Ronette Engela PCAS, The Presidency

SMSConference

Performance management8-9 Sept 2008

GWM&E system

In 2005 Cabinet approved an implementation plan

to developa monitoring and evaluation system

for use across government

1MonitoringEvaluationEarly warningVerificationData collectionAnalysis Reporting

3 Components

1) Principles 2) Compendium

of indicators3) Implementation

plan

Linked to planningframework

Cabinet memorandum

2005

2Based on standard, shared indicators

3Composite systemBuilt over timePilotRoll-out

Not a single automated IT system

Composite system that draws its data from contributory systems Emerging system built up over time with consistent and sustained participation by all stakeholders

Conceptual anchor matrix of indicators

National vision doesnNational vision doesn’’t justt justhappenhappen’’ at provincesat provinces

Well Well conceptualisedconceptualised, consistent , consistent with international practicewith international practice

‘Green Book’

Framing phase

Quality improvement and analysisphase

IT systems

Schematic vision of roll out

Fellowship Battle Victory Quest

2005-2007 2008-?2010 2011 onwards =indicative

SYSTEMS Large existing systems in place that have taken years to build upPerformance monitoring system by NT of 500 indicators of concurrent functionsExtensive systems in Housing, Education, Health, DWAF, SAPS, Soc DevSome provinces – FS, GT, WC, KZN & EC

What do we have?What do we have?Status quo

Good CAPACITY and experienceConceptual coherencebetween some core national departments, even joint projects

Need to focus on quality improvement

GWM&E System: Policy platformGWM&E System: Policy platform

Social, Economic & Demographic Statistics

Registers and Admin data

Evaluations

Programme Performance Information

GWM&E framework

PPI framework

SASQAF

Common definitions

Evaluation policy

Policy platform established 2007GWM&E framework – policy platform for M&E in SA govPPI framework – management tool, role of M&E in plannning and budgetingSA Statistical Quality Assurance framework – evaluation of statistics used by deptSAMDI curriculum - M&E training secure footingDraft DPLG LG frameworkPremier’s Office guidelines

Common definitions document

Products and Processes Products and Processes Status quo

Revitilized M&E Task Team Coordinating Forum

Products and Processes Products and Processes Status quo

Cross cutting M&E products PoA – annual SONA announces priority programmes progress reported to cabinet bi-monthlyDevelopment Indicators - 76 Indicators progress of society Public Mang Watch – 13x HR indicators, 2 Financial, 1 audit, weighted to provide composite indexAnnual performance plans and service delivery targets - 500x indicators - monitored quarterly

IGR publication of non financial informationOPSC reports – Annual State of the Public Service ReportAG office – audits of performance information

Learning Network2 events, 300 att, Web link

GWM&E : productsGWM&E : products

Social, Economic & Demographic Statistics

Registers and Admin data

Evaluations

Programme Performance Information

NationalIndicators

PoAPoA

GWM&E : productsGWM&E : products

Social, Economic & Demographic Statistics

Registers and Admin data

Evaluations

Programme Performance Information

Dept Sector

Derived information system DPLGDWAF

Transversal systems PERSAL BAS

Established the culture of reportingDoes not allow proper outcome/impact assessment

Sometimes need process - court casesWill be assessed, redesigned end 2008Building custom based web system

PoAPoAAnnual State of the Nation –priorities are announcedWeb based system 300 usersBi-monthly report to Cabinet

Positive

NegativeNegative

7766 Development IndicatorsDevelopment Indicators

Economic growth and transformation

Education

Employment Social cohesion

Poverty and inequality Safety and security

Household and community assets

International

Health Good governance

www.ThePresidency.gov.zawww.ThePresidency.gov.za

NationalIndicators

PPI service delivery information500

indicators

Annual MTSF informs MTEF -budgetTogether with budget, Annual Performance Plans tabled in parl / legislaturesProv APP prescribed format with indicators that measures delivery of servicesQuarterly reports to provincial Treasuries who passes it on to NTPublished annuallyMonitor Annual Report against APP

8 years8 yearsto buildto build

Education

Number of learner days covered by the nutrion

programme

Number of schools w ith an adequate

number of functional toilets

ATPrelimenary

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimaner

y Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1Eastern Cape – 53 – 4 657 – 895 – 20 204Free State 184 27 30 – 42 – 8 285 9 804Gauteng 199 48 1 963 1 963 1 963 1 963 30 000 45 754Kw aZulu-Natal 233 992 800 42 012 000 4 893 4 801 3 766 3 647 – – Limpopo – – – – – – – – Mpumalanga 156 39 1 763 – 438 – 51 376 51 376Northern Cape 174 27 620 450 600 500 22 648 22 648North West 196 50 1 403 – – – 34 000 42 505Western Cape 34 680 000 9 150 075 1 450 1 450 164 162 46 900 46 900* Zero's indicate no information *(SDD) versus (AT) First Quarter 2007/08 - Education

Programme 2: Public Ordinary School Education

Number of learners benefitting from scholar

transport

Number of public Ordinary schools w ith

water supplyProvinces

Health

PHC total headcount Utilisation rate-PHC

ATPrelimenar

y Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimane

ry Q1Eastern Cape – 1,103,422 - R 68 2.7 1.9 - 3.4 70.0% - Free State – 1,018,446 R 99 - 2.3 0.3 3.8 0.9 78.0% 79.1% Gauteng 30,000,000 2,454,049 R 52 R 151 2.5 1.5 4.5 1.3 100.0% 68.0% Kw aZulu-Natal 19,986,457 4,231,976 R 206 R 86 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 100.0% 85.0% Limpopo – 2,924,118 R 238 R 63 3.0 2.2 3.3 4.9 80.0% 79.0% Mpumalanga – – - - - - - - - - Northern Cape 2,500,500 401,758 R 182 R 52 3.5 5.0 5.0 10.0 70.0% 45.0% North West – 1,142,181 R 78 R 125 3.5 1.2 5.0 2.6 100.0% - Western Cape – – - - - - - - - -

Programme 2: District Health Services

Utilisaton rate for under 5 year olds - PHC Supervision visit rate

Clinics and community health centres

Provinces

Expenditure per PHC headcount (province)

Social Development

Number of children who stay in Children Homes -

Government

Number of children who stay in Children Homes -

NGO

Number of children who stay in Places of Safety - Government

Prov ATPrelimenary

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1Eastern Cape - - 2 111 527 500 250 - - Free State 800 934 See Govern - 100 260 - - Gauteng - - - - - - - - Kw aZulu-Natal 60 64 2 250 1 962 750 276 1 500 241 Limpopo 500 270 257 350 120 200 - - Mpumalanga 80 20 648 445 - - 720 111 Northern Cape - - 672 1 258 20 23 750 555 North West 160 30 1 704 405 - - 300 78 Western Cape - - 2 198 2 198 - - - - * Zero's indicate no information *(SDD) versus (AT) First Quarter 2007/08 - Social Development

Programme 2: Social Welfare Services

Number of Children who stay in Secure Care

Centres - Government

2.6 Child Care and Protection Services

Agriculture

Number of emerging farmers supported w ith

advice

Number of commercial farmers supported w ith

advice

Number of contacts sharing research related

information

Prov ATPrelimenary

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1Eastern Cape 14,000 1,265 90 24 75 25 Free State 1,162 719 451 277 540 168 Gauteng 600 89 - - - - Kw aZulu-Natal 16,162 9,118 1,043 238 296 180 Limpopo - - - - - - Mpumalanga 120 35 110 10 133 36 Northern Cape 6,000 - 100 - - - North West 12,073 4,644 1,530 926 157 12 Western Cape 1,000 579 500 171 - - * Zero's indicate no information *(SDD) versus (AT) First Quarter 2007/08 - Agriculture

Programme 3: Farmer Support and Development3.2 Extension Services

Transport

Number of kilometres resealed tarred roads

Number of kilometres regravel roads

Numver of kilometres routine maintenance on al

roads

Prov ATPrelimenary

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1 ATPrelimanery

Q1Eastern Cape - - 974 297 51,900 20,600 100 200 Free State 20 - 90 - 85,000 14,465 2,227 137 Gauteng 2 2 5,200 2,303 - - - - Kw aZulu-Natal - 12 1,000 90 - - - - Limpopo - - - - - - - - Mpumalanga 200 58 114 - 1,000 150 14,557 1,130 Northern Cape - - - - - - - - North West 52 - 370 - 71,000 14,270 - - Western Cape 340 100 410 69 32,182 32,182 5,000 2,210 * Zero's indicate no information *(SDD) versus (AT) First Quarter 2007/08 - PW Roads & Transport

Programme 3: Road Infrastructure

EPWP Employment - Number of jobs created

3.5 Maintenance

PoA

PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT

PREMIERS OFFICE

Output & outcome info

DPSA

Human resource info

PROVINCIAL TREASURY

NATIONAL TREASURY

Financial info

PPI info Policy outcome info

PRESIDENCY

NATIONAL SECTOR DEPT OTHER NATIONAL DEPT

PoA Dev IndStatus quo

•Systems initiated in response to specific needs•Hard working, but not smart working systems•Smart analysis to align information

Ke ya lebogaKe a leboha

Ke a lebogaNgiyabonga

NdiyabulelaNgiyathokoza

NgiyabongaInkomu

Ndi khou livhuhaDankie

Thank you

REPORT FROM WORKSHOP

Presentation: overview of the environment created to assist M&E to be operational and effective i.e. Policy, systems, procedures, products, trainingGrappling. Room for improvement. Indicators at differing “levels” possible. Golden thread missing. Needs focus to improve quality.SMS members need to understand M&E. Not a compliance matter but an essential management tool.

Impact analysis. Difficult to analyse. Challenge. Non acceptance of results of M&E process. Findings negated and not implemented. M&E needs “protection” of the HOD. Organisational location is important. Enskilling M&E practitioners. Data interpretation is crucial. Know the criteria prior to process.Impact assessment differs on what is being assessed. Some are long term others medium.

Challenge is what is fair to hold individuals accountable for. Indicators need to be carefully designed to prevent perverse outcomes.International experience should be fully utilised.Quality improvement needs to be sector specific.M&E an Art and a Science

M&E at this point is more a learning tool than an accounting tool.Integral part of management.Development trajectory for designing interventions with a view to M&E has a logical sequence that should be respected.Challenge re Impact: How do we allot a cause – effect process to the programme goals.

Setting performance standards. Organisational performance and its relation to individual performance – how do we get better integration. How to identify the key elements that M&E will focus on. Are we all playing the same game.5 provinces have M&E systems. How will best practice be distilled to establish a generic framework.

M&E a management tool. But still a need to maintain a level of independence. How to arrive at a balance.Every dept must have some M&E tools to function.Must have specific indicators that relate to the Developmental State. Persons have a natural reluctance to being evaluated. Monitoring is a non-negotiable. The 76 are aligned with this. When persons are doing badly they are averse to monitoring but welcome it when they are doing well

Guidelines for requirements of a provincial M&E system are out. Baseline provided.Draft generic M&E framework developed. Will be “shared” with departments.PMDS needs to articulate with the M&E system. Non delivery cannot warrant performance bonuses.Player/Referee situation. Managers need to monitor and also have a specialist component that can quality assure performance and for longer term programmes independent evaluators could be used with the line manager not abrogating role.

Will not have a one on one relationship with organisational performance and individual performance. It will inform the assessment but not “decide” it.Tendency to view the new public service as if it has been in existence for 50 years. But this is only 13 years old. How can an M&E system identify causality and influence of architectural design, resources, contextual and historical realities.

Presupposes that M&E infrastructure is in place and we just have to implement. The existing systems do not lend themselves to Cluster based integrated M&E beyond a simple aggregation of individual depts.Must extend the M&E system to provide data on integrated functioning as a “single government” The architecture is designed for individual depts.

Accountability systems focus on “department alone” responsibility. This then limits the various systemsCluster integration M&E would need more focus on policy, outcome and output indicators and then attempt to allocate accountability for it. No simple answer. Will have to develop a shared understanding on “cluster responsibilities”. Must go beyond the financial accountability process

Institutional building blockages. How is information used to full extent. Sunshine Theory galvanises action.POA is a source of pressure for Cluster Monitoring – this could provoke a response ito M&EPioneering work. Will learn by doing. Walk the talk.

Summing up: 3 elements: M&E is everyone's business bottom up and top down Cannot avoid being accountableFind balance between measurement and managementThis is a public service not a public corporation. All action must be in service to community and meeting its needs.