Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report: briefing by Public Service Commission

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
9 April 2003
CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY REPORT: BRIEFING BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Chairperson: Mr P J Gomomo (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Summary of the Citizen Satisfaction Survey
Presentation on Citizen Satisfaction Survey

SUMMARY
The Public Service Commission briefed the Committee on the results of the Citizen Satisfaction Survey. The survey was aimed at creating a clear and distinct representation of public expectations as well as actual service delivery. The Survey was conducted in four National Departments, namely, Departments of Education, Health, Housing and Social Development, chosen on the basis of the prioritised needs of the common citizen. Based on the results of this survey, recommendations on possible improvements in delivery were also put forward.

MINUTES
Acting Director General: Public Service Commission, Professor Richard Levin, presented the Committee with the results of the Citizen Satisfaction Survey. He noted that this was the first survey of its kind undertaken in South Africa. The survey was implemented to give effect to the basic principles and values of public administration as set out in Section 195 of the Constitution concerning effective and efficient service delivery to the citizens of South Africa. In realizing the task, the Public Service Commission (PSC) had accumulated a vast amount of information. The briefing would, however, only focus on the overall creation and results of the report. South Africa became only the third country globally to implement a national survey, the other countries being the United States of America and Sweden.

Professor Levin explained that the purpose of the study was in line with government policy and the Constitution regarding service delivery. The Citizen Satisfaction Survey was conducted in four National Departments, namely, Departments of Education, Health, Housing and Social Development and across the nine Provinces. The survey was formulated on sound methodological research methods and was aimed at creating a clear and distinct representation of public expectations as well as actual service delivery. An added feature was the surveying of internal Department components, that is, staff, management and so forth.

Based on the overall Citizen Satisfaction index score, the survey reveals that, generally, citizens felt that their expectations were largely met. Citizens also rated the quality of the service delivery highly. The study found a number of areas in which the Departments scored relatively low, that is, the perceived weaknesses in terms of service delivery. Based on the results of this survey, recommendations on possible improvements in delivery were also put forward. (Please see attached briefing).

Discussion
Mr M Waters (DP) asked what percentage figure indicated good or bad performance. Also, the comparison to other countries was quite ambiguous, as it did not refer to the type of conclusion created by the comparison. Was this a case of comparing 'apples with apples'?

Dr U Roopnarain (IFP) commented that the survey was an excellent measuring tool and showed that a direct lack of finance was causing the shortcomings. Perhaps the PSC could clarify the reason for the use of the 1-10 scale rating.

Mr M R Sikakane (ANC) noted that the survey had been done in the Provinces yet had been published as a national concern. Which provinces had been visited and were there any experiences the PSC wanted to relate? It was evident from other media sources that there was a definite factor of de-motivated staff. Was this because the staff members lacked patriotism, were remnants of the old regime or was there a deeper reason?

Ms C September (ANC) was interested in whether the Portfolio Committee had thought of using information from other state sources such as the Ministry of Finance' service delivery report. It would be interesting if the survey results could be compared to a developing country such as Brazil. The question that needed to be answered was 'where to from here'.

In his response to the above questions Professor Levin said that the comparison with the US and Sweden was not meant to be an 'apple with apple' comparison. It was intended to highlight the competency of the methodologies employed in the survey. The surveys in those countries covered more sectors and were of a higher sample content. Unfortunately, financial considerations limited the sample number in South Africa. The comparison therefore created a snap shot of the survey in general. The survey was done in conjunction with Statistics SA. Provincial samples were weighted before being utilized in the survey.

Professor Levin explained that the PSC uses different methods and mechanisms to gather information. Reports on seven sectors and three Provinces are due soon and these would be used as a qualifying comparison. A further comparison with other Departments and other countries would increase the amount and usage of the information. There is no data available for an 'apples with apples' comparison. The most feasible remedy would be to increase the sample size from each province. The present survey, however, must be followed up. Action should be taken against Departments that do not comply with the recommendations after an agreed time. This non-compliance is a material breach of government policy, the Constitution and the principles of Batho Pele.

Dr Bay (PSC) added that it was difficult to answer these questions conclusively, as reports based on the survey results are time consuming. An important source of information is the Peoples Forums. Complaints concerning the attitude of staff have induced the use of specialist teams to focus solely on this issue. A more provincial focused report would clarify this issue. It would, however, highlight uncomfortable issues that would complement improvements in problem awareness and finding solutions.

Members raised the following questions:
What results are available concerning housing contractors?
Are there any results directly related to follow up on complaints and are the Departments aware of this?
Was the PSC not able to furnish the Committee with an overview for its future plans?
With regard to the education survey, what was the composition of the externals surveyed?
Why was the reason for the focus on these four sectors?

In his response to the above questions, Professor Levin noted that on the issue of contractors, the jury is still out. There remains a divide between creating mechanisms and constructive fruits. This would require more time, as there were many challenges and obstacles to overcome. An example being the size and nature of contracts put forward by the Department of Public Works. These tenders were not limited to a specific geographical area and received responses from the entire country.

He explained that partnerships with the Peoples Forums had been created and an essential element of this was feedback sessions. The onus was on government to ensure that these feedback sessions had a telling effect.

The external sources surveyed in the Education component were learners as well as the parents. Internal sources focused on were those that were involved at ground level. These included teachers as well as retired teachers and principals. The sample used was small but covered the largest number of constructive inputs.

The four Departments, which constituted one cluster, were chosen based on the prioritised needs of the common citizen.

With regard to Dr Roopnarain's question concerning the use of the 1-10 scale method, Professor Levin said that this was done as the sample had been too small and too restrictive to include variations of 'happiness or unhappiness'. The survey therefore was only able to capture the extremes. The next round of methodologies employed would concentrate on including the variation rating.

The Chair thanked the PSC for their vigilance and commitment. Unfortunately there was a perception by the general public that politicians were not performing. In the next meeting between the PSC and the Committee, a clear indication should be given with regard to compliance by Departments. He then suggested that when the PSC met with the various Departments, a time frame should be included in the presentations. The PSC should emphasize the need to report results to the Committee. This would create a practical system of accountability between the various role-players.

The meeting was adjourned.