Background Purpose and approach

DPMEPSPPD 1 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation DPME in the Presidency is responsible for South Africa‟s government-wide monitoring and evaluation ME system. The launch of the Department was based on the outcomes approach, and hence there is particular interest in sharing experience around this approach. Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore ‟s ME systems are of interest, as they are pursuing outcomes approaches, with a set of national priorities, and in the first two countries with an organisation in the Presidency driving them. Minister Chabane visited Indonesia in November 2010 making contact around performance ME issues and this was a follow-up visit. A 10 day study tour was held from 4 to 15 October 2011 to look at the experience of these countries. The study tour was funded by the Programme for Support to Pro-Poor Policy Development PSPPD, a partnership between the Presidency, the Republic of South Africa RSA, and the European Union EU. The PSPPD aims to improve evidence-based policy making in South Africa. One component is support for the Governments ME system. The team was led by Ms Dina Pule, then the Deputy Minister of Performance ME in the Presidency and by Dr Ian Goldman, a Deputy Director General in DPME responsible for evaluation and research, and Team Leader of the Monitoring and Learning Facility of the PSPPD. The other participants included 2 people from the Ministry of Performance ME, 2 outcome facilitators from DPME Nolwazi Gasa and Mahesh Fakir, and the heads of PME from the Gauteng and Free State Offices of the Premier Annette Griessel and Daniel Plaatjies, though not all members of the party travelled to Singapore. Annex 1 includes the programme, Annex 2 the list of people met.

1.2 Purpose and approach

The purpose of the study tour was to develop practical lessons that South Africa could apply to strengthen the performance monitoring and evaluation PME system, and the outcomes approach in particular. Some of the learning questions included:  How does the overall PME system operate in these countries, including the relationship between planning, budgeting and ME? What are the successes and failures and why?  What roles do different organisations play? How are they coordinated? How have the ME institutional arrangements evolved, why and what are the lessons?  How is the outcomes approach planned, funded, implemented – and the lessons from this?  How is the coordination of outcomes across departments managed?  How are the roles of the central agency driving the outcomes, other central agencies and state governments managed?  What action is undertaken and how, as a result of issues emerging from monitoring progress towards the outcomes?  How is this translating into improved outcomes for the people?  Success factors, main obstacles and lessons learned in the path towards institutionalization, including the role of the state and how this compares to RSA. The main elements of the study tour included: DPMEPSPPD 2  Meeting with the key departments leading on the outcomes approach such as the Performance Management and Delivery Unit PEMANDU in Malaysia and the Presidents Delivery Unit in Indonesia.  Meeting with centre of government departments intimately involved in applying the ME system eg Presidency, Ministry of Finance etc.  Meeting with national government departments to understand the application of ME and the outcomes, and how they see issues, such as the Ministry of Education in Malaysia.  Meeting with national departments responsible for regional government to understand how this is applied at regionallocal government level Ministry of Home Affairs in Indonesia.  In Singapore, meeting with the Ministry of Finance, with departments dealing with youth and with the Civil Service College.  Meeting with McKinsey who also facilitated some of the meetings in Malaysia. Judy Malan of McKinsey South Africa also accompanied the delegation to the meetings in Malaysia. The detailed programme is in annex 1; annex 2 lists the participants in the study tour, annex 3 lists the people met. Annex 4 is a summary of the evaluation, and annex 5 lists key documents consulted.

1.3 Some comparisons between the 3 countries