Overview of Peer Review programme Why peer review

Overview of Peer Review programme

Why peer review Power of peer learning l “Mayors learn best from other mayors” IULA 2001 Many approaches The seminar etc l Communities of Practice l Peer to peer exchanges l Peer networks l Peer review l

Approaches to review Qualitative SACN Peer review Learning NEPAD Peer review Control Donor project evaluation Quantitative

Purpose Local government helping itself l l Not inspectors but critical friends Identifies strengths as much as weaknesses Sharing learning l l Culture of critical reflection “Review panel members learn more than host” Change and on-going improvement l Supports

Process (based on IDe. A model) Intensive 1 week programme of extensive interviews/workshops/visits l executive leadership, senior management, middle management, frontline staff, ward committees, UACs, labour, neighbouring municipalities, NGOs, business, province etc Build picture of municipality against benchmark based on evidence On-going feedback/ discussion with CEO Presentation of conclusions to leadership on last day Written report (within 6 weeks)

Use of “ideal” benchmark to foster supportive learning culture Initial benchmark of “Developmental Local Government” l l Maximising social development and economic growth Leading and Learning Democratising development, empowering and redistributing Integrating, co-ordinating and managing To be developed as part of on-going project

Composition of peer review team Balance of senior politicians and managers crucial l l 2 councillors 2 senior officials (including CEO) 1 person from another sector Review manager Cities Network has established review panel pool l Selection important – balance

Joburg review conclusions “Consumer/service user focus Establishment of People’s Centres and call centre greatly improve customer/citizen access Big strides in building e-government capability l l Outstanding web-site e. Joburg l l Investment must be balanced with number of consumers who have access Big capital investment but not enough training to maximise advantage Some concerns re UACs building own distinct identity as against providing seamless joined up service to consumer More attention and focus on consumer/service user required l l awareness of issue but lack of substance – real service user care strategy needed Need to understand segment consumers better to provide better service (e. g. how reach out people without easy access, how different points of access function for different people etc)”

Evaluation of Joburg pilot review Review method simple, relevant and transferred Interesting and useful conclusions Much learning – review mindset and reciprocity Programme/logistics outstanding Review team functioned well Briefing and orientation of team prior to review Scheduling at appropriate time Prior buy-in from leadership of host Communication with organisation and interviewees The benchmark needs development

Next steps Develop peer review manual and guidelines (done) Conduct next corporate peer review – Buffalo City Build review management capacity Develop “ideal city municipality” benchmark project l in collaboration with SALGA/DPLG/LGTP/USAID (Hologram) Expand concept from corporate to strategic sectors l E. g eco development peer reviews, Cato Manor urban renewal Build partnerships and linkages l l IDEA and others (reciprocal reviews) National government (DPSA etc) Build into bigger programme of leadership and management development and support