SAQA All qualifications and part qualifications registered on the National Qualifications Framework are public property. Thus the only payment that can be made for them is for service and reproduction. It is illegal to sell this material for profit. If the material is reproduced or quoted, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) should be acknowledged as the source.
SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY 
REGISTERED UNIT STANDARD THAT HAS PASSED THE END DATE: 

Evaluate public sector programmes 
SAQA US ID UNIT STANDARD TITLE
242917  Evaluate public sector programmes 
ORIGINATOR
SGB Public Administration and Management 
PRIMARY OR DELEGATED QUALITY ASSURANCE FUNCTIONARY
-  
FIELD SUBFIELD
Field 03 - Business, Commerce and Management Studies Public Administration 
ABET BAND UNIT STANDARD TYPE PRE-2009 NQF LEVEL NQF LEVEL CREDITS
Undefined  Regular  Level 7  Level TBA: Pre-2009 was L7  16 
REGISTRATION STATUS REGISTRATION START DATE REGISTRATION END DATE SAQA DECISION NUMBER
Passed the End Date -
Status was "Reregistered" 		 2018-07-01  2023-06-30  SAQA 06120/18 
LAST DATE FOR ENROLMENT LAST DATE FOR ACHIEVEMENT
2024-06-30   2027-06-30  

In all of the tables in this document, both the pre-2009 NQF Level and the NQF Level is shown. In the text (purpose statements, qualification rules, etc), any references to NQF Levels are to the pre-2009 levels unless specifically stated otherwise.  

This unit standard does not replace any other unit standard and is not replaced by any other unit standard. 

PURPOSE OF THE UNIT STANDARD 
This Unit Standard is intended for elected political leaders and public sector officials involved with the service delivery activities at a top strategic level. This Unit Standard will enable the learner to utilise programme evaluation theory and methods in the operational of public sector and non-government organisations. The learner will be able to test the implications of these methods for the improvement of operations of an entity relevant to a supervised project.

The qualifying learner is capable of:
  • Identifying and understanding basic and advanced methods for evaluating public and private non-profit agencies and programs.
  • Understanding and applying the skills and information to implementing various data collection systems.
  • Understanding and applying the skills and information necessary to utilise expert panels, focus groups, and key stakeholders in program evaluation and policy analysis.
  • Understanding and applying the skills and information necessary to provide relevant interpretation and presentation of information to stakeholders and policy makers. 
    		•

    LEARNING ASSUMED TO BE IN PLACE AND RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING 
    All learners accessing this unit standard must be in possession of Level 6 Public Administration diploma, degree or equivalent. 

    UNIT STANDARD RANGE 
    N/A 

    Specific Outcomes and Assessment Criteria: 

    SPECIFIC OUTCOME 1 
    Identify and understand basic and advanced methods for evaluating public and private non-profit agencies and programs. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERIA     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1 
    The key concepts and outcomes of program evaluation are understood and explained in the context of the public and non-profit sectors. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2 
    The program evaluation process and its steps are understood and applied in a public administration context. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Processes include, initiation processes, planning processes, implementing processes, controlling processes and closing processes, quality processes, and communication processes.
     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3 
    Basic and advanced methods for in-depth analysis of evaluations, their designs, methods, combination of methods and techniques of analysis for evaluating public and private non-profit agencies and programs are understood and explained with examples. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Methods include, but are not limited to, goal-based evaluation, process-based evaluation, outcomes-based evaluation, mixed method evaluation, analytical methods.
     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4 
    The value, and shortcomings, of various program evaluation methods and concepts are assessed in own public sector context. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 5 
    Research design methods and frameworks for program evaluation are applied in various public administration contexts. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Public Administration contexts include, but are not limited to, public health, housing, administration of justice, prisons, and education.
     

    SPECIFIC OUTCOME 2 
    Understand and apply the skills and information to implementing various data collection systems used in program evaluation. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERIA     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1 
    Various data and information collecting methods used in program evaluation and their selection criteria are understood and described in a public administration context. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Methods include, but are not limited to, questionnaires, surveys, checklist, interviews, documentary review, observation, focus groups, and case studies.
     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2 
    The overall purposes and utility of various methods is understood and appropriately applied in collecting data for different program evaluation contexts. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3 
    The advantages of various methods for collecting data for different program evaluation contexts are understood applied in evaluation planning. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4 
    The challenges of various methods is understood and are understood applied in evaluation planning. 

    SPECIFIC OUTCOME 3 
    Understand and apply the skills and information necessary to utilise expert panels, focus groups, and key stakeholders in program evaluation and policy analysis. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERIA     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1 
    The overall goals and selection criteria of using expert panels, focus groups, and key stakeholders in program evaluation and policy analysis are understood and explained with examples. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2 
    The evaluation of clients'/respondents' reaction and feeling is understood and explained with examples. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3 
    The evaluation of clients'/respondents' learning is understood and explained with examples. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Learning include, but are not limited to, enhanced attitudes, perceptions or knowledge.
     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4 
    The evaluation of clients'/respondents' changes in skill is understood and explained with examples. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Changes in skill includes, but is not limited to, learning applied to enhance behaviours.
     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 5 
    The evaluation of clients'/respondents' effectiveness is understood and explained with examples. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Effectiveness includes, but is not limited to, learning applied to improved performance because of enhanced behaviours.
     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 6 
    The four levels of evaluation information that can be gathered are understood and used program evaluation. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Evaluation levels include, but are not limited to, reactions and feelings, learning, changes in skills, effectiveness.
     

    SPECIFIC OUTCOME 4 
    Understand and apply the skills and information necessary to provide relevant interpretation and presentation of information to stakeholders and policy makers. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERIA     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1 
    The process of analysing and interpreting information is understood and applied to presenting program evaluation information to stakeholders and policy makers. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Processes include, but are not limited to, evaluation goals, analysis of quantitative data evaluation of qualitative date, interpreting information, using approved research and evaluation methods and formats in a public administration context, records retention policy, quality processes, communications processes.
     

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2 
    Program evaluation report templates and reports are prepared for various audience level and content scope in a public administration context. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3 
    The role and profession of policy analysis and program evaluation in the field of Public Administration and the selection of persons performing evaluation is understood and explained with examples. 

    ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4 
    Results reporting issues are understood and explained in a public administration context. 
    ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE 
    Reporting issues include, but are not limited to, before-after data, computer software use, graphs, charts, impact statements, intentions, knowledge gain, legislation, margins of error, stakeholder interests, and step scale.
     


    UNIT STANDARD ACCREDITATION AND MODERATION OPTIONS 
  • Any individual wishing to be assessed (including through RPL) against this unit standard may apply to an assessment agency, assessor or provider institution accredited by the relevant ETQA, or an ETQA that has a Memorandum of Understanding with the relevant ETQA.
  • Anyone assessing a learner against this unit standard must be registered as an assessor with the relevant ETQA, or an ETQA that has a Memorandum of Understanding with the relevant ETQA.
  • Any institution offering learning that will enable achievement of this unit standard or assessing this unit standard must be accredited as a provider with the relevant ETQA, or an ETQA that has a Memorandum of Understanding with the relevant ETQA.
  • Moderation of assessment will be conducted by the relevant ETQA at its discretion. 
    		•

    UNIT STANDARD ESSENTIAL EMBEDDED KNOWLEDGE 
  • The Public Services Act.
  • The Municipal Systems Act and the Municipal Structures Act.
  • The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
  • The Promotion of Access the Information Act.
  • The Batho-Pele White Paper on Transforming Public Sector Service Delivery.
  • Public Sector Corporate Governance policies and procedures.
  • Public Finance Management act.
  • Methods for evaluating public sector programmes.
  • Data collection systems and utilisation.
  • Stakeholder interaction and utilisation in programme evaluation.
  • Interpretation techniques extending to public sector programme evaluation. 
    		•

    UNIT STANDARD DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOME 
    N/A 

    UNIT STANDARD LINKAGES 
    N/A 


    Critical Cross-field Outcomes (CCFO): 

    UNIT STANDARD CCFO IDENTIFYING 
    Identify and solve problems using critical and creative thinking processes in order effectively evaluate public sector programmes. 

    UNIT STANDARD CCFO WORKING 
    Work effectively with others as a member of a team, group, organisation or community to evaluate public sector programmes. 

    UNIT STANDARD CCFO ORGANISING 
    Organise and manage oneself and one's activities responsibly in order to evaluate public sector programmes. 

    UNIT STANDARD CCFO COLLECTING 
    Collect, analyse, organise and critically evaluate information in order to evaluate public sector programmes. 

    UNIT STANDARD CCFO COMMUNICATING 
    Communicate effectively using visual, mathematical and/or language in the modes of oral and/or written persuasion to evaluate public sector programmes. 

    UNIT STANDARD CCFO SCIENCE 
    Use science and technology effectively and critically, showing responsibility to the environment and health of others, as a tool to evaluate public sector programmes. 

    UNIT STANDARD CCFO DEMONSTRATING 
    Demonstrate an understanding of the world as a set of interrelated systems by recognising that problem solving contexts relating to public sector programme evaluation do not exist in isolation and that a variety of factors, sensitivities, stakeholders and politics may impact on overall evaluation processes. 

    UNIT STANDARD CCFO CONTRIBUTING 
  • Participate as responsible citizens in the life of local, national and global communities by ensuring that programme evaluation is effectively ensured for the wider community.
  • Be culturally and aesthetically sensitive across a range of contexts when evaluate public sector programmes. 
    		•

    UNIT STANDARD ASSESSOR CRITERIA 
    N/A 

    REREGISTRATION HISTORY 
    As per the SAQA Board decision/s at that time, this unit standard was Reregistered in 2012; 2015. 

    UNIT STANDARD NOTES 
    N/A 

    QUALIFICATIONS UTILISING THIS UNIT STANDARD: 
      ID QUALIFICATION TITLE PRE-2009 NQF LEVEL NQF LEVEL STATUS END DATE PRIMARY OR DELEGATED QA FUNCTIONARY
    Core  57827   National Diploma: Public Administration  Level 7  Level N/A: Pre-2009 was L7  Passed the End Date -
    Status was "Reregistered"     		 2023-06-30  PSETA 


    PROVIDERS CURRENTLY ACCREDITED TO OFFER THIS UNIT STANDARD: 
    This information shows the current accreditations (i.e. those not past their accreditation end dates), and is the most complete record available to SAQA as of today. Some Primary or Delegated Quality Assurance Functionaries have a lag in their recording systems for provider accreditation, in turn leading to a lag in notifying SAQA of all the providers that they have accredited to offer qualifications and unit standards, as well as any extensions to accreditation end dates. The relevant Primary or Delegated Quality Assurance Functionary should be notified if a record appears to be missing from here.
     
    NONE 


    All qualifications and part qualifications registered on the National Qualifications Framework are public property. Thus the only payment that can be made for them is for service and reproduction. It is illegal to sell this material for profit. If the material is reproduced or quoted, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) should be acknowledged as the source.