Presentation to NCOP Committee on Local Government and Administration

1. Presentation to NCOP Committee on Local Government and Administration The HoD Evaluation Framework 27 August 2003

2. Contents • Importance of Performance Management • Role of the PSC in developing framework • Principles of Framework • Role of PSC in HoD Evaluation • Framework for the Evaluation of Heads of Department • Implementation of Framework Round 1 • Findings • Recommendations • Amendments • Future Challenges

3. Importance of Performance Management • Government constantly seeking to improve service delivery standards • Managers are responsible for achieving institutional objectives • Effective management and monitoring of performance provide insight into institutional success and areas for improvements

4. Role of the PSC in developing Framework • In 1998, MPSA introduced system of PAs for senior managers • Below HoDs, system provided for constant feedback on performance between supervisors and staff • No systematic, coherent process in place for assessment of HoD performance • PSC tasked by cabinet to develop a framework to assist Executing Authorities (EAs) to evaluate HoDs

5. Principles of Framework • Basis of evaluation is effective PA system • Evaluation process should link individual and institutional performance • EAs responsible for final decisions, but independent stakeholders and peers must make inputs • Procedural framework must be credible to ensure consistency

6. Principles of Framework • Framework must indicate level of performance, identify inefficiency and guide performance rewards • Constitution of panels to be flexible to accommodate special sectoral needs • Integrated approach, aligned to planning and budgetary cycles • Process should, where appropriate, identify areas for HoD development

7. Role of PSC in HoD Evaluations • Evaluation panels at National level chaired by the Chair or Deputy Chair of the PSC • Evaluation panels at Provincial level chaired by resident Commissioner or a nationally nominated Commissioner • Role of PSC on panels is independent role-player, to ensure that process is fair, consistent and equitable • PSC has availed secretarial services to Executing Authorities (who may also appoint their own secretariat)

8. HoD Evaluation Framework • EAs must appoint evaluation panels comprising EA colleagues, independent stakeholders and HoD peers • Panel advice is not binding, and EAs must take final decisions • Evaluations must cover a period of one financial year, and must be aligned to the MTEF and planning cycles

9. HoD Evaluation Framework • HoDs and EAs must sign PAs by the end of April each year • Progress against objectives must be reviewed on a quarterly basis • Evaluation processes must utilize the following information: • PAs • Departmental business and strategic plans • Budget and expenditure reports • Annual Reports incorporating Auditor General Reports • Verification statement detailing achievement of targets and outcomes

10. HoD Evaluation Framework • Panel provides written advice to EA, including: • Level of performance regarding KPAs • Areas for development • EA takes decision on awarding of cash bonus and other actions

11. HoD Evaluation Framework • If HoDs are dissatisfied, they can request review • PAs of HoDs provide for dispute resolution mechanism • Mediator must be identified • If mediator cannot resolve dispute, must be referred to Review Committee, comprising: • Deputy President and MPSA (National); or • Provincial Premier and MEC nominated by Premier • Provincial DGs refer disputes to Deputy President and MPSA

12. HoD Evaluation Framework • PSC issues Guidelines to assist EAs on annual basis • Guidelines specify administrative arrangements and proforma documents and instruments

13. Implementation of Framework Statistical Overview • National Departments • 12 HoDs out of 36 evaluated • 10 deferred evaluation to include 2001/2002 • 3 terminated contract • 5 no evaluation – reasons unknown • Provincial • 23 out of 76 HoDs evaluated • 3 pending • 53 could not be evaluated

14. Implementation of Framework Reasons for Non-Evaluation • Contract terminated • HoD appointed on acting capacity • Suspension • On sick leave • Performance agreement not signed • Newly appointed • Framework Piloted • Documents not submitted

15. Implementation of FrameworkSummary of Ratings

16. Findings of the first implementation • Evaluation periods more than one financial year problematic • Composition of the evaluation panels did not represent wide range of stakeholders • Far-stretched schedules of Ministers delayed the process • Use of the OPSC as the secretariat beneficial

17. Findings of the first implementation (cont) • Executing authorities – participation commended • Documentation • Quality and contents of performance agreements • Verifications statement did not conform to the requirements • reports did not report on achievement of • departmental objectives • Lackof synergy between documents

18. Findings of the first implementation (cont) • Use of 360-degree instrument • Nationally – only 1 HoD • Provincially – 12 HoDs • Advice by the panel • Provided level of performance and areas of development • Rating scale – parameters of cash

19. Findings on Performance Agreements • A majority of senior managers had not signed performance agreements • No clear performance criteria – limited to targets • No quarterly reviews

20. Recommendations • PSC to engage SAMDI on the nature of training to be provided to HoDs • Executing Authorities to note importance of performance management and that evaluation according to the framework is obligatory • Evaluation periods one financial year • Evaluation at provincial level must be obligatory • Composition of panels • Maximum 4 plus Chair • Include external stakeholders • Make use of cluster system

21. Recommendations (cont.) • Performance Agreements of HoDs to be filed with PSC • PSC to provide guidance on the development of quality documentation • Clear linkages between processes/documents • Use of 360-degree compulsory in the interim • Parameters of cash bonus clearly spelt out – consider NPMDS e.g. Level 5 : 6 - 8 % Level 4 : 3 - 5 %

22. Amendments • Framework – Cabinet memo • Finalisation of evaluations not later than February 2003 • Performance agreements of all HoDs be filed with PSC • 360-degree compulsory in the interim • Rating scale in the NPMDS be used for 2001/2002 evaluations • Use of the 360-degree in the interim • OPSC serves as secretariat in all HoD evaluations • Implementation at provincial level be mandatory

23. Future Challenges • Creating a greater awareness of the importance of Performance Management • Sensitizing EAs to the importance of concluding PAs in time • Improving the quality of PAs • Linking individual and organizational performance

24. Future Challenges • Changing the paradigm from rewards to adding value to management and personal development • Moving from output based approach to outcomes based approach, strengthening Cabinet Clusters: • Defining common outcomes to be incorporated in strategic planning and performance agreements • HoD Evaluation Panels be constituted by Cabinet Clusters • Consolidating the use of external stakeholders and peers