1 / 31

DPME PRESENTATION TO THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE 11 OCTOBER 2016

DPME PRESENTATION TO THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE 11 OCTOBER 2016. Presentation Outline. Introduction (Budget, Entities, Provinces & Metros) DPME performance monitoring role (Annual Report) Performance Information (Part B) Development Indicators Evaluations MTSF targets

cedna
Download Presentation

DPME PRESENTATION TO THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE 11 OCTOBER 2016

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DPME PRESENTATION TO THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE 11 OCTOBER 2016

  2. Presentation Outline • Introduction (Budget, Entities, Provinces & Metros) • DPME performance monitoring role (Annual Report) • Performance Information (Part B) • Development Indicators • Evaluations • MTSF targets • SP & APP analysis • NDHS MPAT 1.5 heat Results & Map (Part C,D &E) • Overall performance per Key Performance Area

  3. DPME Performance Monitoring Role FSD & CBM: Service experience (citizens) Planning & Budget QPR INPUTS People Money Facilities & equipment 1. Strategic Management Development Indicators Output 1 2. Governance & Accountability Outcomes Impact Output 2 3. Employees, Systems & Processes Output 3 4. Financial Management MPAT Management Practices (concurrent) Institutional dimension Evaluations (effectiveness matched to NT EPR value for money) Outcome 8 Monitoring

  4. DPME Development Indicators Publication- 2015 • The publication reflects government’s own assessment of the country’s performance in quantitative measures against national priority outcomes. • Data is sourced from government administrative datasets, official statistics, national statistics and research undertaken by local and international institutions. • South Africa accommodated 4.1 million households in formal housing between 2003 and 2014 (74.4 % to 79.4 %) • The government subsidy housing programmecontributed 1 367 870 formal houses between 2004 and 2014(about 30%) • Informal dwellings as a proportion of total households have decreased (13.1% to 12.9 between 2004 & 2014), there has been an absolute increase in the number of households living in informal settlements from 1.49 million to 2.0 million over the same period • New household formation has outpaced population growth, with the national average household size reducing from 4.6 in 1996 to 3.4 in 2011 - and a distinct reduction of average household size in informal settlements down to 2.64 people • 21.6 % of the population rent and of those, 713 000 households stay and or rent in both formal and informal backyard dwellings

  5. DPME Performance Monitoring Role: Evaluations FSD & CBM: Service experience (citizens) Planning & Budget QPR INPUTS People Money Facilities & equipment 1. Strategic Management Development Indicators Output 1 2. Governance & Accountability Outcomes Impact Output 2 3. Employees, Systems & Processes Output 3 4. Financial Management MPAT Management Practices (concurrent) Institutional dimension Evaluations (effectiveness matched to NT EPR value for money) Outcome 8 Monitoring

  6. DPME Evaluations • NDHS:7 evaluations in the National Evaluation Plan • Different types of evaluations for different stages of the programme: • Design: logic & integrity of programme theory; • Implementation: Contextual influences; capability of implementation agencies & assessing immediate change • Impact: longer term changes in communities/society • Evaluations explain working of programme theory & observed delivery trends: account for outcomes beyond quarterly or annual reports • Offers targeted guidance to what needs to be fixed to make programmes perform better

  7. DPME Performance Monitoring Role: Evaluations FSD & CBM: Service experience (citizens) Planning & Budget QPR INPUTS People Money Facilities & equipment 1. Strategic Management Development Indicators Output 1 2. Governance & Accountability Outcomes Impact Output 2 3. Employees, Systems & Processes Output 3 4. Financial Management MPAT Management Practices (concurrent) Institutional dimension Evaluations (effectiveness matched to NT EPR value for money) Outcome 8 Monitoring

  8. Systematic Review of housing programme interventions – design, implementation, results & sustainability = sustainable human settlements Integrated settlements Improved Shelter Equitable functional property market Affordable Housing interventions Outcomes Interventions The Grants to local government to provide land and infrastructure for the poor

  9. Impact evaluation Integrated Residential Development Program + Affordable Housing (attributing change to programmes) Design evaluation ofthe Urban Settlements Development Grant + Informal Settlements Upgrading programme (analyse TOC, inner logic and consistency of intervention) Assessing the suite of housing interventions - shaping sustainable settlement outcomes Implementation Evaluation Urban Settlements Development Grant + Social Housing (Analyse the TOC and assess it effectiveness Economic Evaluation Affordable housing market policy/programme (analyse the TOC and provide a CBA) Evaluation Synthesis: Asset Creation & Access to the City (generalise findings) Diagnostic Informal Settlements Upgrading Programme (baselineto inform the intervention design)

  10. Design &Implementation Evaluation of the Urban Settlements Development Grant: Theory of Change Breakdown of fund linkage Breakdown in the IGR planning interface

  11. Breakdown of structure of financing

  12. Preliminary findings of the Evaluations • Housing/Human Settlement programme instruments respond to complex operating environment of complicated legislative frameworks of multiple institutional, political, administrative and financial rules which provide for an expansive delivery system • The evaluations provide early pointers that overall - the housing programmes work, but performances and outcomes are mixed • Subsidized housing has contributed significantly to addressing poverty and stabilising society-providing a foot onto the property ladder • The structure for financing housing and human settlements have a critical causal relationship for sustainable human settlement outcomes • IRDP supports integrated settlement making when based on specialised implementing agents, capable of managing the complex interface between planning, financing and implementation of projects with clear agreements of responsibility and accountability (and agreed M&E platforms) But • Evaluations show both planning and implementation agency interface limitations • Housing/human settlements meta-theory of change (multiple outcomes) is contested • Poor correlation between programme, housing project, house, household, settlement making, city plans (uneven plans and monitoring)

  13. DPME Performance Monitoring Role: MTSF Outcome 8 Monitoring FSD & CBM: Service experience (citizens) Planning & Budget QPR INPUTS People Money Facilities & equipment 1. Strategic Management Development Indicators Output 1 2. Governance & Accountability Outcomes Impact Output 2 3. Employees, Systems & Processes Output 3 4. Financial Management MPAT Management Practices (concurrent) Institutional dimension Evaluations (effectiveness matched to NT EPR value for money) Outcome 8 Monitoring

  14. MTSF: Outcome 8 Performance Targets 2014-2019

  15. MTSF Performance (Year 2 should be at 40%) • Quarterly MTSF progress report by NDHS/DPME to Cabinet: PoA Website • APP indicators are aligned to MTSF as a requirement • Some APP targets not aligned with MTSF targets e.g. land-to be aligned during MTSF Refinement (whilst good performance - rezoning remains a challenge) • Informal settlements upgrading targets aligned: AR understate weak-performance of 23% (metros at 16%) • 1165 of 2200 informal Settlements assessed and only 414 plans for upgrading • APP/AR Alignment of subsidy housing units delivered: performance below target - 34% • Title deeds transfers:113 478 of 900 000 backlog (13.9%) and only 9 % of 563 000 new titles transferred (adds 180 106 to backlog) • Gap/Affordable Housing: 27% delivery of the MTSF target for gap loans (159 500 loans -126 278 by DFI’s & 33 222 by Banks): • This has not translated into new units (11% or 37 000 of the target of 350 000) • Poor performance (4% as in AR) of the Finance Linked Subsidy Programme (FLISP triggers bank loans) • Rental/social housing (13.3% of MTSF target) • Good progress with addressing integration of settlements: MSP; Catalytic projects; land & DFI Consolidation • Policy and programme revisions for finance, rental, mineworker housing, the Human Settlements White Paper and the accreditation of municipalities are behind target

  16. DPME Performance Monitoring Role: Planning and Budget FSD & CBM: Service experience (citizens) Planning & Budget QPR INPUTS People Money Facilities & equipment 1. Strategic Management Development Indicators Output 1 2. Governance & Accountability Outcomes Impact Output 2 3. Employees, Systems & Processes Output 3 4. Financial Management MPAT Management Practices (concurrent) Institutional dimension Evaluations (effectiveness matched to NT EPR value for money) Outcome 8 Monitoring

  17. DPME: GPI SP & APP (AR) analysis for 15/16 • The Department of Human Settlements should reflect its responsibilities as derived from section 3 of the Housing Act (1997) • The national department’s plans and reports should reflect the work of the department and not the deliverables of provinces and/or public entities • Provincial deliverables can be reflected in the department’s APP as “consolidated indicators” - separate from programme performance indicators • This will allow the department to distinguish between their core functions and those of the provinces – to ensure accountability, as the national department should reflect progress made by the sector in delivering services • The national department’s APP should reflect its role in providing support and ensuring that provinces, municipalities, and entities deliver services on behalf of the sector • The NDHS should performance monitor entities, provinces and municipalities • NDHS to refine institutional capabilities of entities, province and municipalities in terms of policy, planning, strategy, programme, project delivery support • Set out the terms for consultation and partnerships with all stakeholders in the housing delivery chain ( both civil and private)

  18. Controls that should be put in place for consolidated data • Ensure that sufficient collection, verification and validation systems are in place to ensure that the consolidated information is reliable. • There should be a clear audit trail of where data is coming from and how it is consolidated which should include reasons and supporting documentation for any adjustments made. • Data used in the consolidation should be same as data that is reported by each individual entity.

  19. DPME Performance Monitoring Role: MPAT FSD & CBM: Service experience (citizens) Planning & Budget QPR INPUTS People Money Facilities & equipment 1. Strategic Management Development Indicators Output 1 2. Governance & Accountability Outcomes Impact Output 2 3. Employees, Systems & Processes Output 3 4. Financial Management MPAT Management Practices (concurrent) Institutional dimension Evaluations (effectiveness matched to NT EPR value for money) Outcome 8 Monitoring

  20. DPME & MPAT • The Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) introduced to monitor management practices (2010) to give impetus embedding monitoring and evaluation practices (collaboration by NT, DPSA, AG, OtPs & OPSC) • MPAT focuses on management practice in four key performance areas: • KPA 1: Strategic Management (SM) • KPA 2: Governance and Accountability (G&A) • KPA 3: Human Resource Management (HRM) • KPA 4: Financial Management (FM) • Monitors compliance with key prescripts namely PSA, PFMA, Protected Disclosures Act, PAIA, etc.

  21. MPAT Theory of Change Critical Review of Standards Improved Sectoral & Government Performance Develop system assessing progression in management capability, against explicit integrated standards A better life for all Comparison across departments to understand state of government management practices Facilitated horizontal learning across departments Departments are supported and real learning takes place Self-assessment by each department against management standards Accurate assessment & diagnostic of management practices Appropriate Improvement Plan Improved Management Practice Improved Management Performance Improved Departmental Performance Monitor & evaluate these relationships Review Public Management Policies and Requirements Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact

  22. Department’s overall performance Per Key Performance Area ( KPA)

  23. Strategic Management • The department performed at a below compliance level: 2.1 average Highlights of this KPA: • Strategic Plan (2015-2020): strategic objectives do not contain 5-year targets • APP: the dept. does not adhere to the principles contained in the Framework for Strategic Plans & APP; and • M&E: Q2 performance report not provided as evidence

  24. Department’s overall performance Per Key Performance Area ( KPA)

  25. Governance and Accountability • The department performed below compliance level: 2.2 average Highlights of this KPA : • Dept. achieved levels 3&4 in the following standards: PAIA, Management Structures and Audit committee. • SDIP , Prof ethics, and Corporate governance of ICT: no evidence submitted by the department, on CGICT it was noted that Quarterly reporting was not provided which reflects initiatives achieved and still to achieved • Fraud Prevention: although the department has the approved, fraud prevention plan, structure and implementation plans. However, the department only provided feedback to PSC on 14% of cases reported (29 out of 210) to it via the NACH • Assessment of Internal Audit arrangements: No proof that the IA unit conducted an external 5 year quality assurance review as required by the ISPPIA 1312 • Assessment of risk management arrangements: No evidence on strategic risk register and Q4 RMC report • Compliance with PAJA requirements: no evidence of documents informing individual or the public of the rights to exhaust internal remedies

  26. Department’s overall performance Per Key Performance Area ( KPA)

  27. Human Resource Management • The department performed below compliance level: 2.5 average Highlights of this KPA : • Dept. achieved level 3 in the following standards: Recruitment & Retention, PMDS 1-2, SMS PMDS, and Man. Of Disciplinary Cases • HRP: HRPIR and HRP proof of submission to DPSA not provided as evidence • Organisational design and implementation- 35.7% of posts are out of adjustment; OD costing model not provided as evidence • Management of diversity: Reports submitted after due date or not at all; the 2% target for the representation of persons with disabilities is not met ( 0.16%). • Employee Health and Wellness: Operational plans for required 4 policies not provided as evidence • PSA Delegations: Delegations submitted as evidence should be reviewed and in the prescribed format as per DPSA directive

  28. Department’s overall performance Per Key Performance Area ( KPA)

  29. Financial Management • The department performed at a compliance level: 3.2 average Highlights of this KPA : • Dept. achieved levels 3 & 4 on the majority of finance standards • Payroll certification: termination and transfer procedures not provided as evidence • Payment of suppliers: no proof that the department pays its suppliers within 30 days (exception reports not provided as evidence) and proof that management acts on existing risk mitigating plans

  30. Centrality of Managerial leadership

More Related