stakeholders at beneficiary community level. Ituses data primarily from theCASE/.ILO database in order to get as locala perspective as possible. The role of locallevel
institutions is discussed briefly, but the primary interest is how a memberof a targeted beneficiary community gets to participate in a publicworks programme.
6.3.3 Profiles of the Local Level Stakeholders?
Beneficiarycommunitiesinthe CBPWP projectsvaried enormously in terms of: size and population; urban or rural location; race group; and community needs and priorities.
Besides this variance between beneficiary communities there is also extreme variation within a community. Itis obvious that not everysingle member of a community participates in a development projectof this nature. Participation is voluntary and
depends on the time available to a member of the community. whether a particularperson is employed or not, to some extent on the age and sex of that person and of course on what they stand to gain from participating. Ifone looksat opportunities for particular kinds of participationa picture emerges as follows:
As a memberof a CBPWP target or beneficiary community one has the opportunity of participatingin a project in the following roles:
1. Purelyasa member of the beneficiary community (who either directlyor
indirectly benefits fromthe projectthrough the buildingofthe infrastructure. or is affectedby the development e.g.a stormwater drain being built across hislher property).
ii, Asa committee member elected by the community to representtheir interests on the project
iii. As a workerwho gains employment (albeit)temporary on the project.
IV. As a sub-contractor who gets training in being a sub contractoraspart of the project (e.g.someone who is trained to build bricks and sell them to the project and in the processtrained in running a business)
v. As a memberof an institutionwhich standstobenefit or is directly involved in the project (e.g. a Councilor or local government official; a memberor employee of a CBO; a member of a schoolcommittee for a schoolimprovement project)
(i) Target! Beneficiary Communities:
There are a number of differentmethods employed by public works throughout the world to target specific communities and specificgroups within communities. The most common ofthese is "self targeting" and can be achievedthrough a numberof means the most commonof which are: offeringlowwages so that onlythe very poorwill accept them; and offeringfood for work insteadof wage schemes. Self-targeting can be quite effectivein reaching the poorestofthe poor but it has its drawbacks. Self- targetingcan, for example. falsely representthe successof a project. The workers are generally no better off after the PWP ends "Theirstatus - having a full stomachwhile working but being no better after the PWP ends" (Everatt, 1997). The project lookslike a success.
having attracted the poorestof the poor. however. this mayjust be an indication ofjust how starving and destitutethe poor are.
De Bemis (1986. p 32) statesthat "Basic Needs representthe first phase of each social group.the emergency situation, which when remediedby the group leadsthem to effective participation in the social dynamics of development"
Self-targeting also does not address the inclusion of womenand youth, for example.in the benefits ofthe project. Except that where womenare very badly off theywilltend to accept a lower wage than men. Thisdoes not reallyassist them atall.and can lead to a simple doubling of their workload at no real benefitto them. Everatt, 1997in
"Targetting ofPublic Works Programmes",quotesthe case of a Community Road BuildingProject in Botswana which "adopted self targeting and as a result, successfully enrolled more womenthan men Were these womenbetter ott: after working a day of hard physicallabour,when they were paid wages that were below subsistence levels, let alone market levels and where the unpaidlabour of womenwas not accounted for?"
The CBPWP employed far more sophisticated methods of targeting. "South African experience of publicworks programmes suggest that a host of community based mechanisms for settingand achieving targets exist - these may differ from village to villagebut are far moreeffective than refusing to pay a money wage in orderto attract only the most impoverished" (Everatt, 1997). There was someevidence of women acceptingjobs that the men wouldnot because of low pay, however, moreparticularly in urban areas such as Khayalitsha where marketwages are slightly higherthan those in rural agricultural areas.
The CBPWP used structured targeting methods to target both particular types of communities and individuals within communities. Its target groupcan be described as
"the poorestof the poor". First the broad community targetingwasachieved by examining SA censusdata to identityprovinces and areas within provinces wherethe greatest poverty existed. Funds were allocated across provinces on this basis. Itis not the brief of this dissertation to go too deeplyinto broadertargetingmechanisms,
however,we will take a look at more localleveltargetingmechanisms in the experience of projects. These includedthe settingof targets for womenand youthas workers and committee members. The CBPWP Project Management System provided onlybroad guidelines to achievethis. Most targeting happened at locallevelwith varying levels of success.
Members of beneficiary communities:
The CASE/ILO database contains the responses of 1766workers and non-workers on projects. Fromthe basic socio-economic data it is possible to develop a fairly accurate profileofthe averagecommunity that the CBPWP targeted.
Ofthe sample interviewed, most(91%)were black,mostlived in informal settlements or housinginrural areas, most had onlyprimary school education (with 11%havingmatric and 19%havinghad no formal education atall. Most respondents lived in houses(22%
but a high percentage (16%) lived in traditionalhuts. 20% lived in shacks or in parts of other people's homes. 51% of households had between4 and 8 members and 21%,9 or more. Ofthe sample 48% said they were unemployed before the projectbegan,with approximately 10%working full time away from home and 10% employed full time in the community. Of the other 30%, mostwere engagedin parttime agricultural work in the area and a small percentage(5%) survivedon disability pensions, retirement pensions or were students.
34% of this grouphad a monthly household income of betweenR 500 and R 999; 33%
between R200 and R499; 14% between 1000 and 1999; 8%over R2000; 9%
between R 1 - R199; and 3% had no regular income.
89% ofpeopleinterviewedhadlived in the community for morethan5 years,with 44%
having lived there all their lives. Onlya small percentageof workers(1%)had come from other communities to work on the project
Perhaps a good indicatorof povertyis how often peopleactually go hungry. According to the sample 25% said that members of their households went hungryoften and 46%
said sometimes. Only30% said that household members seldomor never went hungry.
The following tables show: the type of power supplycommunities used in cooking, lighting and heating; and the sources of water in these communities.
Power sources: CBPWP communities
Sources of Water, CBPWP communities
m
cooking• lighting
o
heatingborehole 7%
tap in home 12%
standpipe in garden
21%
tanker 5%
Tap in neighbour
hood 23%
Table II(a): Power Supplyin CBPWP communities.
Community Organisation Membership: CBPWP communities
Table 11 (b): Sources of waterin CBPWP communities
Do
.cf35
CD 30
.cE 25
CD 20
E 15
&
10&U
1) 5
e
0CDDo tU0;:: CDCD
::J -~
.0 Z. CD . - ...:CDeE
~ ·0 Ui E
~ 0 0
o en 0
Ci.5
s:
e
s:::J
o
en a.
c a. ::J
CD::J
e
EeC)~ C)
:§
o>-
Table 11(c): Membership of community organizations:
In addition,only 1% of participants belonged to a trade union. People with matric were more likelytobe trade union members than those without.
Itwas not possibletodo a skills audit of participants but they were asked what skills were needed in the community to get jobs. Most responded that technical skills such as
bricklaying and plumbing were needed,followed by agricultural skills,administrative skills and financial skills.
Insummary, communities that were reached by the CBPWP are mostly black; are generally poor, have high unemployment;low education;a low skills base; large
household sizes;live mostly in informal housing; have a very low level of infrastructure and services (only 12% have running waterintheir homes and only 30% have accessto some electricity);have a low level of community organisation and many ofthem often go hungry.
Photograph 3: Thembalethu,A typical CBPWP beneficiary community
Under the section on workers (iii),we will discuss targeting of specific groups within these communities,i.e.women and youth.
Participants who did not get elected as committee members or chosen as workers
participated mainly in the selection of projects, and to some extent were kept informed of project progress through report back meetings with the project committee.
(ii) Project Committees:
Aprofile of this groupwasdeveloped using the CASE/ILO survey which interviewed 74 committee members across 50 different CBPWP projects.
Appointment of project committees:
All respondents said that the committee was appointed by the community at a community meeting. 87% of these mentioned the fact that elections were held.
Age Group
Most committee members (56%) were between 40 and 60 years ofage. 32% were between 25 and 40. 10% were over 60 years old and only 1% were under the age of24.