1. The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Portfolio Committee on Energy 2012 Final scores

2. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Why?  Improved management practices key to improved service delivery  Weak administration (financial management, supply chain management, asset management, human resource management, planning, monitoring, facilities management) is a recurring theme across the priorities and is leading to poor service delivery, e.g.  Textbook delivery challenges in some provinces  Shortages of ARVs in some provinces  Undermining of small business development policy through non-payment of suppliers within 30 days  Appointment of unqualified people in key municipal positions, contributing to poor municipal service delivery  Develop a culture of continuous improvement and sharing of good practice  Link institutional performance to individual assessment of HoD 2

3. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation How?  Assessment is against 31 management standards, in 17 management areas (developed collaboratively with DPSA, NT and Offices of the Premier)  Standards based on legislation and regulations  Standards developed collaboratively (with National Treasury, DPSA, Office of the Public Service Commission, Office of the Auditor General and Offices of the Premier)  DPME facilitates national departments, OTPs facilitates provincial departments 3

4. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 4 Self- assessment; validation External moderation and feedback Improve and monitor Senior management agree on scores Internal Audit certify process and verify evidence HOD sign off External Moderation DPME/OTP feedback to department Departmental improvement plans Department monitors implementation Department prepares for next round Have we improved from baseline?

5. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MPAT 2012/13 Implementation Process  Self Assessment  Closing date 30 September extended to 23 November 2012  DPME and Premiers Offices provided hands on support to departments to upload evidence  Moderation  For the 2012/13 assessments, detailed peer moderation of self- assessments was conducted  Policy and implementing experts from national and provincial departments were used as moderators (26 – 30 November 2012)  Feedback was provided to departments on 21 January 2013  Final scores were communicated to departments 23/25 April 2013 with a request to indicate if clarity is required by 10 May 2013 5

6. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MPAT Ratings 6 LevelDescription Level 1Non-compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 2Partial compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 3Full compliance with legal/regulatory requirements Level 4Full compliance and doing things smartly

7. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 7 1.3 Performance Area: Monitoring and Evaluation 1.3.1 Standard name: Integration of monitoring and evaluation in performance and strategic management Standard definition: The department’s ability to do monitoring and evaluation, produce useful and reliable information, and use performance information in performance and strategic management. StandardsEvidence DocumentsLevel Department does not have a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework Level 1 Department has a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework. Department does not have standardised mechanisms and/or processes and procedures to collect, manage and store data. M&E or Performance Management Information Policy / Framework Level 2 Department has a M&E or Performance Management Information Policy or Framework. Department has standardised mechanisms and/or processes and procedures to collect, manage and store data.  M&E or Performance Management Information Policy / Framework  Standardised monitoring reports generated from formal departmental performance information source(s) Level 3 Level 3 plus: At least one evaluation of a major programme is conducted or in process or planned Level 3 plus:  Evaluation Reports or  Evaluation plans Level 4

8. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 8 2.3 Performance Area: Accountability 2.3.2 Standard name: Assessment of accountability mechanisms (Audit Committee) Standard definition: Departments have a properly constituted Audit Committee (or shared Audit Committee) that functions in terms of Treasury requirements. StandardsEvidence DocumentsLevel Department does not have an audit committee in place. Level 1 Department has an audit committee in place that is constituted in according to Treasury requirements. Appointment letters or agreement for shared audit committee Level 2 Audit committee meets as scheduled. Audit Committee has an Audit Charter with clearly defined objectives and key performance indicators  Approved minutes of last 3 Audit Committee meetings  Audit Charter signed by the Chairperson of the Audit Committee and the Accounting Officer  Report(s) by Chairperson of Audit Committee. Three year internal audit plan approved by Audit Committee. Level 3 Level 3 plus: Audit Committee review management responses to audit issues and reports thereon Assessment of Audit committee by stakeholders Level 3 plus:  Minutes of last 3 audit committee meetings  Report(s) by Chairperson of Audit Committee on management responses  Copy of the assessment report of Audit Committee by stakeholders Level 4

9. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ND Energy vs RSA Total MPAT 2012 Final Scores 9

10. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ND Police MPAT 2012 Final Scores per KPA  Strategic management is the comprehensive collection of on-going activities and processes to systematically coordinate and align resources and actions with mission, vision and strategy throughout the organisation  The Department performed at 100% in meeting all requirements of level 3 and 4. The department, furthermore perform above sectoral and national averages but must put more effort in to move all performance standards to level 4, particularly Annual Performance Plans  Effective Governance and Accountability are necessary to ensure that adequate checks and balances are in place to minimise mismanagement and corruption and also improve efficiencies in delivery of services  The Department does not meet 55 % of the legal requirements and urgent attention is required to ensure the department at least meet the legal requirements 10

11. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation MPAT 2012 Final Scores per KPA …Cont  Human Resource Management practices has a profound influence on the overall performance of the organisation, and in the delivery of services a significant proportion of the Government’s budget is spent on human resources, and it is therefore imperative that the state derives value for money from the investment in human resources in the public sector  The Department met 60 % of the legal requirements and must ensure that legal requirements are met in the remaining 40% of the standards  Financial Management determine the extent to which managers ensure effective and efficient use of public funds to ensure growth & development of the country  The Department met 57% of the legal requirements, but should focus attention on improving the remaining 43% to meet the legal requirements and strive to move all performance standards to level 4 11

12. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ND Energy Final Scores per Performance Standard 12

13. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ND Energy Final Scores per Performance Standard continue…. 13

14. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ND Energy Final Scores per Performance Standard continue…. 14

15. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ND Energy Final Scores per Performance Area  Observed strengths (Level 4):  Strategic Plans  Monitoring and Evaluation  Human Resource Development Planning  Management of Diversity  Observed weaknesses (Level 1):  Service Delivery Improvement Mechanisms  Assessment of Accountability mechanism (Audit Committee)  Management of Disciplinary Cases 15

16. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Improving Management Performance  In most management areas some departments have been able to reach level 4  This means that it is possible for all departments to reach level 4  DPME has developed good practice case studies of level 4 performance in various management areas  Case studies have been documented independently and available on www.goodxample.org and DPME website www.goodxample.org  Focused workshops on the case studies are been held with departments  Aim is to encourage departments to learn from each other  New case studies will be done as part of the 2013 assessment  DPME, DPSA and NT offer support to departments to improve management practices 16

17. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Value add of this process  MPAT provides a single holistic picture of the state of a department  Generally audits focus on compliance only, whereas MPAT focuses on getting managers to work more smartly  MPAT also covers a broader range of management areas than audits cover  Getting all departments to level 4 will improve levels and quality of service delivery  For example getting departments to procure smartly would result in better service delivery by suppliers and contractors, and savings from reducing corruption and increasing value for money 17

18. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Value add… cont  The process of getting top management as a whole to assess itself against a holistic set of good practice management standards and to agree on required improvements is the main value add of the MPAT assessment process  Management practices in departments are generally weak because top management has not paid sufficient attention to improving them  By carrying out annual MPAT assessments the Presidency and the Offices of the Premier are sending out a clear message that improving administration is a priority of government 18

19. The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Ke ya leboga Ke a leboha Ke a leboga Ngiyabonga Ndiyabulela Ngiyathokoza Ngiyabonga Inkomu Ndi khou livhuha Dankie Thank you 19