From policy to impact - Serious Social Investing 2013

Presentation to Tshikululu CSI Conference13 March 2013

Dr Ian GoldmanHead of Evaluation and Research

The Presidency Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Why is M&E important?What is government doing?

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 2

Summary

Approach – M&E as a system – not an ad-hoc donor approach

Why is M&E important? Evidence for policy- and decision-making Helping to get a results culture – transforming the

public serviceThe problemHow is government approaching it?Challenges

• Helping policy makers to make better decisions and achieve better outcomes

• Providing better services (public and private)

By using: • Existing evidence more effectively• New research/evaluation to fill the gaps in the

evidence baseAnd: • Integrating sound evidence with decision

makers’ knowledge, skills, experience, expertise and judgement

What Is Evidence-Based Policy?

Source: Oxford Evidentia

The Presidency: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Evidence for

Policy

What is already known about the problem/policy?

HarnessExistingEvidence

Research Synthesis

What is the nature, size and dynamics

of the problem?Descriptive and

Experiential

Evidence

StatisticsSurveys

Qualitative Research

What has been shown to work

elsewhere?

Evidence of Proven

Effectiveness

Experimental and Quasi-

Experimental Evidence

Source: Oxford Evidentia

How do we make The policy work?

Implementation

Evidence/

Case StudiesInterviews

Focus GroupsEthnographyOperations Research

What are the ethical implications of

the policy?

Ethical Evidenc

e

Social EthicsPublic

Consultation

What are the costs and benefits of the

policy]

Cost-Benefit/Effectiveness/Utility Analysis

Economic and

Econometric Evidence

How is the policy supposed to work?

Logic Model

Theories of

Change


Views of senior managers Scientific and objective, enabling reliable predication based on

facts that speak for themselves, collected by objective and independent specialists, derived through replicable methods and constituting objectively verifiable proof; or

Probabilistic, emergent and contested, an iterative search for explanations and understanding of how to achieve politically derived values in which the choice of facts and sources is influenced by existing ideas, ideology, mind-set, values and interests and subject to specific and changing contextual factors.

A third group straddled these views, indicating that the choice should be dictated by the type of policy to be developed and the type of research methodology appropriate to that type of policy decision.


Use of M&E as change strategy - WPTPS A mission statement for service delivery, together with service guarantees; The services to be provided, to which groups, and at which service charges; in

line with RDP priorities, the principle of affordability, and the principle of redirecting resources to areas and groups previously under-resourced;

Service standards, defined outputs and targets, and performance indicators, benchmarked against comparable international standards;

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and structures, designed to measure progress and introduce corrective action, where appropriate;

Plans for staffing, human resource development and organisational capacity building, tailored to service delivery needs;

The redirection of human and other resources from administrative tasks to service provision, particularly for disadvantaged groups and areas;

Financial plans that link budgets directly to service needs and personnel plans; Potential partnerships with the private sector, NGOs and community

organisations to provide more effective forms of service delivery;


Measuring results

Having a clear direction Having targets (you know what you want to achieve) (Having a theory of change - logical link between what

you do and what you achieve) Linking resources to plans, monitoring progress against

plans Challenge of target approach – does a good headmaster

do what she does because of targets? Be careful of taking private sector models too far.


So

How can we strengthen and formalise the use of evidence

How can we formalise the need for effective theories of change Through strengthening planning Through the evaluation process

How can we use M&E as part of an organisational change strategy


But we have a problem…

12

1.3 Performance Area: Monitoring and Evaluation

1.3.1 Indicator name: Use of monitoring and evaluation outputs

Indicator definition: Extent to which the department uses monitoring and evaluation information.

Secondary Data: AGSA findings on pre determined objectives – Reported information not reliable.

Question: Which set of statements best reflects the department’s use of M&E outputs?

Statement Evidence Performance level

Department does not have an M&E Policy/Framework or does not have capacity to generate information.

Not required Level 1

Monitoring reports are available but are not used regularly by top management and programme managers to track progress and inform improvement.

Quarterly monitoring reports

Minutes of top management meetings or programme meetings to assess use of reports

Level 2

Monitoring reports are regularly used by top management and programme managers to track progress and inform improvement.

Quarterly monitoring reports

Minutes of top management meetings or programme meetings to assess use of reports

Level 3

All above in Level 3 plus:

Evaluations of major programmes are conducted periodically and the results are used to inform changes to programme plans, business processes, APP and strategic plan.

All above in Level 3 plus: Evaluation Reports Changes to programmes

and plans

Level 4

Score in M&E(based on self-assessments by 103 national and provincial departments)

13


Problem Evidence and analysis not used sufficiently in decision-making, planning,

or budgeting ,particularly of programmes 44% of national and provincial departments not regularly using

monitoring reports to improve performance Monitoring undertaken as compliance, not as part of culture of

continuous improvement Evaluation applied sporadically and not informing planning, policy-

making and budgeting sufficiently - missing the opportunity to improve Government’s effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.

Parliament relatively weak compared to executive, so oversight limited (on this trip to US and Canada to improve understanding of committee that oversees DPME)


Government’s approach


Roles and Responsibilities for Planning and M&E in SA

Auditor General

• Independent monitoring of compliance

• Auditing of performance information

• Reporting to Parliament

Public Service Commission

• Independent monitoring and evaluation of public service

• Focus on adherence to public service principles in Constitution

• Reporting to Parliament

National Treasury

• Regulate departmental 5 year and annual plans and reporting

• Receive quarterly performance information

• Expenditure reviews

Public Service Dept (DPSA)

• Monitor national and provincial public service

• Regulate service delivery improvement

Presidency

• National Planning Commission (NPC):

o Produce long-term plan (20 years)

• Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME)

o Produce government-wide M&E frameworks

o Facilitate production of whole of government 5 year plans for priorities

o Monitor and evaluate plans for priorities as well as performance of individual departments and municipalities

Cooperative Governance Dept (DCOG)

• Regulate local government planning

• Monitor performance of local government

• Intervention powers over local government

Constitutional power

Legal power

Executive power


Focus of DPME to date

M&E of national priorities

Management performance M&E

M&E of front-line service delivery

Government-Wide M&E System

• Plans for the 12 priority outcomes (delivery agreements)• Monitoring (ie tracking) progress against the plans• Evaluating to see how to improve programmes, policies,

plans (2012-13 8 evaluations, then 15, then 20)

• Monitoring of experience of citizens when obtaining services (joint with states)

• Presidential Hotline – analysing responses and follow-up

• Assessing quality of management practices in individual departments (MPAT) at national/state level

• Moderated self assessment and continuous improvement

• M&E platforms across gov – nationally, provincially• Data quality issues• Structures of M&E units/Capacity development • Emerging focus on (implementation) programmes• National Evaluation System (initially NEP-focused)


Why evaluate? Improving policy or programme performance (evaluation for

continuous improvement): this aims to provide feedback to programme managers.

Evaluation for improving accountability: where is public spending going? Is this spending making a difference?

Improving decision-making: Should the intervention be continued? Should how it is implemented be

changed? Should increased budget be allocated?

Evaluation for generating knowledge (for learning): increasing knowledge about what works and what does not with regards to a

public policy, programme, function or organization.


Impact evaluation Has the intervention had impact at outcome and impact level, and why

DESIGN

Design evaluationDoes the theory of

change seem strong?

Economic EvaluationWhat are the cost-benefits?

Diagnostic what is the underlying situation and root causes of the problem

Implementation evaluation

- what is happening and

why

Different types of evaluations related to questions around the outcome model

19


Following-up of the evaluations

Evaluation report 1page policy summary, 3p exec summary, 25p report

Management response Each department responds formally, and also put on website

Improvement plan Developed with the departments involved after report approved Monitored

Communication Development of customised communication materials for different

audiences Evaluation report, management response and improvement plan

put on dept and DPME website


Challenges emerging

Overall the system is working but some challenges are emerging. These include: Poor communication channels from some DGs and programme managers

often not aware of the possibility Some senior managers wary and don’t see it as an opportunity to improve

their performance. Not getting right people to briefing sessions so senior managers don’t understand the system and haven’t bought in

Making sure the evaluations proposed are the strategic ones Sometimes departments not budgeting for evaluations and expecting DPME

to provide all the money Departments not planning ahead – very important for impact evaluations in

particular where need to plan 3+ years ahead Some avoidance strategies happening – eg parallel evaluations, not providing

information to evaluators.


So we are developing a corpus of evaluations 7 underway 16 being scoped 93 from 2006 that will go on website in May 15 for 2014/15……..

We are on the journey


Background slides


8 evaluations in National Evaluation Plan 2012-13 (1)

1. Impact Evaluation of the National School Nutrition Programme (NSNP). (DBE)

2. Impact Evaluation of Grade R. (DBE)3. Implementation Evaluation of the Integrated Nutrition Programme. (Health)4. Implementation Evaluation of the Land Reform Recapitalisation and

Development Programme. (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform)

5. Implementation Evaluation of the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme. (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform)

6. Implementation/design evaluation of the Business Process Services Incentives Scheme. (Department of Trade and Industry)

7. Implementation Evaluation of the Integrated Residential Development Programme (IRDP).. (Department of Human Settlements)

8. Implementation Evaluation of the Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG). (Department of Human Settlements)

27


Evaluations recommended for 2013/14

1. Evaluation of Export Marketing Investment Assistance incentive programme (DTI).

2. Evaluation of Support Programme for Industrial Innovation (DTI).3. Impact evaluation of Technology and Human Resources for Industry

programme (DTI).4. Evaluation of Military Veterans Economic Empowerment Programme

(Military Veterans).5. Impact evaluation on Tax Compliance Cost of Small Businesses (SARS).6. Impact evaluation of the Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme

(DAFF).7. Evaluation of the Socio-Economic Impact of Restitution programme

(DRDLR).8. Evaluation of the Quality of the Senior Certificate (DBE).


2013/14 continued

9. Setting the Baseline for Impact Evaluation of the Informal Settlements targeted for upgrading (DHS).

10. Evaluating interventions by the Department of Human Settlements to facilitate access to the city (DHS).

11. Provision of state subsidised housing and asset poverty for households and local municipalities (DHS).

12. Impact evaluation of the Community Works Programme. (DCOG).13. Evaluation of the National Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategy

(DST).14. Impact Evaluation of the Outcomes Approach (DPME).15. Impact/implementation evaluation of national coordination structures

including the cluster system (Presidency).

10 Steps

30

From policy to impact - Serious Social Investing 2013

Education

Transcript of From policy to impact - Serious Social Investing 2013