Overview of Peer Review programme

1
Overview of Peer Review programme

2
Why peer review

• Power of peer learning
• Mayors learn best from other mayors IULA 2001
• Many approaches
• The seminar etc
• Communities of Practice
• Peer to peer exchanges
• Peer networks
• Peer review

3
Approaches to review
Qualitative
SACN Peer review
NEPAD Peer review
Learning
Control
Donor project evaluation
Quantitative
4
Purpose

• Local government helping itself
• Not inspectors but critical friends
• Identifies strengths as much as weaknesses
• Sharing learning
• Culture of critical reflection
• Review panel members learn more than host
• Change and on-going improvement
• Supports

5
Process (based on IDeA model)

• Intensive 1 week programme of extensive
  interviews/workshops/visits
• executive leadership, senior management, middle
  management, frontline staff, ward committees,
  UACs, labour, neighbouring municipalities, NGOs,
  business, province etc
• Build picture of municipality against benchmark
  based on evidence
• On-going feedback/ discussion with CEO
• Presentation of conclusions to leadership on last
  day
• Written report (within 6 weeks)

6
Use of ideal benchmark to foster supportive
learning culture

• Initial benchmark of Developmental Local
  Government
• Maximising social development and economic growth
• Leading and Learning
• Democratising development, empowering and
  redistributing
• Integrating, co-ordinating and managing
• To be developed as part of on-going project

7
Composition of peer review team

• Balance of senior politicians and managers
  crucial
• 2 councillors
• 2 senior officials (including CEO)
• 1 person from another sector
• Review manager
• Cities Network has established review panel pool
• Selection important balance

8
Joburg review conclusions Consumer/service user
focus

• Establishment of Peoples Centres and call centre
  greatly improve customer/citizen access
• Big strides in building e-government capability
• Outstanding web-site
• eJoburg
• Investment must be balanced with number of
  consumers who have access
• Big capital investment but not enough training to
  maximise advantage
• Some concerns re UACs building own distinct
  identity as against providing seamless joined up
  service to consumer
• More attention and focus on consumer/service user
  required
• awareness of issue but lack of substance real
  service user care strategy needed
• Need to understand and segment consumers better
  to provide better service (e.g. how reach out
  people without easy access, how different points
  of access function for different people etc)

9
Evaluation of Joburg pilot review

• Review method simple, relevant and transferred
• Interesting and useful conclusions
• Much learning review mindset and reciprocity
• Programme/logistics outstanding
• Review team functioned well
• Briefing and orientation of team prior to review
• Scheduling at appropriate time
• Prior buy-in from leadership of host
• Communication with organisation and interviewees
• The benchmark needs development

10
Next steps

• Develop peer review manual and guidelines (done)
• Conduct next corporate peer review Buffalo City
• Build review management capacity
• Develop ideal city municipality benchmark
  project
• in collaboration with SALGA/DPLG/LGTP/USAID
  (Hologram)
• Expand concept from corporate to strategic
  sectors
• E.g eco development peer reviews, Cato Manor
  urban renewal
• Build partnerships and linkages
• IDEA and others (reciprocal reviews)
• National government (DPSA etc)
• Build into bigger programme of leadership and
  management development and support

11
(No Transcript)