DWYPD 2020/21 Annual Report & Audit Outcomes

Meeting report

Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD) 2020/21 audit outcomes
Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) was represented by Ms Corne Myburgh, Business Unit Leader, Ms Marongwa Mashigo Senior Audit Manager for DWYPD and Ilze Slabbert, AGSA Senior Manager for Commission on Gender Equality.

Ms Marongwa Mashigo, AGSA Senior Audit Manager for DWYPD, said AGSA's key message this year is for government to ensure and accelerate accountability improvements. She outlined the five audit opinions. The National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) has remained clean because of their continued commitment to good governance and strong internal control environment. While the DWYPD and Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) have remained unqualified with findings. There has also been an improvement in governance at the DWYPD since the appointment of the DG.

She spoke to the 2020/21 status of the three entities for the following focus areas compared to 2019/20: credible financial reporting; credible performance reporting; compliance with legislation, irregular expenditure; unauthorised expenditure; fruitless and wasteful expenditure; supply chain management; assurance provided; internal control and status of information technology (IT) (see document).

Three key root causes for 2020/21 audit outcomes:
• Management did not put in place adequate controls to prevent non-compliance with key legislation (DWYPD; CGE)
• Management did not implement adequate review and monitoring controls over preparation of financial statements (CGE)
• Management was not effective in developing and monitoring implementation of action plans and investigating irregular and unauthorized expenditure, hence consequence management non- compliance raised (DWYPD).

Recommendations:
• Accounting officers/ authorities should ensure that all irregular and unauthorized expenditure is investigated, and that disciplinary steps are taken against everyone (if any) who is found to be responsible to create a culture of accountability.
• Accounting officers/authorities must continue to ensure that management implements and enhances review processes for financial statements, to prevent errors in the financial statements

Recommendations for Committee:
Monitor and regularly follow up with the executive authority and accounting officer/ authority on:
• progress on audit action plans put in place by the department and both entities
• monitor consequence management
• follow up with CGE and DWYPD on irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure to ensure there is consequence management
• Audit recommendations on IT should be implemented urgently as unresolved for a long time.
 The culture of consequence management should be enforced in the portfolio

Key commitments
• DWYPD to address repeat findings, in particular consequence management and slow progress of investigations. Control deficiencies in financial, performance and compliance matters will be addressed through detailed audit action plan.
Progress: There has been progress on investigations into irregular expenditure although at year end, not all investigations complete. There has been a notable improvement in the internal control environment due to audit action plan monitored rigorously
• CGE should develop an audit action plan for AGSA recommendations and strengthen its internal governance processes.
Progress: Minimal progress in implementation, as audit action plans and recommendations were not taken seriously to improve non-compliance with laws and regulations. No progress has been made as evidenced by internal control deficiencies noted.
• NYDA should develop an audit action plan for AGSA recommendations.
Progress: NYDA developed and monitored audit action plan to address internal control deficiencies

Discussion
The Chairperson said the Committee will have a joint meeting with DWYPD and with the audit and risk committee of the CGE to discuss the audit outcomes. The Committee is happy that AGSA has identified the ITC problems in the NYDA and DWYPD. Progress report on this is needed as it is not a new challenge but something the Committee has noted before.

Ms F Masiko (ANC) was comforted that IT has been noted as an audit finding as the Committee has long been concerned about this. Only one programme has been audited. She asked why Programme 3 was chosen to be audited – was it due to Committee concerns about it? What is the nature of the unreliable information that is being reported under performance information in Programme 2.

The Chairperson gave the example of DWYPD meeting only three out of seven targets in Programme 1 but it had spent 98% of the programme budget. One asks oneself what is going on and how possible is that. Can AGSA explain what criteria you used to choose Programme 3 of DWYPD or is it a random choice?

Ms N Sharif (DA) said Programme 2 deals with GBVF which is a matter of public concern and public interest and asked exactly how DWYPD is doing in that area. One is pleased that governance has improved with the appointment of the Director General. She is concerned about the comments about the CGE governance and its leadership. She asked for clarity on the recommendations, commitments and progress by CGE. The audit recommendations were not taken seriously by CGE which is extremely concerning. Post-audit, can AGSA report CGE has shown progress on that?

The Chairperson asked for advice on how the Committee deals with the monetary audit findings that occurred during the tenure of the previous CGE CEO. Does one have an opportunity to make the previous CEO account for this - what is the process?

Ms T Masondo (ANC) asked about the irregular expenditure that increased by 40%. How can DWYPD avoid this?

Mr L Mphithi (DA) referred to the internal controls in DWYPD and the two concerns raised by AGSA. One of these was lack of consequence management in the Department although it noted an improvement. He wanted clarity on what is the improvement. He then mentioned the non-signing of performance agreements by some management. He asked about irregular expenditure and the security contract that started in 2018 and ended in December 2020 which formed part of the R41m irregular expenditure - he is not seeing any form of consequence management from the Department. Did AGSA find that action has been taken on this? Senior management has also been found not to be monitoring adequately – has this improved?

The Chairperson said the Committee found discrepancies in the Department Annual Report but AGSA does not report on these discrepancies especially since it has stated that it audited Programme 3 only. Yet when we get the AGSA report the Committee assumes that it is reporting on the whole of the Department that used the money allocation. The discrepancies become a problem for the Committee because it does not know on how to deal with some of its concerns as it believes all these items should reflect in the AGSA report. If the Committee finds discrepancies about poor budgeting or performance, for example, can it communicate this with AGSA to assist the Committee? The Committee needs to be convinced about the progress - what exactly is this progress that AGSA is talking about?

Ms Sharif asked about the R18m under expenditure by DWYPD. Did AGSA report on this as it is seriously problematic?

AGSA response
Ms Mashigo replied about consequence management and the improvements noted. Section 38(h) of the PFMA requires management to investigate and take disciplinary steps for irregular expenditure. The backlog starts from 2015/16 right up to 2019/20. The Internal Audit unit of DWYPD is very active in investigating irregular expenditure and it driven by the DG. AGSA has seen an improvement compared to the prior year where AGSA noted no investigations had been performed. The Department has started working towards investigating the irregular expenditure on its books driven by the DG and the Audit Committee is instrumental also to ensure investigations are performed. Secondly, the only item preventing DWYPD from achieving a clean audit is consequence management and expenditure management. In 2020/21 did not identify any supply chain management (SCM) non-compliance. Yes, DWYPD did underspend - this reduction in spending could be an indication of it trying to avoid non-compliance in its expenditure. The DG and CFO would be well placed to discuss this.

Ms Mashigo replied about the concern about performance information reported for Programme 2…

The Chairperson interjected and asked how many irregular expenditure investigations have been done by DWYPD and CGE.

Ms Mashigo replied that AGSA has a Department report on the total number of investigations performed on irregular expenditure and what had not been completed yet. The reasons for the delay were the support documents were not available, DWYPD's lack of capacity in its Internal Audit as well as well as IT constraints so management was not able to access the information. Her colleague would speak to the irregular expenditure investigations.

The Chairperson said AGSA did give DWYPD a time frame to supply the support documents - what does AGSA do about that to ensure it gets the needed documents for the audit.

Ms Mashigo replied that the R18m was recorded as a material underspend and highlighted as a matter of emphasis in the audit report. That is as far as it can report on this in the audit methodology.

The R41m irregular expenditure in the annual financial statements (AFS) includes not only the security contract which was first identified in 2018/19. Management needs to disclose this irregular expenditure each year as the contract payments continues for three years. That contract ended in December 2020.

The DWYPD audit improvement that AGSA refers to includes the reduction in the number of audit findings. Non-compliance has reduced from the previous year.

AGSA selects one programme in a department to audit its performance information. It does not provide full assurance but audits certain portions of the annual performance report for AGSA to provide 'reasonable assurance'. Programme 3 was chosen. On performance information being credible, AGSA would have looked at the supporting documents to confirm the performance information is accurate, complete and is reliable so that each target reported on by management is therefore valid. For the other programmes, AGSA would do a high level review of the management reports and check they were consistent in the Annual Report. Any inconsistencies would have been communicated to DWYPD before the Annual Report is published.

The Chairperson asked who would be held accountable for inconsistencies.

Ms Mashigo replied that the PFMA clearly states who needs to be accountable for the internal controls, AFS and annual performance report to be accurate, valid and complete. This rests with the accounting officer who signs off on the Annual Report being accurate, complete and valid.

The criteria used to select Programme 3 was based mainly on a risk approach. This was the same programme audited the previous year and there were significant risks identified then in the measurability of the performance indicators. AGSA wanted to see if management had addressed the weaknesses previously identified. The other criterion would be the budget. Programme 3 does not have a large budget but it carries out the core mandate of the Department. Going forward, since there has been an improvement in Programme 3 and management has implemented the recommendations, AGSA will venture out and look at other programmes.

Ms Ilze Slabbert, AGSA Senior Manager, replied about the concerns about CGE governance and leadership as raised in the audit report. The concern raised in the 2020/21 audit is not a repeat finding. With the adjustments made to its AFS this year, CGE management needs to do proactive action to avoid an escalation of this concern. All factors need to gets equal attention and it should not focus just on the CGE audit action plan.

Ms Slabbert replied to the question to what extent a person can be held liable and accountable, saying there is no simple answer. The irregular expenditure investigations were still underway at the time of the audit. That needs to be completed and any consequence action needs to be taken. Since the audit was completed in July, AGSA has not yet been back on site to check on interim progress. She asked the Committee to allow her to find out about the current status and respond to this question in writing.

The Chairperson said she thought AGSA would address the concerns that occurred during the term of the previous CEO.

Ms Slabbert clarified one had to complete the investigation first to see if the previous CEO was liable for what occurred. When the 2020/21 audit was completed, that investigation was still in process and she asked to respond in writing about that.

Ms Myburgh replied about the improvements. There were fewer non-compliance findings. There was an improvement in the tone from management taking consequence management more seriously. That is a very positive change AGSA has seen – as without a change in the tone at the top you will not see change.

The Committee is welcome to share any discrepancy or credibility concerns with AGSA. Although AGSA might not be able to audit it to that extent, it will mention it to the Department. She proposed the Audit and Risk Committee can ensure that any concerns are included in the Internal Audit plan. The Internal Audit can ensure there is a follow up and ensure consistency and can definitely play a role in the other programmes not audited by AGSA.

The Chairperson expressed concern about the other programmes.

Ms Myburgh replied that in the Internal Audit environment, it is important for it to address this concern about internal controls across all programmes and not just on the programme audited. The Internal Audit focus must be on internal controls across all programmes.

It is important that the Department Internal Audit must follow up to see credibility of information to replicate that in the other problems if there are control weaknesses

Ms Myburgh replied that the CGE must conclude the investigation on the findings of non compliance and irregular expenditure and the outcomes of the investigations so there is clarity on the appropriate way forward on consequence management.

Ms Bridgette Khalo, AGSA Audit Manager, replied it was tricky to give the exact numbers of investigations. According to the DWYPD Internal Audit, there were 64 investigations on 2019/20 and 2018/19 transactions. As of 31 March 2021, the investigations had not been completed but thereafter they were completed and reported on to the DG. For 2013/14 to 2017/8, payment batches had been received and reviewed, and they were above 200. For 2010/11 to 2012/13, the registers had not yet been received, so the number of transactions involved and how many investigations were unknown. However, 2018/19 and 2019/20 investigations were completed and reported to the DG during the audit.

The Chairperson asked about investigations done for 2020/21.

Ms Khalo replied that the investigation for 2020/21 irregular expenditure was in progress. There was just the security contract and an expenditure for R12 600 which was immaterial. It was reported to management and it has committed to investigate that one.

The Chairperson said she would inform AGSA of the follow-up DWYPD and CGE joint meeting for it to attend.

DWYPD Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) Overview of 2020/21 Audit
Ms Ayanda Mafuleka, Chairperson: Audit and Risk Committee, and Ms Gratitude Ramphaka, ARC Member, presented. They reported that the DWYPD audited financial statements were free from material misstatements. There were two significant audit findings:
• Sufficient evidence could not be obtained that disciplinary steps were taken against officials who had incurred unauthorised expenditure in the previous financial years as required by section 38 of the PFMA. The amounts were R3.6m (2019/20); R2.2m (2015/16); R27m (2011/12).

Both DWYPD management and the Audit and Risk Committee did not agree with the audit finding as the 2019/20 unauthorised expenditure was beyond the control of DWYPD due to the National Macro Organisation of Government (NMOG process) of 2019 in which new functions were allocated in DWYPD. Management requested a condonation after 2020/21 year end.

• Sufficient evidence could not be obtained that disciplinary steps were taken against officials who had incurred irregular expenditure. R 41 million irregular expenditure is cumulative dating back from 2011/12. DWYPD managed to reduce irregular expenditure over the last three years. Irregular expenditure on a security service provider contract awarded in 2018 applied for three years with the contract ending in December 2020.

Management indicated that DWYPD does not have a dedicated unit or official (Internal Control Unit) to perform investigations on irregular expenditure. However, it has assigned the Internal Audit to investigate irregular expenditure incurred in DWYPD. An official was appointed on a fixed term contract to determine the facts on irregular expenditure. Investigation on irregular expenditure could not be concluded by the end of 2020/21 as there was a three-month period when the project stopped due to unavailability of funds to re-appoint the contract worker. DWYPD plans to complete the investigation and implement appropriate action in 2021/22. The Audit and Risk Committee agrees with the audit finding. The reason is DWYPD is dependent on savings in the budget of compensation of employees to extend the contract of the official who assists DWYPD with investigation of irregular expenditure.

In 2020/21 the audit did not identify material findings on the performance information of DWYPD. The material misstatements which were identified by the audit in the annual performance report of DWYPD were subsequently corrected.

DWYPD reduced the number of audit findings in the previous three financial years. The was a reduction of 61% audit findings between 2018/19 and 2020/21.

The Audit and Risk Committee noted that 12 findings are new findings and 10 are repeat findings. The repeat audit findings are mainly on Information Technology. IT has been a challenge in DWYPD for some time due to resources limitation. A loss of a key IT staff member due to COVID-19 contributed to non resolution of IT audit findings. This position was filled in 2021/22 and DWYPD is committed to address the IT weaknesses. Migration to cloud service will resolve most of these in 2021/22.

Internal Audit provides assurance to the Audit and Risk Committee on reported progress in resolving the audit findings. Management has indicated human resources capacity constraints as the cause for weakness. DWYPD has developed a proposed organisational structure with the required human resource capacity in 2020/21 and will solicit funding from National Treasury and Department of Public Service Administration. The Audit and Risk Committee will continue to monitor the audit action plan during 2021/22 to ensure that audit findings are adequately addressed.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked that all the audit findings be read out – which was done by Ms Ramphaka (see document).

The Chairperson asked for clarity on some of the new findings and also on the matter of the revised Annual Performance Plan (APP). Has ARC done the audit on the old or revised APP? What does ARC do with HR cases such as a DDG post with a salary of more than R1m per annum not being officially on the organogram?

Ms Ramphaka replied that the ARC role is to look at certain audit areas and ARC oversees and advises but the responsibility still lies with the Department. The HR matter has been brought to ARC's attention to provide advice on resolving it and it had a closed session to discuss the HR matters. In the main, ARC is there to oversee that issues get resolved quickly and effectively but the processes are owned by the Department and the Director General.

The Chairperson asked the ARC Chairperson to comment as the HR matter had been around for a long time and also to comment on the revised APP.

Ms Mafuleka replied that there was a material misstatement as the revised APP was not re-tabled in Parliament for approval.

The Chairperson pointed out that an official document tabled in Parliament cannot be amended. This made the revised APP invalid. What is ARC's advice to DWYPD about this?

Ms Mafuleka agreed that the APP has to be approved by both the Executive Authority and Parliament. The APP is not valid until it has been approved by Parliament . AGSA was correct that although it was approved by the Executive Authority, it was not re-tabled in Parliament to approve. Therefore the Committee Chairperson is 100% correct.

The Chairperson noted the funded chief director post in the Disability branch which has not been filled for a very long time and asked if ARC monitors vacancies.

Ms Mafuleka said indeed ARC does monitor the vacancy rate and there are critical vacant posts that have not been filled. There were two critical posts that have been filled for Supply Chain Management (SCM) and ITC where there was pressure. The filling of the organogram and approval thereof rests with the accounting officer who is best placed to respond to this question. The ARC is aware of the challenges of the NMOG process and the moratorium on filling posts and the pressures of the unauthorised expenditure.

Mr Mphithi said the Chair's question had not been answered on the APP and the revised APP. Was the ARC analysis based on the revised approved APP or on the second revised version that has some unofficial new targets and some targets that are not there?

The Chairperson asked if ARC had received and considered the Committee's Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR). She would send it to ARC again.

Ms Masiko was concerned about the poor culture of accountability and the delay in investigations into irregular and unauthorised expenditure. ARC said there has been an improvement but on the other hand AGSA had raised these delays as a matter of concern in the internal control environment.

Mr S Ngcobo (DA) noted the AGSA finding about the lack of implementation of an audit action plan and asked how ARC will monitor the implementation of the 2020/21 audit action plan.

The Chairperson agreed that the lack of an audit action plan started from 2019/20.

Ms Ramphaka replied that ARC monitors the implementation of the audit action plan which has quarterly targets and ARC goes through the progress made at each meeting. This is standard practice , every year there is an audit action plan and ARC monitors the audit action plan.

 The Chairperson asked what happens if the Department does not implement. AGSA said that it did not get the evidence it needed. If ARC does not get the information, what do you do?

Ms Ramphaka replied that DWYPD is cooperative and ARC does get progress – it may not be at the time expected but it does get it eventually. If there is a problem, the HOD and DG will also come in so the cooperation is not only restricted to the financial officer but to the entire department. ARC has not had a big challenge in DWYPD not implementing the audit action plan except the IT findings which were difficult to implement but ARC has the commitment of the Department. If there was a challenge, ARC would be transparent to the Portfolio Committee. The DG monitors the implementation of the audit action plan as well.

The Chairperson asked why there are repeat findings if ARC has commitment and cooperation from DWYPD.

Ms Ramphaka replied that the repeat findings were mainly IT and unfortunately the key IT official passed away from Covid and there was no successor for that person. It was unexpected and a big disruption. Those were the challenges during that year. There is now an IT leader although the IT section is understaffed.

Ms Mafuleka said that the concerns were raised strongly by ARC. The lack of consequence management cost DWYPD a clean audit. There were 425 transactions that had given rise to irregular expenditure and the bulk of investigations were not completed . The years 2018/19 and 2019/20 had been completed but corrective action had not been taken. These matters date back to 2011/12. The investigations need to fast tracked by the DG so they can go through the condonation process. However, in terms of DWYPD cooperation, with the appointment of the accounting officer we have seen a lot of positive cooperation in the implementation of the ARC recommendations. The bulk of the repeat findings are IT and ARC had raised this with the Portfolio Committee before that there was no ITC structure. There is improvement with an active IT steering committee and an external chairperson. There was the unfortunate loss of the key IT official, the Government Information Technology Officer (GITO), who has now been replaced. In the 2020/21 audit, there were only nine IT findings and seven have been worked on so there is movement. We have seen pockets of improvement and a reduction in the number of overall findings.

The Chairperson asked if the DWYPD website is working now.

Ms Ramphaka replied that a service provider has been appointed to put up the DWYPD website but it is at the initial stage.

Mr Mphithi said the question on the APP and the revised APP had not been answered. He asked about the revised APP as he did not get clarity on that in the presentation.

Secondly, the repeat findings are not only IT related. There was lack of consequence management and performance agreements not signed. It is not fair to reduce it to IT findings only. There are clearly things that are not coming together from both sides on internal controls. The ARC needs to give an honest reflection on that. The type of feedback by the ARC oversight to DWYPD needs to be improved.

Ms Mafuleka, ARC Chairperson, replied that she said "mostly" not "all" repeat findings emanate from IT. On the status of internal controls, AGSA in its independent assessment gave the green light on the assurance the Internal Audit provides on internal controls. The Internal Audit plan guides the work of the Internal Audit and looks at the areas of concern and risk. The Internal Audit looks at the quarterly APP achievement on performance information and looks at the portfolio of evidence. The Internal Audit is also part of the investigations on irregular expenditure. Where the Internal Audit is challenged is that it does not have the expertise for the IT audit. The recommendation is that some of the IT audit will have to be outsourced especially due to the repeat IT findings.

Ms Mafuleka replied that DWYPD revised the APP but unfortunately the revisions were not approved by Parliament so a finding was raised. The Department and ARC were using the revised APP.

Mr Mphithi added "which was not approved".

The Chairperson said she can confirm the website is not working now.

Ms Ramphaka explained that a service provider has been appointed and it is at the initial stages but she did not say website is working yet.

The Chairperson said to Ms Ramphaka – do not come and cover up. Next time, do not paint a picture as if everything is well. This makes the Chairperson angry. You must enable the Portfolio Committee to build confidence in your report. We have three researchers and we check the information you present.

Ms Ramphaka apologised but noted she did not say that the website is up. None of the IT findings have been resolved at this point.

The Chairperson said "that is the answer we need".

Mr Mphithi wanted clarity that when ARC met with DWYPD to look at the 2020/21 Annual Report, the ARC did not pick up that some of the targets were new and others were no longer there. Was that picked up in the ARC report? There was no indication from ARC that they looked at both documents. It means that the ARC analysis is based on a document that had changed and was no longer approved by Parliament. He appreciates that ARC is mainly speaking about the financial aspect of the Annual Report but there is the performance information; the glitch is coming from this mismatch between the two APPs. This should have been indicated in the ARC report as it has implications for this Committee if ARC was unaware of the changes. Did ARC pick this up and what was its feedback to DWYPD?

The Chairperson added this was especially since budget was allocated for these programme performance targets that no longer existed.

Ms Mafuleka replied that around Quarter 2 DWYPD revised the APP. It was approved by the Executive Authority and the DG ran with this. AGSA picked up that the revised APP was not approved Parliament which made it non-compliant. DWYPD then had to revert to the initial APP otherwise it would have obtained a qualified audit. This is the corrected APP that is presented. She requested that ARC provide a written report on the DWYPD website.

Mr Mphithi stated that in future this confusion about the APP needs to be made very clear.

In her closing remarks, Ms Mafuleka assured the Portfolio Committee that the ARC is an independent oversight body and this has not been comprised in any way. She apologised about the APP confusion that might have led the Committee to question its independence.

Afternoon session

Department of Women, Youth and Persons & Disabilities Annual Report 2020/21
Ms Shoki Tshabalala, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Social Transformation, DWYPD, gave her apologies on behalf of the Director General. She explained that there is a rule in Cabinet meetings that when the Minister presents to Cabinet, the DG has to be present.

She noted that DWYPD tabled a revised APP in July 2020 which factored in changes to its operations brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2019 NMOG process of the transfer of functions and resources for persons with disabilities and national youth development programme was finalised as from 1 April 2020.

DWYPD mandate is to lead on socio-economic transformation and implementation of the empowerment and participation of women, youth and persons with disabilities through mainstreaming, advocacy, monitoring and evaluation.

In 2020/21 there were 36 targets and 27 (75%) targets were achieved. There is a decrease in achievement of 5% as in 2019/20 there were 40 targets and 32 targets (80%) were achieved.

The met and unmet revised targets for each programme were given and reasons for deviation:
1. Administration: Of 7 targets, 3 (43%) targets achieved
2. Social Transformation and Economic Empowerment: Of 11 targets, 8 (73%) targets achieved
3. Policy, Stakeholder and Knowledge Management: Of 9 targets, all 9 (100%) targets achieved.
4. National Youth Development: Of 4 targets, 2 (50%) targets achieved
5. Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Of 5 targets, all 5 (100%) targets achieved.

DWYPD has an approved Risk Management Policy and Strategy and on a quarterly basis reports to the Risk Management Committee (RMC) and Audit and Risk Committee (ARC). The ARC chaired by independent external chairperson and it monitors the implementation of mitigation actions and makes recommendation to the Accounting Officer. Implementation of risk mitigation action is satisfactory and this indicated by the improvement of performance on a quarterly basis.

DWYPD has an approved fraud prevention policy and whistleblowing policy. Anti-corruption awareness are conducted throughout department to create awareness to staff about the impact of unethical conduct, corruption and non-compliance to policies.

DWYPD embarked on a restructuring process of its organisation design more appropriate to its mandate and strategy. Budget cuts to the 2020/21 Compensation of Employees allocation meant the unfunding of 8 vacant posts. This will also impact the restructuring options for DWYPD. To support the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide, a GBVF Secretariat was established. Compensation expenditure against appropriation was 98%. Vacancy rate was 8.5%. COVID-19 restrictions had an effect on productivity but remote working ensured services were maintained.

Human resource figures were provided for employment and vacancies per programme; annual turnover rate; reasons staff left; employment equity; signing of performance agreements; performance rewards; sick leave; annual leave; leave pay-outs; labour relations; training provided and use of consultants (see document).
 
Discussion
The Chairperson noted a discrepancy and referred to page 86 of the Annual Report that stated 187 contract workers that included 33 consultants. Where does DWYPD get the money for contract workers and does it have a contract worker policy? She warned that one must not create an expectation that the contract worker will be permanently appointed by DWYPD. How do you manage contract workers? Why are you not filling vacant posts such as the Chief Director position in the Disability branch?

Mr Mbahzima Shiviti, Chief Director: Resource Management, provided a timeline for the Chief Director vacant post. In January 2021 it was advertised but in March it was decided to readvertise in April. In May, one applicant was shortlisted. In both rounds there was only one applicant that qualified. A request for deviation was made to the Minister for competency assessment which took place in October. The recommendation was now en route to the Minister.

The Chairperson asked him to double-check the numbers for contract workers in the APP and Annual Report so that the Committee and DWYPD are on the same page. She requested that Mr Shiviti explain in writing how the Department manages its contract workers.

Ms Masiko welcomed the report and referred to the ARC and AGSA concern about the slow pace of investigations that led to the lack of consequence management finding. This is linked to risk management. Did DWYPD not have enough staff to deal with the investigations? How does this impact its risk management as one cannot continue with these late investigations. What is the plan to resolve this?

On the fraud and corruption mechanism for whistleblowing, how are cases reported and what action is taken?

On the rollout of sanitary towels, how are the schools and the areas identified for the Sanitary Dignity Programme?

Ms Masiko spoke to the unfunded programmes and pointed out that only two of the four targets in the Disability branch were achieved yet money in that branch was sent back as unspent. How will DWYPD achieve its mandate if this occurs?

The Chairperson asked Mr Shiviti if DWYPD has resolved the human resource matter of the official who is a DDG. She noted the Director General had raised the matter in the last meeting.

Ms Masondo asked how DWYPD has contributed to the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) priorities based on the targets it achieved. How has DWYPD assessed its commitments to women, youth and people with disability based on the targets achieved? How had DWYPD contributed to mainstreaming empowerment of women, youth and people with disability when its draft bills are delayed and have not reached Parliament?

Ms Sharif asked for information on virements and why this occurred and what criteria was used. It was upsetting to see the APP targets are not the same targets that the Committee was using so there is a lot of confusion. The GBVF and National Gender Machinery (NGM) targets were not met so what is DWYPD doing to mitigate this. She asked for an explanation for the high spending on property payments and the cost of the four GBVF Secretariat staff members.

The Chairperson asked if the DDG was chased out of the meeting the day before? She heard that the official is not cooperating with requests.

Mr Mphithi asked for the status of the National Youth Machinery (NYM) framework and the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) Amendment Bill. Has it been approved by Cabinet as a Bill or only as a discussion document? He said that 57% of the budget is spent on Programme 1 which is super problematic. Senior management must spend a close eye on this as 98% of the budget was spent but the targets were not met. It tells him that something is not going right. There were unmet targets in the other programmes as well. He pointed to the repeat finding on consequence management. This has been a Committee concern since the start of the Sixth Parliament and it is now two and a half years later. He asked for the reason officials have not signed their performance agreements. There appeared to be a causality between unmet targets and unsigned performance agreements. What concrete steps are being taken in response to these concerns?

Mr Mphithi referred to the security contract from 2018 to Dec 2020 and asked for a breakdown of what that the R41m irregular expenditure includes. The Committee had received so many documents in the lead up to this meeting. Targets are being left off the APP. Two targets have fallen off the grid for Programme 1 and likewise for Programme 2 targets. This is problematic when DWYPD cannot comply and this is the second time this has happened. At the end of 2019, targets were also dropped.

Mr Mphithi stated that the virement cut to Programme 5: Youth is concerning. The Committee is begging for more work to be done for youth. However, youth work has been cut and the money taken to pay employees in Programme 1 Administration. This is completely unacceptable at the peak of youth unemployment. R5 million has been taken away from Programme 5 to pay officials and the youth are left on the sidelines. Please prioritise young people! On the expanded definition of unemployment, there is 75% youth unemployment. Money has been taken away from Youth and yet we do not know the status of the NYM and if the NYDA Amendment Bill is only a discussion document. This Committee has only two and a half years left of this term. No wonder people have bad things to say about the Department, its officials and the Minister. We have to pull up our socks in the last two and a half years of the Sixth Term.

Addressing the CFO, the Chairperson asked sarcastically if the virements are an example of smart planning. She noted the R18 million underspending and asked if National Treasury would take DWYPD seriously if it said it is underfunded. Who is accountable for the R41m irregular expenditure? Whose security contract is this? She asked why a staff member had been on suspension for 206 days. Why is the case not finalised and why were the two disputes with staff lost? She repeated her question on how long the contract workers worked for them and if their contracts were simply renewed. She requested information on the R2.5m spent on 33 consultants for eight projects.

Mr Ngcobo pointed to Programme 4: Disability that had a small, limited budget but DWYPD did not spend it. When did the accounting officer become aware of this and what measures were taken to avoid this? The Disability branch reported that the APP of 12 departments were analysed for disability mainstreaming. What is the Disability branch doing to raise awareness about disability rights and what is the status of the Disability Rights Bill and when will its drafting be finalised?

The Chairperson asked DDG Shoki Tshabalala why the revised APP was not tabled in Parliament. What is going to happen, what are the implications, and which one is legal? She heard DWYPD had tried to correct this by sending a letter to the Chairperson. Fortunately she had not received such a letter as one cannot correct something at the end of the financial year.

Ms Masondo asked what is DWYPD's assessment of the monitoring and evaluation of mainstreaming efforts of government departments. She asked about the targets achieved and how many were performed by external service providers and the cost. She asked about the achieved targets in relation to the fulfilment of its mission and vision.

Ms Sharif said just before the meeting, the Disability branch sent a four-page status report on government departments recognising people with disability in their APPs. It hailed the report as a great achievement but the report itself was highly disappointing and its recommendations should have already been implemented.

The Chairperson remarked that there is no achievement in the Disability branch.

Ms Sharif agreed and stated that by sending documents so late it jeopardises the Committee's ability to perform oversight.

Department response
Ms Desree Legwale, DWYPD CFO, replied that the figures taken from the Annual Report show that before the virements, Programme 1 took up 14% of the DWYPD budget allocation and after the virements, it was 16% and not the 57% that Mr Mphithi mentioned.

Ms Legwale would provide a detailed report on what made up the R41m irregular expenditure that includes the security contract.

Ms Legwale stated that departments are allowed to shift unspent funds in line with PFMA requirements and as approved by the accounting officer and Treasury. A spending pressure was experienced in Programme 1 due to expenditure on tools of trade to enable staff to work from home during Covid restrictions.

Mr Mphithi said that he could understand unspent money had to be moved to pressure points. However, what is the baseline motivation for moving funds from the pressure point of youth unemployment to providing staff with laptops. Youth unemployment has a much higher priority in his view.

Ms Legwale replied that virements are not done during implementation but only after the Department have closed the books for the year. It analysed the spending patterns and motivated to both the accounting officer and Treasury for these virements. Applications for virement must be justified by DG to Treasury for approval. It has not happened yet that the Department's motivation for a virement was deemed not justifiable.

The Chairperson asked what had happened to the SCM manager responsible for irregular expenditure on the security contract.

Ms Legwale replied about the Internal Audit determination process for the 2018/19 irregular expenditure, saying that the investigation has been completed and the report shared with the accounting officer. The accounting officer will then implement a disciplinary process.

The Chairperson pointed out that DWYPD had both underspent and was underfunded. Virements mean underfunding. If there was proper budgeting, there would be no need for virement.

Ms Legwale replied that the budget was based on estimates. During actual implementation, the market price might be above or below the projected expenditure. Covid-19 had an adverse effect on activities that led to underspending. The Finance unit has put in measures so that spending is monitored monthly so it can advise management where there is cause for concern. The main contributing factor to the underspending was the Covid restrictions as the activities initially budgeted for were limited.

The Chairperson said she hoped the CFO pushed her colleagues to fill the vacant posts.

Ms Val Mathobela, DWYPD Chief Director: Strategic Management, referred the Committee to page 11 of the Annual Report where the accounting officer disclosed upfront that "the department tabled a revised APP which factored changes brought about by the COVID-19 Pandemic in its operations and execution of targets in quarter 3 and 4. We are reporting on two Annual Performance Plans for 2020/21, i.e. Original APP and Revised/Addendum APP, it is important to note that programme 1 and 5 did not revise their targets hence original and revised APP applies to programmes 2, 3 and 4. The Department performance, out of 40 targets planned for both Original tabled and revised/Addendum tabled 2020/21 APP, 25 (62.5%) targets were achieved while 15 (37.5%) were not achieved".

Ms Mathobela spoke about a Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) circular on the revised framework from which she identified inconsistencies with the wording of some DWYPD targets in Quarter 3 so an errata sheet signed by the Minister was developed to correct these. It was not a complete change of the target itself. The errata sheet was not tabled; DWYPD did not re-table the changes as the period for presenting APPs in Parliament had passed. AGSA would not accept the revised framework. DWYPD briefed ARC and AGSA and they are on the same page.

The Chairperson said that the Committee is not on the same page and "we are not convinced". Some of your targets have changed.

Ms Mathobela replied that ARC and AGSA did know. ARC and AGSA understood and said that DWYPD use the revised framework. It is fully disclosed on page 14 that DWYPD discontinued key activities and it discontinued seven of the targets tabled in March. However, in the Annual Report it was forced by the DPME framework to include those initial targets as well. The full targets are shown on page 34 of the Annual Report for Programme 1; Programme 2 is on page 39; Programme 3 is on page 48; Programme 4 on page 57 and Programme 5.

DWYPD did not go out of prescript and it was audited as per the APP tabled in July 2020.

DWYPD did not abandon the Women Empowerment and Gender Equality Bill. In May 2021 the Executive Authority revised the Bill. The Bill is with the Presidency as it has undergone the Socio Economic Impact Assessment System (SEIAS) and it is undergoing corrections to get the SEIAS certificate.

The arrival was noted of the Director General, Adv Mikateko Joyce Maluleke, who apologised that the Cabinet presentation had gone on longer than expected.

DDG Ranji Reddy replied about the mainstreaming mandate for 2020/21 across the four programmes. As a starting point of mainstreaming women, youth and persons with disabilities, Cabinet approved the gender responsive framework for draft APPs. DWYPD is monitoring this with DPME to ensure each APP of the 12 departments chosen in 2021/22, mainly in the economic sector, is speaking to the priorities of women, youth and persons with disabilities. Treasury is tagging and monitoring expenditure which is a fundamental way of ensuring mainstreaming.

The MTSF has crosscutting priorities that include the country gender indicator framework. DWYPD with the assistance of Treasury information produced a monitoring report which assesses the extent of mainstreaming of women, youth and persons with disabilities across government. The Department has also looked at the mainstreaming of the Gender-based Violence and Femicide plan in the public sector to monitor progress in implementation.

Ms Ranji said that it also monitored if the Covid-19 government response measures were being mainstreamed across women, youth and persons with disabilities. Disability also did a report on this. The Department undertook monitoring of the President's August 2020 announcement that government would set aside 40% of public procurement for women-owned businesses. DWYPD produced a comprehensive report for the period April to August 2021 which it will share with the Committee.

Ms Ranji said that the Department continued online programme training on the gender responsive framework, gender mainstreaming and GBVF.

Mr Shiviti referred to Table 3.1.2 on page 86 of Annual Report 147 and the reported number of employees being 187 which differed from the post establishment of 147. He explained the discrepancy was that the table includes the Minister, Deputy Minister, Special Advisers, Interns and contract workers as well.

Mr Shiviti replied about the few positions in the Disability branch saying that this forms part of the organisational review process. It has hit a snag as Treasury was not supporting the proposals for the organisational structure. The Director General is trying to assist by advocating about these constraints and the lack of warm bodies in the Youth and Disability branches.

On the lack of compliance, action is being taken against the DDG refusing to sign the performance agreement.

Mr Shiviti was not aware of an employee who had been suspended for 206 days. He does not a suspension case was finalised in Quarter 1 of 2021/22. He knows of no one currently on suspension. The two lodged disputes are busy with arbitration.

The Chairperson referred to Table 3.12.7 in the Annual Report that showed one person on suspension for 206 days at a cost of R703 000. The Committee wants to know all the HR cases.

Mr Emmanuel Kganakga, Director: Youth Legislation and Policy, DWYPD, replied about the NYM framework. On a quarterly basis, DWYPD and civil society organisations (CSOs) meet and work on this common programme of action for youth development. It had continued with virtual quarterly meetings during the pandemic. He is aware of provincial and local meetings. They do have a draft in place and it will be finalised and approved by Minister and then be consulted on. Since the department merge with women and people with disability, it is prudent and a real advantage to work in collaboration on the machineries as an integrated machinery framework.

On the draft NYDA Amendment Bill, before consultation, it took the document through all the government clusters and then it tabled it in Cabinet in November 2020 as a discussion document. After Cabinet approved the submission of the NYDA Amendment Bill for public comment, it could with confidence gazette the draft bill for wider consultation and go out and consult the provinces and the youth. It had consulted with the Portfolio Committee and it had gone to Nedlac.

Ms Tshabalala replied that the cost of GBVF Secretariat is R5m over MTEF. The secretariat was established in the interim as legislation is required to establish the GBV Council. R2.9 million is for salaries and the balance is for operational costs.

Ms Tshabalala replied that the Sanitary Dignity Programme applies to special schools, farm schools & Quintile 1 to 3 schools. Each province receives an allocation from Treasury and it takes the responsibility for ensuring the sanitary pads are provided to these schools.

The Chairperson noted that she heard an official was asked to leave a department meeting and said that the DG will reply to that. She referred to the HR cases that have been outstanding for a long time and need to be finalised. A full detailed written report on how DWYPD is resolving all the outstanding cases must be provided so that the Committee is not given piecemeal information on the official and the other cases. All the cases must be concluded.

Ms Sharif said that Ms Ranji's reference to an analysis does not gel with the "copy and paste" that was sent to the Committee the day before. It is short on analysis and little content was provided to give the Committee enough information to perform oversight.

Ms Sharif noted that the GBVF Secretariat was an interim arrangement and asked for progress on the legislation to establish the GBVF Council.

Ms Sharif referred to the revised APP tabled on 8 July 2020 and referred to Programme 2 as an example – there are targets in the revised APP that are not being reported on in the Annual Report.

Mr Ngcobo noted that DDG Tshabalala mentioned the Disability Unit officials are not present in the meeting today. That is not acceptable. There is consistent poor performance from Programme 4: Disability. He requested that an explanation be given why the officials are not present.

The Chairperson noted time constraints and that all unanswered questions must be responded to in writing. She told the Director General that she had been well represented by her team during her absence and the team had accounted for what they are employed to do. The Committee had requested extra information on all the disciplinary cases and it will send the questions to the DG and the Minister. The officials will brief the Director General on the issues the Committee had raised sharply.

Meeting adjourned.