Case Monitoring Programme

Name of Organization
Geographical Scope
Type of Initiatives:
Country
Regions:
  • Africa
Country:
  • South Africa
Purpose
Context as Performance Monitoring.
 
The Case Monitoring Project databases and tracks reported cases of public sector misconduct, maladministration and corruption in the Eastern Cape. The objective of the project is to establish what, if any, corrective action was taken in response to these cases.
 
The project maintains a public access website providing a detailed list of cases involving the 13 provincial government departments. It has consistently drawn public attention to the need for provincial government departments to institute, and publicise, corrective action taken in response to these cases.
 
  1. To hold politicians and public officials accountable for the prompt investigation and initiation of disciplinary/criminal proceedings and the recovery of public funds in cases of misconduct, conflicts of interest, corruption and maladministration.
  2. To ensure that Legislature oversight committees and constitutional bodies are informed of all such cases and the corrective steps taken; and to encourage these committees and bodies to ensure that government departments take steps to resolve these cases. 
  3. To raise awareness among civil society organisations (CSOs) and the general public of the negative impact of corruption and maladministration on public service delivery and on the realisation of socio-economic rights.
Area of Governance
Corruption
Public Administration
Website of initiative
Publications
C. Allan, R. Mates & U. Millie, Government Corruption seen from the Inside, (PSAM, 2002). All research output and analysis published on freely available website
Cost (specify currency)
1 057 million ZAR
Funding sources
Ford Foundation & Open Society Foundation.
Source of Data
Using a combination of own and existing data
Type of Data Collection
Administrative Data
In depth interviews
Random sample population survey
Secondary sources
specifications of type of data collection
Departmental Annual Reports
 
Government regulations compel provincial and national departments to provide data relating to the performance of each department. This data relates to service delivery environments, including issues relating to human resource. Newspaper reports drawn from the local and national daily newspapers. Information provided to the PSAM from government departments in response to PSAM requests for information regarding each case on the Case Monitoring Database. Interviews with stakeholders for corruption survey (Government Corruption seen from the Inside).
Measurement Methods / Tools Generated or Used
In April 2003 the design of the PSAM's Case Monitoring project database and website underwent a number of changes.
 
A strategic decision was taken to shift the focus of the project from providing detailed follow-up information on individual misconduct and corruption cases, to establishing how effectively government departments had responded to all reported cases. The new emphasis was placed on what, if any, corrective action was taken for an entire list of cases sent to government departments by the PSAM.
 
In discussion with government departments the PSAM had been criticised for focussing unduly on government's failures to redress cases, to the exclusion of its successes. As a result of these discussions, the project adopted the following monitoring methodology:
 
  1. Project researchers collect and database all reports of misconduct, maladministration and corruption involving public officials and politicians.
  2. This reported conduct is evaluated in terms of the legislative provisions, including disciplinary and ethical codes, applying to officials and politicians.
  3. In cases involving provincial cabinet ministers an assessment is made of compliance with provisions regulating conflicts of interest and the declaration of their private interests.
  4. A list of cases involving the breach of the Constitutional and legislative framework is sent to the head of the relevant government department with a request to clarify the details of the case and any corrective action taken. The department is also requested to categorise the listed cases as either resolved, potentially resolvable, or unresolvable.
  5. Once a response is obtained from the department, this is uploaded onto the PSAM website. In the event of a non-response the information is requested in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. Quantitative methods are used to statistically evaluate the performance of Departments in addressing cases of misconduct. Qualitative methods are used to assess if cases have been dealt with in terms of the existing regulatory framework.
List of Indicators
Case Monitoring Component of Scorecard:
 
Handling of Misconduct, Corruption and Maladministration
 
  1. Were cases of alleged corruption and maladministration involving departmental officials investigated thoroughly and timeously?
  2. Did the department charge officials with misconduct and convene a disciplinary hearing within a reasonable time-period in all cases?
  3. Did the department refer all cases for criminal investigation and prosecution after being made aware of them?
  4. Were implicated officials suspended (if the charges warranted suspension) in all cases?
  5. Did the department take adequate steps to recover public funds involved in cases of fraud, theft and corruption?
  6. Did the department report adequately on cases of fraud, theft and corruption to Legislature oversight bodies?
  7. Did the department communicate its corrective actions to the media and the public in all cases?
  8. Did the Minister responsible for the department demonstrate political will by taking the necessary steps to resolve all cases once made aware of them?
Main Outcomes (Products)

Main Users
Civil society
Media
Policy makers
Researchers
How to

Areas of Governance

Country Initiatives

Regional Initiatives

Global Initiatives

UNDP Support