Operationalising An Effective Monitoring And Evaluation .
African Evaluation JournalISSN: (Online) 2306-5133, (Print) 2310-4988Page 1 of 8Original ResearchOperationalising an effective monitoring and evaluationsystem for local government: Considerationsfor best practiceAuthors:Paul Kariuki1Purshottama Reddy2Affiliations:1Democracy DevelopmentProgramme (DDP), Universityof KwaZulu-Natal,South AfricaSchool of Management, ITand Governance, Universityof KwaZulu-Natal,South Africa2Corresponding author:Paul Kariuki,pamirry@gmail.comDates:Received: 07 May 2017Accepted: 02 Oct. 2017Published: 16 Nov. 2017How to cite this article:Kariuki, P., Reddy, P., 2017,‘Operationalising an effectivemonitoring and evaluationsystem for local government:Considerations for bestpractice’, African EvaluationJournal 5(2), a240. https://doi.org/10.4102/aej.v5i2.240Copyright: 2017. The Authors.Licensee: AOSIS. This workis licensed under theCreative CommonsAttribution License.Background: Post-apartheid South Africa faces major challenges in ensuring that it provideshigh quality and sustainable services that meet citizens’ expectations. The public wants localgovernment that is not only responsive to their needs but also provides high quality servicesequitably to all people irrespective of their socioeconomic status. Sadly, basic services deliveryhas been on a downward spiral, characterised by ongoing community protests in many localmunicipalities. The article premises that municipalities need effective monitoring andevaluation systems to operate optimally.Objectives: The article sought to show that monitoring and evaluation is a critical developmenttool that needs to be supported by municipal political and administrative leadership to ensurethat it functions optimally by offering citizen-responsive services.Method: The study focused on KwaZulu-Natal province, the second largest province in SouthAfrica, predominantly rural with a significant poverty and underdevelopment. The study utiliseda mixed method participatory design, comprising quantitative and qualitative approaches.Results: The study found that monitoring and evaluation capacity is low in the majority ofmunicipalities besides the Metro. The municipalities were inadequately resourced withcompetent monitoring and evaluation human personnel, thereby stifling their capacity todeliver quality monitoring and evaluation services.Conclusion: The article concluded that effective monitoring and evaluation in local governmentthat is responsive to citizens’ needs is a non-negotiable imperative for government. Itrecommended that municipalities be adequately resourced with competent monitoring andevaluation human personnel. This is important for strengthening their capacity to deliverefficient monitoring and evaluation services.IntroductionPost-apartheid South Africa faces major challenges in ensuring that it provides high quality andsustainable services that meet citizens’ expectations. The public wants local government that is notonly responsive to their needs but also provides ‘optimal and professional services’ across all areas(Meyiwa et al. 2014:4). Thus, government has the onerous responsibility to develop and implementa developmental framework that redresses apartheid legacies. This calls for municipalities todevelop proactive responses that free citizens from poverty and underdevelopment.Historically, local government operated in a manner where one group was more privileged whileothers were marginalised (Govender 2011:113). Basic services delivery did not cater for all; thus,the democratic government inherited significant backlogs. The new administration adopted aradical transformation policy that aimed to correct the anomalies created by the former regime byensuring effective public administration. At the same time, it embarked on a programme toeducate citizens on human rights, the Constitution and other important pieces of legislation.It was envisaged that this would empower them to demand better, high quality public servicesand at the same time hold government accountable for its actions (Naidu 2012:279).Read online:Scan this QRcode with yoursmart phone ormobile deviceto read online.Sadly, as the nation has developed over the past two decades, basic services delivery has been on adownward spiral, characterised by ongoing community protests in many local municipalities.According to Govender (2011:6), the root causes of poor service delivery include poor performanceculture in many municipalities, a lack of competent technical human resources, political interferenceand poor financial management as well as an organisational structure that was not aligned. Tohttp://www.aejonline.orgOpen Access
Page 2 of 8correct these anomalies, the government adopted a peoplecentred framework in 1997, commonly referred to as the ‘BathoPele’ (a Sesotho phrase meaning ‘people first’) principles(GGLN 2012:19). The primary aim of this policy instrument isto encourage public servants to pursue and sustain excellencein basic services provision. Furthermore, the framework aimsto transform basic services delivery with regard to servicestandards, courtesy, information, transparency and openness.It can be argued that these principles facilitate accuratemeasurement of local government’s commitment to deliversustainable and high quality basic services. For this to becomereality, a monitoring and evaluation system is required toenhance corporate governance at the local government level(Hargreaves 2010:35). This article argues that a monitoring andevaluation system is a critical development tool that enhancesthe legitimacy of this sphere of governance because it ensuresthat it functions optimally by offering citizen-responsiveservices. The article is organised as follows: following theintroduction in the first section, the second section definesselected key terms specific to the article, followed by a briefdiscussion on institutionalising monitoring and evaluation inlocal government in the third section. The fourth sectiondiscusses the challenges associated with the institutionalisationof the system, while the fifth explores possible solutions tothese challenges and the sixth section briefly examines how tooperationalise and sustain an effective municipal-widemonitoring and evaluation system (MWMES). The articleconcludes by making recommendations and identifying goodpractices that local municipalities can adopt to maintain aneffective monitoring and evaluation system that ensures thatbasic services are provided efficiently and sustainably.Definition of key terminologyMonitoringMonitoring is defined as:a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data onspecified indicators to provide management and the mainstakeholders of an ongoing development intervention withindications of the extent of progress and achievement ofobjectives and progress in the use of allocated funds. (PublicService Commission [PSC] 2008:11)According to Engela and Ajam (2010:11), monitoring refers toan ongoing process that focuses on assessing whether projectsand their routine activities achieve the anticipated resultswith performance tracked through data collection andreviews. Uys (2010:12) expands this definition, noting thatmonitoring is a routine internal organisational activity aimedat ensuring that projects deliver their expected results.EvaluationAccording to Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman (2004:16), evaluationis ‘the systematic application of social research proceduresfor assessing the conceptualization, design, implementationand utility of social intervention programmes’. TheDepartment of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation(DPME 2011:vii) understands evaluation as the systematichttp://www.aejonline.orgOriginal Researchcollection and objective analysis of evidence on publicpolicies, programmes, projects, functions and organisationsto assess issues such as relevance, performance (efficiencyand effectiveness), value for money, impact and sustainabilityand recommend the way forward. In this sense, evaluation isa time-bound activity conducted over predetermined periodsthat compare planned and actual performance (Govender2011:75).Interrelationship between monitoring andevaluationConceptually, monitoring and evaluation are complementaryactivities. While monitoring is a routine activity that assessesan intervention’s progress towards the realisation of its goals,evaluation is an in-depth assessment of its value that seeks todetermine the reasons for the observable effects of aprogramme. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation reinforceeach other. This is shown in Table 1.Benefits of monitoring and evaluation in localgovernmentIn broad terms, both monitoring and evaluation activitiesoffer certain benefits if they are conducted correctly and theresults are correctly interpreted. In local government,monitoring and evaluation facilitates policy developmentand proper financial management as well as enablingmunicipal functionaries to align their interventions withnational government’s priorities (National Treasury 2010:5).According to Engela and Ajam (2010:11), monitoring andevaluation systems are used to provide information thatenables the promotion of good governance and accountabilityin government.It follows that monitoring and evaluation provides thenecessary impetus to enhance basic services delivery(Schurink & Schurink 2010:16). While the provision of basicservices has remained a continuing challenge in SouthAfrican local government, renewed understanding of theimportance of monitoring and evaluation among publicservants could change this situation. Furthermore, publicservants are beginning to understand their role in ensuringthe timeous achievement of set goals.TABLE 1: Complementary roles of monitoring and evaluation.MonitoringEvaluationIt is continuous – analysis on the ongoing It is periodic – judging the overall meritsprogress of a project towards achieving of an intervention.planned results.Ensures accountability of anintervention.Relies more on detailed data fordecision-making.Routinely collects data on indicators.Assesses the contributions of activities toresults.Translates programme objectives intoperformance indicators, capturingplanned results as well.Captures both intended and unintendedresults.Conducted by people usually involveddirectly in implementing anintervention.Conducted usually by an independentassessor who is impartial in his or herjudgement of an intervention.Produces regular reports and updatesfor management and project staff.Produces evaluation reports withsuggested recommendations for changesto an intervention.Source: Govender 2011:77Open Access
Page 3 of 8There is growing appreciation of the fact that the outcomesand impact of government interventions are linked to basicservices provision; therefore, local government that is notdelivering quality sustainable services is failing in itsconstitutional mandate. This has prompted nationalgovernment to implement performance contracts for allpublic servants, especially those in leadership positions toaccurately measure individual staff productivity. The benefitsof monitoring and evaluation are summarised in Box 1.Institutionalisation of monitoringand evaluation in South Africanlocal governmentAs the sphere of government that is closest to citizens, theConstitution of the Republic of South Africa mandates localgovernment with the responsibility of delivering publicservices equitably and fairly (Koma 2010:113). The primaryaim of this constitutional mandate is to reverse theunderdevelopment created by the apartheid regime. In thisregard, national government envisages local government thatis capable of working with citizens in their locality to addresstheir challenges and provide collaborative, sustainablesolutions. However, Davids (2011:3573) notes that manymunicipalities across the country are struggling to fulfil thismandate, especially given the change from an inward-lookingapproach, that is, an approach focusing on municipal internalprocesses, to an outward-looking approach, meaning onethat focuses primarily on citizens. Regrettably, most citizensare still wallowing in abject, chronic poverty, whileunemployment and inequality are growing apace. The onusis on local government to address these challenges.In response to this dilemma and in order to improvegovernment performance, the national governmentdeveloped the Government-Wide Monitoring and EvaluationSystem. This framework aims to enable national governmentto improve governance and resource allocation across alldepartments and agencies. It sets out specific interventionobjectives, inputs, outputs, outcomes and expected impact toensure that government delivers in line with citizens’ needs(Presidency, 2011:11). The government envisages a functionaland effective public service that: facilitates intergovernmental planning facilitates cooperative governance in achieving effectiveand sustained services delivery effectively monitors the implementation of governmentinterventionsOriginal Research continuously and accurately evaluates these interventionsto generate insights that inform future interventions,decision-making and policy development provides advisory services to government departmentswith regard to their interventions and suggests correctiveactions if they are not delivering the desired results.It is important to note that the success of this frameworkdepends on support from other key stakeholders who provideoversight of different critical aspects. For instance, thePresidency is responsible for coordinating the implementationof national policies through government departments toensure integrated service delivery (National Treasury 2010:17).Another key stakeholder is Statistics South Africa, thegovernment agency responsible for collecting and analysingdata to generate accurate information to inform governmentpolicy planning processes as well as decision-making(Govender 2011:71). The Public Administration Leadershipand Management Academy, now the National School ofGovernment, is a critical stakeholder as it is tasked withbuilding the leadership and management capacities of middleand senior government officials, including their knowledgeof monitoring and evaluation (Govender 2011). These andother stakeholders, such as the DPME, office of the AuditorGeneral, office of the Premier and the Public ServiceCommission, need to ensure that government-widemonitoring and evaluation is undertaken responsibly byrelevant line departments as shown in Figure 1.Cons tu onal PowerLegal PowerAuditor-General Independent monitoringof compliance; Auditing of performanceinformation; Reporting to parliamentNa onal Treasury Expenditure reviews; Budget and quarterlyfinancial repor ng; Regulate five-year andannual plans andquarterly repor ngPublic ServiceCommission Independent monitoringand evaluation of publicservice; Focus on adherence topublic service principlesin constitutions; Reporting to parliamentExecu ve PowerPresidencyNational PlanningCommission (NPC) Produce 20-yearsplan;Department ofPerformance andEvaluation (DPME)Department ofCoopera ve Governance Produce government(COGTA)wide frameworks; Facilitate government Regulate localfive-year plans forgovernment planning;priorities; Monitor performance Monitor and evaluateof local government;plans for priorities; Monitor management Intervention powerspractices ofover local governmentgovernmentDepartment of PublicAdministration (DPSA)Line departments(na onal/provincial)Source: Phillips et al. 2014:394FIGURE 1: Government departments responsible for monitoring and evaluationin the public service and their source of authority.BOX 1: Summary of the benefits of a monitoring and evaluation system in local government.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10. evelopment of accurate baselines that are used to set realistic targets;D Generation of useful information that enhances decision-making and policy development processes within a local municipality; Improved utilisation of financial and other resources, leading to better basic services provision; Reporting on programmes and projects is enforced as the system demands that information is collected and processed so that it can inform policy development and decisionmaking; Increased interdepartmental and inter-unit collaboration as a result of the interlinked nature of government interventions, ultimately increasing intergovernmentalcoordination; Heightened awareness by municipal functionaries of the importance of understanding a government intervention for effective execution, especially when goals, inputs,outputs, outcomes and impact are clearly spelt out; Enhanced quality of information required as the culture of monitoring and evaluation is embraced and appreciated by municipal functionaries; Increased accountability within local municipalities, as municipal functionaries are assessed against agreed performance targets; As a result of increased accountability, good governance is enhanced, thereby restoring the dignity of local government as the sphere of government closest to citizens; Improved capacity to manage change at local municipality level because of information gathered through the system.Source: Kariuki 2017:211http://www.aejonline.orgOpen Access
Page 4 of 8At the provincial level, provincial-wide monitoring andevaluation systems are established to ensure that provincialdevelopmental objectives are realised. This includes thecoordination of interdepartmental efforts in terms of policyformulation, review and planning as well as overseeing basicservices delivery (Govender 2011:106). However, challengeshave been reported in institutionalising monitoring andevaluation systems at the provincial level, including complexreporting mechanisms and non-alignment of provincialobjectives with national priorities. It is important to note thatboth national and provincial monitoring and evaluationlevels are interlinked and interdependent. They are designedto complement and depend on one another in order to ensureconsistency in tracking government performance on itsprogrammes. At local level, the integration of monitoring andevaluation has been fragmented and uncoordinated. Becauseof a lack of human and financial resources, municipalitieshave not implemented a MWMES (Govender 2011:107).Monitoring and evaluation have thus not been institutionalisedat this level. The following section discusses this question.Challenges associated with theinstitutionalisation of monitoringand evaluation in South Africanlocal governmentAs noted in the previous section, an effective monitoring andevaluation system delivers because it is owned by thoseresponsible for leadership at any level of governance.Govender (2011:88) argues that in order to institutionalise amonitoring and evaluation system in a sustainable manner,municipal leadership should appreciate that the system is acritical management tool to guide its performance. That thisis not the case at present is demonstrated by the increase inservice delivery protests by citizens who are frustrated by theslow pace of basic services provision.The second challenge associated with the institutionalisationof monitoring and evaluation at the local government level isthe lack of competent technical personnel skilled inmonitoring and evaluation (Uys 2010:4–5). While significantinvestment has been made in improving public servants’skills, the State of Municipal Capacity Report for 2010/2011reveals that major capacity shortfalls persist in most localmunicipalities (SMCR 2012:8). The deficits are generallyhigher in rural than urban municipalities (Ajam 2012:4–5).The lack of critical personnel is a catastrophic situation that isa significant impediment to basic services provision.Thirdly and connected to the above point, most municipalitiesare unable to accurately align their integrated developmentplans with the provincial growth and development strategy,which leads to lack of alignment of priorities betweenmunicipalities and premiers’ offices. Therefore, the vision thatmunic
Post-apartheid South Africa faces major challenges in ensuring that it provides high quality and . commonly referred to as the ‘Batho Pele’ (a Sesotho phrase meaning ‘people first’) principles . is ‘the systematic application of social research procedures for assessing the conceptualization, design, implementation .
telemetry 1.24 Service P threshold_migrator 2.11 Monitoring P tomcat 1.30 Monitoring P trellis 20.30 Service P udm_manager 20.30 Service P url_response 4.52 Monitoring P usage_metering 9.28 Monitoring vCloud 2.04 Monitoring P vmax 1.44 Monitoring P vmware 7.15 Monitoring P vnxe_monitor 1.03 Monitoring vplex 1.01 Monitoring P wasp 20.30 UMP P .
What is Media Monitoring and How Do You Use it Monitoring: a history of tracking media What is monitoring? Getting started with monitoring The Benefits and Uses of Monitoring Using media monitoring to combat information overload Tools to maximize monitoring and measurement efforts Using media monitoring to develop media lists
SIRIUS monitoring relays: Perfect protection of machines and systems Monitoring relays 3UG451 / 461 / 463 monitoring relays for line and single-phase voltage monitoring – as 3UG481 / 483 also for IO-Link 10 6* 3RR21/22 monitoring relays for direct mounting on contactors for multi-phase current monitoring – as 3RR24 also for IO-Link 12 7 .
2.2 Monitoring surveys 7 3 Monitoring habitat 8 3.1 Food supply - direct measurement 9 3.2 Food supply - indirect measurements 9 4 Monitoring protocol summary 10 4.1 Monitoring otters 10 4.2 Monitoring habitat 11 SECTION 2:REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND PROTOCOL RATIONALE 13 1 Introduction 13 1.1 Monitoring otter populations 13
Network Performance Monitoring Log file monitoring Server Performance Monitoring Network Fault Monitoring Database Monitoring End-User Activity Monitoring End-user Transaction . Gartner forecasts that overall IT growth during 2009 will be worse than during 2001, when the Internet investment bubble
fessional monitoring software can be used to monitor company applica - tions so that factors like availability, bandwidth and general usage of the IT infrastructure are displayed transparently at all times. Separate Monitoring for Applications and Services Many monitoring solution providers offer bulk monitoring of application servers and ser .
Unit 1 Monitoring cubicle Unit 2 Unit n Plant Bus TCP/IP Air gap monitoring Relay out Vibration monitoring Relay out Control system Profibus DP Condition monitoring system OnCare.Health Hydro OnCare.Health Hydro is an online monitoring, analysis and diagnosis system developed by Voith Digital Ventures, combining the know-how and
Andreas Wagner PROFILE IT administrator, urbanist, manager, freelancer Main interest in organisational forms of urban labor & coworking spaces and professionalizing IT knowledge SKILLS Languages Mother tongue German, Fluent in spoken and written English, Fair knowledge of French, Basic Arabic Project Management Organized cultural events with budgets up to 20.000 and teams of up to 20 people .
