Efficacy of Stats SA budget allocation

Meeting report

Statistics South Africa (Stats SA): An introduction to Stats SA and its fund

Mr Risenga Maluleke, Statistician-General, Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), accompanied by a large delegation, presented an introduction to Stats SA and the efficacy of its budget allocations to the Committee. The presentation included a strategic overview of the demand and supply of statistical information, the challenges and risks facing Stats SA, the census of 2022, and the data ecosystem. It shed light on the need for, and reliance on, statistical data of the kind provided by Stats SA, and provided insights into their vacancy rate, budget and products, as well as their strategic outcomes and how they aimed to achieve them through the performance of their duties and functions.

The strategic objectives highlighted in the presentation pertained to insightful data, an agile operating model, interconnected statistical systems and transformed capabilities. They were aimed at protecting and sustaining the quality of national indicators, driving legislative and statistical reform in the data ecosystem, and driving a digital transformation agenda.

Mr Maluleke also detailed how policy and statistics were interlinked and how they inform one another. He elaborated on the statistical production system and where Stats SA fits into this system, focusing on their output and outcomes obtained through the census or surveys and other data sources, as well as the products they deliver. He highlighted the challenges of ageing infrastructure and a need for information communication technology (ICT) investment, the increase in the vacancy rate, a loss of staff retention and low investment in skills development, and other human capital deficits, as well as financial management and other governance functions being compromised.

Mr Maluleke briefed the Committee on the state of Stats SA's finances, referring to the budgetary constraints they had experienced for the 2022 Census, as well as the lack of budget increases and the continued over-expenditure and budget cuts the institution was faced with. These challenges had an impact on the economic statistics and the population and social statistics programmes, and on statistical coordination in the form of delays and the suspension of some of their products. He also reported that the lack of adequate funding and human capital had knock-on effects on policy development, planning, monitoring and evaluation, and decision-making.

He also described the internal data review processes that Stats SA employed to ensure the reliability, accuracy, and quality of data, and elaborated on the post-enumeration survey (PES) that it used to assess the quality of the data used in the census. He explained what undercounts and coverage errors entailed to provide clarity on the PES process and the reliability of its use. He also shared the successes of Stats SA in the global statistics and data collection context.

(See presentation attached)

Discussion

Ms N Gcaleka-Mazibuko (ANC) commended the Statistician-General on the presentation, but observed that the state of human capital at Stats SA was worrisome, along with the fact that they were unable to retain their staff and constituted a mere training ground from which other organisations could take human capital and skills. She acknowledged that many institutions in the country were faced with the same problem. She also voiced her concern regarding the discontinued and delayed programmes mentioned by the Statistician-General. She said that the role of Members of Parliament, serving an oversight function, was also to assist institutions by taking the discussions further to Parliament for possible solutions.

She maintained that Stats SA plays an important role in the public sector and in the vision of government as it pertains to planning, especially in terms of distribution of resources, population figures, and all other priorities of government, as they rely on the information that Stats SA generates. She asked if there had been measures by Stats SA to address the public perceptions regarding the accuracy of data they were providing, to redeem themselves.

She questioned the audit outcomes of Stats SA's financial management, as it had not been addressed in the report or in the presentation by the Statistician-General. Many institutions had fallen apart because of the mismanagement of finances and issues of corruption, amongst other things, and she wanted to know how Stats SA had been handling the limited resources at their disposal.

She also asked how undocumented migrants, street dwellers, and unregistered births were being documented in the census or other survey data points, as this could influence the contextual accuracy of the data, as these participants were also reliant on government services and the planning processes of government.

Dr M Burke (DA) said he believed in the need for accurate statistics for informed decision-making and held that, along with issues of housing and early childhood development, accurate data was a priority line item in need of funding. Trust in institutions was at an all-time low, and they often fell under the attack of populist opinions. As such, he questioned the reliability of the census 2022, and its impact on Stats SA's brand, given that some staff had indicated that they did not want their names associated with reports by the institution. He referred to the case study of Beaufort West, mentioned by the Statistician-General, where the population figure reported by Stats SA had been questioned. He asked what other indicators, administrative data and other data sets, such as satellite imagery, density measures, or other comparative tests, had been used. He said these questions of reliability and accuracy of data had knock-on effects that undermined the agenda of the whole of government.

He observed from experience, that ICT investment was a new way for money to go missing, which he said made him cautious, although he did see the need for modernisation. He referred to one of the slides presented which, on the one hand, showed the collapse of the financial function and troubles facing Stats SA, while on the other hand, it indicated a need to invest in the institution's future, which he deemed contradictory. He said that one needed to be fixed before the other could be considered.

He also asked whether the bulk of the staff should be employed by Stats SA as an employment body or sourced from universities, acting rather as a management body. He framed this question as a suggestion to reduce the headcount of staff retained, while increasing the impact of Stats SA by following a different model. He asked Stats SA to come up with a turnaround strategy or plan to restore Stats SA's reputation.

Ms N Hlonyana (EFF) commended the Statistician-General for bringing the management team along for the briefing, as she felt it was important to have the decision-makers around the table so that solutions were more easily reached. She also understood the difficulty the institution faced, as they were not equipped with the necessary resources to deliver the expected results, yet were to blame when their performance was lacking.

She asked for clarity on the cost of living report mentioned during the presentation, as there seemed to be uncertainty as to how much a person needed per month to survive in South Africa, and whether the R350 stipend was making an impact on the unemployed people who depended on that money for survival. She hoped Stats SA would have the necessary funding to conduct such research.

She also asked the Statistician-General whether it would be possible for the organisation to enter into partnership with universities such as the University of South Africa, which they did not have to pay, given their fiscal circumstances, to assist in data collection while the Committee or Parliament tried to find alternative ways to fund the entity.

She also asked Stats SA to advise the Committee how much they needed as an institution to be able to do their work properly. She also asked if any technologies could be implemented in the country to assist with data collection.

Mr M Lekganyane (ANC) commented on Ms Hlonyana's suggestion of partnering with universities, and suggested that more than one institution or university needed to be partnered with, rather than one university having "the Hawkeye that other universities do not have," as it would not be good for development in the country.

He acknowledged the Statistician-General's point regarding the length of time needed to properly train a statistician, and in line with the comments of Dr Burke and Ms Hlonyana, suggested partnering with universities to train most statisticians and build up the repository of statisticians they needed. He also suggested that such engagement with other institutions could assist in validating the data and results produced in reports.

He then referred to a slide related to linking policy and statistics in the presentation. He mentioned the sustainable development goals, the national development plan, other reports, and the six priorities listed by the President in the opening address of Parliament for the 7th administration. He then asked at what stage they had addressed the dissonance between the county's priorities versus the priorities of the municipalities. He used job creation as a component of economic development as an example. He asked how unfunded and underfunded departments helped achieve the priorities set out by the President, how they drive investment, and how they facilitate economic growth and development. He questioned whether these policies could be linked to, and measure, local-level performance.

Ms M Bartlett (ANC) asked what the way forward was and noted her concerns about overspending, human capacity, and skills deficits.

The Chairperson also raised his concern regarding the longevity of Stats SA, and said that the last thing South Africa needed was the underfunding and discrediting of a crucial entity like Stats SA.

He also observed that they were living in an era of "big data," and said that future economies were wholly reliant on whoever was the custodian of big data. He used Discovery as an example, and said that, in some ways, it was not only a medical health provider but a data centre, which presented a commercial opportunity for Stats SA. He therefore asked whether there were possibilities of public-private partnerships, given the economies of big data, and commercialising it for private actors, in light of the suspension of some of the products that Stats SA could no longer produce due to their financial woes. He mentioned this as a suggestion for medium to long-term income generation to sustain Stats SA, where the fiscus could not. He also asked about the viability of Stats SA selling products such as data and outputs.

He sought clarity on the post-enumeration surveys (PES) that Stats SA employs, and asked at what point they became detrimental to the integrity of the data. He had found the increase in proportions of the undercount particularly interesting, as this had raised the issue of when the integrity of the entire census became compromised.

From other committees, he had observed the increases in medico-legal claims, especially related to the mother-child mortality rates. He asked for more accurate figures in writing of these mortality rates, to ensure that the committees operated on accurate data that was not subject to vulnerability and open to exploitation by opportunistic criminals.

He also asked how they could ensure the integrity of at least the baseline information that informs policy, and how it could be imported to the respective departments to avoid misalignment between national policy, plans and budget allocations, to prevent ripple effects down the line. He also asked how Stats SA's recruitment drive was going, and as they could not fill all the vacancies, how they were approaching their recruitment drive. How could the Committee strengthen Stats SA's arm in attracting competent individuals to come into the institution and ensure that the institution and its quality of data do not collapse or deteriorate soon?

The Chairperson also asked if there were international best practices in terms of technology that Stats SA could use to limit the human capital needed to collect and analyse data within the institution.

Stats SA's response

Mr Maluleke responded that they appreciated the questions, as the role of Parliament was not only to assist them in doing their work, but also to hold them accountable. He assured the Committee that there was no question, no matter how difficult, that they would not respond to. He would start by responding to some of the questions before handing over to his colleagues.

In response to Ms Gcaleka-Mazibuko's question, he clarified that when referring to the population register, there was a misunderstanding that he needed to correct -- that they did collect information on undocumented migrants. He was responsible as Statistician-General for everyone within the borders of South Africa, whether they were documented or not. He added that they uphold strict confidentiality, which, in some instances, causes friction between Stats SA and colleagues in other state departments or entities, such as the South African Police Service (SAPS) or the South African Revenue Service (SARS).

About the recruitment drive, he responded that they rely on being funded from the state coffers and that the private sector was unwilling to fund Stats SA, as they have their programmes, while some of them in the data space were competitors. As a result, they would fill only seven vacancies in the current financial year, as they could not afford to fill all 660 vacancies. He explained that it was difficult, as many firms and entities were taking their PhDs, making it harder to keep up with filling the vacancies, as they kept losing a lot of their staff. Stats SA was amongst the top five statistical agencies in the world, and globally it was held in high regard in the statistics space.

In response to the audit question, he replied that Stats SA had a high performance record, even under difficult circumstances such as COVID-19. He said that in 1996, they had a disclaimer, and in both 2001 and 2011 they had qualified audits. However, in 2022 they had had an unqualified audit with matters of emphasis, but had been maintaining their finances like that, with matters of emphasis.

Mr Maluleke addressed concerns regarding statistics in the policy sphere. He said that a range of stakeholders use the data generated by Stats SA, and that they engage with different portfolio committees in Parliament and stakeholders all over the country, including municipalities and provincial leadership, the Cabinet and political parties. However, Stats SA was not involved in policymaking or advising on targets for policy; rather, it provided statistics and numerical data to ensure that policies were evidence-based. Stats SA was one of the few independent government departments, and they placed a high value on this independence. However, he also suggested that with legislative reform, Stats SA would like to implement statistical units in every government department or organ of the state to assist it with harvesting data, and that such units would benefit organs of state and government departments with policy needs, while also extracting necessary statistical data, which would be helpful for future planning.

In response to Dr Burke's question, Mr Maluleke maintained that the products of Stats SA, including the census that had been under attack, were solid. They would continue to do their jobs unencumbered by such attacks, and would explain their methods and make their findings public. He emphasised that their independence would not cause them to shy away from publishing their products and the results they produce, regardless of the attacks and questions about the reliability of their findings. He said that the complexity of the Census 2022 was due to the high undercount they had noted, but they had adjusted for it, as had always been the case with census data. He referred to the use of the PES, as conducting another census or increasing the sample sizes, as evaluation methods, would be too expensive and would not necessarily help obtain a better measurement in statistics. He maintained that they were a transparent entity and that they were the ones who had made the undercount public and would continue to do so, as their census was solid.

Mr Ashwell Jenneker, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Statistical Operations and Provincial Coordination, responded to the Committee's questions about technology, big data, international standards, and partnerships.

He explained that the statistical system was a data ecosystem, which meant that Stats SA would not be the only producer of data, but that the data sphere would consist of different partners. He referred to the United Nations Committee of Experts on Big Data and Data Science for Official Statistics (UNCEBD), which Stats SA was chairing. He said this committee comprised about 100 organisations from across the globe, including statistics organisations, the private sector, and UN organisations, and that it considered using alternative data sources to help produce statistics. He confirmed a few of the examples that Dr Burke had raised in his question. He explained how these alternative data sources could be used to gather data on population movements, migration patterns, cheaper consumer price index (CPI) data collection, and how modern technologies like cell phones could be used to enable easier and more efficient data collection. They partnered with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to explore possible solutions for improved and more efficient data collection. Beyond the CSIR, they also sought partnerships with universities, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), SARS, the Department of Science and Technology, and other researchers. They had a shortage of data science experts, but one of the sub-committees of the UNCEBD was providing free training opportunities that could help train such experts.

He confirmed that Stats SA used to sell data, but had found it to be an inhibitor in terms of the use of data, and were steering away from the selling of data, as they considered it to be a public good. He remarked that the "value of data was not in how much money you could make from data, but in the use of data." He mentioned that they were allowed to buy data, in terms of legislation, and that they were opening themselves to that possibility. He added that the basic data should be free, but they did not mind if people sold any value they added to the data.

Responding on the issues involving Beaufort West and two other municipalities that were perceived to have census errors, with the latter municipalities having noted undercounts and lower population counts, Mr Jenneker said that while Beaufort West had not noted discontent or objections on the census data, Stats SA had convened a committee, together with the Western Cape government, to look at the instances where municipalities had noted discontent with the findings to see if the population really had come down. They should have included Beaufort West in the committee's enquiry. He said the committee would consider the administrative records and other data sources to see whether the results were feasible.

Mr Jenneker maintained that anyone who said the census data did not make sense would be wrong. To maintain accuracy, they relied on the South African Statistical Quality Assessment (SASQA) framework, and while they made allowances for counting errors, they were always willing to engage.

Mr Calvin Molongoana, DDG: Statistical Support and Informatics, responded to the issues raised in terms of modernisation, and said that it was important to balance investments in technology between the present and the future. He observed that Stats SA had to be informed of the ICT and business modernisation methods that it would need to deploy in conducting the various surveys for which it was responsible.

He recalled that when Stats SA undertook the 2022 Census, their initial plan had been to do computer system personal interviews via the use of tablets with members of the public, as it had proved to be the most reliable collection method throughout census history. However, as they went into the pilot phase, the county was hit by COVID-19 restrictions, which affected several approaches they needed to deploy. There were increased concerns about people coming to their houses for either health reasons or crime-related issues.

Mr Molongoana referred to a range of steps they took to calm the fears of the public, among which was an enumerator verification database to confirm the identities of Stats SA Census data collectors, and establishing a call centre that members of the public could call to verify individuals. They had had to resort to web collection as well as telephonic collection, each with its difficulties, such as the length of the survey that was not suited to these collection methods, resulting in incomplete questionnaires, for example.

He commended the agility and adaptability of Stats SA. He said that there were only two data-gathering methods available when they had started pre-testing, and that, based on the drawbacks they experienced with these methods, they had created a competitive model in-house without external experts which they had used to do the collection. They were adapting it for use in other surveys and using to inform locally developed solutions to data collection challenges. He added that Stats SA had learned from the census, and was taking all the technology from the census and trying to re-engineer other products, such as the household survey, to provide estimates at a lower local level.

Mr Solly Molayi, Acting DDG: Population and Social Statistics, explained that his department conducted "data computation" to analyse the census data and contents of the census, and considered other registers for the indicators that they include. He also mentioned some of the registers or alternative data sources referred to earlier in the discussion.

Concerning the question regarding unregistered births and deaths, he responded that Stats SA had released a report as one of its key products. He commended the Department of Home Affairs, firstly for allowing Stats SA to mine their data, and secondly, for having done a good job in terms of ensuring that there was a decline in terms of late registrations, which used to be 20% but was currently at 9%. Stats SA may need to share more of its products with the Committee to give Members greater insight into some of its products.

He replied to the query on how much money was needed to survive by explaining that Stats SA had inadequate funds for a product focused on the poverty numbers in South Africa, but that, in the interim, Stats SA was adjusting the poverty line based on the CPI from the economic statistics section, and that they were adjusting it annually. As such, Stats SA had the numbers in terms of the poverty line, but they could share the actual numbers with the Committee in writing.

Responding to the mother-to-child mortality number, Mr Molayi said there was a product that Stats SA was releasing that was also coming from the Department of Home Affairs, allowing the mining of their data related to the causes of death. Stats SA was dealing with the backlog of the model, because the team had not been able to access the data processing centre where they were processing the death notification forms, due to COVID-19. They were in the process of dealing with the backlog to make sure that they released the latest data on the mortality numbers, and would provide more insight in writing to the Committee. He also confirmed that Stats SA was in the process of finalising a report derived from the census, looking at homelessness, which would come out before the end of the financial year.

Ms Yandiswa Mpetsheni, DDG: South African National Statistics System, responded to issues of quality of data as well as misalignment raised in the discussion between provincial, local plans, and the NDP. She explained that her department had nothing to do with data production, as they were an independent team and that they went in, assessed a particular product, and came out. They did not assess only their internal products, but also products from other departments as a quality check.

Referring to the misalignment with the NDP, she said they used the integrated indicator framework through which they aligned indicators at the most granular level, meaning that they checked policy instruments for corresponding indicators at the provincial, district and local municipality levels. There were four provinces -- the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) -- that they were working with on such alignments.

Ms Nthabiseng Makhata, DDG: Methodology and Statistical Infrastructure, addressed issues of the post-enumeration survey (PES). She explained the principles involved in the PES. It had to be deliberative and not an ad hoc activity that was employed when they fell behind schedule with the census; it had to be conducted as part and parcel of the census from the planning stages, as it had always been done at Stats SA, as it assisted in measuring the coverage error and establishing the over- or undercount; and created the space for the required adjustments.

On the statistical basis for adjustment, Ms Makhata explained the use of the PES through reference to categories. There were countries that did not bother with the PES survey with the census, those that would conduct the census and the PES, but would not use the PES to adjust for over- or undercounts or other coverage or content errors, and finally, the category under which South Africa was included, those that did the census and the PES, and then use the PES to adjust.

She said those who did the PES but did not use it often disregarded it due to the statistical basis for adjustment based on the undercount being so small that it did not significantly impact the numbers. She explained that where there was an undercount, the PES helped in the adjustment, but it was important for the PES not to distort or contaminate the census data, but rather to improve upon it. With the coverage, they were able to cover 98% of the groups they planned to enumerate, and they did not just apply adjustment factors, but did so in terms of settlement types, geo type, sex, age groups, and the population groups that they would assign adjustment factors to. While the PES in the sample size was one of the smallest surveys they had conducted at Stats SA, it was one of the most complex.

Ms Makhata maintained that since they had come up with satisfactory response rates of about 95%, they had noted the PES as an adjustment to the census. One way of identifying whether adjustments were affecting the census numbers in a bad way was to check that the population structure did not change and conduct data confrontations, which entailed another department doing the data confrontation before and after adjustment. They would accept those adjustments when they were satisfied that the PES adjustments did not bring about other anomalies. She maintained that Stats SA conducted the PES as a measurement tool that was adding quality to the census.

She also addressed the interactions and engagement of Stats SA with stakeholders. She said that in some instances, engagement was difficult, as misinformed statements would be made attacking the integrity of Stats SA data collection and analysis. This was true, especially where Stats SA had declared an undercount or published preliminary estimates, and stakeholders misstated this information as evidence of wrongdoing or inaccuracy on the part of Stats SA and used it to undermine the outcome and accuracy of the census, for example. However, she welcomed the engagement, as it allowed Stats SA to double-check themselves and ensure the integrity of their data.

She also responded to the retention of young people, and mentioned that the statistical methods department was also severely affected by the human capital challenges mentioned by her colleagues. They were losing seasoned methodologists who were attractive to other firms, given their experience, but had been stuck at Stats SA as there was no opportunity for growth.

Mr Joe de Beer, DDG: Economic Statistics, also responded to Ms Mazibuko's question on restoring trust in the quality of the product, and said that Stats SA's approach to obtaining trust was through open communication about what the institution was doing, and that when there were revisions, they had to be communicated upfront. He also observed that the census got a lot more engagement, as it was a periodic release and had a wider user group compared to, for example, the CPI or other releases in the economic series published every month which were used differently to the census data.

Mr de Beer said that in addition to getting more money, one way in which Stats SA could achieve its turnaround plan was to improve its efficiency. He suggested that the statistical value chain had distinct phases, but that they could try to reduce the cost of collecting data and that there were some initiatives available. An example of methods to reduce costs included the development of an online capturing tool like e-filing, but for businesses, so that a company could just log on and capture the data. There was a project with National Treasury, and another with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), where all the municipalities were required to submit data monthly which Stats SA could "mine" to obtain data, although he raised some quality concerns that would have to be addressed before the data could be used. There was also a Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) initiative that grants access to annual financial statements of companies. Access to such registers and additional sources of data collection, along with certain methods of technological modernisation, could reduce sample sizes, save time and money, and could make their data collection and analysis more efficient.

Mr Bruce Jooste, Acting DDG: Corporate Services, addressed the finance-related questions. He said that they had asked Treasury for R295 million for the medium term framework (MTF) period. This included R84 million to cover the current over-expenditure on compensation of employees (COE), and to balance their budget on staff. They had applied for 49 critical posts, which would require R101 million. He added that the institution required a further R100 million for ICT infrastructure upgrades that would be split over three years.

He confirmed what Mr Maluleke had said about the seven vacancies they were aiming to fill. He explained that it had placed them in a similar situation to the COE, in that the costs to pay for staff exceeded the allocated budget. They had been required to do a projection for National Treasury with estimates and forecasts of terminations and retirements in the current financial year, and show that with those savings, they could afford to fill these seven vacancies deemed critical. He elaborated that Stats SA had had to go through a cost containment process which National Treasury had supported in writing, followed by the relevant Minister writing to their counterparts at the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) to give concurrence. They had received the concurrence the week before, so they were fast-tracking the recruitment drive. He commented that they would be in a stalemate situation if Stats SA did not get R84 million or R101 million.

Mr Jooste said that as a skills development strategy, Stats SA had established that they had to consider non-remunerative incentives, as government bonuses and other fiscal incentives were not possible. This posed challenges in staff retention and recruitment of young statisticians, as they had appointed only 10 or 20 interns in the past year. He stressed that if the institution's governance activities and headcount were reducing, and they could not replace people, it meant that the institution's governance function would collapse. It had reached the point where control over wasteful, irregular and unauthorised expenditure was not possible, as they lacked the resources to do that. They would end up with a similar audit report because they were not implementing consequence management.

Follow-up discussion

Dr Burke did not accept the responses offered on the accuracy of the Census 2022 outcomes for Beaufort West's reported population growth. He maintained that the errors pointed out were indefensible, and that it would be in the best interests of Stats SA to own up to a mistake of that nature, given the reputational or brand damage it had already suffered, rather than having serious and reputable people defending an indefensible set of analysis.

He also suggested that Stats SA think about innovative solutions and ways to incorporate modern tools to do things at a fraction of the cost. He recommended, for example, using WhatsApp as a broadly used application to collect data, and even Chat GPT for analysis and data extraction. He invited the team from Stats SA to reach out to him if they wanted to discuss possibilities.

Ms Hlonyana remarked that what the team of Stats SA was asking for in terms of finances was not disproportionate. As it was a relatively small amount, the Committee could commit to taking the matter further and discuss possible negotiations for support with Parliament, as the committee in charge of appropriations.

The Chairperson reminded Stats SA of the question he had posed regarding the point where the undercount in the census undermined the integrity of the data. There was a general narrative in the country that there was no accurate accounting for unemployment, especially concerning the difficulty in counting the informal sector trade. He therefore asked Stats SA to comment on the informal sector and how it affected the accuracy of the unemployment rates.

Mr Maluleke responded to Dr Burke's suggestion regarding modernisation and the use of ICT and modernisation. He confirmed what a colleague said about partnerships, such as the one mentioned with the CSIR and collaboration in international opportunities to explore the potential. He cautioned that while there might be many innovative options, it was important for the modernisation to take place gradually. He gave an example, comparing a grandparent in a rural village with a professor or a chief executive officer (CEO), stating that these respondents should be regarded as equal, so such modernisation had to take cognisance of whether the grandparent could upload data and engage with the ICT infrastructure or modernised alternative data collection methods, with the same proficiency as a professor or CEO. This would be necessary for them to consider the samples to be well-represented. He also explained that new methods of data collection might be deemed biased, as they might exclude certain demographic categories.

Responding to the Beaufort West issue, Mr Maluleke denied the errors alluded to and maintained the position of Stats SA that the outcome of the census was solid. He explained that they followed a closed survey approach, and maintained that they did not go back and alter the data sets after the fact, as this would compromise the integrity of the census. He pointed out that doctoring results could lead to bigger issues in the data collection and analysis processes, and could compromise the independence of Stats SA.

He restated the explanation provided by his colleagues on the undercount and the use of the PES. He emphasised that the census relied on data obtained in the interviews, not from observations or assumptions, and the applicable adjustments were factored into the PES. He said that most countries had an undercount of over 5%, but that the public misconstrued a high undercount as incorrect data, and did not consider or understand the adjustments that were made accordingly.

He said the question on the undocumented migrants was a complex issue, but Stats SA considered the consistencies between how these respondents had answered since the census in 1996 up to now. They measured it by determining that if the participant was zero to 30, their inconsistency was low, but if they were between 30 and 50, they were considered moderate, while above 50 was high. He indicated that no variable went above 50 in the recent census, so they were all consistent. He said that the figure they found for undocumented migrants was sitting at a moderate 42% level.

On the inclusion of the informal sector for unemployment rates, he replied that the informal sector accounted for about 7-8 % of the gross domestic product (GDP). In terms of employment, informal employment was sitting at 3.1 million, which represented 18.4% of the workforce.

Mr Maluleke further confirmed that Stats SA needed approximately R295 million to help save the organisation. He emphasised the points made on human capital. He drew attention to the cumulative experience of the DDGs in the meeting, stating that many of them had more than 25 years' experience at Stats SA. If they were to retire, the future of the institution would be uncertain and could lead to collapse.

He restated the earlier comments on outsourcing for some of their products and partnerships with universities, mentioning that they also had students helping with census data collection, but that many of them had to withdraw due to university programmes and their schedules filling up with classes and other commitments.

He reaffirmed that Stats SA operates independently and that they are not afraid of challenges and are willing and able to respond to such challenges. He added that the Statistics Council was independent of Stats SA, and that they verified whether data was fit for purpose, whether it made sense in the context or not, and they had confirmed the accuracy and suitability of data.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson thanked the Members, presenters and attendees, and announced that the next meeting would take place only in the next quarter. They may have a joint sitting with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) on the happenings at Eskom, which may require a virtual meeting with Members to communicate details on that session. The tabling of the mid-term budget statements was tentatively scheduled for 30 October.

He said that November was going to be a busy month for the Committee, but wished everyone a happy Heritage Day.

The meeting was adjourned.