction & background User profile Findings Summary

3. 2 The research need The City of Cape Town …manages the local governance of Cape Town and therefore has the important responsibility of delivery basic services. The City fulfils its mandate for the provision of basic water supply and sanitation services to business and residents of Cape Town via the Department of Water and Sanitation, Become a leader in the provision of equitable, sustainable, people-centred, affordable and credible water services for all. Vision of the Department of Water and Sanitation: Realising these objectives rests upon: 1 Identifying and confirming residents’ and businesses’ needs Measuring and improving satisfaction levels 2 Evaluate the current level of service provided Understand the future needs of residents and businesses Identify key areas for improvement The research need is therefore to:

4. 3 Project design Business survey Formal resident survey Business researchResident research Sample size: 50 Businesses registered on RSC Levy database (2004) CATI (Computer Assisted Telephonic interviews) 9 – 20 March 2009 Informal resident survey Sample size: 150 Residents of informal residential areas Face-to-face interviews 10 March – 1 April 2009 Sample size: 450 Residents of formal residential areas Face-to-face interviews 10 March – 1 April 2009

5. 4 What? Why? How? Whom? How many? When?  Perception and satisfaction survey  Evaluate the current level of service provided by the Dept of Water and Sanitation; understand the future needs of residents; inform the development planning agenda for the City of Cape Town  Quantitative research design  Face-to-face in=home interviews  30-minute questionnaire in English or Afrikaans  Residents of the City of Cape Town aged 18+  Respondents identified through a random sampling rule within pre-defined, representative suburbs  Respondent within each household must be responsible for paying the water / rates bill  Total sample of 450  Quotas on 150 high income, 150 middle income and 150 low income respondents  In field from 10 March to 1 April 2009 Sample and methodology Please note that due to a revised questionnaire in 2009, this data is not comparable with previous years’ data

6. 5 TotalEastern District Khayelitsh a District Klipfontein District Mitchells Plain District Northern District Southern District Tygerberg District Western District No access to water where you live 110000301 communal tap more > 2 minutes walk 130410003 Through a communal tap < 2 minutes walk 381331027 Through a pipe or tap directly 95889993969997 90 Project Robben: Perceived service delivery Perceived service delivery TotalEastern District Khayelitsh a District Klipfontein District Mitchells Plain District Northern District Southern District Tygerberg District Western District No access to a toilet where you live 120200300 Bucket or pit toilet240500013 VIP or Chemical toilet 23121017 Flush toilet969299939899979990

7. 6 Improved % Service areasDeteriorated % 2007/82008/92007/82008/9 3137Water107 2327Sanitation139 Snippets from Project Robben Ranked by improvement scores Essential services 2007/82008/9 Water provision3.33.2 Giving you access to clean water3.53.6 Giving you an uninterrupted water supply3.4 Effectively managing water restrictions3.3 Water costs being affordable3.13.0 Sewerage and sanitation3.13.0 Managing sewerage and sanitation3.1 Immediately attending to sewerage and sanitation problems3.02.9 Which areas of service delivery have improved or got worse since 2007/8? Scores (out of 5) for water and sanitation, compared with 2007/8

8. 7 Introduction & background User profile Findings Summary

9. 8 Demographics % Total (n=450) Low income (n=150) Middle income (n=150) High income (n=150) Age: 18-24 years2 321 25-34 years11 15116 35-49 years40 443342 50-64 years32 253732 65+ years16 131719 Race: Black12 25111 Coloured65 758138 Indian10 11 White22 1759 Home Language: English32 193047 Afrikaans57 585953 Xhosa11 2390 Gender: Female61 715657 Male39 294443 Significantly greater or less than other housing types

10. 9 % Total (n=450) Low income (n=150) Middle income (n=150) High income (n=150) Monthly Household Income: Up to R1999 per month184763 R2 000 – R4 999 per month24313011 R5 000 – R9 999 per month1552813 R10 000 – R14 999 per month71912 R15 000 – R19 999 per month4067 More than R20 000 per month40111 Refused/don’t know27162143 Median household incomeR4,100R 1,900R 5,450R 11,300 Type of Dwelling: House86788199 Flat61430 Cluster house3540 Town house or Duplex flats1011 Semi-detached43110 Demographics Significantly greater or less than other housing types

11. 10 n=450 Very well Quite well A little Not at all Level of understanding – Language: Xhosa111583 English5034141 Afrikaans691884 Language understanding Low income respondents are significantly more likely to understand Xhosa very well and not understand Afrikaans or English very well High income respondents are significantly more likely to understand English very well and less likely to understand Afrikaans

12. 11 Very well Quite well A little Not at all Very well Quite well A little Not at all Very well Quite well A little Not at all Level of understanding – Language: Low income housing (n=150) Middle income housing (n=150) High income housing (n=150) Xhosa231374111287111188 English23462835237101762040 Afrikaans65171177320346919112 Language split out by housing type Significantly greater or less than other housing types

13. 12 Introduction & background User profile Findings User behaviour Communication with the City of Cape Town Satisfaction Responsible water usage Summary

14. 13 Q.2a, 2b Base: n=450 Problems with water leakages and burst pipes Overall problems with water leakages and bust water pipes are experienced very infrequently Water leakages in the street are the most problematic with 32% having experienced a problem in the past few months Low income housing is more likely to have experienced water leaks in the street and on site or outside the building as well as problems with burst water pipes every few months than the other housing types and less likely to have never experienced these They are also more likely to have experienced water leaks in the dwelling on a daily basis Water leakages…

15. 14 Water leakages in the street Water leakages on site or outside the buildingWater leakages in the dwellingProblems with burst water pipes Daily Weekly Monthly Every few months Never Daily Weekly Monthly Every few months Never Daily Weekly Monthly Every few months Never Daily Weekly Monthly Every few months Never Total (n=450)2272169214187441314791141876 Low (n=150)5192759315246761416731142469 Middle (n=150)1371673125157741315781151777 High (n=150)1141975113168011212850051481 Problems with water leakages and burst pipes split out by housing type Significantly greater or less than other housing types

16. 15 Contact when experiencing problems with water leakages, toilet systems or sewers Q.2c Base: n=450 28% 35% 58% 80% 88% 89% Local office is contacted primarily for problems outside a private property, leaks at the meter or blocked sewers Low income respondents are more likely to also contact the local office for leaking taps on site and broken or blocked toilets

17. 16 Contact when experiencing problems with water leakages, toilet systems or sewers split out by housing type Leaking tap on site or in the dwellingA broken or blocked toilet systemA blocked sewer on site or your property A leak at the meter A water leak in the street, outside the yard A blocked sewer in the street, outside the yard 43% 22% 20% 50% 33% 25% 65% 53% 56% 80% 86% 89% 90% 87% 91% Significantly greater or less than other housing types TOC and Local office (nett)

18. 17 Base: n=450 Q.9 Awareness of bylaws Significantly greater or less than other housing types The bylaw most residents are aware of is that it is not permitted to water gardens between 10am and 4pm High income residents more likely to be aware of other bylaws One fifth of the residents interviewed are, however, not aware of any of these bylaws

19. 18 Frequently – 23% Seldom – 34% Never – 43% Consumption of bottled water Q. 6a.6b Base: n=450 Base: n=256 (Respondents who drink bottled water) No significant differences between groups Reasons to drink bottled water

20. 19 Consumption of bottled water split by housing type Frequently – 26% Seldom – 32% Never – 42% Frequently – 25% Seldom – 32% Never – 43% Frequently – 17% Seldom – 39% Never – 44% Base: n=450 High (n=150) Middle (n=150) Low (n=150) Q. 6a (ctd) Significantly greater or less than other housing types

21. 20 Fitting of personal water filtering system Q. 6c. 6d Base: n=450 Base: n=25* (Respondents who have installed a personal water filtering system at home) *Caution very small base size High: 13% Middle: 6% Low: 1% Reasons for installing personal water filtering system Significantly greater or less than other housing types

22. 21 Introduction & background User profile Findings User behaviour Communication with the City of Cape Town Satisfaction Responsible water usage Summary

23. 22 Last dealt with the municipality Q.4a Base: n=450 For the most part respondents have dealt very little with the municipality in the past year Most recent interactions have involved reporting blocked sewers, burst water pipes and water leaks and enquiring about accounts or meter readings

24. 23 Last dealt with the municipality – low income Q.4a Base: n=150 Low income respondents are significantly less likely to have never dealt with the municipality regarding waste water overflow and burst water pipes Significantly greater or less than other housing types

25. 24 Last dealt with the municipality – middle income Q.4a Base: n=150 Significantly greater or less than other housing types

26. 25 Last dealt with the municipality – high income Q.4a Base: n=150 Significantly greater or less than other housing types

27. 26 Contact with municipality in relation to water or sanitation services Base: n=240 Q.4b Excludes those who did not have contact with the municipality 39% 54% 65% 35% 70% 26% 83% 15% Although contact with the municipality was generally rated well there are some areas to address: More than half disagreed that the municipality had followed up to find out if the problem had been sorted out A third of respondents were dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve the problem – this was particularly prominent at 44% among low income housing residents More than two thirds felt they were directed to the correct person 8 out of every 10 respondents felt they were treated in a polite and professional way. This is significantly lower for low income housing respondents and an area for improvement Improvement areas

28. 27 Contact with municipality in relation to water or sanitation services – low income Base: n=96 Q.4b Excludes those who did not have contact with the municipality 45% 55% 57% 44% 66% 30% 72% 26% Significantly greater or less than other housing types

29. 28 Contact with municipality in relation to water or sanitation services – middle income Base: n=73 Q.4b Excludes those who did not have contact with the municipality 29% 53% 66% 31% 73% 19% 92% 7% Significantly greater or less than other housing types

30. 29 Contact with municipality in relation to water or sanitation services – high income Base: n=71 Q.4b Excludes those who did not have contact with the municipality 42% 56% 78% 27% 70% 27% 90% 8% Significantly greater or less than other housing types

31. 30 Base: n=245 Q.4c Most used point of contact for the municipality regarding water or sanitation services Almost half of those who have contacted the municipality have used the local municipality as a point of contact This contact point is less likely to be used by high income residents who are more likely to mostly use the Technical Operations Centre Significantly greater or less than other housing types

32. 31 Understanding the water and sewerage bill 15b Water billSewerage bill No significant differences between groups More than 70% of residents find both parts of the bill easy to understand Almost one fifth does however think it is not so easy to understand 99% of residents receive a water/sewerage account

33. 32 Accuracy of the water and sewerage bill 15b Water billSewerage bill For the lower income residents, the perception is that accounts tend to be more accurate About one fifth do not think accounts are accurate at all Significantly greater or less than other housing types

34. 33 Frequency of checking the water and sewerage bill 15b Water billSewerage bill Almost 3 in 10 residents always check their account High income residents are less likely to be frequent checkers Significantly greater or less than other housing types

35. 34 Introduction & background User profile Findings User behaviour Communication with the City of Cape Town Satisfaction Responsible water usage Summary

36. 35 Q.1a,1b,1c Base: n=450 Satisfaction with provision of services 77% of users are satisfied with the overall performance of the City of Cape Town in providing water and sanitation services Water services are rated best with 82% satisfied Servicing the sewer drainage system had less satisfied users than that of water services with a 70% satisfaction level GOAL: To ensure an 80% satisfaction level of all customers in the provision of basic water services SOURCE: Water Services Vision, November 2005 77% 82% 70%

37. 36 Satisfaction with provision of services - overall Middle income housing respondents are most satisfied with the overall provision of services of the City of Cape Town while high income respondents are the least likely to be very satisfied Low income residents are the least satisfied Significantly greater or less than other housing types 74% 80% 78% Q.1a

38. 37 Significantly greater or less than other housing types 76% 87% 84% Satisfaction with provision of services – providing drinking water on tap Middle income housing respondents are also the most satisfied with the provision of drinking water on tap. The least satisfied are low income housing respondents Q.1b

39. 38 Significantly greater or less than other housing types 66% 73% 71% Q.1c Satisfaction with provision of services – maintaining the sewer drainage systems All housing groups are less satisfied with the maintenance of sewer and drainage systems relative to the provision of drinking water on tap, the least so being the low income group

40. 39 4.3 3.2 Importance Rating of City of Cape Town Not at all important Extremely important PoorExcellent City of Cape Town Water and Sanitation Department is for the most part performing extremely well and delivering to demands All aspects may be considered priority areas except, maybe, providing information with billings Importance and performance Ensures environmentally friendly waste water systems Provides the regular clearing of sewers to prevent blockages Ensures that water services are affordable Provides accurate billings based on actual monthly meter readings Provides information with billings Restores service within 6 hours after an unplanned interruption Ensures adequate water pressure during peak supply Ensures that the quality of water meets national drinking water standards Extends water and sanitation services to all people Encourages people to pay for the water and sanitation services that they use Ensures that people obey legislation about the use or misuse of water Ensures that the municipality uses water wisely Encourages business to use water wisely Encourages the public to use water wisely Minimises the loss of water Provides a reliable supply of water Provides a sustainable supply of water for future generations Provides polite, effective and efficient communication to the community 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 11.522.533.544.55

41. 40 Rating of City of Cape Town regarding infrastructural elements – Low income housing Q.5b Average excludes none/don’t know Base: n=150 Ave. score: 3.2 Above ‘low income’ average Below ‘low income’ average Unique to low income Across all groups

42. 41 Rating of City of Cape Town regarding infrastructural elements – Middle income housing Q.5b Average excludes none/don’t know Base: n=150 Above ‘middle income’ average Below ‘middle income’ average Ave. score: 3.5 Unique to middle income Across all groups

43. 42 Rating of City of Cape Town regarding infrastructural elements – High income housing Q.5b Average excludes none/don’t know Base: n=150 Above ‘high income’ average Below ‘high income’ average Ave. score: 3.0 Across all groups

44. 43 Rating of City of Cape Town regarding customer elements – Low income housing Base: n=150 Q.5b Average excludes none/don’t know Above ‘low income’ average Below ‘low income’ average Ave. score: 3.2 Unique to low and middle income Across all groups

45. 44 Rating of City of Cape Town regarding customer elements – Middle income housing Base: n=150 Q.5b Average excludes none/don’t know Above ‘middle income’ average Below ‘middle income’ average Ave. score: 3.5 Across all groups Unique to low and middle income

46. 45 Rating of City of Cape Town regarding customer elements – High income housing Base: n=150 Q.5b Average excludes none/don’t know Above ‘high income’ average Below ‘high income’ average Ave. score: 3.0 Across all groups Unique to high income

47. 46 Q.8a Perceived cost of water compared to the rest of the country Most people are not aware of the costs of water and sewerage relative to the rest of the country Significantly greater or less than other housing types

48. 47 Q.8b Perceived cost of sewerage compared to the rest of the country Most people are not aware of the costs of water and sewerage relative to the rest of the country Significantly greater or less than other housing types

49. 48 Introduction & background User profile Findings User behaviour Communication with the City of Cape Town Satisfaction Responsible water usage Summary

50. 49 Responsible water use Base: n=450 Q.7 73% 20% 14% 79% 94% 5% 73% 22% Among formal residents there is high agreement regarding the statements depicting responsible water use Lower income residents are the least likely to think that most people obey water restrictions and that it’s their duty to report water leaks

51. 50 Responsible water use: Low income housing Base: n=150 Q.7 66% 22% 18% 75% 88% 12% 65% 21% Significantly greater or less than other housing types

52. 51 Responsible water use: Middle income housing Base: n=150 Q.7 80% 16% 8% 82% 98% 1% 76% 21% Significantly greater or less than other housing types

53. 52 Responsible water use: High income housing Base: n=150 Q.7 74% 20% 14% 81% 97% 3% 76% 23% Significantly greater or less than other housing types

54. 53 Q.16 Awareness of how the Water and Sanitation service controls the supply of water Significantly greater or less than other housing types 40% believe the supply of water is controlled through restrictions while 30% believe the department uses tariffs to control supply A large proportion of residents do not know how the supply of water is controlled

55. 54 Q10a, 11a, 11b Water conservation over the past year Significantly greater or less than other housing types Less than one fifth of the total sample has participated in water conservation activities over the past year Low income households are significantly more likely to do so while high income households are the least likely to do so On the other hand two thirds claim to have changed their behaviour in order to conserve water Low income households are now the least likely and middle income households are the mosty likely to have done this Reasons for changing behaviour to conserve water

56. 55 Current actions taken to save water Q.11c Significantly greater or less than other housing types Actions taken by most people entail changing how they use water Incidence of various other, very specific actions are limited and most likely taken by high income households

57. 56 Water efficient tap fittings Q.11c, 11d, 11e Significantly greater or less than other housing types Very low incidence of water efficient tap fittings, although high income residents are more likely to have installed them Almost 6 out of 10 residents are not aware of these fittings and have no intention of ever installing them

58. 57 Introduction & background User profile Findings Summary

59. 58 Summary In the formal market, the greatest differentiation is between low income housing and the rest Amongst formal residents there is fairly high satisfaction although not as high as among the business sample Low income residents are the least satisfied Overall residents are less satisfied with the maintenance of sewerage drainage systems than the provision of drinking water on tap Residents experience problems fairly infrequently However low income households are more likely to be experiencing several of the problems more frequently The local office is contacted for problems experienced offsite, leaks at the meter and blocked sewers Low income residents are more likely to also contact the local office for onsite problems For the most part there has been very little interaction with the municipality over the past year When residents did contact the municipality, it was most likely about blocked sewers, burst water pipes, accounts and meter readings and leaks in the street In dealings with the municipality, the general feeling is that follow up and resolution time could be improved Polite and professional treatment could also improve the experience for low income residents

60. 59 Summary As in the business market, the service elements identified all emerged as priority areas; however the Water and Sanitation Services department was rated highly on these aspects and as such can be considered to be delivering upon demands There are however several relative weaknesses across the groups in both the infrastructural and customer and communication spheres Alternative water sources such as bottled water and filtering systems are mainly used because the water they provide is cleaner Three quarters believe people obey restrictions and are conscious of conserving water; there is also high awareness across the sample of permitted watering times and almost two thirds claim to have changed their behaviour to conserve water These behavioural changes mostly entail changing how they use water and at this stage there is relatively low incidence of the various devices one can install The account appears to be well understood, mostly accurate (although one fifth do not believe it is accurate at all) and two thirds sometimes or always check and verify it. Despite this, the majority interviewed have no idea of the relative cost of water and sewerage versus the rest of the country

61. 60 Thank You