Presidency - Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

2011-03-10

THIS FILE CONTAINS 25 REPLIES.

FIND THE REPLY YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BY SELECTING CTRL + F ON YOUR KEYBOARD

QUESTION NUMBER: 3869

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 25 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 9 DECEMBER 2011

MRS E MORE (DA) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

(1) Whether he will reply to (a) all outstanding parliamentary questions and (b) the points contained in each question before parliamentary questions lapse in accordance with Rule 316 of the National Assembly; if not, in each specified case, (i) why not and (ii) which questions, by its allocated number, will not be replied to; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

(2) whether it is the policy of his Ministry that he submit to the mechanism of parliamentary questions as a measure of constitutional accountability to the National Assembly; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW4660E

REPLY:

(1) The Ministry will where practically possible respond to all questions posed before they lapse in accordance with Rule 316 of the National Assembly.

(2) The Minister is a member of Parliament and member of the Executive and does submit to the rules and procedures of a democratic Parliament.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3804

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 25 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 9 DECEMBER 2011

MRS S V KALYAN (DA) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

Whether any other persons have driven (a) his and (b) his Deputy Minister's official blue light fitted vehicles; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in respect of the (i) 2009-10 and (ii) 2010-11 financial years, (aa) what is each specified person's (aaa) name and (bbb) designation, (bb) which vehicle and (cc) why?

NW4595E

REPLY:

The Ministerial cars are tools of trade to enable a Minister to fulfill their duties. These cars are driven by the protectors as allocated by the South African Police Service. Where necessary both the Minister and the Deputy Minister are allowed to drive the cars allocated to us.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3727

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 25 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2011

MR W M MADISHA (COPE) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

Whether the Presidency has established a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the Department of Basic Education; if not, how does the Presidency (a) monitor and (b) evaluate the department's performance; if so, (i) how has the Presidency rated the department's performance (aa) in (aaa) 2009 and (bbb) 2010 and (bb) during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (ii) why did the department obtain this score in each specified year?

NW4515E

REPLY:

The Presidency established the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in 2010, with the first staff member appointed in April 2010. One of the first priorities of DPME was to facilitate the process of developing delivery agreements for the 12 outcomes. This was completed in November 2010. Government is now in the process of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the delivery agreements, with quarterly reports to Cabinet. DPME has also recently completed a new web-based Programme of Action (PoA), which is available to the public (see www.poa.gov.za). The POA contains summary details of the delivery agreements, and from 2012, progress against each of the outcomes will be captured on the POA and will be visible to the public. One of the outcomes is "Improved quality of basic education" and the public will therefore be able to monitor the performance of government (the national and provincial departments of basic education) with regard to progress against the targets in the basic education delivery agreement. This does not result in a simple 'score' rating of the department – rather it shows progress against the specific planned outputs, activities, indicators and targets in the delivery agreement.

In addition to the above, DPME also recently obtained the approval of Cabinet for a system of assessing the management performance of departments. This system focuses on assessing the quality of generic management practices in departments, and involves collecting information from secondary sources such as Auditor General reports as well as facilitated and externally verified self-assessments by the management of departments. These management performance assessments started for the first time in November 2011, and DPME is planning to present a summary of the results for all national departments to Cabinet by April 2012. Thereafter information regarding the results of the management performance assessments will be made public.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3726

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 25 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2011

MR W M MADISHA (COPE) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

Whether the Presidency has established a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; if not, how does the Presidency (a) monitor and (b) evaluate the department's performance; if so, (i) how has the Presidency rated the department's performance (aa) in (aaa) 2009 and (bbb) 2010 and (bb) during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (ii) why did the department obtain this score in each specified year?

NW4514E

REPLY:

Outcome 7 is "Vibrant equitable and sustainable rural communities with food security for all" and the public will therefore be able to monitor the performance of government (the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform as well as other departments involved in the outcome) with regard to progress against the targets in the agreement. This does not result in a simple 'score' rating of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform – rather it shows the collective progress of the relevant departments against the specific planned outputs, activities, indicators and targets in the delivery agreement.

DPME has also recently obtained Cabinet approval for a National Evaluation Policy Framework (available on the Presidency website), and has started to work with a number of national departments to initiate evaluations of key government programmes. One of the first evaluations which we are initiating is on the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme. This will involve a range of departments including the Departments of Rural Development and Land Reform, Water and Environment, and Agriculture, amongst others. This evaluation is due to be completed and made public by the end of September 2012.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3719

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 5 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2011

MR P D DEXTER (COPE) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

Whether the Presidency has established a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the Department of Higher Education and Training; if not, how does the Presidency (a) monitor and (b) evaluate the department's performance; if so, (i) how has the Presidency rated the department's performance (aa) in (aaa) 2009 and (bbb) 2010 and (bb) during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (ii) why did the department obtain this score in each specified year?

NW4502E

REPLY:

Outcome 5 is "A skilled and capable workforce to support and inclusive growth path" and the public will be able to monitor the performance of government (the Department of Higher Education and Training as well as other departments and organisations involved in this outcome) with regard to progress against the targets in the agreement. This does not result in a simple 'score' rating of the Department of Higher Education and Training – rather it shows the collective progress of the relevant departments against the specific planned outputs, activities, indicators and targets in the delivery agreement.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3718

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 25 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2011

MR D A KGANARE (COPE) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

Whether the Presidency has established a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the Department of Health; if not, how does the Presidency (a) monitor and (b) evaluate the said department's performance; if so, (i) how has the Presidency rated the said department's performance (aa) in (aaa) 2009 and (bbb) 2010 and (bb) during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (ii) why did he said department obtain this score in each specified year?

NW4501E

REPLY:

Outcome 3 is "A long and healthy life for all South Africans" and the public will therefore be able to monitor the performance of government (the national and provincial departments of health) with regard to progress against the targets in the health delivery agreement. This does not result in a simple 'score' rating of the department – rather it shows progress of the sector against the specific planned outputs, activities, indicators and targets in the delivery agreement.

DPME has also recently obtained Cabinet approval for a National Evaluation Policy Framework (available on the Presidency website), and has started to work with a number of national departments to initiate evaluations of key government programmes. One of the first evaluations which we have initiated is on Early Childhood Development, which is being jointly carried out by the Departments of Basic Education, Social Development, Health and Women, Children and People with Disabilities. This evaluation is due to be completed and made public by the end of April 2012. Evaluations of the Child and Maternal Health programmes are also being initiated and are planned to be completed and made public by the end of September 2012.

In terms of the national policy framework, a rolling three year national evaluation plan will be taken to Cabinet for approval early next year. The plan will identify key programmes to be evaluated, and may include other programmes related to health.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3712

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 25 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2011

MR P NTSHIQELA (COPE) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration:

Whether the Presidency has established a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the Department of Arts and Culture; if not, how does the Presidency (a) monitor and (b) evaluate the department's performance; if so, (i) how has the Presidency rated the department's performance (aa) in (aaa) 2009 and (bbb) 2010 and (bb) during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (ii) why did the department obtain this score in each specified year?

NW4493E

REPLY:

The Department of Arts and Culture contributes to a number of outcomes, most importantly to the nation building aspect of outcome 12, and the public will be able to monitor the performance of government (the Department of Arts and Culture as well as other departments involved in this outcome) with regard to progress against the targets in the agreement. This does not result in a simple 'score' rating of the Department of Arts and Culture – rather it shows the collective progress of the relevant departments against the specific planned outputs, activities, indicators and targets in the delivery agreements.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3710

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 25 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2011

MS N P GCUME (COPE) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration:

Whether the Presidency has established a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the Department of Social Development; if not, how does the Presidency (a) monitor and (b) evaluate the said department's performance; if so, (i) how has the Presidency rated the department's performance (aa) in (aaa) 2009 and (bbb) 2010 and (bb) during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (ii) why did the department obtain this score in each specified year?

NW4491E

REPLY:

The Department of Social Development contributes to several outcomes, particularly outcomes 1, 3 and 7. Through the POA, the public will be able to monitor the performance of government (the Department of Social Development as well as other departments involved in these outcomes) with regard to progress against the targets in the delivery agreements. This does not result in a simple 'score' rating of the department – rather it shows progress against the specific planned outputs, activities, indicators and targets in the delivery agreements.

DPME has also recently obtained Cabinet approval for a National Evaluation Policy Framework (available on the Presidency website), and has started to work with a number of national departments to initiate evaluations of key government programmes. One of the first evaluations which we have initiated is on Early Childhood Development, which is being jointly carried out by the Departments of Basic Education, Social Development, Health and Women, Children and People with Disabilities. This evaluation is due to be completed and made public by the end of April 2012. In terms of the national policy framework, a rolling three year national evaluation plan will be taken to Cabinet for approval early next year. The plan will identify key programmes to be evaluated, and may include other programmes related to social development.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3686

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 25 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 DECEMBER 2011

MR N SINGH (IFP) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration:

(1) Whether any officials in the Presidency (a) have been investigated, (b) are currently under investigation and (c) have been charged for alleged (i) corrupt or (ii) fraudulent activity; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether any disciplinary action has been taken against employees in the Presidency for (a) fraud and/or (b) corruption; if so, (i) how many instances of disciplinary actions have (aa) been finalised and (bb) not been finalised and (ii) in each case, (aa) what sanctions have been meted out and (bb) how long has it taken to finalise such disciplinary actions;

(3) Whether he has found that the Presidency has adequate investigative capacity inclusive of manpower and infrastructure in respect of disciplinary proceedings; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW4359E

REPLY:

1. (a) No official was investigated.

(b) No official is under investigation

(ii) fraudulent activity.

2. No disciplinary action was taken against employees in The Presidency for

(i) Fruad and or

(ii) Corruption

3. The Presidency has a Labour Relations Unit that has capacity to deal with all labour related matters, including disciplinary proceedings

QUESTION NUMBER: 3683

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 18 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 DECEMBER 2011

MRS D ROBINSON (DA) TO ASK THE MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION

(a) What measures will he put in place to ensure that the National Youth Development Agency's (NYDA) micro-lending and mentoring programme for small businesses (i) allocates resources to beneficiaries objectively based on merit and (ii) that the administration of resources to such beneficiaries is insulated from arbitrary manipulation and (b) when will these programmes be initiated?

NW4465E

REPLY:

(a) There is no need to put any measures in place as they already are sufficient measures. The NYDA assistance offered to young people is based on the following criteria: the person must be between the ages of 14 and 35, be a South African citizen, race, gender, political affiliation, religion, etc are not a consideration. The NYDA has applied this criterion since its establishment.

(i) As referred, the only criterion applied is that a young person has to be a South African citizen and be between the ages of 14 and 35, and each request for assistance by the NYDA is evaluated and awarded on the basis of its merit.

(ii) The administration of the resources to NYDA beneficiaries is monitored internally by the monitoring and evaluation division and internal audit of the NYDA and externally they are subjected to an audit by the Auditor General of South Africa.

(b) The current measures are adequate and have proved to be effective.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3608

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 18 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 DECEMBER 2011

MRS M A A NJOBE (COPE) TO ASK THE MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION

Whether his department has established a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the Department of Human Settlements; if not, how does his department monitor and evaluate the department's performance; if so, how has he rated the department's performance (a) in (i) 2009 and (ii) 2010, (b) during the period 1 January 2011 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (c) why did the department obtain that score in each specified year?

NW4387E

REPLY:

No, The Department of Monitoring and Evaluation in The Presidency is the custodian of the Government-wide monitoring and evaluation system as a whole. As such, the Presidency as with the Premiers' Offices are among the key secondary users of performance information. We use performance information collected, collated and reported by institutions within government themselves to provide an overall picture of local, provincial and national performance.

The Presidency and Premiers' Offices have a direct interest in all aspects of performance information management, and play a role in: providing the political impetus; exercising general oversight across government; providing input into the processes to select and define performance indicators, particularly to ensure that all institutions gather the information that the Presidency requires to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of government policies and plans; and using the information generated by other institutions and reported to the Presidency for purposes of monitoring, evaluating and reporting on overall government performance.

The Department of Monitoring and Evaluation is however directly responsible for monitoring the performance of sectors under the auspices of the 12 Outcomes including Outcome 8 which addresses need for 'sustainable human settlements and improved quality of household life', of which the Department of Human Settlements is the coordinating department. Each outcome has a limited number of measurable outputs and sub-outputs as well as clear targets. Based on these outcomes the President has signed Performance Agreements with each Minister, which has been unpacked within Delivery Agreements for each outcome.

As coordinating Department, the Department of Human Settlements has the responsibility to coordinate the relevant Implementation Forum, which in turn is tasked with coordinating the implementation of the Delivery Agreement across spheres and structures of government over the medium term. This involves monitoring the achievement of milestones and outputs and reporting on progress to the relevant Cabinet Committees. Therefore the locus of planning and budgeting for, undertaking and managing the activities for the achievement of the key outputs remain with the individual delivery partners, who are therefore the first link in the decision-making and reporting chain. Coordinating departments provide summary reports to Cabinet Committees to oversee the achievement of the outcomes.

The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) plays a facilitative role in terms of discussions and negotiations in light of the Delivery Agreements and provides support to the Implementation Forums. In addition, the department provides Cabinet Committees with independent qualitative assessments of progress made towards the achievement of the outcomes.

Further to this, the Public sector administration and oversight branch within DPME is, in collaboration with the DPME, Department of Public Service Administration, the Auditor General, Office of the Public Service Commission, Premiers' Offices and others, working on introducing an objective performance assessment tool for assessing individual national and provincial departments and municipalities in respect of strategic and operational performance. The focus of these assessment will be on employee systems and processes; financial management; governance and accountability; and strategic management.

The development of the proposed tool was approved by Cabinet in October 2011 and most of the detail of the indicators and sources of data has been finalised. Currently the application of the tool is being piloted in some national and provincial departments, and preliminary engagements have been initiated with the DG of the Department of Human Settlements.

(a) The DPME was only established in 2010,

(i) No monitoring took place during 2009

(ii) during 2010 the focus of the DPME was on facilitating the conclusion of delivery agreements and therefore the first set of reports on the outcomes were submitted to Cabinet during February 2011

(b) For the period January 2011 up to November 2011 four reports have been submitted to Cabinet by the coordinating and contributing departments. Independent qualitative assessments on progress were then submitted by DPME in the form of Briefing notes to Cabinet. In general, the DPME assessments showed progress with two of the outputs (accelerated delivery of housing opportunities and land assembly). A caution has been identified in terms of access to basic services and a risk alert was made regarding the target of providing 600 000 loans in the gap market.

(i) Accelerated delivery of housing opportunities

Overall the Department has made good progress with the upgrading of households within informal settlements, the implementation of the National Upgrading Support Programme for informal settlements, the provision of rental accommodation and the accreditation of targeted municipalities. Maintaining progress with informal settlement targets, however, requires consistent provincial funding prioritisation and alignment, directed project management, dedicated technical support for provinces and municipalities as well as alignment with municipal integrated development plans. Rental programmes require urgent policy realignment to ensure effective management and regulatory oversight, rescheduled budget commitments (or targets won't be met), defined inter-agency arrangements, a policy framework for private rental (including backyards), and means to account for their performance. Accreditation is on track but needs to resolve capacity and operational costs in Memorandums of Understanding between Provinces and accredited municipalities.

(ii) Land assembly

With the assistance of the Housing Developing Agency the Department has made progress with identifying and acquiring state land for the purposes of human settlements. There are, however, outstanding policy frameworks (financing, land use management and density), the need to conclude technical support arrangements with provinces and municipalities, and the finalisation of land financing agreements amongst government departments and public entities.

(iii) Improved access to basic services

Generally it appears as if good progress has been made against the targets for improved access to basic services. The Department of Co-operative Governance is the co-ordinating these sub-outputs. A concern was however raised that the reported progress is made against particular departmental norms. Different departments are using different definitions (norms and standards) to measure access to basic services. This means that there may be different calculations of the extent of the backlogs and progress made to date. There is thus a need for this matter to be addressed by the relevant departments through the Sustainable Human Settlements and Basic Services Task Team.

(iv) Improved property market

This output was highlighted by DPME as being at risk. The Mortgage Default Insurance (MDI) still needs final approvals and acceptance with Banks. The Financial Assistance down-payment subsidy instrument (FLISP) has been reviewed, but take up with the banks still has to be negotiated and programme scheduling and administrative arrangements agreed upon. The Development Finance Institutions performances are uneven overall, but have improved their performances regarding extending loans to the target market during the last quarter. This improved performance will however have to be consistently maintained, and ever further scaled up to ensure that their targeted contribution to the 600 000 housing finance opportunities will be achieved timeoulsy. The 50% that was collectively assumed by the MDI, FLISP and the DFI's thus seem less clear of being achieved timeously.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3555

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 18 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2011

MR R B Bhoola (MF) TO ASK THE MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION

Whether all departments have provided detailed plans and targets with regard to aligning their programmes with the job creation imperative which the President referred to in his state of the nation address; if not, which departments (a) have and (b) have not provided such plans?

NW4203E

REPLY:

In January the President said in the State of the Nation address that:

"All government departments will align their programmes with the job creation imperative. The provincial and local government spheres have also been requested to do the same.

"The programmes of State Owned Enterprises and development finance institutions should also be more strongly aligned to the job creation agenda."

The focus on employment creation has been pursued consistently and extensively within government. The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and the Economic Development Department have led a process to ensure that departments and agencies would respond appropriately.

At the Presidential Coordinating Council meeting with provinces in March, all provinces were asked to report on their policies and programmes regarding employment creation, and they exchanged views on how to support employment creation more effectively.

A process of reporting on the impact of policies and programmes on employment was introduced. All government departments, provinces and agencies reporting through them were asked to complete an extensive structured report to indicate what the impact of their policies and programmes were on employment, and how they were changing policies and programmes to impact on employment. The first set of reports was collected in June 2011, and a synthesis report was submitted to the July Cabinet Lekgotla.

As a result of the report to the July Lekgotla, Cabinet agreed to a twelve point action plan on how to improve our employment generating strategies. Some of the outcomes of this plan included the establishment of the Presidential Infrastructure Commission, and the broadening of the scope of the Deputy President's Anti-poverty Inter-ministerial Committee to include reporting on employment creation programmes. Another element of the action plan was the decision that the Community Work Programme would be expanded to include one million participants by 2014.

The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and the Economic Development Department have once again coordinated a process through which all national departments and provinces will report on their programmes and policies to support employment creation. A synthesis report will be submitted to the January 2012 Cabinet Lekgotla. At this point the extended cabinet, which includes provinces, will consider whether any further policy improvements or programme reforms are required to support job creation more effectively.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3535

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 11 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUMBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2011

Mr M SWART (DA) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring

Whether the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) has made any financial

Contribution towards the cost of the march between Johannesburg and Pretoria which was organised by a certain political organisation (name furnished) on 28 October 2011; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what amount was contributed?

NW4239E

REPLY:

The NYDA did not make any financial contribution towards the costs of the March between Johannesburg and Pretoria, which took place on the 27^th and 28^th October 2011.

The said march addressed the issues of economic participation and development for South African youth, which are in keeping with the NYDA objectives, as captured in the NYDA Act 54 of 2008. The Youth March raised salient issues on youth development including calling for the:

· Strengthening and capitalisation of youth development programmes,

· Employment and training of young people and

· Provision of opportunities for young entrepreneurs.

In view of the above, the NYDA issued a press statement on the 24^th of September 2011 supporting the march and clarified that it will not be making any financial contribution to the march.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3475

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 11 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUMBMITTED: 13 DECEMBER 2011

Mr Mr M G P Lekota (COPE) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency

Whether the Government has taken any action against any member of the executive or any official during the period 1 June 2009 to 1 July 2011, for (a) contravening the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999, (b) manipulating tenders, (c) conducting business where conflict of interest was found and (d) committing fraud; if not, why not; if so, what (i) action and (ii) are the further relevant details?

NW4149E

REPLY:

The disciplinary procedures are conducted and implemented by individual government departments where evidence of any wrong doing has been found. These cases are then reported as a requirement to the Public Service Commission, which is the custodian of such information on behalf of government. In the Presidency;

(a) No employee contravened or was charged for contravening the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999;

(b) No employee manipulated or was charged for manipulating tenders;

(d) One(1) employee was charged for submitting fraudulent overtime claim;

(i) Disciplinary action was taken and the sanction was dismissal

(ii) Dismissal was actioned.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3453

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 4 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 13 DECEMBER 2011

MR S C MOTAU (DA) TO ASK THE MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by (i) the Presidency and (ii) the entities reporting to the Presidency were commissioned for print in the 2010-11 financial year, (b) how many copies were actually printed and (c) what were the (i) total and (ii) individual costs of printing these reports;

(2) (a) who printed each specified report, (b) how was the specified printer decided upon and (c) on what date did the specified printer deliver the report to the specified entity;

(3) whether any of the specified reports that had been printed were found to be unsatisfactory; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, (a) which reports, (b) for which entity, (c) by which printer, (d) what action was taken and (e) what were the costs?

NW4139E

REPLY:

Presidency

(1) The Presidency printed 100 copies; of which 60 went to parliament , 15 went to National Treasury , 3 went to the Auditor-General's Office, 5 went to the Principals, the remainder were given to Chief Directors and DDG's of Presidency ( 1 copy each) and all Legal Deposit Institutions as prescribed by the National Library of South Africa. The cost of printing the Presidency Annual Report was R38 950.00

(2)

a) The Annual Report was printed by Shereno Printers

b) Quotations were requested from various companies in terms of the Supply Chain Policies.

c) The copies were delivered on the 31 August 2011

(3) None of the Copies were found to be unsatisfactory.

GCIS

(1) a) 2000

b) 2000

c) R151 098.60

(2) a) Review printers through the Government Printing Works (GPW) contract.

b) GPW has a contract through which printing is rotated to different companies in each province.

c) 15 September 2011.

(3) None were found to be unsatisfactory.

NYDA

(1) The National Youth Development Agency was requested by parliament to submit 50 copies before presented to the portfolio committee on Women, Youth, Children and People with Disabilities.

(b) There NYDA has printed 1100

(c) The first 100 overnight copies printed by PIASOCO Headlines for the portfolio committee and media costed R11,592; 1000 copies for general public and stakeholders printed by Thlapi MTrading costed an amount of R83,667 . The total cost was R 95 259

2.(a) Thlapi M Trading was used to print the big bulk of reports for general public and PIASCO Headline printed 100 for parliament and media

(b) This was procured through normal and internal procedures of NYDA, using its database.

(c) Reports were delivered on time. PIASCO Headline delivered on the.29^th Sepetember 2011. Thlapi delivered on the 21^st October 2011.

(3) NYDA was satisfied by the quality and content of the reports

QUESTION NUMBER: 3385

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 4 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 DECEMBER 2011

MS S P LEBENYA-NTANZI (IFP) TO ASK THE MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION

(1) Whether the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) received a database of business from the Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) when it took over from the UYF; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) Whether the NYDA has continued to support these businesses; if not, why not; if so, (a) how and (b) how many of these businesses have proven to be visible?

NW4064E

REPLY:

1) The National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) was established in 2009 following a merger between Umsobomvu Youth Fund and the National Youth Commission. According to the National Youth Development Agency Act, both the NYC and the UYF liabilities and assets were transferred to the NYDA. The Agency assumed and improved the operational platform that was developed by Umsobomvu Youth Fund and as such, this rendered the Agency operational, immediately. These includes the staff of its predecessors was also taken over by the Agency, loans that were issued during the UYF era including and all database of all businesses.

2) a) Yes. The relationship of the NYDA with financed businesses does not end at the financing stage but it goes beyond the full loan repayment stage. Indeed some of these businesses have been assisted with vouchers depending on their needs.

b) The viability of businesses supported is determined at financing stage and whether they continue to be viable is seen overtime. One such measure is fully servicing their loans and continuing to survive.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3384

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 4 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 DECEMBER 2011

Ms S P Lebenya-Ntanzi (IFP) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance

Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

(a) How many (i) new business ventures have been funded by the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) in the 2010-11 financial year and (ii) of these ventures have proven to be viable and (b) what (i) are the details of these businesses and (ii) follow-up support have been given to these businesses?

NW4063E

REPLY:

a) The total number of loans finance in 2010/2011 financial year is 268. Table below illustrate programmes, total numbers of loans and total value of loans

Programme	Number of Loans	Value of loans
SME	7	R7,935,969
Micro Finance Group Loans: (Groups are formed by minimum of 5 and maximum of 8 members and the individuals in the group have their own individual businesses)	176	R211, 000.00
Individual Loans: Micro Finance	85	R2, 497,678.73
Total	268

b) i) SME - details of these businesses

Harvest Car Rentals CC	300,000	Services	Gauteng
Thagasello Network Solution CC t/a TNS Paint & Renovators	258,000	Construction	Gauteng
Ubhaqa Air Conditioning & Refrigeration CC	378,660	Services - Installation, maintenance & repairs	Kwa-Zulu Natal
Mashika Waste Management (Pty) Ltd	2,312,852	Services - Waste Management Solutions	Limpopo
Vhembe Health & Fitness Centre CC	1,844,000	Services - Health & Fitness	Limpopo
Jelly KKM Corner Trading CC	291,000	Retail - Sweets Distribution	Gauteng
DMT Agricultural Services Cooperative	2,551,457	Agriculture	Kwa-Zulu Natal

Microfinance:

See Attached Spreadsheet. (1) Whether the Presidency has provided a report to Government departments on strategies to fill all vacant positions in the various departments; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) Whether this document has been distributed to all departments; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) Whether any (a) oversight, (b) monitoring and (c) evaluation measures are in place to ensure that these strategies are adopted and implemented by all departments in an attempt to reduce the high vacancy rates; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW3824E

Reply:

(1) In his State of the Nation Address, the President made a commitment that Government must fill all funded vacant posts and that DPME will provide a report within six months. The Department in conjunction with the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) concluded a study and provided the President with a report within six months. In summary, the study found that:

· It is important to differentiate between funded vacancies and unfunded vacancies

· Many national and provincial departments capture their desired or approved structures on PERSAL, which are different to their funded structures (i.e. the structure which can be afforded with available personnel budgets)

· The structures on PERSAL are often out of date, incorrectly captured, or have new structures captured in addition to old structures, and it is therefore not possible to use PERSAL data to ascertain the level of funded vacancies

· The only way to determine funded vacancies is therefore to derive them from unspent personnel budgets at the end of the financial year, using average unit cost calculations per department

· At 31 March 2011, there was R2.4 billion under-expenditure on personnel in the national government, representing an under-expenditure of 4.6% of the total personnel budget. This implies that there were relatively few funded vacancies: based on average unit costs, DPME calculates that there were approximately 9000 funded vacant posts (2.6 % of total posts) at national level at the end of the financial year. Most of these funded vacancies can be explained by normal personnel turnover and difficulties in attracting skilled staff in some functional areas (such as engineers).

· Based on aggregate personnel expenditure for provinces, there was over- expenditure of R3.3 billion at the end of the 2010/2011 financial year. This implies that, in aggregate, there were no funded vacancies at provincial level. However, in a few provincial departments there was under-expenditure on personnel, and based on average unit cost calculations, DPME estimated that there were approximately 7 000 funded vacant posts (or less than 1% of the total number of funded posts) at the end of the financial year.

The report was presented to the President's Coordinating Council (PCC). The PCC resolved as follows:

· That all national and provincial departments must ensure that their correct funded structures are captured on PERSAL. This will be monitored by the Forum of South African Directors General (FOSAD) and progress will be reported to the PCC.

· That national and provincial departments need to endeavour to fill funded posts within a period of 6 months of them becoming vacant. This will also be monitored by FOSAD.

The report noted that personnel expenditure has increased markedly as a percentage of total expenditure and that this is having a negative impact on capital expenditure. It also noted that care needs to be taken to focus on creating and filling posts that result in increased or improved service delivery.

(2)The contents of the report have been presented to FOSAD and to the President's Coordinating Council.

(3)As stated in 1 above, cleaning up of PERSAL data and turnaround times for filling of vacant posts are being monitored by FOSAD. These indicators are also being monitored by the G&A Cluster as part of monitoring of the implementation of the Outcome 12 Delivery Agreement.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3205

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 21 OCTOBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 31 OCTOBER 2011

The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

(1) What is the statistical breakdown of the total number of calls (a) received, (b) logged, (c) dropped and (d) resolved by the Presidential Hotline in 2010;

(2) whether he has adopted a definition of what constitutes a resolved call; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) (a) how many persons are employed at the Presidential Hotline call centre and (b) what has been the annual cost of operation since inception?

NW3816E

REPLY:

Information September 2009 up to and including 31 December 2010.
Registered on the system as calls waiting.	Calls dialed and registered/connected on the telephone technology system that allows transmission of telephone signal.	1038 374
Dropped before call agent	Calls could not reach a call agent due to (i) high call volumes or (ii) dropped by caller.	547 886
Received/Handled	Calls reaching one of the 10 call agents.	490 448
Invalid calls	1. Calls that lost communication between the caller and the 1^st line agent before any information is obtained, mainly due to loss in network coverage. 2. Invalid calls that reach the agents: prank calls, playing with the phone, no complaint or compliment.	70 576
Logged calls	Valid /legitimate calls which were either resolved at 1^st line (call agents), or routed to 2^nd line (Presidency) and 3^rd line (departments and provinces) for further investigation.	90 069
Follow-up calls	Calls from citizens to enquire about progress with their cases.	329 843
Resolved	Logged calls in which a valid response has been provided to the caller to address the query, either by the call agent or by the responsible departments.	55 857

Note: Received / handled calls = invalid calls + logged calls + follow-up calls

The Presidential Hotline uses the following working definition of a "resolved call": when a call centre agent and or the relevant department (to which the case was referred to), record on the system that they have provided an adequate response, the call is recorded as resolved.

The call centre service is provided by SITA, which employs 20 call centre agents working two shifts a day from 06h00 am to 14h00 and 14h00 to 22h00. This means that for every shift, 10 call centre agents are taking calls. These call centre agents are supported with staff that provides quality supervision and technical back-up.

September 2009 to September 2011:

Compensation: R13.5m

Good and Services: R10m (note that this does not include approximately R14m in telecoms services and SITA services due for payment this financial year).

QUESTION NUMBER: 3083

DATE FOR PUBLICTION: 29 OCTOBER 2010

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 5 DECEMBER 2010

MS D CARTER (COPE) TO ASK THE MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION:

Whether the Government will be committed to combating corruption in order to achieve a higher ranking for the country in the Corruption Perceptions Index than it currently occupies; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW3808

REPLY:

Yes, Government is definitely committed to combating corruption. I must emphasize that our focus will not be primarily about achieving a higher ranking in the Corruption Perception Index but instead, seek to achieve the objectives we have set ourselves in the new outcome-based approach in which we identified a number of activities to be undertaken to tackle corruption effectively in the Public Service. We have acknowledged our ranking and we have stated that one of the things that we would do would be to reduce the perception that our country is corrupt.

Government has announced a number of initiatives and structures that are created to reduce the level of corruption. The establishments of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Anti-Corruption; the Anti-Corruption Working Group and the Special Anti-Corruption Unit are amongst key initiatives we have to tackle corruption.

The following are the details of the activities which will be undertaken to reduce the level of corruption:

· Launch the Special anti-corruption Unit with the DPSA to investigate cases of corruption related misconducts, follow up on reported cases at department level; coordinate disciplinary processes and eradicate financial loss incurred by government as a result of corruption( i.e including recouping monies or any material benefit acquired inappropriately .)

· Develop and implement the Public Sector Integrity Management Framework;

· The DPSA is currently rolling out a national Anti-Corruption training programme.

· Government is also working collaboratively with business and civil society through the National Anti-corruption Forum to ensure that the fight against corruption is well coordinated from all sectors.

The IMC and Inter – Departmental Task Team both ensures efficient implementation and coordination of anti-corruption efforts in the Public Service. in addition, both structures will also be responsible for the following issues:

· Promote policy coherence and alignment on cross – cutting anti-corruption programmes of government;;

· Review procurement practices in the public service;

· Address weaknesses in the criminal justice system so as to ensure that efficient prosecution takes place.

QUESTION NUMBER: 3039

DATE FOR PUBLICATION: 5 NOVEMBER 2011

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 9 DECEMBER 2011

MRS E MORE (DA) to ask the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency:

1. Whether he will reply to (a) all outstanding parliamentary questions and (b) the points contained in each question before parliamentary questions lapse in accordance with Rule 316 of the National Assembly; if not, in each specified case, (i) why not and (ii) which questions, by its allocated number, will not be replied to; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

2. Whether it is the policy of his Ministry that he submit to the mechanism of parliamentary questions as a measure of constitutional accountability to the National Assembly; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW4660E

REPLY:

1. The Ministry will where practically possible respond to all questions posed before they lapse in accordance with Rule 316 of the National Assembly.

2. The Minister is a member of Parliament and member of the Executive and does submit to the rules and procedures of a democratic Parliament.

2011-03-10

What's wrong with this page?