50% of women & 2% of people with disabilities employment by departments: DPSA monitoring report

Meeting report

Mr Mashwahle Diphofa, Director General: Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA) began by introducing Ms Rhulani Makhubela, Acting Deputy Director General: Governance, Ms Barbara Watson, Chief Director: Transformation, and Ms Fanani Manugu: Director, who drive the work behind the women and persons with disabilities functions of the Department. The aim of the presentation was to update the Committee on progress and measures to further create an enabling environment for departments to be able to reach their set targets. Some of the measures included provisional support to departments and workshops, as well as guidelines and policy instruments that the DPSA was putting in place.

Ms Manugu said that the presentation provided an update since the last meeting, which was held in February, improvements in the submission of reports, support given to departments, and progress on the representation of women and people with disabilities based on the Gender Equality Strategic Framework and the Job Access Implementation Plan.

The targets of 50% female employment and 2% were not met by 31 March 2015, but an improvement by a percentage point had been noted. The representation of women at the Senior Management Service (SMS) level was currently 40.5%, and representation of persons with disabilities was 0.66%. At the last presentation, representation was at 0.55%.

Ms Manugu showed the submissions of implementation plans and reports by provinces. The number of total submissions was up from 78 in the 2014/2015 financial year, to 101 in the 2015/2016 financial year. The number of departments that had met the submission targets in June 2014 was 22, and it had risen to 29 in March 2015. Departments were also expected to submit half-yearly implementation plans and reports on strategic plans. The improvement was indicative of how the DPSA had performed. Report submissions had improved from 1 200 to 1700 from 2014 to 2015. A departmental breakdown of submissions showed Mpumalanga with the lowest submissions (five out of 12 departments) with the Western Cape being the only province where all 13 departments had submitted. Submission of implementation plans and reports for the Gender Equality Strategic Framework (GESF) and the Job Access strategic framework for the recruitment, appointment and retention of people with disabilities (JA) had improved from 78 in 2014/15 to 101 in 2015/16. Workshops had been completed in three provinces, KwaZulu Natal, Gauteng, and Limpopo. The rest of the provinces and the national departments would have workshops from August 2015 to February 2016.

There had been an improvement in the representation of people with disabilities. As at March 2015, there were 1 324 228 employees in the Public Service, of which 8 729 (0.66%) were employees with disabilities. Of this number, 4 213 (48.2%) were female and 4 516 (51.8%) were male. The genders had been deliberately segregated to show the representation of women with disabilities was still low, even at the SMS level. However, these numbers had to be looked at in conjunction with the slide which had shown that there had been problems when dealing with defining disabilities, and a reluctance to disclose disabilities, especially mental disabilities. In senior management positions, only 119 out of more than 9 000 positions were filled by persons with disabilities. 226 persons with disabilities made up middle management out of 22 000 positions, and 8 384 occupied levels 1-10.

A three-year trend analysis showed the achievement of the 2% target by province. The highest improvement between December 2012 and 2015 was in Gauteng, with a 1.6% improvement, followed by the national departments with a growth from 0.64% to 0.81%. The Eastern Cape had a decrease of 0.1%, and was the only province with a decrease in percentage.

The number of departments that met the 2% target for persons with disabilities was very low, with no departments in the Free State and KwaZulu-Natal meeting targets. The majority of departments were at below the 1% level. In the previous presentation, only 23 departments had met targets, compared to the current 29.

Ms Manugu highlighted the problem of the definition of persons with disabilities. This Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS) study was based on the definition of disabilities from the Employment Equity Act and the UN Convention on Rights for Persons with Disabilities, whose emphasis was on what an impairment did to hinder a person’s performance. Considering this, the conditions that could be included were epilepsy, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

There were 9 649 filled positions in SMS, with women occupying 40.5% of those positions --an increase of 1% from last year’s figure of 39.8%. Executive positions (level 15 and 16) still had a low representation of women, which was a concern for the Department.
A graphical display of women’s representation at the executive level by race and as compared to their male counterparts showed males dominating for all race groups, with the female representation in each race group hovering around 40%. Only 28% of senior managers on level 16 were women, versus 72% for men. Gauteng province was leading, with women representing 44.9% of the senior managers, followed by the national department with 41.6%.

Previously, the DPSA had reported on 19 departments that had complied with the requirement of 50% representation for women at the SMS level per province. Now 22 departments were complying. Most of the departments were within the 30-39% representation bracket. A breakdown of the specific departments that had met the targets showed that the Department of Social Development was leading the way, and the only provinces where it had not met the targets were the Eastern Cape and the North West.

The education and health sectors had been known to be women-dominated and the DPSA had been interested to find out how they fared in management. The findings were that CEO’s and managers in the health sector were 46.2% woman, and 2% were headed by disabled persons. The education sector was 36% headed by women, and 129 persons with disabilities headed schools. Importantly, these sectors still did not meet the 50% women representation target.

The Minister had approved a policy on reasonable accommodation and assistive devices, which was set to create uniformity in approach. The policy was accompanied by a directive to give it more authority. Implementation of the Gender Equality Strategic Framework (GESF) and JA had assisted in the improving numbers. Departments that did not meet targets had been requested to develop remedial plans to address these gaps. Provinces who had taken the frameworks seriously were doing well with their equity figures. Those that had met the requirements were urged to develop maintenance and retention plans to guard against losing equity numbers.

Ms Manugu addressed the perception that persons with disabilities were leaving the public sector in large numbers. She said a study had been done using questionnaires and a follow-up focus group in February in both the public sector and in organisations of persons with disabilities. The national departments had the highest participation rate, with 32.3% of participants coming from them. The lowest participation rate was from the Northern Cape, with 0.31% participants. The findings were that employees with disabilities were not leaving the public sector, but moving laterally between departments.
 
Respondents had raised concerns over discrimination, negative attitudes, victimisation, that they should be grateful for their jobs, being undermined by colleagues, not favoured for promotions, no reasonable accommodation provided, left behind for training and development, lack of access, and disabilities mainstreaming not happening. The DPSA would endeavour to report back to the Committee on the progress on dealing with these issues at its next meeting.

Discussion
The Chairperson said she was pleased that the Director General (DG) was present, as it would send a positive message to female public servants that their constitutional rights were being given the attention they deserved. She made a recommendation that the DPSA needed to establish a forum of DGs where these issues were given the deserved attention. Being a gender activist herself, she would be lying if she said she was happy with the reported statistics, because they had remained the same after 20 years. Nothing had improved, and she was disappointed about the Free State and KwaZulu-Natal in particular. She would like them to come to the convention. The Committee could not be a broken record on this matter. She made an appeal to those who had power to recruit women and persons with disabilities. She wanted to know what the unfilled vacancy rate was.

Mr Diphofa replied that it was around 11% across the board, not just at the SMS level.

The Chairperson said if there were SMS vacancies, she was lobbying that women be considered in both the national and provincial departments. She requested that the DPSA come and account to the Committee in two months’ time on the forum. She appreciated the initiative of consulting GEMS, even though it was not verified information. She hoped public servants with chronic illnesses would voluntarily register their disabilities.

Mr J McGluwa (DA) said that the Committee had made it very clear at the last meeting that the premiers of the non-performing provinces must come and report to the Committee. It was almost a year later and it had not been done. The DG should have indicated the status of the report in advance so that the Committee could call the responsible people to the meeting. The DG was bearing the brunt, while the Committee wanted the responsible premiers. He reminded everyone that the previous year, they had been told that there would be fines for non-compliant departments. He would like to know if the system was still intact and what fines had been given.

According to the findings, lack of access had been named as a problem for persons with disabilities. Which departments and provinces were struggling with this? He suggested that the DG engage in programmes to show where best to help with access.
 
Regarding the submission of implementation plans, he noted that the number of departments represented was 115, and only 78 had submitted plans. This gave more reason to have the premiers present, as well as the Minister of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, to account. Only 24 out of 45 national departments had complied with the representation targets. He would like the departments that had not complied to submit in writing why they were not complying, and to engage in robust talks with them. Lastly, he asked for clarity on the Gauteng figure for women versus men in SMS. He observed that it was good for the rankings, but the numbers were largely for the Department of Social Development and were not widespread.

The Chairperson observed that the DG had to bear the brunt because he was the coordinator.

Mr S Motau (DA) made reference to the fact that nearly 9 000 persons with disabilities were employees of the state. He requested the national figure for people with disabilities to see how much work still needed to be done to provide for people with disabilities. He noticed from the presentation that there were still people with disabilities who were reluctant to disclose their conditions. This gave the impression that certain departments were not user friendly to persons with disabilities. He asked if this was prevalent, and what was being done about it. He believed that there should not be a problem of people being afraid to disclose things considering the work that had been done with regard to HIV/AIDS.

The Chairperson said she believed the fear to disclose had to do with the stigma around mental illnesses.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) asked whether the DPSA 2015/2016 performance agreement addressed this subject matter under human resources development. She believed that the people who drafted the policies and employed at that level were technocrats. She recalled that the previous year, the DG’s had been identified as the serial offenders. The statistics of 2014 indicated that 2.5 million of the population were persons with disabilities. She felt that the presentation had not spoken to the number of persons with disabilities who were economically active. The presentation also had not given reasons why other provinces were not meeting targets. She wanted to know if the Department had a relationship with lobby groups in terms of recruitment. Her opinion was that government should be championing the recruitment of persons with disabilities. In addition, she would like to see the number of persons with disabilities in senior management in the DPSA increase. They should lead by example, like the ruling party. She supported the recommendation by the Chairperson for a DG’s forum, and suggested that the matter be discussed at the Cabinet level.

The Chairperson agreed, saying it would be helpful because the Cabinet still favoured males when recruiting.

Ms P van Damme (DA) commended the work done by the Department so far, and said she would like them to consider the youth category as they were still disadvantaged in employment. The statistics showed over half of young people between the ages of 15 and 34 were unemployed and 70% of young black people were sitting without jobs. She would like the Committee to monitor that government departments made more of an effort to employ young people.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) said that according to the Employment Equity Act, persons with disabilities were defined as those with long term or recurring mental or physical impairments which substantially limited their prospects of entry into or advancement in employment. With this definition in mind, looking at the data collected from GEMS, it assumed that some of these conditions could not be treated and that even with medication, their prospects of entry into employment was limited. He would like clarity on how the Department had been able to draw that conclusion.

Mr M Ntombela (ANC) drew attention to the slide that stated that the 2% and 50% representative targets had not been met by 31 March 2015, and the slide that stated that when certain chronic conditions were considered, the 2% target had been met, based on 1.3 million employees. He was seeking clarity on whether this was because of the definition, or for any other reason. There was also a slide that showed the representation of persons with disabilities aged between 65 and 69, to be nine. He said that at that age, one could assume a lot of age-related health problems. He asked why there was such a category and how it was being dealt with, as these people were supposed to be in retirement.

The Chairperson replied that it could be people who had special expertise.

Considering the persistent low performance of the Free State and KwaZulu Natal, Mr Ntombela asked why they were not prioritised for compliance workshops, or if there were any other measures in place to address their low performance.

Ms Z Dlamini-Dubazana (ANC) said arising from the definition of disabilities quoted by Mr Van der Westhuizen, she felt the Department needed to have its own proper definition, or else the definition itself could end up being a stigma. From her medical background, she understood disability to be the disadvantage or deficiency of mental or physical impairment. She said the term ‘disabled people’ was labelling. It was the incapacity of one to achieve normally, or like capable persons, and being incapable of performing a normal task for example, climbing stairs. They needed to look at the words they were using. She also requested that the Committee call Minister Susan Shabangu.

The Chairperson responded that they would use the definition of the policy, and not their own. They would spend years trying to define disability, and should rather align with the policy. Gender equality and persons with disabilities were among the priority issues of the Committee, so the DPSA should be prepared to come for numerous follow-up meetings.

She said that Members were generally happy with Mr Diphofa’s presentation, but added that women were vulnerable and were not being given the necessary support. She repeated her call call for a DG’s forum. She asked that in the next meeting, there should be a breakdown of each department in each province in detail. She asked if the number of departments in the provinces were the same. If they were not, the formula would need to be adjusted. She would like the national departments to account as well. She mentioned the Department of Correctional Services and South African Police Services (SAPS) among those that were not doing well. Even though SAPS was female-headed, it was not performing well.

Department’s response
Mr Diphofa said he had noted and would implement the recommendations, like the cluster of DGs. The Department would report on how they had taken forward the recommendations in two month’s time, as requested.

In response to Mr McGluwa, he said the Department would call the relevant provinces to appear before the Committee.

He was not sure on the issue of fines, as he had not been present at the March meeting, but there was no provision for fines in the legislation. He knew of a system where managers were held accountable under their people management function, which had representation targets. It counted against managers and heads of departments if targets were not met.

Regarding Gauteng’s statistics, he said it was not uncommon to see a province doing well, only to find it was one branch or a department lifting it up.

The Chairperson then highlighted that the Department of Social Development was run by a young woman.

Information was available from Statistics South Africa about economically active disabled persons, and would be included in the next presentation.

He said that stigma was a problem with disclosure, and they could only work with disclosed numbers based on voluntary disclosure. The aim of the slide had been to demonstrate the nature of the problem of qualifying conditions.

To Ms Lesoma, he noted that DG’s were ultimately responsible and told of the work being done on minimum delegations. Public sector heads of departments had no authority to appoint anyone. The executive authorities did appointments, unless they delegated to the head of departments. Executives may decide not to delegate appointments at all. minimum delegations recommended that level 14 downwards be delegated for appointments. A directive had been issued for minimum delegations, and departments would give effect to it. He hoped they would be empowered to improve represent targets.

The relationship with lobby groups was based on mutual interest. For example, when there were job advertisements, the Department of Women, Children and Persons with Disabilities shared the advertisement with organisations on e-mail, across networks. However, the organisations did not have any influence on appointment decisions -- they were only broadening the network. The DPSA continued to engage with them through studies to understand perceptions and the challenges they faced.

He said the Department would provide give the exact numbers of SMS employees who were female in the DPSA.
 
In response to Ms Van Damme, he said they did monitor the youth, but had not included their findings in this presentation. They could provide details.

He told Mr Van der Westhuizen that the definition of disabilities was constantly being debated, and the issue was about disclosure. He said they might have achieved more than the target, but this was not reflecting due to non-disclosure.

Answering why problematic provinces like the Free State were not prioritised, he said the Department was willing to start with them but preferred to go ahead with provinces that responded faster. While waiting to secure dates, in the mean time, they dealt with those who responded, without putting everything on hold. He had also noted the Chairperson’s call for SAPS and the Department of Correctional Services, and said they would avail themselves for that meeting.

Ms Lesoma asked if departments were not employing persons with disabilities due to an unaccommodating structural environment. She also queried if information communication technology (ICT) support existed.

The Chairperson said that the people must be recruited first, and then the equipment could be brought in after. She said it had been a 20 year wait.

Ms Van Damme requested that the DPSA be invited to present on youth employment, or make its information available to the Committee.

Mr McGluwa said his question on access in the working environment had not been dealt with.
 
The Chairperson asked if there were buildings that did not comply. She said persons with disabilities needed to be employed, even if it meant picking up the wheelchairs to gain access.

Ms Watson clarified that the suggestion of fines had come from the Commission on Employment Equity that had launched their report, and the chairperson of the commission had insisted that departments get fined.

In response to the provision of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, she said there were structural factors that inhibited people, but the Thusong service centres were prevalent. The DPSA had raised this with the Department of Public Works (DPW) and asked them to send all their divisions for training. She warned that there was an impact on the person when a wheelchair was carried, as it stripped them of their independence. The DPSA had asked the DPW to only procure buildings that were accessible for disabled persons and the service level agreement should demand lifts within certain periods of time or else not do business with those providers. The recently signed policy focused on appointments of public officials with disabilities, and it was highlighted that it was not always about money. Sometimes all that was required was just a policy change. For example, if the starting time was 8am, for disabled persons relying on public transport, the department could have staggered working hours. When departments budgeted for IT, they should automatically factor in computers for the visually impaired. Departments did not appoint disabled persons because they believed it to be expensive, but they were obliged to provide for every employee.

Lastly, the DPSA had conducted studies regarding youth employment. The study findings had been released alongside previous reports on their website showing the patterns of youth employment, particularly at the SMS level.

The Chairperson closed discussion by asking Mr Diphofa to action the forum of DGs. She requested that they also review the policy, to see if it was still relevant. She supported the notion of fines for non-complying departments. She raised her concern about departments entering into leases for buildings that are not user friendly for disabled persons.

Approval of minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 27 May 2015 were considered.
After grammatical corrections, the Chairperson asked if the report was an accurate representation of events, and the Members agreed.
Ms Dlamini-Dubuzana moved the adoption of the minutes.
Mr Motau seconded the move.
The minutes were adopted.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2015 were considered.
Ms Dlamini-Dubazana requested that the chairperson should be first in order of appearance for register of attendance.
Mr Ntombela moved for adoption of the minutes.
The move was seconded by Ms Lesoma.
The minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson asked Ms Lesoma to ensure that the task teams got the report.

Ms Lesoma agreed and explained that the Committee formed a part of the follow-up clusters.
 
Mr Ntombela requested that the Members’ names be preceded by ‘Honourable’.
 
Ms Dlamini-Dubazana requested that minutes of other meetings not be adopted because a lot was wrong.

The Chairperson and Committee agreed.

The Content Advisor said he would try to access the Parliamentary Monitoring Group recording for corrections.

The minutes were not adopted.

The Chairperson closed the meeting.