Impact Evaluation of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme 2010
South Africa, 2010
Get MicrodataCreated on
Jul 31, 2012
Last modified
Nov 14, 2013
Page views
1025431
Downloads
815706
Identification
Survey ID number
zaf-2010-uisp-2010-v1
Title
Impact Evaluation of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme 2010
Country
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| South Africa | ZAF |
Study type
Other Household Survey [hh/oth]
Abstract
In 2004, the South African National Department of Human Settlements (NDOHS) launched an Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme with the goal of improving living conditions in informal settlements in the country.
With technical assistance from the World Bank, NDOHS conducted a series of impact evaluations to assess the effects of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP) interventions in Free State, Limpopo and Gauteng Provinces. The research was designed to reliably identify causal links between the rollout of UISP and the outcomes of interest driven by policy prescriptions (as well as broader concerns) for the programme.
The study areas chosen allow for four comparisons. In Limpopo, the design allows for estimating the impact of relocating households from an informal settlement with no services (Eastern Disteneng), to a formalized greenfield site with comprehensive services and community facilities (Extension 44/76). Household level survey data was collected from a sample of 432 households in Extension 44/76 (treatment group) and 726 households in Disteneng (control group).
In Free State, the relative impact of being provided with a fully serviced stand (Bloemside) to being provided with a partially serviced subsidized house on the site of the original informal dwelling (Grasslands) are compared. By exploiting the phased approach to the study, estimates can also be made for the long-term impact of being provided with a subsidized home, by comparing the situation of Grasslands II residents who have been living in their upgraded homes for three or four years to the neighbouring Grasslands III residents who have had their subsidized homes for one to two years. Researchers surveyed 1,014 households: 370 households from Grasslands II, 289 from Grasslands III and 355 from Bloemside.
In Gauteng, the impact of fully upgrading an area compared to a partial upgrade (less than 50% households receiving housing and electricity) can be estimated. The study exploits the phased roll out of Extension upgrades to compare the extensively upgraded area of Extension 1 (398 household surveyed) with the partially upgraded areas of Extensions 2 and 3 where 905 households were surveyed.
With technical assistance from the World Bank, NDOHS conducted a series of impact evaluations to assess the effects of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP) interventions in Free State, Limpopo and Gauteng Provinces. The research was designed to reliably identify causal links between the rollout of UISP and the outcomes of interest driven by policy prescriptions (as well as broader concerns) for the programme.
The study areas chosen allow for four comparisons. In Limpopo, the design allows for estimating the impact of relocating households from an informal settlement with no services (Eastern Disteneng), to a formalized greenfield site with comprehensive services and community facilities (Extension 44/76). Household level survey data was collected from a sample of 432 households in Extension 44/76 (treatment group) and 726 households in Disteneng (control group).
In Free State, the relative impact of being provided with a fully serviced stand (Bloemside) to being provided with a partially serviced subsidized house on the site of the original informal dwelling (Grasslands) are compared. By exploiting the phased approach to the study, estimates can also be made for the long-term impact of being provided with a subsidized home, by comparing the situation of Grasslands II residents who have been living in their upgraded homes for three or four years to the neighbouring Grasslands III residents who have had their subsidized homes for one to two years. Researchers surveyed 1,014 households: 370 households from Grasslands II, 289 from Grasslands III and 355 from Bloemside.
In Gauteng, the impact of fully upgrading an area compared to a partial upgrade (less than 50% households receiving housing and electricity) can be estimated. The study exploits the phased roll out of Extension upgrades to compare the extensively upgraded area of Extension 1 (398 household surveyed) with the partially upgraded areas of Extensions 2 and 3 where 905 households were surveyed.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
Units of analysis in the survey are households and individuals.
Version
Version Description
v1: Edited, anonymised dataset for public distribution
Scope
Notes
The survey collected household demographic data as well as data on the following: Education, economic activity, health, financial data (borrowing, credit and savings), microenterprises, crime and violence, housing and tenure, infrastructure and service delivery, social capital and community participation, satisfaction with municipal services, neighbourhood and local officials, and living conditions.
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
Limpopo, Free State and Gauteng provinces.
Geographic Unit
The data is at Provincial level and also at the level of the areas being upgraded.
Universe
The survey covered households in the Disteneng and Greenside informal settlements (Disteneng) on the outskirts of Polokwane which were relocated to the nearby greenfield sites of P)Polokwane Extension 44 and 76 (Ext. 44/76) in 2006. Also covered were households in the Grasslands settlement on the outskirts of Bloemfontein in the Free State, where a phased rollout of in situ RDP housing upgrades was conducted. Households in the Chris Hani Settlement in Daveyton, Gauteng were also surveyed, where an upgrading programme was taking place at the time of the survey.
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Sebastian Martinez | Inter-American Development Bank |
| Arianna Legovini | World Bank |
| Nandini Krishnan | World Bank |
| Aidan Coville | World Bank |
Producers
| Name |
|---|
| Mulalo Muthige |
Funding Agency/Sponsor
| Name |
|---|
| Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund, World Bank |
Sampling
Sampling Procedure
Since the intention of this pilot impact evaluation was not to conduct a nationally representative study, the sampling strategy aimed at maximizing the internal validity of the study by ensuring that the control and treatment groups were comparable, where external validity was a secondary consideration. As such, the representivity of the results when scaling up to the provincial or national level needs to be done with care.
Detailed information about sampling methodology is available in "Measuring Success in Human Settlements Development" report (p.31-36) in external resources.
Detailed information about sampling methodology is available in "Measuring Success in Human Settlements Development" report (p.31-36) in external resources.
Survey instrument
Questionnaires
The household questionnaire consisted of 14 modules and required approximately two hours to complete. Modules included:
1. Household roster Demographics of household members.
2. Education Literacy rates; school enrolment and attendance; pass rates
3. Economic activity Income generating (and other) activities of each member and the household; expenditure and assets.
4. Health Incidence and severity of disease and injury of each member, with a focus on diarrhoea and respiratory illnesses.
5. Borrowing, credit and savings Borrowing, credit and savings patterns; whether houses are being leveraged for credit and savings are being used to improve housing structures.
6. Microenterprise Type of microenterprise, whether they use their home to run the business and profits made.
7. Crime and violence Incidence and level of crime; perceptions of safety and security
8. Housing and tenure Rental and ownership agreements; migration patterns and level
of investment in housing improvements.
9. Infrastructure and service delivery Quality and accessibility of service delivery and infrastructure
10. Social capital and community participation; Reliance on neighbours and involvement in community-related activities.
11. Satisfaction Level of satisfaction with municipal services, the neighbourhood and local officials.
12. “Baseline” information on the living conditions of household members in the past (5 years previously) with respect to housing,income, schooling, safety and family structure.
13. Recontact information Contact information for close relatives/friends for tracking purposes.
14. Enumerator observations The physical conditions of the household’s living conditions based on direct observation.
1. Household roster Demographics of household members.
2. Education Literacy rates; school enrolment and attendance; pass rates
3. Economic activity Income generating (and other) activities of each member and the household; expenditure and assets.
4. Health Incidence and severity of disease and injury of each member, with a focus on diarrhoea and respiratory illnesses.
5. Borrowing, credit and savings Borrowing, credit and savings patterns; whether houses are being leveraged for credit and savings are being used to improve housing structures.
6. Microenterprise Type of microenterprise, whether they use their home to run the business and profits made.
7. Crime and violence Incidence and level of crime; perceptions of safety and security
8. Housing and tenure Rental and ownership agreements; migration patterns and level
of investment in housing improvements.
9. Infrastructure and service delivery Quality and accessibility of service delivery and infrastructure
10. Social capital and community participation; Reliance on neighbours and involvement in community-related activities.
11. Satisfaction Level of satisfaction with municipal services, the neighbourhood and local officials.
12. “Baseline” information on the living conditions of household members in the past (5 years previously) with respect to housing,income, schooling, safety and family structure.
13. Recontact information Contact information for close relatives/friends for tracking purposes.
14. Enumerator observations The physical conditions of the household’s living conditions based on direct observation.
Data collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2010-03 | 2010-06 |
Data Collectors
| Name |
|---|
| Vari Consulting |
Supervision
To ensure accuracy of the data collected, a rigorous quality check and supervision regime was implemented which included the following activities:
- Field visits were conducted by NDOHS and World Bank officials on a weekly basis to ensure field procedures were being followed and data were being collected in a professional and consistent manner;
- Call backs were conducted on a random set of households to independently verify that the information that was collected was correct and accurate;
- Manual quality checks of questionnaires were conducted by field supervisors, project managers, NDOHS and World Bank staff to assess the quality of questionnaires and conduct call backs/follow ups where necessary;
- A rigorous supervision structure was implemented. Field supervisors were in charge of 4-5 field workers, with a provincial coordinator overseeing the field supervisors;
- A sample of 10% captured questionnaires was double-checked for accuracy of the data capturing process.
While a number of challenges were experienced in the field which resulted in non-responses and quality concerns, all of these stringent measures were put in place to ensure the reliability and validity of collected data which supports and improves the confidence of the results that come from these data.
- Field visits were conducted by NDOHS and World Bank officials on a weekly basis to ensure field procedures were being followed and data were being collected in a professional and consistent manner;
- Call backs were conducted on a random set of households to independently verify that the information that was collected was correct and accurate;
- Manual quality checks of questionnaires were conducted by field supervisors, project managers, NDOHS and World Bank staff to assess the quality of questionnaires and conduct call backs/follow ups where necessary;
- A rigorous supervision structure was implemented. Field supervisors were in charge of 4-5 field workers, with a provincial coordinator overseeing the field supervisors;
- A sample of 10% captured questionnaires was double-checked for accuracy of the data capturing process.
While a number of challenges were experienced in the field which resulted in non-responses and quality concerns, all of these stringent measures were put in place to ensure the reliability and validity of collected data which supports and improves the confidence of the results that come from these data.
access_policy
Access conditions
Public use files available from an external repository
Citation requirements
Sebastian Martinez, Inter-American Development Bank; Arianna Legovini, World Bank; Nandini Krishnan, World Bank; Aidan Coville, World Bank. South Africa - Impact Evaluation of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP)2010 [dataset]. Version 1. Washington: World Bank [producer and distributor], 2010.
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Contacts
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| Aidan Coville | World Bank | acoville@worldbank.org |
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
ddi-zaf-uisp-2010-v1.1
Producers
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Development Data Group | World Bank | Metadata producer |
Date of Metadata Production
2012-07-27
Metadata version
DDI Document version
v1.1