Quality of Life in the GCR: QoL survey 2015 · 6/28/2016 · These were rooted out and redone...
142
Quality of Life in the GCR: QoL survey 2015 Launch presentation 28 June 2016 Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO)
Transcript of Quality of Life in the GCR: QoL survey 2015 · 6/28/2016 · These were rooted out and redone...
Quality of Life in the GCR: QoL survey 2015 Launch presentation
28 June 2016
Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO)
Overview of QoL 2015
Overview
Overview of QoL 2015
• This is the 4th Quality of Life Survey conducted by GCRO
• 2009: 5 836 respondents in Gauteng / total of 6 636 across wider GCR
• 2011: 16 729
• 2013: 27 490
• 2015: 30 002
• In addition to GCRO funds, the three metropolitan municipalities and the Gauteng Department of Health each contributed significant finances to the 2015 survey, allowing us to realize the largest sample to date, broadly ‘representative’ to ward level across Gauteng
Sampling
Overview of QoL 2015
• A representative sample of the population aged 18 years and older in Gauteng was drawn by Dr Ariane Neethling. This sample was checked by GCRO, Ross Jennings and Prof Paul Fatti (Emeritus Professor of Statistics, University of Witwatersrand).
• As in 2013, the goal was to provide a ‘ward-representative sample’ of the entire province. Census 2011 was used as a benchmark for the sample frame.
• The sample was constructed using a multistage stratified sampling approach with 2011 wards (n=508) as the explicit stratification variable. In each ward, enumerator areas (EA) were selected using probability proportional to size (PPS), and the power allocation rule.
• In each of the drawn EAs, five households were systematically selected as the targeted ‘visiting points’ using GIS techniques and the most up to date geospatial data on dwelling units from GeoTerraImage (GTI). An oversample of 5 additional dwelling units were also selected for substitution.
• The sample drew a minimum of 30 respondents per ward in non-metro wards, and 60 in metro wards, with no ceiling (determined by PPS).
• Fieldwork by Ask Afrika*, back-checked externally by a team commissioned separately by GCRO
• Surveys conducted with CAPI (survey instruments on tablets with GPS)
• Quality control:
o Field managers – quality checks on fieldworkers
o External agency personnel – surprise field visits & call backs, internal review of 25% of questionnaires
o GIS verification by GCRO and service provider
• Significant quality issues were uncovered through GCRO checking:
1. Not all GPS co-ordinates were taken automatically. Several thousand had manual entries raising questions about authenticity. Unless the manual entries could be verified (e.g. with geocoded addresses) they were rejected and redone
2. Instances of ‘convenience sampling’ where GPS co-ordinates – when looked at with address information – indicated that interviews were not conducted in homes, but rather in shopping malls, taxi ranks, fast-food outlets etc. These were rooted out and redone
Overview of QoL 2015 Fieldwork
*The data remains part-owned by Ask Afrika until completion of the project. All analysis is the property of GCRO
Overview of QoL 2015 Fieldwork
Overview of QoL 2015 Fieldwork
Overview of QoL 2015 Fieldwork – interviews cumulative
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
35 000
40 000
Fieldwork – final interviews in each month
Overview of QoL 2015
1 788
4 939
7 035
8 776
2 233
786
15
1 110
1 807
889 622
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
10 000
July2015
Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Jan2016
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
• Aim was to have at least 30 respondents per ward in non-metro wards, and 60 in metro wards, with no ceiling (determined by PPS).
Overview of QoL 2015 Realised sample
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
Number of respondents per ward
Overview of QoL 2015 Weighting and number of interviews per municipality
Unweighted Error bar Weighted
Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage
Johannesburg 9 821 32.7% 0.99% 10 959 36.5%
Tshwane 7 242 24.1% 1.15% 7 190 24.0%
Ekurhuleni 7 266 24.2% 1.15% 7 696 25.7%
Emfuleni 1 693 5.6% 2.38% 1 701 5.7%
Lesedi 398 1.3% 4.91% 233 0.8%
Merafong 893 3.0% 3.28% 479 1.6%
Midvaal 442 1.5% 4.66% 233 0.8%
Mogale City 1 059 3.5% 3.01% 884 2.9%
Randfontein 687 2.3% 3.74% 357 1.2%
Westonaria 501 1.7% 4.38% 270 0.9%
GAUTENG 30 002 100% 0.57% 30 002 100%
• Unweighted data was slightly low on whites, and low on males/high on females. Entire data-set was weighted by race and sex at ward level. A software package, CALMAR, was used to calculate weights to align with Census 2011.
What’s in the 2015 survey?
Overview of QoL 2015
• About 60% of the questionnaire remains the same as in previous years. Good coverage of: 1. Demographic variables (education, age, income) 2. Dwelling and service access 3. Satisfaction with services 4. Satisfaction with government 5. Migration 6. Headspace, social attitudes 7. Transport 8. Poverty, wealth, debt, food insecurity, etc.
• Enhanced sections/questions on:
1. Health 2. Economy and employment, with specific focus on township economy 3. Smart city 4. Neighbourhood (e.g. where would respondent like to live) 5. Gauteng ‘DNA’ questions about identity, affiliations, breaking rules, etc.
11
62
10
5
12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Poor people need towork harder
Government needs tocreate more jobs
Private sector needsto create more jobs
The rich should betaxed more
Government shouldnationalise keysectors of the
economy
Which approach would have the biggest impact on inequality?
A snapshot …
34
25
16
15
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
African
Coloured
Indian/Asian
White
I will never pay my e-Tolls: Those who say ‘Not applicable/don’t use freeways’
A snapshot …
39
34
18
10
13
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
R0-R1600
R1 601 - R12 800
R12 801 - R38 400
R38 401 - R102 400
R102 401+
A snapshot … Have you participated in a protest in last 12 months and what was it about?
36
45
24
15
9
8
9
22
24
19
4
0 20 40 60
Housing
Basic services
Lack of jobs / economic opportunities
Jobs given to outsiders
Favouritism
Transport
Foreigners in my community
Crime / security issues
Poor performance of councilor
Corruption
Other93
7
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No Yes
A snapshot … Access to healthcare, by race
Where do you usually go for
medical care? (%) Are you personally covered by medical aid / insurance? (%)
Private healthcare facilities No medical insurance
African 11 82
Coloured 19 64
Indian/Asian 51 32
White 68 21
I am worried that Gauteng is going to run out of water – over the period of the survey*
A snapshot …
47
53 54 55
67 64
63
66
60 57
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
July2015
Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
Worried that Gautengis going to run out ofwater
The price of water &electricty must go upto encourage ppl touse less - DISAGREE
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
Satisfaction with services
C.Culwick
Access to services (2013 vs 2015)
Satisfaction with services
84
91 91 91 87 86
92 91 90 88
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Formal Dwelling Piped water(dwelling/yard)
Adequatesanitaion
Electricity forlighting
Refuse removedweekly
2013
2015
Access to services – respondents with no stormwater
Satisfaction with services
Satisfaction with services Government provided dwelling
23
22
24
15
21
11
13
17
21
17
22
53
51
52
52
53
55
72
68
58
57
53
8
7
7
10
14
5
4
7
13
15
12
19
11
21
6
10
14
22
13
4
5
6
4
7
9
6
4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Water services
24
21
27
22
24
19
33
19
16
12
23
62
59
57
58
54
56
52
63
68
57
60
6
6
6
11
15
5
4
5
4
6
5
8
6
6
6
12
4
9
10
16
7
3
6
4
3
9
7
5
4
11
4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Sanitation
22
20
25
18
17
17
28
16
14
13
22
55
54
51
49
48
49
46
62
63
47
53
9
6
7
15
16
8
5
6
4
5
8
9
8
10
13
15
15
11
11
13
21
10
6
12
7
5
4
10
10
6
6
14
8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Energy
18
19
21
15
17
16
28
16
14
12
19
53
54
51
50
49
47
49
59
61
51
53
12
10
10
18
18
14
6
7
5
4
11
11
9
10
13
11
13
7
11
12
18
11
6
7
8
3
5
10
10
7
7
14
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Energy services – over the period of the survey*
Satisfaction with services
63 62
72 77
73 74 72 74 74 74
22 24 18
14 17
14 16 15 15 16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Jul 2015 Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
Satisfaction with services Waste removal
23
20
25
15
18
16
30
18
14
12
22
58
57
56
54
50
53
50
62
66
59
57
8
6
7
14
19
8
6
5
3
4
7
7
8
7
11
9
13
6
8
10
15
8
5
9
5
6
4
11
8
6
8
10
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Waste services in Johannesburg – over the period of the survey*
Satisfaction with services
79 85 87
82
73
61
78 76 71
78
11 10 7 11
19 19
12 15 15 13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jul 2015 Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
Johannesburg only
Satisfaction with services Cost of municipal services
13
10
13
9
11
9
11
6
3
4
12
38
35
36
34
43
26
38
36
33
29
36
26
22
22
24
20
33
24
31
22
35
24
16
21
19
22
17
19
15
20
24
20
19
8
12
10
10
9
14
12
8
18
12
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Billing for municipal services
12
10
14
9
14
9
10
6
3
4
11
37
34
34
33
39
25
35
37
35
33
35
26
23
22
26
19
32
26
31
21
32
25
17
20
20
22
19
19
16
19
22
20
19
8
12
10
10
9
15
12
8
18
11
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Roads
18
19
22
6
15
12
19
11
7
12
18
41
39
38
16
39
29
33
53
35
37
38
11
7
9
12
17
6
9
7
5
7
9
16
13
16
26
14
26
10
17
29
24
16
14
22
16
40
15
27
28
12
24
21
18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Parks and public spaces
15
14
12
5
12
7
12
6
5
6
13
34
35
33
21
34
21
28
26
32
30
33
13
12
9
11
14
15
10
13
15
11
11
22
19
26
29
23
33
29
31
31
31
24
16
20
20
33
18
24
22
24
17
23
20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Emergency services
11
9
12
4
18
8
12
4
5
10
30
37
39
27
30
33
31
25
32
32
34
19
20
16
22
23
18
20
22
17
18
19
23
19
20
27
18
25
18
29
29
29
22
16
16
13
20
11
17
19
20
19
17
16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Metro/traffic police
11
8
12
4
9
6
11
5
3
3
10
32
37
41
30
32
32
35
29
32
34
36
23
19
17
22
26
23
20
27
22
23
21
21
20
19
25
18
22
19
24
26
24
21
12
15
11
19
14
17
15
15
16
15
13
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Public health care facilities
16
14
17
13
11
11
34
8
9
22
15
46
52
51
53
53
63
42
56
61
58
50
13
12
9
12
15
10
6
8
7
6
11
17
15
16
18
17
11
14
24
19
11
16
7
7
7
4
5
4
4
4
5
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Local educational services
22
20
19
14
14
10
22
9
10
12
19
53
50
51
60
56
51
33
55
50
44
52
14
12
12
13
21
22
14
23
27
26
14
8
9
12
10
8
11
19
9
11
13
10
4
8
7
4
6
12
4
3
5
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Government initiatives to grow economy
6
4
6
3
10
3
7
5
16
16
18
18
29
18
17
18
13
14
17
20
16
17
16
20
12
22
10
13
17
18
30
31
30
26
23
34
27
35
35
37
30
28
32
28
38
18
33
27
35
38
30
30
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Index 13 services: dwelling, water, sanitation, waste, energy, cost, billing, parks, roads, emergency, met-pol, health, econ services
16
15
18
11
15
11
19
10
9
10
16
43
43
43
38
42
39
41
46
45
41
43
15
13
12
16
18
15
12
14
11
13
14
16
16
16
20
15
20
14
19
21
22
16
10
14
11
15
9
15
14
12
14
14
12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with services Various services: comparison of satisfaction levels in 2013 and 2015
13
22
12
23
10
22
10
22
9
19
5
12
4
11
7
18
9
19
64
53
72
60
68
53
70
57
69
53
42
36
40
35
54
38
65
52
4
7
3
6
4
8
4
7
5
11
27
24
28
25
4
9
12
14
15
13
9
7
11
10
10
8
12
11
18
19
19
19
22
16
10
10
5
4
4
4
6
8
5
6
6
7
8
10
9
10
13
18
4
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Government provided dwelling 2013
Government provided dwelling 2015
Water services 2013
Water services 2015
Sanitation 2013
Sanitation 2015
Waste removal 2013
Waste removal 2015
Energy 2013
Energy 2015
Cost of munic services 2013
Cost of munic services 2015
Billing of munic services 2013
Billing of munic services 2015
Roads 2013
Roads 2015
Local education facilities 2013
Local education facilities 2015
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with government
Satisfaction with services Index 13 services: dwelling, water, sanitation, waste, energy, cost, billing, parks, roads, emergency, met-pol, health, econ services
16
15
18
11
15
11
19
10
9
10
16
43
43
43
38
42
39
41
46
45
41
43
15
13
12
16
18
15
12
14
11
13
14
16
16
16
20
15
20
14
19
21
22
16
10
14
11
15
9
15
14
12
14
14
12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with government Local government
7
5
8
3
5
4
14
6
5
3
6
27
27
34
18
23
18
32
36
24
25
28
23
24
16
17
19
22
13
14
9
20
21
25
24
25
34
34
33
20
30
39
29
26
18
20
17
29
19
24
21
15
24
24
19
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with government Satisfied with national government: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
15
6
6
9
42
33
38
30
18
19
11
19
19
25
28
25
6
17
17
17
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2009
2011
2013
2015
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with government Satisfied with provincial government: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
9
4
3
7
41
29
37
32
21
22
13
23
22
26
31
23
7
18
17
15
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2009
2011
2013
2015
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with government Satisfied with local government: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
6
5
3
6
35
27
34
28
20
19
12
21
27
26
31
26
12
22
20
19
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2009
2011
2013
2015
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with government % Dissatisfied with national, provincial and local government: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
24
42 45
41
29
44 47
38 40
48 51
45
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2009 2011 2013 2015
National
Provincial
Local
Satisfaction with government % Dissatisfied with national, provincial and local government: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
24
29
39 42
44
48 45
47
51
41 38
45
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
National Provincial Local
2009
2011
2013
2015
• Average dissatisfaction, July – November: 40% • Average dissatisfaction, December – May: 44%
National government – over the period of the survey*
Satisfaction with government
39 41
41 42
39 35
31
36
29
40 44
42
39 39
41 45
48
42
47
38
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Jul 2015 Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
• Average dissatisfaction, July – November: 38% • Average dissatisfaction, December – May: 38%
Provincial government – over the period of the survey*
Satisfaction with government
37 40
39 42
40
36 33 34
32
38 42
40
38 36 37
39 42
37 39
36
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Jul 2015 Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
• Average dissatisfaction, July – November: 46% • Average dissatisfaction, December – May: 41%
Local government – over the period of the survey*
Satisfaction with government
31 28
35 39 39
32 32 33 35
38
53 55
45 41 40 40
44 41 40
35
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Jul 2015 Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
• Local government ends the survey period at 35% dissatisfied, a significant improvement from 53% in July 2015 • Is national’s relative ‘loss’ local’s gain?
National, provincial and local government dissatisfaction – over the period of the survey*
Satisfaction with government
44
48
38 42
36
53
35
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Jul 2015 Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
National
Provincial
Local
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
Satisfaction with government Satisfied with local government: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
46
39 40 38
45
53
29
38
31
18
41
31 33 33 33 33
46
34
44 42
34 33 36
42
38
25
30
41
36 36
26 25
37 34
32
42
21
28
45 42
22
29 27
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009
2011
2013
2015
Satisfaction with government Dissatisfied with local government: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
34
40 39
45 40
30
48 45 44
66
39
48 48 50 48 45
40
49
43 39
46 48
53
46 50
68
60
51 54
52
59 64
51
43 44 42
63
53
41 44
57
62
53
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009
2011
2013
2015
Exploring government dissatisfaction
Satisfaction with local government and intention to vote
Impacts of government dissatisfaction
18
16
26
21
27
82
84
74
79
73
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
No
Yes
Satisfaction with local government and participated in protest in last 12 months
Impacts of government dissatisfaction
93
95
95
93
89
7
5
5
7
11
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
No
Yes
Satisfaction with life as a whole and satisfaction with national government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
11
6
5
33
24
23
19
28
13
23
25
32
14
17
26
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with life as a whole and satisfaction with provincial government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
8
4
4
36
24
23
23
33
17
21
23
32
12
16
25
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with life as a whole and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
8
4
4
32
21
17
21
28
14
24
27
34
15
20
32
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Race and satisfaction with national government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
9
9
6
8
31
27
33
26
18
20
28
25
25
28
20
22
17
16
12
18
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
African
Coloured
Indian
White
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Race and satisfaction with provincial government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
6
7
6
8
33
28
32
30
22
24
33
29
24
26
16
19
15
15
12
14
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
African
Coloured
Indian
White
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Race and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
6
7
6
9
27
28
30
34
19
22
34
27
28
26
17
18
21
16
13
12
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
African
Coloured
Indian
White
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Perceived status in community and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
6
6
9
21
29
27
17
21
22
26
26
24
30
18
19
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Worse off
Same
Better off
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
2015 Corruption is the biggest threat to our democracy and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
6
10
29
25
19
20
26
26
19
19
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agree
Disagree
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
2013 Corruption is the biggest threat to our democracy and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
3
4
33
44
11
8
32
25
20
19
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agree
Disagree
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Dwelling type and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
7
8
1
3
2
4
29
30
40
19
11
20
20
30
28
16
13
22
26
19
11
31
36
33
18
3
8
30
38
21
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
House or formal structure on a separate stand
Flat or apartment in a block of flats
Cluster house in a complex
Informal dwelling or shack in backyard
Informal dwelling NOT in backyard. Informal settlement
Hostel
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
71
1 1 8
1 2 4 5 1 1 1 2 3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Which department/service did you most recently interact with?
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
Perception of frontline services
65
77 80
36
35
23 20
64
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Assisted timeously Treated with dignity &respect
Needs were met Officials live up to BathoPele
No
Yes
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
• Excludes people who did not recently interact with a government department / never interact with government officials
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
3
7
17
30
15
17
34
28
30
18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I was treated with respect and dignity - NO
I was treated with respect and dignity - YES
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Perception of frontline services and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
3
6
18
30
15
17
34
28
30
19
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
They were able to help my needs - NO
They were able to help my needs - YES
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Perception of frontline services and satisfaction with local government
42 43 42
52 55
49
43 39
57
49
43
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% agree, my municipality doesn’t care about delivering services to me
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
Perception that municipality doesn’t care and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
5
5
9
15
23
46
17
39
15
35
20
18
28
13
11
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with local councilor
47
51 60 46
41
59 46
37
48
49
46
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know councilor
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
Satisfaction with local councilor and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
16
5
3
5
52
23
13
28
14
43
14
24
12
19
40
24
7
10
31
19
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Don't know councillor
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Participated in ‘government’ forums and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
6
7
29
27
17
25
27
24
20
17
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Participated
Did not participate
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
9
7
5
36
29
24
20
25
17
20
23
30
14
15
24
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Improved
Stayed the same
Got worse
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Perceptions of crime and satisfaction with local government
Employment and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
8
4
7
30
24
30
22
17
23
24
32
23
17
24
17
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Employed
Unemployed
Other
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with initiatives to grow economy and satisfaction with local government
Reasons for government dissatisfaction
4
14
24
38
16
22
31
17
25
9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Dissatisfied with government initiatives to groweconomy
Satisfied with government initiatives to groweconomy
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Economic conditions
C.Culwick
Economic conditions Are you currently the owner of a business: % yes
8 4 4
9 12
5 6 8 7 7
10 11 11 8
14 13
7
15
9 10 11 11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2015 - currently theowner of a business
2013 - currently theowner of a business
Economic conditions Have you ever started a business / failure rates
15 7
7
14 18
11 9
13 16 14
17
45
64
36
39
33
54
35
43
52 46
41
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Have tried tostart a business
Business failed
Economic conditions Primary constraints on business: formal
15
4
10
2
9
5 2 2
6
2
8
3 4
7
12
8
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Economic conditions Primary constraints on business: informal
16
9 10
2 4 4
1 2 2 2
12
2
7 6
1
11
7
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Economic conditions Support from government departments for businesses
33
16
34
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Have you everapproached agovernment
department thatsupports
Has any governmentdepartment
approached you toassist
Satisfied withsupport provided
72
28
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Yes
Do you know of government service to support small businesses?
Have you ever approached a govt. department or agency that supports SMMEs?: 2013; 2015
Economic conditions
91
95
9
5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2015
2013
No
Yes
Economic conditions Access to services within easy walking distance
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Supermarkets
Hardware / building supplies
Transport
Banks
Internet services Business services
Restaurants
Bars and clubs
Liquor store
Economic conditions In last 12 months worked in any government employment scheme (jozi@work, EPWP, CWP)?
5
3
3
2
2
4
2
4
3
4
4
0 2 4 6
Johannesburg
Tshwane
Ekurhuleni
Emfuleni
Lesedi
Merafong
Midvaal
Mogale City
Randfontein
Westonaria
GAUTENG
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%Money
Jobs
Skills
Startedown
business
Businessideas /
networks
Nobenefits
= 175 000
= 340 000
Headspace: social cohesion and socio-political attitudes
C.Culwick
Agree that blacks and whites will never trust each other: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Social cohesion
63 63 66 58
38 41 40
44 53
56 55
44
54
55
61
54
68 69 73
62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009 2011 2013 2015
Gauteng
White
Indian/Asian
Coloured
African
Agree that blacks and whites will never trust each other – over the period of the survey
Social cohesion
62 67
63 61 60 60 57
61
54 58
55 50
44 45 41
34 38
51
36
51
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Jul 2015 Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Nov2015
Dec2015
Feb2016
Mar2016
Apr2016
May2016
African
White
*Sample may not be fully representative at each period over the course of fieldwork
Agree
Agree that coloureds are helping to build the new South Africa: 2011, 2013, 2015
Social cohesion
39 38 32
51 52
41 42 48
57
68
59
36 33
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2013 2015
Gauteng
White
Indian
Coloured
African
Disagree that Indians do not deserve to benefit from affirmative action: 2011, 2013, 2015
Social cohesion
50 50 46
51 56 52
67 71
74
59 57
52
49 48 44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2013 2015
Gauteng
White
Indian
Coloured
African
Social cohesion
40
54
57
60
32
32
22
25
28
14
21
14
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
White
Indian
Coloured
African
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Affirmative action and BEE must be sped up
34
25
27
29
37
17
15
16
16
17
49
60
57
54
46
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Gauteng
White
Indian
Coloured
African
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
South Africa belongs more to black people than coloureds, Indians or whites
Social cohesion
South African’s attitudes to foreigners in Gauteng: 2011, 2013, 2015
Social cohesion
34 38
24
46 44
58
20 18 18
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2013 2015
Foreigners shouldbe allowed to stay
Legal foreigners areOK
Send all foreignershome
Politics is a waste of time: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Social and political attitudes
3
10
12
13
15
25
32
24
13
11
10
14
46
45
39
35
23
10
8
13
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2009
2011
2013
2015
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly disagree
The country is going in the wrong direction: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Social and political attitudes
11
21
18
23
48
39
42
38
19
13
10
16
15
23
26
18
7
4
4
5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2009
2011
2013
2015
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly disagree
There are too many people coming to Gauteng, we should bring back influx control
Social and political attitudes
14
14
12
14
30
31
26
26
18
17
20
19
24
28
26
27
13
11
15
14
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
African
Coloured
Indian/Asian
White
Strongly agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree
There are too many people coming to Gauteng, we should bring back influx control
Social and political attitudes
15
13
7
31
28
19
19
17
22
23
27
32
12
15
20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Born in Gauteng
Internal migrant
International migrant
Strongly agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree
Opinions about e-Tolls
Social and political attitudes
5
12
13
22
23
33
37
25
25
21
27
17
16
13
12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A good way to manage congestion
I will never pay e-Tolls
I would be more willing to pay if the money wasstaying in South Africa and benefiting the country
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly disagree
11
15
13
15
24
24
22
21
26
25
24
19
26
24
27
33
13
13
14
13
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
African
Coloured
Indian/Asian
White
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I will never pay my e-Tolls and race
Social and political attitudes
Gauteng would be a better place if …
Social and political attitudes
48
48
52
77
79
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Death penalty brought back
Corporal punishment broughtback
All infringements dealt withseverely
More parks & green spaces
All still believed in rainbownation
Health and happiness
15
14
41
10
21
50
57
51
39
42
11
13
4
30
25
16
11
13
12
7
4
8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Public health care
Both public and private
Private health care
Traditional healer
Spiritual healer
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with health services usually used
Health and wellbeing
46
12
16
6 4
2 2
12
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
None Less than R100 R101- R500 R501- R1 000 R1 001 - R5000
R5 001 - R10000
More Don't know
How much money would you be able to borrow in a health emergency?
Health and wellbeing
35
57
7
1 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Excellent Good Poor Very Poor
Health status in the past 4 weeks
Health and wellbeing
6
23 21
50
5
22 22
52
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Always Some of the time Hardly ever Never
Work
Social activities
Does your health prevent you from doing work/taking part in usual social activities?
Health and wellbeing
24 24
13 13
26
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Everyday Few times a week Few times a month Hardly ever Never
How frequently do you exercise (e.g. walk, run, gym)?
Health and wellbeing
8.8 8.7 8.7 8.3 8.5
8.0
8.8
8.0 8.4 8.1
8.7 8.9 8.8 8.9 8.4 8.4 8.6
9.1 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Happy
Life isworthwhile
0 = not at all happy/worthwhile 10 = happy all the time/completely worthwhile
Happiness How happy did you feel yesterday / How worthwhile are things in your life?
3.2 3.0 2.8
4.2 4.7
2.7 3.0
2.6 1.9
3.1 3.1
4.2 4.3 4.2
5.0 5.4
3.8 4.2
3.2 2.9
4.0 4.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Depressed
Worried
0 = not at all worried/depressed 10 = worried/depressed all the time
Happiness How worried / depressed did you feel yesterday?
Quality of Life index
Life satisfaction: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?
16
14
8
20
30
50
62
48
20
15
10
15
24
15
16
12
10
6
4
5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2009
2011
2013
2015
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Means (out of 10): 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Quality of Life index
6.23 6.02 6.10 6.20 6.11
5.90 6.01 6.13
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
2009 2011 2013 2015
Dimensionweighted
Indicatorweighted
Dimension means
Quality of Life index
.50
.55
.49
.64
.80
.76
.72
.55
.70
.49
.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00
Socio-political attitudes
Security
Work
Connectivity
Infrastructure
Dwelling
Health
Community
Family
Global life satisfaction
0.49
0.70
0.55
0.72 0.76
0.80
0.64
0.49
0.55 0.50
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
2009
2011
2013
2015
Dimension means: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Quality of Life index
7.04
6.91
6.35
5.98
4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
White
Indian/Asian
Coloured
African
2009
2011
2013
2015
Means by race (out of 10): 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Quality of Life index
2015 Gauteng mean = 6.20
Means by municipality (out of 10)
Quality of Life index
6.36
6.28
6.27
6.19
6.17
6.15
6.03
5.92
5.90
5.77
4 5 6 7 8
Randfontein
Mogale City
Johannesburg
Ekurhuleni
Tshwane
Midvaal
Merafong
Westonaria
Emfuleni
LesediGauteng mean = 6.20
6.17 6.27 6.19 6.28 6.36 5.92 6.03 5.90
6.15 5.77
6.20
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2009
2011
2013
2015
Means by municipality (out of 10): 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Quality of Life index
0.53
0.76
0.53
0.66
0.79 0.75
0.63
0.51
0.62
0.47 0.47
0.69
0.54
0.74 0.78 0.78
0.64
0.48
0.58
0.47
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
2013
2015
Tshwane dimension means: 2013, 2015
Quality of Life index
Means (out of 10): 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Marginalisation index
2.40 2.23 2.32
2.48
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
2009 2011 2013 2015
0.25 0.19
0.06
0.29
0.57
0.28
0.11
0.32
0.25 0.17
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
2009
2011
2013
2015
Dimension means: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Marginalisation index
Means by municipality (out of 10)
Marginalisation index
2.19
2.37
2.38
2.41
2.43
2.43
2.58
2.60
2.66
2.75
0 1 2 3 4
Mogale City
Midvaal
Randfontein
Tshwane
Lesedi
Johannesburg
Emfuleni
Ekurhuleni
Merafong
Westonaria
Gauteng mean = 2.48
Categories: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015
Marginalisation index
18
19
13
10
67
70
76
77
9
7
7
8
6
4
4
5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2009
2011
2013
2015
Fine
OK
At risk
Marginalised
Conclusions
C.Culwick
Key points
Conclusions
• In general high and stable levels of satisfaction with services
• High satisfaction with basic services, health and education. However, significantly lower satisfaction with government initiatives to grow the economy
• As with previous surveys, high levels of service satisfaction do not translate into high levels of satisfaction with government, prompting the question ‘why?’
• Slightly lower levels of satisfaction with national, provincial and local government in 2015. But also big drop in levels of dissatisfaction …. Implies higher levels of ‘uncertainty’ (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied)
• Big gains in local government satisfaction over the period of the survey. National government clearly knocked by national political events. Provincial government relatively stable
• Differentiated picture across municipalities
• Notable gains in local government satisfaction in Ekurhuleni, Mogale City, Westonaria
• Notable declines in Tshwane, Emfuleni, Merafong
• Lower levels of satisfaction with local government impact on intention to vote (-) and tendency to protest (+)
Key points
Conclusions
• Some factors, contrary to expectations (and / or some previous survey results), do not drive dissatisfaction:
• Racial identity (whites are more satisfied with local government than Africans; whites are less satisfied with national government than Africans)
• Perceptions of corruption
• Participation (or not) in forums
• Other factors have a big impact in driving dissatisfaction:
• Dwelling type
• Perception of how treated in recent interactions with government on the front line
• Satisfaction with councilor
• Perception that crime is worsening
• Perception of government efforts to grow the economy, and own economic status
• Reflecting national economic data, the 2015 survey shows the poor health of the economy – low rates of entrepreneurship and almost half of those who have tried to start a business have seen their business fail
• On the plus side, there is evidence that attempts by government to expand business support and labour market intermediation programmes are having an impact
Key points
Conclusions
• While the social fabric remains frayed, some softening of attitudes. However, clear indication that instances of racism widely publicised in media / social media negatively impact attitudes
• Worrying results from some questions, e.g. ‘country going in the wrong direction’ and ‘bring back influx control’
• Slight drops in overall life satisfaction
• Slight increase in quality of life index (+)
• Slight increase in marginalisation index (-)
• On the plus side we see continued improvements in infrastructure, housing and connectivity
• On the downside we see negative trends in:
• Work
• Crime / safety
• Participation
• A mixed picture across municipalities. In general, improvement in QoL and marginalisation indexes mirror increasing government satisfaction, for example in Ekurhuleni, Mogale City, Midvaal and Westonaria. Similarly, declines in the indexes match reduced satisfaction with government in Tshwane, Merafong and Lesedi.
GCRO +27 11 717 7280 [email protected]
ADDRESS 4th Floor University Corner 11 Jorissen Street (Cnr Jorissen and Jan Smuts) Braamfontein Johannesburg Gauteng South Africa
POSTAL ADDRESS GCRO Private Bag 3 Wits 2050
Thank You
