Transcript Governance & Oversight

Governance &
Oversight
Overview of Monitoring & Evaluation in Local
Government Sphere
Cllr. Kaone Lobelo
Mayor of Greater-Taung Local Municipality
IMFO CONFERENCE
08-10 October 2012
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Legislative Environment
Govtf Planning & Performance Systems
Performance Management System Cycle
Monitoring Model
Reviewing
Auditing
Proposed Approach to Monitoring & Evaluation
Challenges
What needs to be done
Panel Guide- Discussion
Quotable Quote
• “What gets measured get done.
• If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell
success from failure.
• If you can’t see success, you can’t reward it.
• If you can’t reward success, you are probably
rewarding failure.
• If you can’t see success, you can’t learn from it.
• If you can’t recognise failure, you can’t correct it.
• If you can demonstrate results, you can win
public support.”
(Osborne & Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing
Government)
Legislative Environment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Constitution of the RSA
White Paper of Local Govt
LG: Municipal Systems Act
LG: Municipal Structures Act
LG: Planning & Performance Regulations
LG: Municipal Finance Management Act
LG: Performance Regulations of the Municipal Manager and Managers
Directly Reporting to the Municipal Manager
Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information
LG: Municipal Systems Amendment Act 7, 2011
Policy Directives
o Outcome Based Approach – Outcome 9
o LG Turn-Point Plan
Govt System- Planning &
Performance
Mandate of Govt
• Since 2009 Govt opted for the Outcome
Approach as the Delivery Machine of
Government for his term of office.
• This was necessitated by the Electoral
Mandate
that
the
ruling
party
must
Implement Projects that will have REAL or
VISIBLE CHANGE to ordinary South African
lives in terms of access to Basic Services.
Six Non-Negotiable (1)
Emphases was placed on the Six Non- Negotiable
that the president outlined being:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Provision of Principled Leadership to Deliver on the
Mandate.
Cooperation between the Three Spheres of
Government.
Partnership with/between Civil Society.
Transparency within the three spheres;
Limited funding and resources (Doing more with
little).
Development of public service to become a skilled and
well resourced Public Service.
Six Non-Negotiable (2)
Emphasis was placed to advocate these six nonnegotiable in Provinces; and that these nonnegotiable together with the others are the once
that government decided to introduce the
Outcome Based Approach in addition to the Ten
MTSF Priorities.
To show how serious government is about the
issues the President established a monitoring and
Evaluation Directorate to constantly give feedback
to the Public on how Government is doing in the
Implementation of the Electoral Mandate.
Outcome Based Approach
• Focuses Government to achieve real improvements in
the life of all SA
• Clarifies what we expect to achieve, how we expect to
achieve it and how we will know whether we are
achieving it?
• To ensure that results improve the lives of citizens rather
than just carrying out our functions.
• Help track the progress we are making in achieving
results.
• Help us collect Evidence about what worked and what
did not, to help us improve our planning and
implementation annually.
The new policy landscape: implications
of the January 2010 Cabinet Lekgotla
• The MTSF was
altered to focus on
12 outcomes (rather
than the 10 ‘Apex
priorities of
2009/10)
5YLGSA
A paradigm shift in
planning and M&E was
introduced: from an
‘outputs’ based approach
to an ‘outcomes’ based
approach
LGTAS, COGTA 10 point plan,
Outcome 9
Measuring Local Govt
Performance
 Key Mandates to Measure, Monitor and Evaluate Local
Government Performance:
 OUTCOME 9: A Responsive, accountable, effective and efficient local
government system
 Output 1: Implement a differentiated approach to municipal
financing, planning and support
 Output 2: Improving access to basic services.
 Output 3: Implementation of the Community Work Programme
 Output 4: Actions supportive of the human settlement outcome
 Output 5: Deepen democracy through a refined Ward Committee
model
 Output 6: Administrative and financial capability
 Output 7: Single window of coordination
11
Measuring Local Govt
Performance
Local Government Ten Point Plan
1.
Improve the quantity and quality of municipal basic services to the people in the
areas of access to water, sanitation, electricity, waste management, roads and disaster
management.
2.
Enhance the municipal contribution to job creation and sustainable livelihoods
through Local Economic Development (LED).
3.
Ensure the development & adoption of reliable and credible Integrated Development
Plans (IDPs).
4.
Deepen democracy through a refined Ward Committee model.
5.
Build and strengthen the administrative, institutional and financial capabilities of
municipalities.
6.
Create a single window of coordination for the support, monitoring and intervention
in municipalities.
7.
Uproot fraud, corruption, nepotism and all forms of maladministration affecting local
government.
8.
Develop a coherent and cohesive system of governance and a more equitable
intergovernmental fiscal system.
9.
Develop and strengthen a politically and administratively stable system of
municipalities.
10.
Restore the institutional integrity of municipalities.
PMS Cycle
Planning
• Involves the development of an organisational strategic plan and the
cascading of this plan to all structural levels within the organisation.
• Includes the development of individual performance plans (key
performance areas).The planning process also involves the setting of
measurement frameworks (performance indicators and targets).
• Performance Planning ensures that the strategic direction of the
Municipality more explicitly informs and aligns the IDP with all
planning activities and resource decisions. This is the stage where
Key Performance Area’s and Key Performance Indicators are aligned
to the IDP and national requirements, and targets are set.
Monitoring
• Involves the development of mechanisms and systems to
monitor the implementation of plans.
• Includes elements such as reporting frameworks,
tracking systems (e.g. logging of customer complaints)
and feedback mechanisms (customer surveys).
Measuring
• Involves measurement against targets that have been set.
Measurement also includes mechanisms such as
benchmarking (measuring against sector/industry
standards)
• It is an on-going process to determine whether
performance targets have been met, exceeded or not met.
Projections can also be made during the year as to
whether the final target and future targets will be met. It
occurs during key points in a process – for example, on a
quarterly and annual basis.
Evaluation
• Analyses why there is under-performance or what the factors were,
that allowed good performance in a particular area. Where targets
have not been met, the reasons for this must be examined and
corrective action recommended.
•
Evidence to support the status is also reviewed at this stage. An
additional component is the review of the indicators to determine if
they are feasible and are measuring the key areas appropriately.
• A corporate analysis of performance will be undertaken by the
Performance Management Unit, to examine performance across the
municipality in terms of all its priorities.
Reporting
• Entails reporting twice a year to management, the
performance audit committee, council and the public.
• In addition, a quarterly report is also prepared and sent
to Internal Audit to be audited, prior it being sent to
council and the performance audit committee.
Monitoring Model
The developmental results of
achieving specific outcomes
IMPACTS
What we aim to change?
The medium-term results for specific
beneficiaries that are the consequence of
achieving specific outputs
What we wish to achieve?
The final products, or goods and
services produced for delivery
Manage towards
achieving these
results
OUTCOMES
OUTPUTS
What we produce or deliver?
The processes or actions that use a
range of inputs to produce the desired
outputs and ultimately outcomes
What we do?
The resources that contribute
to the production and delivery
of outputs
What we use to do the work?
ACTIVITIES
INPUTS
Plan, budget,
implement
and monitor
Monitoring Levels
M& E System
Standardisation
National
LGTAS
Alignment
Integration
Provincial
Capacity
LG Ten
Point Plan
Delivery
Agreement
Capability
District
MTAS/
SDBIP
Local
Reviewing/auditing
• This involves a systematic process of reviewing
achievements against stated plans and understanding the
reasons for the variance where there is variance.
• It also involves the consideration of new developments
and how these need to be incorporated into existing or
new plans.
• Performance review/auditing is a key element of the
monitoring and evaluation process. This involves
verifying that the measurement mechanisms are accurate
and that proper procedures are followed to evaluate and
improve performance.
Reviewing/auditing
• According to section 45, of the Systems Act, results of the
performance measurement must be audited as part of
the municipality’s internal auditing process and
annually by the Auditor-General.
• The Municipality will therefore have to establish
frameworks and structures to evaluate the effectiveness
of the municipality’s internal performance measurement
control systems
Proposed Approach to M&E
23
Key Process Issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
Integrated Development Plan (IDP)
o Process Plan
o Five Phases (Analysis, Strategies, Projects, Integration & Approval
Annual Budget
Service Delivery Budget & Implementation Plan
o Corporate Objectives, Baseline, Indicators (Input/Output/Outcome),
Targets
Performance Agreements
o Performance Plans/Performance Scorecards
Performance Evaluations
In-year Reports
o Quarterly Reports (MFMA Reg 2009) – Quality Certificate
o Midyear Reports (MFMA Sec 72) – Quality Certificate
o Annual Performance Reports (Section 46) –Auditor-General
Report/Opinion
o Annual Reports (Section 121) – AG Report/Opinion/Oversight Report
Challenges
• Strategic plans i.e. IDP & SDBIP are not fully prepared
o Inadequate internal data and internal monitoring systems
o Lack of internal consistency within technical SDBIPs
o Technical SDBIPs not clearly linked with IDP developmental objectives and
strategies
• The stakeholders generating (and demanding)
information are not properly aligned i.e. Premiers
Offices (Lekgotla, Technical Clusters), Sector Depts,
• Usage of variety of indicators and no consistency with
the 7 National Key Performance Indicators (NKPI) (since
developed in 2001 but never reviewed)
• Too much information, not used systematically
• There is no emphasis on RESULTS
• M&E not integrated and not linked with budget
decisions
Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Non-adherences to the legislative requirements – doing the basics
Submission of Performance Information ito of legislative requirements
o In-year reporting (monthly, quarterly, midyear, annual reports)
Inadequate support of the audit process- internal/external
o Auditing of Performance Information is not done – caused by nonsubmission of information
Inefficiency and ineffectiveness of Oversight by Council/Audit Committees
Failure to integrate King III Corporate Governance principles (by the way not
enforceable) in our planning processes- 1st Sept 2009
Cumbersome reporting requirements
o Inconsistency between National Treasury and COGTA reporting formats
Inadequate evaluation/monitoring systems
Ownership of the PMS (Councils exercising its oversight role!)
Commitment to implement the whole M&E System
Challenges
• Alignment of IDP and SDBIP
o Failure to be ‘STRATEGIC’
• Signing Performance Agreements and adhering to
contractual obligations
• Regular reporting (in-year reports)
• Inadequate/Inefficient/Ineffective
evaluation/monitoring systems
• Absence of a Work Ethic
• General lack of disregard of the mandate of the
ruling party-government (No commitment to the
government of the day!, busy?)
What needs to be done
• Coordinate the mandate of monitoring and evaluation of
implementation between province, district and local
municipalities and decided where best to locate it, i.e. at
district levels?
• Strengthen the external evaluations on the implementation
of IDP & SDBIP i.e. should it be at District IGR Levels?
• Current NKPIs should be reviewed and expedite the
approval of indicators and few national indicators for local
government in line with National Development Plans
(NDP) should be developed
• IDPs and Technical SDBIPs must follow a logical
framework and must be linked to Medium Term Strategic
Framework (MTSF)
What needs to be done
•
Expedite the current review of the M&E System to ensure that it generates
reliable and timely information for decision making, in order to improve
government’s delivery machinery, improves policies and accountability
•
Strengthen the capacity of the Delegation Systems at local government
•
PMS/Internal Audit must work together to support processes
•
Strengthen support of the internal/external audit processes
•
Support internal/external committees (Oversight/Audit Committee to do
their work diligently
•
Strengthen Council Oversight Role
•
Capacity building of the MPAC to execute its mandate
•
Council being decisive in acting of MPAC recommendations
•
Continuous training and development VERY essential – PMS evolving all the
time
Panel Discussion Guide
•
Develop a framework of how to address the identified gaps and challenges;
o Stick to the planning ethos (i.e. IDP Guide Packs!)
•
Review of Institutional Arrangements (that can work best for us (not to loose focus!)
•
Align the planning instruments at municipal level:
o IDP , SDBIP, LGTAs, Outcome Based Approach, NDP
(Develop aligned SDBIP scorecards for implementation with clear KPIs and targets)
•
Resuscitate and sustain planning tools (don’t steer away from what you know best, what
works best and how to do it better!):
o Develop:
• Clear and concise planning frameworks
• Timelines
• Responsibilities
o Strengthen local structures
• District-wide IDP Steering Committee
•
Redefine the assignment responsibilities to Council, Mayor, Officials and Municipal
Managers and Section 57:
o For better preparation and readiness
o For improved implementation
•
Sustain the performance monitoring and evaluation system
o Form should follow function
• Hence clarity on function crucial
• First function and buy-in, then the rest
THANK YOU!!!