Governance & Oversight. Overview of Monitoring & Evaluation in Local Government Sphere Cllr. Kaone Lobelo Mayor of Greater-Taung Local Municipality IMFO CONFERENCE 08-10 October 2012. Outline. Legislative Environment Govtf Planning & Performance Systems
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.
Governance & Oversight Overview of Monitoring & Evaluation in Local Government Sphere Cllr. KaoneLobelo Mayor of Greater-Taung Local Municipality IMFO CONFERENCE 08-10 October 2012
Outline • Legislative Environment • Govtf Planning & Performance Systems • Performance Management System Cycle • Monitoring Model • Reviewing • Auditing • Proposed Approach to Monitoring & Evaluation • Challenges • What needs to be done • Panel Guide- Discussion
Quotable Quote • “What gets measured get done. • If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from failure. • If you can’t see success, you can’t reward it. • If you can’t reward success, you are probably rewarding failure. • If you can’t see success, you can’t learn from it. • If you can’t recognise failure, you can’t correct it. • If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support.” (Osborne & Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government)
Legislative Environment • Constitution of the RSA • White Paper of Local Govt • LG: Municipal Systems Act • LG: Municipal Structures Act • LG: Planning & Performance Regulations • LG: Municipal Finance Management Act • LG: Performance Regulations of the Municipal Manager and Managers Directly Reporting to the Municipal Manager • Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information • LG: Municipal Systems Amendment Act 7, 2011 • Policy Directives • Outcome Based Approach – Outcome 9 • LG Turn-Point Plan
Mandate of Govt • Since 2009 Govt opted for the Outcome Approach as the Delivery Machine of Government for his term of office. • This was necessitated by the Electoral Mandate that the ruling party must Implement Projects that will have REAL or VISIBLE CHANGE to ordinary South African lives in terms of access to Basic Services.
Six Non-Negotiable (1) Emphases was placed on the Six Non- Negotiable that the president outlined being: • Provision of Principled Leadership to Deliver on the Mandate. • Cooperation between the Three Spheres of Government. • Partnership with/between Civil Society. • Transparency within the three spheres; • Limited funding and resources (Doing more with little). • Development of public service to become a skilled and well resourced Public Service.
Six Non-Negotiable (2) Emphasis was placed to advocate these six non-negotiable in Provinces; and that these non-negotiable together with the others are the once that government decided to introduce the Outcome Based Approach in addition to the Ten MTSF Priorities. To show how serious government is about the issues the President established a monitoring and Evaluation Directorate to constantly give feedback to the Public on how Government is doing in the Implementation of the Electoral Mandate.
Outcome Based Approach • Focuses Government to achieve real improvements in the life of all SA • Clarifies what we expect to achieve, how we expect to achieve it and how we will know whether we are achieving it? • To ensure that results improve the lives of citizens rather than just carrying out our functions. • Help track the progress we are making in achieving results. • Help us collect Evidence about what worked and what did not, to help us improve our planning and implementation annually.
The new policy landscape: implications of the January 2010 Cabinet Lekgotla • The MTSF was altered to focus on 12 outcomes (rather than the 10 ‘Apex priorities of 2009/10) A paradigm shift in planning and M&E was introduced: from an ‘outputs’ based approach to an ‘outcomes’ based approach LGTAS, COGTA 10 point plan, Outcome 9 5YLGSA
Measuring Local Govt Performance 11 • Key Mandates to Measure, Monitor and Evaluate Local Government Performance: • OUTCOME 9: A Responsive, accountable, effective and efficient local government system • Output 1: Implement a differentiated approach to municipal financing, planning and support • Output 2: Improving access to basic services. • Output 3: Implementation of the Community Work Programme • Output 4: Actions supportive of the human settlement outcome • Output 5: Deepen democracy through a refined Ward Committee model • Output 6: Administrative and financial capability • Output 7: Single window of coordination
Measuring Local Govt Performance Local Government Ten Point Plan Improve the quantity and quality of municipal basic servicesto the people in the areas of access to water, sanitation, electricity, waste management, roads and disaster management. Enhance the municipal contribution to job creation and sustainable livelihoods through Local Economic Development (LED). Ensure the development & adoption of reliable and credible Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). Deepen democracy through a refined Ward Committee model. Build and strengthen the administrative, institutional and financial capabilitiesof municipalities. Create a single window of coordinationfor the support, monitoring and intervention in municipalities. Uproot fraud, corruption, nepotism and all forms of maladministration affecting local government. Develop a coherent and cohesive system of governance and amore equitable intergovernmental fiscal system. Develop and strengthen a politically and administratively stable systemof municipalities. Restore the institutional integrityof municipalities.
Planning • Involves the development of an organisational strategic plan and the cascading of this plan to all structural levels within the organisation. • Includes the development of individual performance plans (key performance areas).The planning process also involves the setting of measurement frameworks (performance indicators and targets). • Performance Planningensures that the strategic direction of the Municipality more explicitly informs and aligns the IDP with all planning activities and resource decisions. This is the stage where Key Performance Area’s and Key Performance Indicators are aligned to the IDP and national requirements, and targets are set.
Monitoring • Involves the development of mechanisms and systems to monitor the implementation of plans. • Includes elements such as reporting frameworks, tracking systems (e.g. logging of customer complaints) and feedback mechanisms (customer surveys).
Measuring • Involves measurement against targets that have been set. Measurement also includes mechanisms such as benchmarking (measuring against sector/industry standards) • It is an on-going process to determine whether performance targets have been met, exceeded or not met. Projections can also be made during the year as to whether the final target and future targets will be met. It occurs during key points in a process – for example, on a quarterly and annual basis.
Evaluation • Analyses why there is under-performance or what the factors were, that allowed good performance in a particular area. Where targets have not been met, the reasons for this must be examined and corrective action recommended. • Evidence to support the status is also reviewed at this stage. An additional component is the review of the indicators to determine if they are feasible and are measuring the key areas appropriately. • A corporate analysis of performance will be undertaken by the Performance Management Unit, to examine performance across the municipality in terms of all its priorities.
Reporting • Entails reporting twice a year to management, the performance audit committee, council and the public. • In addition, a quarterly report is also prepared and sent to Internal Audit to be audited, prior it being sent to council and the performance audit committee.
Monitoring Model The developmental results of achieving specific outcomes IMPACTS Manage towards achieving these results What we aim to change? The medium-term results for specific beneficiaries that are the consequence of achieving specific outputs OUTCOMES What we wish to achieve? The final products, or goods and services produced for delivery OUTPUTS What we produce or deliver? Plan, budget, implement and monitor The processes or actions that use a range of inputs to produce the desired outputs and ultimately outcomes ACTIVITIES What we do? The resources that contribute to the production and delivery of outputs INPUTS What we use to do the work?
Monitoring Levels M& E System Standardisation LGTAS Alignment LG Ten Point Plan Integration Capacity Delivery Agreement Capability MTAS/ SDBIP
Reviewing/auditing • This involves a systematic process of reviewing achievements against stated plans and understanding the reasons for the variance where there is variance. • It also involves the consideration of new developments and how these need to be incorporated into existing or new plans. • Performance review/auditingis a key element of the monitoring and evaluation process. This involves verifying that the measurement mechanisms are accurate and that proper procedures are followed to evaluate and improve performance.
Reviewing/auditing • According to section 45, of the Systems Act, results of the performance measurement must be audited as part of the municipality’s internal auditing process and annually by the Auditor-General. • The Municipality will therefore have to establish frameworks and structures to evaluate the effectiveness of the municipality’s internal performance measurement control systems
Key Process Issues • Integrated Development Plan (IDP) • Process Plan • Five Phases (Analysis, Strategies, Projects, Integration & Approval • Annual Budget • Service Delivery Budget & Implementation Plan • Corporate Objectives, Baseline, Indicators (Input/Output/Outcome), Targets • Performance Agreements • Performance Plans/Performance Scorecards • Performance Evaluations • In-year Reports • Quarterly Reports (MFMA Reg 2009) – Quality Certificate • Midyear Reports (MFMA Sec 72) – Quality Certificate • Annual Performance Reports (Section 46) –Auditor-General Report/Opinion • Annual Reports (Section 121) – AG Report/Opinion/Oversight Report
Challenges • Strategic plans i.e. IDP & SDBIP are not fully prepared • Inadequate internal data and internal monitoring systems • Lack of internal consistency within technical SDBIPs • Technical SDBIPs not clearly linked with IDP developmental objectives and strategies • The stakeholders generating (and demanding) information are not properly aligned i.e. Premiers Offices (Lekgotla, Technical Clusters), Sector Depts, • Usage of variety of indicators and no consistency with the 7 National Key Performance Indicators (NKPI) (since developed in 2001 but never reviewed) • Too much information, not used systematically • There is no emphasis on RESULTS • M&E not integrated and not linked with budget decisions
Challenges • Non-adherences to the legislative requirements – doing the basics • Submission of Performance Information ito of legislative requirements • In-year reporting (monthly, quarterly, midyear, annual reports) • Inadequate support of the audit process- internal/external • Auditing of Performance Information is not done – caused by non-submission of information • Inefficiency and ineffectiveness of Oversight by Council/Audit Committees • Failure to integrate King III Corporate Governance principles (by the way not enforceable) in our planning processes- 1st Sept 2009 • Cumbersome reporting requirements • Inconsistency between National Treasury and COGTA reporting formats • Inadequate evaluation/monitoring systems • Ownership of the PMS (Councils exercising its oversight role!) • Commitment to implement the whole M&E System
Challenges • Alignment of IDP and SDBIP • Failure to be ‘STRATEGIC’ • Signing Performance Agreements and adhering to contractual obligations • Regular reporting (in-year reports) • Inadequate/Inefficient/Ineffective evaluation/monitoring systems • Absence of a Work Ethic • General lack of disregard of the mandate of the ruling party-government (No commitment to the government of the day!, busy?)
What needs to be done • Coordinate the mandate of monitoring and evaluation of implementation between province, district and local municipalities and decided where best to locate it, i.e. at district levels? • Strengthen the external evaluations on the implementation of IDP & SDBIP i.e. should it be at District IGR Levels? • Current NKPIs should be reviewed and expedite the approval of indicators and few national indicators for local government in line with National Development Plans (NDP) should be developed • IDPs and Technical SDBIPs must follow a logical framework and must be linked to Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF)
What needs to be done • Expedite the current review of the M&E System to ensure that it generates reliable and timely information for decision making, in order to improve government’s delivery machinery, improves policies and accountability • Strengthen the capacity of the Delegation Systems at local government • PMS/Internal Audit must work together to support processes • Strengthen support of the internal/external audit processes • Support internal/external committees (Oversight/Audit Committee to do their work diligently • Strengthen Council Oversight Role • Capacity building of the MPAC to execute its mandate • Council being decisive in acting of MPAC recommendations • Continuous training and development VERY essential – PMS evolving all the time
Panel Discussion Guide • Develop a framework of how to address the identified gaps and challenges; • Stick to the planning ethos (i.e. IDP Guide Packs!) • Review of Institutional Arrangements (that can work best for us (not to loose focus!) • Align the planning instruments at municipal level: • IDP , SDBIP, LGTAs, Outcome Based Approach, NDP (Develop aligned SDBIP scorecards for implementation with clear KPIs and targets) • Resuscitate and sustain planning tools (don’t steer away from what you know best, what works best and how to do it better!): • Develop: • Clear and concise planning frameworks • Timelines • Responsibilities • Strengthen local structures • District-wide IDP Steering Committee • Redefine the assignment responsibilities to Council, Mayor, Officials and Municipal Managers and Section 57: • For better preparation and readiness • For improved implementation • Sustain the performance monitoring and evaluation system • Form should follow function • Hence clarity on function crucial • First function and buy-in, then the rest