Making use of citizen-based monitoring approach to improve service delivery by municipalities

The most prominent of these are the “service delivery protests,” where citizens take to the streets to demand improvements in basic services like housing, water, sanitation, electricity, and refuse collection. These protests, although intended to highlight critical issues, also underscore a deeper and more systemic problem within South Africa’s local government structures: the failure to adequately communicate with and serve the needs of citizens. As a result, municipalities have become the focal point of mounting tension between citizens and the state, with political unrest and public dissatisfaction high.

This failure to respond effectively to public grievances is symptomatic of larger governance issues within municipalities, which include poor management, corruption, and a lack of accountability. According to the Public Service Commission, these issues have not only fuelled public outrage but have also eroded trust between local government and residents. Despite the robust legislative framework designed to improve transparency, participation, and accountability, such as the Constitution of South Africa of 1996, Municipal Systems Act of 2003 and Municipal Finance Management Act of 2003, the fundamental problem remains: the services that municipalities are mandated to provide are not reaching those who need them the most. This has prompted widespread calls for more direct citizen engagement, which could bridge the divide between government structures and the communities they serve.

At the heart of this issue lies the question: how can municipalities ensure that public service delivery meets the needs of citizens and regains their trust? One potential solution is Citizen-Based Monitoring (CBM), a participatory approach that actively involves local residents in the assessment, feedback, and monitoring of services provided by the municipality. CBM refers to the systematic collection and use of data by ordinary citizens to evaluate the performance of public service delivery, using tools such as scorecards, audits, community surveys, and feedback forums. These processes are designed to generate real-time, context-specific insights from communities about how public service delivery is being experienced on the ground. CBM is a powerful tool that not only facilitates accountability but also strengthens governance by directly engaging citizens in the decision-making processes that affect their daily lives.

What does citizen-based monitoring look like?

CBM, in practice, is far from a theoretical concept—it takes the shape of dynamic, grassroots-driven interventions that empower communities to assess, report on, and influence service delivery in real time. One of the most compelling examples is the Community Monitoring and Advocacy Programme (CMAP) led by Black Sash in collaboration with over 300 grassroots organisations. In this model, community members—trained but not necessarily professionally credentialed—used simple tools to monitor services at (South African Social Security Agency) SASSA pay points, clinics, and municipal offices. The success of CMAP stemmed not only from its robust data collection but also from its strategy of constructive engagement with government. Instead of adversarial confrontation, CMAP built open lines of communication from site-level officials to the SASSA national office. The result was actionable feedback, civic education, and institutional response—all grounded in citizen voice.

In a more confrontational but equally impactful approach, the Social Justice Coalition (SJC) conducted a social audit of outsourced sanitation services in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. With the help of the International Budget Partnership and other partners, the SJC mobilised 60 volunteers to inspect contracts, facilities, and community experiences with chemical toilets. The audit revealed widespread violations—unsafe, unusable, and poorly managed services—that contradicted policy and contractual obligations. After overcoming legal hurdles to access public documents, the SJC hosted a public hearing that merged data and citizen testimony. This process turned evaluative work into public advocacy, holding government and private contractors to account while building civic power in one of the country’s most underserved areas.

A third case from Robertson and Cathcart in rural South Africa demonstrates how CBM can be a vital tool in remote, under-resourced communities. Community monitors assessed conditions at South African Post Office (SAPO) managed SASSA grant pay points, noting whether basics such as clean toilets, shelter, and places to seat were provided. Findings revealed gaps—long queues, missing facilities, and unsafe conditions—that directly affected vulnerable grant beneficiaries. Reports were sent to SASSA and SAPO, and in several instances, officials responded promptly to fix areas of concern by making additional chairs for seating available or improving queue systems, for instance. These interventions may seem small, but they embody the value of CBM: local evidence, gathered respectfully and systematically, triggering responsive governance even in hard-to-reach spaces.

Why CBM matters for local government?

CBM is critical in local governance because it strengthens accountability and transparency by positioning residents as active participants in service oversight. Traditional evaluation methods, such as internal audits or third-party reviews, often overlook local nuances and fail to capture the everyday experiences of service users. CBM, by contrast, empowers residents—those closest to service points like clinics, water delivery, and refuse collection—to generate context-specific feedback that reflects real-time realities. This grassroot input helps municipalities identify performance gaps while also fostering civic pride and ownership. The Municipal Systems Act (in chapter 4) explicitly recognises the value of such participatory mechanisms by mandating municipalities to develop a culture of community consultation and responsiveness, providing the legal framework that grounds CBM in practice.

The Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) and the National Development Plan (NDP) further reinforce the importance of CBM, highlighting that inclusive citizen feedback improves decision-making, curbs inefficiency, and reduces the risk of service delivery protests. Tools like community scorecards and service delivery report cards allow residents to evaluate municipal performance systematically, promoting transparency and enabling swift corrective action. However, these tools are only as effective as the willingness of municipal officials to engage with the feedback and act upon it. Institutionalising CBM within municipal planning and performance cycles—guided by both legislation and development policy—is thus essential for building trust and ensuring government responsiveness.

CBM in practice: persistent barriers to implementation

Despite its promise, CBM faces persistent challenges that limit its institutionalisation and impact within South African municipalities. One of the most entrenched barriers is the lack of political and institutional support for CBM. Some local governments exhibit a reluctance to embrace participatory mechanisms that may expose governance failures or diminish their control over service delivery processes. In these environments, citizen-generated data is often perceived as confrontational rather than constructive, which weakens its legitimacy and potential use in decision-making.

In addition, many municipalities operate under severe capacity constraints, both human and financial. Monitoring activities require well-trained facilitators, consistent data collection, and the means to process and communicate findings—all of which are difficult to sustain in under-resourced municipal contexts. The Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA) notes that many municipalities do not prioritise participatory governance in their budgeting, leading to underfunded CBM initiatives.

Another barrier is the absence of formal mechanisms for integrating citizen feedback into municipal planning and oversight. Without institutionalised pathways—such as inclusion in IDPs or Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plans (SDBIPs)—CBM findings often fail to influence service delivery or policy adjustments. This disconnect between monitoring and response undermines the credibility of CBM and discourages citizen participation.

Moreover, CBM efforts often lack legal authority or formal recognition, which limits the influence of citizen monitors. Reports submitted by communities are frequently treated as anecdotal rather than actionable, especially in the absence of clear accountability frameworks.

Finally, the risk of political interference looms large, particularly in politically contested municipalities. In such contexts, CBM may be co-opted for partisan purposes or dismissed outright by officials suspicious of civil society actors. This undermines the independence and integrity of citizen feedback mechanisms, threatening to erode public trust rather than strengthen it.

Key recommendations for implementing CBM

1. Integrate CBM into planning and oversight frameworks - Municipalities should formally embed CBM tools like community scorecards and social audits into IDPs, performance reports, and public accounts reviews. This aligns with the Municipal Systems Act which mandates participatory governance.
2. Legitimise citizen monitors with clear protocols - Municipalities must formalise CBM roles by issuing ID cards, defining ethical codes, and establishing escalation pathways—ensuring community-collected data is credible and institutionally accepted.
3. Institutionalise two-way feedback mechanisms - Set up regular feedback loops—such as ward forums or CBM dashboards—that ensure municipalities act on citizen input and publicly communicate changes, helping restore trust.
4. Support civil society and local monitors - Partner with trusted community organisations to deliver training, provide tools, and offer micro-grants—especially in rural and township areas—to strengthen CBM capacity at the grassroots level.
5. Create multi-stakeholder CBM oversight panels - Establish review panels with officials, councillors, NGOs, and community monitors to assess CBM findings and issue joint service improvement recommendations—promoting accountability and co-governance.
6. Ensure CBM is safeguarded from political capture - CBM processes must be shielded from political interference. Independent oversight bodies, like municipal ombudsmen or ethics committees, should supervise CBM integrity. Collaboration with non-partisan civil society organisations can also enhance impartiality. 

Conclusion: From listening to action

CBM is not a magic bullet. It requires political will, investment, and a shift in mindset—from seeing residents as complainers to valuing them as co-creators of public service. But when done right, CBM can be a game changer. In a country where local government is often the first point of contact between the state and the people, we cannot afford to ignore the voices of citizens. By embedding CBM into everyday governance, municipalities can respond to problems before they explode into protests, and more importantly, they can rebuild the public trust so essential to democratic life.

By Dr Lesedi Senamele Matlala, Lecturer at the School of Public Management, Governance, and Public Policy at the University of Johannesburg