1. Nox Chitepo, Stanley Ntakumba, Gemma Paine
Republic of South Africa
The Presidency
Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
The State and Use of Monitoring and Evaluation in the South African Public Service
Nox Chitepo, Stanley Ntakumba, Gemma Paine

2. Loose basis for interpretation
Enabling Environment
Links with policy & planning & use of M&E info
Indicators & info planning
Reporting

3. Loose basis for interpretation
No consistency of model (roles, capacity, budgets); weak inputs; weak integration of policy, planning budgeting systems; checking, not accountability & learning; consistent with focus on outputs
Enabling Environment
Links with policy & planning & use of M&E info
Indicators & info planning
Reporting

4. System-Based Barriers

5. ‘Culture’-Based Barriers

6. Support required Capacity building and specifically:
Adequate allocation of posts at right post level and with appropriate skill level defined
Training for all staff related to standardised roles and responsibilities for M&E
Training customised to specific sectors, technical and professional environments, such as health, social development and education
Adequate budget allocations
Accessible web-based IT system
The majority also requested more standardisation across the public service in various forms:
Web-based reporting system, software and IT platform for reporting internal & across the public service
Norms and standards related to M&E structures, staffing, IT, budgets
Understanding and approach to M&E
Frameworks for planning, policy development and research to enable an effective link to M&E and integration between departments and spheres
Alignment of planning, M&E, policy and research
Standardised training for all based on standardised roles and responsibilities for M&E
Training for senior managers based on uniform responsibility for M&E

7. Loose basis for interpretation
No consistency of model (roles, capacity, budgets); weak inputs; weak integration of policy, planning budgeting systems; checking, not accountability & learning; consistent with focus on outputs
Primary use: identification & monitoring of outputs not based on Theory of Change; weak info available esp for evaluation; limited influence on decisions
Enabling Environment
Links with policy & planning & use of M&E info
Indicators & info planning
Reporting

8. Use of M&E in Policy, Planning decisions
Agenda Setting
Analysis of, Needs, Problem & Options
Theory of Change
Design Intervention & Operational Plan
Implement, Monitor & Adapt
Evaluate & Learn
Often/always %
Often/always %
Never % in all areas
Seldom 30 – 45% in many areas
Often/always %
Often/always 81 – 61%

9. Adequacy of info for evaluation

10. Loose basis for interpretation
No consistency of model (roles, capacity, budgets); weak inputs; weak integration of policy, planning budgeting systems; checking, not accountability & learning; consistent with focus on outputs
Primary use: identification & monitoring of outputs not based on Theory of Change; weak info available esp for evaluation; limited influence on decisions
Focus on activities & outputs: internal concerns (admin, resources etc) not concerns of those they serve (impact achieved & satisfaction levels)
Enabling Environment
Links with policy & planning & use of M&E info
Indicators & info planning
Reporting

11. What gets measured...
Comprehensive information on activities (66%) & outputs (59%) Outcomes (31%), impact (25%) & satisfaction levels of those the department serves (16%)

12. Loose basis for interpretation
No consistency of model (roles, capacity, budgets); weak inputs; weak integration of policy, planning budgeting systems; checking, not accountability & learning; consistent with focus on outputs
Primary use: identification & monitoring of outputs not based on Theory of Change; weak info available esp for evaluation; limited influence on decisions
Focus on activities & outputs: internal concerns (admin, resources etc) not concerns of those they serve (impact achieved & satisfaction levels)
General satisfaction with adequacy & value of reports despite the limitations noted in relation to the information & how it gets used. Reasons?
Enabling Environment
Links with policy & planning & use of M&E info
Indicators & info planning
Reporting

13. Focus of reports
Reporting on activities & outputs without reference to their contribution to quality, relevance & sustainability of benefits?

14. Rating the extent of use of M&E by departments to:

15. They honestly account to the public in terms of use of resources (69%)
Departments that use M&E effectively to make changes have the following characteristics:
M&E leads to improvement in results (74%) and they also have a dedicated M&E unit (61%)
They honestly account to the public in terms of use of resources (69%)
They implement recommendations arising out of M&E (63%)
Effectiveness of M&E in the department itself is regularly monitored and evaluated and reports shared (60%)
They build a shared understanding among the officials about what matters (56%)

16. Possible groupings emerging?
Based on the assumption that the patterning of stronger and weaker practice reported in the data aligns to consistent groups of departments:
15% with reasonably well institutionalised use of monitoring of internal management issues – budget, activities, outputs & admin issues - and some evaluation capacity driving policy development & planning.
About another 35% broadly functional monitoring with marked unevenness in some areas, often particularly related to weak information systems and capacity but a reporting a sense that they are improving.
About 20% with little or no established capacity or where the M&E capacity is so new that not much is yet in place. Some in this group are asking for specific intensive support rather than simply discussion forums.

17. THANK YOU