PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE REFORMS IN SOUTH AFRICA

1. PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE REFORMS IN SOUTH AFRICA World Bank Breakfast Series on Practitioner Perspectives on Frontiers of Results and Performance Management May, 10, 2012 Ms Ledule Bosch Chief Director-Monitoring & Evaluation Department of Public Service & Administration South Africa

2. Overview: Public Sector Reforms in South Africa • Prior 1994, there was no integrated system for measuring performance; • Majority of black people were excluded from official data and the impact of apartheid policies on the majority was consequently underestimated; • Generally, the racial perspective narrowed the scope of data collection, hence could not provide any indication of the performance of government; • The passage from Apartheid served to bring immense changes and confirmed the vital role of the state in mediating social and economic relations in a highly unequal society • However, since 1994, M&E was generally conducted in an isolated and vertical manner (PSC (d) 2007)

3. Overview: Public Sector Reforms in South Africa… • Prior to 1994, the South African public service was highly centralized where the Public Service Commission (PSC) held most of the extensive powers which included the setting of salaries, responsibility for disciplinary authority, pensions, leave, promotions, grading of posts, regulations of conditions of work, etc. • The Public Service Act of 1994 amalgamated the administrations which was a highly fragmented system characterized by duplication of institutions and functions. • In 1996 the executive powers of the PSC were transferred to the Minister of Public Service and Administration (MPSA) and this needed the Minister to assume responsibility for policy and be accountable for public service policies whilst the PSC assumed a research, monitoring and watchdog role 3

4. Overview: Public Sector Reforms in South Africa… • In 1999, Public Service Regulationswere introduced with the intention to promote decentralization of human resource powers to managers. It should be noted that while management authority was no longer as centralized as it was prior to 1994, managerial power was only decentralized in relation to human resource management, only with limited powers. For example, managers did not have the powers to determine pay and other conditions; • These powers were vested in the Minister of Public Service and Administration and the conclusion to be made is that control is still centralized with managers having little or no autonomy or responsibility to make decisions that affect their specific departmental needs. 4

5. Overview: Public Sector Reforms in South Africa… • This contributed to the public service reforms in South Africa which has been shaped by amongst others, a strong focus on decentralized management of human resources and finance. Public service reforms were mainly to restrain public spending and there was also a need for fundamental transformation from an apartheid driven bureaucracy towards a more democratic public service which put citizens first; • A good government and public service performance that meets the expectations and needs of citizens are crucial to overcome people’s mistrust in state institutions, fostering democracy and evidence-based policy-making 5

6. Evolution of Monitoring and evaluation in • South Africa 6

7. Evolution of M&E in Government, RSA 7

8. Road Map to M&E in South Africa • In the first 5 years of the new democratic government in South Africa, very few departments engaged in any systematic monitoring and evaluation of their policies and programs; • The late 1990s saw early attempts by government to introduce government-wide monitoring and evaluation. These attempts were not successful and in 2004 there was a renewed effort at government-wide monitoring and evaluation; • The 2004 Election Manifesto of the Ruling Party identified monitoring and evaluation as a priority - "We will improve the system of monitoring and evaluation to improve the implementation of all these programs, through stronger monitoring and evaluation units at national, provincial and local levels.....“ 8

9. Evolution of M&E in South Africa • In response to the uncoordinated and complex range of activities in M&E, government in 2005 introduced a Government –Wide Monitoring and Evaluation System & Implementation Plan – championed by the Policy Coordination and Advisory Services in the Presidency; • In 2007 a national Policy on Monitoring and Evaluation (PCAS) and the Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information (NT) were both approved by Cabinet; • The shift to a more decisive approach to performance of the state was finally reflected in the establishment of the a Department of Performance Monitoring & Evaluation in 2009, introducing new initiatives such as the introduction of a performance and delivery agreements for the 12 national outcomes; the National Evaluation Plan in 2011 (Presentation by DPME available); • Government’s attention has consistently shifted towards improving administrative capability. The new political administration has now generated characteristics of an effective public administration by introducing the new National Planning Commission (NPC) in 2009. This means that the “quality of public administration” should comprise well-functioning mechanisms for policy coordination, planning & budgeting which ensure policy consistency across departmental boundaries and facilitate clear decisions on policy and spending priorities. .

10. Radical shift in Public Sector Performance Management in South Africa… • Of particular political and policy significance was the Fifteen Year Review of Government completed in 2009. In proposing a radical leap forward in in the performance of the State; • The review built on the conclusions of the Ten Year Review which provided that “ if all indicators were to continue along the same trajectory, especially in respect of the dynamic of economic inclusions and exclusion” South Africa would reach a point where the negative starts to overwhelm the positives; • The Fifteen Year Review report established the foundations for a radical shift in M&E in government

11. Implementation of Overall National M&E System (Key Transversal Institutions) • The Department of Performance Monitoring & Evaluation (Presidency); • National Treasury • The Department of Cooperative Governance • Statistics South Africa • The Auditor-General • The Public Service & Administration

12. Performance Management System • Measurement of performance has been a central feature of public service reform in many countries, including South Africa; • In promoting decentralization, there was a trade-off between giving managers greater autonomy to manage performance management system; • In return for providing greater autonomy, managers must be under an obligation of accountability of their performance through performance indicators and targets. Senior officials are expected to sign their performance agreements with their immediate supervisors 12

13. Current Initiatives to Performance Management • Compliance to Public Service Act/Regulations has been a challenge facing the public service as it has been raised in a number of PSC reports on performance evaluation that revealed low level of compliance within the public service; • The performance appraisal failed to show an adequate correlation between the performance of the Head of Department (HOD) as an individual and the overall performance of the department for which they are responsible; • This also led to DPME’s initiative of developing and implementing a Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT). 13

14. What are challenges? • In spite of the public service reforms introduced by the government, the public service continues to face numerous challenges which include unmotivated public servants, poor service delivery to citizens, low accountability and lack of compliance in the implementation of the Public Service Act/Regulations. The lack of compliance is confirmed by the Auditor-General and State of the Public Service Report produced by the OPSC. • Accordingly, measures were taken through the amendments of the Public Service Act/Regulations 14

15. Lessons Learned: National M&E Framework • National M&E framework is intended to support other government reform efforts, since they all depend on the performance of public servants. Its success, and in particular its impact, will depend on how much public service invests in M&E in terms of budget allocation and capacity of personnel involved in monitoring and evaluation. • Although M&E can depend on reporting and data generated in the course of day-to-day activities, the impact must go beyond such bureaucratic reporting. 15

16. Lessons Learned: Commitment • M&E system need commitment on the part of political and executive leadership, particularly an appreciation of M&E as a decision making and change management tool, rather than a mere activity; • Institutionalization of an M&E can be said to have occurred when it produces monitoring information and evaluation findings which are judged valuable by key stakeholders, when this information is used to improve government performance, and when there is sufficient demand for the M&E function to ensure its funding and its sustainability for the foreseeable future. 16

17. Lessons Learned: sustainability of National M&E System • Given that the introduction of M&E system might challenge the current culture and the way of doing things within government and the public service, political will and leadership are essential to support the values and ethics that underlie a successful M&E system; that is, transparency, objectivity, accountability and a commitment to a ‘results-orientation’ and good governance. 17

18. Lessons Learned: Technical Capacity and Infrastructure to supply M&E information • Technical capacity includes both the existence of credible and relevant data and information-gathering systems as well as the skilled personnel to gather, analyze and report on the performance of Departmental policies and programmes. Additionally, infrastructure is needed to help ensure a systematic, comprehensive and credible approach to M&E. • This would include policies and standards that would clarify roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for performance monitoring and evaluation; establish expectations across the system regarding frequency of reporting; and, set out quality standards for M&E conduct. 18

19. Lessons Learned: Infrastructure to Demand and Use of M&E information. • The capacity to use M&E information requires both a clarity of expectations regarding where and how M&E information is intended to be used within government departments (e.g. planning; policy or programme development; decision making; and budgeting) as well as the capacity within the public service to actually incorporate and use the M&E information as part of the normal process of business. • The latter is based on the assumptions that non-technical personnel (e.g. programme managers) have a suitable appreciation of M&E concepts and that there are adequate ‘incentives’ within government and wider public service to ensure that managers will actually use M&E information, reporting credible and unbiased results information in a timely fashion. Furthermore, this reinforces the need for formal or informal vehicles and forums for reporting and sharing of M&E information which has been established already. 19

20. Lessons Learned: Incentives • Incentives need to be introduced to encourage use of performance information. Success is acknowledged and rewarded; Problems are addressed; Messengers are not punished; Organizational learning is valued; and Budget savings are shared. Putting in place incentives for M&E means offering stimuli that encourage project managers, M&E officers and primary stakeholders to perceive the usefulness of M&E not as a bureaucratic task but as an opportunity to discuss problems openly, reflect critically and criticize constructively in order to learn what changes are needed to enhance impact. • Giving incentives involves implementing encouragements and removing disincentives. Changing incentives touches the very heart of project culture and norms. A results-orientation can work better if it is well linked to some incentive structure 20

21. Lessons Learned: Accountability • Civil society organizations play a role by encouraging transparency of the information. The media, private sector, and the Parliament all have roles to ensure that the information is timely, accurate and accessible. Failure is not rewarded. Problems are acknowledged and addressed. 21

22. Lessons Learned: Clear Roles and Responsibilities • Establish formal organizational lines of authority (that are clear) for collecting, analyzing, and reporting of performance information. Issue clear guidance on who is responsible for which components of the M&E system and procedures. Build a system that goes beyond national government to other levels of government for data collection and analysis. • Build a system that has demand for results information at every level where information is collected and analyzed, i.e. there is no level in the system that is only a “pass through” of the information 22

23. RSA Lessons Learned on Capacity Development System Level: The broader environment within which the M&E system needs to be implemented Organisational Level: Units responsible for functions associated with M&E System Individual / Human Capacity Level (M&E Focus): This covers individuals involved in executing M&E functions and those who are beneficiaries or otherwise impacted by the M&E System 23