1. The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT TOOL 10 September 2013

2. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Problem statement  Service delivery: pace is slow, but big threat is functionality, particularly in water & sanitation:  According to DWA, almost 21% of the households with access to water infrastructure have to endure problems in respect of its functionality (no water from tap) over and above the 5.3% households who still do not have a service; and,  26% (3.8 million households) are affected by sanitation services and/or facilities that are not fully functional over and above the 9% (1.4 million households) who still don’t have a service.  This is among the major reasons for the high levels of dissatisfaction within communities. Service delivery protests in the period ending June 2012 exceeded the total in 2011  Institutional performance of municipalities is worrying - poor financial and administrative management, weak technical and planning capacity, weak leadership & governance (contracts awarded to employees, councillors & other state officials increased to 46% of auditees) and dwindling revenues

3. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Why are we not achieving the results we set? Mechanistic notion of performance:  Until recently we have had s simplistic conception of performance monitoring  Set the target and delivery will happen, e.g. ₋100% unqualified audits at municipal level ₋Universal access to basic services ₋Meaningful and deliberative public participation in decision-making  Elided the operational aspects - the internal workings of organisations which make the delivery of results possible was ignored  Where interventions to improve these internal workings exist, they have been ad-hoc, fragmented and coordination and alignment of interventions and support has been weak 3

4. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Local government context: ‘Chaordic’  Composite of chaos and order  Fast changing and complex environment that demands quality, value for money and social justice  Each municipality is unique in terms of the balance between its socio- economic, cultural and political environments 4

5. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Getting back to the basics  The public sector exists to create greater public value:  being better able to identify and respond to needs of citizens  increasing the quantity and quality of activities per resource expended  reducing the costs used to achieve current levels of production  increasing capacity to innovate and improve  All of this depends on supportive & dynamic management and efficient and effective administrative practices 5

6. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation So management practices and the internal operating environment are important!!! 6 Home Affairs – ID & passport turnaround time Ecstatic citizens A major international study undertaken by the London School of Economics (LSE) and McKinsey & Co examined management skills and capabilities across 15 countries and found clear linkages between the quality of management and the performance of firms and organisations in terms of productivity and quality of services.

7. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation WHY A MAT?  Overcome the shortcoming and omission w.r.t the absence of proper measuring, monitoring and supporting improved management practices  Considers and focuses on the managerial practices of a municipality. That is determining what the organisation does and how it approaches its tasks to achieve the desired results  Based on the premise: excellent results in organisational performance, citizens/customers, people and society are achieved through leadership driving strategy and planning, people, partnerships, resources and processes ₋Needed a mechanism to look at the organisation from different angles at the same time: the holistic approach to organisation performance analysis ₋Analyse how the organisation works & measures this against agreed standards 7 Management practices Workplace capabilities Quality of service delivery & productivity

8. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Objectives of the MAT Measure, Monitor and Support improved management in municipalities for quality service delivery and increased productivity  Management information tool for municipal leadership – to reflect on ways of working & shape management & administrative practices to deliver quality services  Knowledge management and performance monitoring system that provides information on municipalities against key indicators – strategic leadership and policy reform  To facilitate well coordinated targeted and differentiated support and intervention measures  To gear national and provincial departments to better support in identified areas of underperformance  Provincial DCOGs are key – capability to adopt and undertake management assessment model as core part of its function 8

9. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation What management assessment is not.. 9 Another reporting tool For serious managers who are focused on what the organisation does to achieve results Provides a model and tool for management to assess the health of the operating environment and effect improvements Duplication of existing processes Draws on existing processes to develop a holistic picture of the operating environment An excuse for section 139 intervention Basis for targeted and coordinated support where needed – municipality determined and directed Support the development of robust systems for measuring, monitoring and effecting improvement in management of operations

10. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Performance areas  The Municipal Performance Areas that will be assessed fall into the following 6 categories:  Integrated Development Planning  Human Resource management  Financial management  Service Delivery  Community engagement  Governance  Describing the ideal performance to be achieved in respect of key indicators per category  Setting out the criteria that needs to be progressively met in order to move to the ideal state 10

11. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Levels of Management Performance 11 LevelDescription Level 1Municipality is non-compliant with legal and regulatory requirements Level 2 Municipality is partially compliant with legal and regulatory requirements Level 3Municipality is fully compliant with legal and regulatory requirements Level 4Municipality is fully compliant with legal and regulatory requirements and is doing things smartly  Identifies four progressive levels of management performance  Each performance standard is assessed and scored against the four levels  Scores are aggregated for each key performance area

12. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Standards 2013/14 - Pilot 12 Integrated Development Planning Service Delivery Human Resource Management 1.1 Service delivery improvement mechanisms (IDP and SDBIP) 2.1 Access to Free Basic Services (FBS) to all qualifying people in the municipality’s area of jurisdiction 3.1 Application of prescribed recruitment practices for the MM and managers reporting directly to the MM 2.2 Extension of water services to all people in the municipality’s area of jurisdiction 3.2 Implementation of prescribed Performance Management practices for the MM and managers reporting directly to the MM 2.3 Extension of access to sanitation to all people in the municipality’s area of jurisdiction 2.4 Performance against Municipal Strategic Self- Assessment (MuSSA) of effective water services management 2.5 Waste Co-ordination and Disposal 2.6 Refuse collection and transportation 2.7 Extension of electricity to all people in the municipality’s area of jurisdiction 2.8 Operation, maintenance and refurbishment of the electricity infrastructure 2.9 Mapped and maintained municipal land transport network

13. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Standards 2013/14 – Pilot (continued) 13 Financial Management Community Engagement Governance 4.1 Maintaining a credible budget 5.1 Functional ward committees 6.1 Functionality of executive structures 4.2 Management of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless, and wasteful expenditure 5.2 Customer Services Standards / Charter 6.2 Assessment of responses to audit findings 6.3 Assessment of Internal Audit 6.4 Assessment of accountability mechanisms (Audit Committee) 6.5 Assessment of policies and systems to ensure professional ethics 6.6 Prevention of Fraud and Corruption 6.7 Assessment of risk management arrangements 6.8.1 Approved administrative and operational delegations in terms of the MSA 6.8.2 The municipality has an appropriate system of financial delegations in place as prescribed by the MFMA 6.9 Corporate Governance of ICT 6.10 Promotion of Access to Information

14. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Key Performance Area: Governance Performance Standard name: Assessment of responses to audit findings StandardsLevel There is no management response to the management letter issued by the office of the AG Level 1 Issues (finance, performance information and/or compliance) raised in the management letter issued by the office of the AG are addressed partially Level 2 Management (MM) has resolved all issues (finance, performance information and/or compliance) in the management letter and/or has a plan in place to resolve these Level 3 Material improvement in the number and nature of issues raised in the management letter leading to positive changes from previous audit or Continuously maintaining an unqualified audit opinion Level 4 Example of a standard: Governance

15. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Design of the programme  Stakeholders consulted: DCoG, National Treasury, DEA, DWA, DoE, DoT, SALGA, NW Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Gauteng Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, South African Cities Network  Steering Committee consisting of DPME, national DCOG, SALGA, Cities Network, and National Treasury Technical Assistance Unit established to oversee the programme  Reference Group consisting of provincial departments of local government, national sector departments, Office of the Auditor General is in process of being established for broader consultation and participation  Broad time-frames for implementation  April 2013 to mid-September 2013: Development of the content of the assessment tool for municipalities, incorporating key management performance areas  Mid- to end-September 2013: Automation of assessment tool for municipalities  September 2013 – March 2014: pilot phase  April 2014 onwards: roll out on larger scale 15

16. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation  Aim is to test the draft tool in respect of functionality, application, relevance within Metro’s, Secondary cities, DMs and LMs as to identify areas of improvement in the tool through lessons learned  Participating municipalities in pilot phase : City of Tshwane, Msunduzi, Buffalo City, Cape Town, Moretele LM, Moses Kotane LM, Rustenburg LM, Naledi LM, Lekwa-Teemane LM, Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati DM, Bojanala Platinum DM  Pilot municipalities chosen on basis of consideration of getting a mix of large and small and urban and rural, as well as working with those provinces and the Cities Network which wanted to participate in the pilot phase (NW and Gauteng in particular)  Plan for pilot phase:  Self-assessments in at least 10 municipalities by end of year  Moderation and feedback process: January 2013 to March 2013  Improvement plans in place in the 10 municipalities by June 2013 16 Pilot phase

17. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Overview of the pilot phase StepsActionTime Frame Organising & communicating Value, benefit and broad overview of model and tool communicated1 - 2 day workshop Organising and planning of self-assessment Self-assessment exercise communicated in municipality Self assessment & internal verification (supported by provincial department of LG) Municipal Assessment Coordinator appointed by MM2 months Sections of tool given to relevant senior manager to complete Internal audit verifies scores & evidence MM convenes senior management meeting to deliberate on scores & evidence & confirm assessment (with Mayor present) MM review scores, approves and submits final self-assessment Moderation & feedback DPME and provincial support team collects & consolidates secondary data from sectoral departments & other bodies 2 months Moderation team led by DPME and provincial support team moderates the self-assessment Moderated results discussed EM, MM & senior managers Improve & monitor Municipality develops improvement plan & monitors implementation (supported by province, relevant departments & entities where needed) Lessons and review of assessment tool before further roll-out 17

18. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Building capacity for MAT in DPME  Unit established in DPME in April 2013, in the outcomes branch  The unit is currently in process of appointing staff  Headed by official at level 15  1 Director appointed, interviews completed for an additional 2 Directors  Recruitment process under way for 4 deputy directors  2 Administrative support staff appointed  Initially unit will consist of above 10 people  Pilot phase will provide indication of additional capacity required for implementation on a national scale 18

19. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation  Consultation on tool for application in pilot phase completed  Comments being incorporated, final tool will be ready by end September for application in pilot phase  11 municipalities agreed to participate in pilot phase  Next steps:  September 2013: Training of Municipal Assessment Coordinators of the 4 cities on tool content  October 2013: Training of Municipal Assessment Coordinators of the 7 NW municipalities on tool content and technical application  Mid-October: Start self-assessments in the pilot municipalities 19 Progress to date and immediate next steps

20. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Ke ya lebogaKe a leboha Ke a lebogaNgiyabonga Ndiyabulela NgiyathokozaNgiyabonga InkomuNdi khou livhuhaThank you Dankie Go to http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/dpme.asp for PME documents including narrative guide to outcomes approach, outcomes documentshttp://www.thepresidency.gov.za/dpme.asp and delivery agreement guide