The Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) Final Results of 2013/14

1. The Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) Final Results of 2013/14 Presentation to Portfolio Committee 05 November 2014

2. Background • The Department for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) developed a tool for assessing the management performance of public service institutions called the Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) • The MPAT framework is built around four management Key Performance Areas (KPAs), namely, • Strategic Management • Governance and Accountability • Human Resource Management • Financial Management • MPAT is designed to assess compliance and the quality of management practices in these four KPAs.

3. MPAT Levels of Assessment: Criteria • Level 1: Under 25% Department has insufficient capability is largely non-compliant with the legal prescripts and performing poorly in terms of its Management practices. It is not well placed to address weaknesses in the short to medium term and needs additional action and support to improve performance for effective delivery. Intense support: diagnostic assessment of the causes of the problems and assistance with the development, implementation and monitoring of an improvement plan. • Level 2: 25% - 50% Department has improving capability is partially compliant or improving its compliance, but is performing below expectations in terms of its management practices. There are no clear plans to improve its performance and support action is required.

4. MPAT Levels of Assessment: Criteria • Level 3: 50% - 75% The Department has sufficient capability, is fully compliant and its performance is adequate in terms of management practices. It has identified its capability gaps and is well placed to address them. The Department is complying fully   • Level 4: 75% - 100% The Department has excellent capability, is fully compliant and is performing above expectations. There is evidence of learning and benchmarking against global good practice which confirms progress towards world class.

5. Findings • The overall score for the Department is 2.3, which is level 2: 25%-50% • Performing at this level indicates that the Department has: • improving capability • is partially compliant or improving its compliance, • but is performing below expectations in terms of its management practices. • There are no clear plans to improve its performance and support action is required.

6. Findings: Strategic Management • The department’s moderated score is a 2.0 which indicates partial compliance and that it is performing below expectations in terms of its management practices as reflected in the following performance areas: • Strategic plans • Annual Performance Plans • Monitoring and Evaluation The overall score is 2.0 as compared to 3.0 of the previous year

7. Strategic Management • MODERATION COMMENTS • Strategic Plan and APP not adhering to format as stipulated in the Treasury Planning guideline • Various versions of the Strategic Plan submitted with gaps • Technical indicator descriptions not indicating method of calculation, calculation type or data limitations • APP is an annexure to the SP and omitted Part C of template • Tables with the annual targets not having the column on audited/actual performance of previous 3 financial years • In correct evidence submitted (2011/12 Annual Report submitted): The required report is the 2012/13 to support the 2012/13 APP and the 2012/13 QPRs • The 2012/13 report submitted not signed to indicate its endorsement, and does not adequately contain overall recommendations to inform improvements going forward.

8. Strategic Management • Areas of concern: • Strategic Plans • Department’s strategic plan is compliant with Treasury Regulations and planning guidelines in respect of submission dates and format • APP • Department’s APP does not have clear links to the strategic plan and/or the department’s responsibilities in respect of delivery agreements/programmes of action • M&E • Department has no standardised mechanisms and/or processes and procedures to collect, manage and store data that enable the monitoring of progress made towards achieving departmental goals, targets and core objectives. Verification of the reliability of performance information is not possible (No evidence).

9. Findings:Governance and Accountability • The department’s moderated score is a 2.5 which indicates partial compliance and that it is performing below expectations in terms of its management practices as reflected in the following performance areas: • Service Delivery Improvement (SDIP) • Ethics • ICT • Access to information (PAIA) • However the department scored 4 in the following performance areas: • Management Structures • Accountability • Delegations The overall score is 2.5 in all sub performance areas as compared to 1.5 of the previous year.

10. Governance and Accountability • MODERATION COMMENTS • No evidence was provided for SDIP • Secondary data from PSC shows that the dept has failed to submit SMS Disclosures by 31/05/2013. • Evidence required was not submitted: unable to find the Approved Minimum Anti-Corruption Capacity Requirements Implementation Plan • According to secondary data from PSC on Minimum Anti-Corruption Capacity cases as at 13 September 2013, the department's feedback rate is at 4% (11 out of 269 cases) • 1. Corporate Governance of ICT Framework, DPSA document provided, but not approved internally 2. CGICT Charter, not provided. 3. ICT Plan Provided but not approved. • Department failed to submit accurate report/s to the Human Rights Commission on how it handles information requests as required in section 32 of PAIA

11. Governance and Accountability • Areas of concern: • Service Delivery Improvement: Score 1 • Department does not have approved service charter, service standards and SDIP • Department has not consulted stakeholders/service recipients on service standards and SDIP • Department has not displayed its service charter at service points or website ( Evidence of consultation with stakeholders/ service recipients not available) • Department did not quarterly monitor compliance to service delivery standards • Monitoring reports on service delivery standards are not used to inform improvements to business processes (Minutes of management meetings reflecting discussion of service delivery improvement not available; Progress reports and monitoring reports not available)

12. Governance and Accountability • Areas of concern: • Ethics: Score 1 • Department does not have mechanisms of providing/ communicating the Code of Conduct to employees(e.g. no schedule of departmental training/awareness sessions, attendance register and programme/agenda) • No list showing number and percentage of SMS financial disclosures submitted to PSC, and date of submission • No report on disciplinary action for non-compliance • Department did not analyse financial disclosures, identified potential conflicts of interests and also did not take action to address these (no document showing that analysis has been done and kind of action taken)

13. Governance and Accountability • Areas of concern: • ICT: Score 1 • Department does not have approved: Corporate Governance of ICT Policy , Corporate Governance of IT Charter , ICT Plan , ICT Implementation Plan , ICT Operational Plan, review of ICT plan, ICT implementation and ITC operational plan • Access to information: Score 1 • Report on PAIA compliance in annual report to Parliament not available • Minutes of management meeting where PAIA discussion took place and actions emanating from discussions not available • Process document on the review of the implementation plan not available(includes training of deputy information officers on PAIA)

14. Findings:Human Resource Management • The department has scored 2.4 which indicates improving capability and partial compliance in the following performance areas: • Human Resource Strategy and Planning • Human Resource Practices and Administration • Management of Performance • Employee Relations • However the department scored a 4 for the Management of Disciplinary cases under Employee Relations. The overall score is 2.4 in all sub performance areas as compared to 1.6 of the previous year.

15. Human Resource Management • MODERATION COMMENTS • HR plan is approved however it was submitted after the due date • DPME provided template not completed in full - it was therefore not possible to determine if only funded posts are captured on PERSAL • Pay sheet certification process is in place but is not implemented or only partially implemented • Evidence of exit interviews provided, however there is no indication of how many people left the department versus the number of interviews conducted • DPSA data shows none compliance with Gender Equality Strategic Framework Implementation Plan • PDMS 1-12: The chairperson of the central moderation committee only signed the document presented as evidence on 07.11.2012 past the due date as per policy, i.e. 30 July

16. Human Resource Management • Areas of concern: • Management of Diversity: Score 1 • Department did not submit its Job Access Framework to DPSA • Department does not have Gender Equality Strategic Framework implementation report • Department does not have Employment Equity Plan implementation report • Department does not have initiatives to address perceptions (e.g. stereotyping) regarding diversity (Example of initiatives to address perceptions not available)

17. Human Resource Management • Areas of concern: • Management of Employee Health: Score 2 • No evidence on the following: • Draft Annual EH&W operational plan • Signed annual SMT report (SMT tool was submitted, and not a report) • All EH&W policies (only OHS policy was submitted) • Approved HIV/AIDS mainstreamed operational plans • Quarterly and Annual EH&W Implementation review report

18. Findings:Financial Management • The department has scored 2.4 which indicates improving capability and partial compliance in the following performance areas: • Supply Chain Management • Expenditure Management • The overall score is 2.4 in all sub performance areas which is the same as the score for the previous year.

19. Financial Management • MODERATION COMMENTS • To earn level 4 the department needs to provide evidence that has a demand management plan in place • Department needs to provide evidence that shows that it reviews suppliers’ performance, updates the database accordingly and that this information is used in future acquisitions • Department needs to provide evidence that it conducts internal customer satisfaction survey and takes action on the findings • Department needs to provide evidence that it periodically reviews the disposal policy/strategy • Department needs to provide evidence that it has a Cash flow projection and it is submitted to relevant Treasury on time • Management should have evidence to show that it regularly reviews expenditure vs planned budgets and takes actions to prevent under/over expenditure • Department did not pay all its valid invoices within 30 days

20. Financial Management • Areas of concern: • Cash Flow: Score 1 • Department has a Cash flow projection and not submitted to relevant Treasury on time • Management did not regularly review expenditure vs planned budgets and takes actions to prevent under/over expenditure • Payment of suppliers: Score 2 • Department did not pay all its valid invoices within 30 days • Management of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless, and wasteful expenditure: Score 2 • Management did not analyse and review the effectiveness of controls and systems to prevent recurrence of unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure

21. Findings:MPAT process • The department’s moderated score is a 2.0 which indicates partial compliance and that it is performing below expectations in terms of its management practices as it relates to MPAT processes. • MODERATION COMMENTS • Department did not develop an Improvement Plan that includes improvements to challenges identified in MPAT 1.2; which are to be monitored on a quarterly basis • Department’s moderated score did not improve in more than 50% of standards assessed or 80% of standards are not at level 3 or 4

22. Conclusions • Overall score for the Department is 2.3, which is Level 2: 25%-50%; which shows that the Department: • has improving capability • is partially compliant or improving its compliance, • but is performing below expectations in terms of its management practices. • There are also no clear plans to improve its performance and support action is required. • The overall score is made up of: • Strategic Management score of 2.0, • Governance and Accountability of 2.5, • Human Resource Management of 2.4 and • Financial Management of 2.4

23. Recommendations The Department should: • Establish a dedicated internal structure to develop performance improvement plans to address Key Performance Areas where the Department scored level 1,2 or 3 • Ensure that Branch Managers/DDGs and Chief Directors own up the scores for their respective performance areas, which will assist in the implementing Departmental Improvement Plans • Departmental Improvement Plans should be included in Branch quarterly reporting processes and be monitored accordingly • Branch Managers should ensure that the Department’s final score improve in more than 50% of standards assessed or 80% of standards are at level 3 or 4.

24. END