Department of Social Development & NDA 2017/18 Annual Report, with AGSA input

Meeting report

Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report: AGSA Briefing

The briefing by the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA) on the Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) was presented interchangeably by Mr Phaisal Jordee, Senior Manager: Social Development Portfolio, and Ms Omfemetse Sebete, Manager of the Audit.

In these meetings, the role of the AGSA was to reflect on the audit work performed to assist the Portfolio Committee in its oversight role of assessing the performance of the entities, taking into consideration the objective of the Committee to produce a BRRR.

The AGSA had found that there was regression in the status of internal controls in the portfolio. There was a slight improvement in leadership controls implemented by the Department of Social Development (DSD). However, there was regression noted at both the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and the National Development Agency (NDA) in terms of leadership controls. At SASSA it was found that oversight responsibility, effective leadership, and policies and procedure were of concern, while for the NDA the main concerns were oversight responsibility, human resource (HR) management, actions plans, policies and procedures. AGSA also noted regression on the internal controls relating to relating to financial and performance management. When looking at record keeping, performance reporting and compliance were the main contributors at SASSA and the NDA. Internal controls relating to governance had improved at the DSD and remained the same at the NDA, while they had regressed at SASSA for risk management and internal audit due to vacancies and non-performance of risk assessments.

Regarding the portfolio’s financial health, key concerns had been identified. At the NDA, a deficit for this financial year was realised, the net cash flows for the year’s operating activities were negative and over 40% of debtors were impaired. At SASSA, the collection of debtors had worsened, which might cause problems in the future as the debtor balance was growing. A net current liability position had arisen due to the retained surplus of R232 million that had to be paid back to the National Treasury during the year, which had had an impact on the cash balance. If the DSD had prepared its financial statements on the accrual basis of accounting, it would have incurred a net liability position. There were also relief funds from the DSD which all had material uncertainty on the future operations due to a proposed change in the enabling legislation.

Irregular expenditure had increased from R376 million to R517 million. R192 million (37%) of the irregular expenditure were expenses from previous years uncovered and disclosed for the first time only in the 2017-18 financial year. R207 million (40%) included payments made on contracts irregularly awarded in a previous year. If the non-compliance was not investigated and condoned, the payments on multiple contracts would continue to be viewed and disclosed as irregular expenditure. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that R118 million (23%) represents non-compliance in the 2017-18 financial year.

AGSA had identified key matters for attention.

• Financial management had regressed due to qualification areas of the previous year still not being addressed at SASSA and a regression in the oversight provided over the statement preparation at the NDA.
• SASSA had experienced challenges in preparing financial statements that were from misstatements and the NDA had material adjustments made to their financial statements that resulted in a regression in financial statements.
• Performance management also regressed due to material adjustments made on the DSD’s reported performance information and material findings on the NDA and SASSA.
• There were no improvements made on procurement and contract management, with material findings reported on SASSA and the NDA. SASSA and the NDA had material non-compliance issues, while the DSD had regressed in compliance on the portfolio.
• Key vacancies remained an issue in the portfolio.
• When it comes to information technology (IT), the NDA had regressed while the DSD and SASSA had improved.

Financial health remained unchanged at SASSA and the NDA, but had regressed at the DSD.

AGSA recommended that the Portfolio Committee should:

• Request management to provide feedback on the implementation and progress of the action plans to ensure further improvement in the audit outcomes of the portfolio.
• Monitor the progress of filling critical vacancies in the portfolio that had arisen during the year.

• Monitor the progress and achievement by SASSA on the plans to implement the new social assistance payment model, in terms of the Constitutional Court order.

DSD Annual Report for 2017/18

Mr Thabane Buthelezi, Acting Director General: DSD, said the Department had a number of strategic priorities. It had identified and committed itself to addressing the key priorities for the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) 2014 -2019. Some of these were, through the Isibindi programme, to expand child and youth care services. It planned to improve the social welfare sector reform and services for better delivery, deepening social assistance, and extending the scope of social security. It would also ncrease access to Early Childhood Development (ECD), strengthen community development by combating substance abuse and gender-based violence, increase household food and nutrition security, promote and protect the rights of older persons and people living with disabilities;, and establish social protection systems to strengthen coordination, integration, planning and monitoring and evaluation services.

The DSD had shown a general improvement in its performance against targets since 2013/14, when 69% of targets had been achieved. In 2017, the performance level had been 78%, which was slightly below the previous year’s figure of 81%. During this period, AGSA had evaluated the reported performance against the overall criteria used for usefulness and reliability. The usefulness of the reported performance information related to whether it was presented in accordance with National Treasury’s annual reporting principles and whether the reported performance was consistent with the planned objectives. Reliability of reported performance information was assessed to determine whether it was valid, accurate and complete. For the sixth consecutive year, AGSA had found that no material findings had been raised on the usefulness and reliability of the reported performance information by the Department of Social Development.

National Development Agency Annual Report for 2017/18.

Ms Thamo Mzobe, Chief Executive Officer: NDA, and Ms Ngomusa Yeni, Chief Financial Officer: NDA, presented the Agency’s annual report interchangeably.

They said the AG issued two audit opinions based on the key aspects -- Annual Financial Statements (AFS) and Performance Information. The audit opinions had remained unchanged, with an unqualified opinion on findings. The audit outcome for AFS determined the overall audit outcomes for the organisation. The audit opinion had remained unchanged from the 2016/17 financial year with an adverse opinion on findings. The financial health of the organisation remained good by the end of the year. Key initiatives had been put in place to address all the issues identified by the audit, as per the NDA’s 2018-19 audit turnaround strategy. The organisation’s cases of supply chain non-compliance had resulted in new irregular expenditure compared to previous years. This confirmed the initiatives implemented by the turnaround strategy that were implemented by the organisation in the 2017/18 financial year.

Programme one – governance and administration `

This programme was aimed at promoting and maintaining organisational excellence and sustainability through effective and efficient administration that included performance, employee well-being, cost containment and brand recognition. These would be achieved within a sound governance and administration environment. The governance and administration programme would support the NDA strategy and annual performance plan (APP) by aligning its interventions and plans to enable the organisation to achieve its strategic and annual deliverables. This would be implemented through the functions which were vital to drive the NDA strategy and the APP.

Programme one put in place the compliance framework that identified compliance areas in various pieces of legislation governing the NDA, such as the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and its related policies and regulations. The programme had achieved all its goals except for the materiality and significance framework. Another material programme was the set target of 100% implementation of the marketing and communication plan, which was not achieved. This was due to the prolonged process of developing the marketing and communication strategy, which would only be finalised in the 2018/19 financial year. Significant successes had been reported in the implementation of the functional integrated ICT system. The ICT master plan and strategy had since been approved by the Board for phased implementation over the MTEF period.

Programme two - civil society organisations’ development:

The programme provides a comprehensive package that aims at developing civil society organisations (CSOs) to their full potential to ensure that especially those operating in poor communities had the capabilities to provide quality services to the communities they were serving. The NDA used the CSO development model as its operational framework for defining interventions in pursuit of CSOs’ development objectives that were consistent with the NDA strategy and APP. The CSO development model defined the processes, interventions and integration between NDA programmes and functions and the outcomes to be achieved through implementing interventions that support CSO development.

The NDA had reaped massive benefits from its implementation of the CSO development model, particularly in areas of mobilisation, formation and capacity building of CSOs. A thorough process of institutional needs assessment, underpinned by consultations and engagements, had preceded mobilisation and formalisation efforts. This had resulted in 2 906 more CSOs being engaged and their developmental support requirements being identified. A total number of 803 CSOs had been assisted to formalise their structures by way of instituting governance processes and mechanisms. A further 829 CSOs had been successfully registered with the appropriate legislative authorities. The official registration of CSOs marked an important step towards access to resources and participation in the economy.

Programme three – research

This programme was the key pillar of the National Development Agency, to fulfil its secondary mandate as prescribed by the NDA Act, which was “to promote consultation, dialogue and sharing of development experience between civil society organisations and relevant organs of state, and debate on development policy; and to undertake research and publication aimed at providing the basis for development policy”.

The NDA had fallen short in four of its APP targets regarding implementation of the marketing and communication strategy, compliance with the legislation and regulatory framework, grant-funding of CSOs and the raising of resources to fund CSOs. The work towards the finalisation of the marketing strategy had commenced, and it would be achieved in quarter one. Strict monitoring measures had been introduced to make sure that compliance with legislation was reported monthly. The process of grant-funding had also already commenced for the 2018/19 financial year. No changes had been effected to the approved annual performance plan.

The entity funded its programmes mainly from the transfer it received from National Treasury via the DSD, through the MTEF allocation process. The remainder of the revenue was mobilised through resources from other government departments, and was used to capacitate non-profit organisations (NPOs) and CSOs according to its mandate. In the 2017/18 financial year, the organisation had achieved 85% of its targets. In certain areas, such as the capacity building of CSOs, the set targets as per the annual plan had been exceeded.

Audited financial statements

As was the case in previous years, the NDA had to operate under stringent financial constraints due to its financial allocation increasing by only 3.5%, while the consumer price index (CPI) increased by 6%. In real terms, resources for the organisation were decreasing. The conditional grants that had been received from other government departments had increased significantly by R16.9 million in comparison to the previous year. The entity had reported an accounting deficit of R3.5 million in comparison to an accounting surplus of R16.6 in the previous year.

The total revenue of R226.6 accrued came from the following key resources:

• Transfer of revenue from the National Treasury – R200.9 million.
• Conditional grants from third parties – R18.5 million. What needed to be noted was that third party revenue was allocated to expenditure of third party projects, and had a nil impact on the NDA’s net financial position.
• Interest and other income (resource mobilisation / management fees) – R7.2 million. The additional R1.2 million received was mainly due to higher than expected management fees.

A total of R215.4 million had been spent against the allocated budget of R241.9 million - 89% of the annual budget allocation. R99.5 million had been spent on administration against a budget of R110.5 million (90%). Mandate expenses had amounted to R115.9 million against a budget of R131.4 million (88%).

The Agency’s assets exceed its liabilities by R37.6 million, representing a healthy financial state. The entity’s current assets were valued at R81.8 million, with cash balances to the value of R80.7 million. The entity currently had liabilities totalling to R50.9 million. These liabilities were made up of service provider provisions and employee benefits, provisions for payment to approved grant funded projects, and unutilised third party funds.

Some of the main challenges facing the entity were that performance information risks and mitigation strategies not undertaken timeously.  There were shortcomings in the reporting system used and the quality of the performance information. As it focused on CSOs, the entity had been having trouble raising funding for these organisations. There had also been a lack of compliance to legislation by other government departments, except for the DSD, since the year 2000.

The NDA recommended that the Portfolio Committee approve the 2017/18 annual report.

Discussion on BRRR

The Chairperson asked how AGSA would be able to confirm compliance in programme one if they did not investigate it. How would they know if particular arrangements had been populated and budgeted for properly and if organisational arrangements met standards of employment, and whether the organisational arrangement addressed the strategy that had been planned for?

Mr Jordee replied that when it came to regulations, the office had to follow a number of rules and regulations, particularly compliance. AGSA did not audit everything every year, and this year in particular they were focusing on other sections, but those under programme one were the main priority this year.

The Chairperson wanted to clarify the part where AGSA said that in terms of section 43 of the PFMA, which included allowing the accounting officer to transfer amounts not exceeding 8%, with which she did not agree. She also questioned the need to buy merchandise locally, saying that sometimes those who provided locally produced merchandise could be far away from where they were needed.

Mr Lourens van Vuuren, Business Executive: AGSA, replied that these were requirements in legislation. They had been set as means to support local businesses. One did not have to absolutely use locally produced products, but organisations had to show that they had made attempts to use local products, and had to prioritise them over others.

Discussion on DSD presentation

Ms Connie Nxumalo, Deputy Director-General: Welfare Services, DSD, referred to the DSD academy, and said that when it was conceptualised, it was based on sector specific training to complement the School of Governance. It would be more like the justice college, where one had social workers and child and youth care workers. Currently there was no training taking place, or there were disjointed training programmes. This would be an accredited college to assist in training the work force to improve service delivery.

Ms B Masango (DA) asked a question that referred to a previous presentation by AGSA with regard to R232 million that was sent back because it was not applied for in time. She wanted to know who was responsible for making sure that the money was applied for in time and what impact the return had on the programmes that the money was designated for. She also wanted some clarification on the matter of substance abuse, as there were high levels of abuse in the country. She wanted to know how long the problem had been pending for the DSD, and if this had affecting the levels of abuse, particularly in the areas where these centres had not been built.

She asked about the 778 cooperatives that were linked to economic opportunities. She wanted the Department to quantify this into numbers -- how much did this amount to in rands? She wanted more detail on the programme that spent 97% of its budget but was only able to achieve 60% of its targets -- was this a case of over-spending and under-achieving? Lastly she also needed clarification on the foster care programme, where there seemed to be under-spending by the Department. Was this the reality of South Africa now -- did the country not need the foster programme anymore?

Mr Fanie Esterhuizen, Chief Financial Officer: DSD, replied that it was not that the targets had not been achieved. The DSD had performed, the work was done. The Bill was still to be tabled to Cabinet, and this was why there was a bit of a contradiction with the money spent and the performance on the targets.

The Chairperson said that if the DSD did not perform but had spent the money, then the reasons as to why that had occurred must be clear. If there were funds used and there was no product to show for it, that did not look good and the DSD had to provide the reasoning behind that.

Mr Esterhuizen said the DSD was going to train ten people. The money to train these ten people would have been spent, but in order for this to be reported as completed it needed to be reported first to the Cabinet. The problem was that the reports could not be submitted in time for them to be approved, and because this had not happened it could not be counted as an achievement. Nevertheless, the money had already been spent.

Ms V Mogotsi (ANC) said based on the example made by the CFO, that ten people had already been trained, there needed to be evidence showing how and why that had occurred.

The Chairperson also said that the DSD had to explain this contradiction. This was something that was in the annual strategic plan. The DSD must be able to account for this disparity because if there was no report on it, then it had not happened.

Mr Buthelezi stated that it was indeed true that when targets and plans were developed, they were costed. However, the difference involved the classification of the information. For example, in some areas, even though 33% had not been achieved, work had been done on most of them even though they were still classified as not achieved because they had yet to be presented to the Cabinet. There were no extra financial implications to this.

The Chairperson asked Ms Nxumalo to give further explanations on the matter.

She commented that if one looked at programme four, it had spent 95% of the budget and 67% of the targets were achieved. The 33% was comprised of nine targets that were not achieved, and five of those were Cabinet-related targets. What this meant was that work had been done on them, but they had not been presented to Cabinet for approval. However, there had been plenty of consultations and other processes attached to them. Unfortunately, it was in the last quarter, when the Cabinet was reshuffled, which meant that none of the Cabinet matters could be presented and they had represented a large chunk of the 33%. The other was because it needed it needed a pre-certification audit, and could not be presented. The DSD was sitting with its products finalised but not tabled for approval yet. This process would not have further financial implications.

When it came to substance abuse, she urged Members to remember that the conditional grant had been split into two. It was meant for four provinces; the Free State (FS), Northern Cape (NC), North West (NW) and the Eastern Cape (EC). The NC had been finalised and was to be opened on 1 November, and they were currently busy with operationalisation. The funding for all of that was still with the DSD because they had not operationalised yet – they were still busy with staff and equipment. The NW had also been finalised, but was still waiting for operationalisation because of the strike they had earlier on in the year, so a large amount of the money was still with the DSD and was being released in increments until everything was ready for it to be transferred. The FS was where the problem was. The building was still not finished, and a new contractor had to be hired because the previous one had not been delivering as required. She agreed that there were high levels of substance abuse and many others who required treatment. These were the provinces that did not have state treatment facilities, and relied on NGOs and private facilities to provide mental health services. There was a national team, however, tasked with helping to operationalise these facilities.

When it came to foster care, Ms Nxumalo said she was not sure about the context form the question was being asked.

However, the Chairperson responded that this was matter that had been talked about a couple of times at previous meetings, so she should have something to say about it. 

Ms Masango asked what the running time for the conditional grant was.

Mr Esterhuizen replied that the grant started two years ago.

The Chairperson explained that the reason Ms Masango was asking those questions was because there were large numbers of people who needed foster care, who were not getting it. On mental health facilities, the fact that there was money for operationalisation was proof that there was money that could be used to find alternative means of providing the necessary service to the people that needed it most. What one finds is that funds are stuck because there are structures that first need to be built, and offering services to people should not be dependant only on the existence of the physical structures to do that. They could go to these communities and make use of churches or local hospitals and provide temporary services while these physical structures were in the process of being made operational.

Mr Esterhuizen replied that there was a framework between the national Department and provincial Departments. This framework was approved by Treasury, any deviations from it must be approved by Treasury. The DSD had tried to do this with the situation in the FS. It had wanted to use other funds to fast track the process, but Treasury had been very strict on the situation.

The Chairperson commented that Members of the Committee were law makers, and they could approach other Portfolio Committees or the Treasury to help, because these funds were meant for people with serious problems.

Ms K Jooste (DA) asked a follow up question on substance abuse -- were there any other funds that that had been set aside by the DSD, other than the Conditional grant in question?

Mr Esterhuizen replied to the question on the R232 million, and said every year during adjustments the Treasury finds ways to save money and they take it back with them. For instance, on compensation of employees, the DSD was not allowed to utilise savings. Over the years, the grant had been reduced. It was not money that could be claimed back.

The Chairperson remarked that based on the report by the Auditor General, the money could be claimed back. The report indicated that there had been a failure by the Department to apply for the money in time, so the statement by the DSD that they were tied up was not true. The DSD should be effective in leadership by anticipating that a certain amount of money was not going to be utilised and make plans with Treasury to secure it so that it could be used for the things that it was meant for. There more the money was returned to Treasury, the less money was going to be allocated by Treasury because the DSD was not utilising it.

Ms S Tsoleli (ANC) asked if the DSD could not use the money where it counted the most.

The Chairperson asked Ms Nxumalo whether alternative changes could be made, because people were suffering and needed all the help they could get urgently.

Ms Tsoleli also pointed out that the DSD had in the past been doing very well on virements. This was not something that they had not done before.

Mr Esterhuizen replied on the question that was based on cooperatives that were linked to opportunities, and said the figures were there. They would be sent to the Committee for inspection.

The Chairperson said that something must be clarified. She referred to the R232 million in funds that were with the DSD but utilised by the SA Social Security Agency (SASSA). The Committee would be writing a legacy report, and there could not be problems that had yet to be solved

Ms Mogotsi said that based on the last briefing by AGSA, it seemed a lot of programmes were under-spending. There was R15 million for senior vacancies that had not been utilised. What was happening with the under-spending on social grants? There should not be any under-spending on foster care grants when there were people who needed them desperately in the country. She said that the AGSA had educated the Portfolio Committee on the manner in which the DSD prepared its financial statements, which was on an accrual basis. This made it difficult for them to realise their net position. The AG had commented that this was a concern because it made it hard for the Department to note its liabilities, and this was a matter that went back to the risk management issues within the Department. The DSD was not doing well in respect of irregular expenditure, with supply chain management (SCM) issues increasing from just over R300 million to over R500 million. 37% of this expenditure was payment of costs from previous years that had been uncovered and disclosed only in this financial year. There was also a problem when it came to travelling expenses - the DSD should issue a list of all the officials had booked into hotels but did not arrive. There was a significant amount of money that had been shifted from programme one to increase ministerial services, which was money for travelling on people that did not even pitch up, when there were people that needed the money that was not being spent wisely. She was not happy with the manner in which the Department was handling its finances. The office of the CFO and internal audits should be able to pre-empt these problems. Transferring money from administration that was meant to hire people for senior vacancies was not acceptable. She also asked why the DSD had ten branches in its organisational structure when it was such a small Department.

The Chairperson remarked that the problem was that these problems were interlinked. This matter had been raised with AGSA – that organisational structures were key to service delivery. The Portfolio Committee was about to write its legacy report, and there could not be details that still did not make any sense. She did not like the statements circulating in the media about the Committee not being able to exercise its powers, when it had been doing so over and over in the past to make sure that everyone accounted for their actions.

Discussion on NDA presentation

Ms Masango said there was a part where the NDA had targets of 50% and one of 60%, and according to the NDA annual report these respective targets had been met. She wanted to know, if their targets had been fully met, why they were not recorded as 100%. The AG had reported that the NDA had trade debtors of 40% - what did that mean exactly, because she got a sense that this was something that called for concern. Why had all the targets for branding and marketing not been met?  The NDA also seemed to have a lot of over-achievements – did this mean that it had under-targeted on its projections?

Ms Mzobe said that when she took over as CEO, no communication strategy existed, so the last financial year had been to review all policies and categorise them as per the AG’s findings. This was when it was realised that there were gaps in the policies, and there was an organisational gap. So far the entity had been finding ways to remedy this and getting them approved so that the strategy could be put into motion. CSOs were still newly recruited and not fully equipped to be able to handle all of the entity’s targets. When it came to the 50% target, the reason was because upon assuming the role of CEO, there had been a target of 52 CSOs. However, the entity had set itself to achieve 27 because there were not enough resources to make sure that the target was reached. And so 27 were set to be achieved, and even though that would technically mean that it was a 100% achievement, it was not counted as such because the 100% still constituted about half of the overall target.

Ms Abrahams asked, when it came to the R16 million that had been raised, where it was reflected. Did the NDA have any internal auditor capacity, and if so, what impact did they have in cases of irregular expenditure? She also asked about consequence and management action – what happened to managers who did not follow rules? What monitoring and evaluation mechanism did they have in the organisation? She congratulated the entity on the composition of its board – it had roughly over 80% female and had representation for disabled people in its board – and said this was something she was very passionate about in her community.

Ms Mzobe replied on marketing strategy, explaining that it was not that there had not been communication completely. Frameworks had been put in place, and the target was to produce an active plan and strategy. The draft for that was awaiting approval from the board.

Ms Yeni, replying on the fund-raised money, said sometimes private parties wanted to contribute to the organisation. They would not invest cash money into the entity, but would be involved in projects of their choosing, and then the NDA would value and do a cost analysis of the work that they had done to get a sense of how much had been accrued. This happened with a number of partnerships in the private sector.

Ms Mzobe referred to consequence and management action, and said that since she took over, there had been a decline on this kind of behaviour, so it was under control. There had been a few dismissals of managers, and the entity had been quite proactive when it came to that, regardless of whether it was a report coming from the AG or its internal auditors

Ms Mogotsi wanted clarification on the financial expenditure per programme. She was particularly interested in the APP report in terms of the set targets and the reported targets.

Ms Mzobe replied on the APP, saying the reason there were observed differences -- the planned target being lower than the achievement -- was because of the entity’s outreach programme, and the entity’s increased visibility.

Ms Mogotsi asked why something was said to be an over-achievement when it was not planned.

Ms Tsoleli remarked that over-achievements might look good, but might not be good in terms of accounting principles. The NDA must try and avoid this where possible, especially if there were financial implications

Ms Mzobe said she acknowledged the input. She said targets had been based on feasibility related to the budget. The NDA had steered away from projects where there were financial implications.

Ms Mogotsi asked about the organisational structure of the entity, and how much the new structure cost. What impact would this new structure have -- would there be better service delivery? She also asked for clarity on the allocation of funds on the organisational structure

Ms Tsoleli asked whether most of the money went to the 119 employees working at the NDA, because often in organisations the bulk of the budget tended to go to ‘warm bodies’ instead of core service delivery issues that the money was meant for.

The Chairperson said the presentation by the CEO had been informative, comprehensive and technical, and she appreciated the work that had been put into compiling the reports. Now that the CEO and her team had been doing well, there was an expectation for them to do even better, as they had demonstrated that they were willing to work.

The meeting was adjourned.