The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT TOOL 10 September 2013.

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

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT TOOL

10 September 2013

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: According to DWA, 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 exceeded the total in 2011

Institutional performance of municipalities is worrying - 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


Why are we not achieving the results we set?Why are we not achieving the results we set?

Mechanistic notion of performance:Until recently we have had s simplistic conception of performance

monitoring Set the target and delivery will happen, e.g.

₋ 100% unqualified audits at municipal level₋ Universal access to basic services₋ Meaningful and deliberative public participation in decision-making

Elided the operational aspects - the internal workings of organisations which make the delivery of results possible was ignored

Where interventions to improve these internal workings exist, they have been ad-hoc, fragmented and coordination and alignment of interventions and support has been weak

33


Local government context: ‘Chaordic’Local government context: ‘Chaordic’

Composite of chaos and order

Fast changing and complex environment that demands quality, value for money and social justice

Each municipality is unique in terms of the balance between its socio-economic, cultural and political environments

44


Getting back to the basicsGetting back to the basics The public sector exists to create greater public value:

being better able to identify and respond to needs of citizens increasing the quantity and quality of activities per resource expended reducing the costs used to achieve current levels of production increasing capacity to innovate and improve

All of this depends on supportive & dynamic management and efficient and effective administrative practices

55


So management practices and the internal operating So management practices and the internal operating environment are important!!!environment are important!!!

66

Home Affairs – ID & passport turnaround time

Ecstatic

citizens

A major international study undertaken by the London School of Economics (LSE) and McKinsey & Co examined management skills and capabilities across 15 countries and found clear linkages between the quality of management and the performance of firms and organisations in terms of productivity and quality of services.


WHY A MAT?WHY A MAT?

Overcome the shortcoming and omission w.r.t the absence of proper measuring, monitoring and supporting improved management practices Considers and focuses on the managerial practices of a municipality. That is

determining what the organisation does and how it approaches its tasks to achieve the desired results

Based on the premise: excellent results in organisational performance, citizens/customers, people and society are achieved through leadership driving strategy and planning, people, partnerships, resources and processes₋ Needed a mechanism to look at the organisation from different angles at

the same time: the holistic approach to organisation performance analysis₋ Analyse how the organisation works & measures this against agreed

standards

7


Objectives of the MATObjectives of the MATMeasure, Monitor and Support improved management in municipalities for

quality service delivery and increased productivity

Management information tool for municipal leadership – to reflect on ways of working & shape management & administrative practices to deliver quality servicesKnowledge management and performance monitoring system that provides information on municipalities against key indicators – strategic leadership and policy reformTo facilitate well coordinated targeted and differentiated support and intervention measuresTo gear national and provincial departments to better support in identified areas of underperformance

Provincial DCOGs are key – capability to adopt and undertake management assessment model as core part of its function

8


What management assessment is not..What management assessment is not..

99

• Basis for targeted and coordinated support where needed – municipality determined and directed

• Support the development of robust systems for measuring, monitoring and effecting improvement in management of operations


Performance areasPerformance areas The Municipal Performance Areas that will be assessed fall into the following 6

categories: Integrated Development Planning Human Resource management Financial management 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

10


Levels of Management PerformanceLevels of Management Performance

1111

Level Description

Level 1 Municipality is non-compliant with legal and regulatory requirements

Level 2 Municipality is partially compliant with legal and regulatory requirements

Level 3 Municipality is fully compliant with legal and regulatory requirements

Level 4 Municipality is fully compliant with legal and regulatory requirements and is doing things smartly

Identifies four progressive levels of management performance Each performance standard is assessed and scored against the four levels Scores are aggregated for each key performance area


Standards 2013/14 - PilotStandards 2013/14 - Pilot

1212

Integrated Development Planning

Service Delivery Human Resource Management

1.1 Service delivery improvement mechanisms (IDP and SDBIP)

2.1 Access to Free Basic Services (FBS) to all qualifying people in the municipality’s area of jurisdiction

3.1 Application of prescribed recruitment practices for the MM and managers reporting directly to the MM

2.2 Extension of water services to all people in the municipality’s area of jurisdiction

3.2 Implementation of prescribed Performance Management practices for the MM and managers reporting directly to the MM

2.3 Extension of access to sanitation to all people in the municipality’s area of jurisdiction2.4 Performance against Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment (MuSSA) of effective water services management2.5 Waste Co-ordination and Disposal2.6 Refuse collection and transportation2.7 Extension of electricity to all people in the municipality’s area of jurisdiction2.8 Operation, maintenance and refurbishment of the electricity infrastructure2.9 Mapped and maintained municipal land transport network


Standards 2013/14 – Pilot (continued)Standards 2013/14 – Pilot (continued)

1313

Financial Management Community Engagement

Governance

4.1 Maintaining a credible budget

5.1 Functional ward committees

6.1 Functionality of executive structures

4.2 Management of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless, and wasteful expenditure

5.2 Customer Services Standards / Charter

6.2 Assessment of responses to audit findings6.3 Assessment of Internal Audit6.4 Assessment of accountability mechanisms (Audit Committee)6.5 Assessment of policies and systems to ensure professional ethics6.6 Prevention of Fraud and Corruption6.7 Assessment of risk management arrangements6.8.1 Approved administrative and operational delegations in terms of the MSA6.8.2 The municipality has an appropriate system of financial delegations in place as prescribed by the MFMA6.9 Corporate Governance of ICT6.10 Promotion of Access to Information


Key Performance Area: GovernancePerformance Standard name: Assessment of responses to audit findingsStandards LevelThere is no management response to the management letter issued by the office of the AG

Level 1

Issues (finance, performance information and/or compliance) raised in the management letter issued by the office of the AG are addressed partially

Level 2

Management (MM) has resolved all issues (finance, performance information and/or compliance) in the management letter and/or has a plan in place to resolve these

Level 3

Material improvement in the number and nature of issues raised in the management letter leading to positive changes from previous audit

or

Continuously maintaining an unqualified audit opinion

Level 4

Example of a standard: GovernanceExample of a standard: Governance


Design of the programme Design of the programme Stakeholders consulted: DCoG, National Treasury, DEA, DWA, DoE, DoT, SALGA,

NW Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Gauteng Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, South African Cities Network

Steering Committee consisting of DPME, national DCOG, SALGA, Cities Network, and National Treasury Technical Assistance Unit established to oversee the programme

Reference Group consisting of provincial departments of local government, national sector departments, Office of the Auditor General is in process of being established for broader consultation and participation

Broad time-frames for implementation April 2013 to mid-September 2013: Development of the content of the assessment

tool for municipalities, incorporating key management performance areas Mid- to end-September 2013: Automation of assessment tool for municipalities September 2013 – March 2014: pilot phase April 2014 onwards: roll out on larger scale

1515


Aim is to test the draft tool in respect of functionality, application, relevance within Metro’s, Secondary cities, DMs and LMs as to identify areas of improvement in the tool through lessons learned

Participating municipalities in pilot phase : City of Tshwane, Msunduzi, Buffalo City, Cape Town, Moretele LM, Moses Kotane LM, Rustenburg LM, Naledi LM, Lekwa-Teemane LM, Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati DM, Bojanala Platinum DM

Pilot municipalities chosen on basis of consideration of getting a mix of large and small and urban and rural, as well as working with those provinces and the Cities Network which wanted to participate in the pilot phase (NW and Gauteng in particular)

Plan for pilot phase: Self-assessments in at least 10 municipalities by end of year Moderation and feedback process: January 2013 to March 2013 Improvement plans in place in the 10 municipalities by June 2013

1616

Pilot phase Pilot phase


Overview of the pilot phase Overview of the pilot phase Steps Action Time

Frame

Organising & communicating

Value, benefit and broad overview of model and tool communicated

1 - 2 day workshop

Organising and planning of self-assessment

Self-assessment exercise communicated in municipality

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

Municipal Assessment Coordinator appointed by MM 2 months

Sections of tool given to relevant senior manager to complete

Internal audit verifies scores & evidence

MM convenes senior management meeting to deliberate on scores & evidence & confirm assessment (with Mayor present)

MM review scores , approves and submits final self-assessment

Moderation & feedback

DPME and provincial support team collects & consolidates secondary data from sectoral departments & other bodies

2 months

Moderation team led by DPME and provincial support team moderates the self-assessment

Moderated results discussed EM, MM & senior managers

Improve & monitor

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

Lessons and review of assessment tool before further roll-out 1717


Building capacity for MAT in DPMEBuilding capacity for MAT in DPME

Unit established in DPME in April 2013, in the outcomes branch

The unit is currently in process of appointing staff Headed by official at level 15 1 Director appointed, interviews completed for an additional 2 Directors Recruitment process under way for 4 deputy directors 2 Administrative support staff appointed

Initially unit will consist of above 10 people

Pilot phase will provide indication of additional capacity required for implementation on a national scale

1818


Consultation on tool for application in pilot phase completed Comments being incorporated, final tool will be ready by end September for

application in pilot phase 11 municipalities agreed to participate in pilot phase

Next steps: September 2013: Training of Municipal Assessment Coordinators of the 4

cities on tool content October 2013: Training of Municipal Assessment Coordinators of the 7 NW

municipalities on tool content and technical application Mid-October: Start self-assessments in the pilot municipalities

1919

Progress to date and immediate next stepsProgress to date and immediate next steps


Ke ya leboga Ke a lebohaKe a leboga Ngiyabonga Ndiyabulela

Ngiyathokoza NgiyabongaInkomu Ndi khou livhuha Thank you

Dankie

Go to http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/dpme.asp for PME documentsincluding narrative guide to outcomes approach, outcomes documents

and delivery agreement guide

The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT TOOL 10 September 2013.

Documents

performance of firms

quality of management

administrative management

management skills

service delivery protests

water sanitation

supportive dynamic management

delivery of results