1. The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL (MPAT) Portfolio Committee on Rural Development 6 March 2013

2. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Why?  Improved management practices key to improved service delivery  Weak administration (financial management, supply chain management, asset management, human resource management, planning, monitoring, facilities management) is a recurring theme across the priorities and is leading to poor service delivery, e.g.  Textbook delivery problems in some provinces  Shortages of ARVs in some provinces  Undermining of small business development policy through non-payment of suppliers within 30 days  Appointment of unqualified people in key municipal positions, leading to poor municipal service delivery  Develop a culture of continuous improvement and sharing of good practice  Link institutional performance to individual assessment of HoD 2

3. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation  MPAT first implemented in the 2011/12 financial year, after Cabinet approval to annually assess national and provincial departments using MPAT – Based on international experience (Canada, Kenya, New Zealand) where Office of President or Premier assesses management practices with aim of driving improvements through competition and sharing of good practice  103 out of 158 departments participated in the first round of assessments  2011/12 self-assessment results for national departments have been published on the DPME website  Important base-line established  Many departments have implemented improvements as a result of this initial assessment  For 2012/13 all (156) national and provincial departments participated in assesment 3 Background

4. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation How?  Assessment is against 31 management standards, in 17 management areas  Standards based on legislation and regulations  Standards developed collaboratively (with National Treasury, DPSA, Office of the Public Service Commission, Office of the Auditor General and Offices of the Premier)  Joint initiative with Offices of the Premier – DPME facilitates national departments, OoP facilitates provincial departments 4

5. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 5 Self- assessment; validation External moderation and feedback Improve and monitor Senior management agree score Internal Audit certify process and evidence HOD sign off External Moderation DPME/OOP feedback to department Department improvement plan Department monitors Department prepares for next round Have we improved from baseline?

6. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Moderation  DPME only started MPAT assessments and tested the moderation process in 2011/12  Results of the 2011/12 reflect the self-assessment only  For the 2012/13 assessments, detailed peer moderation of self-assessments was conducted  Policy and implementing experts from national and provincial departments were used as moderators  Departments were given a further opportunity to comment on moderated scores  Moderated results will be published in July 2013 after presentation to Cabinet 6

7. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MPAT ratings 7 LevelDescription Level 1Non-compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 2Partial compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 3Full compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 4Full compliance and doing things smartly

8. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 8 1.3 Performance Area: Monitoring and Evaluation 1.3.1 Standard name: Integration of monitoring and evaluation in performance and strategic management Standard definition: The department’s ability to do monitoring and evaluation, produce useful and reliable information, and use performance information in performance and strategic management. StandardsEvidence DocumentsLevel Department does not have a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework Level 1 Department has a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework. Department does not have standardised mechanisms and/or processes and procedures to collect, manage and store data. M&E or Performance Management Information Policy / Framework Level 2 Department has a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework. Department has standardised mechanisms and/or processes and procedures to collect, manage and store data.  M&E or Performance Management Information Policy / Framework  Standardised monitoring reports generated from formal departmental performance information source(s) Level 3 Level 3 plus: At least one evaluation of a major programme is conducted or in process or planned Level 3 plus:  Evaluation Reports or  Evaluation plans Level 4

9. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 9 2.3 Performance Area: Accountability 2.3.2 Standard name: Assessment of accountability mechanisms (Audit Committee) Standard definition: Departments have a properly constituted Audit Committee (or shared Audit Committee) that functions in terms of Treasury requirements. StandardsEvidence DocumentsLevel Department does not have an audit committee in place. Level 1 Department has an audit committee in place that is constituted in according to Treasury requirements. Appointment letters or agreement for shared audit committee Level 2 Audit committee meets as scheduled. Audit Committee has an Audit Charter with clearly defined objectives and key performance indicators  Approved minutes of last 3 Audit Committee meetings  Audit Charter signed by the Chairperson of the Audit Committee and the Accounting Officer  Report(s) by Chairperson of Audit Committee. Three year internal audit plan approved by Audit Committee. Level 3 Level 3 plus: Audit Committee review management responses to audit issues and reports thereon Assessment of Audit committee by stakeholders Level 3 plus:  Minutes of last 3 audit committee meetings  Report(s) by Chairperson of Audit Committee on management responses  Copy of the assessment report of Audit Committee by stakeholders Level 4

10. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Improving management performance  In most management areas some departments have been able to reach level 4  This means that it is possible for all departments to reach level 4  DPME has developed good practice case studies of level 4 performance in various management areas  Case studies have been documented independently and available on www.goodxample.org www.goodxample.org  Focused workshops on the case studies are been held with departments  Aim is to encourage departments to learn from each other  New case studies currently been finalised  DPME, DPSA and NT offer support to departments to improve management practices 10

11. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 11 Self-assessment scores for 2011/12

12. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 12

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. Final moderated scores for 2012/13 16

17. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation  For strategic management the department has shown improvements from their previous self-assessment rating 17

18. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation  For Governance, other than the functioning of the Audit Committee, the department is below compliance  SDIP is one area in which compliance across all departments is low, review of policy and/or support from DPSA must be prioritised  The requirements for the Governance of ICT was issued only after assessment was performed and therefore non compliance in this area is understandable 18

19. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation  For Human Resource Management the department is below compliance on all standards  The requirements for reporting on diversity within departments were not well known and therefore the performance in this area was low across all departments  The standard for management of disciplinary cases includes the adherence to the 60 day requirements and most departments do not adhere to this 19

20. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation  For Financial Management the department is at a compliance level for all standards 20

21. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendation regarding DRDLR 2012/13 MPAT assessments  Significant improvements in strategic and financial management are evident and the department is at a compliant level for these KPAs  To get to level 4, management needs to be more proactive in acting on data and information it generates  Improvement plans of the department should focus on Governance and Accountability and Human Resource Management to get to a compliance level at minimum  DPME has provided feedback to the department regarding their moderated scores and is aware of plans and improvements already in place that should impact positively on the DRDLR next assessment 21

22. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Value add of this process  MPAT provides a single holistic picture of the state of a department  Generally audits focus on compliance only, whereas MPAT focuses on getting managers to work more smartly  MPAT also covers a broader range of management areas than audits cover  Getting all departments to level 4 will improve levels and quality of service delivery  For example getting departments to procure smartly would result in better service delivery by suppliers and contractors, and savings from reducing corruption and increasing value for money 22

23. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Value add… cont  The process of getting top management as a whole to assess itself against a holistic set of good practice management standards and to agree on required improvements is the main value add of the MPAT assessment process  Management practices in departments are generally weak because top management has not paid sufficient attention to improving them  By carrying out annual MPAT assessments the Presidency and the Offices of the Premier are sending out a clear message that improving administration is a priority of government 23

24. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Limitations of this process  MPAT focuses on processes related to converting inputs into outputs  Does not focus on assessing whether the right outputs are been produced to achieved desired outcomes and impacts  Risk that departments may be producing the wrong outputs very efficiently and effectively  In viewing the overall performance of a department it is therefore also important to consider the achievement of outcomes and impacts  DPME is doing this through monitoring of the 12 priority outcomes and related delivery agreements  Departments’ performance against targets for outcome and impact indicators in their strategic plans and APPs, as reported in their annual reports, should also be used to assess this 24

25. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Ke ya leboga Ke a leboha Ke a leboga Ngiyabonga Ndiyabulela Ngiyathokoza Ngiyabonga Inkomu Ndi khou livhuha Dankie Thank you