Presented by:Tshepo Sejeng Date:10 April 2013 IMFO INDABA: KEY TO SUSTAINABLE SERVICE DELIVERY The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and.

Presented by: Tshepo SejengDate: 10 April 2013IMFO INDABA: KEY TO SUSTAINABLE SERVICE DELIVERY

The Presidency The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationDepartment of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

MANDATEMANDATE

DPME was established in 2010 as a result of the realisation by government that effective and efficient service delivery remains elusive and that current levels of service delivery do not meet the legitimate expectations of citizens

To date, the President and Cabinet have given DPME the following mandates: Facilitate the development of plans for the cross cutting priorities or outcomes of

government and monitor and evaluate the implementation of these plans (delivery agreements)

Monitor performance of individual national and provincial government departments and municipalities

Monitor frontline service delivery Manage the Presidential Hotline Carry out evaluations in partnership with other departments Promote good M&E practices in government Provide support to delivery institutions to address blockages in delivery

22

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Performance Monitoring of MunicipalitiesPerformance Monitoring of Municipalities

The Municipal Assessment Tool (MAT) was design as an intervention to monitor and evaluate municipal performance based on the following objectives:

1. To provides holistic integrated information on the institutional performance of municipalities against key indicators to enable strategic leadership over the local government sector

2. To provide for a comprehensive and robust evidence base for providing tailored support and/or intervention measures to municipalities in a coordinated and differentiated manner

3. Guide national and provincial departments by means of the performance information obtained through the assessments to enable them to better support municipalities in identified areas of underperformance

33

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Problem statementProblem statement Service delivery: Pace is slow, but big threat is functionality, particularly in water &

sanitation: almost 21% of the households with access to water infrastructure have to endure

problems in respect of its functionality (no water from tap) over and above the 5.3% households who still do not have a service; and,

26% (3.8 million households) are affected by sanitation services and/or facilities that are not fully functional over and above the 9% (1.4 million households) who still don’t have a service.

This is among the major reasons for the high levels of dissatisfaction within communities. Service delivery protests in the period ending June 2012 exceed the total in 2011 (see next slide)

Worrying Institutional performance of municipalities as a result of poor financial and administrative management, weak technical and planning capacity, weak leadership & governance (contracts awarded to employees, councillors & other state officials increased to 46% of auditees) and dwindling revenues

Despite plethora of capacity building & support activities over more than 10 years – results not optimal Ad-hoc, fragmented, no focus Coordination and alignment of interventions weak

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

WHY A MAT?WHY A MAT? Three factors impact negatively on service delivery

Municipal institutional performance Weak leadership & accountability in the sector Poor coordination of departments and agencies impacting on local

government aggravated by lack of a spatial focus and fragmented & or weak and unreliable data

Key shortcoming

Clear minimum floor of norms and standards of performance for efficient and effective functioning of local government

No early warning system that proactively identifies and addresses problems Lack of integrated and holistic picture (administratively, politically and

service delivery) on key performance data.

5

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Performance Assessment AreasPerformance Assessment Areas

The Municipal Performance Areas that will be assessed by this tool fall into the following 6 categories: Planning Human Resources Financial Service Delivery Community engagement Governance

Describing the ideal performance to be achieved in respect of key indicators per category

Setting out the criteria that needs to be progressively met in order to move to the ideal state

6

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 77

Logic underpinning the Municipal PATLogic underpinning the Municipal PAT

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 88

Example: Municipal PAT TemplateExample: Municipal PAT Template

3. Performance Area: Financial management Overall Score

Definition: A local government system that demonstrates sound and sustainable financial management capabilities and consistently achieves unqualified/clean audit opinions

Performance Standard: 3.1 Auditing outcomes of local government Score

Standards Evidence Level

Audited financial statements are not tabled on time and/or does not comply with A-G requirements

AG report

Audited financial statements are tabled on time and complies with A-G requirements

External Audit Committee/MPAC in place & meets as scheduled

AG report Minutes of meetings

Above standard(s) met, and; Internal Audit with suitably qualified staff in place, meets as scheduled and that

reports to Accounting Officer and External Audit Committee. Appropriate policies & processes on asset management, supply chain

management and procurement in place & implemented accordingly.

Minutes of meetings Asset management policy and procedure Supply Chain Management policy and procedure Procurement Policy and procedure Anti-corruption strategy

Above standard(s) met, and; Municipality acts on audit reports and findings from External Audit

Committee/MPAC, Internal Audit Unit and A-G

Improvement Plan Improvement plan implementation monitoring reports AG report

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Assessment descriptorsAssessment descriptors

99

Level Description Level 1 Municipality is non-compliant with legal/regulatory requirements or established norms

and standards Level 2 Municipality is compliant with legal/regulatory requirements Level 3 Municipality is fully compliant with legal/regulatory requirements and norms and

standards as set out Level 4 Municipality is fully compliant with legal/regulatory requirements, norms and standards

as set out, and is performing well

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

How will the results be used?How will the results be used? As a management tool for the Executive Mayor and Municipal Manager to

reflect on the holistic performance of the municipality and to take corrective steps to address areas of underperformance.

As a tool for coordinating the support and intervention programmes of provincial departments of local government & national departments and to tailor and integrate the support and intervention programmes according to the specific performance gaps for each municipality.

Nationally as a tool providing critical integrated municipal level information to enable strategic leadership over the local government sector and guide local government policy.

10

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Process PlanProcess Plan

1111

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Steps Action Responsible Time frame

Self assessment & internal verification (supported by provincial department of LG)

MAT Coordinator appointed by MM MMs

Sections of the tool given to relevant senior manager to complete

MAT Coordinators/Senior managers

MAT coordinator & internal audit verifies scores & evidence

MAT Coordinators/Internal Audit

MM convenes senior management meeting to deliberate on scores & evidence & confirm assessment

MMs/Senior Managers

Executive Mayor & MM approve final assessment & send to DPME

Executive Mayors /MMs

Moderation & Feedback

DPME establishes moderation team representative of sector departments & oversight bodies

DPME

DPME and GPDLG&H collects & consolidates secondary data from sectoral departments & oversight bodies

DPME /GPDL&H

Briefing of the Moderation Team DPME/GPDL&H

Pre-moderation preparation Moderation Team

Moderation team led by DPME moderates the self-assessment

Moderation Team

Moderated results discussed with EM, MM & senior managers

DPME/GPDL&H/Executive Mayors /MMs/Senior Managers

Challenge Window Mayors /MMs/Senior Managers

Final moderation and feedback Moderation Team

Improve & monitor

Municipality develops improvement plan & monitors implementation (supported by province, relevant departments & entities)

GPLG&H/Municipalities/sectoral departments

Preparation for next MAT cycle (To be determined) For discussion by All

± 2

Mon

ths

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring

The Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring (FSDM) came into effect in June 2011 to focus on monitoring of experience of citizens when obtaining services

Is also one of the sub-outputs in the Outcome 12 Delivery Agreement

Commitment from the Executive to focus on frontline service delivery monitoring – President and Ministers are visiting institutions such as hospitals, schools, police stations and municipalities and Drivers Licence Testing Centres on an ongoing basis

Executive monitoring is complemented by monitoring by officials of the Presidency and the Offices of the Premier

DPME and Offices of the Premier have collaborated to establish a joint frontline service delivery monitoring programme

1313

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Components of frontline service delivery Components of frontline service delivery monitoring monitoring Programme comprises of three components:

Sub-programme 1: Surprise visits by officials in DPME and the Offices of the Premier to service delivery points to assess the state of frontline service delivery

Sub-programme 2: Engaging with civil society to develop a structured approach for citizen-based monitoring of frontline service delivery

Sub- programme 3: Management of the Presidential Hotline as an effective service delivery monitoring and accountability instrument

Data from these sources as well as other sources such as the Public Service Commission and DPSA will be used to assess the state of front-line service delivery and make recommendations for improvements

1414

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Approach to (FSDM)Approach to (FSDM) Focus is on monitoring generic performance assessment areas in

all facilities Location and access Visibility and signage Queue management and waiting times Dignified treatment Cleanliness and comfort Safety Opening and closing times Complaints and compliment systems Selected sector specific standards (for example response time to open a new

municipal account)

Monitoring results based on interviews with community users at the service site, interviews with staff as well as the observations of the monitors

1515

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Initial Findings on MCCCsInitial Findings on MCCCs Community users have been very appreciative of the presence of officials from

the Presidency and the Offices of the Premier at the 22 municipal customer care centres (MCCCs) visited as part of the local government pilot phase of the FSDM Programme in 2012/13 year.

1616

Number of MCCCs visited per Province

PROVINCES

Total sites monitored to date

Sites not reported on

Sites with completed monitoring

Eastern Cape 3 0 3Free State 7 3 4Gauteng 10 4 6Kwazulu-Natal 1 0 1Limpopo 2 0 2Mpumalanga 0 0 0Northern Cape 5 1 4North West 1 1 0Western Cape 2 0 2

Totals 31 9 22

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Initial Findings on MCCCs cont…Initial Findings on MCCCs cont…

General problems found during the pilot phase of Municipal Customer Care Centres:

Internal signage to indicate to users exactly where they should go for the service they require is often lacking in some of the MCCCs

Long waiting times were also experienced Very little evidence of active queue management, inappropriately

trained security guards are often deployed as queue managers Complaints and compliments systems are usually under-utilised General lack of a visible presence of managers at the front-line of the

service facilities Non-escalation of monitoring findings to Political Principals since some

of these findings affect their areas of responsibility

1717

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationThe Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Ke ya leboga Ke a lebohaKe a leboga Ngiyabonga Ndiyabulela

Ngiyathokoza NgiyabongaInkomu Ndi khou livhuha Thank you

Dankie

For any further information on the Municipal Assessment Tool please Contact:

Jacqueline Nel: E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: 012 308 1884Hassen Mohamed – Head: Municipal Performance Unit: E-mail: [email protected]