1. Presented by:Tshepo Sejeng Date:10 April 2013 IMFO INDABA: KEY TO SUSTAINABLE SERVICE DELIVERY The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION

2. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MANDATE  DPME was established in 2010 as a result of the realisation by government that effective and efficient service delivery remains elusive and that current levels of service delivery do not meet the legitimate expectations of citizens  To date, the President and Cabinet have given DPME the following mandates:  Facilitate the development of plans for the cross cutting priorities or outcomes of government and monitor and evaluate the implementation of these plans (delivery agreements)  Monitor performance of individual national and provincial government departments and municipalities  Monitor frontline service delivery  Manage the Presidential Hotline  Carry out evaluations in partnership with other departments  Promote good M&E practices in government  Provide support to delivery institutions to address blockages in delivery 2

3. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Monitoring of Municipalities  The Municipal Assessment Tool (MAT) was design as an intervention to monitor and evaluate municipal performance based on the following objectives: 1. To provides holistic integrated information on the institutional performance of municipalities against key indicators to enable strategic leadership over the local government sector 2. To provide for a comprehensive and robust evidence base for providing tailored support and/or intervention measures to municipalities in a coordinated and differentiated manner 3. Guide national and provincial departments by means of the performance information obtained through the assessments to enable them to better support municipalities in identified areas of underperformance 3

4. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Problem statement  Service delivery: Pace is slow, but big threat is functionality, particularly in water & sanitation:  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 exceed the total in 2011 (see next slide)  Worrying Institutional performance of municipalities as a result of 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  Despite plethora of capacity building & support activities over more than 10 years – results not optimal  Ad-hoc, fragmented, no focus  Coordination and alignment of interventions weak

5. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation WHY A MAT?  Three factors impact negatively on service delivery  Municipal institutional performance  Weak leadership & accountability in the sector  Poor coordination of departments and agencies impacting on local government aggravated by lack of a spatial focus and fragmented & or weak and unreliable data  Key shortcoming  Clear minimum floor of norms and standards of performance for efficient and effective functioning of local government  No early warning system that proactively identifies and addresses problems  Lack of integrated and holistic picture (administratively, politically and service delivery) on key performance data. 5

6. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Assessment Areas  The Municipal Performance Areas that will be assessed by this tool fall into the following 6 categories:  Planning  Human Resources  Financial  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 6

7. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Area and Indicator 3. Financial Management Sound & sustainable financial management capabilities Performance standards Performance Standards 3.1. Auditing outcomes 3.2 Budgeting and cash management 3.3 Revenue management 3.4 Expenditure management Performance measures 3.1 Auditing outcomes standards i. Audited financial statements tabled on time & meets requirements of A-G ii. Internal Audit has qualified staff, meets regularly & reports to AO iii. Appropriate policies & processes in place (supply chain, procurement, asset management) iv. Municipality acts on audit reports & findings of MPAC & internal Audit Committee 7 Logic underpinning the Municipal PAT

8. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 8 Example: Municipal PAT Template

9. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Assessment descriptors 9

10. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation How will the results be used?  As a management tool for the Executive Mayor and Municipal Manager to reflect on the holistic performance of the municipality and to take corrective steps to address areas of underperformance.  As a tool for coordinating the support and intervention programmes of provincial departments of local government & national departments and to tailor and integrate the support and intervention programmes according to the specific performance gaps for each municipality.  Nationally as a tool providing critical integrated municipal level information to enable strategic leadership over the local government sector and guide local government policy. 10

11. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Process Plan 11

12. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation StepsActionResponsibleTime frame Self assessment & internal verification (supported by provincial department of LG) MAT Coordinator appointed by MMMMs Sections of the tool given to relevant senior manager to completeMAT Coordinators/Senior managers MAT coordinator & internal audit verifies scores & evidenceMAT Coordinators/Internal Audit MM convenes senior management meeting to deliberate on scores & evidence & confirm assessment MMs/Senior Managers Executive Mayor & MM approve final assessment & send to DPME Executive Mayors /MMs Moderation & Feedback DPME establishes moderation team representative of sector departments & oversight bodies DPME DPME and GPDLG&H collects & consolidates secondary data from sectoral departments & oversight bodies DPME /GPDL&H Briefing of the Moderation TeamDPME/GPDL&H Pre-moderation preparationModeration Team Moderation team led by DPME moderates the self-assessmentModeration Team Moderated results discussed with EM, MM & senior managersDPME/GPDL&H/Executive Mayors /MMs/Senior Managers Challenge WindowMayors /MMs/Senior Managers Final moderation and feedbackModeration Team Improve & monitorMunicipality develops improvement plan & monitors implementation (supported by province, relevant departments & entities) GPLG&H/Municipalities/sectoral departments Preparation for next MAT cycle (To be determined)For discussion by All ± 2 Months

13. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring  The Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring (FSDM) came into effect in June 2011 to focus on monitoring of experience of citizens when obtaining services  Is also one of the sub-outputs in the Outcome 12 Delivery Agreement  Commitment from the Executive to focus on frontline service delivery monitoring – President and Ministers are visiting institutions such as hospitals, schools, police stations and municipalities and Drivers Licence Testing Centres on an ongoing basis  Executive monitoring is complemented by monitoring by officials of the Presidency and the Offices of the Premier  DPME and Offices of the Premier have collaborated to establish a joint frontline service delivery monitoring programme 13

14. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Components of frontline service delivery monitoring  Programme comprises of three components:  Sub-programme 1: Surprise visits by officials in DPME and the Offices of the Premier to service delivery points to assess the state of frontline service delivery  Sub-programme 2: Engaging with civil society to develop a structured approach for citizen-based monitoring of frontline service delivery  Sub- programme 3: Management of the Presidential Hotline as an effective service delivery monitoring and accountability instrument  Data from these sources as well as other sources such as the Public Service Commission and DPSA will be used to assess the state of front- line service delivery and make recommendations for improvements 14

15. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Approach to (FSDM)  Focus is on monitoring generic performance assessment areas in all facilities  Location and access  Visibility and signage  Queue management and waiting times  Dignified treatment  Cleanliness and comfort  Safety  Opening and closing times  Complaints and compliment systems  Selected sector specific standards (for example response time to open a new municipal account)  Monitoring results based on interviews with community users at the service site, interviews with staff as well as the observations of the monitors 15

16. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Initial Findings on MCCCs  Community users have been very appreciative of the presence of officials from the Presidency and the Offices of the Premier at the 22 municipal customer care centres (MCCCs) visited as part of the local government pilot phase of the FSDM Programme in 2012/13 year. 16 Number of MCCCs visited per Province PROVINCES Total sites monitored to date Sites not reported on Sites with completed monitoring Eastern Cape 303 Free State 734 Gauteng 1046 Kwazulu-Natal 101 Limpopo 202 Mpumalanga 000 Northern Cape 514 North West 110 Western Cape 202 Totals 31922

17. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Initial Findings on MCCCs cont…  General problems found during the pilot phase of Municipal Customer Care Centres:  Internal signage to indicate to users exactly where they should go for the service they require is often lacking in some of the MCCCs  Long waiting times were also experienced  Very little evidence of active queue management, inappropriately trained security guards are often deployed as queue managers  Complaints and compliments systems are usually under-utilised  General lack of a visible presence of managers at the front-line of the service facilities  Non-escalation of monitoring findings to Political Principals since some of these findings affect their areas of responsibility 17

18. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Ke ya lebogaKe a leboha Ke a lebogaNgiyabonga Ndiyabulela NgiyathokozaNgiyabonga InkomuNdi khou livhuhaThank you Dankie For any further information on the Municipal Assessment Tool please Contact: Jacqueline Nel: E-mail: jacquelinen@po.gov.za; Tel: 012 308 1884jacquelinen@po.gov.za Hassen Mohamed – Head: Municipal Performance Unit: E-mail: hassen@po-dpme.gov.za