Evidencebased Accountability: Building Confidence in the Public Service

1

• Evidence-based Accountability Building
  Confidence in the Public Service
• DPSA Service Delivery Learning Academy
• Johannesburg, 14 16 August 2007

2

• Introduction to the PSAM
• What is social accountability?
• PSAM Research and Monitoring Methodology
• Results
• Recommendations

3
Introduction to the PSAM

• Independent University-based institute dedicated
  to promoting the effective use of public
  resources and the realisation of socio-economic
  rights in South Africa, particularly in the
  Eastern Cape
• Gather and disseminate information on management
  of public resources, delivery of public services
  and handling of cases of public sector misconduct
  and corruption in the Eastern Cape

4
What is social accountability?

• Consistent with rights-based approach,
  accountability is defined as
• an obligation by elected political leaders and
  government officials to answer to citizens for
  the performance of their duties and
  responsibilities
• Requires politicians and officials to
  explain/justify decisions and actions against set
  criteria (regulatory framework, strategic plans,
  targets)
• Requires politicians and officials to take steps
  to correct errors/faults and prevent their
  recurrence
• Principle of accountability is enshrined in
  South African Constitution and in several
  supporting pieces of legislation

5
Rights-Based Approach to Governance

• Citizens are not passive consumers of services
  but active rights-holders
• Democratic states are constitutionally committed
  to ensure the progressive realisation of
  socio-economic rights (such as health care,
  education, housing)
• Do so via the delivery of public services within
  available resources
• Public institutions are duty-bound to meet public
  interest and to open themselves to scrutiny
• Misuse and abuse of resources are a violation of
  citizens rights

6
Main objectives of Monitoring and Evidence-Based
Advocacy

• Improve public service delivery and the
  progressive realisation of socio-economic rights
  within available resources
• Give effect to the right to access information
  that empowers citizens to participate in
  governance processes and to hold public officials
  and private service providers accountable
• Strengthen financial management and reporting
  systems within government service delivery
  departments
• Publicise cases involving the misuse or abuse of
  public resources and promote the initiation of
  corrective action
• Strengthen citizen and parliamentary oversight of
  the management of public resources

7
(No Transcript)
8
Methodology for monitoring social accountability
processes

9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
PSAM Monitoring Results

• Conducted detailed monitoring of the performance
  and realisation of rights by Eastern Cape
  Departments of Health, Education, Social
  Development and Housing between 2000 and 2007.
• Evaluation of following 5 accountability
  processes
• Planning and resource allocation processes
• Expenditure management processes
• Performance management processes
• Public Integrity processes
• Oversight processes

15
Process 1. Planning Resource Allocation

• None of the 4 departments strategic plans or
  budget documents
• Included accurate analyses of citizens needs
  (including epidemiological trends, number of
  people without housing, access to clinics,
  schools, nutrition, social grants)
• Included accurate information on own
  organisational challenges and operational
  capacity
• Examples
• Dept of Housing failed to identify number and
  location of citizens requiring housing between
  1996 and 2007
• Dept of Education failed to budget effectively
  for an average of 10 000 staff additional to the
  fixed establishment 2000 - 06

16
Process 2. Expenditure Management

• Lack of effective planning resulted in inability
  to report effectively against plans. Managers,
  Treasury and oversight bodies were unable to
  monitor spending effectively
• This resulted in over/under-spending
• Examples
• Dept of Health failed to account for 73 of its
  (provincial) HIV/AIDS budget between 2000 2003
  (R90.2 m), 26 of budget was unspent (R33 m)
• Dept of Housing failed to spend R928 million or
  29 of its housing budget between 2000 2004
• Dept of Education overspent its budget by R1.1
  billion between 2000 - 2004

17
Process 3. Performance management

• All four Departments
• Failed to maintain proper risk management and
  internal audit systems (pointed out in A-G
  reports 2000 - 06)
• Example
• The EC Dept of Housing has consistently failed to
  monitor quality of new houses built the A-G
  found in 2002/2003 that 90 of houses he
  inspected did not conform to national norms and
  standards

18
Process 4. Public Integrity

• All 4 Departments
• Lacked effective systems to monitor and enforce
  disciplinary proceedings including adequately
  staffed disciplinary units, the appointment of
  presiding officers and proper maintenance of
  disciplinary databases
• Lacked effective systems to monitor and maintain
  performance management agreements

19
Process 5. Oversight

• All 4 Departments displayed an inability and/or
  unwillingness to address problems raised by the
  A-G
• In 2002 the AG pointed out that not a single
  Public Accounts Committee resolution had been
  implemented between 1995 2002
• AG issued disclaimer audit opinion for 77 of
  the total EC budget between 1996 2006
• The province could not properly account for the
  use of R174 billion out of R225 billion for the
  period
• In this context it is impossible to establish
  whether these funds resulted in effective service
  delivery

20
PSAM Impact

• Sustained research, monitoring and advocacy has
  contributed to
• Increased public oversight committee awareness
  of importance of accurate financial reporting by
  government departments in EC
• Establishment of a declarations of interest
  register for the EC executive and Legislature in
  2004
• Creation of disciplinary databases in key EC
  service delivery departments in 2005 Health,
  Education
• Improved civil society evidence-based
  participation in EC governance processes eg
  Human Rights Working Group (meets quarterly)
• Strengthened oversight committees briefings
  (with findings recommendations) to committee
  members

21
Recommendations for Building Confidence in the
Public Service

• 1 Planning and Resource Allocation
• Improve Needs and Situational analyses
• Independent, ongoing research make public
• Recruitment/retention strategies
• Infrastructure/maintenance strategies
• (Improve strategic planning/processes, resource
  allocation, justification and expenditure
  management)
• 2 Performance management
• Publish performance agreements of HODs and
  senior programme managers and ensure compliance,
  including corrective steps, capacity building and
  development

22
Recommendations for Building Confidence in the
Public Service (cont.)

• Public Integrity
• (Abuse and performance)
• Ensure staffing of HR Departments, disciplinary
  and performance mechanisms
• Regular media reports (transparency)
• Whistleblowers feedback
• Oversight
• More details (eg forensic reports) and
  disaggregated information would strengthen
  oversight committees

23
Recommendations for Building Confidence in the
Public Service (cont.)

• Media
• Spin is fine when you have something to spin,
  but
• dont hide bad news identify and explain it
  and say what you are doing about it make this
  the story
• Be proactive get stories out before they get
  you
• If you dont know say so, and say you will find
  out. But dont ever lie!
• No comment is bad comment