Description
The Review of the Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA), commissioned by the JIPSA Secretariat in July 2007 was completed in May 2008. The ToR required a formative review of the JIPSA working model and processes and of the strategic approach adopted, in order to inform decisions about the future of JIPSA. The evaluation scored 3.40 out of a possible total of 5.00, which implies that it is of reasonable quality for a government evaluation. For planning and design, the score was highest (4.0) owing to the comprehensiveness of preparations made for the evaluation and the quality of the TOR.
The evaluation report also scored reasonably well (3.52) owing to the quality, thoroughness and incisiveness of its presentation and its addressing of the TOR requirements. The report is accessible to
the informed reader and comprises a highly credible review of JIPSA. Majority consensus amongst the 63 respondents on the intervention logic was captured in the form of eight propositions pertaining to JIPSA’s functionality, relative independence, access to authority, short-term mandate and the focused nature of its operations. The assessment of the evaluation yielded much lower scores for implementation (2.91) and for follow-up (3.04). In relation to implementation, the service provider supplemented the data collection with a review of media coverage of JIPSA, which delayed the finalisation of the report and necessitated inputs from the JIPSA evaluation consultant to a greater extent than anticipated. This suggests that the evaluation management should have been more hands-on throughout the process. The evaluation was nevertheless completed within its budget of approximately R450k. In terms of follow-up, a major event that occurred after the evaluation, and to some extent in response to the evaluation, was the establishment of a permanent body, the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC). The HRDC has subsequently been building on the foundations laid by JIPSA, although apparently struggling to achieve the ambitious skills development goals that are so desperately needed to sustain economic and infrastructural growth in South Africa. Overall thus, the evaluation was conducted ethically and to a high standard, but with additional external consultant input in
order to minimise delays in the final deliverable report. It was weak in the sense of lacking more hands on management; in its failure to obtain the views of the broader labour sector; and in not building
evaluation capacity.
