1. 15 March 2017
Briefing to Portfolio Committee of the Higher Education and Training on review of the draft APPs

2. Reputation promise/mission
The Auditor-General of South Africa has a constitutional mandate and, as the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) of South Africa, it exists to strengthen our country’s democracy by enabling oversight, accountability and governance in the public sector through auditing, thereby building public confidence.

3. Purpose of the briefing
To provide the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee (PC) with audit insights on the interim review of draft annual performance plans (APPs) of the department and its public entities in an effort to add value to oversight

4. Key committee considerations when reviewing the APP
Does the APP align with MTSF?
Is there a logical link between objectives, indicators and targets?
Does the APP include all programme performance indicators?
Quarterly targets included for indicators that need to be reported quarterly?
Are there technical indicator descriptions for indicators?
Is each performance indicator well defined, verifiable AND relevant
Is there clear and reliable baseline information for targets
Is the overall alignment between the budget and APP evident and clear?
Is each performance target specific, measurable AND time bound?
Are the Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans aligned to the Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) outcomes and priorities?
Are indicators relevant to the institution’s mandate and the realisation of strategic goals and objectives?
Is there a logical link between objectives, indicators and targets?
Does the APP include a complete set of indicators that is relevant to the objectives that need to be achieved e.g. are all customised sector indicators relevant to the institution included in the APP?
For those programme performance indicators that need to be reported quarterly, are the quarterly targets included in the APP?
For each programme performance indicator, does the technical indicator description contain minimum required information?
Is each performance indicator well defined and verifiable, as defined in the framework?
Is there a clear identification of other data sources used to determine the baseline of the performance target in cases where the target set for the year is new and prior year's performance can therefore not be used as a baseline?
Is the overall alignment between the budget and APP evident and clear?
Does each performance target comply with the SMART criteria?

5. Review process Reporting AGSA review of the draft 2017-18 APP
Assessed the overall planning process followed by the Department and entities to prepare and submit strategic plans (if relevant) and APPs.
Reviewed draft annual performance plans (APP) for each selected programme, focusing on the same programmes that have been selected for the audit.
Reporting
Findings from the review are communicated in the interim management report to enable changes to be made.
Findings relevant to the interim review do not have an impact on the audit conclusion of the selected programmes for the PFMA year end audit.

6. Criteria used to assess indicators
A good performance indicator should be:
Well-defined
Verifiable
Relevant
Well-defined, i.e. clear, unambiguous definition so that data will be collected consistently and will be easy to understand and use.
Verifiable, i.e. it must be possible to validate the processes and systems.
Relevant, i.e Must relate logically and directly to an aspect of the entity’s mandate

7. S M A R T SMART criteria for performance targets PECIFIC EASURABLE
Nature and required level of performance can be clearly identified
PECIFIC M
Required performance can be measured
EASURABLE A
Realistic given existing capacity
CHIEVABLE R
Required performance is linked to achievement of goal
ELEVANT
Time period/deadline for delivery is specified T
IME BOUND
For our review purposes, the focus was on:
Specific i.e. the nature and the required level of performance can be clearly identified
Measurable: the required performance can be measured
Time bound: the time period or deadline for delivery is specified

8. Comparison between current year and prior year budget
Note: The information contained in this slide must be populated with the programme and budget information relevant to specific auditees.
This include an analysis of the budget, how much will be spent on various programmes, the purpose is to determine the extent to which the allocated resources are geared towards service delivery
% Budget increase
% Budget decrease % %

9. Budget analysis – Dept (cont.)
Economic classification
Department of Higher Education and Training
% budget spend on employee remuneration
Note: Please populate graph with information relevant to specific auditees.

10. Review findings on draft 2017/18 APP
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET)
Scope
We assessed the indicators and targets against the “SMART” criteria for programmes.
Outcome
No significant findings were identified for the following selected programmes:
Programme 2: Planning, policy and strategy
Programme 3: University education
Programme 4: Technical and vocational education and training
Programme 5: Skills development
Programme 6: Community education and training
Other matters
Three outcome indicators under programme 4 have zero targets due to no funding being available, as reported in the APP.

11. Review findings on draft 2017/18 APP
Significant findings were identified for the following entities:
Public entities
Entity
2017/18
2016/17
FOODBEV
Yes
MERSETA
SASSETA
CHE

12. No. of indicators tested % of targets not specific
Review findings on draft 2017/18 APP
Public entities (cont.)
Indicators not well-defined
Entity
No. of indicators tested
Findings
% of targets not specific
FOODBEV 17 4
24%
MERSETA 37 9
SASSETA 33
12%
Use slide if interim review was performed and findings were raised.
Specific
Measurable
Timebound
Targets
Well defined
Verifiable
Relevant
Indicators

13. No. of indicators tested % of targets not specific
Review findings on draft 2017/18 APP
Public entities (cont.)
Indicators not verifiable
Entity
No. of indicators tested
Findings
% of targets not specific
FOODBEV 17 4
24%
Use slide if interim review was performed and findings were raised.
Specific
Measurable
Timebound
Targets
Well defined
Verifiable
Relevant
Indicators

14. No. of indicators tested % of targets not specific
Review findings on draft 2017/18 APP
Public entities (cont.)
Indicators not complete
Entity
No. of indicators tested
Findings
% of targets not specific
SASSETA 11 5
45%
Use slide if interim review was performed and findings were raised.
Specific
Measurable
Timebound
Targets
Well defined
Verifiable
Relevant
Indicators

15. % of targets not specific
Review findings on draft 2017/18 APP
Public entities (cont.)
Targets not specific
Entity
No. of targets tested
Findings
% of targets not specific
MERSETA 26 12
46%
CHE 51 9
18%
Use slide if interim review was performed and findings were raised.
Specific
Measurable
Timebound
Targets
Well defined
Verifiable
Relevant
Indicators

16. % of targets not specific
Review findings on draft 2017/18 APP
Public entities (cont.)
Targets not measurable
Entity
No. of targets tested
Findings
% of targets not specific
SASSETA 33 4
12%
CHE 32 9
28%
Use slide if interim review was performed and findings were raised.
Specific
Measurable
Timebound
Targets
Well defined
Verifiable
Relevant
Indicators

17. % of targets not specific No significant findings were identified
Review findings on draft 2017/18 APP
Public entities (cont.)
Targets not time-bound
Entity
No. of targets tested
Findings
% of targets not specific
No significant findings were identified
Use slide if interim review was performed and findings were raised.
Specific
Measurable
Timebound
Targets
Well defined
Verifiable
Relevant
Indicators

18. QUESTIONS