Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. The Minister for Public Service and Administration (MPSA) as well as the Minister of Finance is linked to Outcome 12: through their performance agreements with the President. However the powers to organise a department and to ensure that it is efficient and effective lies with each department’s executive authority. The mentioned Ministers thus have limited powers directly over the efficient and effective running of a department except their own but they can set norms and standards within which parameters other executing authorities must operate. These norms and standards then set the minimum requirements to which a department must adhere. Furthermore the MPSA can monitor compliance and share best practice amongst departments. In order for departments to determine unit costs of services, the necessary skills will have to be developed. New processes and systems need to be put in place to monitor the determination of unit costs and to be effectively sharing the results of the various departments for comparison purposes. Most probably a change management process will have to be undertaken to ensure that the initiative of determining unit costs is taken on board fully by all role players and that it is rolled out to its maximum Departments will have to fund the determination of unit costs from their own existing budgets. DPSA has limited funding available to support the development of the guidelines and toolkit. Most of the work can however be done with existing in house capacity.
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. The Multi-agency working group consisting of the Accountant-General (chairperson), National Treasury, SARS, the Financial Intelligence Centre, the Auditor-General and the Special Investigation Unit will continue to drive preventative measures, enforcement and oversight measures. Training and support will be joint initiatives of National Treasury and PALAMA and will draw on accredited private sector training providers for delivery. These are currently adequate. To be funded from normal budget.
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. To be determined. The National Treasury, the DPSA and COGTA will cooperate as part of the project to determine the required institutional arrangements to give effect to the implementation of delegation principles and standardised templates.
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. In 2003, Cabinet approved the establishment of the Anti-corruption Coordinating Committee to oversee the implementation of the public service anti-corruption strategy. The ACCC consists of key departments that perform transversal functions and have anti-corruption as a functional mandate. These departments come from the G&A Cluster and the JCPS cluster. The newly formed Governance and Administration Anti-Corruption Working Group will be incorporated into the ACCC to ensure alignment and synergy. The work of the Committee will be reported to the Cabinet Cluster as part of the Anti- Corruption Working Group. Additionally, improving capacity of departments and municipalities is critical in order to achieve some of the identified key activities as such, the working relationship between the DPSA and COGTA, over and above its participation in the ACCC, is critical and should be cultivated. Dedicated capacity should be prioritised to ensure that capacity is adequate and where there are gaps both DPSA and COGTA should be able to assist. Evaluate the management systems, processes and skills The existing management system as developed for the sub-committees of the ACCC, which includes, the chairperson and secretariat will be utilized for the management of the G&A Anti-Corruption Working Group. The work of this output will be managed by the Governance and International Relations Branch from the DPSA. Furthermore, each of the project leaders as identified will have to ensure that they fully commit to the implementation of the various projects plans supporting the attainment of the output. The human resource is a challenge for all departments and the Working Group will ensure that it utilises the available resources efficiently by making sufficient use of competencies and skills in its disposal. Departments to make available a certain percentage, depending on their allocated budget, toward the implementation of the projects of the G&A Anti-Corruption Working Group. Activities already undertaken and budgeted for under the MTEF to utilize that funding.
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. A number of intervention strategies have been attempted in the past (such as Project Consolidate and Siyenza Manje) to ‘fix’ the problems besetting municipalities. However these have been largely ineffective in remedying the situation to any great degree because a) capacity support to municipalities is not sufficiently coordinated, resulting in an inability by national to realistically assess the relevance, impact and value‐for‐money of support programmes; and b) the interventions have not been sustainable. The differentiated approach calls for better coordinated and targeted support for smaller municipalities. Clarity is also needed on who is ultimately responsible for oversight and support, and the degree to which national government may intervene directly in municipalities. This requires regulations to be developed in respect to S154 of the Constitution which refers to the duty of support by national and provincial government for local government. The development of the Policy Framework will be undertaken by DCoG with support from Presidency. In terms of consultation and cooperation, it will be necessary to ensure that SALGA and Provincial Departments of Local Government input extensively on the development of the detailed segmentation. Sector departments also need to be involved, as the provision and functionality of social services such as clinics and schools will also form part of the differentiated model, particularly in respect to access by communities. The differentiated approach and the segmentation of municipalities will attempt to ensure more equitable support to poorer rural municipalities. This will receive priority attention going forward.
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. A qualification or qualifications of this nature should have an institutional base. An institutional base is necessary for:
a) Student support and guidance
b) Registration and enrolment for the qualification c) Academic support
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. A thorough evaluation of existing institutional arrangements in the water sector with regard to WSAs, WSPs and Water Boards must be undertaken to improve the provision of water and sanitation services. As mentioned above, the powers and functions of Water Services Authorities and Water Service Providers and the management thereof, will need to be reviewed. The role of Water Boards also needs to be more clearly defined in the relevant legislation (Water Services Act). There is an institutional requirement for support for planning and implementation of the services to be delivered through the IDP and the SDBIP by sector departments. For example, the national departments of Water Affairs and Human Settlements should assist municipalities to plan for the delivery of infrastructure and reduce rehabilitation backlogs in national water infrastructure; provinces (Human Settlements and Local Government Departments) should develop and implement plans to support municipalities to increase household access to water. The challenge institutionally is to review the structural arrangements for support across government with respect to the delivery of services at local level. This may need a review of the macro‐ organisation of the state in some areas, as the disjuncture between the policy and regulatory environment and execution at municipal level requires intervention to close the gap. As referred above, a comprehensive programme to assess management processes and available skills will need to re‐look at the options available regarding the technical capacity of municipalities to manage their operations. Clearly, for example, a national support programme is required to assist municipalities to develop, implement and monitor the Waste Management Plans of municipalities, with sanitation also requiring urgent attention from this perspective. Provinces must also find ways to improve their support to municipalities towards increasing household access to electricity and free basic electricity. The main focus should be on provinces with underperforming municipalities like Eastern Cape and Kwazulu‐Natal, but with an understanding that these provinces themselves require support due to the legacies of high poverty, underdevelopment and spatial differentiation in these areas. Thus assessments are required for each area of management and process support required to deliver effectively, essential services to communities. This may also involve re‐looking at the issue of costed norms an...
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. ESDA’s, Skills Development Institutions, QCTO and NAMB should be established and SETA and FET College partnerships enhanced for improved delivery of learning programmes broadly and artisan development programmes specifically.
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. Establish ESDA’s firmly in the South African skills development landscape in order to expand delivery for learning programmes to increase participation by SMME and rural areas in learnerships. The role of colleges in this regard must be addressed. Establish partnerships between colleges and SETAs to promote placements.
Evaluate the existing institutional arrangements. It is important to understand the context in which municipal infrastructure is planned, delivered and managed. The figure below shows the overall structure of government as it pertains to the delivery and management of municipal services. The roles and responsibilities of national departments in this structure are identified as follows: • National Treasury regulates municipal finance matters and controls the allocation of financial resources to municipalities. • DCoG regulates and supports local government, and is responsible for the municipal infrastructure grant (MIG). DCoG works closely with provinces that have substantial powers to regulate local government. • Department of Energy (DoE) develops policy and supports municipalities (this is a national function and the department has no provincial offices). It controls the Integrated National Electrification Programme electrification grant and regulates Eskom. • Department of Water Affairs (DWA) is directly responsible for policy and support to municipalities with respect to water supply and sanitation (this is a national function; the department has regional offices with substantial capacity). In reality, DWA plays a significant support role in respect of water services although it has recently moved towards emphasizing its regulatory function. DWA controls the Regional Bulk Infrastructure Xxxxx (RBIG) and is also responsible for landfill site registration and has regulatory responsibility over Water Boards. • Department of Transport (DoT) has policy responsibility for municipal roads and controls public transport grants (Public Transport Infrastructure and Systems Grant and Rural Transport Services and Infrastructure Grant); but has little to do with municipalities. • Department of Environment Affairs (DEA) only has policy responsibility for waste management but does not control any funding streams. Provincial departments of environmental affairs have a substantial say in terms of environmental issues but do not deal much with landfills. • Department of Human Settlements (DoHS) is responsible for ‘housing’ which has strong linkages with municipal infrastructure. The department develops policy and has overall control over housing subsidy policy. Provincial departments of Human Settlement have direct control over the allocation of the Integrated Housing and Human Settlement Grant. • Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for the Expanded Public Works Programme grant aimed at incentivising job cre...
