1 / 22

Presentation outline

M&E Report on the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Evaluation Cycle: 2010/11 Presentation to Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform Date: 14 September 2011. Presentation outline. Background Methodology Presentation of Findings Way forward. 2.

giulio
Download Presentation

Presentation outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. M&E Report on the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Evaluation Cycle: 2010/11Presentation to Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land ReformDate: 14 September 2011

  2. Presentation outline • Background • Methodology • Presentation of Findings • Way forward 2

  3. Background • The PSC has designed a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system that assesses the compliance of departments to the nine values governing public administration in Section 195 of the Constitution • In 2010/11 the PSC assessed 22 departments through the system • The purpose of this briefing is to present the findings on the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

  4. Background • The M&E assessment of the Department is complemented by other oversight work done in the Department: • A Meta-Evaluation of a Review of Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) Project Performance (2001-2006): June 2011 • An Evaluation of Integration and Coordination in the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme: October 2009

  5. Methodology • For each of the values the PSC has set one or two performance indicators • Linked to each indicator is a set of up to five standards • Linked to the standards is a scoring scale • The methodology involves: • Comparing the actual practice in departments with the standard • Collecting information on administrative practices by using standardized templates • The information sources are reports, data bases, interviews, and files • Depending on the level of compliance to the standard a score is awarded 5

  6. Rating System 6

  7. Findings: Score/Performance per principle 7

  8. Findings: Performance per principle The Department’s performance and compliance with the nine Constitutional values and principles for the 2010/11 evaluation cycle is 74%, which means that performance is good against most of the standards 8

  9. List of recommendations per principle The following new recommendations per principle are made in this report • These 6 recommendations need to be implemented within • specific time frames • Within six months of delivery of this report the PSC will do a • follow-up on the progress made with the implementation of • these recommendations 9

  10. Principle 1: Professional Ethics Score 2010/2011: 75% (Good performance) • All sampled managers surveyed have a working knowledge of the procedures for dealing with discipline (Strength) • Based on the list of cases submitted, it takes the Department an average of 127 working days to finalise a case of misconduct . This falls outside the prescribed 20-80 working days (Area for improvement) • Regular management reporting is done on cases of misconduct (Strength) but no evidence of management response on these reports were made available (Area for improvement) • The Department trained 80% of its staff members on all aspects of labour relations which means that there should be enough capacity to deal with cases of misconduct (Strength) 10

  11. Principle 2: Efficiency, Economy and Effectiveness Score 2010/2011: 40% (Poor performance) • Under-expenditure constitutes 8,4% of the amount voted for, which falls outside the acceptable limit of 2% set by National Treasury (Area for improvement) • All (100%) of the performance indicators (PI’s) were found to be measurable (Strength) • Out of 33 outputs appearing in the AR only 10 were achieved which falls within less than 40% range of the PSC’s Transversal M&E System (Area for development) • Although the achievement of outputs was poor (30%), reasons were provided by the Department (Strength) 11

  12. Principle 3: Development-Oriented Public Administration Score 2010/2011: 80% (Good performance) • Six poverty reduction projects initiated by the department but implemented at local level were submitted for assessment • All poverty reduction projects assessed reflect an acceptable standard in terms of beneficiary participation (Strength) • All projects were of acceptable project management standards with regard to objectives, timeframes, and financial projections (Strength) • Local development plans (LDPs) are taken into account in at least half of the projects and where projects are not reflected in the LDPs, the municipality is aware and supportive (Strength) • Lessons learnt are disseminated through reports such as the review of LRAD project performance (2001-2006) (Strength) • The success of the projects could not be determined because project implementation reports were not submitted for assessment (Area for improvement) 12

  13. Principle 4: Impartiality and Fairness Score 2010/2011: 85% (Excellent performance) • All decisions submitted were taken in accordance with the departmental legislation/policies and in terms of the delegations (Strength) • Clear delegation of authority exists and all sampled decisions assessed were taken by duly authorised officials (Strength) • Contents of all sampled decisions showed that decisions taken were just and fair (Strength) • Prior notice is given in the form of a letter. However, it does not clearly state the opportunity to make representation, the right to appeal or review and the right to request reason for decisions (Area for improvement) 13

  14. Principle 5: Public Participation in Policy Making. Score 2010/2011: 100% (Excellent Performance) • A guideline for engaging with stakeholders on policy making exists (Strength) • A system for soliciting and managing public contributions is in place and operational (Strength) • The department considers and acknowledges contributions obtained during stakeholder consultations and comprehensive reports are produced with recommendations (Strength) 14

  15. Principle 6: Accountability Score 2010/2011: 60% (Adequate performance) • The Department received a qualified audit opinion from the Auditor-General (Area for improvement) • An M&E system on all departmental programmes is in operation (Strength) • The department has a risk register in place (Strength). Of concern though, are the issues raised by the AG, relating to material losses through criminal conduct and fruitless and wasteful expenditure • The Department has a Fraud Prevention Plan based on a thorough risk assessment (Strength) • The Department does not have sufficient staff to investigate alleged cases of fraud and could not provide evidence that strategies for the Fraud Prevention Plan are being implemented (Areas for improvement) 15

  16. Principle 7: Transparency Score 2010/2011: 90% (Excellent performance) Departmental Annual Report • The AR is attractively and clearly presented and is well written in simple accessible language (Strength) • The AR covers in sufficient detail 78% of the areas prescribed by National Treasury and the DPSA, which is less than the standard set by the PSC’s Transversal M&E System (Area of improvement) • The AR clearly reports on performance against predetermined outputs in at least two thirds of the programmes listed (Strength) 16

  17. Principle 7: Transparency - continued Score 2010/2011: 90% (Excellent performance) Access to Information • The Department has Deputy Information Officers in place (Strength) • A Manual on Access to Information (MAI) is in place (Strength) • MAI information is not annually updated, which results in out-dated information on contact details (Area for improvement) • The procedure for handling and tracking requests for access to information is in place (Strength) • The Department submits section 32 reports on an annual basis (Strength) 17

  18. Principle 8: Good Human Resource Management and Career Development Practices Score 2010/2011: 70% (Adequate performance) Recruitment • A detailed recruitment policy is in place that complies with good practice standards (Strength) • It takes an average of 5 months to fill a vacancy which is far beyond the standard of three months or less set by the PSC’s Transversal M&E System (Area for Improvement) • Regular management reporting on recruitment and appropriate management action is taken on the basis of those reports (Strength) 18

  19. Principle 8: Good Human Resource Management and Career Development Practices - continued Score 2010/2011: 70% (Adequate performance) Skills development • A workplace skills plan which outlines all critical skills needed by the Department and training activities planned is in place (Strength) • The Department was able to implement all of the 2 983 activities planned (Strength) • However, no evidence could be found on how the impact of training on staff and service delivery was assessed (Area for Improvement) 19

  20. Principle 9: Representivity Score 2010/2011: 70% (Adequate performance) • The Employment Equity Policy and Plan comply with the requirements of the Employment Equity Act, 1998 (Act No. 55 of 1998), and both have been approved and implemented (Strength) • At the end of 2009/10 the Department had achieved the target of blacks (77%) and that of people with disability (2,1%) (Strength) • Women at all senior management levels comprise 37%, which represents a deficit of 13% against the target of 50% set for 31 March 2009 (Area for improvement) • Regular management reporting is done and definite action is taken on the basis of these reports (Strength) • 74% of diversity management measures of the PSC’s checklist has been implemented (Strength)

  21. Way forward • Department implements recommendations

  22. THANK YOU

More Related