slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Introduction PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Introduction

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

Introduction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 183 Views
  • Uploaded on

2007/2008 Consolidated Annual Municipal Performance Report prepared in terms of Section 47 of the Municipal Systems Act. 1 Background to the 2007/2008 process Findings of previous 2006/2007 CAMPR Summary of the 2007/2008 process 4 Good Practices and Challenges

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Introduction' - farica


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

2007/2008Consolidated Annual Municipal Performance Report prepared in terms of Section 47 of the Municipal Systems Act

introduction
1 Background to the 2007/2008 process

Findings of previous 2006/2007 CAMPR

Summary of the 2007/2008 process

4 Good Practices and Challenges

Developing a Municipal Differentiation Model as part of the 2007/2008 CAMPR

Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model as part of the 2007/2008 CAMPR

Introduction
1 background to the 2007 2008 process use of local government white paper as back drop
1. Background to the 2007/2008 processuse of local government white paper as back drop
slide4

2. Findings of previous 2006/2007 CAMPR

In 0607, a number of municipalities

(close to 1/3 = 20) struggled

with establishment issues

A bit more than 1/3 = 30 municipalities were having challenges with the consolidation of operations

Few (10 municipalities) were moving towards sustainability

3 summary of the 2007 2008 process
3. Summary of the 2007/2008 process
  • The preparation followedthe finalisation of the 2007/2008 Municipal Annual Reports, hence the assumption that “valid” (accurate to audited) information was available
  • Process followedin compiling the2007/2008 CAMPR:
    • Structured surveysin terms of Provincial Template, and Provincial Core KPIs
    • Reportstructured as per 5 LGSA KPAs
    • Development of a Municipal Differentiation Model
    • Evaluation and Summary Findings
  • The Provincial Reportwas tabled to the Provincial Legislature in October 2009 and submitted to National CoGTA and the NCOP thereafter
  • Integrate the findings into a DLGTA Municipal Capacity Building and Support Strategy, now the Local Government Turn Around Strategy
4 good practices and challenges
Good Practices (DLGTA support)

Provincial standards developed (OPMS Functionality Criteria)

Provincial KPI Framework (KPIs, Reporting Template)

Provincial and DM OPMS support structures established for monitoring system functionality

Municipal Differentiation Model to measure progression

Challenges

Slow progress of municipal processes in preparing Annual Performance Reports in terms of Section 46 of the MSA as part of Annual Report in terms of Section 121 of MFMA

DLGTA capacity constraints

Lack of stakeholder coordination (internal and external to DLGTA)

4. Good Practices and Challenges
slide7

5. Developing a Municipal Differentiation Model

In 0708 the 0607 process of municipal differentiation was explored further.

A Model was developed to plot indicators against.

4 levels of performance were created.

slide8

5. Developing a Municipal Differentiation Model

The Model has three dimensions: Performance, Compliance and Data Quality

It contains a series of performance benchmarks to distinguish one performance level from another

This informs the support programme per municipality

slide9

6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Data Quality:

Most municipalities keep record of performance information.

The challenge is meeting the requirements of the Auditor General ito auditing performance information

slide10

Data Quality:

Size of the bubble = the size of the municipal council

Municipalities provide better “compliance” information than “performance” information

The size of the municipality (capacity) does not influence the quality of information.

Quality of information influences the accuracy of “performance” assessment.

Most municipalities fall between average to below-average data quality. (between the green and orange lines)

slide11
REMEDY

A 3 year programme to support municipalities in OPMS development.

Main aims:

Assess performance management functionality

Develop municipal specific action plans

Provide technical advice and support

Specific support around data/ information management, reporting and auditing

slide12

6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Compliance

Average compliance of municipalities = 64/100

Compliance appears to be good with a few municipalities needing assistance. This is without exception to their type or capacitated

slide13

6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Performance

Red line = the minimum requirement

Performance evaluation is influenced by data quality

Appears as if larger municipalities perform better wrt basic service delivery

slide14

6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Performance

Red line = the minimum requirement

Most municipalities just above or under the red line are small category B4 municipalities.

Then there are B4s who are performing just as well as B1/B2 municipalities

slide15

6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Performance

Red line = the minimum requirement

Most municipalities appear to perform above the minimum requirement.

slide16

6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Performance

Red line = the minimum requirement

Most municipalities appear to perform above the minimum requirement.

slide17

6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Performance

Red line = the minimum requirement

Most municipalities appear to perform just above the minimum requirement.

Largely due to the inconsistencies in measuring what the role of LG is in LED

slide18

Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Overall Score

(Compl and Perf)

No municipality perform at a level 3

28 municipalities perform at level 2. Better data will move some into level 3.

Level 2 are generally complaint municipalities and performance is above the average

slide19

Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model

Overall Score

(Compl and Perf)

28 municipalities perform at level 1. Better data will move some into level 2.

Level 1 municipalities experience compliance challenges and are performing poor to adequate.

No level 0 municipalities (5 were excl due to very poor data provided)

slide20

Overall Score

(Compl and Perf)

Size of the bubble = the size of the municipal council

About 20 municipalities are just complying but performance is really low

Most municipalities fall within an acceptable compliance area as well as performing adequately

No municipality falls within the “ideal state”

Not a strong correlation between the size of the municipality and where it lies on the graph

slide21

example of a

municipal profile

from the

Differentiation

Model

slide22
Integrate and Align three major projects/ processes into a Municipal Capacity Building and Support Strategy:

External Evaluation of the Departmental Support Programmes to Municipalities

CoGTA Comprehensive Assessment of Local Government

This 2007/2008 CAMPR, especially the findings of the Municipal Institutional Development Model

REMEDY

slide23
Accurately profiling a municipality and its challenges

Categorizing the issues to identify the intensity of support needed

Re-engineer the Department in its new role as cooperative governance facilitator

Prepare and adopt detailed Municipal Turn Around Strategies addressing the issues identified