Transcript Chief Directorate Quarterly Review Meeting

National IDP Assessment/Analysis Induction
Session
The “Credible” IDP Evaluation Framework
Directorate: Integrated Development Planning
Presented by: Mr. Josiah Lodi
Email: [email protected].
tel: 012 334 0902
Date: 18 February 2009
1
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aim of the Presentation
Introductory Remarks
Indicators of a “credible” IDP
Key Performance/Focal Areas of the Evaluation
Framework
A typology of Questions in the Framework
IDP Analysis KPAs
Limitations of the Evaluation Framework
Way Forward
2
Aim of the presentation
• To present the “credible” IDP Evaluation
Framework,
• To outline the indicators of a “credible” IDP,
• To discuss the KPA in the Framework.
3
Introductory Remarks
• The Problem Statement(s):
– IDPs are a “wish list”,
• Not linked to budget,
• Dependent on sectors
– They are unrealistic,
• Powers and functions
– And therefore not implementable
4
Introductory Remarks
• The Vision/Mission/Goal:
– “A credible IDP”
– Credible = Greek word for credulous = realistic
– What is realistic should be “do-able”/
implementable
5
Introductory Remarks
Outcomes:
• Integrated Sustainable Human Settlement
• Stimulating Growth of Robust the Local Economy
• Social Inclusion, social cohesion and Nation Building
– Non-racism and sexism,
– Democratic and accountable practices,
– equity, etc
• Environment Sustainability
6
Indicators of a “credible” IDP
• Awareness of the municipality of:
– Intrinsic characteristics and criteria for success,
– Constitutional and policy mandate for a developmental local
government,
– Its role and place in the regional/provincial and national context,
– A clear strategy that is valid (“stood the test of time”) to address the
local challenges,
– Its clearly articulated deliverables/milestones that are measurable,
with a budget and implementation plans,
– A monitoring system (tracking progress, success and blockages),
– And utilizes its functional communication and participation
mechanisms,
– Intergovernmental action and alignment to government wide priorities
7
Key Performance/Focal Areas of the IDP
1. A Spatial Development Framework/Rationale
2. A Service Delivery and [Infrastructure
Framework/Plan]
3. Sustainable Economic Growth and
Development and LED
4. Financial Viability
5. Institutional Arrangements
6. Governance and Organizational Development
8
Typical Questions
• Type A:
– The availability of the “sector” plans
• Type B:
– The status of the plan
• Type C:
– Review of the plan
• Type D:
– Plan and budget linkages
• Type E:
– Relationships/making connections
9
IDP Analysis KPAs
• A Spatial Development Framework/Rationale
– The availability of the “Plan” and its status,
– Analysis (space economy, environmental issues, settlement
form/patterns),
– Rationale (Intergovernmental linkages: PGDS, NSDP “areas
of econ potential vs hh poverty”…)
– A drive of the fiscus allocation
– Economic comparative advantage strategies for spatial
reconstruction of the region
– A framework for a land use management system
– Strategies for sustainable development
– LUMS
10
IDP Analysis KPAs
• A Service Delivery and Infrastructure
Framework/Plan
– CIP and FBS
• (water, housing, sanitation, energy and electricity, roads, etc..
Within the current national targets)
• Water quality monitoring systems,
• Budget and a plan (backlog data)?
• WSDP, ITP, IWMP, Indigent Policy
• Capex, Opex/plans and Maintenance,
• EPWP as a vehicle for job provision…
– Connectedness/relationship between the various service
delivery areas and space
11
IDP Analysis KPAs
• Sustainable Economic Growth and Development and
LED
– Intergovernmental dialogue and spatial and regional
economic investment choices…
– Comparative advantage and competitive advantage,
– Development potential,
– LED strategy and plan (status)? (IG-R/P linkages) and the
space economy, stimulation of the “second” economy
12
IDP Analysis KPAs
• Governance and Organisational Development
– The IDP Process Plan (sector depts, predictability and
influence)
• Joint/collaborative (priority setting, strategizing, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation)
• Accountability (roles and responsibilities)
– Community and stakeholder (trads, business, sectors, etc)
participation strategy/plan and accountability…
– Audit committee
– HIV, youth, gender, disabled…
– The use of IGR structures to advance the IDP cause
13
IDP Analysis KPAs
• Financial Viability
– A financial strategy/plan
– What the is current budget available?
– What the is national and provincial allocations to
the municipality?
– Billing systems (revenue generation, debt control)
– Indigent registers
– Corrective measures for qualified report
14
KPAs of the IDP
• Institutional Arrangements
– A realistic human resource development strategy based on
the latest municipal skills audit
– A work place skills plan (scarce skills strategy)
– An approved organizational structure
– Employment equity plan, succession plan,
– An Organization Performance Management System
(OPMS) linked with the IDP Annual indicators
– A workable PMS
– Comments from the AG?
15
Limitations of the Evaluation Framework
 The relationship with the IDP packaging logic (situational
analysis-implementation)
 The inclusion of sector plans
 Inadequate support on review/development of evidential
criteria for sector plans
 It will always be a contested terrain!!!
 Limited objectivity in responses Yes/No questions
 It cannot be used for a standardized macro
perspective/reporting (Limpopo, Gauteng, WC…)
16
Limitations of the Evaluation Framework
 It does not pronounce on a differentiated approach
(Metro, DM vs LM),
 Sector involvement (inconsistent, limited support [unclear
on how the support leads to tangible changes on the
ground]),
 The drive to change it is irresistible,
 The quality of comments and inputs are of a poor quality,
 It does not pronounce on continuity, therefore no baseline,
 Silent on a “substantive” criteria for rating,
 Who are the Assessors/Analysts?
17
Way Forward
The IDP Evaluation Framework Review Process:
•
The Establishment of a representative Task Team that is:
–
–
–
•
Effective, representative and efficient,
Made up of content champions as per KPAs,
Coordinated and chaired by the dplg,
The Task Team must:
–
–
–
–
–
Ensure that the Framework addresses both process and content issues
Ensure maximum involvement and endorsement of the revised Framework
Present a Draft Evaluation Framework at the NDPIF scheduled for June 2009
and at all the PDPIF for comments
Ensure that the Evaluation Framework is finalized not later than August
2009
Ensure that the Framework is distributed to all municipalities, and sector
departments not later than September 2009
18
THE END
Thank you
19