DPSA on poor performance of most government departments on Service Delivery Improvement Plan, Service Charter & way forward, with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by Chairperson

The Chairperson welcomed the Committee and expressed her aspirations for a productive year. An apology had been received from the Minister, Mr Collins Chabane, who was unable to attend the meeting.

Mr J McGluwa (DA) noted that the Secretary should notify the Committee of changes to the briefing meeting. He asked about the reason for the presence of staff members in the study group.

The Chairperson apologised for the lack of communication. She explained that the Committee researcher was ill and therefore the Committee document was not available. The study group was not a secretive meeting, and Members and their staff may attend.

Mr McGluwa asked if Members were allowed to attend the study group and allow their staff to attend. The Chairperson welcomed this request.

Briefing by Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) on the Service Delivery Improvement Plan

Dr Alex Mahapa, Deputy Director General (DDG), Service Delivery: DPSA, briefed the Committee on the Service Delivery Improvement Plan (SDIP), providing background to the Plan with reference to the legislation. The provisions of the public service regulations stipulated that an executive authority must establish and sustain an SDIP for his/her department, indicating services to be provided, consultation arrangements, mechanisms for promoting access, service standard mechanisms for providing information, and mechanisms for complaints handling. The regulations state that an executive authority shall publish an annual statement of public service commitment which sets out the department’s service standards that citizens can expect, and which indicates how the department will meet each of the standards.

The White Paper on the Transformation of Service states that the relevant Minister/MEC/ executing authority must approve the department’s SDIP and that a copy of the approved document must be sent to the DPSA to inform its yearly progress report to Parliament.

The 2008 DPSA directive on SDIPs centred on improving compliance and quality, and required the departments to submit SDIPs by 31 March every three years in conjunction with annual reporting, aligned with the Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs). The SDIPs should be signed off by the Head of Department (HOD) and Executive Authority (EA), and indicate how the SDIPs had been cascaded to service points.

Dr Mahapa proceeded to describe the context of the SDIP and explained that the plan was underpinned by the value added for the institution through a strategic focus on two or three priority services for continuous improvement, and specification of the actual and future service beneficiaries. The plans were underpinned by the specification of consultation arrangements with the service recipients, means of access to services, barriers to access, and the strategies to remove these barriers. A system or mechanisms for managing complaints had to be specified.

The update of the SDIP status was centred on the following key deliverables:

• Submission rate to ensure compliance with the legislative framework;
• Emerging issues on the quality of submitted plans; and
• Annual progress reporting against the set targets, to determine progress on continuous service delivery improvements and the ultimate impact.

The SDIP was increasing at a slower rate to allow for quality implementation, monitoring, reporting and feedback, especially to the beneficiaries. SDIP submissions by national and provincial departments were 68% in 2012/13, 85% in 2013/14, and 88% in 2014/15. However, the quality of the submitted SDIPs remained poor, as almost 80% of the approved submitted SDIPs obtained low quality ratings. The continued poor quality levels were attributed to HODs and MECs signing SDIPs for compliance’s sake, without the necessary considerations applied to how the submissions would impact on service delivery.

There had been scarce evidence of a clear relationship between a department’s performance improvement plan and the content of the SDIPs. Non-compliance by departments affected by re-organisation had contributed to low quality submissions, as they had struggled to develop SDIPs when still trying to understand their mandate and operations.

Dr Mahapa noted the following observations regarding the poor quality submissions:

• No clear understanding of the departmental strategic processes that should feed into the SDIP, including evidence that departments developed activities aimed at addressing identified problem areas that would bring actual improvements;
• The SDIP was supposed to be a departmental strategic tool to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery, but its location and alignment with the planning and budget cycle remained a serious challenge.
• SDIPs were developed by one person in some areas, which was not an all-inclusive approach. This compromised ownership, buy-in and general implementation, monitoring and reporting on the SDIP progress made.

The overall submission of progress reports against the submitted SDIPs remained a challenge across national and provincial departments. The challenges with the non-submission of progress reports was critical to monitoring and reporting on progress, and could be attributed to the development of non-implementable and non-aligned SDIPs. Some SDIPs demonstrated little evidence of appropriate resource allocation, especially if SDIPs were perceived not to be adding value to a department’s specific critical priority service delivery areas.

The absence of, or minimal, top management support and buy-in towards SDIP implementation, monitoring, reporting and feedback to beneficiaries had contributed to the poor submissions of progress reports.

Interventions

Dr Mahapa said that the Department’s Interventions and institutionalising of SDIPs included support with advocacy on the development of SDIPs, improvement of quality to ensure a response to the critical service delivery issues within the departments, and monitoring and feedback utilising the following mechanisms:   

• Ongoing workshops to departments and strengthening of sector co-ordination to ensure SDIP relevance as a strategic mechanism, to ensure continuous improvement and quality delivery to all within the public service.
• Continuous improvement and alignment with other service delivery tools/instruments in strengthening development, implementation, monitoring and reporting.
• Targeted SDIP support to non-complaint provincial and national departments, and those affected by macro reorganisation. The sharing of emerging good practices was promoted through the  Service Delivery Improvement forums and the Frontline Service Delivery Improvement Programme

• Inside and outside strategic thrust and support to the SDIP development, implementation, monitoring and reporting.
• National SDIP evaluation by the DPME and Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) to identify gaps and recommendations for continuous improvements.
• Yearly implementation reports and reporting to the different stakeholders and reporting structures, including the Cabinet.

Way Forward

Dr Mahapa said that the Department aimed to implement a focused five-year SDIP support plan aligned to the Departmental strategic plan which would be rolled out to institutionalise SDIPs across the public service.

The Department aimed to provide strengthened support by means of a strategic SDIP manual on Operations Management Planning to ensure relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the SDIPs across the public service. The Department would be promoting the sharing and/or replication of emerging good practices through the Service Delivery Improvement Forum, in addition to its continued response to further capacity building needs provided through a series of workshops taking place since 2011 as directed by the Forum of South African Directors-Generals’ (FOSADs’) plan of action.

Discussion

Mr McGluwa asked whether a specific structure existed to address the issue of poor submissions and public service. The three pillars in the presentation were satisfactory, but the Department required a fourth pillar which provided support. Projects such as Back to Basics and Project Consolidate, and turnaround strategies, had not been implemented by many municipalities. He referred to the credit control policies and indicated that some municipalities use resources to buy votes and that these practices needed to be exposed. There was a need to assist municipalities before their collapse.

Mr S Motau (DA) referred to the Department’s plans for the way forward, with specific reference to the focused five-year plan. The observations reflected dismal submission rates. He enquired as to the consequences, and which entity was responsible for enforcing compliance with regard to the lack of submissions. Did the Ministers, Collins Chabane and Pravin Gordhan, have access to the report on the national departments’ submissions statistic, as this was required in order to enforce the interventions described by the Department?  He expressed concern regarding the lack of understanding mentioned in the Department’s observations on poor submissions. What was the current mechanism being implemented in order to increase the level of understating and improve submission and quality statistics?

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) referred to the poor submission statistics, and enquired as to the specific reason which the Department had identified as the cause of the low submission rates and whether the poor submissions were owing to a lack of employee bonuses, or the fact that the process may be viewed as onerous.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) asked if the Department was able to monitor only national and provincial departments. She recommended that the Department evaluated the possibility of ‘borrowing’ from the Education Department, making reference to the Key Performance Indicators. It was a concern that formal approaches and discussions had been insufficient. There was a need for new, creative approaches to the hard issues on the ground.

Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC) remarked that the presentation had created confusion, as distinctions between oversight and implementation roles were not evident and recommended that the Department request collaboration of all departments responsible for service quality. She referred to the five criteria for assessing the SDIP, and commented that there were no criteria for compliance in the presentation. She enquired as to the nature of progress which was being monitored, noting that the lack of understanding regarding content, as reflected in the observations of the presentation, was a dismal failure.

Dr M Cardo (DA) referred to the high compliance rate in the provinces and the low compliance in national departments, and enquired as to the possible correlation between non-compliance and unqualified audit reports. He asked if the SDIPs served a ‘real’ purpose and whether they had helped to improve service delivery and the development of approaches to address service delivery failures. Did the SDIPs grapple with the structural obstacles and capacity constraints regarding service delivery, and address these issues strategically?

Mr M Ntombela (ANC) remarked that the SDIPs should be the most effective way of ensuring that service delivery was achieved. A problem existed with the commitment attached to the SDIPs. He emphasised the requirement that the budget was approved in conjunction with the SDIPs, as objectives based on the SDIP and budget were necessary when resources were allocated the departments. Monitoring throughout the year would increase the Department’s effectiveness. What mechanisms had the Department identified in order to revisit the poor performing departments and to ensure improvements? What were the Department’s plans to develop and to address these issues?

Deputy Minister Dlodlo said that Mr Ntombela had ‘summed up’ the relevant points. The SDIP was a component of the Annual Performance Plan and performance agreement in order to ensure compliance, although this was no longer a requirement.  The improvement in the quality service impact was what should be evaluated. Enforcement became the responsibility of the Department and government to ensure implementation and compliance, with adherence to reporting timelines.

The Deputy Minister emphasised the need for a working partnership between the Portfolio Committee and the Department, as managers and supervisors had not seen the value of the SDIP because the Committee and the Ministry were not holding individuals accountable to the highest possible standards. She appealed to the Committee on the need to foster commitment and a reporting regime for compliance, and urged Members to ensure that these concerns were addressed.

Mr McGluwa asked if the report could be produced quarterly and to what extent this would allow municipalities to prepare. Mr McGluwa also enquired as to when will sanctions would be imposed for non-compliance, and suggested that departments should be ‘summoned’ by the Portfolio Committee.

The Chairperson responded that the Portfolio Committee would summon those departments which illustrated poor performance and non-compliance.

Public Service Charter Implementation      

Dr Sipho Senabe, Chief Director: Employee Health and Wellness, DPSA, presented on the Public Service Charter implementation. Its implementation would be accounted for against major objectives. Examples of individual and a few joint implementation projects, programmes and campaigns would be used. The processes towards a Consolidated Service Charter Implementation Plan would be outlined and concluding remarks as a way forward would be made.

Objectives of the Service Charter

1.  To Improve Service Delivery Programmes 

Dr Senabe noted that the overall submission of SDIPs by government departments had increased to 88% by the end of the 2013-2014 financial year. The progress reports received by the DPSA by the end of the 2013-214 financial year had shown a 10% improvement in SDIP reporting against plans submitted.

The improvement was insufficient, as only 29% of national and provincial departments had presented reports and departments had been supported in improving this performance area. The concept of integrated service delivery initiatives was central to the Service Charter implementation and it sought to have integrated/joint planning and consolidated implementation of certain programmes in several provincial initiatives.

The initiatives were based on the common principles of increased accountability up to the levels of the Premier, and reducing the implementation down to the level of the ward through what was now known as a ward-based programme. The programmes were known by different names in different provinces, specifically OSS in KZN, “Setsokotsane” in North West, “Ntirisano” in Gauteng and “Operation Hlasela” in the Free State.

National economic and development initiatives, like the Operation Phakisa led by the Department of Performance of Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency, was another initiative where there was joint planning and consolidated implementation of different interventions. The Operation Phakisa programme had been implemented using the Malaysian “Big Fast” methodology adapted to South Africa.

The Operation Phakisa for the Oceans Economy had been launched and was currently implemented with participation from different sectors and partners. The Service Charter would be mainstreamed into the operation and other Operation Phakisa laboratories, like the Ideal Clinic Initiative recently launched by the President, whose detailed plans would soon be announced.

Other hybrid joint-planned and implemented integrated service delivery programmes included the recently launched concept of the multipurpose centre, where integrated service delivery would take place in a common service point called the Thusong Centre in Maponya Mall, Soweto.

The Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) had recently launched the Back to Basics programme, which calls for integrated delivery of the core services that local government provides. These were basic human rights and essential components of the right to dignity enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The objectives of the initiative were similar to those in the Service Charter, and were based on the Batho Pele principles. The following objectives were described: 

- Put people and their concerns first and ensure constant contact with communities through effective public participation platforms.

- Create conditions for decent living by consistently delivering municipal services to the right quality and standard.

- Be well governed and demonstrate good governance and administration - cut wastage, spend public funds prudently, hire competent staff, ensure transparency and accountability.

- Ensure sound financial management and accounting, and prudently manage resources so as to sustainably deliver services and bring development to communities.

- Build and maintain sound institutional and administrative capabilities, administered and managed by dedicated and skilled personnel at all levels

Dr Senabe said that consultation between the Presidency, COGTA and the SA Local Government Association (SALGA) had begun in order to have a consolidated Service Charter implementation plan and to ensure coordinated implementation of these initiatives across all three spheres of government within the provisions of the Inter-Governmental Relations Framework Act and the newly Passed Public Administration Act. The Service Charter would be mainstreamed into these initiatives.

2.  Reinforce the partners’ commitment to service delivery improvement for the benefit of all citizens

Dr Senabe said that the Ministry of Public Service and Administration (MPSA), together with all the signatory trade unions, had successfully launched the Service Charter on 29 August 2013. The Charter had been welcomed, supported and lauded by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the Federation of Democratic Unions of South Africa, the Independent Labour Caucus, business (Business Unity South Africa and the Black Business Council) and the National Economic Development and Labour Council

(NEDLAC). The Charter was endorsed by Cabinet on 4 September 2013.

The DPSA, led by the MPSA, had popularised the Service Charter in this financial year and ensured that there was commitment across all provinces as part of the Public Service month. The Presidency had agreed to have the Service Charter mainstreamed in all Operation Phakisa initiatives, including the Ideal Clinic, the mines and schools and local government. COGTA and SALGA were, in principle, agreed on the mainstreaming of the Charter in the Back to Basics programme, and discussions were currently under way to ensure strategic alignment and accountability to the Ministers.

3.   Professionalise and encourage excellence in the public service

Dr Senabe said the Public Service Administration Act had been signed and approved by the Presidency which, among others, established the National School of Government (NSG), outlawed public servants from engaging in business with government and provided for the compulsory induction programme which has been started by the NSG.

A strategic alignment with sector education and training authorities, such as the Public Service SETA, SAPS College in Paarl, the Justice College, and the national Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) was being implemented and was currently being reviewed, led by the Presidency -- specifically the Office of the Deputy President, as the HRDC chairperson. The institutionalisation of Batho-Pele Service Excellence Awards had been achieved and the second Batho-Pele Service Excellence awards ceremony had been hosted by the MPSA, in partnership with the private sector, in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

4.    Enhance Performance

Dr Senabe said that the existing Performance Management System had been implemented as an ongoing concern and that Batho Pele principles, key result areas and generic assessment areas had been linked as part of the personal performance framework. SMS members were required to sign performance agreements with personal development plans by May each calendar year.

The Management Performance Assessment Tools (MPAT) jointly developed by the DPSA and DPME to monitor organisational performance in so far as certain management standards were concerned, had been successfully implemented, with reports published.  The Department was currently in the second year of its implementation and it had proved to be a useful compliance enhancement and accountability tool.

The DPSA had also led in the Institutionalisation of Operations Management planning with implementation tools and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools since the Charter was launched. The Consolidated Charter implementation plan was to ensure coherence, with a demonstrable and predictable impact of integrated service delivery improvement across the three spheres of the public service. The implementation of the plan would enable the Department to integrate other service-related regional and international charters and instruments, like the African Union’s Regional Africa Public Service Charter and Open Government Programme.

The United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN) was in the process of developing a global service charter, and there was a great possibility of using the South African Charter to contribute to this.

5.   Strengthen processes and initiatives that prevent and combat corruption

Dr Senabe indicated that the Public Administration Act, approved by the President, provided for the prohibition of public servants conducting business, the compulsory disclosure of financial interests, in addition to the normal security clearance at Senior Management Service (SMS) level.

The Public Service Integrity Framework had been developed and approved by Cabinet in 2013-2014, and disciplinary processes against public servants who transgressed the law or policy in terms of PFMA were being carried out. Where possible, money that had been mismanaged or fraudulently accrued, was recouped.

6.    Facilitate social dialogue among the partners

The office of the Deputy Minister was leading the initiative to facilitate social dialogue amongst the partners. Since the launch of the Service Charter, the DPSA had been leading the Open Governance Programme which aimed to increase public integrity by improving public services, creating safer communities, effectively managing public resources and increasing accountability.

South Africa’s Open Government Policy (OGP) action plan had a special focus on measures to achieve the following outcomes:

• strengthen corruption-combating instruments and capacity to increase integrity management systems; 
• strengthen mechanisms for meaningful citizen engagement in service delivery improvement and policy development processes;
• Hold public servants accountable to the public and the communities they serve through the development and implementation of an accountability management framework for public servants.

The DPSA had submitted and coordinated the development of the Second Africa Peer Review Mechanism report, in consultation with civil society, business and labour.

There were ongoing Citizen Satisfaction Surveys at national, provincial and local level conducted by the DPSA, sector departments and municipalities, as well as co-ordinated presidential and sector hotlines, and regular feedbacks on service delivery issues. The Department also focused on strategies for early warning systems such as the Public Service Watch, unannounced visits, Imbizos and outreach programmes.

7.   Help government departments rise to the challenge of treating citizens with dignity and expectations, meeting their demands equitably and fairly

Dr Senabe explained that this objective had been achieved by means of the “war room” implementation methodology, which had the following aims:

• Servicing people where they live, up to household and street level.
• Effective deployment and coordination of managers and professionals (such as the building of Project Khaedu, Batho Pele foundations).
• Role definition and clarification.
• Faster turn-around times.
• An incremental approach.

The war room system was a seamless and consolidated implementation mechanism, whereby national, provincial, metro/district, regions/local departments and wards worked together, enabled by the Public Administration Management (PAM) Act. The system harmonised the different government priorities by means of the following:

• Service Response Teams: problem-solving and action oriented structures and people tasked with service delivery responses.
• Service Response Centers: Facilities in every ward serving as a base for activities.
• Leveraging on technology to ensure real-time data capturing and use.

Dr Senabe explained that the system and its mechanisms applied to all public services, with the key focus on basic municipal services, social wages, broadening economic participation, local economic participation, the activation of the unemployed within township economies, revitalization, livable environments and partnerships, and behaviour changes. The activities and campaigns encouraged the building of community partnerships including NGOs, community-based organisations (CBOs), social solidarity and positive behaviour change.

8.         Improve service delivery programmes and enhance productivity

The following mechanisms aimed to improve service delivery programmes and productivity:

• A productivity management framework for the public service had been developed by the DPSA.
• Operations management tools, inclusive of a service delivery model, standard operating procedures, business process mapping service standards were being utilised and sent to the DPSA as part of the  Integrated three-year Service Delivery Improvement Plan.

9.   Empower and encourage citizen participation in the delivery of public services

Dr Senabe explained that provinces had developed Knowledge and Information Management Systems, and that the Service Charter consolidated plan would strengthen their integrated use that informed service delivery. The following mechanisms were involved to achieve this outcome:

• Geographic Information Systems (GIS): COGTA, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) human settlements, DPSA (research and analysis) and detailed GIS data sets.
• Police information systems.
• Municipal and provincial monitoring systems.
• Media monitoring.
• Quality of life surveys.
• Departments and provinces were also implementing other empowerment campaigns, programmes and projects  -- like Know Your Service Rights Programme (DPSA) -- strengthening Integrated Service Delivery Improvement support programmes.
• Know Your Ward: Ward profiling, including socio-economic profiles, local organisations, public service facilities and field workers.
• Daily household profiling, including proactively identifying households needing immediate intervention and support.
• Referral and action, including referring needs to the relevant public service entity for action.
• Tracking and monitoring of action reporting back to individuals, households and structures on action taken.
• Recording progress and reporting to the next tier in the war room system.

10.    Define service standards in various sectors

The Office of Standards and Compliance was established in the DPSA and sector-specific offices were developed by departments such as the Department of Health.

Dr Senabe noted that the MPSA and Premiers had begun to lead the provincial popularisation of the Charter, and referred to the plans and recommendations contained in the presentation.

Discussion                 

Mr M Dirks (ANC) referred to corruption in senior management ranks, and noted that the issue of disclosure had arisen last year, but senior managers had not disclosed. The problems existed at lower-middle management levels, and were related to procurement roles. The Committee had said that individuals in these positions should be subject to lifestyle audits.

Mr McGluwa noted a ‘gap for interaction’ with the Department to assist in providing empowerment for service rights, and suggested seminars and presentations on service delivery rights.

Mr Van der Westhuizen expressed concern regarding the salary budget of the public service. Departments strove to keep the budget small, but to maximise their output. Wage negotiations were under way – could the Charter assist in relating inflation increases to service delivery output? He further enquired as to the current position and reasons for the expansion of the public service sector.

Ms Dlamini-Dubazana recommended fewer meetings and more frequent oversight in order to alter the current attitude of the Department and the public. She proposed that the Committee noted the first presentation and the submission by the Department, and asked for feedback on the improvements and persistent challenges in line with the recommendations made by the Committee. She further recommended that the Committee acted on the recommendation of the Department.

The Deputy Minister requested that the Committee notify the Department of relevant cases during oversight. She said that there was a need to address the unions and re-determine the commitments agreed to in 2013 relating to discipline and performance. She was not personally satisfied with the performance management system and emphasised improvement by means of creating a tightly configured system that measured performance at the individual level. Managers should be held accountable for non-compliance. She requested that the Members should also engage with unions which had a direct impact of performance.

Ms Lesoma seconded the recommendation made by Ms Dlamini-Dubazana.

Mr Motau noted the reluctance of supervisors and managers to address poor performance, and enquired as to how this would be addressed by the Department.

Dr Senabe responded that since the launch of the Charter, the Minister had approved the Presidential Remuneration Commission to determine salaries. This would answer the questions of the Committee Members. The Commission was one of the first results of the Service Charter.

Mr Mashwahle Diphofa, Director-General, DPSA, noted that iinstruments to measure productivity would be shared with the Committee upon further engagement.

Mr Diphofa referred to the issue of financial disclosure, and indicated that Departments were not obliged to use the e-disclosure system. There were high levels of compliance with this system, and efforts were being made to make the programme compulsory.

The Chairperson enquired as to how the issue of discipline would be addressed.

Deputy Minister commented that the issue was the will of the employee. The concern dealt with grievances, and non-performance occurred as a result of managers and supervisors who did not deal with grievances effectively. It was necessary for managers and supervisors to understand procedures and the legislation associated with it. There was a need to evaluate the extent to which managers and supervisors were able to comply with these requirements, by means of a survey.

Mr Diphofa commented that labour experts were to be pooled for working sessions and workshops to assist the Department with regard to the drafting of charters.

Mr Ntombela commented that there was a strain on labour relations when a Head of Department was not confident in his role. What were the Department’s plans to ensure that Heads of Department had the necessary and legitimate qualifications, as this affected performance?

Mr Diphofa responded that an executive protocol for the appointment of Heads of Department existed. One of the requirements was the confirmation of the legitimacy of the qualification. This process of verification would indicate whether qualifications had been forged. After the protocol had been adopted, it had been endorsed and adapted to provincial circumstances. With regard to the verification of qualifications before appointment, this was still a requirement.

The Chairperson noted the requests made by the Department.

The meeting was adjourned.