Learnerships and Communication Strategy: National Youth Commission briefing

Meeting report

JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS
2 August 2005
LEARNERSHIPS AND COMMUNICATION STRATEGY: NATIONAL YOUTH COMMISSION BRIEFING

Chairperson: Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen (ANC)

Documents handed out:
National Youth Commission briefing document

SUMMARY
The National Youth Commission (NYC) briefed the Committee on four important aspects of its work. Firstly, through monitoring the learnership programmes run by the Department of Trade and Industry, the NYC had identified the placement of young people participating in learnerships as problematic. Secondly, the NYC was in the process of merging with other youth organisations, like the Umsobomvu Youth Fund, to form a single youth development body. The NYC also reported briefly on its Communications Strategy, which now included an expanded Youth Information Service, and on the recently launched National Youth Service (NYS), which was currently operating without a budget.

Members were concerned that the legislation, stating that 70% of young people participating in learnerships should be placed in employment on the completion of their programmes was not being adhered to and suggested that learnership programmes should be reviewed. The Committee was also concerned that the NYC should be represented in the municipalities and be able to communicate effectively with young people in rural areas. The NYC explained how the NYS came to be launched in the Presidency without a budget being allocated to it; and the Committee decided to follow up this matter as well as to determine the responsibility of government departments for the learnership programmes.

MINUTES

National Youth Commission briefing
Mr D van Vuuren (NYC Commissioner) outlined developments in the work of the NYC since March 2005, when the NYC Chairperson had briefed the Committee. Among the National Youth Day activities hosted in the Northern Province to commemorate 16 June 1976, the most significant event was the Youth Economic Participation Fair, in which the NYC invited government departments, Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs), sporting bodies and community based organisations (CBOs) to exhibit the opportunities they offered to young people.

The Youth Economic Participation Fair was attended by 300 full-time delegates. Through its engagement with the young delegates, the NYC observed that those in the private sector were not assuming their social responsibility to make youth development part of their ‘core business’. A NYC survey of South African companies and government departments showed that young people were positioned most often at the lowest levels of the company hierarchy, rather than at the middle or upper management levels.

Learnership Programmes were the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry and did not form part of the core mandate of the NYC; yet the NYC had come to consider the monitoring of learnerships as part of its mandate. The legislation on learnerships stated that 70% of those receiving learnerships should be placed in employment afterwards. However, the NYC had noted that, in most cases, learnerships did not lead to placement: companies fulfilled their statutory obligation to place those completing learnerships by referring them to the next learnership and so created a cycle of unemployment. In the last quarter of 2005, the NYC would conduct an audit on learnerships and would also work alongside the Department of Trade and Industry to improve ‘exit opportunities’ for those receiving learnerships by helping certain sectors of the economy to develop young people.

The NYC was currently undergoing a restructuring process. This process grew out of the government’s ten-year review that identified duplication of the work of the NYC by other organisations, such as the Umsobomvu Youth Fund. Consequently, the NYC conceived the idea of a single, unified youth development entity; and to this end it had conducted a due diligence study of the legislative structure, staff composition and budget of the NYC and the provincial youth commissions. The NYC was also conducting a ‘roadshow’ to the provincial youth commissions and to the Premiers to persuade them that a unified youth development entity was necessary and to brief them on the restructuring process.

Mr M Mkalipi (NYC Director: Communications) reported on the NYC Communications Strategy which aimed at ‘face to face’ interactions with young South Africans. In 2005, messages given out to young people would focus on the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Charter. The NYC was building relations with the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) to promote democracy education and to encourage the participation of young people in the next local government elections.

Local radio stations supported NYC communication by providing coverage of events like the National Youth Service (NYS) programme launch. The NYC was expanding its own Youth Information Service to include the use of Short Message Service (SMS) to register young people to receive their examination results. However, it had also produced a Youth Information Guide (in print and in Braille forms) in order to reach young people in rural areas where there was no access to electronic media. The NYC continued to work with the national task team on isimbizo following the successful youth isimbizo held in all nine provinces prior to the 2004 general election.

Ms A Motsoahoe (NYC, National Youth Service Manager) sketched the background of the National Youth Service (NYS) which was launched in August 2004 by the Minister in the Presidency, Dr Essop Pahad. While the NYC had established the NYS office, the Umsobomvu Youth Fund had also provided staff to assist in NYS operations. The main objective of the NYS programme was to improve employment opportunities for young people and it had successfully assisted 11000 young people across all nine provinces. Through a number of housing projects, such as the Moses Kotane Housing Project and other projects with the Department of Housing, the NYS was able to impart both ‘hard’ skills (building skills) and ‘soft’ skills (life skills). The primary challenge faced by the NYS was its lack of a dedicated budget, which put it ‘at the mercy’ of government departments.

Discussion
The Chairperson enquired whether a person ‘beyond the age of a youth’ could register for the SMS communications provided by the Youth Information Service. She asked the NYC to explain the stipulation that 70% of learnerships awarded should result in placement, and further queried whether the Department of Labour, as the body offering learnerships, was responsible for the actual placements. What was the response of the private sector to the youth march held in the Northern Cape as part of the annual Youth Day celebrations?

Mr Mkalipi responded that anyone, regardless of their age, could receive information via the SMS project. However, the NYC was specifically encouraging young people to register on the SMS project so that matriculation results could be sent to them.

Mr van Vuuren explained that the legislation required that at least 70% of participants in learnerships should be placed on the completion of their programmes. In order to meet this requirement, many Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) were transferring young people from one learnership to another rather than into gainful employment where they would be sustainable in the labour market.

Mr van Vuuren noted that as the Youth Day march in the Northern Cape had been organised by the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), it was incumbent upon the ANC itself to comment on the response by the private sector to the march. Nevertheless, in its evaluation of the Youth Economic Participation Fair, the NYC had observed that the private sector was not demonstrating commitment to empowering young people to contribute to the economy. The regional office of ABSA Bank in the Northern Cape created an isolated opportunity for the employment of young people in the private sector by offering a number of learnerships. Yet this was an exceptional response and did not reflect the general attitude towards youth development in the private sector.

Mr D Gamede (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) asked whether the NYC had a strategy to ensure that youth commissions existed in each municipality rather than only in each province. Mr van Vuuren replied that local youth units were necessary so that the NYC and the provincial youth commissions could be represented in each locality. In the late 1990s, the NYC had embarked on a local government programme, in cooperation with the Flemish community, which aimed at assisting local governments in establishing youth units. This programme consisted of three elements: capacity building; advocacy for youth development; and research into the experience of local government officials in youth development.

Mr Gamede commented that the learnership programmes should be reviewed so that ‘exit opportunities’ for participants were identified before the learnerships were offered. Mr van Vuuren replied that although it fell outside of the NYC mandate to take direct action on learnership programmes, the NYC would engage with the Department of Labour on this matter through the interdepartmental committee on youth affairs.

Mr Gamede enquired whether the NYC had formulated a strategy to prevent young people from engaging in criminal activities. Mr van Vuuren said that the NYC was currently involved in a young prisoners’ programme which was a pilot programme for the education of young prisoners aiming at their eventual reintegration into society. In order to prevent young people from entering prison, the NYC was developing a social crime prevention policy for young people in conjunction with the South African Police Services (SAPS). The NYC was also working with the Department of Correctional Services on a white paper that would provide for alternative sentences and diversion programmes for first-time offenders.

Mr Gamede asked what advice the NYC would give to young people involved in Further Education and Training (FET). Both the Chairperson and Mr Gamede asked how the NYC communicated with young people in rural areas where there was no electricity and no cellphone reception. Mr Mkalipi responded that the skills acquired by young people in Further Education and Training (FET) could enable them to contribute to the economic growth of their communities. The NYC disseminated messages to young people in rural areas primarily through local radio stations and also through the Youth Information Guide.

Mr Gamede queried whether the NYS had the capacity to carry out its work even though it was without a budget. Mr van Vuuren explained that the NYC had been confronted with the proposed NYS programme and with the task of taking this to Cabinet for adoption without having had the opportunity of making provision in its internal budget for the NYS programme beforehand. According to the policy framework, the NYS was to be situated in the Presidency and funded through the Presidency and the Umsobomvu Youth Fund.

Ms N Kondlo (ANC) commented that the NYC had been established in 1996 as an advisory body to the government and asked whether the NYC viewed itself as fulfilling its mandate. How had line function departments responded to NYC advice? Mr van Vuuren replied that a national conference was planned for December 2005 at which the implementation of national youth development policy would be reviewed. The summit would evaluate the performance of the NYC and assess the implementation of youth policy by government departments. The NYC initially struggled to elicit responses from line function departments; but after it had asked the Minister in the Presidency to write to the government departments, some departments had taken over NYC pilot projects.

Ms Kondlo asked how the NYC intended to involve young people in the process of lobbying to merge national youth development entities. Mr van Vuuren pointed out that the process of restructuring the NYC had originated from consultations with young people at isimbizo where young people had complained of the inadequacy of youth development.

Ms Kondlo asked what the demographic distribution of the 11 000 young people reached by the NYS programme was. Ms Motsoahoe conceded that she did not have that data readily at hand, but the NYS aimed at distributing its projects equally across urban and rural areas. Mr Gamede commented that people in rural areas generally only heard about interactions with government, and the NYC should find the means to communicate more effectively with municipalities.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would follow up on the NYS programme, particularly the allocation of its budget, and would also follow up on the responsibility of the Department of Labour for the learnership programmes.

The meeting was adjourned.