MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT The Presidency Department of Planning Monitoring and Evaluation MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL (MPAT) MPAT 2013 (1.3) RESULTS

Why assess management practices? Capable and developmental state is prerequisite to achieving NDP objectives Weak administration is a recurring theme and is leading to poor service delivery, e.g. Shortages of ARVs in some provinces Non-payment of suppliers within 30 days MPAT measures whether things are being done right or better Departments must also be assessed against the outcomes and their strategic and annual plans to determine if they are doing the right things MPAT focuses on processes related to converting inputs into outputs. It does not focus on assessing whether the right outputs are been produced to achieved desired outcomes and impacts. There is a possibility that departments could be doing the wrong things very efficiently. In viewing the overall performance of a department it is therefore also important to consider the achievement of outcomes and impacts . DPME is doing this through monitoring of the 12 priority outcomes and related delivery agreements. Departments’ performance against targets for outcome and impact indicators in their strategic plans and APPs, as reported in their annual reports, should also be used to assess this.

Background DPME, together with the Offices of the Premier and transversal policy departments have since 2011 been assessing the quality of management practices Noted improvements are evident from the 2012 results across most departments - In some areas of management however there has not been significant improvement DPME has documented good practices since 2011 to assist departments to improve their management practices These assessments are done in collaboration with OtP and policy departments DPSA, NT and DoJ 2013 results allow us to compare progress since 2012 DPME have contracted the wits university school of governance we have since 2011 completed over 30 case studies included in appendix 7 of the report

The Concept of MPAT

The assessment process Self-assessment and validation External moderation and feedback Improve and monitor Senior management agreed score DPME/OTP feedback to department Department improvement plan Internal Audit certify process and check evidence Department monitors External Moderation HOD sign off Department prepares for next round The MPAT process has three distinct phases, namely, self-assessment and internal audit validation; external moderation and feedback; and performance improvement and monitoring. Explain process for each phase The self-assessment must involve the senior management team of the department. The self-assessment element is very important because it encourages departments to own the assessment process and to utilize the results to inform improvements, and not to view MPAT merely as another reporting requirement which must be complied with. External moderation involves experienced civil servants from policy and implementing departments who work with DPME to moderate self assessments based on evidence submitted. Moderated scores are presented to departments to review and provide additional evidence or explanations before scores are finalised. Have we improved from baseline?

PERFORMANCE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS Department is non-compliant with legal/regulatory requirements Level 2 Department is partially compliant with legal/regulatory requirements Level 3 Department is fully compliant with legal/regulatory requirements Level 4 Department is fully compliant with legal/regulatory requirements and is doing things smartly

MPAT measures 31 standards in 4 KPAs, eg: 2.1.1 Standard name: Service delivery improvement mechanisms Standard definition: Departments have an approved service delivery charter, standards and service delivery improvement plans and adheres to these to improve services. Standards Evidence Documents Level Department does not have a service charter and service standards   Level 1 Department has a draft service charter and service standards Service charter and service standards Level 2 Department has an approved service charter, service standards and SDIP Department has consulted stakeholders/service recipients on service standards and SDIP Department displays its service charter Service charter, service standards and SDIP Evidence of consultation with stakeholders/ service recipients Level 3 Level 3 plus: Department quarterly monitors compliance to service delivery standards Management considers monitoring reports Reports are used to inform improvements to business processes Minutes of management meetings reflecting discussion of service delivery improvement Progress reports and monitoring reports Level 4 The full set of 31 standards assessed is in the pack as Appendix 1 to the report. 4 KPA strategy planning, Governance and accountability, HR and Finance The standards cover Strategic Management (including planning and monitoring and evaluation); Governance and Accountability (including service delivery improvement, functionality of management structures, accountability, ethics, internal audit, risk management and delegations); Human Resource Management (including human resource planning, organisation design, recruitment and retention, performance management and management of discipline); and Financial Management (including supply chain management, procurement and expenditure management). This is an example of one of the standard for service delivery improvement. Explain the example, particularly what is meant by moving beyond compliance and working smartly at level 4 SECRET

MPAT 2013 (1.3) RESULTS Analysis is based on state of management practice at the close of self-assessment period 31 September 2013 Peer moderation 18 – 22 November Moderated feedback to all departments February 2014 Engagement sessions held with all department during March 2014 Challenge window closed 31 March 2014 Final scores sent to departments May 2014 MPAT 2013 report were presented to: Cabinet in July 2014 All Clusters MPAT 2013 report was presented to cabinet and published in the DPME website

March: write case studies, Cabinet report of previous year and review standards April: release standards for next year and results of previous year July/August: Launch and training of departments September: self assessments close October: Moderator training November: Moderation week January: moderation feedback given to departments February: Challenge month MPAT Annual Cycle

RSA Results

In each of the 31 standards measured, at least one department is operating at level 4 - This implies that it should be possible for all In 2013, 69/155 (2012, 59) departments were assessed as compliant or working smartly in at least half of the standards measured In national departments as a group and in 7 of the provinces, the average scores have increased - Free State and Mpumalanga have declined since 2012

Standards in the Strategic Management KPA - Annual Performance Plans and Monitoring and Evaluation have declined from 2012 This is partly due to increased requirements that require departments to achieve at least 80% of their set targets and the opinion of the AGSA on the relevance, reliability and quality of reports against pre-determined objectives in the APP The implication of this is that departments are struggling to set realistic service delivery targets and report achievements against them

70% of departments (79% in 2012) are still non-compliant with the standard for service delivery improvement Poor performance in this raises questions about the appropriateness of the Service Delivery Planning Framework issued by DPSA in terms of the Public Service Regulations 73% of departments are non- compliant with the standard related to the Promotion of Access to Information Act

65% of departments (74% in 2012) non-compliant with the organisational design standard 82% of department (88% in 2012) non-compliant for the human resource planning standard Only two departments achieve level 3 and above for the standard on diversity management 90% of departments (88% in 2012) were assessed as non-compliant for the standard related to management of disciplinary cases

87% of departments were assessed as non-compliant standard on payment of suppliers (bar was raised in this standard making it a level 3 requirement to pay suppliers within 30 days) This negatively affects cash flow and sustainability of small business suppliers in particular 50% of departments (60% in 2012) were assessed as non-compliant with the standard related to the management of unauthorized, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure

Department Result

Analysis against external criteria

Analysis against external criteria Statistical analysis of results, together with data on certain external criteria, indicated that: HR-related standards are particularly important for achieving results in terms of the Auditor- General’s indicator of meeting more than 80% of performance targets in the APP Senior Management Service (SMS) stability (the proportion of DGs and DDGs in office for more than three years) correlated frequently with a range of MPAT standards 2013 moderated results for 31 management standards in 155 national departments has given us a very useful data set for analytical purposes. A group of statisticians and researchers from DPME, Wits P&DM carried out a statistical analysis of the results together with other available data on external criteria. The statistical analysis is included in the pack as Annexure C of the main report. The analysis indicates that the quality of HR management is very important for achieving results, in relation to the Auditor General criterion of achieving at least 80% of targets in the APP. This supports the analysis in the NDP that the main challenge to building a capable and developmental state has been unevenness in capacity that leads to uneven performance. The statistical analysis also found a strong relationship between SMS stability and MPAT scores.

Lessons from Data Analysis Statistical analysis of results, together with data on certain external criteria, indicated that: No clear indication that Strategic Planning and HR Management are related Senior Management Service (SMS) stability (the proportion of DGs and DDGs in office for more than three years) correlated frequently across a range of MPAT standards 2012/2013 moderated results for 29 management standards in 156 national departments has given us a very useful data set for analytical purposes. A group of statisticians and researchers from DPME, Wits P&DM and Public Affairs Research Institute carried out a statistical analysis of the results together with other available data on external criteria. The statistical analysis is included in the pack as Annexure C of the main report. The analysis indicates that the quality of HR management is very important for achieving results, in relation to the Auditor General criterion of achieving at least 80% of targets in the APP. This supports the analysis in the NDP that the main challenge to building a capable and developmental state has been unevenness in capacity that leads to uneven performance. The statistical analysis also found a strong relationship between SMS stability and MPAT scores.

Lessons from Data Analysis The following standards correlate most with department achieving the APP targets as measured by the Auditor General Planning and monitoring under Strategy Integrity and risk management under Governance Good organisational design and planning under HR, plus administrative-level performance management Control of unauthorised expenditure under Finance

Case Studies

MPAT 2013 CASE STUDIES KPA 1: STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 1.3.1 Monitoring & evaluation National Department: Trade & Industry Eastern Cape: Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT) KPA 2: GOVERNANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY 2.1.1 Service delivery improvement National Department: Home Affairs Eastern Cape: Rural Development 2.6.1 Risk National Department: Mineral Resources North West: Agriculture 2.4.2 Fraud KPA 3: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3.1.2 Organisational development National Department: Energy Northern Cape: Social Development 3.2.2 Recruitment & retention National Department: GCIS Northern Cape: Roads & Public Works 3.4.2 Disciplinary process KwaZulu Natal: Department of Economic Development and Tourism KPA 4: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 4.2.2 Payment of suppliers

Lessons from Case Studies National departments still do not comply with DPSA requirements for SDIP compliance – DHA only level 1 despite intense interventions to improve service delivery Northern Cape Social Development made effective use of DPSA Guide and Toolkit in Organisational Design this ensured that the department was positioned to implement its War on Poverty Programme – Foetal alcohol syndrome reduced by 30% in De Aar

Lessons from Case Studies Effective monitoring and tracking of disciplinary cases by Department of Mineral Resources ensures management run disciplinary processes and that all disciplinary cases are resolved within 90 days Northern Cape Social Development through leadership commitment not only implemented effective decentralised delegations but managed to pay suppliers within 5 days

Key Lessons from analysis of data and good practice Management Practises

Ke ya leboga. Ke a leboha. Ke a leboga. Ngiyabonga. Ndiyabulela Ke ya leboga Ke a leboha Ke a leboga Ngiyabonga Ndiyabulela Ngiyathokoza Ngiyabonga Inkomu Ndi khou livhuha Dankie Thank you