The Evolution of Monitoring & Evaluation in South Africa

In the first 5 years of the new democratic government in South Africa, very few departments engaged in any systematic monitoring and evaluation of their policies and programs. The late 1990s saw early attempts by government to introduce government-wide monitoring and evaluation. These attempts were not successful and in 2004 there was a renewed effort at government-wide monitoring and evaluation; The 2004 Election Manifesto of the Ruling Party identified monitoring and evaluation as a priority - "We will improve the system of monitoring and evaluation to improve the implementation of all these programs, through stronger monitoring and evaluation units at national, provincial and local levels.....“ President of RSA, 2004.  In 2005 the Cabinet approved a plan to develop the government-wide monitoring and evaluation system (GWM&E) across government.

The policy framework for the GWM&E System was approved in 2007 and   provides much needed clarity about the scope and purpose of the GWM&E System. The establishment of the Ministry for Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency following the 2009 general elections, has catapulted M&E to greater prominence.  The National Planning Commission was also established in 2009. This was based on the premise that getting Development results depends on much more than good financial management. Government agreed that for any organization, public or private, delivery depends on the quality not only of the financial side of its balance sheet, but also of its real side—the quality of its people, and how effectively they are deployed   and led. Hence a paradigm shift from traditional M&E focus to results/outcomes based approach.

Challenge

One of the challenges faced by many a government is how it can determine the extent to which its collective priorities are being implemented and its objectives achieved.  Even more challenging is how governments can assess the impact of their policies and programs. This is particularly true especially how South Africa assesses its progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The reality on the ground gives conflicting views against the 2009 and 2010 MDG reports submitted to the United Nations.

 The government’s Green Paper states that it may consider introducing legislation on Monitoring and Evaluation. It is not clear what the aim of such legislation would be as there are already Acts, regulations and policies that require government departments to account for their use of resources and for their performance. Specific legislation to enforce monitoring and evaluation practices will not necessarily improve M&E. Legislation could have the unintended consequence of getting people to focus on minimal compliance.

Developing M&E capacity in government is an ongoing challenge that would still persist for some time unless more creative solutions are introduced. The number of technically proficient M&E practitioners in government is still not sufficient to meet the increasing demand for M&E. The problem is more acute in provincial and local governments. There are still remaining challenges in the M&E system in South Africa that need attention such as creating a demand for and an understanding of M&E in government

Planning in the RSA government has not yet taken into account the reality of different cycles because Monitoring and Evaluation is not yet the life-blood of sound and efficient planning and implementation. Whist there is some level of good planning cycle in government of South Africa, effective monitoring and evaluation still has to play a major role in enhancing the effectiveness of development programmes and projects and to help government to focus on the results that matter, to help us learn from past successes and challenges and inform decision making so that current and future initiatives are better able to improve people’s lives and expand their choices.

 Whilst policy makers and politicians agree that monitoring and evaluation is   technically sound and politically relevant and has a strategic role to play in order to achieve evidence-based policy making, evidence-based management, and evidence based accountability, current situation is still at approximately 70% on supply and 30% on demand side. Anecdotal evidence is still order of the day

Very frequently, the integration of M&E information into the planning and budget decision-making process is hindered by the lack of an appropriate budget classification. This is typically the case because our budget is completely organized around objects of expenditure and does not specify the objectives or intended outcomes that each budget allocation is meant to finance. It is however, anticipated that the  adoption of an results based M&E approach in RSA can be highly useful at all the stages of the policy-decision making process:

• At the policy formulation stage, can clarify and identify the key elements of alternative spending programs, such as the objectives, priorities, expected use of resources, envisaged outcomes and outputs and opportunity costs;
• Can support budgeting and planning processes when there are often many competing demands on limited resources, in this way M&E can assist in setting priorities;
• Performance Budgeting that explicitly links each increment in allocated resources to an increment in outputs and outcomes to present a meaningful relationship between inputs and outputs, and indicate the correlation between planned programmes and their performance in financial and physical terms

Approach

The Presidency, through the newly established Department of Performance Monitoring & Evaluation is responsible for driving the improvement in government performance through a focus on outcomes. In September 2009 the Ministry issued a Green Paper: Improving Government Performance: Our Approach. The three focus areas of this approach are:

•  Management of outcomes through Ministerial accountability for improving delivery

performance. Ministers are to be held accountable through performance agreements that commit them to achieving selected outcomes;

•  Institutionalizing the Government-Wide Monitoring & Evaluation System through a renewed focus on improving measures  of inputs, outputs and outcomes; and
• Unblocking service delivery through the establishment of a Delivery Unit to help

turnaround blockages and non-delivery.

The intention is to effect a step-change in the approach to M&E in South Africa. This approach uses a few politically determined outcomes as the starting point, working backwards to identify a few output measures that could indicate if outcomes are being achieved. The emphasis is on the outcomes for the whole of government. Ministers are required to report on these outcomes via specific output indicators. In an effort to promote transparency and accountability, the Government has committed to making the results of the assessments available to members of the public. It is also envisaged that focus on outcomes will assist Parliament in its monitoring and oversight role. According to the Green Paper, the Outcomes Performance Management System is intended to complement the GWM&E System. The policy anticipates that although the emphasis is on monitoring, there will be a need for evaluation of outcomes and impact. It also recognizes that there is place for other forms of evaluations such as process evaluations.

Results

The establishment of the Ministry for Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation in 2009 represents a shift in the overall M&E system in the South African public sector. While it is too early to   judge the extent of the shift, the notion of the President holding Ministers accountable has appeal to citizens who are dispirited by poor service delivery. The elevation of M&E to Cabinet Ministerial status undoubtedly sends a clear message about the importance of M&E to the Government.  The following are key results derived from this approach since 2009.

• With South Africa being the only country with dedicated Ministry of Performance Monitoring & Evaluation, its Introduction of Outcomes-Based Approach through ministerial accountability on quality of service delivery, has been a start of a process in introducing much more systematic way and comprehensive Monitoring & Evaluation in the Public Service. This is a significant achievement  because  almost 80% of all government departments have embraced the paradigm shift from traditional M&E to result-based management (outcomes & impacts);
• M&E is now seen, not only by government, but by private sector and civil society organizations  as a key citizen participatory mechanism in improving and assessing the effectiveness, efficiency and development-oriented public service;
• Gradual  changing  of the management culture in the Public Service ( Change Management & Theory of Change), aimed at developing a more modern management culture for continuous  improvement & learning  is starting to show tangible results;
•  Renewed efforts for Monitoring and Evaluation to complement the planning & budgetary processes within Government;
• Improved level of  citizen satisfaction in the delivery of public service from 57% in 2007 to  71% in 2011    

Partners

The South African outcome-based approach derived its influence from strong partnership with international partners through benchmarking exercises in countries such as Canada, the US and the Latin American countries. Extensive peer review exercises of networking with cops such as AfCoP, Asia-Pacific Cop-MfDr and CoPLAC –MfDR  on exchange of information on country case studies, online discussions, capacity development initiatives such as conferences, seminars and annual member meetings . The impact of which has informed and shaped the current thinking and adoption of MfDR was also influenced by the roundtable discussion in Hanoi in 2007 and Accra Agenda for Action in 2008, which marked a tremendous refocus from traditional M&E to results-based Management. Key partners are all departments at the centre of government such as National Treasury, Department of Public Service & Administration, National Planning Commission, Auditor-General etc. Donor communities play a major role both in terms of financial and technical assistance and include European Union’s Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD);  UNDP, German Technical Assistance (GIZ) etc

Lessons Learned

One of the key lessons learned is that building and sustaining a results-based M&E system is not easy but it can be done, through coordinated efforts by all relevant stakeholders. Such an effort requires time, energy, political will, organizational commitment and resources. Once such a system is built, even in a rudimentary way, the immediate challenge is to sustain it.   Like any governance function, it requires continuous attention and support. For monitoring and evaluation to be sustainable in South Africa, M&E capacity building need to recognize the importance of positioning M&E within a broader context and also recognize the political support factors needed to launch and sustain an effective Monitoring and Evaluation system.

Given that the introduction of M&E system might challenge the current culture and the way of doing things within government and the entire public service, political will and leadership are essential to support the values and ethics that underlie a successful M&E system; that is, transparency, objectivity, accountability and a commitment to a ‘results-orientation’ and good governance.

Ms Ledule Bosch, South Africa

Chief Director: Monitoring & Evaluation

Department of Public Service and Administration