1 / 55

Review of the 2015/16 APP of the Department of Higher Education and its Entities

This briefing provides an assessment of the usefulness of the 2015/16 APP of the Department of Higher Education and its entities based on criteria such as measurability and relevance of indicators and targets. It also includes budget analysis and considerations for portfolio committees for performance monitoring.

nishimurar
Télécharger la présentation

Review of the 2015/16 APP of the Department of Higher Education and its Entities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 11 March 2015 Briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Department of Higher Education and its entities APP 2015/16

  2. Reputation promise/mission The Auditor-General of South Africa has a constitutional mandate and, as the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) of South Africa, it exists to strengthen our country’s democracy by enabling oversight, accountability and governance in the public sector through auditing, thereby building public confidence.

  3. Agenda Criteria used to assess usefulness of APPs Outcome of 2015/16 APP reviews 2.1 DHET 2.2 SETAs 2.3 NSFAS (no significant findings) 2.4 Other entities (No significant findings; for QCTO, the 15/16 Ministerial guidelines were not yet finalised at the time of our review) 3. Considerations by Portfolio Committees for performance monitoring 4. Budget analysis 4.1 DHET 4.2 SETAs 4.3 NSFAS 4.4 Other entities

  4. 1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP

  5. 1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP (cont.) We reviewed the 2015/16 APP of the department and its entities against the “SMART” criteria: • Measurability of indicators and targets • Relevance of indicators and targets

  6. 1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP (cont.)

  7. 1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP (cont.)

  8. 1. Criteria used to assessed the usefulness of the APP (cont.)

  9. 2. Outcome of 2015/16 APP reviews 2.1 Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) Scope We assessed the indicators and targets against the “SMART” criteria for the following programmes: • Programme 3: Universities • Programme 4: Vocational Continuing Education and Training (VCET) • Programme 5: Skills development Outcome No findings on measurability of indicators and targets No findings on relevance of indicators and targets

  10. 2. Outcome of 2015/16 APP reviews (cont.) 2.2 SETAs Scope We assessed the indicators and targets against the “SMART” criteria for objectives directly related to service delivery Outcome Significant findings for the following SETAs AgriSETA SASSETA FP&M SETA LGSETA MERSETA PSETA CATHSETA ETDP SETA

  11. 2. Outcome of 2015/16 APP reviews (cont.) AgriSETA Findings Goal 2: Establish private-public partnerships to encourage better use of work-place skills development • 52% indicators not well defined Goal 3: Strengthen agricultural and rural development processes and strategies to alleviate poverty, and promote food security and growth of the rural economy • 40% of indicators are not well defined • 56% of targets are not specific and measurable

  12. Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) Performance indicators not well defined

  13. Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  14. Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators and targets not time bound

  15. Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators and targets not time bound

  16. Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance targets not specific

  17. Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance targets not time bound

  18. Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators and targets not specific and measurable

  19. Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA) (cont.) Performance indicators and targets not specific and measurable

  20. SASSETA Findings Technical indicator description was not provided for audit purpose. As a result 100% of performance indicators in programme 4.1 and 86% of performance indicators in programme 4.2 were not well defined. Below are details of indicators relating to programme 4.2.

  21. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  22. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  23. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  24. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  25. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  26. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  27. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  28. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  29. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  30. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  31. SASSETA (cont.) Performance indicators not well defined

  32. FP&M SETA (cont.)

  33. FP&M SETA (cont.)

  34. FP&M SETA (cont.)

  35. FP&M SETA (cont.)

  36. FP&M SETA (cont.)

  37. FP&M SETA (cont.)

  38. Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (LGSETA)(cont.)

  39. MERSETA Performance indicators not well defined

  40. PSETA Performance indicators and targets are not time bound for programme 3 Indicator and targets are not relevant for programme 3

  41. PSETA(cont.) Performance indicators and targets not specific

  42. CATHSSETA

  43. ETDP SETA

  44. 3. Considerations for Portfolio Committees for performance monitoring Portfolio Committee should track any changes to the APP

  45. 4.1 Budget analysis - DHET Comparison between current year and previous year

  46. 4.1 Budget analysis – DHET (cont.) Economic classification Higher Education Budgets Budget vs Employee Costs

  47. 4.1 Budget analysis – DHET (cont.) Compensation of employees

  48. 4.2 Budget analysis - SETAs Legislative limits Admin expenditure: 10% Mandatory grants: 20% Discretionary grants: • 70% of which maximum of 7.5% can be allocated to project admin costs • 80% to be allocated for pivotal grants Government levies Currently still voluntary contributions Utilisation of government levies up to discretion of SETAs • 100% for discretionary grants (DG) • 100% for admin expenditure • Combination To analyse financial statements of prior years’ to identify government levies received and usage by SETAs

  49. 4.2 Budget analysis - SETAs Comparison between current year and previous year * Budgeted information excludes CATHSETA as the budget for 2015/16 was not available

  50. 4.3 Budget analysis - NSFAS Comparison between current year and previous year

More Related