SITA on challenges of its IT systems for NC(V) qualification and progress report on procurement of DHET new IT system for TVET Colleges’ examination

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) with regard to the National Certificate Vocational (NC(V)) qualification backlog which had impacted on the graduates negatively and had contributed to the high rate of unemployment; as well as a progress report on the information technology (IT) system for the NC(V) qualification, and how it was assisting the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) on the procurement of the new IT systems for the technical vocational education and training (TVET) colleges’ examination.

 

At the last meeting, MPs were informed that the DHET relied solely on IT services from SITA to operationalize national examination process for TVET colleges. DHET and Umalusi had also noted that SITA had made numerous efforts to address the NC(V) certification backlog that dated back to 2007. However, SITA had been unable to honour its commitments. The Committee had then asked SITA to produce a plan to deal with the certification backlog.

 

The Chairperson noted that there was a pool of 70% of unemployed youths, which was attributed partly to the certification backlog, and it had become unacceptable for the certification backlog to continue. She expressed displeasure at the failure of SITA to produce certificates for students, noting that the solution could no longer be postponed, as the problem was affecting the economy of the country as a whole and the Department in particular.

 

Apologies from the Minister and Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training, Ms S Mchunu (ANC), as well as a notification of the late arrival of Mr Y Cassim (DA), were accepted by MPs.

 

Briefing by SITA on challenges of its IT systems for the NC(V) qualification

 

Opening remarks by the Chief Executive Officer, SITA

 

Dr Setumo Mohapi, CEO: SITA, acknowledged that the first object of the Agency when it was created in 1998 through the SITA Act was to improve service delivery to the public through the provision of IT systems that were properly maintained and secured, and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the work of government departments. SITA had not only failed to improve service delivery, but had become party to service not being delivered to members of the public by failing to produce certificates to graduates since 2007. SITA was currently proposing to the Committee a 12-month period to clear the certification backlog, based on a commitment to work closely with the Department and Umalusi.

 

There was a backlog of 70 000 outstanding certificates as at 4 June 2015, which covered the period between 2007 to March 2012. The period from December 2011 to 2014 showed a backlog of 87 000 certificates, while the backlog from November 2014 to date was 88 000 certificates. The total backlog was approximately 192 000.

 

SITA also acknowledged that when a decision was made to take the certification through Umalusi, it should have recognized that there certain changes that had to be made to the system, and those changes could not be treated as general maintenance work. A proper project structure, with clear rules of engagement, should have been drawn up. Opportunities to optimise the project team had not been realized, and the Agency was ensuring that nobody pushed the blame on to another department for not achieving its mandate.

 

He said that SITA had been faced with resource problems in the past. A restructuring had taken place in the agency in 2010/11 which had led to the sharing of some resources with other departments. The resources for the technical problem at hand were shared with the Department of Basic Education (DBE). The solutions that would be presented to the Committee would address the resource problems and provide focus on resources that had the right technical skills and the right understanding of the business rules within the Department. Apart from the challenge of shared resources, the resources were not sufficient in themselves. SITA had acquired new resources this year to work on the project, but while analyzing the capacity of the resources it had been discovered that the new people employed had only one year’s experience at a technical level in terms of understanding the business rules with regard to the certification backlog. The solution being proposed should, therefore, not require several months of training for these new people. A viable solution for the problem would lie in projectising the problem, with fair lines of responsibility and accountability for the people involved. SITA also had a proposal to bring in new people that would assist in the project management of this initiative.

 

SITA – DHET certification action plan

 

Mr Daniel Mashao, Executive: Systems Management, SITA, said that the purpose of the presentation was to provide a programme of action to resolve the NC(V) certification backlog within 12 months. Added to the agenda were three important points – project governance capability, project execution capability and new capability. These referred to the Agency’s resolve to treat the backlog as a project and not a maintenance project, as it had been treated in times past.

 

Part of the background was that the problem had occurred when a mandate had been given for the certificates to be issued via Umalusi, and had been backdated to the November 2007 examinations. The proper approach to resolving the problem would have been to consider it as a project instead of fixing the system through a general maintenance process.

 

In 2013, the Department and SITA had recognised that there was an issue with the certificate backlog and a request for information (RFI) and request for bid (RFB) had been published. Service providers had responded but could not commit to the project due to the back and forth interlinks between the changing dates of the examinations and the consolidation of bids. The service providers felt that the process would take longer than they were willing to commit. At the end of 2013, the RFB was cancelled by mutual consent between the Department and SITA, because SITA thought it would be in a better position to handle the project if it had to last for a period longer than had been anticipated.

 

Some of the constraints of the project revolved around the certification process, which was still manually driven. This referred to some errors that required inspection by people -- for instance, errors in names. Upon identification of such errors, the origin would be traced, either by going to where the exam was written or by looking at other documentation, since it referred to a problem of input into the system. After careful consideration, it was discovered that the current process would result in eliminating the backlog only after 2.5 years. The agency was also faced with resource constraints, as there were few people who could assist with the project, coupled with the fact that the project itself still required manual interventions.

 

The programme of action, after consultation with the DHET, was to the effect that the DHET would dedicate six full-time resources to the certification process. Umalusi would work towards reducing the response time to one day, as opposed to the current response time of two to five days. SITA would also provide a minimum of six resources – two resources would work fulltime on the project, two more on analysis, and two experienced resources would be in-sourced from Umalusi to assist with submitting complete data to Umalusi. SITA would also hire a project manager who would lead a single team of DHET, SITA and Umalusi in resolving the backlog.

 

The project’s governance capability was reflected in the percentage increment of the time invested in the project by the senior management team of SITA. For instance, the Deputy CEO had been requested to invest 5% of his time, instead of the current 2% on the project, and this would result in attendance at additional meetings on a weekly basis, to check on the progress of the project. He himself had also been requested to invest 10% of his time, as opposed to the current 5%, which would be about half a day per week on the project. The same would apply to the senior managers, in order to increase the attention being given to the project.

 

With regard to the project execution capability, the two system developers who were giving only 30 to 40% of their time to the NC(V) certification project would now give 60% and 50% respectively. Three other system developers would be moving from 50% to 100%, and would also be trained on DHET business. Two business developers would be brought in from Umalusi. This would result in having five people working 100% on the project, for the first time. (See attached document).

 

SITA would appoint an independent service provider to assist with project management, software development, software testing, and software implementation. This would add to the current resources of the Agency.

 

SITA’s expectation from the programme of action was to reduce the current time frame of 30 months to 12 months to complete the project. The diagram on the programme’s effect on timeframes showed some of the manual processes that took place in the Agency. After the DHET submits its consolidation request, it would go through SITA. When SITA received the report, it would pick up the exceptions in the report before sending it back to the Department. The plan was to cut down the process of sending the report back to the Department by having in-sourced people who understood the business to prevent the Department from disputing the report sent back. By using this project format, with the increased project governance capability, increased execution and new capability, it was expected that DHET days would reduce from 12 days to five days, five days for SITA, one day for Umalusi and the total days per cycle would be six days, which would result in the elimination of the total backlog within 12 months. (See attached document).

 

The summary of the action plan was that DHET would commit six resources; SITA would bring six resources full-time to lead the backlog resolving team’s efforts; and Umalusi would commit to a one-day turnaround time. This would result in a shortened period of the backlog processing from 30 to 12 months. Collaboration among all stakeholders had been increased.

 

Contributions from DHET and Umalusi

 

Mr Firoz Patel, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Planning, DHET, appreciated SITA’s openness and frankness towards the problem at hand, and also for presenting a plan of action. Some of the details in the plan of action would have to be taken back to the Director General (DG) and Minister, but the Department would be able to commit the resources being asked for. He noted that the 12-month proposal was a stretch from the initial two and half years, and requested a break down of the timeframes for each cycle so that the Department could prioritise the earlier dates.

 

With regard to the new project management that was proposed, the statistics had to be absolutely correct and the figures quoted by SITA had to be reconciled with the figures of the Department, especially because the numbers from the Department were already in the public record and the Minister had indicated those numbers in his budget speech, and had presented them to the Portfolio Committee.

 

Mr Feizal Toefy, Director: Office of the DG, referred to the procurement of the new IT systems, and said that a service provider process had been undertaken. A recommendation had been made to the adjudication committee and the DG had signed off the recommendation as to who the service provider would be. The Department was at the stage of contacting and negotiating with the service provider that had been identified for the new IT systems. It would take approximately 13 months to develop a new IT system.

 

The Department had engaged SITA in the procurement process. SITA had not made recommendations to the adjudication committee with regard to possible service providers that could assist with the development of new IT systems. The adjudication committee had then made one recommendation to the DG, which had been approved. The Department was currently engaging that service provider in terms of a service delivery agreement.

 

Ms Nadine Pote, Chief Director: Examinations, DHET, said that SITA had to indicate how long it would take to get the additional resources. The Department had admitted in the previous meeting that the problem at hand was a national crisis which required an extraordinary solution in terms of getting the human resources trained and functioning. The longer it took to train the resources, the more difficult it would be to meet the 12-month target.

 

Dr Mafu Rakometsi, CEO Umalusi, said that the efforts of SITA in coming up with an action plan would be supported. There would be a need to discuss the project plan further with the DHET and SITA, with regard to some areas. For instance, there may be a need to negotiate the 100% for a business specialist that would be brought in from Umalusi, due to the fact that these people may have other commitments at Umalusi. This would be necessary in order to maximize the input of such resources on the project while they were also busy with their jobs at Umalusi. Also, the team would work together to see if the project could be executed within a shorter period instead of the 12 months that had been proposed.

 

He suggested that a meeting comprised of the CEOs of SITA and Umalusi, and the DG of the Department alongside their technical team should be held, so that they could all come up with a clear consolidated plan, and reach certain agreements that would shorten the turnaround time of the project and also ensure no gaps were left in the process.

 

Discussion

Ms J Kilian (ANC) commended Dr Mohapi for committing SITA to the initial action plan. The project would not be possible unless the team worked from the same database. A factual basis for the action plan was requested, and the figures highlighted by Dr Mohapi should be put in writing so that the Committee could relate them to the figures already presented by the DHET. It would also make it easier to note the longest outstanding certificates and then deal with them before the others. Candidates should also be made aware that the matter was being treated with extreme urgency.

 

She raised a concern with regard to the execution capability, particularly with regard to the uncertainty around the availability of some of the people on a 100% time basis. Since the system being used by SITA was completely outdated, she wanted to know how SITA would commit to the project with the existing problems still at hand. Would the commitment to manage the project continue after the year, since the system’s development would take two and half years to complete? Why would the software development take so long? Did SITA have the capacity to prolong its commitment to ensure that the backlog was cleared?

 

Dr B Bozzoli (DA) wanted to know how long it would take SITA to appoint its own service provider. She asked if SITA had a professional project manager on board or would have to import somebody who would then familiarize himself with the project. She questioned why SITA had offered itself as a specialist agency if it did not already have a project manager and still needed to bring in a service provider, which would result in doubling the cost.

 

The recommended project governance was at too low a level. The project should be governed at CEO and Director-General level, and conducted at least once a month, where the clients and the service provider would meet to discuss the progress of the project. Clients should be included in the project and its governance, to avoid a mismatch of what the clients wanted and what the providers were doing. A professional project plan, with timelines and details of the various subunits that should be fixed, was requested.

 

The process of fixing the old system while a new one -- that would take a long time to set up -- was being purchased, was a complex issue. It was recommended that the project team should address both the fixing of the old system as well as the transition to the new system. Overall, there was no reassurance yet that the project plan would work.

 

Mr E Siwela (ANC) wanted to know why SITA had refused to make use of the assistance offered by Umalusi, even after acknowledging a capacity problem in the Agency. He asked if the proposed 12 months spoke to the issue of efficiency, how SITA would ensure that it cleared the backlog and the newly qualified students would get their certificates to prevent a repeat of the same situation, and why SITA had not prioritised the certificate backlog before now.

 

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) wanted to know how SITA would eliminate the backlog within 12 months, based on the current challenges it had with regard to capacity, vacant positions and unreliable data for the results of the students.

 

Mr M Mbatha (EFF) said that one of the reasons why SITA had not addressed the problem as a matter of urgency was because it had viewed the problem as a just a technical one, but had not realised that this technical problem had led to unemployment for thousands of young people, as well as doubts for some others who could not produce their certificates within four months after getting employed. It had become ridiculously expensive to entertain this problem, and the solution could no longer be delayed. He also noted that SITA was currently under investigation, and many of its tender opportunities were under scrutiny. It was therefore necessary for SITA to be honest with the Committee and with its project team on what was possible or not possible in accomplishing the task within the proposed duration.

 

Mr C Kekana (ANC) said that the CEO of Umalusi had said in the previous meeting that he could not give a promise on the training, and that the training could be done afterwards, but at the current meeting he had promised that the training could be done within three months, which was the legal framework for learners to get their certificates. He requested that Umalusi should move in to sort out the procurement preparations so that SITA could deal with the technicalities of training and the period could be shortened from 12 months to three months.

 

SITA’s response

 

Mr Mohapi responded to the issues raised. With regard to the issue of data, the numbers mentioned were the same as the numbers mentioned the previous week, which was 304 000, that covered the period until March 2014. However, SITA had had to anticipate more figures in order to avoid creating new backlogs and that was why a new cycle, covering November 2014 to March 2015, had been anticipated. This would also help in proper resourcing. The figures mentioned would be put in writing to ensure consistency with the figures already mentioned at the previous meeting.

 

With regard to the governing structure, a proposal had been drafted to the CEO of Umalusi and the DG of DHET. SITA now had a proper governing structure that allowed the two CEOs and the DG to have a feasibility report on the progress of the project on a monthly basis. Within SITA, it allowed the relevant board committee to have a written report on a monthly basis and an oral and written report on a quarterly basis. In effect, there would be progress report submitted to the executives on the project.

 

SITA no longer handled the issue as a technical problem, but now treated it with the sense of urgency it required. There had been a problem with the methodology employed in software development, coupled with the fact that the problem had not been treated as a project. The testing environment had also been problematic because after SITA had tested, DHET and Umalusi had found errors after re-testing. This was all linked to the methodology being used in the software. Most of the issues would be resolved if the right methodology was employed.

 

As for the resistance to the resources offered by Umalusi, SITA had had no justification for refusing to use the resources provided. However, there had been misunderstandings on the expectations of what the Umalusi team would do, as opposed to what the SITA team wanted them to do. The Committee was assured that the conditions that had been put to them by Umalusi to the effect that the resources would not just train people but would also work, would be accepted and that the resources would be put to work immediately, to assist in clearing the backlog.

 

He acknowledged that the backlog had not been dealt with at the right levels within SITA, especially at the executive management level. SITA’s operational management was very weak. All team members had been asked to look into the work being done for the departments that SITA served, so that all projects could be listed. The effect of the inactive management system was that the work had been carried out at a low level of management, and it had been difficult to prioritise. A commitment was offered to the Committee to the effect that this problem would be prioritised at all levels of the organisation.

 

Although the system SITA was using was old, nevertheless, it was the same system that had been used in other places. Therefore, the age of the system was not enough reason for not getting the work done. There was nothing stopping SITA from training people and getting competent people that understood the technical and business environment.

 

The fixing of the old system while purchasing a new one was indeed a very complex problem. However, awareness had been created and this would assist in having a smooth transition to the new systems. The timeline given for the new systems to be in place was 13 months. However, the proposed timeline for the old system to be stable enough to clear the backlog was 12 months. The plan was to clear the backlog with the old system, instead of depending on the new system.

 

He asked the Chairperson to give SITA an opportunity to come back within another month to give a much clearer project plan with proper data. It was also noted that software development should not take long if the standard practice on similar projects were employed.

 

With regard to the specifics on resourcing, the two people currently involved worked partly with the Department of Basic Education (DBE). The specialist from Umalusi used to work for SITA previously, and was familiar with the system. Therefore, they would be no need for new training to be conducted and this would be amount to additional capacity that was currently unavailable at SITA. The new resources would be new people coming in specifically for the project.

 

The reason why training could not be done more quickly was because the person in charge of training was also working on the system, doing the programming and data analysis, and also worked with the DBE. With the new resources coming in, there would be more focus on expediting the training of people who had been in the environment for just one year.

 

On project management capability, SITA had an enterprise project management office, which was one of the areas being reconfigured. SITA had requested the board to ensure that it was reconfigured so that it could be directly accountable to the executive committee of the organisation so as to get a total view of all the projects being done by the organisation. The office was currently not giving full feasibility to the executive committee and was therefore not effective enough, due to delayed projects. Improvement of its effectiveness was being looked into, and the first thing would be to bring it closer to the executive committee.

 

SITA was also considering the recruitment of an external service provider that would assist the entire team with project management, through employment of new methods of project management. It would also make sure that whatever personal issues that had existed in the last five years did not affect the progress of the project. Additional training would not be necessary, because the subject matter expertise training required was on the technical and business rules, and this would be addressed through the resources that would be coming in from Umalusi. These resources would be coming to look at the problem at a higher level, to simplify some of the processes that had been there, and create new ways of working, as well as new ways of managing the current resources.

 

There were people in the database section that could quote on specific projects. These people had been acquired through a formal process done through an open RFB conducted sometime ago, and this was the methodology currently adopted in acquiring new skills. Within a week or two, there would be people resident within SITA to help with the project management. This would also address the entire management of the different partners, as the SITA management team would be subjected to the same management team, like every other team present.

 

There was no justification on the part of SITA for not prioritising the problem of the backlog. The reasons could be traced to the state of affairs within the organisation, as there had been other challenges facing SITA. The Committee was assured that SITA would manage its operations better in future.

 

The training of the new people would be expedited. However, as far as vacancies were concerned, a restructuring had been conducted within SITA, and it had led to the sharing of resources among several departments, and this had resulted in people’s inability to focus on one job. The board would be approached to consider the effect of the restructuring and assist in providing focus for the departments, and also spot other areas where vacancies existed. The most important thing, however, was to focus on training.

 

On data integrity, SITA should be able to solve most of the data errors. It was abnormal in a proper software environment to have error rates of 80% or 90%. Part of the new project methodology would allow SITA to deal with these problems.

 

There should be no difficulty in producing certificates, even if it was a software problem. SITA therefore was committed to addressing the problem as quickly as possible.

 

Ms Pote reiterated that the three parties had to come together to agree on a detailed plan, in order to understand the different roles each party would play, after which they would submit whatever was agreed upon to the Committee.

 

Conclusion

 

Dr Bozzoli said that the agency should come back next month with a detailed project plan.

 

Ms Kilian said that SITA should submit to the Committee a three-month quarterly report showing the progress made and the difficulties or constraints faced along the way, to assist the Committee in carrying out oversight functions.

 

Mr Mashao said that the biggest issue was the issue of perspective, in the sense of treating the problem as an application process and not necessarily as a project with a start and end date. However, with the submissions made by the CEO of SITA, he assured the Committee that the Agency would come back to the Committee with a concrete plan.

 

The Chairperson said that the Committee was disappointed that the Chairperson of SITA was not present, and would appreciate his presence at the next meeting.

 

Mr Mohapi reiterated in closing, that SITA was committed to clearing the certification backlog, as it was a solvable problem.

 

Mr Patel, on the other hand, thanked the CEO of SITA for his resolve to tackle the problem.

 

Mr Rakometsi said that Umalusi was 100% committed to the project and was looking forward to the meeting that would be convened with the CEO of SITA, the DG of DHET and the technical teams.

 

The Chairperson, in concluding the session, said the problem at hand amounted to a national crisis, and was unacceptable. She expressed hope that the students would not embark on social action in the form of protests and the destruction of government property in a bid to trigger a response. As representatives of government, they were bound by the Constitution of the country, particularly Chapter 10, to the effect that accurate and timely information should be given to the public.

 

An accelerated plan was requested, as the proposed 12 months would be too long. A crisis intervention strategy should be adopted. The meeting between the three stakeholders, where proper analysis of the problem would be considered, should result a turnaround plan. The Committee would be interested in the collaboration strategy that the three stakeholders came up with. A highly qualified project manager who would place organisational interest above personal interest, should be recruited. The transitional plan from the old to the new system should also be submitted to the Committee. Workshops on attitude change should be conducted to help the Agency in identifying its goal and working towards achieving that set goal. The Department should also submit a quarterly report, and ensure that its monitoring and evaluation was intensified during this project.

 

Progress report: Eradicating student housing challenge in higher education and training institutions

 

Ms Diane Parker, DDG for University Education, DHET, said that a ministerial committee had been appointed to investigate student accommodation at universities in 2010. The report from the investigation had shown the status of student housing at that time and the dire need for improve student housing across the system. The report had shown that 20%, or about 107 000 students, were accommodated in on-campus accommodation and by the universities. Some students were also accommodated on off-campus accommodation, in terrible conditions. It had also shown that there was a bed shortage in 2010 of almost 200 000 spaces, and the shortage had been projected to increase to about 208 000 beds by 2013. The figure had been calculated, based on the ideal number of beds in the institutions. The government and the universities therefore needed an affordable and innovative model for effectively addressing the bed shortage. Currently, the Department was working on infrastructure processes, but it would take about two years to develop new infrastructure in the system. The DHET believed that a one-size-fits-all approach would not work, due to the variance of universities.

 

At the time of the report, the cost of overcoming the shortage over a period of ten years, based on the 2010 prices, had been estimated at R82.4 billion, while the estimated cost for a 15-year period would be R109 billion. The cost was based on the estimate of R240 000 per bed space in a residence, which was calculated to include not just the bed but a reading and learning environment that had conducive rooms for students to study, spaces for students to meet and discuss, as well as dining facilities. The amount had also been estimated on approximately 50% to 80% of contact students that would be accommodated, depending on the university. This would translate to 80% in the rural context and 50% in the urban context, although it would be acceptable to consider 30% for the urban context if there was sufficient off-campus accommodation offered in the area. If escalations over a 15-year period were to be calculated, the Department would require an estimated R147 billion.

 

The Department recognised that the problem was related not only to shortages of new accommodation, because current conditions in many residences were not conducive and backlog maintenance was a major issue, particularly in some of the historically disadvantaged institutions (HDIs) that had deferred maintenance over a number of years, and had also allowed for overcrowding of these residences. The report had shown that a room meant for two people was sometimes occupied by eight people.

 

As part of the process for the next infrastructure plan in the cycle, the Department had asked every university to conduct a backlog of maintenance audit so as to understand the issues that existed around maintenance. According to the report from the universities, the estimate for the maintenance and refurbishment backlog for student housing across the system was in the order of R2.5 billion. If the existing residences were to be modernized to make them fit for purpose for 21st century universities, another R1.9 billion would be required. In other words, a total of R4.4 billion would be required to refurbish and modernize the current stock without adding new beds. The DHET had prioritised student housing in its infrastructure programme.

 

The infrastructure grant that had been provided during the previous three-year cycle showed that the largest amount had been allocated to student housing. R1.4 billion had been allocated for upgrading and creating new student housing for historically disadvantaged universities, while R239.1 million had been allocated for upgrading other universities.

 

Three funding cycles had been developed by the Department since the beginning of the infrastructure development programme in 2007. During the first two cycles, a total of R1.3 billion of the total amount had been allocated to student housing, and the total amount had been R6 billion. During the third cycle, a total of R1.651 billion had been specifically allocated to student housing out of the total of R6 billion, and an amount was allocated to historically disadvantaged individuals (HDIs). The third round of funding had been supplemented by a further contribution of R700 million from the universities themselves, which had resulted in a total of R2.3 billion. This represented significant funding towards the student housing backlog but in actual fact, it had resulted in only 9 000 new bed spaces in the universities for student accommodation, as opposed to the 208 000 bed spaces required.

 

The Department was yet to support the innovative building technologies (IBTs) due to a lack of agreed standards, but the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) had been appointed by the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission (PICC) to develop the IBTs. Nevertheless, some universities, like the University of Stellenbosch, were already experimenting with the IBTs for residences which could reduce the cost and enable the Department to develop more residences based on the available funds.

 

The ministerial report had recommended that the DHET develop a policy on student housing that would guide the system. This was based on the recognition that different standards existed across the universities and it was necessary to set guidelines and standards that all universities could use in developing student housing to the same standard. The draft policy had been developed and a government gazette had been published in April 2012. Comments had been received and were being analysed, and a draft final policy had been developed, but it was awaiting the Minister’s approval. When the policy was submitted to the Minister, he had asked if it could be put in place without an assurance on funding. This called for a need to engage the National Treasury and other partners in order to establish how the DHET could develop a funding policy, and explained the reason why the policy was yet to be gazetted. However, the plan was to have the final policy published by September 2015 with clear guidelines on how it would be implemented and what the transitional programme would be.

 

The DHET recognised that most universities were not able to build a large number of new beds without substantial additional capital contributions. The Department could provide these kinds of contributions, but the universities would still require additional funding to support themselves. The Department had engaged with various stakeholders, such as the PICC, the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA), the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), National Treasury, and the Association for Savings and Investment South Africa (ASISA) in order to find a feasible funding model to support the development of student housing.

 

The Department had also found that there were many policy restrictions and challenges which made it very difficult to find suitable models, particularly for institutions with financial constraints. A feasibility study with DBSA was currently being undertaken, to access EU and Infrastructure Investment Programme for South Africa (IIPSA) funding. In the meantime, the PICC through the CSIR had developed guidelines for procuring IBTs for student housing, and this had to be finalised through a discussion with the Department on how it would be used for universities as a cost-effective solution.

One of the problems encountered in giving additional funding was the need for developers to get guarantees. The Department was trying to develop a special purpose vehicle and off-balance sheet funding, which also had its own complications. The PIC and University of Fort Hare (UFH) process had not been successful. The DBSA requirements could also not be met -- for instance, the rates they were charging were higher than the commercial bank rates.

 

The DHET recognised that public private partnerships (PPPs) could be a way forward. However, the current models offered were not affordable to students, because there were business propositions for the PPPs, such as guarantees of occupancy. The Department had to find a balance between affordability for students and meeting minimum standards, as well as developing what was really social housing.

 

With regard to technical vocational education and training (TVET) colleges, TVET colleges were not part of the ministerial review on student housing. In 2013, a survey had been done on student housing in TVET colleges. The survey had been done by questionnaire to institutions, and the results had not been verified nor deliberated upon. Also, only 40 of the 52 institutions had responded to the survey, so the response did not represent the total number. The first survey showed that 27 of the 42 colleges that responded had indicated that they had student housing and that there were 10 120 available beds across the 27 colleges. The percentage of that figure, when compared to the number of enrolled students at that time, was 1.4%. It had also been indicated that there were 16 133 students in private accommodation.

 

Provision of student accommodation for students with disabilities had been very low, and non-existent in some colleges. The provision of student accommodation in TVET colleges was inadequate, but it should be noted that TVET college campuses were more accessible and widespread than university campuses. The Department had to undertake some credible research on the required needs for student housing for TVET colleges.

 

The unavailability of a DHET infrastructure grant for colleges posed another challenge. The Department would have to lobby with the National Treasury to provide a dedicated grant to develop infrastructure in the colleges. Currently, the infrastructure in the colleges was supported by the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). Affordability was also a challenge, as most students relied on the NSFAS bursary scheme.

 

A significant proportion of the 2015/16 – 2017/18 university infrastructure funding cycle would be allocated to student housing and backlog maintenance. The Minister would hold a student housing symposium on 22 June 2015, where a wide range of stakeholders would be engaged to look at ways to fund and accelerate the provision of student housing. A committee would also be established to further investigate some of the opportunities and proposals made at the symposium in a bid to find sustainable solutions.

 

The Department would gazette the policy on student housing that would set out the guidelines and standards to be met for all student residences, both new and existing ones, and in particular to private owners of residences that were in a relationship with universities for student housing.

 

Discussion

Mr Y Cassim (DA) wanted to know if the Department had a copy of the recommendations that were proposed in the 2011 ministerial report, and how many of those recommendations had been implemented currently within the system. One of the recommendations had referred to complaints and allegations of maladministration, corruption and nepotism being rigorously investigated by the Department and stiff actions being taken against offenders, and he wanted to know if the Department had created channels for those types of allegations to be brought to its attention. Was there information on the current existing problems and on the costs that had changed since the 2010 analysis by the Department? If such current figures existed, they should be submitted to the Committee.

 

When would the standards for the IBTs be developed by CSIR, and was there a way the process could be expedited? Would a proper analysis on the shortages at TVET colleges be done, since the figures from the survey could not be relied upon? Could statistics be provided on the private accommodation that was funded through NSFAS? With regard to the link between NSFAS funds and accommodation, especially in relation to private accommodation service providers, what was the Department’s plan to deal with the issue of university management colluding with private accommodation service providers to siphon money for their own benefit, to the detriment of the students, and particularly in TVET colleges? There were a number of TVET colleges that would provide an accommodation allowance to students which could be received only at the end of the year, after students had fulfilled a percentage of class attendance, but most of the time students in the same financial and geographical circumstances usually received inconsistent amounts. Was the Department aware of that situation, and what would it do to address that situation? What was its plan to ensure that funds were effectively managed?

 

Mr Siwela wanted to know why a bed would cost R240 000, and how many new beds would be created.

 

Ms Nkadimeng wanted to know how the HDI students that came from an economically disadvantaged background would impact on the residence maintenance budget of the universities going forward. What mechanisms should universities put in place to recover residence fees? Why had the Department refused to support the request by the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) for R204 million for new buildings, when it was aware that the university had a massive shortage of student housing.

 

Ms Kilian said that there were innovative ideas that could be followed to provide accommodation for students at a cheaper rate. It was important for the standards to be stipulated, to prevent exploitation of students. Although the problem of student housing was not as serious as the certification backlog, it could be become serious unless an effective, affordable solution was discovered. There was a need to differentiate between the urban and rural areas because for the urban areas, there were limited spaces in the urban areas and high rise buildings would be required. How much interaction had taken place between the Department and metro councils to identify where the particular needs existed for student housing? Was the Department in a position to identify institutions where students on NSFAS funding required on-site accommodation or accommodation close to campus due to their financial constraints?

 

Mr Mbatha provided an example of how students were being swindled by the administration and service providers, by referring to the case of a TVET college in the Free State where the chief financial officer had taken more than R23 million of NSFAS funds from the accounts of students to illegal service providers to provide accommodation, rather than paying the direct service providers of accommodation. The students were currently going through blacklisting before they could finish their courses. The university council, university senior management and acting rector had suspended the officials, the CFO and one person that had assisted with the procurement. However, the management had been instructed by the DHET to reinstate the CFO, and the DG of the Department was involved.

 

He emphasized that he was in favour of the system progressing in terms of encouraging initiatives and partnerships where land was not available, but the details of such partnerships were important. The Department had to tighten the legality of these contracts, and also tighten scrutiny over the sources of the buildings. It should ensure that the inspectorate had confirmed whether a building was the right one, to prevent instances of sub-standard buildings that cost a lot per year for each student and which were duly accredited by university administration, as this amounted to a direct exploitation of students. The diversification of construction materials must be pushed by the Department, as it was the only way in which the brick and mortar buildings could be brought to book, and also to ensure that prices could be managed in accordance with the fees awarded to students by the NSFAS.

 

Department’s response

 

Ms Parker said that the Department was not sure how many recommendations from the draft policy had been implemented across the system. The DHET was certain, however, that all new student accommodation was being developed in line with the guidelines of the policy. The Department was setting up a monitoring programme in the university education branch. Part of the monitoring programme was the infrastructure monitoring programme, where DHET would look at some issues raised by the Committee and get the requested information on an ongoing basis.

 

In terms of where issues could be reported to the DHET whenever a problem arose, the DHET had a 24/7 call line that people could call to report a problem, and those problems would be referred to a specific branch that was responsible for those issues. The university education branch had a directory call sector liaison and institutional governance which dealt with queries, problems and complaints that were reported by the public, and a follow-up was carried out on such problems with the institutions. Sometimes the institutions could handle the problems themselves, but at other times, the Department would intervene.

 

Getting the IBTs in place was important, but the Department needed to have standards for them before it became open to issues around sub-standard houses. The IBTs used by the University of Stellenbosch cost about of R140 000 per bed, which was still a very significant amount of funding.

 

The Department was on the verge of starting an infrastructure audit across the various TVET college campuses. This audit would assist the Department in getting accurate information on the status of student housing for the system.

 

The link between NSFAS funds and accommodation, and the issue of the universities negotiating with service providers, was a serious concern for the Department because it had noticed that some of the service providers were not offering quality off-campus accommodation. This also spoke to the need to publish and enforce the policy, to ensure that the kind of contracts entered into between the universities and the off-campus providers were in line with what was required.

 

The costs for the beds also included the cost of land and bulk services, as well as every other thing that would be required. Better solutions had to be found in managing the process.

 

As far as the DHET was concerned, it had given TUT significant funding for its infrastructure development programme. TUT would have been given these funds based on its priorities. The Department had to prioritise since it had only R6 billion worth of grants for the last cycle, as opposed to the R14 billion worth of needs indicated by the institutions.

 

The DHET had to consider alternative accommodation that was affordable, like the container-beds highlighted by Ms Kilian.

 

The Department was in discussions with the Department of Public Works (DPW) to assist with identifying suitable buildings in urban areas that could be refurbished as student accommodation, even though this suggestion also had its own difficulties with regard to the issue of ownership. Discussions had taken place with the Tshwane metro council, which was planning to develop a student village.

 

The DHET agreed that there was a need to have contracts and to ensure that institutions engaged in PPPs got ministerial approval.

 

Mr Patel said that the research branch on TVET colleges was currently being capacitated. With regard to the audit, the Department was awaiting the EU funding to come through for the audit of all research institutions. NSFAS was providing almost 80% of learners at colleges with funding. When NSFAS got its house in order, it would begin to use its financial leverage to deliver infrastructure to colleges, instead of funds.

 

The Department was aware of the case of the deputy principal and the suspension case raised by Mr Mbatha. The first issue was that the deputy principal was employed by the DG and the Minister. The principal did not have the authority to suspend that official. Instead, she could have informed the Department and the Department could have put processes under way to suspend the official. Secondly, suspension was not a punitive measure, but was used to move people that were creating obstacles to investigations out of the way, preventing them from destroying evidence or intimidating people. Thirdly, the Department was likely to lose the case, because the officials had not been suspended by their employer, who was the DG. The DG had had to handle the process and had told the principal that she did not have the power to suspend. The matter had not got to the Council. The Department had to ensure that things got back to normalcy within the rule of law. The Department had lost another case in the Eastern Cape because it was busy with forensic investigations. However, in terms of the Promotion of Administration of Justice Act, if an institution was under investigation, there should be no delving into individual and personal affairs so that a fair administrative justice process could be ascertained. This explained why the Department could not water down the evidence of a case after allegations had been made.

 

Mr Cassim repeated some of his questions on when the standards for the IBTs would be developed. What were the Department’s plans to address the situation of NSFAS funds in relation to PPPs? What timelines had been set for the audit infrastructure of the TVET colleges? What reasons existed for the disparity in the allocation of NSFAS funds given to students with similar geographic and financial situations in TVET colleges? What were the Department’s plans to resolve the infrastructure backlog? Did the Department have a strategic plan to redress the backlog and address the issue on a sustainable basis?

 

Mr Siwela repeated his question on the specific number of beds that would be provided by the Department. He also wanted to know what recourse was available to a student who had been allocated NSFAS funding, but could not access it due to corruption within the university’s administration.

 

The Chairperson asked for accurate information from the Department, especially with regard to the fee-free education policy for TVET colleges.

 

Mr Patel said that timelines could not be given on the audit infrastructure for TVET colleges, because the process followed a particular order. The parliamentary rules of the European Commission had set out a specific plan in terms of supporting South Africa. The Department, as part of a joint project between the university branch and the research branch, was creating a lecturer development process and there was a grant of about €13 million. Business plans and an indicative framework had been done, but the inter-governmental international agreement had to be ratified by the European Parliament just the way the South African parliament would ratify its budget. Once that had been done, the money would flow directly to the National Treasury, into the RDP account, and would then be available for the Department to use. The Department was, however, looking at other alternative sources for the funding.

 

NSFAS would be in a better position to respond to the issues around accommodation and transport allowances that were left unpaid until the end of the year.

 

National norms and standards for the funding of TVET colleges stipulated that colleges would be expected to raise 20% of tuition fees, and the other 80% of the fees would be covered by NSFAS. Fee-free did not therefore translate to cost-free, but meant instead that the fees set by an institution would be fully paid for by the State. There were other costs that had to be dealt with, such as student accommodation and family allowances.

 

The Department would have drafted many plans but there were issues around resourcing, and since the Members and Parliament held the power of appropriation, the Department appealed for the appropriation process to begin immediately.

 

The Chairperson asked DHET to revisit its plan, cut down on its budget, develop an efficiency plan after cutting down the budget, and still deliver on its mandate.

 

Dr Parker said that a timeframe could not be given on when the IBT standards would be developed, as they were being developed by the CSIR on behalf of the PICC. The DHET had met with the Department of Economic Development and had agreed that processes would be looked into for student housing as part of the next infrastructure development cycle. Currently, the Department was in the process of developing a macro infrastructure plan for the system based on the infrastructure master plans and feasibility audits and maintenance audits that had been provided by universities in the previous year. The process should be finalised by June. On the basis of that plan, allocations for student housing would be considered for the next cycle.

 

From the analysis that had been done, the main focus of the next infrastructure cycle would be on backlog maintenance and student housing. The DHET could not say specifically how many new beds would be created, but could find out from the people in charge of infrastructure monitoring how many of the new beds would be ready by January 2015.

 

In terms of the funds that the Department had for the NSFAS processes and the issues around investigations of allegations, the Minister had the ability to write to the Council and specifically request it to investigate the allegations and give a formal report on the situation, especially when an institution had acted outside of its mandate. The Department would await the Council’s report before deciding on whether it should put in place further measures. This was why it was important to have the real policies and guidelines in place that could be monitored and enforced at the institutions.

 

The Chairperson took her leave to attend a meeting of Chairpersons, and Mr Siwela acted in her place.

Members agreed that the second presentation of the DHET should be postponed to a future date.

 

Committee matters

 

The adoption of the minutes of 3 June 2015 was deferred due to a lack of quorum. Ms Kilian, however, raised some issues on the accuracy of the minutes, in the hope that the Members would go through the minutes again.

 

The Committee Secretary informed Members that the Chairperson had been invited by the Chinese Embassy to an opera at the Baxter Theatre on 15 June 2015, but she would not be available, and had requested interested Members to attend on her behalf.

 

In the third week of June (22 to 26 June 2015), which was the oversight week, the Committee would undertake an oversight visit to Ekurhuleni in Johannesburg. Applications would be submitted to the Chairperson and the draft program of the oversight visit would be sent to MPs once it had been approved by the House Chairperson. Mr Cassim wanted to know why the Committee had not been involved in the planning of the oversight visit, because it seemed like the programme had been decided and the Committee could not contribute its input to the programme before it went for approval.

 

In response to the question, the Committee was informed that it had been decided through the house chair’s office that all the Committees that fell within the social cluster would go to Ekurhuleni.

 

The meeting was adjourned.