Department Budget and Mainstreaming Children’s Rights: Presidency briefing

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS

IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE
26 August 2005
DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND MAINSTREAMING CHILDREN’S RIGHTS: PRESIDENCY BRIEFING

Chairperson:
Ms Newhoudt-Drunchen (ANC)

Documents handed out:
SA National Children’s Rights Coordination Framework: PowerPoint presentation
SA National Children’s Rights Coordination Framework: GDC Chief Directorate Overview
Budget Vote 1: Programmes 5 and 6

SUMMARY
The Gender, Disability and Children Chief Directorate in the Office of the President briefed the Committee on its organisational structure and its budget for 2005/2006. The three units in the Chief Directorate were the Office on the Status of Women, the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons and the Office on the Rights of the Child with budgets for 2005/2006 of R2.3 million, R2.2 million and R3.4 million respectively. The medium-term expenditure estimates for these offices were R3.5 million, R4.8 million and R3.5 million. The Committee was requested to advance the mainstreaming of Gender, Disability and Children issues in all department programmes. Discussion centred on the implications of the shortfall between the medium-term expenditure estimates and the actual budget for the units, the capacity of the units to carry out its programmes as well as on the use of donor funding.

The Office on the Rights of the Child outlined its strategy of mainstreaming children’s rights by prioritising issues such as child protection and child development in government department programmes. Members asked questions about the unit's roadshow on the National Children’s Rights Framework, and its reports to the United Nations.

MINUTES

Gender, Disability and Children Chief Directorate briefing
Dr E Kornegay (Presidency Chief Director: Programmes) introduced the organisational structure of the Gender, Disability and Children (GDC) Chief Directorate. Located in the Presidency, the GDC Chief Directorate included the Office on the Rights of the Child (ORC), the Office on the Status of Women (OSW) and the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons (OSDP). It aimed to create equal access to government resources for the vulnerable groups it represented.

The mandate of the GDC Chief Directorate was to provide technical support to the Presidency (through the clusters of government departments) by intervening in government programmes for women, children and disabled persons in the areas of policy analysis, monitoring and evaluation, and mainstreaming of GDC issues. To this end, the GDC Chief Directorate aligned its core functions to government priorities: the government priority of growing the economy was addressed by the GDC policy of improving the economic status of women, children and disabled persons which were groups usually found in the second economy.

The GDC Chief Directorate had access to the highest decision point in government, the Cabinet, through the Director-General, who was both Secretary of the Cabinet and chairperson of the Forum of South African Directors-General (FOSAD). The Chief Operations Officer (COO) and Accounting Officer operated beneath the Director-General, controlling the budget of the Presidency. The COO coordinated the preparation of the Presidency’s budget, which, like other Medium-term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budgets, covered a three-year period.

In preparing the budget, each office in the Presidency indicated its strategic objectives (in direct relation to government’s national strategic objective) and translated these into specific objectives that were then budgeted for as medium-term expenditure estimates. The medium-term expenditure estimate for 2005/2006 for the Office on the Status of Women (OSW) was R3.5 million; for the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons (OSDP), R4.8 million; and for the Office on the Rights of the Child (ORC), R3.5 million. The actual MTEF budget for 2005/2006 for the OSW was R2.3 million; for the OSDP, R2.2 million; and for the ORC, R3.4 million. Donor funding for these offices was not listed in the budget.

The ORC had budgeted R500 000 for National Children’s Day, an event also sponsored by ESKOM and the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). The OSDP had a foreign travel budget as it was involved with the United Nations and the African Decade of Disability.

Dr Kornegay briefly sketched the GDC Chief Directorate’s conception of a working relationship between the Presidency and the Committee. As the three GDC units (the OSW, OSDP and ORC) coordinated the delivery of services to vulnerable groups through government departments, the Committee should ensure that these units were able to exercise their functions through government department programmes. Therefore the Committee should advance the mainstreaming of GDC issues in department programmes, especially by interacting with other portfolio committees, collating information presented to other committees by government departments, and communicating with the GDC units.

Discussion
The Chairperson enquired whether the strategic plans for the OSW, the OSDP and the ORC were included in the strategic plans for the Presidency. She also asked how much donor funding was needed by the three offices, as this was not included in the budget, and whether the difference between the medium-term expenditure estimate for (for example) the OSDP and the actual MTEF budget, was compensated for by donor funding. Were travelling expenses for the GDC Chief Directorate included in the budget?

Dr Kornegay responded that each unit in the GDC Chief Directorate had its own strategic plan that informed its budget. Donor funding for the GDC units was not assured and took a long time to negotiate. But if a GDC office experienced a deficit between its medium-term expenditure estimate and its actual budget, it would present proposals for donor funding, leading to contracts such as the OSDP’s three-year contract with the Flemish government. The GDC offices preferred to use MTEF funds for their programmes. The budgets for the OSW, OSDP and ORC were for programme expenditure rather than personnel expenditure, and items such as travel and subsistence would appear in the budget for the entire GDC Chief Directorate.

Ms N Kondlo (ANC) asked what implications the disparity between the medium-term expenditure estimates and the actual budget would have for the implementation of GDC programmes. She commented that within the GDC Chief Directorate’s mandate, mainstreaming of GDC issues was an important function; yet it was also complex and difficult to evaluate. What analytical tools were used to monitor the mainstreaming of GDC issues in government line-function departments?

Dr Kornegay answered that the GDC Chief Directorate was always short of funds for its programmes, and could not overspend on its budget as this would create auditing problems. The ORC, in particular, was absorbing more funds since its recent appointment of three new Deputy Directors. The mainstreaming of GDC issues in government department programmes was a ‘silent’ process that should begin with the internal transformation of government departments so that officials were sensitive to issues of gender equality, children’s rights and the rights of disabled persons. The transformation of the departments’ external service delivery would then follow. Although policy analysis was one of the tools used to monitor the progress of mainstreaming in department programmes, a uniform monitoring mechanism (taking into account the factors of time and cost) ought to be developed.

Mr M Moss (ANC) said that, as a ‘disability rights activist’, he was concerned that the OSDP unit in the Presidency did not have the capacity to carry out its programmes. He asked how the Committee could help to address this problem. Dr Kornegay replied that an evaluation of the capacity of the Presidency, particularly the policy unit, was underway, and the Committee could assist in this process by making enquiries into the capacity assessment of specific programmes.

The Chairperson asked whether government departments were training their officials to be sensitive to persons with disabilities and whether these training processes were being monitored. She also queried whether the OSDP would appoint Deputy Directors as the ORC had done.

Dr Kornegay responded that the OSDP was coordinating a short-term training programme on ‘disability sensitiveness’ among government officials, and suggested that the OSDP itself should inform the Committee how this programme was being monitored. The OSDP had three Deputy Directors. One of these Deputy Directors was currently acting as Director while the OSDP held interviews for a new Director. The OSDP was also advertising a post for a Deputy Director for change management.

Office on the Rights of the Child briefing
Ms M Rantla (Director: Office on the Rights of the Child) described the ORC’s concept of mainstreaming children’s rights as ‘linking the dominant ideologies about child development with government practices’, so that children’s rights (and issues like child protection and development) were prioritised in government processes. The ORC aimed to mainstream children’s rights not only in government institutions, but also in social institutions (like the family), and to create equal access to society’s resources for children, especially those from deprived and rural areas.

One of the objectives of the ORC’s mainstreaming strategy was to shift government’s attitude to child development so that it would be seen as central to economic development. When the ORC was established in 1998, a national mainstreaming strategy was formulated, and this strategy was now being implemented at provincial and local government level. One of the particular aims of provincial ORCs was to promote children’s rights as a criterion in policy analysis.

Ms Rantla added that a communication strategy for the National Children’s Rights Framework had not yet been created. However, the government’s ten-year review included the National Children’s Rights Framework, and, as part of this process, the ORC was conducting a roadshow throughout the country to present the revised National Children’s Rights Framework to government structures and to civil society. The provincial ORCs were leading the roadshow in the provinces. Concurrently, the Minister in the Presidency was meeting with the Forum of South African Directors-General (FOSAD) as a representative of the National Children’s Rights Programme to discuss the issue of mainstreaming.

Discussion
Ms Kondlo enquired whether the ORC had sufficient staff to fulfil its function. She also asked how deficiencies in government policy, uncovered in the process of policy analysis, were dealt with, and how well government departments were performing in mainstreaming children’s rights.

Ms Rantla replied that the ORC had been without professional staff for two years (2002-2004), but had recently improved its capacity through the appointment of three new Deputy Directors. During the government’s ten-year review, a number of deficiencies were identified in the policy unit of the Presidency, where the translation of constitutional principles into programmes was not fully understood. Policy analysis led to the amendment of legislation in order to make the legislative framework more effective. Directors-General in government departments should take the responsibility for the mainstreaming of children’s rights in department programmes.

The Chairperson asked what the line function of each of the newly appointed Deputy Directors in the ORC was. Ms Rantla answered that Mr Mongoatho Mofokeng was a specialist in early childhood development and would focus on the mainstreaming of children’s rights. Ms Khomotso Kgothadi would focus on monitoring and evaluation, and would also provide the template for ORC reports to the United Nations (UN) and African Union (AU). Mr David Chabalala was a specialist on child labour and would focus on policy development and advocacy.

Mr Moss enquired whether the ORC assisted the provincial and local ORCs with training. Was the ORC aware of specific problems in each province in the area of children’s rights? Ms Rantla responded that it was the ORC’s obligation to provide training for provincial and local ORCs. One of the problems common to many municipalities was that the mayor had not created a local ORC.

The Chairperson asked what the ORC roadshow on the National Children’s Rights Framework entailed. She also queried how regularly the ORC reported to the United Nations (UN) and what relationship the ORC had with UNICEF. Ms Rantla replied that the government’s ten-year review suggested the need to revise the National Children’s Rights Framework, and this revised policy framework was now being presented to those sectors of government that did not take part in the process of revision. The ORC’s first report to the UN was presented by civil society in 1999; the second report to the UN, due in 2003, was delayed by staff constraints during 2003 and 2004, and had not yet been approved by the Minister in the Presidency. The ORC regarded UNICEF as a partner that provided both technical support and remuneration to those providing services for the ORC.

Ms Kondlo enquired whether the leadership of the ORC possessed the authority to ensure that government departments implemented programmes in the area of children’s rights. Dr Kornegay responded that if the ORC was experiencing problems with a particular department, it would approach the Minister and the Director-General, who were usually cooperative. Ministers were also responsible for identifying omissions in department annual reports in the area of children’s rights.

Ms Kondlo asked whether the issue of mainstreaming GDC issues was addressed in departments’ performance agreements. Dr Kornegay replied that performance agreements should take into account the work of GDC focal points in each department.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: