Public Service Commission, Consolidated Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Offices of the Premier Evaluation Cycle 2010/2011, March 2012

Executive Summary

1. INTRODUCTION

This is a consolidated sectoral monitoring and evaluation (M&E) report on the Offices of the Premier (Offices), which is a product of data gathered at Offices during the 2010/11 evaluation cycle to determine their compliance against a number of governance indicators based on the values and principles of public administration contained in section 195 of the Constitution.1 As part of this evaluation, a comparative analysis was also made between the previous assessments of four offices and the assessment conducted during the 2010/11 evaluation cycle.

The aim of the assessment was to:

• 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.

This report consists of five chapters and is structured as follows:

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the mandate of the PSC together with a description of the System. This is followed by an outline of the process involved in implementing the system and the functions of the Offices of the Premier.

Chapter 2 gives a comparative performance ranking between the Offices' first and 2010/11 assessments, as well as the status of the implementation of recommendations issued during the first assessment.

Chapter 3 presents the main findings on how the Offices have performed against each of the nine CVPs. As the description of the system will indicate, there are performance indicators (PIs) and measures for each CVP, making it possible to quantify performance per principle. Chapter 3 also highlights strengths and weaknesses and offers strategies for improvement. Chapter 4 presents the conclusion and Chapter 5 provides a summary of the recommendations per principle.

The Executive Summary is organised as follows:

2. MANDATE OF THE PSC

The PSC is vested with the mandate in Section 196 (4) (a) to (d) of the Constitution2 to promote good governance in the Public Service. In terms of its mandate, the PSC is empowered to investigate, monitor and evaluate the organisation and administration, and the personnel practices, of the Public Service, to advise national and provincial organs of state, and promote compliance with the nine constitutional values and principles (CVPs) listed in Section 195 of the Constitution.3

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PSC'S SYSTEM

The methodology applied by the System involves assessing the actual performance of an Office against a few selected indicators and standards per principle. (The detailed assessment framework is available on the PSC's web page: www.psc.gov.za and a concise document indicating the performance indicator(s) and standards used for each CVP, as well as the related policies and regulations are attached as Appendix A to this report). Evidence about the actual state of practice for the nine CVPs was obtained by collecting and assessing policy and other documents, conducting inter views with samples of relevant persons and assessing qualitative and quantitative data according to templates and measures.

By interrogating the evidence against the indicators and standards, a sense of the performance of an Office against each of the nine CVPs was arrived at. Based on the assessment, a score is awarded for the performance of an Office as measured against the standards.

This has enabled the PSC to establish a baseline and provide trends in performance over time. The rating scale, consisting of five performance bands, is captured in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Exposition of the scoring and translation into percentages

Since the same indicators are used year after year, the performance of a sample of Offices in a specific year can be compared with the samples of previous years, Offices can be compared with each other, and an Office's performance can be compared with its own performance in a previous year when that Office comes up for re- assessment.

4. 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.4

The Office, therefore, is regarded as the political ner ve 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.5

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The following key findings are made in this repor t in respect of performance trends between the Offices' 1st and 2nd assessments, the implementation of recommendations made by the PSC, and the overall performance of all the Offices against the different CVPs.

5.1 Comparative performance results between the 1st and 2nd assessments

Overall trend in performance per re-assessed Offices

The overall average performance between the 1st (59%) and 2nd (68%) assessments of the four reassessed Offices improved by 9%. In terms of the PSC's System, it is still regarded as "good against most of the standards". Three of the four re-assessed Offices have improved their performance by between 10% and 42% of which the WC Office recorded the best improvement from 40% (poor performance) to 82% (excellent performance). Of concern is the drop in performance by 35% of the Limpopo (Limp) Office from 89% (excellent performance) to 54% (adequate performance). The main reason for the improvement and/or decline in performance can be linked to the implementation/non-implementation of the PSC's recommendations.

Status of recommendations between 1st and 2nd assessments

None of the four Offices has implemented all recommendations made by the PSC in the 1st assessment. Of the 81 recommendations made during the 1st assessment, 37 (46%) had been implemented by the time these Offices were assessed for the 2nd time in 2010/11. It is notewor thy that those 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. For example, the WC Office's performance has improved by 42% and has implemented 69% of the recommendations of the 1st assessment, whilst the Limp Office's performance has decreased by 35%, and has implemented only 24% of the PSC's recommendations.

Overall trend in performance per principle of re-assessed Offices

The overall average performance against all the CVPs has improved by 9% from 59% (adequate) during the 1st assessment to 68% (good performance) during the 2nd assessment. All the individual CVPs' performance has also improved by between 7% (principle 6 on accountability and principle 8 on human resource management and career development practices), and 30% (principle 4 on impar tiality and fairness). These improvements are mainly due to these Offices star ting to do the most basic administrative functions correct, such as having most policies in place and progress repor ting on projects to management.

5.2 Performance of Offices for the 2010/11 evaluation cycle

Overall performance of all Offices

The overall average performance for the Offices was 61%, which is regarded as "good performance against most of the principles" in terms of the System - refer to Table 2 below:

Table 2: Overall performance per Office for the 2010/11 assessment

The best performer amongst the Offices was the WC, which attained "excellent performance against all the principles", followed by the Offices in Gauteng (77%) and NC (64%), which achieved "good performance against most of the principles". The remaining six Offices performed adequately against several of the principles, namely, NW and Mpumalanga (Mpu) both with 59%, FS (56%), KZN and Limp both with 54%, and lastly EC with a score of 47%.

Performance of all Offices per principle

The Offices' compliance against each of the nine CVPs is highlighted in Table 3 below, followed by a brief discussion on the performance against each principle.

Table 3: Overall performance against each CVP in the 2010/11 assessment

The overall average performance for the Offices against the standards of each principle was 61%, which is regarded as "good performance". The only good performance against most of the standards was recorded against principles 1 (professional ethics), 6 (accountability) and 7 (transparency).

5.2.1 Principle 1: Professional ethics

The Offices generally achieved good performance (69%) against most of the standards for this principle.

5.2.2 Principle 2: Efficiency, economy and effectiveness

The Offices generally achieved adequately performance (57%) against several of the standards for this principle. Expenditure is mostly as budgeted for, and material variances were generally explained. Except for NW, all other Offices managed to formulate their PIs in measureable terms. However, apart from Gauteng (84%), none of the Offices managed to achieve 80% or more of their planned outputs, which creates a misalignment between expenditure and outputs achieved.

5.2.3 Principle 3: Development orientation

The Offices main functions are that of policy direction, coordination, facilitation and M&E. Since the focus of the standards applied by the PSC for this principle is to assess departments' direct involvement in poverty reduction projects at the project level, the Offices argued that this principle is not directly applicable to their functions. The Offices, therefore, were exempted from assessment against this principle. The PSC is currently reviewing its M&E system to ensure that its standards are more generally applicable.

5.2.4 Principle 4: Impartiality and fairness

Only five Offices submitted sufficient evidence to make an informed and fair assessment of their performance. The average performance of these 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.

5.2.5 Principle 5: Public participation in policy-making

Despite the many initiatives/systems utilised to obtain inputs from the public on their policies/intended programmes/ projects, the Offices could generally not show that they had considered inputs made by the public and provided feedback to the public. This requirement determines the meaningfulness of public participation. If the participation process and inputs do not inform policy or the design and implementation of a project or programme, such participation does not serve much purpose, except that the process improves relationships between government and the community.

5.2.6 Principle 6: Accountability

The Offices' compliance against this principle was good (76%) against most of the standards. At the time of the assessment, all Offices had FPPs, based on risk analyses. However, three of the Offices received a qualified audit opinion. Further, the score for the implementation of the fraud prevention plans was very low and the capacity to investigate fraud was insufficient, or at best, uneven between the offices assessed.

5.2.7 Principle 7: Transparency

The average performance of Offices against this principle was good against most of the standards (71%). Two areas were identified as deficiencies in most of the Offices. The first area was annual reports, which did not cover in sufficient detail at least 90% of the areas prescribed by National Treasury and the Department of Public Service and Administration. A poor average compliance of 34% was achieved. The second area was incomplete Manuals on Access to Information (MAIs). Only five (56%) of the Offices' MAI complied with more than 78% of the 14 requirements set in section 14 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No 2 of 2000).

5.2.8 Principle 8: good human resource management and career development practices

Though the average performance against this standard was adequate (58%) against several of the standards, this was more a reflection of compliance with basic requirements than efficient and effective administrative processes. For example, all the Offices had recruitment policies and procedures but it still took ver y long to fill posts. Management reporting on recruitment was done but no appropriate action was taken on those reports. All the Offices had skills development plans, which were largely implemented, but the training mostly consisted of short courses and the impact of these courses on work performance and service deliver y was not assessed.

5.2.9 Principle 9: Representivity

The Offices' average performance against this principle was adequate (49%) due to the absence of an EE policy and the general lack of management feedback on progress reports on representivity, which hampered the Offices in reaching national representivity targets. It was found that seven (78%) of the nine Offices had more than the required 75% Blacks at senior management level. None of the nine Offices was unable to reach the 50% target for women at all senior management levels by 31 March 2009, whilst only two Offices complied with the 2% target for people with disability by 31 March 2010.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The 22 recommendations made by the PSC in this Report (Chapter 4) are a reflection of the recommended strategies for improvement contained in the individual reports. The number of recommendations per principle is captured in the Table 4 below.

Table 4: Recommendations against each CVP in the 2010/11 assessment

7. CONCLUSION

This Report has provided an assessment of the state of the nine Offices assessed during the 2010/11 evaluation cycle in terms of their compliance with the nine CVPs. It was found that the overall average performance of Offices against the CVPs was 60%, which is regarded as "adequate performance". The only good performance against most of the standards was recorded against principles 1 (professional ethics), 6 (accountability) and 7(transparency).

It is clear from Offices' performance against the nine CVPs that there is generally still inadequate compliance with the most basic Public Service regulator y frameworks addressed in CVPs of the PSC's System.

Unless the recommendations contained in the list at Chapter 4 (as a reflection of the recommendations in the individual reports) are implemented, non-compliance will continue to have a negative impact on effective public administration practices in the Offices assessed.

Source: Public Service Commission. The full report can be accessed here - PDF.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter