1 / 24

Introduction

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

farica
Download Presentation

Introduction

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

  2. 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

  3. 1. Background to the 2007/2008 processuse of local government white paper as back drop

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model Performance Red line = the minimum requirement Most municipalities appear to perform above the minimum requirement.

  16. 6. Findings of the Municipal Differentiation Model Performance Red line = the minimum requirement Most municipalities appear to perform above the minimum requirement.

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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)

  20. 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

  21. example of a municipal profile from the Differentiation Model

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. Thank You

More Related