Rapid Appraisal of the Health Content of Selected Municipal Integrated Development Plans

The study looked at the first generation of IDPs which were to be completed in March 2002. The first round of IDP Reviews were due for completion in June 2003. This report provides a background to the study, a summary of the results, a brief discussion of the findings, followed by conclusions and recommendations.

Appendices, with six tables containing the detailed findings, follow. The latter are provided as a baseline for any subsequent review process, but are not essential reading.

The IDP documents were the primary source of information. Information was also gathered from reports and publications from government departments and health development agencies. A small number of key informants were interviewed.

Predictably, budgeted amounts for health-related development projects as a percentage of the total IDP budget varied considerably (from 47% to below 1%) in eight sites which provided suitable information. This could be a reflection of the varying importance assigned to health issues by the municipality, but could also reflect historic need or other more pressing needs in the municipal area.

Lack of information precluded a reliable assessment of the health officials participation in the IDP processes. Generally indications point towards inadequate participation, although many IDPs nevertheless appeared to have good health information.

The nature of health projects undertaken by different municipalities varied greatly. Categorisation into infrastructural, curative and preventative type projects suggests that most projects fall into the first two categories. HIV/AIDS related projects, the main component of the third category, were given high priority, presumably as a result of corresponding emphasis in the DPLG (Department of Provincial and Local Government) IDP guidelines, but these projects are frequently presented in isolation and do not link holistically with other health activities.

Note was taken of IDPs reflecting instances of good practice on the ground, such as meaningful community participation, vertical and horizontal coordination and alignment, good information exchange, effective communication channels and logical flow in the identification of projects.

An output of the Local Government and Health Consortium, funded by Health Systems Trust and comprising Health Systems Trust, Centre for Health Policy and Health Economics Unit.