MINISTRY: PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY
QUESTION NO.: 4173.
Ms A T Lovemore (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Service and
Administration:
(1) (a) For which (i) departments and/or (ii) municipalities were citizen
report cards compiled in the (aa) 2013-14, (bb) 2014-15 and (cc) 2015-
16 financial years and (b) on what basis were the specified selections
made;
(2) (a) what were the scores for each of the entities assessed in the
specified financial years, expressed as the (i) overall score and (ii)
score per assessed aspect for each assessed entity, (b)(i) what score
is considered acceptable for each aspect and (ii) why and (c) what are
the details of the action taken in the event of a score that indicates
unacceptable customer service?
NW5049E
REPLY
1) (a) (i) (aa)(bb) The Citizen Report Cards
(CRC) were compiled for the following:
⢠Department of Basic
Education;
⢠Department of Health:
⢠Department of Home
Affairs;
⢠South African Police
Service; and
⢠South African Social
Security Agency.
(ii) (aa)(bb) The Citizen Report Cards were compiled
for the following:
⢠Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality;
⢠Mookgopong Local Municipality;
⢠Okhahlamba Local Municipality;
⢠Matatiele Local Municipality;
⢠Emalahleni Local Municipality;
⢠Moretele Local Municipality;
⢠City of Mangaung (Botshabelo);
⢠City of Johannesburg (Diepsloot and
Alexandra); and
⢠City of Cape Town (Gugulethu and
Khayelitsha).
(cc) None. The Citizen Report Card survey was
conducted in the 2013-14 financial year and the
subsequent reports were finalised in the 2014-
15 financial year.
(b) The selection was based on the Medium Term Strategic Framework
(MTSF) priorities, which set out key focus areas of the
departments over the MTSF period. One municipality per province
was chosen to benefit from the survey and the selection of the
municipality in every province was based on the readiness of the
municipality to accommodate the study within the set timelines.
(2) (a) (i) The overall scores for each department and municipality
are shown herewith below on figure 1 and figure 2
respectively:
Figure 1: Overall Ranking of Departments
[pic]
Figure 2: Overall Ranking of Municipalities
[pic]
(2) (a) (ii) The scores are reflected on figure 3 and figure 4
herewith below. The departments were assessed on
Accessibility, Reliability, Quality of Service, Staff
Performance, Transparency and Openness and also Avenue for
Redress whilst the municipalities were assessed using the
Batho Pele principles. The satisfaction of citizens against
a range of municipal basic services was also assessed.
Figure 3: Ranking of Departments against service delivery attributes
[pic]
Figure 4: Performance of municipalities against Batho Pele principles
[pic]
(2) (b) (i) The benchmarks reflected in figure 1 and figure 2 above
were on the following:
⢠Minimum level of service expected and
⢠Ideal level of service required.
| |Minimum service |Ideal level of |
| |expected |service required |
|Departments |73.78% |87.78% |
|Municipalities |67.00% |89.40% |
(ii) The benchmarks indicated above are considered
acceptable as they were sourced from the citizens regarding
the level of service they expected and required from the
assessed government departments and municipalities..
(c) Action taken was the development of Service Delivery Improvement
Plans, which entail interventions to improve performance.