The Presidency Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Results of the 2013 moderated...

The PresidencyThe PresidencyDepartment of Planning, Monitoring and EvaluationDepartment of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

Results of the 2013 moderated assessments on the quality of management practices in

all 155 national and provincial departments

1

Presentation to Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration and Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

17 September 2014

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

Focus of DPME to date

2

M&E of national priorities

Management performance M&E

M&E of front-line service delivery

Government-Wide M&E System

• Plans for the 14 priority outcomes (delivery agreements, MTSF)

• Monitoring (ie tracking) progress against the plans• Evaluating to see how to improve programmes, policies,

plans (2012-13 8 evaluations, then 10-15 per year)

• Monitoring of experience of citizens when obtaining services (joint with provinces), including citizen-based monitoring

• Presidential Hotline – analysing responses and follow-up

• Assessing quality of management practices in individual departments and municipalities (MPAT and LGMIM)

• Moderated self assessment and continuous improvement

• Guidelines for M&E across government• Data quality • Capacity development • Programme planning guidelines• National Evaluation System• Custodian of strategic and annual performance planning


Why assess management practices? Capable and developmental state is prerequisite to

achieving NDP objectives Weak administration is a recurring theme and is leading

to poor service delivery, e.g. Shortages of ARVs in some provinces Non-payment of suppliers within 30 days

MPAT measures whether things are being done right or better

Departments must also be assessed against the outcomes and their strategic and annual performance plans to determine if they are doing the right things

33


Background DPME, together with the Offices of the Premier and transversal

policy departments have since 2011 been assessing the quality of management practices

The MPAT tool was developed collaboratively with other transversal policy departments and OAG and OPSC

MPAT provides a holistic view of management performance and draws on data from other agencies, such as the OAG, as secondary sources

MPAT is not simply an external audit of management practices, it includes a strong element of self-assessment, learning and improvement

It is based on international good practice, drawing on the experience of Canada, Russia, India, Kenya and New Zealand

44

Level Description Level 1 Non-compliance with

legal/regulatory requirements

Level 2 Partial compliance with legal/regulatory requirements

Level 3 Full compliance with legal/regulatory requirements

Level 4 Full compliance and doing things smartly

5

Levels of assessment

6

2.1.1 Standard name: Service delivery improvement mechanismsStandard definition: Departments have an approved service delivery charter, standards and service delivery improvement plans and adheres to these to improve services.Standards Evidence Documents LevelDepartment does not have a service charter and service standards

Level 1

Department has a draft service charter and service standards

Service charter and service standards

Level 2

Department has an approved service charter, service standards and SDIP

Department has consulted stakeholders/service recipients on service standards and SDIP

Department displays its service charter

Service charter, service standards and SDIP

Evidence of consultation with stakeholders/ service recipients

Level 3

Level 3 plus:

Department quarterly monitors compliance to service delivery standards

Management considers monitoring reports

Reports are used to inform improvements to business processes

Level 3 plus:

Minutes of management meetings reflecting discussion of service delivery improvement

Progress reports and monitoring reports

Level 4

MPAT measures 31 standards in 4 KPAs, eg:

7

Human Resource Management• HR Strategy and Planning• HR Practices and Administration• Management of Performance• Employee Relations

Governance & Accountability • Service Delivery Improvement• Management Structures• Accountability• Ethics• Internal Audit• Risk Management• Delegations• Governance of ICT• Promotion of access to

information

Strategic Management• Strategic Planning• Annual performance planning• Monitoring & Evaluation

Financial Management• Supply Chain Management• Expenditure management

The Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 8

Self-assessment and validation

External moderation and feedback

Improve and monitor

Senior management agreed score

Internal Audit certify process

and check evidence

HOD sign off

External Moderation

DPME/OTP feedback to department

Department improvement

plan

Department monitors

Department prepares for next roundHave we improved

from baseline?

The assessment process


2013 assessment results Noted improvements are evident when comparing the

2013 results to the 2012 results across most departments - in some areas of management however there has not been significant improvement

DPME has documented good practices since 2011 to assist departments to improve their management practices

99


Analysis – Strategic Management KPA Standards in this management area - Annual Performance Plans and

Monitoring and Evaluation - have declined from 2012 But bar was raised in 2013: Departments should achieve at least 80% of

their targets and no findings by AGSA on the relevance, reliability and quality of reports against pre-determined objectives in the APP for level 4

In the 2013 assessments: 43% of departments scored at level 1 or 2 for the APP standard – meaning that their

APPs also do not comply with the TR and guidelines and that management does not regularly engage with the quarterly progress report

43% of departments scored at level 1 or 2 for the M&E standard, meaning that they do not have standardised processes to collect, manage and store data

The implication of this is that departments are struggling to set realistic performance targets and accurately report achievements against them

1010


Lessons from Case Studies – M&E and APP standardsExamples of departments which scored at level four for both the APP and M&E standard: dti and EC Economic Development Environmental Affairs and TourismDocumented M&E processes and policiesSystems put in place to collect, store and verify dataProgramme Managers understand importance of M&E to help with decision-making based on evidence and not just for compliance

1111


Analysis – Governance and Accountability70% of departments (79% in 2012) are at level one

or two for the standard for service delivery improvement

Poor performance in this standard raises questions about the appropriateness of the Service Delivery Planning Framework issued by DPSA in terms of the Public Service Regulations

73% of departments score at level one or two with the standard related to the Promotion of Access to Information Act

1212


Lessons from Case Studies – Service Delivery Improvement StandardDHA; EC Rural Development National departments still do not comply with DPSA requirements for SDIP compliance – DHA scored at only level 1 despite intense interventions to improve service delivery for issuing of IDs and PassportsEC Rural Development scored a 4 and has good practice with regard to consultation with farmers and front line extension workers on setting service standards

1313


Lessons from Case Studies – Risk and Fraud Management StandardDMR; NW Agriculture scored at level 4In DMR buy in from top management by allocating a CD as a risk champions in each branch, DDG’s assessed on how they manage riskNW Agriculture has the function located in the HoDs office to manage and respond to emerging risks. Also good practice in communicating issues related to risk and fraud via staff newsletter

1414


Analysis – Human Resource Management65% of departments (74% in 2012) scored at level

1 or 2 with the organisational design standard82% of department (88% in 2012) scored at level

1 or 2 for the human resource planning standard Only two departments achieve level 3 and above

for the standard on diversity management90% of departments (88% in 2012) were assessed

at level 1 or 2 for the standard related to management of disciplinary cases

1515


Lessons from Case Studies – Organisational Design StandardDOE; NC Social Development scored at level 4Lesson for DOE is that it takes time to implement necessary organisation change and consultation is crucialNC Social Development made effective use of DPSA Guide and Toolkit in Organisational Design, to ensure that the department was positioned to implement its War on Poverty Programme – Foetal alcohol syndrome reduced by 30% in De Aar

1616


Lessons from Case Studies – Recruitment and Retention Standard

GCIS; NC Roads and Public Works scored at level 4GCIS only department to meet equity targets, also all vacancies filled within 2 months GCIS also good practice in conducting exit interviews and analysis of why staff leave

1717


Lessons from Case Studies – Management of disciplinary cases DMR; KZN Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs scored at level 4DMR good practice in creating awareness amongst staff on what constitutes misconduct. Managers empowered to manage their own DC processes, cases resolved with 90 daysKZN EDTEA: all cases completed within 90 days by collaborating with other departments to assist with chairing of DC hearings and they have clear documented processes in place

1818


Analysis – Financial Management87% of departments were assessed at level 1 or 2

on the standard related to payment of suppliers (bar was raised in this standard making it a level 3 requirement to pay suppliers within 30 days)

This negatively affects cash flow and sustainability of small businesses

50% of departments (60% in 2012) were assessed at level 1 or 2 for the standard related to the management of unauthorized, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure

1919


Lessons from Case Studies – Payment of Suppliers StandardDOE, NC Social Development scored at level 4DOE buy in from DG in driving improvement process, issue regularly monitored though all management structures NC Social Development through leadership commitment not only implemented effective decentralised delegations but managed to pay suppliers within 5 daysIn both cases failure to comply by staff is managed though disciplinary procedures 2020


2013 RANKINGS

KPA1

_201

3

KPA2

_201

3

KPA3

_201

3

KPA4

_201

3

KPA

Av_2

013

WC 10 10 10 10 10LP 4 9 8 8 9ND 3 5 9 9 8GP 9 7 3 3 7NC 7 8 5 4 6EC 2 6 7 7 5MP 6 4 4 2 4KZN 8 1 6 6 3FS 5 2 1 5 2NW 1 3 2 1 1

2012 RANKINGS

KPA1

_201

2

KPA2

_201

2

KPA3

_201

2

KPA4

_201

2

KPA

Av_2

012

WC 10 10 10 10 10MP 4 9 7 8 9ND 7 6 9 9 8FS 9 8 5 6 7LP 4 7 6 3 6NC 4 4 4 7 5KZN 3 2 8 5 4GP 8 3 2 4 3EC 2 1 3 2 2NW 1 5 1 1 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rank

2013 Provincial and National KPA Rankings

WC

LP

ND

GP

NC

EC

MP

KZN

FS

NW


Analysis against external criteria Statistical analysis of results by P&DM at Wits, together

with data on certain external criteria, indicated that: HR-related standards are particularly important for

achieving results in terms of the Auditor-General’s indicator of meeting more than 80% of performance targets in the APP

Senior Management Service (SMS) stability (the proportion of DGs and DDGs in office for more than three years) correlated frequently with a range of MPAT standards

2323


Conclusions (1) These has been some improvement from 2012 to 2013

In 2013, 69/155 departments were assessed as compliant or working smartly in at least half of the standards measured, as apposed to 59 in 2012

For national departments as a group and in 7 of the provinces, the average scores have increased since the 2012 assessment - Free State and Mpumalanga have declined

2424


Conclusions (2) Although there has been improvement in many

standards the following are areas where more than 50% of department do not meet legal requirements SDIP; Fraud Prevention HR Planning; Organisational Design, Management of

Diversity; SMS PMD; HoD PMDS; Disciplinary cases Payment of Suppliers; Unauthorised, Wasteful and

Fruitless Expenditure National Treasury, DPSA and DoJ need to review

regulatory frameworks or provide additional support in areas where the majority of departments do not comply

2525


Conclusions (3) For all standards, there are at least some departments

operating at level 4 Implies that it is possible for all departments to

operate at this level for all the standards DPME in collaboration with Wits University School of

Governance have documented and are disseminating case studies of departments operating at level 4, to assist departments to improve

Executive Authorities and Accounting Officers should ensure that their departments implement improvement plans to reach level 4 for all standards

2626


Additional SlidesAdditional Slides

2727


Key Lessons from analysis of data and good Key Lessons from analysis of data and good practicepractice

3636

GOOD MANAGEMENT

The Presidency Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Results of the 2013 moderated...

Documents

Transcript of The Presidency Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Results of the 2013 moderated...