South Africa’s National Evaluation Plan 2020–2025: A Shocking Reality!

South Africa stands at a crossroads. The scars of economic inequality, social unrest, and institutional weaknesses remain etched in its landscape, while the National Development Plan (NDP) 2030 continues to serve as a beacon of transformation. Amid this, the National Evaluation Plan (NEP) 2020–2025—the eighth plan since the establishment of the National Evaluation System (NES) in 2011—promises to institutionalise accountability, refine policymaking, and most critically, bring tangible improvements to citizens’ lives.

Grounded in the National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) 2019–2024, the NEP maps out evaluations aligned with seven key government priorities, while extending its reach to municipalities and state-owned enterprises (SOEs)—an unprecedented step. This analysis evaluates the real-world effectiveness of the NEP from 2020 to 2025, using verifiable evidence, real-life impacts, and human-centred narratives—because policy should serve people, not paper.

The Steps of the National Evaluation Plan 2020–2025: Design, Implementation, and Scope

1. Foundation and Design

The NEP 2020–2025 draws authority from:

• Section 195 of the Constitution, which mandates efficient, accountable, transparent governance.

• The Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) (1999), requiring capital project evaluations.

• The Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Framework (2007).

• The NEPF 2019–2024, which refined the 2011 NEPF with emphasis on institutionalisation and strategic alignment.

Facts:

• Over 610 evaluations have been recorded in the DPME repository by 2019.

• 61 departments adopted departmental evaluation plans, conducting 475 evaluations.

• Evaluations now cover municipalities and SOEs, marking a pivotal expansion .

2. Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

The NEP introduced rapid evaluations, sectoral reviews, and gender-focused evaluations. It utilised six types of evaluations:

• Diagnostic

• Design

• Implementation

• Impact

• Cost-benefit

• Synthesis

Selection was based on:

• Alignment with NDP 2030, MTSF 2019–2024, and seven priority areas.

• Focus on vulnerable groups, time-sensitive issues, fiscal prudence, and institutional capacity gaps.

Year-by-Year Performance Analysis (2020–2025)

2020/21: A New Dawn under Strain

Key evaluations:

• GBV and Femicide: In response to alarming femicide rates—5 times the global average (Stats SA 2020)—a landmark diagnostic evaluation was launched. It led to policy shifts including a defined minimum core package of GBV services .

• Illicit Economy: With SARS estimating billions lost annually to illicit trade (tobacco, mining, and drugs), a diagnostic study aimed to inform crackdowns across sectors .

• Khawuleza District Model: Piloted in OR Tambo District, it sought to decentralise planning but faced coordination and funding challenges.

Challenges:

• COVID-19 disrupted procurement and stakeholder participation, delaying several evaluations.

• Fiscal constraints slowed implementation of recommendations, especially in SOEs.

Pros:

• NEP ensured evaluations began to influence real-time planning.

• Progress in GBV response, Early Childhood Development (ECD), and food security strategy.

Cons:

• Evaluations are often delayed, making findings obsolete.

• Poor follow-through in improvement plan implementation.

2021–2023: Institutionalisation and Recovery

Key advancements:

• Evaluation of public finance frameworks (MTEF/MTBPS) highlighted inefficiencies in budget cycle alignment.

• Impact evaluation of Youth Employment Programmes amid 46.5% youth unemployment (Q2 2021, Stats SA) revealed fragmented funding and skills mismatch .

• Diagnostic of Township Economies emphasised the failure of small enterprise funding to reach informal traders.

Real Impact:

• Changes in the BPSI programme increased support from 3 to 5 years.

• Grade R policy revisions focused on teacher qualifications, reflecting evaluation feedback.

Pros:

• Stronger interdepartmental collaboration.

• Provincial evaluation plans matured—8 of 9 provinces had full systems by 2022.

Cons:

• Only 25 of 71 evaluations had their improvement plans fully implemented by 2019, with marginal increase afterward .

• SOE governance evaluation exposed critical risks, but reforms were slow amid Eskom and Transnet crises.

2024–2025: Final Phase and Critical Reflections

By late 2024, progress remained uneven:

• Corporate Governance in SOEs: Evaluations confirmed misalignment between mandates and capabilities. Despite this, corruption persisted in Eskom and PRASA.

• Education evaluations saw curriculum refinement (CPTD, CAPS), but Early Grade Reading remained below national targets.

• Climate change mitigation assessments showed slow response despite intensifying disasters (2023 KwaZulu-Natal floods).

Domestic and Global Influences (2020–2025)

Domestic Factors:

• Budget constraints worsened by COVID-19 and low GDP growth (0.6% in 2023).

• Service delivery protests—peaking at 179 in 2023 (Municipal IQ)—highlighted failures in municipal evaluations.

• Widespread unemployment (32.1% overall in 2024) undermined evaluation implementation, as political pressure favoured short-term relief over evidence-based change.

Foreign Factors:

• Global downturns impacted investment evaluations and SOE funding.

• IMF and rating agencies pressured Treasury on SOE governance, nudging DPME to prioritise fiscal transparency evaluations.

• Cross-border migration—subject of the immigration diagnostic—fuelled xenophobic tensions, impacting social cohesion evaluation focus.

Lived Reality and National Voice

Real evaluations are not metrics—they are stories of South Africans.

Lungi, a youth in Soweto, completed a state-funded business course under a youth programme. The evaluation showed the curriculum lacked market relevance. She’s now unemployed, selling cosmetics on WhatsApp. Her story mirrors the failures of overdesigned but under-implemented policy.

Bhekizizwe, a community organiser in OR Tambo, welcomed the Khawuleza Model, but watched as municipal bottlenecks delayed promised services. His reality proves the need for operational accountability, not only frameworks.

Recommendations for a Renewed, Resilient Evaluation System

1. Make Improvement Plans Legally Binding

• Only 25 of 71 evaluations saw improvement plans implemented. Tie compliance to funding disbursement.

2. Reform Procurement in Evaluation

• Time delays (average 12–18 months) reduce relevance. Fast-track local service providers for rapid evaluations.

3. Integrate Citizen-Based Monitoring (CBM)

• Institutionalise CBM in rural areas to ensure evaluations reflect community truths, not bureaucratic abstraction.

4. Build Internal Evaluation Capacity

• Prioritise training in underperforming departments. Use peer-to-peer mentorship models to transfer skills.

5. Strengthen SOE Oversight via Evaluations

• Leverage findings on corporate governance to restructure boards, link outputs to real penalties.

6. Forecast Evaluation Impact Beyond 2025

• Link NEP 2025+ to emerging priorities: AI governance, climate migration, and informal economy digitalisation.

Conclusion: A Call to Action Rooted in Human Dignity and Truth

The NEP 2020–2025 made undeniable strides in institutionalising evaluation. It built a platform—but not yet the bridge—for policy to reach people. From crumbling municipalities to misaligned youth programmes, the gap between knowledge and action remains stark.

South Africa must now choose: Will evaluation be a tick-box exercise or a transformational engine?

To the policymakers: listen not only to data but to our people’s voices. To citizens: demand accountability not with rage but with resolve. To the DPME: push beyond plans—toward implementation that changes lives.

Let this NEP be remembered not for the reports it produced, but for the people it served. The next evaluation must not measure what we planned, but what we changed.

Aric Jabari, the Editorial Director of the Sixteenth Council is a Research Fellow at the Africa Programme of the Council