Download
1 / 23
230 likes | 326 Views
AN UPDATE ON THE EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HEADS OF DEPARTMENT IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE. Presentation to the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration 06 March 2008. OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION. BACKGROUND THE EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HODs Progress Made
E N D
AN UPDATE ON THE EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HEADS OF DEPARTMENT IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE Presentation to the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration 06 March 2008
OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION • BACKGROUND • THE EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HODs • Progress Made • Challenges Encountered • Analysis of reasons for non-compliance • RECOMMENDATIONS • CONCLUSION
BACKGROUND • Heads of Department (HoDs) are responsible for ensuring the achievement of the service delivery objectives of their departments. • They are effectively the administrative drivers of government’s programmes. • It is therefore important to hold them accountable for the achievement of the objectives within their scope of responsibility. • Performance management of HoDs provides a mechanism for promoting such accountability. • Performance management helps to clarify responsibilities, priorities and performance expectations between the HoD and the supervising Executing Authorities (EA).
BACKGROUND (continued) • When done properly, performance management helps create a sound basis for administrative decisions (awarding of bonuses, managing performance, etc.). • The PSC has since 2000 been involved in the facilitation of the evaluation of HoDs. • In this process, the PSC has observed with concern a decline in the number of HoDs evaluated on an annual basis. • This presentation provides an analysis of the progress and challenges observed by the PSC in the performance evaluation of HoDs and provides recommendations to address these challenges.
THE EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HODS • The Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs was adopted by Cabinet in November 2000. • In terms of the Framework, the responsibility to evaluate HoDs resides with the relevant EA. • The EA must arrange for the evaluation to take place by appointing a panel that will assess the HoD’s performance and generate advice on that performane. • The EA must also provide documents to be used for the evaluation, key of which are the annual report, the Performance Agreement (PA) of the HoD, and the Verification Statement (VS) signed by both the HoD and the EA.
THE EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HODS (continued) • The PSC plays the role of a facilitator in the evaluation process and issues annual guidelines to compliment the Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs. • The PSC also chairs all the evaluation panels and manages the process by, among others, providing secretarial support to the Evaluation Panels.
PROGRESS MADE • The first evaluation cycle in which the framework was implemented was in 2000/1. Ever since, the evaluation framework has been applied every year. • Good progress was made in the first evaluation cycle of 2000/2001 where 80% of the HoDs qualifying to be evaluated were evaluated. • However, the PSC has noted with concern the steady decline in the number of HoDs evaluated in subsequent years. • For example, only 66% of the qualifying HoDs were evaluated during the 2003/4 evaluation cycle. • For the 2004/5 and 2005/6 performance cycles only 61% and 57 of qualifying HoDs were evaluated, respectively.
PROGRESS MADE (continued) • Table 1 below shows comparison of HoDs evaluated against those qualifying to be evaluated (as at 29 February 2008)
PROGRESS MADE (continued) • The PSC is very concerned about the increase in the number of qualifying HoDs who are not evaluated. • An HoD qualifies to be evaluated after they have completed a full financial year serving in that position. • There is also a disturbing trend of departments whose HoDs have never been evaluated since the 2000/1 evaluation cycle even though they qualified (e.g. Health, Home Affairs, Public Works, Justice and Constitutional Development and Arts and Culture). • The Offices of the Ministers of Health and Justice and Constitutional Development have only recently approached the PSC to request that the their HoDs be evaluated for the 2005/6 and 2006/07 financial years.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED • Filing of Performance Agreements (PAs) • Cabinet approved in 2002 that PAs of HoDs must be filed with the PSC. • The PSC has experienced challenges with regards to this process as some HoDs submit their PAs long after the due date which is June of each financial year, whereas others do not submit their PAs at all. • Only 101 PAs were filed for 2005/06 instead of the 126 that were expected. Only 100 PAs were received out of the 124 expected for 2006/07 and only 92 out of 129 PAs were received by the PSC for the 2007/08 financial year.(figures as at 29 Feb 2008) • PAs are performance contracts, it is important that they are concluded timeously because that are a basis for accountability They also serve as the point of reference for the HoD and EA in the performance management cycle.
Challenges Encountered • Submission of PAs
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED(continued) • The Role of Executing Authorities • Key among the procedural challenges is EAs who do not initiate or set aside time to conduct the assessments of their HoDs. • The commitment of EAs is crucial as the process cannot be initiated without their participation.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED (continued) • Quality of Documents • The offices of the Ministers are also required to submit evaluation documentation packages timeously to the PSC. • A key concern that has been consistently raised by the PSC is that the content of documents submitted for the evaluation process does not always meet the requirements and the desired quality. • The PAs submitted do not always meet all the requirements contained in the PMDS. • Challenges have also been experienced with the Verification Statements submitted. For example, sometimes these are submitted without the signatures of the HoD and EA, and others are submitted without the ratings by either the HoD, EA or both.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED (continued) • Quality of Documents (cont’d) • Some verification statements are not aligned to the HoDs’ Pas. • This may be symptomatic of a deeper problem of EAs and HoDs not communicating when the verification statements are being prepared.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED (continued) • Feedback to HoDs and the PSC • The cycle of performance management and development is not complete until the EA as supervisor provides the HoD with feedback from the evaluation process. • In the PSC’s experience, such feedback is not always provided. • There have been instances when HoDs have informally approached the PSC to enquire about the outcome of their evaluation, thus suggesting that the EA did not provide such feedback. • This compromises the potential impact of the PMDS to promote effective dialogue between the EA and the HoD.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED (continued) • The Role of Evaluation Panels • Panel members have played a critical role in the implementation of the Evaluation Framework. • While many of them have busy schedules, they have availed themselves and provided insightful input during evaluation meetings. • However, the PSC has noted with concern a few incidents where Evaluation Panels did not apply themselves by critically reflecting on the HoDs performance. • The PSC is concerned that such incidents may compromise the integrity of the evaluation process should they develop into a trend.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED(continued) • Trends in Performance Ratings • Since the implementation of the framework in 2000/2001, ratings awarded to HoDs for their performance suggest that there is generally a high level of satisfaction with their performance. • The majority of HoDs have obtained ratings of 4 (performance significantly above expectations) and above (outstanding performance). • An important consideration is how such individual performance compares to the performance of the departments the HoDs are responsible for.
ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE • The PSC believes that one of the reasons for non-compliance is that Performance Evaluation is not always accorded high priority. • There could also be poor administrative support in the offices of EAs and HoDs, and from HR components. Such support is particularly important for new EAs and HoDs who may not be familiar with the System and its requirements. • There could also be fundamental differences between EAs and HoDs which are not mediated, thus leading to the late or non-signing of PAs.
ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE (continued) • However, the PSC has also not ruled out the possibility of non-compliance as a result of HoDs who are poor performers simply delaying the evaluation process because it would not be in their interest. • A key area requiring attention is the extent to which the ratings of HoDs take into account the overall performance of their departments. Through this, the ratings can then serve as a useful indicator of the quality of the country’s Public Service Leadership.
RECOMMENDATIONS • EAs need to play their role as provided for in the Evaluation Framework and ensure that evaluations take place. • Performance Agreements should be entered into and filed with the PSC timeously. • There is a need to standardize the management of the career incidents of HoDs. In this regard, Premiers who have not delegated this function to their MECs should put in place a mechanism to avoid delays in the evaluation process. Such a mechanism should be developed by DPSA and prescribed as a regulatory instrument.
RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) • There is a need for a round table discussion with the Governance and Administration Cabinet Committee, and a representative group of MECs to further discuss the challenges being faced with regards to the implementation of the Framework for the Evaluation of Heads of Department and to explore practical measures for improvement.
CONCLUSION • The PSC will continue to monitor the process of evaluating HoDs and report on progress. • It is hoped that the issues raised will be given the necessary attention in order to strengthen the evaluation of HoDs.
