550 likes | 559 Views
This briefing provides an assessment of the usefulness of the 2015/16 APP of the Department of Higher Education and its entities based on criteria such as measurability and relevance of indicators and targets. It also includes budget analysis and considerations for portfolio committees for performance monitoring.
E N D
11 March 2015 Briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Department of Higher Education and its entities APP 2015/16
Reputation promise/mission The Auditor-General of South Africa has a constitutional mandate and, as the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) of South Africa, it exists to strengthen our country’s democracy by enabling oversight, accountability and governance in the public sector through auditing, thereby building public confidence.
Agenda Criteria used to assess usefulness of APPs Outcome of 2015/16 APP reviews 2.1 DHET 2.2 SETAs 2.3 NSFAS (no significant findings) 2.4 Other entities (No significant findings; for QCTO, the 15/16 Ministerial guidelines were not yet finalised at the time of our review) 3. Considerations by Portfolio Committees for performance monitoring 4. Budget analysis 4.1 DHET 4.2 SETAs 4.3 NSFAS 4.4 Other entities
1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP (cont.) We reviewed the 2015/16 APP of the department and its entities against the “SMART” criteria: • Measurability of indicators and targets • Relevance of indicators and targets
1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP (cont.)
1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP (cont.)
1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP (cont.)
2. Outcome of 2015/16 APP reviews 2.1 Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) Scope We assessed the indicators and targets against the “SMART” criteria for the following programmes: • Programme 3: Universities • Programme 4: Vocational Continuing Education and Training (VCET) • Programme 5: Skills development Outcome No findings on measurability of indicators and targets No findings on relevance of indicators and targets
2. Outcome of 2015/16 APP reviews (cont.) 2.2 SETAs Scope We assessed the indicators and targets against the “SMART” criteria for objectives directly related to service delivery Outcome Significant findings for the following SETAs AgriSETA SASSETA FP&M SETA LGSETA MERSETA PSETA CATHSETA ETDP SETA
2. Outcome of 2015/16 APP reviews (cont.) AgriSETA Findings Goal 2: Establish private-public partnerships to encourage better use of work-place skills development • 52% indicators not well defined Goal 3: Strengthen agricultural and rural development processes and strategies to alleviate poverty, and promote food security and growth of the rural economy • 40% of indicators are not well defined • 56% of targets are not specific and measurable
Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) Performance indicators not well defined
Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators and targets not time bound
Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators and targets not time bound
Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance targets not specific
Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance targets not time bound
Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators and targets not specific and measurable
Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators and targets not specific and measurable
SASSETA Findings Technical indicator description was not provided for audit purpose. As a result 100% of performance indicators in programme 4.1 and 86% of performance indicators in programme 4.2 were not well defined. Below are details of indicators relating to programme 4.2.
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined
Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (LGSETA)(cont.)
MERSETA Performance indicators not well defined
PSETA Performance indicators and targets are not time bound for programme 3 Indicator and targets are not relevant for programme 3
PSETA(cont.) Performance indicators and targets not specific
3. Considerations for Portfolio Committees for performance monitoring Portfolio Committee should track any changes to the APP
4.1 Budget analysis - DHET Comparison between current year and previous year
4.1 Budget analysis – DHET (cont.) Economic classification Higher Education Budgets Budget vs Employee Costs
4.1 Budget analysis – DHET (cont.) Compensation of employees
4.2 Budget analysis - SETAs Legislative limits Admin expenditure: 10% Mandatory grants: 20% Discretionary grants: • 70% of which maximum of 7.5% can be allocated to project admin costs • 80% to be allocated for pivotal grants Government levies Currently still voluntary contributions Utilisation of government levies up to discretion of SETAs • 100% for discretionary grants (DG) • 100% for admin expenditure • Combination To analyse financial statements of prior years’ to identify government levies received and usage by SETAs
4.2 Budget analysis - SETAs Comparison between current year and previous year * Budgeted information excludes CATHSETA as the budget for 2015/16 was not available
4.3 Budget analysis - NSFAS Comparison between current year and previous year