Public Service Commission Evaluation of Pilot Study on Performance of Selected Government Departments: briefing

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
12 November 2003
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION EVALUATION OF PILOT STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr P Gomomo

Documents handed out:
Public Service Commission's Public Administration Monitoring and Evaluation System, First Consolidated Report 12 November 2003

SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed by the Public Service Commission on its Public Administration Monitoring and Evaluation System. The PSC had chosen randomly selected departments and evaluated key performances areas such as professional ethics, efficiency, economy and effectiveness. The process involved evaluation against prescribed criteria, identifying shortcomings and recommending strategies to rectify problem areas. The exercise was especially useful in that it identified both strengths and weaknesses in Departments. National Departments overall outperformed their provincial counterparts by far. Members were concerned whether departments would implement the recommendations of the PSC. This was especially important if the PSC was to deliver on its mandate.

MINUTES
Public Administration Monitoring and Evaluation System
The Public Service Commission (PSC) briefed the committee on their Public Administration Monitoring and Evaluation System. The briefing included the results of a study conducted on the performances of certain government Departments. Professor Sangweni initiated the briefing by giving a brief introduction on the mandate of the Commission as set out in Sections 196(4)(a) and 196(4)(b) of the Constitution. Professor Richard Levine however conducted the bulk of the briefing, which included providing background on the project, setting out the purpose of the Public Administration Monitoring and Evaluation System, unpacking the principles as set out in the Constitution and the adherence of Government Departments thereto. He ended off by outlining the conclusions that could be drawn from the study.

The study identified key areas within departments, which would best reflect their performances. Departments were evaluated on:
∙ Professional ethics
∙ Efficiency, economy and effectiveness
∙ Development orientation
∙ Impartiality and fairness
∙ Public participation in policymaking
∙ Accountability
∙ Transparency
∙ Good human resource management practices
∙ Representivity

The process of evaluation involved doing a system check, outlining the findings of the system check and lastly identifying strategies for improvement.

The study ultimately identified the need for a standard government-wide monitoring and evaluation system. In as much as the PSC's system provided useful insight into the public service and its performance, it did not necessarily answer all the questions on how government was progressing. In many instances, departments' performances were often strong in one area but weak in another. The study also showed that National Departments were generally performing better than their provincial counterparts were. This was evident especially since National Departments had a closer compliance to prescribed standards. Provincial departments tended to be large, bulky, and often needed support and development in their management and delivery of core services.

Professor Levine said that the findings and recommendations made with regard to each department needed to be taken into consideration and implemented. The success of the study would be in departments taking up this challenge.

Please refer to the attached document.

Discussion
Mr A Van Jaarsveld (NNP) asked on what basis had the PSC chosen to evaluate certain Departments over and above others. Had there been much interaction between the PSC and the evaluated Departments.

Professor Levine reacted that Departments were chosen at random. A cycle was being followed and that eventually all departments would be evaluated. Performance reports had been drafted and forwarded to departments for comment. He conceded that the issue of ongoing interaction was a complex logistical one.

Dr U Roopnarain (IFP) noted that many of the areas of evaluation as set out in the study, required adherence to various pieces of legislation. Legislation needed to be made more user friendly in order for government departments to adhere thereto. Did the PSC have systems in place in order to check if their recommendations were taken into account?

Professor Levine agreed that that there was a need to simplify legislation. This would facilitate the implementation and adherence thereto in departments. He conceded that at present the system itself could not ensure compliance. The system would over time become more credible. Constitutionally the office of the Auditor-General and that of the PSC should bear the same level of importance. The reality was however, that departments tended to place greater importance on the recommendations of the Auditor-General than those made by the PSC.

Mr T Abrahams (ANC) asked what if a department established its own monitoring and evaluation system. To what extent was there a need for collaboration between the PSC and departments?

Professor Levine said that the PSC would encourage departments to set up their own monitoring and evaluation systems. He felt that it would greatly assist the PSC in the performance of its functions. Collaboration was always welcome. He even suggested that the possibility of collaboration between the PSC and the Auditor-General's office.

Mr R Ntuli (DA) asked what procedures the PSC would recommend to facilitate the solving of problems in government departments.

Professor Levine stressed that managers needed to take responsibility for problems that arose in their departments. He noted that the issue was one of capacity and the will to implement it.


An ANC member asked what actions would be taken if the recommendations of the PSC were not implemented. How would the PSC's actions differ to those of the Auditor-General's office.
The member asked what was needed to ensue that policy was being implemented at public service level.

Professor Sangweni said that the PSC and the Auditor-General's office functioned very differently. Each had its own mandate. He agreed that the PSC should deliver on its mandate.
Capacity and skills were needed to ensure that policy was being implemented at public service level. He felt it to be a near impossible task for a policy formulator to ensure that policy was being implemented. This he felt was the job of the PSC.

Meeting was adjourned.