1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGNING AND FILING OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENT BRIEFING TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION 12 MAY 2010

2. 2 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION 1. INTRODUCTION Setting the context The PMDS for the Senior Management Service (SMS) 2. THE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS (PAs) PROCESS Roles Observations by the PSC Analysis of reasons for non-compliance 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 4. CONCLUSION

3. 3 INTRODUCTION Setting the context  Heads of Department (HoDs) are responsible for ensuring the achievement of the service delivery objectives of their departments.  They are effectively the administrative drivers of government’s programmes.  It is therefore important to hold them accountable for the achievement of the objectives within their scope of responsibility.

4. 4 THE PMDS FOR SMS The Performance Management and Development System (PMDS)  Provides a mechanism for promoting accountability.  Helps to clarify responsibilities, priorities and performance expectations between the HoD and the supervising Executing Authority (EA) through the signing of the performance contract.  Creates a sound basis for administrative decisions (i.e. in managing performance, the awarding of bonuses, ensuring accountability and delivery) when done properly.

5. 5 The PMDS for SMS (cont’d)  The PMDS was used as basis for the Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs which was developed by the PSC and adopted by Cabinet in November 2000.  The PMDS policy consolidates the provisions regarding performance management and development for Senior Managers in the Public Service.  It was issued as a directive by the Minister for the Public Service and Administration (MPSA) in terms of Part III.B3 of Chapter 4 of the Public Service Regulations, 2001.

6. 6 THE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT PROCESS  The PMDS requires all senior managers (including HoDs) to enter into Performance Agreements (PAs) by not later than 30 April of each year.  Newly appointed SMS members have to complete their PAs within the first three months of appointment.  These PAs should focus on one specific financial year and should be reviewed annually.  The PAs form the basis of a performance contract and accountability. They also serve as the point of reference for the HoD and EA in the performance management cycle for performance evaluations against departmentally set objectives.

7. The PA process (cont…)  The content of the PAs should clearly and directly devolve from the department’s strategic plan.  All HoDs have to include the Regional Integration, Minimum Information Security Standards and Integrated Governance.  All eleven CMCs are compulsory for HoDs as per approval by the MPSA on request by the Public Service Commission.  Two half yearly performance reviews should take place during the financial year prior to the annual performance assessment. 7

8. 8 The role of the Public Service Commission (PSC)  The PSC maintains a database of the PAs of HoDs and advises both the EAs and HoDs on compliance and quality aspects of the PAs.  The PSC further facilitates the performance evaluation process and issues annual guidelines to compliment the Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs.  The PSC also chairs all the evaluation panels and manages the process by, among others, providing secretarial support to the Evaluation Panels. The PA Process (cont’d)

9. 9 The role of the Executive Authority (EA):  EAs should conclude PAs with their HoDs at the beginning of each financial year.  In terms of the Framework, the responsibility to manage and evaluate performance based on the PA resides with the relevant EA.  EAs should, through their offices, provide documents to be used for the evaluation, key of which is the PA of the HoD, the Verification Statement (VS) signed by both the HoD and the EA and the annual report.  The EA must arrange for the evaluation to take place by appointing a panel that will assess the HoD’s performance and generate advice to the EA.

10. 10 OBSERVATIONS BY THE PSC  The PSC has been extensively involved in the monitoring and evaluation of performance management practices in the Public Service.  The involvement has provided useful insights into the performance management and development practices of departments. One of the most critical areas highlighted has been the overall poor management of PAs.  Certain common challenges have been observed on the formulation, use and management of PAs.

11. Observations (cont’d) 11 Overall submission on PAs of national and provincial HoDs

12. 12 Observations (cont’d) Overall submission rate between 2007 – 2010: 2007/2008: 75 PAs out of 107 expected. 2008/2009: 108 PAs out of the 130 expected. 2009/2010: 70 PAs out of 107 expected.

13. Observations (cont’d) 13 Status on the submission of PAs (National Departments):

14. Observations (cont’d) 14 Submission of PAs (National Departments): YEAR NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS Total HoD Posts Number received Number outstanding Vacant posts 2007/08 (as at 31-03-2009) 383233 2008/09 (as at 31-03-2009) 382873 2009/10 (as at 30-03-2010) 432599

15. 15 Observations (cont’d) Progress made (focusing on the 2008/2009 cycle): Details: 2008/2009 cycle  There were 38 HoDs posts in this cycle and 03 were vacant.  35 PAs were expected and only 28 were received. There following 7 were outstanding: - Housing, -Land Affairs, -National Treasury, -NICOC, -SASS, -Sports n Recreation, -Stats SA

16. Observations (cont’d) Progress made (focusing on the 2009/2010 cycle): Details: 2009/2010 cycle  There were 43 HoD posts in this cycle and 09 were vacant. 34 PAs were expected and 25 were received. The following 09 were outstanding: - Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, -Arts and Culture, -Basic Education, -Higher Education and Training, -Human Settlements, -NIA, -SASS, -State Security, -Water & Environmental Affairs 16

17. Observations (cont’d) 17 Submission on PAs of provincial HoDs

18. Observations (cont’d)  The PSC did not receive PAs from 7 HoDs of national departments for the 08/09 as reflected in the table above.  The PSC did not receive PAs from 9 HoDs of national departments for the 09/10 financial year as reflected in the table above.  These departments were contacted and reminders sent through but no responses were received from these departments. 18

19. Observations (cont’d)  HoD Evaluation for the 2008/09 cycle also indicate we might be heading for the worst compliance level ever registered.  The cut off point for these evaluation would be end July 2010. To date these are the stats for national HoDs:  Details: 2008/2009 evaluation cycle -TotalHoD posts:38 -HoD not qualifying:07 -Expected evaluations:31 -Evaluations conducted:01 -Outstanding:30 19

20. 20 ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE  The PSC believes that one of the reasons for non- compliance is that the Performance Management Process is not always accorded high priority.  There could also be poor administrative support in the offices of EAs and HoDs, and from HR components. Such support is particularly important for new EAs and HoDs who may not be familiar with the process and its requirements.  There could also be fundamental differences between EAs and HoDs which are not mediated, thus leading to the late or non-signing of PAs.

21. 21 RECOMMENDATIONS  EAs need to play their role as provided for in the Evaluation Framework and ensure that performance management process is adhered to.  Performance Agreements should be entered into and filed with the PSC timeously.  The performance contracts being introduced by the Presidency for Ministers should ensure that EAs are held accountable for managing the performance of their HoDs and Departments.

22. 22 CONCLUSION  The PSC will continue to monitor the performance management process of HoDs and report on progress.  Parliament should give the necessary attention to challenges and recommendations raised in order to strengthen this process.  Parliament should exercise its authority to ensure that all PAs have been filed by 30 June 2010 which is a deadline set by the PSC.

23. 23 THANK YOU!