Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIP): DPSA Closeout Report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
29 May 2007
SERVICE DELIVERY IMPROVEMENT PLANS (SDIP): DPSA CLOSEOUT REPORT

Chairperson: Mr P Gomomo (ANC

Documents handed out:
DPSA closeout report on Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIP)
Service Delivery Trends
SDIP analysis of National Departments

SUMMARY
The DPSA Deputy Director-General reported on the findings and recommendations of the Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIP) process, saying that 82% of departments and provinces had complied. There had been a challenge in getting some departments and provinces to comply. The Departments of Defence, Housing, Home Affairs, Trade and Industry, Provincial and Local Government, Environment and Tourism and certain departments in the Northern Cape, North West, KwaZulu Natal, Gauteng and Eastern Cape provinces were named as culprits.

Of all the principles of Batho Pele, ‘courtesy’ was the most difficult one to comprehend, but there was some understanding of the principle. However, some departments still had a long way to go in making the application of this principle more empirical. 

MINUTES
Briefing by Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA)
Mr Zwelakhe Tshandu, DPSA Deputy Director-General, provided an in-depth closeout report on the Service Delivery Improvement Plans (SDIP) process. In addition to an overview of the process and its methodology, the briefing looked at findings and recommendations and the way forward (see document).

Mr Tshandu began by saying that much had been done in the past ten years in terms of service delivery, but a lot still needed to be done. There were still challenges in the area of Service Improvement Plans. The Department would continue to put emphasis on submission of evaluation reports by all departments to the DPSA. It would assist other departments in putting these together, as it was important that the reports conform to the same style.

The Public Service Commission Report on Service Standards of 2005 showed that only 51 per cent of the departments were in order. The Department had since conducted a study to find out why the rest of the departments were failing to meet the required standard. Amongst other things, it became clear that there was a lack of familiarity with legislation, even amongst Directors-General and heads of departments. There was no mainstreaming of the Batho Pele principles taking place. There was a degree of confusion in that there was no linkage between Strategic Planning outcomes, and the Service Delivery Improvement Plans. When it came to monitoring and evaluation, departments needed to understand that these mechanisms were good for them and should appreciate and use the feedback.

There was a need to modify the template of the reports so that the process of monitoring and evaluation could be more effective. DPSA itself, had done a lot of work on promoting Batho Pele, but still had the challenge of implementing it properly which had not been easy because of a lack of requisite skills to apply this concept in daily operations.

The Director-General pointed out that a few departments had abstained from the Service Delivery Improvement Plan process, for reasons that were understandable, for example the National Intelligence Agency and the Secret Service in the Presidency due to the sensitivity of the information these organisations handle. There had been, however, a challenge in getting some departments and provinces to comply. The Departments of Defence, Trade and Industry and Environment and Tourism were mentioned, and so were the provinces of Gauteng and the Eastern Cape. He said that 82% of departments and provinces had complied.

Departments and provinces seem to be confused about what was meant by ‘standards’ and did not submit what was asked for. They did not understand the difference between ‘current’ and ‘desired’ as they tend to list too many services that they offer, which were difficult to monitor. The department had advised them to concentrate on key services, which were also manageable.  Besides these errors, DPSA managed, in partnership with departments, to find something to work with, and had worked with what was available.

The template that was given to departments and provinces stressed the importance of addressing the eight principles of Batho Pele. All these must be addressed in the improvement plans and reports.

On a more positive note, there seem to be an understanding of what consultation is. Yet there was no indication of any understanding from departments and provinces as to how the information from consultation would be fed back into their strategic work, and public complaints were not handled well in most cases.

Of all the principles of Batho Pele, ‘courtesy’ was the most difficult one to comprehend, but there was some understanding of the principle. However, some departments still had a long way to go in making the application of this principle more empirical. 

Departments need to publish their Service Charters. Annual reports to citizens had been made compulsory, as these were effective accountability mechanisms, although they were more effective when coupled with expenditure reports. The White Paper legislated this and DPSA was following the guidance given by the paper. In terms of redress, there was an understanding of the principle, but there was still no conscious attempt from departments to integrate the Administrative Justice Act, which gives guidance as to how to implement this principle in the workings of government.

The DPSA had advised departments to provide quality services at basic, less cost, and to develop a course development standard. This was all to ease the implementation of the principle which promotes ‘value for money’. SDIPs need to be cascaded down to service delivery points. There would be evaluation and monitoring taking place, by the DPSA, to look at the departments that had not complied so as to give support to them so that the stigma around the process was removed.

Discussion
The Chairperson, Mr P Gomomo, asked if DPSA ever tried to give a simple narrative of what they did as a department, since Citizen Forums had been done away with. These forums had been very informative for the people.

Ms L Maloney (ANC) asked if the Department thought it would benefit from the Public Service Amendment Bill. She asked how it happened that learned people, with most of them holding no less than two degrees, were holding government positions and yet lacked familiarity with the legislation. She wondered about the lack of willingness on their part, to acquaint themselves with guiding policies and abide by them. She also asked if the DPSA was capacitated enough to conduct the monitoring process nationally.

Mr Tshandu replied that the Department was hoping to benefit from the Public Service Amendment Bill. The Public Service Act did not have enough of an enforcement mechanism, unlike the Public Finance Management Act, thus they were hoping the Bill would assist. He added that it was understandable, to a certain extent (although this should never be used as an excuse), that some mechanisms were very complex and complicated and further training was needed at this level.

Mr D Malaza (Deputy Director, DPSA) responded that there were only seven people who were responsible for the monitoring at national level. He insisted that the process was a vigorous one, where they look at whether departments were addressing people’s needs. Mr Tshandu added that they did not look at reports at face value, but the capacity issue remained as these individuals were not enough for the task.

Mr J Nyambe (ANC) said it was clear that the DPSA was making headway nationally, but not provincially. He suggested that desks should be set up in the provinces to monitor public servants daily.

Dr Norman Maharaj (Public Service Commission, Western Cape) said that the issue of monitoring and evaluation should not be made out to be a difficult one. He expressed his disappointment that there was no compliance, even after the President had delivered the State of the Nation Address and Ministers had delivered budget speeches to give guidance to the public servants. With regards to capacity, he asked if the managers of departments were being trained at ground level so they could be familiar with legislation.

Mr M Baloyi (ANC) said that there was a need to be more practical about the problems in the public service, such as applying practical definitions to principles, like ‘value for money’. He wondered if public servants who worked in the public service during apartheid were not blocking the progress of the government. He also suggested that government begin to discuss issues with the people in round-table style.

Mr Tshandu replied that even at DPSA, there was no consensus on what ‘value for money’ is. On this one, the Department was awaiting the report by the Public Service Commission that was being finalised.

Ms L Maloney (ANC) suggested that there was a need for a uniform standard in the public service nationally. Such events as the Public Service Week in September, should be widely promoted.

Mr Tshandu agreed that there was a need for a national standard.

Mr M Baloyi (ANC) said that instead of using Public Service Week as a period of self-praise, it should rather be used for self-assessment.

Mr N Gcwabaza (ANC) said that it does not make sense that the government wants to increase the number of departments it has, when there were already 40 000 vacancies currently in the system. He felt that the Education Department should do more to address the skills shortage at local government level, perhaps even through Further Education and Training institutions.

The meeting was adjourned.