DOJ & CD MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL (MPAT) REPORT Portfolio Committee on Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 5 November 2014
CONTENTS • Introduction • MPAT Performance Overview • Performance Per KPA 3.1 Strategic Management Management 3.2 Governance & Accountability 3.3 Human Resource Management 3.4 Financial Management 4. MPAT Improvement Plan 5. Conclusion
INTRODUCTION • Vision • A transformed and accessible justice system which promotes and • protects social justice, fundamental human rights and freedom. • Mission • We commit to provide transparent, responsive and accountable justice for all. • Principles And Values: • Commitment to Constitutional Values and a Culture of • Human Rights; • Batho Pele; • Good Governance; • Ubuntu; • Professionalism and Continuous Improvement; and • Open Communication.
INTRODUCTION Strategic Goals • Enhanced organisational performance on all aspects of administration in line with set standards, and meeting and exceeding the needs and aspirations of key stakeholders. • Facilitation of effective and efficient resolution of criminal, civil and family law disputes by providing accessible, efficient and quality administrative support to the courts. • Effective and cost-effective provision of state legal services that anticipate, meet and exceed stakeholder needs and expectations. • Effective coordination of the JCPS cluster in the delivery of outcome 3.” All People in South Africa are and feel safe” • Promotion of the Constitution and its values.
INTRODUCTION The Department has over a 100 legislative mandates to discharge and a large number of service points around the country. This create unique management and compliance challenges. As part of the mandate, the Department administers a large number of cases (criminal, civil, family) as well as a large number of matters within the Masters of the High Court.
INTRODUCTION The Department has emerged from a period of qualified audit opinions and has now achieved 2 consecutive years of unqualified opinions. Key issues: Budget cuts have made it difficult to increase capacity where such is needed. Implementation of key legislation such as Legal Practice Act and others, will continue to strain Departmental coffers. The large number of service points spread to the remotest areas of the country make it difficult to comply with some of the management practices. The fine balance between service delivery relating to the Departmental mandate and compliance remains an issue. The Department’s occupational dispensation for legally qualified officials remained unresolved and this created labour relations issues and had an effect on service delivery and management.
OVERALL DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCE Overall Departmental Score Department’s performance score of 2.8 achieved in 2013 is above national average (Ranked 11th out of 42 national departments). Overall performance has not improved in the 2013 financial year, with Financial management taking a drop in performance. Substantial improvement is expected in 2014, as illustrate in the discussions hereafter.
PERFORMANCE PER KEY RESULT AREA KRA 1: Strategic Management • In the 2013 cycle, the Department score for APP was dropped due to concerns raised with the use of percentages in the Annual Performance Plan. • A discussion was held with the DPME and the following were decided: • Percentages will be acceptable, if quoted with baseline figures that make up the percentage; • The Indicator Definition Tables (Annexure A in the Annual Performance Plan) is sufficient and will be considered by moderators; • The Department should continue disclosing all figures numerically. 3) The Monitoring and Evaluation score is expected to improve in 2014 due to the submission of the Departmental Evaluation Plan and one evaluation report. Performance on strategic management and a projected scores (self assessment) are indicated below:
PERFORMANCE PER KEY RESULT AREA KRA 2: Governance and Accountability Overall performance against this KRA and projected performance for 2014 are shown below:
PERFORMANCE PER KEY RESULT AREA KRA 2: Governance and Accountability • Assessment of Risk Management Arrangements • The Department achieved a score of 1 in 2013 because we did not have a Risk Management Committee chaired by an external Chairperson. • In the 2013/14 financial year the committee was established and external chairperson was appointed. The committee is now fully functional. • The department is projected to score a 2 in the 2014 MPAT report due to the insufficient number of meetings held by the new committee (2 instead of 3). 2. Governance of ICT • In 2013, the Departmental ICT policy framework was not approved due to delays in the approval of the DPSA Policy Framework. • Following the approval of the Departmental ICT Governance Framework and implementation thereof, the Department is expecting a score of 4 for 2014. • 3. PAIA Implementation • In 2013, the Department scored a 1 because the Section 14 manual was not available in all official languages. • For 2014, the score is expected to increase to 4.
PERFORMANCE PER KEY RESULT AREA KRA 3: Human Resources Management . Performance against this KRA and a projected score (self assessment) for 2014 are indicated below:
PERFORMANCE PER KEY RESULT AREA KRA 3: Human Resources Management 1. Organisational Design and Development • The Department drop from a 4 to a 2 due to a misunderstanding regarding the new template that was submitted for assessment. • The Department is expected to revert to a 4 in the 2014 assessment. 2. Management of Diversity • Policies on Gender Mainstreaming and Job Access have been finalised and approved. • The department is expected to improve the score to level 3 in 2014 due to the submission deadline to DPSA not met. 3. Health and wellness The Departmental Policy on Health and Wellness and the implementation plan have now been finalised. Implementation is underway.
PERFORMANCE PER KEY RESULT AREA KRA 3: Human Resources Management 4. Performance Management System (1 – 12) • In 2013, evidence for fourth quarter performance assessments and moderation reports were not submitted. • For 2014, these have been duly submitted. 5. Performance Management System (Head of Department) For 2013, evidence of submission of the performance agreement to DPSA was not submitted. This issue has now been addressed. 6. Management of Disciplinary Cases The Department has put measures in place to improve the turnaround time on the handling of disciplinary matters and this is expected to improve the score substantially to a 4 in 2014.
PERFORMANCE PER KEY RESULT AREA KRA 4: Financial Management . Performance against this KRA and a projected score (self assessment) are indicated below:
PERFORMANCE PER KEY RESULT AREA KRA 4: Financial Management 1. Disposal Management • The moderators could not open the evidence uploaded by the department and this resulted in a drop to level 2 in 2013. Even after the challenge period this was not resolved. • All requirements for this area have been met and the Department expects to receive a score of 4 in 2014. 2. Pay sheet certification In 2013 some pay sheet certificates could not reach the regional offices in time and neither could they be returned to national office due to the Post Office strike. This was during this cycle of review, hence the drop from level 3 to 2. 3. Payment of suppliers • In 2013 there were issues relating to payment of suppliers within 30 days. • The department has since introduced strict measures of monitoring hence an expected level 4 in 2014
IMPROVEMENT PLAN The outstanding matters in the Departmental MPAT improvement plan lies in the areas of Human Resources Management, Financial Management and Governance and Accountability.
CONCLUSION • The Department acknowledges that performance against the MPAT assessment needs to be improved. • In preparation for the 2014 MPAT assessment, the Department addressed the areas of low performance and most of these have been successfully resolved. • Following the conclusion of the 2014 assessment, further improvements will be made towards achievements of maximum scores in all areas.