National Youth Policy 2020/30: DWYPD briefing; with Minister and Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Minister’s remarks
The Minister of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, introduced the presentation on the National Youth Policy (NYP) 2020/30, noting it was presented to Cabinet on 21 October 2020. The Cabinet gave its input to contextualise the policy to the current economic realities, clarify its objectives, and align it further to the existing policies.

The policy addressed the current high unemployment among youth, women, and persons with disability. The policy sought to add to creative and innovative ways to address unemployment. The high unemployment rate is also linked to mental health issues.

Briefing on the National Youth Policy 2020-2030
Adv Mikateko Joyce Maluleke, Director- General (DG), Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD), gave a brief background to the policy, noting this was the third policy. The policy would run for ten years, and would be aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals.

The NYP 2030 is a cross-sectoral policy aimed at effecting change for the youth at local, provincial and national levels. It redresses the wrongs and injustices of the past, whilst simultaneously addressing persistent, new and emerging challenges of the country’s diverse youth. The policy proposes interventions that enable positive development for young people as individuals and as members of families, communities and the South African society. It centrally places the youth as key players in their own development and in advancing development of their communities, the nation, the continent and globally by outlining tangible actions, commitments, resourcing, and accountability by all stakeholders working together and in partnership with the youth.
Some of the important achievements attained through the NYP include, but are not limited to:
- Almost double enrollment in schools which, with an increase in the number of learners with post-school qualifications from 1.7 million to 3.6 million;
-increase in the number of youth owned businesses from 595 000 in 2015 to 641 000 in 2016 as well as financial and technical support to youth start-ups and enterprises;
-increased investments in tertiary education, largely benefitting youth from poor households;
-the use of ICTs in educational institutions for the advancement of the youth;
-Improved youth participation in public employment programmes;
-several interventions aimed at improving the health and well-being of youth, such as Prevention of and Treatment for Substance Abuse Act 70 of 2008, National Drug Master Plan 2013–2017, National Adolescent and Youth Health Policy 2016-2020, B’WISE Mobisite, launched in 2017 etc.
-approval of the National Youth Service Framework;
-establishment of institutions dedicated to render youth development services

The presentation detailed the policy priorities with key interventions aimed at improving prospects of quality education, skills and second chances, economic transformation, entrepreneurship and job creation and physical and mental health promotion, social cohesion and nation building and effective and responsive youth development machinery.

The Committee was taken through the process followed in formulating the policy and a summary of inputs and comments received.

DWYPD is developing a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework with high level indicators to track the NYP implementation, within four months of the NYP’s approval. DWYPD will monitor development of an Integrated Youth Development Strategy by the NYDA, its finalisation, and facilitate approval by Cabinet. There will be continuous monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of the NYP 2030 to ensure accountability to stakeholders and young people as service beneficiaries. The NYP 2030 will be launched in 2021 and is being popularised amongst stakeholders and the youth.
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Mr Emmanuel Kganakga, Director: Youth Legislation and Policy, DWYPD, presented the monitoring and evaluation framework for the policy, a coordination between the government, civil society, and the private sector, in the implementation of the policy. The framework was approved in 2018. The framework would use credible data to monitor the implementation of the policy.

The monitoring and evaluation framework was based on principles such as indicators, baselines, reporting by policy, disaggregation of data, and supporting data sources. Previously indicators were not disaggregated using gender, race, and province, to have credible data to rely on to monitor and evaluate the policy.

See attachment for details

Role of the National Youth Development Branch in relation to the NYDA
Dr Bernice Hlagala, Director: Youth Development, Department of Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DPME), presented on the National Youth Development (NYD) Programme and how it relates to the National Youth Development Policy (NYDA). She gave the structure of command, noting the NYD Agency Board, through the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), reports to the Minister through the DG. She explained the internal structure of the NYD, the different offices, and its roles.

Established in 2005, the National Youth Development Programme was first established as a Youth Desk, located in The Presidency. It was then moved to the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation in 2014 and upgraded into a Branch.  The purpose of the branch is to provide technical support to political principals in overseeing youth development service provision in the country. The branch performs its functions in line with the mandate of the department of leading on socio-economic transformation, empowerment and participation of women, youth and persons with disabilities through mainstreaming, advocacy, monitoring and evaluation. The branch has two sub-programmes, namely: Youth Policy, Legislation, Monitoring and Evaluation and Stakeholder Engagement and Support.

The function of the branch is to:
-Develop and review socio-economic regulatory frameworks for youth development (e.g. NYDA Act, NYS Framework, NYDA Amendment Bill);
-Develop monitoring and compliance tools to help track implementation across sectors in all spheres of government;
-Develop supplementary documents for the NYP such as guidelines and action plans;
-Mainstream and support government departments in mainstreaming youth development within their sectoral policies and programmes;
-Ensure alignment of sector specific strategic plans and annual performance plans to the NYP and national priorities;
-Conduct oversight of the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA);
-Conduct research that is cross cutting (e.g. 15YR, 20YR, 25YR, Impact of Covid 19 on young people);
-Support civil society and private sectors on youth development initiatives;
-Support the political principals on stakeholder engagements at national and international levels;
-Promote business excellence including undertaking research that is cross cutting on long-term trends and analyse implementation to inform short and medium term plans related to youth development
-Coordinate relevant stakeholders and ensure reporting to Cabinet and Parliament.

Oversight role:
-The NYDA reports to the Minister in the Presidency responsible for Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities.
-The National Youth Development branch within the DWYPD fulfills the administrative function of conducting oversight to the NYDA in support of the Minister as the shareholder.
-The PFMA Act indicates in section 62 (2) that “the executive authority responsible for a public entity under the ownership control of the national or a provincial executive must exercise that executive’s ownership control powers to ensure that that public entity complies with this Act and the financial policies of that executive.”
-The oversight role assists in ensuring that the NYDA meet the objectives of the PFMA Act. In this case, the PFMA Act provides for “secure transparency, accountability, and sound management of the revenue, expenditure, assets and liabilities of the institutions to which this Act applies.”

-In conducting the NYDA’s oversight, the Department will:
-Oversee financial and non-financial performance and in this regard attend the Audit Committee;
-Facilitate transfer of quarterly tranche payments to the NYDA;
-Assess and quality assures reports and plans such as: the Annual Performance Plan, Strategic Plan, Quarterly performance reports, and other related operational documents of the NYDA.
-Conduct Quarterly performance review/ feedback sessions with the NYDA.
-Supports the Executive Authority and NYDA in reporting to Cabinet and Parliament;
-Conduct oversight visits to the NYDA at national, provincial and district/ local levels;
-Support the NYDA and political principals on stakeholder engagements nationally and internationally;
-Support Portfolio Committee on oversight role to the NYDA and its branches

Discussion
The Chairperson said she had several concerns with the Department regarding the draft policy. First, she said the document was not signed and as such she was not sure if it was a legitimate document. The shareholders agreement signed by the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA), which was signed by former acting Director-General (DG), did not have the Minister’s signature. When a document is not signed, it is deemed as illegitimate. She is therefore unsure of its status.

The Committee was debating the Department’s mandate with the Department itself. She said she was concerned regarding oversight at the NYDA particularly, and questioned who was tasked with oversight over the NYDA and the Department. To her understanding, the Department must be the one coordinating all the Department’s activities, as it was not a service delivery Department. According to its mandate of monitoring and evaluation, the Committee wondered if the Department was supposed to be coordinating all those activities. There were questions emerging when she read the report, especially on the NYDAs performance assessment. The report from the Department on monitoring and evaluating did not analyse this issue.

She disagreed with the position saying the Chairperson of the NYDA Board should be the one assessing other members of the Board. In her opinion, the Chairperson of the Board on NYDA and other members of the board were equals. The only difference is the Chairperson is given the extra responsibility of being the executive authority of NYDA according to the status as the executive chairperson of the board.  The question is who assesses the Chairperson’s performance and how can one board member assess another board member.

What was lacking was the role and responsibilities of the Youth Branch in the Department. She questioned what the Youth Branch in the Department was doing. The role of the Youth Branch was to coordinate youth issues and monitor all provincial departments, even in municipalities. It was supposed monitor if the municipalities were implementing a policy on the issue of young people or not. She quoted Dr Hlagala, who presented on the Youth Directorate, and said some municipalities did not have it. It was therefore the responsibility of this Youth Branch in the Department to ensure all municipalities had it. This was a policy gap when perusing the documents.

Another concern was youth policy was supposed to give clear directives on how it was going to take issues of the youth forward. She questioned what the policy intended to do, and gave the example of when the government made a decision on free health care policy. It was clear pregnant women were not going to pay for services when attending clinic, as opposed to the traditional fees paid in public facilities. As such, she insisted the youth policy must have clear directives on what it intends to achieve. This issue did not come out clearly.

The Chairperson questioned why the NYDA was not being strengthened to be an agency, considering it has the authority to change to accommodate any such inclusions. This would avoid future problems such as other youth groups demanding recognition. If the problem was funding, she proposed the need to consider other organisations. She questioned the input contributed by other organisations. The youth population was high, and as such, there was need to ensure youth participated fully and gave input on how policy was going to be shaped in the future. This again would avoid people revolting in future.

She posed a question to Dr Hlagala, asking about the number of people in the branch and how it was going to ensure compliance of policies. If the government did not implement policies, she wanted to know what the consequences would be; who was going to monitor and evaluate if the government departments municipalities were fully implementing the policies; and if it was NYDA, she asked if it had capacity.

She questioned who would be held accountable for the youth policy, and asked who was to be held accountable, if it was the Department or the NYDA; and asked about enabling NYDA towards its full implementation.  She proposed amending, or even changing the name, and suggested calling upon other institutions such as universities to assist on this.

She opened the platform to other Members to present any questions.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) wanted to add and supplement some of the provisions. He asked how this policy was going to be different from other amended policies.  There was no clear contingency plan on how this policy was going to cater for the communities. He was curious on what the visions and the measures taken were, to ensure the success of this policy to communities and not only to young people.

Ms T Mgweba (ANC) said one must welcome a clear presentation from the Department. However, she noted a concern on the consolidation in the provinces, especially regarding input and comments on national youth policy. She was worried about a national youth policy which did not impact the community, especially young unemployed people in rural areas and those affected by gender- based violence.  The Department must explain further regarding its consultation, as she noted only two provinces were said to be consulted.

Secondly, on the monitoring and evaluation framework, she wished to see practical process to monitor all departments, especially in all levels of government. She asked what the monitoring and evaluation plans prepared by the Department were, to ensure all municipalities are consulted, especially in rural areas where the main problems catered for are.

The Chairperson alluded to service delivery as not being part of the Department’s responsibility. The Department, in its report, was clear on the population of youth in the country. Her expectation was to see tangible youth programmess to counter challenges such as poverty and environment issues. She asked how the Department gives hope to unemployed youth, both in rural and urban areas, and asked why its presentation did not touch on people with disabilities. She said in her opinion, the policy was not sustainable in dealing with unemployment and has no exit strategy.

Ms T Masondo (ANC) raised concerns and observations. She thanked the members for the presentation, and said strengthening the collaboration between the NYDA and the Branch was welcome.  She asked if this was the final version of the policy, and lastly what the timelines of each proposed initiative was.  

Ms F Masiko (ANC) said most of the concerns were addressed by the Chairperson. However, she wanted to expand on some of the issues raised. It was unfortunate the panel was discussing a policy already presented to Cabinet and ready for adoption. She asked about the extent of the Committee’s´ major concerns related to the policy; and asked if there were any intentions to translate this policy to the various different national languages, to reach all individuals and help people understand it better.

Regarding Cabinet approval, she wanted to know which parts were approved after deliberation by the Cabinet, and what the key issues were. She also asked where the accountability of the implementation of the policy at all levels of government was. It was important to follow right down to the grass root level.

She referred to budgeting on the policy, and said the issue of accountability and budgeting could not be separated. It was still unclear if the national policy was costed or not, and what the projected budget for implementing the policy was. She asked where the funds were coming from, saying understanding this would expose any grey areas.

It is important to welcome the Shareholder Performance Agreement since it was strongly advocated for by the Committee. It is necessary to see a clear working relationship between DWYPD, together with the National Development Agency. A resolution of the Committee was implemented and put forward together with the Shareholders Performance Agreement. However, there were no timelines given, and this should be included.  Given the historical challenges faced by the South African Youth Council, and by virtue of it being a contested terrain, it was important to account for it as a drive towards this policy.

Ms A Hlongo (ANC) said most of her questions were addressed, but raised some additional concerns regarding the proposition of the consultation included among youth not affiliated to any organisation. She asked if the Department could consider these individuals living in rural and informal settlements, given these are mostly implemented in urban and metropolitans.

Ms B Maluleke (ANC) said she could not ask any questions, as she missed out on several minutes in the meeting due to technical difficulties.

The Chairperson said there was no shortcut in dealing with this Youth Policy and this was why the Committee emphasised, as a Committee, this policy must ensure all youth in the country participated, to avoid future issues of people being left out during consultation.

She said she received a letter from the Speaker of the National Assembly asking what the Committee had done on issues of gender-based violence. The Committee is expected to respond to this.

Mr Mphithi questioned the short-term and long-term measures government put in place to ensure the document came alive, and how it would be meaningful. He asked what the budget commitments were, and what was essentially going to be prioritised. It was important for the Committee to acquire raw data to allow it to see who made which contributions and how the contribution ended up presenting itself within the final policy. This would enable it to implement the NYP to young people in the country.

He asked how to ensure the policy did not fail, and said it was important to ensure those tasked with monitoring and evaluating how the policy was implemented had adequate support. The issue of budget was critical in this area.   He asked the Department, particularly the Youth Directive, if the Department had a database of all non government organisations (NGOs), youth organisations, and civil societies, among others, as this would significantly assist the Department when sending out information pertaining to young people. This was a major problem for the Department.

He asked why there were no indicators for persons with disabilities, and he wanted to know the progress on appointments in the Department in relation to this. There were no persons with disability on the list of newly appointed individuals, and he asked how the Department was addressing such issues.

The Chairperson said the Department should bring all this information to the meeting to be held on Friday of the week of the present meeting.

Responses
Mr Kganakga replied to the issue of representation, saying not everything was listed in the Policy, and as such some information may be missed. The Department could improve the indicators and submit it to members of the committee.

The Department received substantive input during consultations all over the country, directly from persons with disability. It is the Department’s duty to ensure all disabled people have access to it.

NYP must be more than a piece of paper. To this end it was important to note what was not there. The Department has the added advantage of a Ministry which monitors these issues.

The Department submits the report on NYP implementation on a quarterly basis. There are also additional interventions which allow departments to report, and allow simpler access to the policy.

He could make separate submissions to the Committee on raw data and comments received. The Department received a lot of feedback from organizations, and individuals in a personal capacity, who wanted the policy to be implemented.  He suggested the policy should be implemented within four months after approval.

On the issue of budget commitments, he noted two ways the Department approaches this. The first is to ensure commitments in the NYP were based on what is contained in the departmental programs of action. 

Second, the policy advocated for certain things, such as basic income for young unemployed people, which may be permanent with time.

Regarding consultations, the Department engaged all individuals, including those in rural and in-formal settlements.

Replying to the concern if matters discussed would be integrated, he said it would. When the Department presented to Cabinet, it received input and interventions which it included in the draft. A ready document should be released within a week and encompass all these issues, and be signed appropriately. The document would be translated with the help of the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture.

Regarding practical processes of monitoring, the Department prioritised the District Development Model in Youth Policy as part of the implementation mechanisms and local development forums which bring together all relevant role players under one ambit. Meaningful public programmes guaranteed exit for young people.

The Chairperson questioned how the Department did not know about the technical inputs, and what it entailed.

Mr Kganakga said the Department received input from stakeholders, it was all written down, and included how it would be implemented into the policy.

The Chairperson asked if the branch in the Department was tasked with the implementation of youth policy.

Mr Kganakga said the branch was tasked with monitoring and evaluating the policy, and said some things ought to be done by the private sector. Its main task was assisting to prepare the right environment in the implementation, and also help with the monitoring and accountability system. The Department was tasked with monitoring and evaluating the implementation the youth policy. Where there were deficiencies, he said the Department highlighted this and intervened as far as it could.

The Chairperson restated the issue of signatures. The DG highlighted it would be done after the technical comments, draft, and inputs were included, and the due process would be followed. Dr Bernice stated that they were trying their best amidst the scarce resources available. She highlighted that when meeting in provinces, such meetings included physical consultations, and this was before the COVID 19 pandemic.

Dr Hlagala said the youth sector was not well organised. There was a need for a proper Youth Council for the country, which was youth led. The National Youth Development Agency was created to intensify the implementation of youth programmes and youth projects. As such, she explained the difficulties of turning the Agency into a Council, as it would be youth led and civil society run, missing out on the implementation aspect. She noted the need for a Youth Council in addition to the agency.

On the issue of the presidential working group, she said her main idea was, this platform was meant to provide the president with a space to engage with stakeholders, and in doing so the president could hold accountable the stakeholders.  The hierarchy of communication should be followed at all levels, and this can ensure accountability of relevant organisations or departments.

Regarding if the Department can do everything on monitoring and evaluation, Dr Hlagala said the main role of the Department was to develop policy, but not to implement policy. It had inadequate capacity due to insufficient staff.  On the question of who will monitor and evaluate the policy at provincial and local level, she said the Department would take advantage of existing structures. As such, there would be monitoring at local level, offices of the Premier should take monitoring at provincial level, and the Department at national level. All these structures would report to the President.  

On the issue of bringing the policy alive, she said this was going to be done by the Integrated Youth Development Policy, the strategy which the NYDA was going to develop to implement this policy.
 
On the question regarding budget commitments, she said budgets would be required for new interventions. The strategy was one which ought to be costed, as it would give effect to implementation.

On the amendment of the NYDA Act, she said it did not only look at the Board, but also looked at various factors such as functions of the Agency, and on strengthening the Agency to deliver effectively.

Mr Waseem Carrim, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), NYDA, said NYDA were stakeholders in the process of development of youth policy, and were seeking the amendment of the NYDA process. It supported the government in carrying out consultations. The Act mandated it produce the Integrated Management Youth Strategy as a follow-up to the national youth policy.

Regarding budgetary constraints where the previous youth policy was not fully implemented, he said he projected this time would be different, given the priorities noted by the current administration, such as education and other economic recovery plans.

The DG said answers to questions not replied to would be submitted in writing together with other commitments made. She said some questions would be replied to of Friday of the week of the meeting.

The Chairperson highlighted the technical difficulties witnessed during the meeting and said this should be looked at. She thanked all the members and presenters, noting contributions and inputs would be reflected in the final draft.

The meeting was adjourned.