Presentation to NCOP Committee on Local Government and Administration The HoD Evaluation Framework 27 August 2003

Contents Importance of Performance Management Role of the PSC in developing framework Principles of Framework Role of PSC in HoD Evaluation Framework for the Evaluation of Heads of Department Implementation of Framework Round 1 Findings Recommendations Amendments Future Challenges

Importance of Performance Management Government constantly seeking to improve service delivery standards Managers are responsible for achieving institutional objectives Effective management and monitoring of performance provide insight into institutional success and areas for improvements

Role of the PSC in developing Framework In 1998, MPSA introduced system of PAs for senior managers Below HoDs, system provided for constant feedback on performance between supervisors and staff No systematic, coherent process in place for assessment of HoD performance PSC tasked by cabinet to develop a framework to assist Executing Authorities (EAs) to evaluate HoDs

Principles of Framework Basis of evaluation is effective PA system Evaluation process should link individual and institutional performance EAs responsible for final decisions, but independent stakeholders and peers must make inputs Procedural framework must be credible to ensure consistency

Principles of Framework Framework must indicate level of performance, identify inefficiency and guide performance rewards Constitution of panels to be flexible to accommodate special sectoral needs Integrated approach, aligned to planning and budgetary cycles Process should, where appropriate, identify areas for HoD development

Role of PSC in HoD Evaluations Evaluation panels at National level chaired by the Chair or Deputy Chair of the PSC Evaluation panels at Provincial level chaired by resident Commissioner or a nationally nominated Commissioner Role of PSC on panels is independent role-player, to ensure that process is fair, consistent and equitable PSC has availed secretarial services to Executing Authorities (who may also appoint their own secretariat)

HoD Evaluation Framework EAs must appoint evaluation panels comprising EA colleagues, independent stakeholders and HoD peers Panel advice is not binding, and EAs must take final decisions Evaluations must cover a period of one financial year, and must be aligned to the MTEF and planning cycles

HoD Evaluation Framework HoDs and EAs must sign PAs by the end of April each year Progress against objectives must be reviewed on a quarterly basis Evaluation processes must utilize the following information: PAs Departmental business and strategic plans Budget and expenditure reports Annual Reports incorporating Auditor General Reports Verification statement detailing achievement of targets and outcomes

HoD Evaluation Framework Panel provides written advice to EA, including: Level of performance regarding KPAs Areas for development EA takes decision on awarding of cash bonus and other actions

HoD Evaluation Framework If HoDs are dissatisfied, they can request review PAs of HoDs provide for dispute resolution mechanism Mediator must be identified If mediator cannot resolve dispute, must be referred to Review Committee, comprising: Deputy President and MPSA (National); or Provincial Premier and MEC nominated by Premier Provincial DGs refer disputes to Deputy President and MPSA

HoD Evaluation Framework PSC issues Guidelines to assist EAs on annual basis Guidelines specify administrative arrangements and proforma documents and instruments

Implementation of Framework Statistical Overview National Departments 12 HoDs out of 36 evaluated 10 deferred evaluation to include 2001/ terminated contract 5 no evaluation – reasons unknown Provincial 23 out of 76 HoDs evaluated 3 pending 53 could not be evaluated

Implementation of Framework Reasons for Non-Evaluation Contract terminated HoD appointed on acting capacity Suspension On sick leave Performance agreement not signed Newly appointed Framework Piloted Documents not submitted

Implementation of Framework Summary of Ratings RatingDefinition of score Number Of HoDs at National Level Number of HoDs at provincial level Total 5 Excellent Above satisfactory Satisfactory Below satisfactory Unacceptable 0 1 1

Findings of the first implementation Evaluation periods more than one financial year problematic Composition of the evaluation panels did not represent wide range of stakeholders Far-stretched schedules of Ministers delayed the process Use of the OPSC as the secretariat beneficial

Findings of the first implementation (cont) Executing authorities – participation commended Documentation Quality and contents of performance agreements Verifications statement did not conform to the requirements reports did not report on achievement of departmental objectives Lack of synergy between documents

Findings of the first implementation (cont) Use of 360-degree instrument Nationally – only 1 HoD Provincially – 12 HoDs Advice by the panel Provided level of performance and areas of development Rating scale – parameters of cash

Findings on Performance Agreements A majority of senior managers had not signed performance agreements No clear performance criteria – limited to targets No quarterly reviews

Recommendations PSC to engage SAMDI on the nature of training to be provided to HoDs Executing Authorities to note importance of performance management and that evaluation according to the framework is obligatory Evaluation periods one financial year Evaluation at provincial level must be obligatory Composition of panels Maximum 4 plus Chair Include external stakeholders Make use of cluster system

Recommendations (cont.) Performance Agreements of HoDs to be filed with PSC PSC to provide guidance on the development of quality documentation Clear linkages between processes/documents Use of 360-degree compulsory in the interim Parameters of cash bonus clearly spelt out – consider NPMDS e.g. Level 5 : % Level 4 : %

Amendments Framework – Cabinet memo Finalisation of evaluations not later than February 2003 Performance agreements of all HoDs be filed with PSC 360-degree compulsory in the interim Rating scale in the NPMDS be used for 2001/2002 evaluations Use of the 360-degree in the interim OPSC serves as secretariat in all HoD evaluations Implementation at provincial level be mandatory

Future Challenges Creating a greater awareness of the importance of Performance Management Sensitizing EAs to the importance of concluding PAs in time Improving the quality of PAs Linking individual and organizational performance

Future Challenges Changing the paradigm from rewards to adding value to management and personal development Moving from output based approach to outcomes based approach, strengthening Cabinet Clusters: Defining common outcomes to be incorporated in strategic planning and performance agreements HoD Evaluation Panels be constituted by Cabinet Clusters Consolidating the use of external stakeholders and peers