PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION CONSOLIDATED M&E REPORT ON OFFICES OF THE PREMIER- 2010/11 EVALUATION CYCLE 22 August 2012

STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION Background and purpose Relative performance of the departments Overall trend in performance between 1st and 2nd assessment Performance per principle – highest three and lowest two Conclusion

BACKGROUND The aim of the consolidated report on the Offices of the Premier was to: Provide an overview of the nine Offices’ performance against the Constitutional values and principles listed in section 195 of the Constitution Assess the progress that the Offices have made since their last evaluation by the PSC Compare performance between the different Offices; and Establish progress with the challenges encountered and how these challenges are being addressed Professional ethics Efficiency, economy and effectiveness Development orientation Impartiality and fairness Public participation in policy making Accountability Transparency Good HR practices Representivity

BACKGROUND (cont.) All nine Offices of the Premier were evaluated in the 2010/11 cycle and the performance of four Offices was compared to previous assessments. The methodology applied by the M&E System involves assessing the actual performance of a department against a set of indicators and standards. Evidence about the actual state of practice for the nine constitutional values and principles listed in section 195 of the Constitution is obtained by collecting and assessing policy and other documents, conducting interviews and assessing qualitative and quantitative data. Based on the assessment, a score is awarded to the department per principle and an average score calculated.

BACKGROUND (cont.) The following rating scale, consisting of five performance bands, is applied to assess the relative performance of the departments: This presentation focuses on the top and lowest scoring principles. Performance band Score description Score % 5 Excellent performance 4,25 – 5,00 81% - 100% 4 Good performance 3,25 – 4,00 61% - 80% 3 Adequate performance 2,25 – 3,00 41% - 60% 2 Poor performance 1,25 – 2,00 21% - 40% 1 No performance 0,25 - 1,00 0% - 20%

BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE FUNCTIONS OF A PREMIER’S OFFICE As the executive authority, the Premier together with the Executive Council, must initiate and implement provincial policy, ensure alignment with national policy, and ensure integration across the different spheres of government. The Office, therefore, is regarded as the political nerve centre of the provincial government and plays a central role in managing the implementation of the electoral mandate. The Office furthermore supports the Premier with administrative management, providing strategic leadership and central coordination, and providing policy briefings/advice to the Premier and the Executive Council.

TREND IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN 1ST AND 2ND ASSESSMENT The average performance of the four Offices that were re-assessed improved from 59% (adequate) to 68% (good performance).

TREND IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN 1ST AND 2ND ASSESSMENT (cont.) Three of the four re-assessed Offices have improved their performance by between 10% and 42%. The WC Office recorded the best improvement (from 40% to 82%) The Limpopo Office recorded a drop in performance (from 89% to 54%). The main reason for the drop in performance was as a result of the fact that the Office failed to provide the necessary documentation for the assessment of Principle 4 (impartiality and fairness). The PSC’s System has consistently shown an upwards trend in performance from one cycle to the next.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The improvement and/or decline in performance can be linked to the implementation/non-implementation of the PSC’s recommendations. Offices whose performance has increased notably in the 2nd assessment, are also the Offices who have implemented most of the PSC’s recommendations from the 1st assessment. The highest number of recommendations were made against principles 6 and 8 (accountability and good HR practices).

OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST EACH PRINCIPLE

OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST EACH PRINCIPLE The performance against five of the nine principles, although below the average of 61%, was still within the adequate performance band. Departments scored the highest against the principles of professional ethics (69%), accountability (76%) and transparency (71%). Departments scored the lowest against the principles of fairness (51%) and representivity (49%). Some pertinent issues about these 5 principles are highlighted in the next slides.

Performance Indicator PROFESSIONAL ETHICS Value: A high standard of professional ethics must be promoted and maintained. Performance Indicator Standards Cases of misconduct where a disciplinary hearing has been conducted, comply with the provisions of the Disciplinary Code and Procedures A procedure is in place for reporting, recording and managing cases of misconduct. All managers surveyed have a working knowledge of the system and are capable to deal with cases of misconduct. Management reporting is done on cases of misconduct and acted upon. All of the most recent cases of misconduct in which a disciplinary hearing is conducted are finalised within the time frame of 20 – 80 working days. Frequent training is provided on the handling of cases of misconduct.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (cont.) The average performance for the nine Offices is 69% (Good performance) The average performance against the six standards: Knowledge of misconduct procedures, capacity to handle misconduct cases and training on how to deal with misconduct cases was generally good (61% to 80%) Time taken to resolve misconduct cases was adequate (53%) There was a low number of highly competent middle and senior managers to deal with misconduct in Limpopo and Mpumalanga. Number and competency level of Officials  Still gaining experience – Less than 1 year experience Adequate – More than 1 year but less than 3 years experience Highly competent – 3 years and more experience 143 135 394

Performance Indicator ACCOUNTABILITY Value: Public administration must be accountable. Performance Indicator Standards Adequate internal financial controls & performance management are exerted over all departmental programmes. FPPs, based on risk assessments, are in place & implemented. Internal financial controls are adequate and effective. A performance management system on all programmes is in operation. FPPs are based on a thorough risk assessment. FPPs are in place, comprehensive, appropriate, & implemented. Key staff for investigating of fraud are operational.

ACCOUNTABILITY (cont.) The average performance for the nine Offices is 76% (Good performance). Two of the nine Offices achieved a score of between 85% (WC) to 100% (Gauteng), signifying excellent performance. All Offices had FPPs, based on risk analyses. Two of the Offices received a qualified audit opinion (FS and Limp). The score for implementation of fraud prevention plans was very low (37%). The capacity to investigate fraud was insufficient, or at best, uneven between the offices assessed. It was found that there is superficial compliance with requirements, like the requirement for risk assessment and fraud prevention plans, but these assessments and plans do not fundamentally change the management and operational processes, or even the culture, of the Office.

Performance Indicator TRANSPARENCY Value: Transparency must be fostered by providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information. Performance Indicator Standards Departmental Annual Report (AR) The departmental AR/ complies with NT’s guideline on annual reporting.  The AR is attractive , clearly presented & well written in simple accessible language. The content of the AR covers at least 90% of the areas prescribed by NT & the DPSA. The AR clearly report on performance against predetermined outputs in at least 66% of the programmes listed. Access to Information The Department complies with the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). At least one deputy information officer with duly delegated authority exists. A manual that complies with the requirements of the PAIA is in place. Systems for managing requests for access to information are in place.

Performance reporting TRANSPARENCY (cont.) The average performance for the nine Offices is 71% (Good performance) Two areas were identified as deficiencies in most of the Offices. Annual reports did not cover in sufficient detail at least 90% of the areas prescribed by National Treasury and the DPSA. Only five (56%) of the Offices’ Manual on Access to Information complied with more than 78% of the 14 requirements set in section 14 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 Offices’ average compliance against the specific standards Departmental AR Access to Information Presentation Content Performance reporting Appointed DIO Manual on Access System 100% 34% 67% 56% 78%

IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS Value: Services must be provided impartially, fairly, equitably and without bias. Performance Indicator Standards There is evidence that the Department follows the prescribed procedures of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) when making administrative decisions. All decisions are taken in accordance with prescribed legislation/policies and in terms of delegated authority. All decisions are justified and fair considering the evidence submitted in this regard. The procedures required in the PAJA in communicating administrative decisions are duly followed.

IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS(cont.) The average performance for the nine Offices is 51% (Adequate) The main reason for the poor performance is that 4 out of 9 Offices did not submit information for assessment against this principle. The average performance of the other 5 Offices was excellent (91%), which means that all their decisions were taken in terms of legislation and by duly delegated officials, were fair, and complied with the requirements of PAJA. Offices’ average scores against the specific standards: Standards Decisions are in terms of legislation/policy Decisions are in terms of delegations Decisions are just and fair Communicating administrative decisions % Average for nine Offices 45% 46% 56% % Average for five Offices 80% 83% 100%

Performance Indicator REPRESENTIVITY Value: Public administration must be broadly representative of SA people, with employment and personnel management practices based on ability objectivity fairness and the need to redress the imbalances of the past to achieve broad representation. Performance Indicator Standards The Department is representative of the South African people and is implementing diversity manage-ment measures. Employment Equity policies & plans are in place and reported upon. All representivity targets are met. Diversity management measures are implemented.

REPRESENTIVITY (cont.) The average performance for the nine Offices is 49% (Adequate) The main reason for this performance was: The general lack of management feedback on progress reports on representivity, which hampered the Offices in reaching national representivity targets. None of the nine Offices was unable to reach the 50% target for women at all senior management levels by 31 March 2009 Only 2 Offices complied with the 2% target for people with disability by 31/03/10. Existence of an EE Achievement of representivity targets Management reporting on representivity Diversity manage-ment Policy Plan Done Response 34% 78% 31% 88% 22% 72%

CONCLUSION The picture that emerged is: The Offices complied with basic procedures but could not translate compliance into excellence. To reach excellence will require focussed attention to achieve the intended outcome of administrative policies. Encouraging is that four of the five Offices that were re-assessed improved their performance by more than 10%. The challenges facing Offices of the Premier are: The institutionalisation of systems Installing a performance culture. The capacity and will of all staff members to implement the policies and systems in a meaningful way

THANK YOU!