1. Programme Design & Institutional Arrangements Social Cluster Workshop Presented by : Prof. Oladele Arowolo HSRC 31 October 2013

2. Social science that makes a difference a)Background – EPWP Social Sector b)Programme design : the context of ‘Theory of Change’ c)Programme coordination d)The ‘Cluster’ system: challenges & opportunities e)M&E strategy for the Social Cluster f)Role for HSRC (IA Unit) Outline of presentation

3. EPWP Social Sector The EPWP social sector is set to achieve poverty alleviation through programmes focused on reduction of income inequalities and human capital application. The main objectives of this cluster are to improve: Education; Quality of life; Housing, shelter and water; Health care; Social cohesion; and Social justice. The EPWP Social Cluster comprises DoH, DoE & DSD, charged with creating work opportunities in public social programmes (e.g. community-based health and social welfare care and early childhood development). Apart from home-based care and early childhood development, the Social Sector has identified additional entry points for expanding the coverage of its EPWP interventions, as follows: a) Within the Department of Education the following programmes have been identified as areas for the expansion of the EPWP: School nutrition programme; School sports coaches; Maintenance of schools; Construction of schools; Adult education; Teacher Aids in special schools; Administrative support at schools &;Community development workers. b) Within the Department of Health the programmes identified are: Directly Observed Therapy (DOTS); Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT); Nutrition advisors; Lay counselors; Malaria officers &; Community Health workers. c) Within the Department of Social Development the programmes identified are: Community Development Workers; Youth Care Workers; Child Care Workers; Emergency food relief &; Social Security.

4. Proposals for the 3 rd Phase 1.As the EPWP is going into Phase 3, the High Level (HL) proposals (August 2013) call for a shift in orientation, which will require that a much stronger emphasis is placed on social protection, convergence and capitalizing on developmental opportunities. 2.This calls for changing specific “design features of EPWP”, as well as improved implementation. The HL proposals suggest the following changes in the design features of the EPWP: A strong increase in the scale of the non-state sector programmes – CWP and the NPO programme with a large share of any available additional resources directed to these programme. The introduction of a set of core principles to clearly distinguish the EPWP from other initiatives and create a minimum level of uniformity and standardization across all EPWP programmes. A stronger emphasis on providing work opportunities that improve the regularity and predictability of income so as to maximize social protection outcome The creation of both the policy space and specific mechanisms for convergence in particular areas of the sectoral programmes to enhance synergies and avoid duplication Much stronger emphasis on the qualitative outputs of the programmes, including compliance with core EPWP requirements and it is proposed that more stringent monitoring of some of these aspects is introduced. A stronger focus on impact assessment so as to better understand and articulate the development outcomes of the programme, and adjust design and implementation features to maximise these impacts even further.

5. Programme Design Policy basis: EPWP policy LogFrame conceptualization based on Outcomes system – emphasis is on results rather activities Goal of policy – Programme Outcomes Outcome indicators Baselines & Targets EPWP Social Sector objectives Strategy mapping & determination of programme outputs Output indicators Baselines & Targets Programme activities in relation to specific outputs Programme interventions (human, material & financial resources) Implementation arrangements (coordination & collaboration) Programme M&E framework and determination of ‘milestones’ Feed-back mechanisms

6. National coordination a) National The Cluster system has been introduced by Government “to instil and retain an integrated and synchronised approach to policy formulation and coordination, to combat a silos approach to governance, and to build a collegial approach and shared perspective on government priorities”. National level (2004/5-2008/9 Plan)

7. Provincial level coordination b) Provincial Provincial level (2004/5-2008/9 Plan)

8. Programme Coordination C) Local Authorities Local governments also play a key role in mobilising community action in planning and implementing EPWPs. District level managers are crucial to linking services to community- based initiatives and integrating programmes into existing community services and facilities. They also create effective referral linkages and thereby ensure the accessibility of programmes at community level. The following support initiatives planned to support Local Authorities: a)The development of a set of ‘good practices’ case studies by the EPWP project management team, b) The development of a mentoring strategy for Local Authorities pilots by the provincial management team.

9. Cluster strategy: challenges HL proposals include the suggestion that the departments leading the sectors and some of the key programmes should be strengthened in their capacity for coordination. Both the environmental and social sector foresee an expansion of their programmes into the municipal sphere which requires coordination among a much larger number of public bodies. This also requires the creation or strengthening of an appropriate institutional framework (viz. strengthening the Special Projects Office - SPO in DSD; the establishment of dedicated EPWP units in the collaborating Departments). In the drive for convergence, there is the need for more active collaboration between sectors and the strengthening of the oversight of the EPWP. Its success demands enhanced & additional capacity. Coordination of 3 Departments and a large number of stakeholders at different levels of governance. Generation & reporting of adequate programme data for M&E. Need for a dedicated Project Management team in each department, to be managed by a Deputy Director. The development and management of a comprehensive and responsive M&E system. Effective feed-back mechanisms for programme management.

10. Cluster strategy: opportunities Human and institutional capacity strengthening Collaboration in preparing Annual work plan to address aspects of each output; and setting annual performance targets. Continuous monitoring of progress through structured meetings. Financial monitoring and annual audit (internal & external) in support of efficiency of resource utilization. Periodic (quarterly, annual, etc) evaluation – Annual reporting ensures effective delivery of interventions. Programme Evaluation (every 5 years or so), based on M&E framework – progress reporting provides means of verification of achievements and failures. Evaluation report/recommendations & Feed-back mechanism for decision making.

11. Programme Monitoring & Evaluation Context: ‘A Theory of Change’ The overall national Government’s M&E framework has been developed within the context of a ‘Theory of Change’, and it is expected that all Government Departments and agencies such as EPWP will adapt it to their respective programme management Focus on problem diagnosis, policy formulation, programming and programme implementation, including monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment. Defines the pathway of change or strategy mapping, to achieve a given programme Outcome, and the programme interventions (institutional, human, financial and material) that will bring about such a change. Structured on a rigorous identification of programme ‘milestones’ as basis for performance monitoring It is programmatic (Logframe) and measurable – Outcome; Outputs; baselines; targets; interventions; risks; management – monitoring and evaluation. Research for programme data generation, collection and analysis for programme management and development of Outcome/Output indicators The theory advocates strong stakeholders’ participation in the process, from policy and programme formulation to its management, including monitoring & evaluation Also a form of RBM or HRBA to programming

12. Monitoring, Reporting & Evaluation The High Level report (August 2013) proposed that the role of Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation (M+R+E) in Phase 3 is: “To efficiently gather information regarding the performance of EPWP programmes/ projects to monitor and report implementation progress and evaluate the impact of the programme on the unemployed and their communities.” In this regard, the following principles & strategies are proposed for the 3 rd phase: Principles: International best practice (and techniques) used; stronger emphasis on process evaluations to better understand how implementation procedures can be improved upon; increased focus on measuring impact (on the lives of beneficiaries, on communities and municipal areas, and he value of EPWP programmes on the broader economy, environment and society) and; increased programme focus on the micro level but aim to gradually expand to the macro level over time. What to Measure: objective and the indicators per sector for measuring performance. Framework: a logical framework (logframe). Monitoring will be strengthened by, among others, enhancing coordination structures to monitor implementation progress, including re-activating the M&E forum so that M+R+E issues of common interest can be discussed, challenges resolved and lessons shared. The Reporting function will be enhanced through rationalising and focussing on the required (and mandatory) reporting fields that will allow EPWP to adequately assess in-year progress; and identify the data that will be gathered through other means (such as surveys, etc) to measure performance and impact. The type of Evaluation envisaged will be more or less in line with the existing framework except that It will focus on: i) process evaluations ii) impact analysis iii) case studies on programmes/projects specifically to highlight success stories and problem areas; iv) broadening the performance indicators.

13. Role for HSRC (IA Unit) As the EPWP moves to its 3 rd phase, the Social Cluster could use the expertise available in IA in particular and HSRC in general to address aspects of the challenges faced and the HL recommendations, for a more effective programme performance, such as: Providing support to the SPO in framing the programme for the Social Cluster Supporting the Social Cluster in the design of a Monitoring and Evaluation framework that addresses the HL recommendations and conforms to the national M&E system. Supporting the Social Cluster management in strengthening the monitoring processes and undertaking specific evaluation and/or impact assessments. Providing support to capacity enhancement (human and institutional) for a more effective delivery of programme interventions

14. Development Cycle Analysis Policy Action Programme Assessment Evaluation

15. End Thank You!