close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

код для вставкиСкачать
PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND
ADMINISTRATION
CONSOLIDATED M&E REPORT ON OFFICES OF
THE PREMIER- 2010/11 EVALUATION CYCLE
22 August 2012
STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION
• Background and purpose
• Relative performance of the departments
• Overall trend in performance between 1st and 2nd
assessment
• Performance per principle – highest three and lowest
two
• Conclusion
2
BACKGROUND
• The aim of the consolidated report on
the Offices of the Premier was to:
 Provide an overview of the nine
Offices’ performance against the
Constitutional
values
and
principles listed in section 195 of
the Constitution
 Assess the progress that the
Offices have made since their last
evaluation by the PSC
 Compare performance between
the different Offices; and
 Establish progress with the
challenges encountered and how
these challenges are being
addressed
Professional ethics
Efficiency, economy and
effectiveness
Development orientation
Impartiality and fairness
Public participation in policy
making
Accountability
Transparency
Good HR practices
Representivity
3
BACKGROUND (cont.)
• All nine Offices of the Premier were evaluated in the 2010/11
cycle and the performance of four Offices was compared to
previous assessments.
• The methodology applied by the M&E System involves assessing
the actual performance of a department against a set of indicators
and standards.
• Evidence about the actual state of practice for the nine
constitutional values and principles listed in section 195 of the
Constitution is obtained by collecting and assessing policy and
other documents, conducting interviews and assessing qualitative
and quantitative data.
• Based on the assessment, a score is awarded to the department
per principle and an average score calculated.
4
BACKGROUND (cont.)
•
The following rating scale, consisting of five performance bands, is
applied to assess the relative performance of the departments:
Performance
Score
%
Excellent performance
4,25 – 5,00
81% - 100%
4
Good performance
3,25 – 4,00
61% - 80%
3
Adequate performance
2,25 – 3,00
41% - 60%
2
Poor performance
1,25 – 2,00
21% - 40%
1
No performance
0,25 - 1,00
0% - 20%
band
5
•
Score description
This presentation focuses on the top and lowest scoring principles.
5
BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE FUNCTIONS OF A
PREMIER’S OFFICE
• As the executive authority, the Premier together with the Executive
Council, must initiate and implement provincial policy, ensure
alignment with national policy, and ensure integration across the
different spheres of government.
• The Office, therefore, is regarded as the political nerve centre of the
provincial government and plays a central role in managing the
implementation of the electoral mandate.
• The Office furthermore supports the Premier with administrative
management, providing strategic leadership and central
coordination, and providing policy briefings/advice to the Premier
and the Executive Council.
6
TREND IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN 1ST AND
2ND ASSESSMENT
•
The average performance of the four Offices that were re-assessed
improved from 59% (adequate) to 68% (good performance).
7
TREND IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN 1ST AND
2ND ASSESSMENT (cont.)
• Three of the four re-assessed Offices have improved their
performance by between 10% and 42%.
• The WC Office recorded the best improvement (from 40% to 82%)
• The Limpopo Office recorded a drop in performance (from 89% to
54%). The main reason for the drop in performance was as a result
of the fact that the Office failed to provide the necessary
documentation for the assessment of Principle 4 (impartiality and
fairness).
• The PSC’s System has consistently shown an upwards trend in
performance from one cycle to the next.
8
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
• The improvement and/or decline in performance can be linked to the
implementation/non-implementation of the PSC’s recommendations.
Recommendations of 1st assessment implemented
80%
60%
69%
52%
46%
40%
25%
24%
Gaut
Limp
20%
0%
Total
WC
NW
• Offices whose performance has increased notably in the 2nd
assessment, are also the Offices who have implemented most of the
PSC’s recommendations from the 1st assessment.
• The highest number of recommendations were made against
principles 6 and 8 (accountability and good HR practices).
9
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
AGAINST EACH PRINCIPLE
10
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE
AGAINST EACH PRINCIPLE
• The performance against five of the nine principles, although
below the average of 61%, was still within the adequate
performance band.
• Departments scored the highest against the principles of
professional ethics (69%), accountability (76%) and transparency
(71%).
• Departments scored the lowest against the principles of fairness
(51%) and representivity (49%).
• Some pertinent issues about these 5 principles are highlighted in
the next slides.
11
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Value: A high standard of professional ethics must be promoted and
maintained.
Performance Indicator
Cases of misconduct
where a disciplinary
hearing has been
conducted, comply with
the provisions of the
Disciplinary Code and
Procedures
•
•
•
•
•
Standards
A procedure is in place for reporting,
recording and managing cases of
misconduct.
All managers surveyed have a working
knowledge of the system and are capable to
deal with cases of misconduct.
Management reporting is done on cases of
misconduct and acted upon.
All of the most recent cases of misconduct in
which a disciplinary hearing is conducted are
finalised within the time frame of 20 – 80
working days.
Frequent training is provided on the handling
of cases of misconduct.
12
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 69% (Good
performance)
• The average performance against the six standards:
 Knowledge of misconduct procedures, capacity to handle
misconduct cases and training on how to deal with misconduct
cases was generally good (61% to 80%)
 Time taken to resolve misconduct cases was adequate (53%)
 There was a low number of highly competent middle and senior
managers to deal with misconduct in Limpopo and Mpumalanga.
Number and competency level of Officials
Still gaining experience –
Adequate – More than 1
Highly competent – 3
Less than 1 year
year but less than 3 years
years and more
experience
experience
experience
143
135
394
13
ACCOUNTABILITY
Value: Public administration must be accountable.
Performance Indicator
•
•
Standards
Adequate internal financial •
controls & performance
management are exerted •
over
all
departmental
programmes.
FPPs, based on risk •
assessments, are in place
& implemented.
•
•
Internal financial controls are
adequate and effective.
A performance
management
system on all programmes is in
operation.
FPPs are based on a thorough
risk assessment.
FPPs
are
in
place,
comprehensive, appropriate, &
implemented.
Key staff for investigating of fraud
are operational.
14
ACCOUNTABILITY (cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 76% (Good
performance).
• Two of the nine Offices achieved a score of between 85% (WC) to
100% (Gauteng), signifying excellent performance.
• All Offices had FPPs, based on risk analyses.
• Two of the Offices received a qualified audit opinion (FS and Limp).
• The score for implementation of fraud prevention plans was very low
(37%).
• The capacity to investigate fraud was insufficient, or at best, uneven
between the offices assessed.
• It was found that there is superficial compliance with requirements,
like the requirement for risk assessment and fraud prevention plans,
but these assessments and plans do not fundamentally change the
management and operational processes, or even the culture, of the
Office.
15
TRANSPARENCY
Value: Transparency must be fostered by providing the public with
timely, accessible and accurate information.
Performance Indicator
Standards
Departmental Annual
Report (AR)
The departmental AR/
complies with NT’s
guideline on annual
reporting.
• The AR is attractive , clearly presented & well
written in simple accessible language.
• The content of the AR covers at least 90% of
the areas prescribed by NT & the DPSA.
• The AR clearly report on performance against
predetermined outputs in at least 66% of the
programmes listed.
Access to Information
The Department complies
with the provisions of the
Promotion of Access to
Information Act (PAIA).
• At least one deputy information officer with
duly delegated authority exists.
• A manual that complies with the requirements
of the PAIA is in place.
• Systems for managing requests for access to
information are in place.
16
TRANSPARENCY (cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 71% (Good
performance)
• Two areas were identified as deficiencies in most of the Offices.
 Annual reports did not cover in sufficient detail at least 90% of
the areas prescribed by National Treasury and the DPSA.
 Only five (56%) of the Offices’ Manual on Access to Information
complied with more than 78% of the 14 requirements set in
section 14 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000
 Offices’ average compliance against the specific standards
Departmental AR
Access to Information
Performance Appointed Manual on
Presentation Content
System
reporting
DIO
Access
100%
34%
67%
100%
56%
78%
17
IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS
Value: Services must be provided impartially, fairly, equitably and
without bias.
Performance Indicator
There is evidence that the
Department follows the
prescribed procedures of the
Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act (PAJA) when
making administrative
decisions.
Standards
• All decisions are taken in
accordance
with
prescribed
legislation/policies and in terms of
delegated authority.
• All decisions are justified and fair
considering
the
evidence
submitted in this regard.
• The procedures required in the
PAJA
in
communicating
administrative decisions are duly
followed.
18
IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS(cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 51% (Adequate)
• The main reason for the poor performance is that 4 out of 9 Offices
did not submit information for assessment against this principle.
• The average performance of the other 5 Offices was excellent
(91%), which means that all their decisions were taken in terms of
legislation and by duly delegated officials, were fair, and complied
with the requirements of PAJA.
• Offices’ average scores against the specific standards:
Standards
% Average for
nine Offices
% Average for
five Offices
Decisions are in Decisions are Decisions Communicating
terms of
in terms of are just and administrative
legislation/policy delegations
fair
decisions
45%
46%
56%
56%
80%
83%
100%
100%
19
REPRESENTIVITY
Value: Public administration must be broadly representative of SA people,
with employment and personnel management practices based on ability
objectivity fairness and the need to redress the imbalances of the past to
achieve broad representation.
Performance Indicator
Standards
The Department is representative • Employment Equity policies &
of the South African people and is
plans are in place and reported
implementing diversity manageupon.
ment measures.
• All representivity targets are
met.
• Diversity
management
measures are implemented.
20
REPRESENTIVITY (cont.)
• The average performance for the nine Offices is 49% (Adequate)
• The main reason for this performance was:
 The general lack of management feedback on progress reports
on representivity, which hampered the Offices in reaching
national representivity targets.
 None of the nine Offices was unable to reach the 50% target for
women at all senior management levels by 31 March 2009
 Only 2 Offices complied with the 2% target for people with
disability by 31/03/10.
Existence of an
EE
Policy
Plan
34%
78%
Achievement Management reporting on
Diversity
of
representivity
managerepresentivity
Done
Response
ment
targets
31%
88%
22%
72%
21
CONCLUSION
• The picture that emerged is:
 The Offices complied with basic procedures but could not
translate compliance into excellence.
 To reach excellence will require focussed attention to achieve
the intended outcome of administrative policies.
• Encouraging is that four of the five Offices that were re-assessed
improved their performance by more than 10%.
• The challenges facing Offices of the Premier are:
 The institutionalisation of systems
 Installing a performance culture.
 The capacity and will of all staff members to implement the
policies and systems in a meaningful way
22
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа