| Summary: | Masters in Public Administration - MPA === Monitoring and evaluation has in recent years been embraced by the South African government as a key feature of public service delivery. This has been used to promote efficiency in service delivery, good governance, to promote transparency in expenditure and promote financial accountability, so that set objectives can be achieved objectives. However, implementing Monitoring and Evaluation has also been challenging as a result of poor policy design, poor policy implementation, the lack of accountability and the lack of exemplary systems. The issue of service delivery efficiency remains paramount in South Africa, due to the increasing inequality gap, high levels of unemployment, service delivery protests and rising poverty. Assessing policy outcomes and impact is a weak point and major gap in policy evaluation in South Africa. This is reflected in the manner in which duplicate policies are continuously being created instead of making existing ones work, or improving upon them. More efforts should be invested into policy monitoring and evaluation instead of policy development. The study will investigate the above assertion by investigating monitoring and evaluation policy and practice in the National Youth Development Agency. The structure of this framework will be examined against the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation framework established by the South African government. The research will also examine monitoring and evaluation practice as carried out by the United Nations and the World Bank as they have a long history of practice. This investigation will look at activities, inputs, outputs, implementation constraints, outcome and impact assessment; it will also discuss monitoring report and policy/programme evaluation. The study will adopt a descriptive case study investigation by drawing on the viewpoints expressed by various scholars. It will also highlight policies which support and enable the practice of M & E in South Africa. This research is noteworthy in the sense that it bridges the gaps between Monitoring and Evaluation literature and Monitoring and Evaluation practice in an institution. Furthermore, it explores the complexities of Monitoring and Evaluation implementation in a department running various programmes.
|
|---|
