PLENARY MEETING WORKSHOP ON CITIZENS FORUM

Document Sample
PLENARY MEETING WORKSHOP ON CITIZENS FORUM Powered By Docstoc
					 PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND
        ADMINISTRATION

CONSOLIDATED M&E REPORT ON OFFICES OF
 THE PREMIER- 2010/11 EVALUATION CYCLE

            22 August 2012
         STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION

• Background and purpose
• Relative performance of the departments
• Overall trend in performance between 1st and 2nd
  assessment
• Performance per principle – highest three and lowest
  two
• Conclusion



                                                         2
                         BACKGROUND
• The aim of the consolidated report on
  the Offices of the Premier was to:
    Provide an overview of the nine
     Offices’ performance against the
     Constitutional       values     and
     principles listed in section 195 of
     the Constitution
    Assess the progress that the
      Offices have made since their last
      evaluation by the PSC
    Compare performance between
      the different Offices; and
    Establish progress with the
      challenges encountered and how
      these challenges are being
      addressed

                                           3
                  BACKGROUND (cont.)
• All nine Offices of the Premier were evaluated in the 2010/11
  cycle and the performance of four Offices was compared to
  previous assessments.
• The methodology applied by the M&E System involves assessing
  the actual performance of a department against a set of indicators
  and standards.
• Evidence about the actual state of practice for the nine
  constitutional values and principles listed in section 195 of the
  Constitution is obtained by collecting and assessing policy and
  other documents, conducting interviews and assessing qualitative
  and quantitative data.
• Based on the assessment, a score is awarded to the department
  per principle and an average score calculated.


                                                                       4
                     BACKGROUND (cont.)
•    The following rating scale, consisting of five performance bands, is
     applied to assess the relative performance of the departments:

    Performance
                      Score description          Score            %
       band
         5         Excellent performance      4,25 – 5,00    81% - 100%
         4         Good performance           3,25 – 4,00     61% - 80%
         3         Adequate performance       2,25 – 3,00     41% - 60%
         2         Poor performance           1,25 – 2,00     21% - 40%
         1         No performance              0,25 - 1,00     0% - 20%

•    This presentation focuses on the top and lowest scoring principles.


                                                                           5
 BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE FUNCTIONS OF A
             PREMIER’S OFFICE
• As the executive authority, the Premier together with the Executive
  Council, must initiate and implement provincial policy, ensure
  alignment with national policy, and ensure integration across the
  different spheres of government.
• The Office, therefore, is regarded as the political nerve centre of the
  provincial government and plays a central role in managing the
  implementation of the electoral mandate.
• The Office furthermore supports the Premier with administrative
  management, providing strategic leadership and central
  coordination, and providing policy briefings/advice to the Premier
  and the Executive Council.


                                                                            6
    TREND IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN 1ST AND
                2ND ASSESSMENT
•   The average performance of the four Offices that were re-assessed
    improved from 59% (adequate) to 68% (good performance).




                                                                    7
  TREND IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN 1ST AND
           2ND ASSESSMENT (cont.)
• Three of the four re-assessed Offices have improved their
  performance by between 10% and 42%.
• The WC Office recorded the best improvement (from 40% to 82%)
• The Limpopo Office recorded a drop in performance (from 89% to
  54%). The main reason for the drop in performance was as a result
  of the fact that the Office failed to provide the necessary
  documentation for the assessment of Principle 4 (impartiality and
  fairness).
• The PSC’s System has consistently shown an upwards trend in
  performance from one cycle to the next.



                                                                  8
   IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
• The improvement and/or decline in performance can be linked to the
  implementation/non-implementation of the PSC’s recommendations.
            Recommendations of 1st assessment implemented
80%                   69%
60%       46%                      52%
40%                                            25%          24%
20%
  0%
          Total        WC          NW          Gaut         Limp

• Offices whose performance has increased notably in the 2nd
  assessment, are also the Offices who have implemented most of the
  PSC’s recommendations from the 1st assessment.
• The highest number of recommendations were made against
  principles 6 and 8 (accountability and good HR practices).
                                                                   9
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
 AGAINST EACH PRINCIPLE




                          10
            OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
             AGAINST EACH PRINCIPLE
• The performance against five of the nine principles, although
  below the average of 61%, was still within the adequate
  performance band.
• Departments scored the highest against the principles of
  professional ethics (69%), accountability (76%) and transparency
  (71%).
• Departments scored the lowest against the principles of fairness
  (51%) and representivity (49%).
• Some pertinent issues about these 5 principles are highlighted in
  the next slides.



                                                                      11
                 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Value: A high standard of professional ethics must be promoted and
maintained.
 Performance Indicator                         Standards
Cases of misconduct      •   A procedure is in place for reporting,
where a disciplinary         recording and managing cases of
hearing has been             misconduct.
conducted, comply with   •   All managers surveyed have a working
the provisions of the        knowledge of the system and are capable to
Disciplinary Code and        deal with cases of misconduct.
Procedures               •   Management reporting is done on cases of
                             misconduct and acted upon.
                         •   All of the most recent cases of misconduct in
                             which a disciplinary hearing is conducted are
                             finalised within the time frame of 20 – 80
                             working days.
                         •   Frequent training is provided on the handling
                             of cases of misconduct.
                                                                       12
              PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 69% (Good
  performance)
• The average performance against the six standards:
    Knowledge of misconduct procedures, capacity to handle
      misconduct cases and training on how to deal with misconduct
      cases was generally good (61% to 80%)
    Time taken to resolve misconduct cases was adequate (53%)
    There was a low number of highly competent middle and senior
      managers to deal with misconduct in Limpopo and Mpumalanga.

                  Number and competency level of Officials
Still gaining experience –  Adequate – More than 1    Highly competent – 3
      Less than 1 year     year but less than 3 years    years and more
         experience               experience               experience
            143                       135                      394


                                                                        13
                     ACCOUNTABILITY
Value: Public administration must be accountable.

    Performance Indicator                     Standards
•   Adequate internal financial •   Internal financial controls are
    controls & performance          adequate and effective.
    management are exerted •        A performance          management
    over    all  departmental       system on all programmes is in
    programmes.                     operation.
•   FPPs, based on risk •           FPPs are based on a thorough
    assessments, are in place       risk assessment.
    & implemented.
                                •   FPPs        are       in      place,
                                    comprehensive, appropriate, &
                                    implemented.
                                •   Key staff for investigating of fraud
                                    are operational.

                                                                      14
                  ACCOUNTABILITY (cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 76% (Good
  performance).
• Two of the nine Offices achieved a score of between 85% (WC) to
  100% (Gauteng), signifying excellent performance.
• All Offices had FPPs, based on risk analyses.
• Two of the Offices received a qualified audit opinion (FS and Limp).
• The score for implementation of fraud prevention plans was very low
  (37%).
• The capacity to investigate fraud was insufficient, or at best, uneven
  between the offices assessed.
• It was found that there is superficial compliance with requirements,
  like the requirement for risk assessment and fraud prevention plans,
  but these assessments and plans do not fundamentally change the
  management and operational processes, or even the culture, of the
  Office.

                                                                       15
                             TRANSPARENCY
Value: Transparency must be fostered by providing the public with
timely, accessible and accurate information.
 Performance Indicator                          Standards

Departmental Annual          • The AR is attractive , clearly presented & well
Report (AR)                     written in simple accessible language.
The departmental AR/         • The content of the AR covers at least 90% of
complies with NT’s             the areas prescribed by NT & the DPSA.
guideline on annual          • The AR clearly report on performance against
reporting.                     predetermined outputs in at least 66% of the
                               programmes listed.
Access to Information        • At least one deputy information officer with
The Department complies         duly delegated authority exists.
with the provisions of the   • A manual that complies with the requirements
Promotion of Access to         of the PAIA is in place.
Information Act (PAIA).      • Systems for managing requests for access to
                               information are in place.

                                                                             16
                   TRANSPARENCY (cont.)
 • The average performance for the nine Offices is 71% (Good
   performance)
 • Two areas were identified as deficiencies in most of the Offices.
     Annual reports did not cover in sufficient detail at least 90% of
      the areas prescribed by National Treasury and the DPSA.
     Only five (56%) of the Offices’ Manual on Access to Information
      complied with more than 78% of the 14 requirements set in
      section 14 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000
     Offices’ average compliance against the specific standards
         Departmental AR              Access to Information
                      Performance Appointed Manual on
Presentation Content                                    System
                       reporting     DIO      Access
   100%       34%         67%       100%       56%        78%


                                                                          17
              IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS
Value: Services must be provided impartially, fairly, equitably and
without bias.

Performance Indicator                       Standards
There is evidence that the     • All decisions are taken in
Department follows the           accordance        with    prescribed
prescribed procedures of the     legislation/policies and in terms of
Promotion of Administrative      delegated authority.
Justice Act (PAJA) when        • All decisions are justified and fair
making administrative            considering        the     evidence
decisions.                       submitted in this regard.
                               • The procedures required in the
                                 PAJA         in       communicating
                                 administrative decisions are duly
                                 followed.

                                                                    18
        IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS(cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 51% (Adequate)
• The main reason for the poor performance is that 4 out of 9 Offices
  did not submit information for assessment against this principle.
• The average performance of the other 5 Offices was excellent
  (91%), which means that all their decisions were taken in terms of
  legislation and by duly delegated officials, were fair, and complied
  with the requirements of PAJA.
• Offices’ average scores against the specific standards:
                Decisions are in Decisions are Decisions Communicating
Standards            terms of      in terms of are just and administrative
                legislation/policy delegations      fair      decisions
% Average for
nine Offices         45%             46%          56%           56%
% Average for
five Offices         80%             83%         100%           100%

                                                                        19
                         REPRESENTIVITY
Value: Public administration must be broadly representative of SA people,
with employment and personnel management practices based on ability
objectivity fairness and the need to redress the imbalances of the past to
achieve broad representation.

     Performance Indicator                       Standards
The Department is representative • Employment Equity policies &
of the South African people and is   plans are in place and reported
implementing diversity manage-       upon.
ment measures.                     • All representivity targets are
                                     met.
                                   • Diversity          management
                                     measures are implemented.



                                                                       20
                  REPRESENTIVITY (cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 49% (Adequate)
• The main reason for this performance was:
    The general lack of management feedback on progress reports
     on representivity, which hampered the Offices in reaching
     national representivity targets.
    None of the nine Offices was unable to reach the 50% target for
     women at all senior management levels by 31 March 2009
    Only 2 Offices complied with the 2% target for people with
     disability by 31/03/10.
Existence of an   Achievement      Management reporting on
                                                           Diversity
      EE                of             representivity
                                                           manage-
                  representivity
Policy   Plan                        Done      Response     ment
                     targets
34%      78%          31%             88%         22%        72%

                                                                   21
                         CONCLUSION
• The picture that emerged is:
     The Offices complied with basic procedures but could not
      translate compliance into excellence.
     To reach excellence will require focussed attention to achieve
      the intended outcome of administrative policies.
• Encouraging is that four of the five Offices that were re-assessed
  improved their performance by more than 10%.
• The challenges facing Offices of the Premier are:
     The institutionalisation of systems
     Installing a performance culture.
     The capacity and will of all staff members to implement the
      policies and systems in a meaningful way

                                                                  22

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:11/3/2012
language:Unknown
pages:23