ATC121108: Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations on the Department In the Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation on its Performance For The 2011/12 Financial Year, dated 24 October 2012

Standing Committee on Auditor General

BUDGETARY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PRESIDENCY FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION ON ITS PERFORMANCE FOR THE 2011/12 FINANCIAL YEAR, DATED 24 OCTOBER 2012

BUDGETARY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PRESIDENCY FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION ON ITS PERFORMANCE FOR THE 2011/12 FINANCIAL YEAR, DATED 24 OCTOBER 2012

The Standing Committee on Appropriations, having assessed the service delivery of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (the Department), reports as follows:

1 Introduction

1.1 The Role of the Committee

In terms of section 4(4) of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, No. 9 0f 2009, the mandate of the Standing Committee on Appropriations (the Committee) is to “consider and report on the following:

· spending issues;

· amendments to the Division of Revenue Bill, the Appropriation Bill, Supplementary Appropriation Bills and Adjustment Appropriation Bill;

· recommendations of the Financial and Fiscal Commission, including those referred to in the Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act, 1997 (Act No. 97 of 1997);

· reports on actual expenditure published by the National Treasury; and

· any other related matter set out in the [above-mentioned] Act”.

In addition to the above, the Committee has been tasked to oversee the activities of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, as well as the National Youth Development Agency in terms of National Assembly Rule 199(b) on 1 November 2011.

Section 5 of the Money Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Act, No 9 of 2009 (the Act), states that the National Assembly, through its Committees, must annually assess the performance of each national department with reference to the following:

· The medium term estimates of expenditure of each national department, its strategic priorities and measurable objectives, as tabled in the National Assembly with the national budget;

· Prevailing strategic plans;

· The expenditure report relating to such department published by the National Treasury in terms of section 32 reports of the Public Finance Management Act, No 1 of 1999 (PFMA), as amended in 2009;

· The financial statements and annual report of such department;

· The report of the Committee on Public Accounts relating to the department; and

· Any other information requested by or presented to a House or Parliament.

Committees must submit the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) annually to the National Assembly. The BRRR assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of a department’s use and forward allocation of available resources and may include the recommendations on the use of resources in the medium term.

Committees must submit the BRRR after the adoption of the budget and before the adoption of the reports on the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) by the respective Houses in November of each year.

1.2 Methodology followed by the Committee in arriving at this report:

The Committee has scrutinised and interrogated all available documents as outlined in section 5 of the Act, with a view of assessing the performance of the Department in the 2011/12 financial year, as well as the performance in the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year. Key issues emanating from various engagements between the Committee and the Department were also considered.

1.3 Background information to the Department

1.3.1 Mandate :

The Department was promulgated in January 2010 in line with Section 85(2 )( c) of the Constitution, which states that the President exercises executive authority, together with other members of the Cabinet, by coordinating the functions of state departments and administrations. The following are key mandates of the department:

· Facilitate the development of plans or delivery agreements for the cross cutting priorities or outcomes of government and monitor and evaluate the implementation of these plans;

· Monitor the performance of individual national and provincial government departments and municipalities;

· Monitor frontline service delivery;

· Carry out evaluations; and

· Promote good Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices in government.

1.3.2 Vision:

The vision of the Department is to strive for continuous improvement in service delivery through performance monitoring and evaluation

1.3.3 Mission :

Its mission is to work with partners to improve government performance in achieving desired outcomes and to improve service delivery through changing the way government works. This is done through the following: priority setting; robust monitoring and evaluation related to the achievement of priority outcomes; monitoring of the quality of management practices, and monitoring of frontline service delivery.

2 Strategic Priorities and Measurable Objectives of the Department

The Department aims to support an outcomes oriented approach in intergovernmental planning and resource allocation across all spheres and organs of government. The Minister in the Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration, Mr OC Chabane , states in the Department’s 2011/12 Annual Performance Plan that priority areas in medium term will include the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Delivery Agreements for the 12 priority outcomes, implementing the National Evaluation Policy Framework, monitoring the quality of management practices in national and provincial departments and municipalities using the Management Performance Assessment Tool, monitoring the quality of service delivery on the ground and assisting departments to analyse and use data to improve service delivery.

The 12 priority outcomes of Government are as follows:

  • Improved quality of education;
  • A long and healthy life for all South Africans;
  • All people in South Africa are and feel safe;
  • Decent employment through inclusive economic growth;
  • A skilled and capable workforce to support an inclusive economic growth;
  • An efficient, competitive and responsive economic infrastructure network;
  • Vibrant, equitable and sustainable rural communities with food security for all;
  • Sustainable human settlement and improved quality of household life;
  • A responsive, accountable, effective and efficient local government system;
  • Environmental assets and natural resources that are well protected and continually enhanced;
  • Create a better South Africa and contribute to a better and safer Africa and World; and
  • An efficient, effective and development-oriented public service and an empowered, fair and inclusive citizenship.

2.1 Overview of Programmes

Since its inception as Budget Vote (Vote 6) in April 2011, the Department has been implementing its mandate through four interlinked, interrelated and mutually reinforcing programmes. The Presidential Hotline was transferred to the Department from the Presidency with effect from 1 October 2011; in line with overall mandate of a government-wide performance monitoring and evaluation. The functions of the programmes of the Department are as follows:

· Programme 1: Administration

The programme is responsible for providing strategic management and administrative support to the Director-General: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and the department. The programme’s objective is to ensure that the department has effective strategic leadership, administration and management, and to ensure that it complies with all relevant legislative prescripts.

· Programme 2: Outcomes Monitoring and Evaluation (OME)

The programme is responsible for the coordination of government’s strategic agenda through the development of performance agreements between the President and Ministers, facilitation of the development of plans or delivery agreements for priority outcomes, and monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the delivery agreements

· Programme 3: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems co-ordination and support

The programme is responsible for coordinating and supporting an integrated government-wide performance monitoring and evaluation system through policy development and capacity building. In addition, the purpose is to improve data access, data coverage, data quality and data analysis across government.

· Programme 4: Public Sector Oversight (PSO)

The Programme is responsible for Institutional Performance Monitoring and implementation of the Frontline service Delivery Model. The programme is responsible for the implementation of management performance assessments, assessments of departments’ strategic plans and Annual Performance Plans ( APPs ) to determine their alignment with the prioritised outcomes, and monitoring of the implementation of key indicators of public sector performance on behalf of the Forum of South African Directors-General (FOSAD). Furthermore, it is responsible for designing and implementing hands-on service delivery monitoring activities with Offices of the Premier and for setting up and supporting the implementation of citizens-based service delivery monitoring systems, including the Presidential Hotline.

2.2 Key performance objectives per priority programme

2.2.1 Programme 1: Administration

Key strategic performance output 1: Functional organisational structure in place and being implemented. With regard to this output, the following targets have been set:

· Conclude recruitment process for all funded vacant positions;

· Develop and obtain approval for 2012 structure by August 2011; and

· Initiate recruitment process for funded vacant posts on 2012 establishment by March 2012.

2.2.1 Programme 2: Outcomes Monitoring and Evaluation

Key strategic performance output 1: The development and monitoring of the delivery agreements for all 12 performance outcomes. In respect of this output the Department set the following targets:

· Delivery Agreements, which relates to the 12 priority outcomes, as adopted in November 2010, to be reviewed and revised where necessary by the Implementing Forums, supported by the Department, by March 2012;

· Adoption of Terms of Reference for Implementation Forums by the end of April 2011;

· Submission of four quarterly monitoring reports per performance outcome to Cabinet Committees; and

· Submission of Mid-term review report on progress with implementation of the delivery agreements to be submitted to Cabinet by February 2012.

Key strategic performance output 2: The evaluation of reports on government policies, plans, programmes and projects. In respect of this output the Department set the following targets:

· National Evaluation Plan to be approved by Cabinet by December 2011;

· Guidelines to support evaluations across Government drafted on Terms of Reference, and Improvement Plans to be approved by the Director-General of the Department and published on the Department’s website by March 2012;

· One evaluation report to be approved by the Evaluation Steering Committee by March 2012; and

· Director-General of The Presidency to sign-off a high-level plan for producing the 20 year review of government.

2.2.2 Programme 3: Monitoring and Evaluation systems co-ordination and support

Key strategic performance output 1 : Improved Monitoring and Evaluation systems in national and provincial government departments. In respect of this output the Department had the following targets:

· Monitoring and Evaluation of Human Resource (HR) capacity, diagnostic audit conceptualised, funding sourced and approved by end March 2012.

Key strategic performance output 2: Results Act – With regard to this output the Department had the following target:

· Concept document for Draft Results Bill to be approved by the Department’s top management by the end of March 2012.

Key strategic performance output 3: Monitoring and Evaluation of policies/and or guidelines developed and promoted across government. In respect of this output the Department had the following targets:

· Develop and maintain Cabinet approval for National Evaluation Policy Framework; and

· Two National Monitoring and Evaluation Forum meetings and four Provincial Monitoring and Evaluation Forum meetings in 2011/12.

Key strategic performance output 4: Development Indicators – With regard to this output the Department had the following target:

· 2011 Development indicator report to be produced and developed in time.

2.2.3 Programme 4: Public Sector Oversight (PSO)

Key strategic performance output 1: Cabinet to approve Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) - In respect of this output the Department had the following targets:

· MPAT to be approved by Cabinet by June 2011;

· MPAT to be updated and approved by the Director-General or Top Management meeting by the end of August of each year; and

· Implementation tools and guidelines presented to Provincial Monitoring and Evaluation Forums by the end of June 2011 and published on the Presidential Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring Programme (FSDM) web-based portal by the end of June 2012. The FSDM is a joint DPME-Presidency and Offices of Premier programme that monitors the quality of services delivered at selected service sites. The information collected is used to work with sector departments to analyse improvements and monitoring is done by means of unannounced site visits.

Key strategic performance output 2 : Front-line Service Delivery monitoring visits. In respect to this output the Department had the following targets:

· 60 sites to be visited with manual site monitoring reports filed at the Department and 100 sites to visited with site monitoring reports captured on web-based portal for the programme.

Key strategic performance output 3: Presidential Hotline Performance improvement programme. In respect of this output the Department had the following targets:

· 20 call centre operators to be appointed in 2011/12; and

· 70.6 percent national average case resolution rate at the end of March 2011 and 80 percent at the end of March 2012.

3 Performance of the Department in the 2011/12 Financial Year

3.1 Overview and Analysis of overall Financial and Non-Financial Performance

In the 2011/12 financial year the Department was allocated a main appropriation of R75.790 million, which was adjusted upwards by R20.412 million in the 2011/12 mid-year budget adjustments to a final appropriation of R96.202 million. For the 2011/12 financial year, the department spent R92.841 million or 96.5 percent of the total appropriation of R96.202 million. This resulted in an under expenditure of R3.361 million or 3.5 percent at the end of the 2011/12 financial year.

In terms of performance against predetermined objectives, a total of 86 performance targets were set at the beginning of the 2011/12 financial year. However, only 54 or 63 percent of the total was achieved at the end of the 2011/12 financial year. As a result 32 or 37 percent of the performance targets were not achieved. The non-attainment of targets was largely due to the fact that targets were not suitably developed during the strategic planning process.

3.2 Financial and Non-financial Performance per Programme

· Programme 1 (Administration )

Programme 1 was allocated a final appropriation of R22.038 million but spent R21.370 million; resulting in an under expenditure of R668 000 incurred under current payments.

In terms of performance against predetermined, there were 20 performance targets but only 16 or 80 percent were fully achieved. There were four performance targets that were not achieved.

The four targets that were not achieved are the finalization of the risk management strategy and plan, communication strategy and plan, the development of the procurement plan, the development of a supplier’s database and the establishment of a comprehensive asset register.

Some of the contributing factors to the non-attainment of targets were the lengthened process of putting in place the required capacity for internal audit and risk management and the vacancy in the communications unit. However, the department has indicated that the risk management plan will be implemented in full during the 2012/13 financial year and the vacant position for the communication specialist has since been filled. Furthermore, the supplier’s database and the procurement plans have since been completed and the assets register has also been completed.

· Programme 2 (Outcomes, Monitoring and Evaluation )

Programme 2 was allocated a final appropriation of R23.143 million but only spent R22.560 million, resulting in an under expenditure of R583 000 incurred under current payments.

A total of 15 performance targets were set, but only 9 or 60 percent of the total were fully achieved. There were six performance targets that were not achieved, namely:

· National departments and Premiers’ Offices supported to translate delivery agreements into provincial targets for concurrent functions;

· Evidence base for outcome monitoring researched and strengthened, and tools developed and refined;

· Outcomes approach promoted and communicated;

· Report on alignment of the APP and strategic plan of 45 national departments to the outcomes;

· Refinements to delivery agreements initiated and reflected on the Programme of Action (POA); and

· Quarterly progress updated on POA, and quarterly reporting on progress to cabinet committees facilitated.

Some provincial departments had not set provincial targets related to all the targets in all the delivery agreements and the Department continues to engage with provinces in this regard.

The department has indicated that some departments have still to sufficiently strengthen their data collection and management systems. There has been work undertaken in communicating the importance of the outcomes approach but this still needed to be improved upon. Some departments did not submit APPs to the Department for review. However, all submitted APPs were reviewed. The Department is engaging sector departments on obtaining detailed reports for the updating of quarterly progress on the Programme of Action and efforts are being directed at Implementation forums for the finalisation of the review of delivery agreements.

· Programme 3 (M&E systems co-ordination and support)

Programme 3 was allocated a final appropriation of R22.442 million but only spent R21.118 million. This resulted in an under expenditure of R1.324 million incurred under current payments (R136 000) and payments for capital assets (R1.188 million).

A total of 34 performance targets were set but only 18 or 53 percent were fully achieved. There were 11 performance targets that were not achieved, namely:

· Detailed Information Technology (IT) infrastructure design by State Information Technology Agency (SITA);

· 100 % review of all drafted components of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ;

· Stakeholder workshop to be held for M&E IT guidelines and draft M&E IT guidelines to be developed;

· Integrated DPME projects dashboard;

· Framework on modelling needs of the Department;

· 20 year review planned: task teams, steering committee established. Technical support in developing evaluation proposals 12 POA reports produced quarterly;

· File plan completed and implemented;

· Information/data management component of information strategy developed and implemented;

· Attend 90% of scheduled policy formulation/ discussion meeting and review all draft components of national GIS policy;

· 12 outcomes spatially enabled, partially achieved due to non-availability of disaggregated data for some outcome;

· Modification to Department of International Relations and Cooperation’s (DIRCO) Bilateral Agreement Database to accommodate M&E functionalities.

However, the department indicated that the framework for modelling the department’s needs was later deemed a non-priority. There are on-going engagements with SITA (for which the department confirmed the existence of a turnaround plan for improvements of its operations) and there are forums held with sector departments regarding improvements to their data collection systems. The Department is still engaging with DIRCO regarding possible support for developing a system for monitoring of bilateral agreements. The Department has obtained Cabinet approval for the 20 year review and work is underway.

· Programme 4 (Public Sector Oversight )

Programme 4 was allocated a final appropriation of R28.6 million but only spent R27.8 million, resulting in an under expenditure of R786 000 incurred under current payments.

A total of 17 performance targets were set but only 11 or 65 percent were fully achieved. There were six performance targets that were not achieved, namely:

· 45 APP assessments;

· Undertake a review of the content and process for Heads of Department ( HoD ) performance assessment by Dec 2011;

· Develop frameworks for DPME Front Line Service Deliver (FSD) monitoring;

· Develop frameworks for citizen-based FSD monitoring;

· Develop delivery support framework by September 2011;

· Three support interventions facilitated, linked to FSD and management weakness.

It is to be highlighted that the department reported that the framework for HoD performance assessments had only been completed in the 2012/13 financial year. The department has also conducted assessments for baseline findings for citizen-based frontline service delivery (FSD) monitoring.

3.3 Financial Performance by Economic Classifications

· Current payments: A budget of R88.611 million was allocated but only R87.028 million was spent which resulted in an under expenditure of R1.583 million.

- Compensation of employees: a budget of R52.983 million was allocated but only R51.673 million or 97.5 per cent was spent. An amount of R1.310 million was left unspent.

- Goods and Services: a budget of R35.598 million was allocated but only R35.325 million was spent. This resulted in a slight under expenditure of R273 000.

· Payments for capital assets: A budget of R7.591 million was allocated but only R5.813 million was spent which resulted in an under expenditure of R1.778 million.

- Machinery and Equipment was allocated a final appropriation of R5.942 million but only R4.754 million or 80 per cent was spent. An amount of R1.188 million was unspent.

- Software and other intangible assets were allocated a final appropriation of R1.649 million but only R1.059 million. A slight under expenditure of R590 000 was incurred.

3.4 Information on the Annual Report and Financial Statements for the 2011/12 financial year

3.4.1 Report of the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA)

The Department received an unqualified audit opinion. However, the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) pointed out that financial statements were not prepared in all material respects in line with section 40(1) (b) of the PFMA and had to be corrected by the auditors. Matters of emphasis raised by the AG include the following:

3.4.1.1 Performance Against Predetermined Objectives

AGSA reported that the Department failed to fully meet its performance targets mainly due to the fact that indicators and targets were not properly developed during the strategic planning process. According to the AGSA, a number of targets set during the development of the strategic plan were not linked to specific time frames.

The National Treasury Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information (FMPPI) requires that the time period or deadline for delivery be specified. A total of 45 per cent of the targets relevant to Programme 2: Outcomes Monitoring and Evaluation and Programme 4: Public Sector Oversight were not time bound in specifying a time period or deadline for delivery. This was largely due to the fact that the department is new.

3.4.1.2 Compliance with the laws and regulations

  • Annual financial statements, performance and annual reports

The financial statements submitted for auditing were not prepared in all material respects in accordance with the requirements of section 40(1)(a) and (b) of the PFMA. Material misstatements of current assets, liabilities and disclosure items identified by the auditors were subsequently corrected, resulting in the financial statements receiving an unqualified audit opinion. The AG states that the lack of adequate review of the AFS by those charged with governance as a root cause in challenges highlighted regarding the preparation of the Annual Financial Statements.

  • Expenditure Management

The accounting authority did not take effective steps to prevent irregular expenditure, as required by section 38(1 )( c)(ii) of the PFMA and Treasury Regulation 9.1.1.

The department incurred irregular expenditure amounting to R1.451 million for the 2011/12 financial year. Out of the R1.451 million, an amount of R442 000 was condoned.

The most significant contributor to the irregular expenditure was in the amount of R524 000 and related to the development of the POA software, where the CFO provided approval (within his delegated powers) for deviating from tender procedures, but did so without sufficient documented motivation. This deviation related to obtaining quotations rather than going out on open tender, for which the threshold value is R500 000. Originally it was thought that the project cost would not exceed R500 000, and the original contract was less than R500 000. However, variations related to additional requirements were made during the implementation of the project, which increased the cost to R524 000. In future, the department is to ensure that sufficient documented motivation is filed for such approvals.

· Human Resource

Persons in charge at pay points did not always certify that employees receiving payments were entitled as required by Treasury Regulations.

3.4.1.3 Internal Control

· Leadership

The leadership did not exercise adequate oversight responsibility regarding financial and predetermined reporting and compliance with laws and regulations.

· Financial and Performance Management

Inadequate monitoring by supervisors resulted in material misstatements in the financial statements, report on predetermined objectives and compliance with laws.

3.4.2 Issues of Note Concerning Expenditure Performance in the 2011/12 financial year

The Department incurred an under expenditure amounting to R3.361 million or 3.5 percent of its total final appropriation. This under expenditure was experienced in all four departmental programmes. Programme 3 (Integrated Public Performance Data Systems) not only had the highest rate of under expenditure but is the only programme that under-spent by more than R1 million. Current Payments emerged as the main contributor to under expenditure across all programmes due mainly to delays in the filling of funded vacant posts. The vacancy rate as at the end of the 2011/12 financial year was 30 percent. The vacant positions included those of Deputy Directors-General of which one position was later filled whilst the remaining position was waiting approval from the Cabinet. Other key contributing factors to the under expenditure related to:

· Delays in the procurement of computer equipment; and

· Delays in the development of computer applications.

4. Performance of the Department at the end of the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year

In the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year, the Department recorded an expenditure of R23.293 million or 13.4 percent of its main appropriation of R174.159 million. This expenditure rate was 13.7 percent lower than the spending projection of 27.1 percent for the first quarter.

4.1 Expenditure per programme at the end of the first quarter of 2012/13

· Programme 1: Administration - was allocated a total budget of R59.840 million from which R8.545 million or 14.3 percent was spent.

· Programme: 2 Outcomes, Monitoring and Evaluation – was allocated a total budget of R37.540 million from which R5.968 million or 15.9 per cent was spent.

· Programme 3: Integrated Public Performance Data Systems - was allocated an amount of R18.969 million out of which R2.972 million or 15.7 per cent was spent.

· Programme 4: Public Sector Administration Oversight - was allocated a total budget of R57.8810 million from which R5.808 million or 10.1 per cent spent was spent.

4.2 Expenditure by Economic Classification

· Current Payments: An amount of R21.809 million or 13.4 percent of the main allocation of R166.659 million was spent as follows:

- Compensation of employees: only R16.999 million or 18.3 percent of the main allocation of R93.124 million was spent

· Goods and Services: only R4.810 million or 7.1 percent of the main appropriation of R67.535 million was spent. In respect of Goods and Services, it was reported that the main areas of understanding during the 1st quarter were the Presidential Hotline and evaluations. The reasons for the under-spending under goods and services were:

- Presidential Hotline was transferred to the Department from the Presidency on 1 October 2011; and

- Additional funding was requested during 2012/13 for the hotline for additional call centre capacity, increased services from the SITA and for calls made to toll-free number. However, the estimates for the aforementioned had turned out lower than anticipated.

· Payments for Capital Assets: An amount of R1.484 million or 10.9 percent of the main allocation of R13.500 million was spent. The under expenditure is largely due to late agreements with SITA on the final infrastructure plan for the department. The procurement of hardware thus only began in August 2012. The Department has indicated that the implementation of the ICT plan was on track and all resources will be utilised by year end.

In summary, it is to be noted that all four programmes contributed to the slow departmental expenditure in the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial year. Unfilled funded vacant posts remain the main reason for slow spending. Another reason for the under spending was the delay in the procurement of IT related equipment.

5 Consideration of Government’s Mid Term Review

The Department briefed the committee on government’s mid-term performance for the 2009-2014 electoral term . The department presented an overview of the progress made by government in improving performance on the 12 key government outcomes, as well as the five main priorities, as at November 2011, the mid-point of this government’s term of office. The report presented findings and recommendations into education and skills, health, crime and corruption, jobs, economic infrastructure, rural development, human settlements, local government and basic services, environmental assets, international relations, and achieving an efficient public service. Priority areas discussed include the following:

5.1 Education

The number of children benefiting from early childhood development (ECD) is increasing and the Grade R enrolment rates have doubled from 2003 to 2010. Furthermore, Grade 12 percentage passes increased in 2011 although the number of learners passing at bachelors level had decreased. Access to affordable education has increased with 70% of learners now in no-fee schools. Critical factors for consideration in the delivery of quality education include strengthening the quality and coverage of early childhood development, improving literacy and numeracy levels in lower grades, supporting teachers to teach English as a second language at early levels, and addressing quality and performance in mathematics and physics earlier in the system. Improving the quality of service provided by FET colleges was critical in alleviating the problem of youth unemployment.

5.2 Health

The number of people living with HIV has stabilised with just under 20 million people tested for HIV between 2010 and mid 2012. There have been reductions in mother to child transmission from 8% in 2008, to 3.5% in 2011, which protected more than 30 000 infants from infection. Important also was the reduction in the costs of drugs for the treatment of HIV. The health sector has initiated a number programmes addressing maternal and child health. The immunisation coverage for diarrhoea and pneumonia has reached over 70 percent. There are continuing efforts at improving the quality of health facilities with over 75 percent facilities having undergone quality audits. A human resource strategy had been developed, training plans for hospital managers were now in place, and there was progress in primary healthcare (PHC) re-engineering and deployment of health teams to communities.

5.3 Employment

Government has made advances in coordination around growth strategies through the rollout of a number key strategies and plans for better alignment in the states job strategy. There has been progress with promotion of labour absorbing growth through specific interventions such as the industrial development strategies in manufacturing, mineral products; procurement reform and the Jobs Fund. Key consideration for the state in the medium term with regards to job creation includes addressing cost and reliability of electricity and transport, finalising decisions on youth employment programmes and urgent implementation of these and addressing stagnating research and development.

5.4 Economic Infrastructure

Progress has been made regarding the creation of Independent System Operator (ISMO) to allow participation by Independent Power Producers ( IPPs ). Progress with Water Augmentation Schemes and rehabilitation of 9 out of 25 dams were completed, progress on water licences backlog, little progress on equitable water pricing and funding models. Under information and communication technology the wholesale broadband prices dropped by 73%, local loop unbundling with different providers on the same telephone lines starts by November 2012 and 60% Digital Television broadcasting coverage by 2013. Improving coordination of infrastructure build programme through Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission, project plans clustered, sequenced and prioritised into a project pipeline

5.5 Human settlements

The sector has a number of interventions in place in the drive to provide quality human settlements which include the delivery of 83 000 service sites for the informal settlement upgrading programme, 15 469 Rental Housing units built, eight municipalities accredited for the provision of housing programmes and over 100 000 loans have been facilitated through Housing Development Finance institutions. Priority areas for the sector in the medium term include the full accreditation of all metropolitan municipalities and the conclusion agreements with landholding government agencies on rapid transfers.

6. Conclusion and observations

The Department is tasked with a distinct mandate of government-wide monitoring and evaluation; a task fairly new in South Africa . Further, the 2011/12 financial year marked the first year in which the Department operated as a Budget Vote (Vote 6). For the most part the Department has been engaged in a learning-by-doing exercise of building programmes which includes putting the right systems, personnel and structures in place for optimal functioning of its programmes. However, the Department could not achieve a sizable number of its performance targets. Some performance targets could not be achieved largely due to the fact that they were not properly developed. In some instances the Department required full compliance and cooperation from relevant stakeholders to fully achieve its performance targets. Also there are instances where the Department did not follow applicable policies and legislations.

The Results Bill is intended to formalise the mandate of the Department as the custodian for government-wide monitoring and evaluation, and specifically to bring more policy certainty to the planning, monitoring and evaluation functions of government. The development of this legislation will ensure that the Department is able to enforce compliance and cooperation among all stakeholders in the three spheres of Government.

The filling of vacant positions is imperative because the nature and daily operations of the Department is largely dependent on the availability of specialised human resources such as evaluators, data analysts and Information Technology (IT) practitioners. This is notwithstanding the fact that the nature of the Department warrants the use of consultants and external experts so as to ensure the independence and credibility of its evaluation findings.

The Department has developed a huge dependence on IT infrastructure given the fact that it is no longer part of the budget vote of the Presidency. The building of internal capacity will help the Department avoid outsourcing of core departmental activities which could lead to an unsustainable and unnecessary reliance on service providers. Most importantly, the building of internal capacity could improve cost effectiveness, thereby yielding savings and value for money.

Following the Committee’s interaction with the Department on its Government Mid-Term Review Report, the Committee made the following observations:

· The Department needed to engage with Portfolio Committees on all sector specific issues affecting their designated priority areas;

· There was a need to fully assess the validity of recorded data as in many instances the recoded data does not reconcile with observed reality on the ground. It therefore needed to ensure that it had sufficient capacity to verify all data sources for the tracking of progress;

· The data needed to integrate the disparities in progress observed between well serviced areas and under-serviced areas. This was important for the identification of under-serviced areas and thus preparation of an appropriate support package for relief; and

· The monitoring of the departments and state entities on compliance with regulations on the payment of suppliers within 30 days need to be strengthened and highlighted in The Department’s overall M&E strategy.

7. Recommendations

The Standing Committee on Appropriations, having assessed the performance of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, recommends the Minister in the Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation should ensure that:

7.1 The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation investigates best-practices in respect of legislation that focuses on results-based outcomes, namely Results Bill, in order to effectively and efficiently deliver on its objectives.

7.2 The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation fills all funded vacant positions and secures funding for any other positions that remain unfunded.

7.3 The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation expedites the process of establishing its own internal Information Technology infrastructure capacity.

7.4 The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation expedites the process of ensuring the availability of credible and reliable performance data and information across government and the publishing thereof on their website with an emphasis on municipalities especially those that lack even the basic data systems.

7.5 The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ensures that it fully utilises the resources allocated to it in order to ensure that its financial performance is consistent with its quarterly expenditure projections.

Report to be considered.

Documents

No related documents