1

1. Introduction
CITATION Oti99 l 7177 (Otienno, 1999)A lot of third world countries have several countless projects and agendas in an effort to develop their infrastructure, thus improving the standard of living of its people. . Two characteristics that would play a part towards guaranteeing these are Monitoring and Evaluation. Although Monitoring and Evaluation are considered to be related, they are separate functions.

CITATION Oti99 l 7177 (Otienno, 1999)Monitoring is the endless valuation and assessment of a programme or project in relative to the decided execution plan. It is also a suitable management tool which must, if managed correctly, provide endless feedback on the project execution and also contribute in the recognition of possible accomplishments and constraints to enable appropriate decisions. Monitoring seeks at verifying whether or not the proposed objectives have been achieved. Monitoring is not simply about the transformation of inputs into outputs, but can also take place in many different forms. Physical and financial monitoring consists assessing progress of project or programme activities in opposition to customary schedules and indicators of success. Process monitoring is about classifying factors accounting for progress of activities or success of output production. Impact monitoring is about assessing the primary responses and reactions to project actions and their instantaneous short-term effects.

CITATION Oti99 l 7177 (Otienno, 1999)Evaluation can be described as a procedure which defines methodically and as accurately as possible the significance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and the effect of activities in the light of a project or programme performance, concentrating on the examination of the development completed in the direction of the accomplishment of the stated goals. In most cases, evaluation is not stated importance in projects, as what is normally considered as monitoring. Evaluation appeals on the data and information produced by the monitoring system as a way of analyzing the trends in effects and impact of the project. Evaluation carry out numerous purposes. Evaluation helps to determine the degree of accomplishment of the objectives. It determines and classifies the problems related with programme planning and implementation. It produces data that allows for collective learning which, in turn, contributes to better designed programmes, better-quality management and a better valuation of their impact. It helps in the reformulation of objectives, policies, and strategies in projects or programmes.

The main aim of this essay is assess the monitoring and evaluation system or systems currently deployed in the Republic of South Africa. Discussed below is the Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation system, its implementation and the role and responsibilities of various stakeholders.

2. Monitoring and Evaluation in South Africa
2.1 The political nature of Monitoring and Evaluation
CITATION Kha98 l 1033 (Khan, 1998)It is vital to be aware that political support is important for monitoring and evaluation, as it not expected to be an unstructured application by individuals or institutions mainly because it comprises of a rational and persuasive appeal. The necessity for political support for monitoring and evaluation in government is a worldwide issue.

CITATION Kus04 l 1033 (Kusek, 2004)Establish the need for political support for monitoring and evaluation. In South Africa, there have been numerous high level political statements supporting monitoring and evaluation, and internationally the correlation between monitoring and evaluation and development has assisted to position monitoring and evaluation in the front position, as being more than a device but also facilitating to concretely attend to development issues. The influence of such announcements and effects is that monitoring and evaluation gets strengthened at different levels and becomes accepted as a politically, administratively and socially adequate approach to encourage good governance, development and democracy. Monitoring and Evaluation has a sound political bias, and the method in which evaluation takes place will continuously attract attention from numerous quarters, as a variety of players use evaluation results to make political and economic decisions.

CITATION Nai06 l 7177 (Naidoo, 2006)When the public monitoring and evaluation of government is present, which may happen in democracies as a customary activity, decision-makers are under pressure to function within good governance norms, implying that they will be accountable for their action. The distinct nature of monitoring and evaluation in South Africa significances from its use not only to support management, but also to support the transformation agenda of the developmental State. Taking into consideration the history of apartheid with its rule of secrecy, public monitoring and evaluation could also strengthen democracy by encouraging activities that lead to better transparency and accountability of government and its procedures. The nature of monitoring and evaluation in South Africa branches from the essence of the developmental State, which in South Africa is thought to be responsive, relevant, transformative and pro-poor, all of which can only be accomplished if policy-makers and implementers have monitoring and evaluation methods that should be responsible for quality information for decision-making. Therefore the strategy of monitoring and evaluation systems is significant to promote the developmental State to achieve its developmental goals.

CITATION Nai06 l 7177 (Naidoo, 2006)In South Africa the capacity of monitoring and evaluation to be the instrument for transformation lies on the degree to which the political and administrative structures are responsive to promoting the favorable environment. Monitoring and Evaluation can effortlessly continue at the level of public speaking unless the statements on accountability and transparency are carried through by honest action that considers performance information and uses it to correct shortfalls. Monitoring and Evaluation should not be perceived as an end in itself, it should assist a comprehensive transformative agenda. In practice, there may be conflict to monitoring and evaluation because monitoring and evaluation liveliness goes to the core of organizational culture and tends to cause ripples and waves as it emphases attention on performance, and by association with individuals.
2.2 The Transformative Nature of Monitoring and Evaluation
CITATION Kho00 l 1033 (Khosa, 2000)The theoretical orientations or school of thought must be well-thought-out in relative to the South African context, given the types of monitoring and evaluation systems that exist. In such a context, those viewpoints which privilege the poor and largely resonate with the South African developmental State and its transformation bias would be important. In such a context issues of transparency, accountability, learning, empowerment, and a transformational bias that helps agendas that privilege the voiceless and poor are prioritized. The monitoring and evaluation purpose is subjective to the political views and the generation of knowledge as being important for social purposes. This view supports the overall agreement that monitoring and evaluation is expected to achieve in South Africa. This provides the core argument that monitoring and evaluation takes place within a framework. The context within which monitoring and evaluation functions is vital. This result in monitoring and evaluation taking the form prescribed to by context. It means that monitoring and evaluation can be proposed philosophically and methodologically to meet the necessities of such a context. There are numerous requirements for monitoring and evaluation which may be considered collectively as the building blocks of good governance in South Africa.

CITATION Kho00 l 1033 (Khosa, 2000)In the South African and Department of Social Development context, monitoring and evaluation is required to support transformation and could be biased towards concentrating on evaluating those areas that are important for social change. In the Department of Social Development, determining the influence of the social interventions turn out to be important, as all levels would need continuous feedback on progress to management, given the vastness of the budget and the social and political pressures that go along with this. If evaluation is about generating the silent voices to the forefront, then in transformative contexts such as South Africa, evaluative methodologies should be real for liberation evaluation. Participatory evaluation, which privileges marginal voices and perspectives is important and would promote governance models that are developmental. In South Africa, development is constitutionally required to be participatory, transparent, accountable and empowering.

2.3 Overview of the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)The Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation take the part of putting on the right track, guiding role in government’s long term planning, strategic planning and annual performance planning. This role entails given that evidence-based input on cross-cutting issues that have long term implications for development. The revised Green Paper on the National Planning Commission identifies 13 areas calling for a concentrated government effort, including employment, food security, energy security and water security. The national income dynamics survey, a longitudinal study implemented in 2008 to monitor human development and poverty transitions in South Africa, is another example of how research is used to inform policy. The Department influences the impartial of openness of public servants and accountability to citizens through making announced and unannounced visits to service delivery facilities. Furthermore, the Department assesses service delivery including response to calls logged with the Presidential Hotline.
2.4 The Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation System
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)The Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation system is designed to enable a flawless sequence of events centered on critical re?ection and managerial action in reaction to analysis of the relationships between the utilization of inputs, the generation of service delivery outputs, their associated outcomes and impacts. The government-wide system needs to be regulatory and clear about what information should be submitted to it by departments and other public entities. Also needs to be cooperative and flexible with regard to how information should be accumulated and who should be responsible for doing so. A capacity-building and best-practice promotion component to the system is mandatory so that those public service organizations that find it difficult to meet the prescribed standards are supported and assisted to do so. This could contain a forum or forums to promote monitoring and evaluation practices and methodologies.

2.4.1 Implementing the Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation System
2.4.1.1 Legal mandate underpinning Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation System roles and responsibilities
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)Roles and responsibilities of each interested party should be obviously de?ned and related to their mandate. Monitoring and evaluation resources are very limited across the South African public service. It is very important that the scarce resources available are utilized for optimal impact, avoiding both unnecessary repetition as well as omissions of key interventions. Effective coordination of efforts is of paramount importance.

2.4.1.2 The Presidency
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)Section 85 of the Constitution expects that the President, together with other Cabinet Members, have a duty to, inter alia, exercise executive authority through the advancement and execution of national policy and the coordination of the functions of state departments and administrations. The Constitution obliges that all three spheres of government work together and contribute in development programmes to redress poverty, under-development, marginalization of people and communities. The Presidency plays an essential role in the coordination, monitoring, evaluation and communication of government policies and programmes, and fast-tracking integrated service delivery. The Presidency also wishes to evaluate the implementation of government strategy, including its impact as measured against desired outcomes.

2.4.1.3 National Treasury
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)The National Treasury’s directive is enlightened by sections 215 and 216 of the Constitution, and other legislation such as the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) of 1999 and the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) of 2003. The Treasury’s commitment with the Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework revolves around guaranteeing that information on inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes reinforces planning, budgeting, implementation management and accountability reporting to promote economy, ef?ciency, effectiveness and equity, as well as transparency and expenditure control.
2.4.1.4 Statistics SA
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)The mandate of Statistics SA is enlightened by the Statistics Act (No. 6 of 1999). Section 14.6 (a), (b) and (c) of the Statistics Act makes establishment for the Statistician General to counsel an organ of state on the application of quality criteria and standards. Section 14. 7 (a) and (b) advises the Statistician-General power to entitle statistics produced by other organs of state as of?cial statistics. Section 14.8 clauses (a) and (b) allows the Statistician-General to comment on the quality of national statistics produced by a different organ of state and to publish such other department’s statistics.

2.4.1.4 Department of Public Service Administration
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)The mandate of the outlined Department of Public Service Administration is outlined by the Public Service Act. This department is accountable for public service transformation to increase public service effectiveness and improve governance. It acts as the guardian of public management frameworks, performance and knowledge management and service delivery improvement. It co-chairs the Governance and Administration Cluster and the Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group.

2.4.1.5 Department of Provincial and Local Government
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)The Department of Provincial and Local Government develops its mandate from the Constitution, Chapters 3 and 7 as well as other legislation such as the Municipal Structures Act of 1998 and the Municipal Systems Act of 2000. Its fundamental purpose is to develop national policies and legislation with regards to provinces and local government, to monitor their implementation and to support them in achieving their constitutional and legal mandate.

2.4.1.6 Of?ce of the Public Service Commission
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)The Office of the Public Service develops its mandate from sections 195 and 196 of the Constitution, 1996. The department has duties with regard to investigating, monitoring, and evaluating the organization and administration of the public service. This mandate also involves the evaluation of achievements, or failure to fulfill government programmes. The Public Service Commission also has a responsibility to encourage measures that would guarantee effective and ef?cient performance within the Public Service and to promote values and principles of public administration as set out in the Constitution, throughout the Public Service. For example professional ethics, ef?cient, economic and effective use of resources, impartial, fair and equitable service provision, transparency and accountability.

2.4.1.7 Auditor-General
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)Section 20(1) (c) of the Public Audit Act (25 of 2004) obliges that the Auditor General express an opinion or conclusion on “reported information of the auditee against pre-determined objectives”. Related requirements exist in terms of the Municipal Systems Act of 2000 and the Municipal Finance Management Act of 2003 at local level.
2.4.1.8 Provincial Of?ces of the Premier
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007) Section 125 (1) devolves the executive authority of a province in the Premier, who together with the provincial executive council, uses this authority through the development and implementation of provincial policy, the implementation of national policies in simultaneous function areas, and the coordination of the functions of the provincial departments. The Premier as the political head of the Provincial Government is also responsible for the implementation of Chapter 3 of the Constitution on cooperative government. The Premier’s Of?ces play a critical leadership role in the development and implementation of Provincial Growth and Development Plans.
2.5 Institutional roles and responsibilities
2.5.1 Legislators and Councilors
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)As agents elected by South Africa’s voters, Government and all its structures are accountable to legislatures and municipal councils. Legislators and councilors must use reliable and knowledgeable oversight of the bodies accountable to them, using insight gained from monitoring and evaluation systems.

2.5.2 Executive authorities
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)Should use monitoring and evaluation ?ndings in the political administration of institutional performance and for guaranteeing that desired outcomes and impacts are achieved. Also provide the bodies to whom they are accountable with comprehensive systematic reports on the institutions under their control.

2.5.3 Accounting of?cers and accounting authorities
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)Accountable for the regularity and quality of monitoring and evaluation information and the reliability of the systems responsible for its production and utilization. They need to make certain that quick managerial action is taken in relation to monitoring and evaluation ?ndings.

2.5.4 Programme managers, other line managers and of?cials
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)Instituting and sustaining monitoring and evaluation systems, particularly collecting, capturing, verifying and using data and information.

2.5.5 Designated Monitoring and Evaluation units
CITATION The07 l 1033 (The Presidency, 2007)Guaranteeing the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies by providing expertise and support as well as acting as a service core for related initiatives.

3. Conclusion
Monitoring consist of collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts as well as external factors, in a way that maintenances operative management. Monitoring intentions is to be responsible for managers, decision makers and other stakeholders with consistent feedback on development in implementation and results, also early indicators of problems that need to be corrected. It usually reports on actual performance against what was planned or expected. Evaluation is a time-bound and regular implementation that pursues to deliver reliable and advantageous information to answer particular requests to monitor decision making by staff, managers and policy makers. Evaluations may evaluate relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Impact evaluations inspect whether fundamental theories and assumptions were valid, what worked, what did not and why. Monitoring and evaluation when conducted in the approved manner, at the precise time and place are three of the utmost significant characteristics of guaranteeing the success of many projects. As scholars, we must also take note that each project might require distinctive necessities for this and that in such conditions, project managers and developers should try to develop appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. It is suggested that additional education be given to project managers in characteristics of monitoring and evaluation so to inspire them to use these tools regularly and correctly.

Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY Khan, M. (1998). The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. Evaluation capacity building: An overview of the current status, issues and options in evaluation, 4 (3): 310-328. .

Khosa, M. a. (2000). Democracy and Governance Reviews- Mandela`s Legacy 1994-1999. Pretoria: Human Science Research Council Press.

Kusek, J. a. (2004). Ten Steps to a Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation Systems: A Handbook for Development Practitioners. Washington, D.C: The World Bank. .

Naidoo, V. (2006). Observations on defining a developmental State administration in South Africa. Journal of Public Administration, 41(3): 479-489.

Otienno, F. (1999). The Roles of Monitoring and Evaluation in Projects. Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.

The Presidency. (2007). Policy framework for the Goverment-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Systems. Pretoria: Shereno Printers.