The Presidency Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Results of the 2013 moderated assessments on the quality of management practices in all 155 national and provincial departments 1 Presentation to Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration and Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 17 September 2014

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Focus of DPME to date 2 M&E of national priorities Management performance M&E M&E of front-line service delivery Government- Wide M&E System Plans for the 14 priority outcomes (delivery agreements, MTSF) Monitoring (ie tracking) progress against the plans Evaluating to see how to improve programmes, policies, plans ( evaluations, then per year) Monitoring of experience of citizens when obtaining services (joint with provinces), including citizen-based monitoring Presidential Hotline – analysing responses and follow-up Assessing quality of management practices in individual departments and municipalities (MPAT and LGMIM) Moderated self assessment and continuous improvement Guidelines for M&E across government Data quality Capacity development Programme planning guidelines National Evaluation System Custodian of strategic and annual performance planning

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 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 performance plans to determine if they are doing the right things 3

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Background  DPME, together with the Offices of the Premier and transversal policy departments have since 2011 been assessing the quality of management practices  The MPAT tool was developed collaboratively with other transversal policy departments and OAG and OPSC  MPAT provides a holistic view of management performance and draws on data from other agencies, such as the OAG, as secondary sources  MPAT is not simply an external audit of management practices, it includes a strong element of self-assessment, learning and improvement  It is based on international good practice, drawing on the experience of Canada, Russia, India, Kenya and New Zealand 4

LevelDescription Level 1Non-compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 2Partial compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 3Full compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 4Full compliance and doing things smartly 5 Levels of assessment

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. StandardsEvidence DocumentsLevel 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 Level 3 plus: Minutes of management meetings reflecting discussion of service delivery improvement Progress reports and monitoring reports Level 4 MPAT measures 31 standards in 4 KPAs, eg:

7 Human Resource Management HR Strategy and Planning HR Practices and Administration Management of Performance Employee Relations Governance & Accountability Service Delivery Improvement Management Structures Accountability Ethics Internal Audit Risk Management Delegations Governance of ICT Promotion of access to information Strategic Management Strategic Planning Annual performance planning Monitoring & Evaluation Management Performance Areas Financial Management Supply Chain Management Expenditure management

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 8 Self-assessment and validation External moderation and feedback Improve and monitor Senior management agreed score Internal Audit certify process and check evidence HOD sign off External Moderation DPME/OTP feedback to department Department improvement plan Department monitors Department prepares for next round Have we improved from baseline? The assessment process

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 2013 assessment results  Noted improvements are evident when comparing the 2013 results to 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 9

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Analysis – Strategic Management KPA  Standards in this management area - Annual Performance Plans and Monitoring and Evaluation - have declined from 2012  But bar was raised in 2013: Departments should achieve at least 80% of their targets and no findings by AGSA on the relevance, reliability and quality of reports against pre-determined objectives in the APP for level 4  In the 2013 assessments:  43% of departments scored at level 1 or 2 for the APP standard – meaning that their APPs also do not comply with the TR and guidelines and that management does not regularly engage with the quarterly progress report  43% of departments scored at level 1 or 2 for the M&E standard, meaning that they do not have standardised processes to collect, manage and store data  The implication of this is that departments are struggling to set realistic performance targets and accurately report achievements against them 10

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Lessons from Case Studies – M&E and APP standards Examples of departments which scored at level four for both the APP and M&E standard: dti and EC Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism  Documented M&E processes and policies  Systems put in place to collect, store and verify data  Programme Managers understand importance of M&E to help with decision-making based on evidence and not just for compliance 11

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Analysis – Governance and Accountability  70% of departments (79% in 2012) are at level one or two for the standard for service delivery improvement  Poor performance in this standard raises questions about the appropriateness of the Service Delivery Planning Framework issued by DPSA in terms of the Public Service Regulations  73% of departments score at level one or two with the standard related to the Promotion of Access to Information Act 12

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Lessons from Case Studies – Service Delivery Improvement Standard DHA; EC Rural Development  National departments still do not comply with DPSA requirements for SDIP compliance – DHA scored at only level 1 despite intense interventions to improve service delivery for issuing of IDs and Passports  EC Rural Development scored a 4 and has good practice with regard to consultation with farmers and front line extension workers on setting service standards 13

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Lessons from Case Studies – Risk and Fraud Management Standard DMR; NW Agriculture scored at level 4  In DMR buy in from top management by allocated CD as risk champions in each branch, DDG’s assed on how they mange risk  NW Agriculture have the function located in the HoDs office to manage and respond to emerging risks. Also good practice in communicating issues related to risk and fraud via staff newsletter 14

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Analysis – Human Resource Management  65% of departments (74% in 2012) scored at level 1 or 2 with the organisational design standard  82% of department (88% in 2012) scored at level 1 or 2 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 at level 1 or 2 for the standard related to management of disciplinary cases 15

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Lessons from Case Studies – Organisational Development Standard DOE; NC Social Development scored at level 4  Lesson for DOE is that it takes time to implement necessary organisation change and consultation is crucial  NC Social Development made effective use of DPSA Guide and Toolkit in Organisational Design, to ensure that the department was positioned to implement its War on Poverty Programme – Foetal alcohol syndrome reduced by 30% in De Aar 16

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Lessons from Case Studies – Recruitment and Retention Standard GCIS; NC Roads and Public Works scored at level 4  GCIS only department to meet equity targets, all vacancies filled within 2 months, all posts are advertised internally and only externally if no suitable candidates exist  GCIS also good practice in conducting exit interviews and analysis when staff leave 17

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Lessons from Case Studies – Managing of disciplinary cases DMR; KZN Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs scored at level 4  DMR good practice in creating awareness amongst staff on what constitutes misconduct. Managers empowered to manage their own DC processes, cases resolved with 90 days  KZN EDTEA: all cases completed within 90 days by collaborating with other departments to assist with chairing of DC hearings and they have clear documented processes in place 18

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Analysis – Financial Management  87% of departments were assessed at level 1 or 2 on the standard related to 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 businesses  50% of departments (60% in 2012) were assessed at level 1 or 2 for the standard related to the management of unauthorized, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure 19

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Lessons from Case Studies – Payment of Suppliers Standard DOE, NC Social Development scored at level 4  DOE buy in from DG in driving improvement process, issue regularly monitored though all management structures  NC Social Development through leadership commitment not only implemented effective decentralised delegations but managed to pay suppliers within 5 days  In both cases failure to comply by staff is managed though disciplinary procedures 20

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 21

22

Analysis against external criteria  Statistical analysis of results by P&DM at Wits, 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 23

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Conclusions (1)  These has been some improvement from 2012 to 2013  In 2013, 69/155 departments were assessed as compliant or working smartly in at least half of the standards measured, as apposed to 59 in 2012  For national departments as a group and in 7 of the provinces, the average scores have increased since the 2012 assessment - Free State and Mpumalanga have declined 24

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Conclusions (2)  Although there has been improvement in many standards the following are areas where more than 50% of department do not meet legal requirements  SDIP; Fraud Prevention  HR Planning; Organisational Design, Management of Diversity; SMS PMD; HoD PMDS; Disciplinary cases  Payment of Suppliers; Unauthorised, Wasteful and Fruitless Expenditure  National Treasury, DPSA and DoJ need to review regulatory frameworks or provide additional support in areas where the majority of departments to not comply 25

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Conclusions (3)  For all standards, there are at least some departments operating at level 4  Implies that it is possible for all departments to operate at this level for all the standards  DPME in collaboration with Wits University School of Governance have documented and are disseminating case studies of departments operating at level 4, to assist departments to improve  Executive Authorities and Accounting Officers should ensure that their departments implement improvement plans to reach level 4 for all standards 26

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Additional Slides 27

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Key Lessons from analysis of data and good practice 36 GOOD MANAGEMENT