National Youth Commission; Umsobomvu Youth Fund Strategic Plan & Budget 2006/07
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND
STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS (JMC)
01 June 2007
NATIONAL YOUTH COMMISSION; UMSOBOMVU YOUTH FUND STRATEGIC PLAN & BUDGET
2006/07
Chairperson: Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC)
Documents handed out:
National
Youth Commission Strategic Plan 2007/8 – 2009/10
presentation
National Youth
Commission Strategic Plan 2007/8 – 2009/10
Umsobomvu presentation
National Youth Commission website
Umsobombu Youth Fund website
Audio Recording of the Meeting Part1 and Part2
SUMMARY
The National Youth Commission briefed the Committee on their strategic plan
and budget. They laid emphasis on the National Youth Policy that they were
working on as a means of improving youth development. They had also engaged
with departments in ensuring that each of them participate in youth development
and in monitoring the implementation of youth related programmes.
The Umsobombu Youth Fund in their briefing on strategic plan and budget, noted
that they had also been working with government departments as well as the
private sector to help mentor young entrepreneurs. Concerns raised by members
dealt with the marketing and branding of these institutions so that the youth
were made aware of their work and the opportunities they created.
MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed National Youth Commission (NYC), the Umsobomvu
Youth Fund (UYF) as well as Treasury representatives that were there as
observers.
Mr B Mkongi (ANC) pointed out that they had received the NYC documents only the
day before and they had no documents yet from the Umsobomvu Youth Fund. The
Chairperson asked that presentations be sent well in advance so that the
members could prepare.
National Youth Commission
Ms Nomi Nkondlo, the Chairperson of the National Youth Commission, noted
that the new Chief Executive Officer had started her office that very day and
so Mr Elrico van Rooyen, the former Acting Chief Executive Officer until 31
May, would be doing the presentation. She said that the opportunity of a joint
planning session between themselves and the Committee would be very useful in
order to gain insight into the work of the NYC and assist the Committee in the
oversight role that they were playing. As NYC continued with the policy and
institutional reviews, they wished to brief members on the process undertaken
and where they were in terms of the policy. Their theme for this June month was
“deepening youth participation in development through service” and they
requested Members of Parliament especially those of this Committee to avail themselves
and participate in the series of activities that NYC were organising across the
country. She promised they would send a detailed programme to the Committee and
also suggested names to be deployed.
Mr Elrico Van Rooyen, former Acting CEO, spoke on the National Youth Commission
Strategic Plan 2007-2009 and the Budget. The Strategic Plan outlined the core
mandate of NYC and challenges in the youth sector and how NYC would address
these. The Strategic Plan would be their guiding tool for the next three years.
They have linked their mandate to their strategic objectives. He gave a summary
review of the budget but promised that a detailed explanation would be sent.
They had received R20.614 which was a million extra. They would need more money
to deliver on their programmes. The 2006/07 budget included the money they had
received from Flemish government, which was about R1.3 million.
Discussion
The Chairperson asked about the youth policy document. They had referred to the
policy review and she needed more clarity on that and how that impacted on
their work for 2007.
Ms J Chalmers (ANC) referred to the strategic plan, saying they had many
objectives but it did not come across clearly what they were doing to put these
strategies into concrete action. Were there provincial offices and if so, how
did they make use of national office and what would they do to assist youth in
their various constituencies? She resided in the Karoo, which was a remote
area, where over 90% of the youth were unemployed. She wanted to know what
skills the NYC had looked at and how far the research was and what was it
showing about the status of youth. Would they have access to the research and
the results?
Ms Mazibuko (ANC) commented that the bulk of the NYC budget went to salaries
instead of programmes. She would like them to unpack their goods and services
and would such a budget be able to carry out the work load? She hoped they
would attach costs to the strategic plan so that the Committee would get a
better understanding. Research had to be ongoing because things changed on a
daily basis. You need to know how much you would have to put towards different
aspects. Furthermore what were they doing in terms of marketing the Commission,
as it did not appear on the budget? Youth needed to understand the work they
do. She wanted to know if they have expanded their offices into the rural areas
and also employment opportunities. They needed also to unpack the
organisational culture.
Mr A Madella (ANC) noted that they highlighted research as a problematic area
as one needed human resource capacity to deal with this. Had this been taken
included in the current budget being presented. He was failing to pick out a
specific emphasis or focus on disabled youth. Youth was referred to in general
and disabled youth got lost in the general approach.
Mr M Moss (ANC) noted that the new CEO had not given a presentation and hoped
that the NYC would not follow the trend of the previous youth commission. The
Youth Commission since 2002 had embarked on a programme with young offenders
and wanted to know if there had been any progress and were there enough places
of safety or genuine improvement. In terms of education and training, they had
met UWC students who explained funding as being a problem. He asked if the NYC
assists youth to make a breakthrough with the Education Department and access
funds, especially for disadvantaged students. The Department of Labour and
Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) did not seem to be effective.
There should be a shift to the old apprentice system. The Joint Initiative on
Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA) project had taking off but was there
meaningful progress?
Ms
Nkondlo explained that they had decided that the former CEO be the one to do
the presentation, as he had been involved in the planning from the beginning on
the programmes and the new CEO would participate in the discussion "as she
started a week ago but was appointed into office yesterday".
Mr Van Rooyen replied that the Strategic Plan looked at strategic focus areas,
where they would like to see the NYC in the next three years and outlined the
key focus areas. The next step was where key strategies were costed in terms of
operations. The budget looked at a broad range of issues in terms of strategic
focus. How the strategic plans were put into action normally depended on the
operational plans that were linked to one's performance management system and staff
performance contracts but had not included that content and he apologised for
that. He agreed with the member, that the budget was higher for salaries than
for the actual programmes but they should also take note that NYC was not an
implementing agency hence the small budget. The government departments
implement programmes on NYC's behalf and so the budget does not necessarily
reflect programmes except for local government programmes, which they drive.
They were understaffed, over worked and some underpaid.
They were constantly losing researchers and policy analysts as the government
departments pay more than NYC. They were already spending 60% on salaries and
if they increase salaries to retain researchers and policy analysts, then it
would be difficult to allocate more resources - yet they were understaffed. The
researchers and policy analysts use the NYC as a springboard into government.
The National Youth Service (NYS) was a National Presidential Project and they
had submitted in a previous budget to beef up that unit as they had a leading
role to play as the NYC but they did not get the budget from Treasury. They had
one person in the unit yet they had to coordinate 18 government departments to
unlock NYS opportunities. They had engaged with Presidency on this as they had
limited resources. They requested such a budget, which they did not get, and so
the limited resources. If they could be more effective at monitoring
programmes, they would need a fully-fledged Monitoring and Evaluation System (MNE)
unit, to monitor effective implementation programmes.
Mr Van Rooyen mentioned that the NYC budget was not sufficient to address all
the needs and specific programmes they would like to implement in redressing
imbalances which would need a specific budget. They get the budget to do policy
work but not to implement programmes and yet they were expected to do so by
parliamentary committees. They normally had a research agenda and the
operational plan in the policy and research directorate in the last financial
year was allocated R1.4 million. The provincial youth Commissions operate
independently from the National Youth Commission but they work in close
co-operation with the provincial youth Commissions through the Chairperson and
CEO forums. They interact with the youth mostly through the imbizos and they
mobilise the youth in voicing their concerns. They want to utilise the youth
stage forum.
Ms Nkondlo said that in terms of communication and how to reach out to young
people, they integrated their work through available interaction mechanisms of
government, which had been mainly through the imbizos. She named instances of
these this year such as Sedibeng, the Solomon Mahlangu High School in the
Eastern Cape and Central Karoo. They engaged with the youth about the
challenges that face them, such as teenage pregnancy, opportunities available
for them and so forth. Their communication strategy had improved through their
website and they also had a Youth Information Society and Development
Programme. This was formed through a committee last year, from the NYC and
Presidential National Commission (PNC), to evolve a youth strategy that would
look at programmatic areas. It would be launched on the 15 June 2007in the
festival with the Communications Minister and provides access to information
about services that would help youth with the challenges they were facing.
They had engaged with Umsobomvu Youth Fund to evolve a memorandum of
understanding to further integrate the kind of information provisioning they
provide. The NYC currently had its own call centre as an access point for young
people who were referred to the appropriate service points. One of the
challenges of this service provisioning was that the various youth initiatives
had separate call centres which might cause some confusion. However, they were
thinking of integrating the two so there was one central point and one website
with information they could utilise. Minister Pahad last year had instructed
the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) to work closely with
the NYC to ensure the information they had be sighted in Vukuzenzele and you
will see a chapter on NYC and other youth programmes. There were a series of
activities to make sure young people get information on how NYC work was pursued.
Through strategic interventions, they were working now to ensure concluding the
new National Youth Policy. They would make policy recommendations where there
were weaknesses, so that the problems encountered in the previous youth policy
were addressed.
Based on the results from the Convention last year, a submission was made to
the Cabinet lekgotla about an integrated youth strategy that responded to the
specific challenges raised by honourable member Mr Moss. Together with the
Policy Unit within the Presidency and Youth Desk there had been critical
appraisals to look at how government departments had individually responded.
They sent questionnaires to establish what departments were doing in relation
to the concerns raised by the youth at the convention. For example, on access
to education, the transformation and re-capitalisation of the Further Education
and Training (FET) colleges was one of the things implemented by the Education
Department and the President spoke about this in the State of the Nation
Address. The government’s program of action for youth development priorities
also speaks to this particular area of re-capitalising FET colleges and
ensuring the relevance of the skills obtained there to meet the needs of the
economy and meet the targets of the Joint Initiative on Priority Skills
Acquisition (JIPSA) and Accelerated and Shared Growth initiative for South
Africa (AsgiSA). Some of these questions were incorporated and expressed in the
work done by the departments. The NYC together with the Education Department
had a youth directorate to ensure work done was streamlined so that the NYC
could continue to monitor implementation of their particular programmes. They
had made proposals from the convention to Justice and Safety cluster on a campaign
to help young people not to engage in criminal activities. The NYC currently
engages with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and adopts a youth
crime prevention strategy. All national Departments were working with NYC on
specific programmes.
Ms Yolisa Makhazi, the NYC CEO, suggested that one of the gaps related to key
programme implementation. The challenge of the Commission was ensuring the
resourcing of youth development by government and maybe they should outline the
challenge they face as the commission in terms of resources. One needed to
understand the NYC function as that of lobbying, advocating and generating
policy advice to government on a wide range of youth issues and also
representing them at different levels of government to ensure youth development
remained a key public policy issue. The state should be prepared to spend on
that. They were in the process of looking at restructuring. A large amount was
spent on staff due to the coordinating nature of their work. They know they should
strengthen their research and policy capacity and so would have to work on this
issue.
The complaints raised about the NYC spending more on salaries than programmes
should also be understood within the context that the NYC was not there to fund
youth development. That was not the role of the UYF either, as it was an
intervention aimed at controlling economic participation of young people. Those
students should note that there was the National Student Financial Aid
Scheme (NSFAS)
which was a decisive intervention of government to help students from
disadvantaged backgrounds with funding. One of the victories of youth sector
was the Department of Education extended funding to FET colleges to deal with
issues around apprenticeship etc. Departments should account on how they
integrate youth development into their programmes and how they were delivering
because the NYC only monitored programmes. She suggested that they would need
to identify some of these departments on how they were integrating youth development
and also it was critical that they appear before this Committee to account for
how they ensure delivery to young people.
In
terms of the policy process they were engaging in a policy review. The outcome
they want was a youth policy that would be adopted by government. The JMC was
encouraged to see how best they could engage with this policy review. There
would be consultation via public hearings on this review and they would have to
engage with the JMC and key departments. By mid July they want to have a draft
ready to be presented to the social cluster of departments and then to Cabinet.
The Chairperson asked the draft policy to be emailed so that members could read
it.
Mr Mkongi thought the policy review and institutional review was the major task
of the NYC this year and they would have to be dedicated to it, if they really
want it to be adopted in August 2007. He raised his concerns about the JMC
committee being involved in this process at the eleventh hour.
Three years ago in the NYC strategic plan, there was mention of a review and a
process of realignment for the Commission and he wanted to know what had
happened to that process. The process outlined capacity challenges and a lack
of uniformity of approach. There was a need for the institution to be guided
nationally. The national commission was going by invitation to the provincial
youth commissions instead of popularising it in terms of outreach programmes.
The issue of realignment as it related to information services, integration of
call centres had been raised years ago. The presenter had mentioned these were
still underway whereas that was said years ago. He asked what the constraints
were. All these youth entities should be reached under one integrated system
with integrated information services and programmes and this would solve issues
of capacity. There were other structures that were doing similar work, research
and that were not accountable to the NYC and sometimes competing with NYC.
The NYC spoke about budgetary constraints in their presentation and they could
lobby Presidency and so forth but what should be the role of Parliament in that
regard because the Committee had to intervene on the budget. He noted
constraints in the Act in terms of fundraising by the NYC and if they get
donations, what were the policy implications in term of the Public Financial
Management Act (PFMA). Where would the commission account for money they
receive from external donors.
He was not sure whether the imbizos were effective for the Commission. It was a
waste of resources for the NYC to fly to Bloemfontein, talk for fifteen minutes
and have the youth report for thirty minutes. He asked what the NYC would like
the Committee to do as it was a joint committee of NCOP and NA. He asked if the
national youth service was functional and what the constraints were. Were they
reaching the targets as outlined in state of nation address and what were the
challenges. He asked if the NYC still had the “yellow book” which had the youth
development strategic plan of each department - it was be a useful tool in
terms of a monitoring and evaluation system. This was in reference to the
suggestion that departments should account and report to the JMC. He discussed
the effectiveness of the interdepartmental committee on youth affairs and
departmental implementation at a strategic level.
Ms P Bengu (ANC) asked the NYC whether they monitor the provincial Commissions.
Did they have a database to collect all information on youth matters such as on
unemployment. What were they doing to make young people understand the
initiatives of JIPSA and AsgiSA?
Mr Madella was disappointed by Commissioner Van Rooyen’s response on strategic
responsibility as they were also supposed to include the disabled youth
especially because they were the most marginalized. They did not appear in the
strategic plan and his response did not reflect on that. His response spoke of
imbalances and money. If it meant they needed an additional budget for
something he thought they were mainstreaming, this needed clarity. The CEO had
referred to NSFAS but youth were starving at educational institutions as they
had bursaries that did not cover food and. Students were not progressing at
these institutions, there was a high failure rate and they did not have food to
eat. He would like NYC to address these challenges. He also asked about the
level of interaction or understanding with local governments. Commissioner Van
Rooyen had mentioned some kind of interaction with these. In Cape Town the
mayor had cancelled all June 16 activities. Did the NYC have a relationship
with the municipalities, particularly Cape Town. It was important to have such
a relationship.
Ms Mazibuko asked if the NYC had set up relations with other youth units like
Umsobomvu. She suggested that if there was a vocal youth focus in Parliament,
this would help address some of the difficulties facing the youth such as
exclusion at and NSFAS students having to pay a deposit first which some did
not have. They could make proposals to the relevant departments about effective
implementation and holistically addressing youth issues. Some youth do not have
the relevant experience and this was the reason for not getting employment.
They could ask departments to provide internship programmes and other such proposals.
Ms Chalmers suggested that a presentation on programmes and progress would be
very helpful.
The Chairperson asked about the criteria the NYC used to pick the provinces
where they do outreach. She noted a request she had received from someone who
works in Lavender Hill on the Cape Flats, where children do not know about any
jobs other than working at supermarkets and were not aware that they could go
further than that or of the services available to them. She spoke of the
challenges for disabled students and the lack of emphasis on tuition for
disabled youth. The Department of Labour used to give bursaries to disabled
youth but now they had cut that out and gave these to postgraduate students.
Most disabled youth did not make it to tertiary institutions and this remained
a challenge.
The NYC Chairperson replied that people with disabilities raised the issues
that the Committee Chairperson raised, at their last imbizo. A recommendation
had been made in this regard. She would support the issue of a youth focus in
Parliament. Monitoring the provincial youth commissions and the extent the
provinces respond was done through the coordinating mechanism of the
Chairpersons forum. They would have a lekgotla where they agree on priorities
and align the work of the Commission and the priorities of the provinces with
that of government. The Commission not only worked during the June youth month
but the entire year and they had visited all nine provinces. Issues of young
people, access for those in rural areas, disabled people and women and all
vulnerable groups were looked at. At their next meeting with the JMC, they
would provide a report of what was happening in the provinces as the provincial
Commissions give them an update every month which they would integrate as the
NYC. They would refer to the provinces the questions raised by members, so that
they could also respond.
She acknowledged the importance of the establishment of youth focal points at
local government level. They were engaging with the DPLG to raise this
particular concern as local government was close to young people. They needed
to sure the rollout of local youth units across municipalities. At national
level they had sent questionnaires to departments and suggested that a youth
directorate be established in the offices of the Directors General but some did
not see the need for a youth directorate. She spoke of the Project Partner Team
as the coordinating body for proper implementation of the national youth
service. Concerns had been raised around coordination and in the national youth
service strategic workshop they had decided to have a national steering
committee, which would be convened and chaired by the NYC Chairperson. That
structure takes place at a provincial level and the youth service would account
to the steering committee and departments would be invited. The national
steering committee would be accountable to the inter-ministerial committee that
was chaired by the Deputy President. Ministers also form part of these
meetings. Departments were engaging in this work although the challenge was
resources and budget for the programmes to be implemented. The Commission would
look at the suggestions made by the JMC and try to improve on the concerns
raised. In maximising research, they had approached the HSRC.
Ms Makhazi replied that they were allowed to fundraise in terms of the PFMA and
one of their partners was the Flemish government. They were allowed to
fundraise but had to follow a certain procedure. They were accountable to both
government and funders. They did not have the necessary money and people to
organise massive imbizos like the departments did, but they had negotiations
with departments on joint-planning initiatives with youth friendly departments.
The government programme itself was focusing on people in rural areas and there
would be an effort to leverage this niche to make an impact in involving young
people.
Mr Van Rooyen further mentioned that these programs were directly linked to
their strategic objectives as the Commission. In spite of challenges they were
partnering with different institutions, to develop youth programmes and they
could bring to the JMC a detailed programme and their key partnerships. He
mentioned some of these such as working on the issue of racism in schools and
an anti-drug campaign and sport.
In June they would be launching a social dialogue and look at intervention
strategies for disabled youth and the content of bursaries. Most bursaries had
been shifted to postgraduate studies. They would make a submission to the
education department to make provision for bursaries for disabled youth and
they would like to involve the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons (OSDP)
to support them in making that submission. Key to the consultation process was
mainstreaming the needs of disabled youth.
The Chairperson thanked the NYC and said that they would like to hear a report
on their programmes and operational plans plus updated information on the
provinces with regards to youth development. They would like to have monthly or
quarterly reports. They had not seen a breakdown of the budget and this was
important so they could be able to address the programmes in the light of this.
She was happy that the Commission was embarking on a dialogue with disabled youth
and would like to see a report on that dialogue in due time. She hoped the JMC
could get a draft of the policy framework so that they could give feedback.
Umsobomvu Youth Fund Presentation
The CEO, Mr Malose Kekana, gave an update on the previous financial year’s
targets, strategy and budget. He noted the concerns raised by the JMC at their
previous meeting about access in general and support for people with
disabilities. Their strategy tried to link young people to employment and
helped them in terms of self-employment and the national youth service. They
had graduate programmes to help youth gain skills so that they get employment
such as how to use a computer and obtain a drivers licence. They teach young
people in schools and out of schools and also provided access to procurement
opportunities. They had also introduced a volunteer mentorship programme in
order to give business support. The UYF had always used intermediaries and they
were never on the ground and they had had to consider having a service delivery
channel. There would be an additional 30 advisory centres in partnership with
municipalities. He also spoke about discussions with the Justice Department
about alternatives for young offender and preventing recidivism. They were two
months into the new financial year and some of the programmes were already
occurring.
In their volunteer mentorship programme, they had partnerships with private
companies and business people in communities who volunteered to assist the
young entrepreneurs. They raised money from government and the private sector
to support young people. Corporate social investment was something they would
have to tap into. Their weakness had been not having a well-organised plan on
how to respond to young people with disabilities, but they were now working
with organisations work with people with disabilities, to cater for their
needs. The youth advisory centres provided information and counselling. The UYF
was also thinking of having a ”take a disabled child to work” campaign similar
to that of the “girl child”. They were hoping to improve the youth service as
not much had been done. Corporate programmes were weak, as they did not have a
structure.
The UYF budget for this year was approximately R400 million although they would
have liked more. 80% was going directly to product support for young people.
Most capacity building was meant for rural areas. Communication was one of the
areas they had invested in as a direct result of criticism they received about
this. He mentioned the launch of a programme dealing with business development
support on 10 June.
Discussion
The Chairperson asked where the separate monies received from government
and private sector was reflected in their budget. What kind of assistance do
you provide for child headed homes? She asked about tax compliance of the small
businesses and the young entrepreneurs that UYF assisted.
Ms Chalmers asked if the provincial constituencies could be navigated on the
website and asked for details of interventions and what they consisted of. It
would be useful to have a map of how everything was operating through the
provinces.
Ms Mazibuko stated that going through the documents she could not pick up over
the MediumTerm period how much they were getting. What was the budget requested
for this financial year as they kept on referring to interest but the breakdown
shows that they would overspend? Furthermore, what were the requirements of the
PFMA and did the UYF not abide by it and thus inhibit under spending or over
budgeting? He had mentioned that they had budgeted 64 million for the national
youth service, and were targeting 18 government departments and she wondered if
the departments had not budgeted for this themselves and what role did the
departments play.
Mr Madella asked if the NYC should not merge with the UYF. He asked for clarity
on the figures in the comparative analysis of the two different budgets. He was
also interested to know where the advisory centres were located.
Mr T Setona (ANC) commented that the UYF had lots of work but they were clouded
by number of factors in society. He wondered if the UYF could be the panacea
for youth unemployment and lack of skills. In terms of branding, had they
communicated with government as to what their mandate was as the UYF. What
initiatives had they sponsored that were sustainable? In terms of outreach in
the rural areas, they needed to have programmes to mobilise in those areas. He
asked if they had a database of service providers that identify with their core
mandate in the various provinces, so that they were not seen as a Johannesburg
based agency but a national one. He wanted to know about their relationship
with government on Small Medium Enterprise (SME) development so that
departments would report also on what the UYF had done where they had
integrated their initiatives across the provinces. This would impact on UYF
marketing. He asked where the UYF projects were based and what their
communication strategy was like.
Mr Kekana showed the members the UYF website in addressing Ms Charmer’s
question and they had translated it into Pedi and Zulu to make it
user-friendly, but were also looking at other languages and accessibility for
people with poor vision. He apologised that he did not provide a cash flow
statement showing the funding that they had from government and the private
sector. They received R400 million from government for this financial year.
Money from the private partnerships they put into a separate account, and it
would go straight to what had been approved. The need for support to vulnerable
children was increasing and they had worked with an organisation called “Big
brother, big sister”. It was an approved national association of community care
workers programme in partnership with the South African Council of Churches
that would help recruit people from churches to help children in child-headed
homes. They were trying to move away from enterprise individual focus but
rather look at enterprise development and what you provide to the entrepreneur.
When people come to UYF for support, they insist on tax compliance. They wanted
to make sure that a person’s taxes were in order. To clear the confusion, he
said that the NYC monitors and does not implement.
Mr Moss was interested in the national youth service programme. He wanted to
know the challenges they faced and if they had succeeded. Was their work
framed within local government economic development plans as local government
does not effectively plan for young people. He suggested the UYF needed a parliamentary
office. Were there any plans set for integration of youth development national
policy. He noted that some people had been referred to Umsobomvu but had not
been successful, and asked how their selection process operated. He wanted to
know particularly with regards to the West Coast area, so that he could get
meaningful intervention and also where their office was based there. Lastly, he
wanted to know what their success rate was for the young people that they had
given assistance to.
Ms Bengu said that most people drop out before they get to matric. How were
they assisted and did the UYF get involved in FET programmes? She noted that
people were given vouchers to get consultation in pursuing their business. She
asked if this was monitored and how to ensure people get funding and whether
the businesses were successful or not.
Mr Setona suggested that branding and communication was important, as most
people seem not to be aware of the UYF programmes. He suggested that they
should list all the applications and what had been approved and not approved
and the reasons for this. A profile was needed of their success with the youth
fund so that people know.
The CEO replied that there had been progressive improvements in accessibility.
They were trying to improve accessibility and the marketing of the UYF. They
would work with the municipality in Saldannah and look at activities that the
youth could be involved in that area and other areas, which seem to have been
neglected. They youth service programme was launched to help communities with
service delivery. In terms of business development, they would give people a
chance even if not everyone succeeds, but give them the opportunity to try and
build their own businesses. They had found the need for career pathing, which
was not cheap. He mentioned that problems should be viewed as part and parcel
of implementation. He acknowledged that there would be problems in
implementation of youth programmes but one should rather learn from those
programmes to better service delivery. Some municipalities did not have tax
space; the budget was limited yet the unemployed youth problem still remained
high. Where the municipality was small and they cannot do it then they cannot
force that municipality and they would treat each municipality case by case.
Last year they committed on making use of a parliamentary office. The
integration of the website and call centre would be problematic as it would
create confusion and the transference from one youth sector to the next. They
could have linkages on their websites to the NYC website so that it were easier
to do so. Government’s commitment to youth development cannot be questioned but
the issue could be scale. The question to ask was, was it enough and he did not
think it was.
The Chairperson asked that a combined meeting between NYC and UYF be arranged.
Meeting
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.