Office on the Status of Disabled Persons & Umsobomvu Youth Fund: Strategic Plans and Budgets for 2008/09

Meeting report

The Chairperson introduced Ms Nokuthula Nqaba, the new Researcher who would deal specifically with Youth issues pertaining to the committee and Ms Kashiefa Abrahams, another Researcher for the Committee.

Office on the Status of Disabled Persons (OSDP) Strategic Plan and Budget 2008/9 Briefing
Mr Benny Palime, Director, OSDP,  briefed the Committee on the budget and strategic plans for 2008/09. The strategic plan of the Presidency and the objectives were aligned to the OSDP, which also aimed at achieving a better life for all through excellence in governing. The twenty-four Apex priorities were broken down into categories according to OSDP programmes and therefore this ensured alignment. All projects this year had to be finished by January, for a handover in February and March. The work was tight, and the budget had been reduced by R1 million because of the short time.

OSDP’s main work in the past year had focused on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities. South Africa had been selected as a pilot to implement this Convention. OSDP would be reporting to the UN in two years time on the implementation of the Convention, which would include publicity on the Convention, compiling a training manual, and guidelines and training government officials to understand the Convention.

The OSDP intended to hold meetings with municipalities to establish and strengthen coordinating structures at Local Government level.  R450 000 was allocated for the implementation of the training programme and the mainstreaming capacity building programme, targeting 255 municipalities. OSDP had agreed with Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) and South African Local Government Association (SALGA) to start implementing at the end of June.

Mr Palime noted that OSDP had almost finalised the National Disability Policy Framework process, and were visiting the Clusters to inform them about the framework, to get the approval of the DGs, and their signature to commitment. This Framework did not replace the Integrated National Disability Strategy but rather qualified it and served as the implementation point of the Convention. 

The 15 Year Review did not have a specific budget, being paid by the German Development Corporation, and the draft report would be sent to the Committee shortly. It was planned to consolidate certain structures and to strengthen the national disability machinery, holding increased numbers of meetings. 

OSDP was in partnership with the South African National Aids Council specifically to look at studies of the impact of HIV/Aids on persons with disabilities and to look at the different reports that emerged. Extra activity had taken place on the Arts and Culture Programme. The  International Day of Disabled Persons (IDDP) had taken a larger chunk of the budget, as this year OSDP wished to in a manner that would not interfere in the work of the provinces.

Mr Palime summarised that the total allocation for the year was R2.3 million. The Gender, Disability, and Children programmes of the Presidency would apply for additional funding from National Treasury if they were running short of money in terms of the Apex priorities. The OSDP had been operating at cost. This year the Chief Director had been allocated R1 million to run her office. There was no budget for the hand over process but by September OSDP would have compiled a manual that sought to assist in the overall process, and this would include a section on the legacy of the Presidency from 1994 to 2009.

Discussion
Ms Newhoudt-Druchen was not happy with the allocation of funds, as she pointed out that OSDP were still doing a year’s work within the time period. Looking at the mainstreaming of the Apex priorities she did not see any budget.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen applauded Mr Palime for the work around the Convention and was very proud that South Africa was a pilot country, but at the same time cautioned that this would involve a lot of work, and the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) would have a role to play there. She thought the R200 000 allocated was too little, taking into consideration a road show.

Mr T Setona (ANC) asked for clarification on the Office on the Rights of the Child’s core business and mandate. This would enable him to evaluate whether the allocation given was sufficient. Some of the issues listed, unless they were elaborated upon, seemed to have nothing to do with their core mandate.

Mr Setona asked where Mr Palime fell in the structure, as Mr Palime did not have executive powers to decide on some of the issues or even veto.

Mr Setona welcomed the mention of the 15 Year Review as it was actually long overdue. He asked what lessons had been drawn from the ten year review of the Government of South Africa from 1994 to 2004; and what processes and methodology were to be employed to realise that review. 

Mr Setona noted that there was mention of deficiencies in the Integrated National Disability Strategy, and only a brief mention of some issues that had actually been implemented. He would like more information.

Mr Setona had to be convinced that it was OSDP’s task to meet with 255 municipalities, and he noted that the budget for this was far too small. That raised another fundamental strategy and operational question, as to whether OSDP were operating in a silo, and what their relationship was, both formally and at a strategic level with Provincial Governments, in terms of coordination. He felt that project was over ambitious.

Mr Setona also needed to be convinced as to how OSDP were to achieve the Apex Priorities. He did not believe OSDP was responsible for all the issues. Their task was to coordinate and ensure that relevant departments or Government were identified. He asked in which cluster was the Anti Poverty Campaign and Anti Poverty Strategy designated. He felt that OSDP should only advocate, ensure that disability issues were mainstreamed, and come up with clear policy targets.

Mr Palime responded that the core business of the OSDP was to perform specific functions such as mainstreaming; capacity building, monitoring and evaluation and advocacy, and they had international obligations, so the list in the budget was indeed their core business. The IDDP would fall under the function of advocacy; the question of development of indicators under monitoring and evaluation.

Mr Palime agreed that OSDP was not going to meet the municipalities, but was coordinating a capacity building programme. The 255 municipalities were targeted, but ODSP would group them into districts, which would then attend the various workshops in sequence. This had already started in the Eastern Cape and Northern Cape. OSDP was also to provide guidance to Government in terms of disability work through the National Disability Machinery. These structures were there to coordinate their work with the IDC, the Provincial Forum, and the National Disability Machinery.

Mr Palime noted that although the apex priorities were listed, OSDP would not necessarily do those activities, but may be involved in task teams – for instance in the anti-poverty strategy, where their focus would be to ensure that food parcels and distress relief were also allocated to households of persons with disabilities. OSDP fell squarely within the policy unit of the President, headed by the Head of Policy, and all their operations fell precisely within that particular unit.

Mr Palime agreed with the Chairperson that the amounts allocated were small,  but the budget of the Presidency was reduced by National Treasury, so the Programmes Unit then had to think how to allocate their money. The three programmes each received a portion, and R1 million was allocated to the office of the Chief Director, who had not been able to operate in the previous year through lack of budget.

He also agreed with the Chair that the amount of R200 000 allocated in terms of the UN Convention was small, but the idea was not to start with the road shows, but with the compilation of the training manual and media popularisation. GCIS would pay for the advertisements, although they would be done by OSDP. assist with that; OSDP would do the radio adverts, TV adverts, but they would be paid for by GCIS. The amount would also cover the pilot workshops, particularly for national departments who would be trained first.

Mr Palime noted that in regard to the 15 Year Review, the methodology was to take aspects from the reports over the last five years, and the Ten Year Review Report, together with some desk-top research involving the Departments of Health, Social Development, Labour, and Education and their policies and work over the last five years. This was a similar approach to that adopted by the whole of the Policies Audit Cluster. He noted that the chapter on disability would be published in the next few weeks on the web site of the Presidency.

Mr Setona commented that he had mentioned lessons because that report would be documented as the Government report on disabilities. He said that the disabilities were located in communities. In their approach and strategy OSDP did not speak of any engagement with civil society or with Parliament, which could provide much valuable guidance through its oversight activities. When the Ten Year Review was released many government organisations were unhappy with it, differing with many of the observations. For purposes of integrity and credibility he felt that collating government reports was one thing, but information on the real living conditions of the people was another, and it was the latter that should be the basis of the lessons to be learned.

Mr S Dithebe (ANC) said Mr Palime had spoken about advocacy and international obligations. He imagined that, apart from such instruments as the Convention on Disabilities, OSDP would also be concerned about attainment of the eight development goals to the extent that they impacted on the lot of people with disabilities. People with disabilities were, in particular, often amongst the poorest people.

Mr Dithebe added that children with disabilities would require even greater attention because of their special needs yet nothing was said specifically as to how OSDP would advocate for them in the Early Childhood Development programmes. He cited many instances of grandparents looking after children with disabilities who were unable to access funding. This was an example of the gaps where there was no obvious budget for the Apex Priorities. He thought that Mr Palime should have something much more obvious as to how OSDP was mainstreaming the needs of the people with disabilities into the entire programme. 

Mr Dithebe noted that Mr Palime had mentioned R10 million that was returned to Treasury by the Presidency, but had not said whether it was R10 million that the Presidency could not spend or OSDP could not spend. He asked why OSDP had suffered from this, considering that they had spent money well before. He also asked if the R2.3 million was inclusive of salaries and operating costs or was it just for programmes.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked whether the R3 million that was intended for the Disabled People International Conference, which did not take place in South Africa, was included in the R10 million of returned funding. 

Mr Palime responded that the idea of allocating R2.3 million per programme came about because the three programmes would have an equal share of the total of R9 million allocated. R1 million went to the Chief Director for operational reasons. The R2.3 million would be used particularly for programmes. He confirmed that there had been R4 million allocated to the DPI Conference, and that this was included in the R10 million returned to Treasury. Every programme in the office of the Presidency had been affected by the reduction.
 
The decision not to allocate funds particularly for the Apex Priorities came about because some of the priorities were already being included under other activities. If extra funding was allocated, then it would be allocated to these priorities, especially Early Childhood Development and other economic needs.

Mr Palime noted that OSDP would also like to change the way it worked with different departments and had asked that the DGs appoint permanent focal points in the different departments.

In respect of the questions around the 15 Year Review, he noted that Minister Pahad had chaired an inter ministerial committee, which agreed that because of the time allocated most of the work must be done at desk top level and departmental level. He understood this could be criticised, and he agreed that there was not sufficient consultation with the Committees.

Mr A Madella (ANC) was concerned the R9 million divided between the three programmes, minus the R1 million for the Chief Director, and said that this seemed to indicate under budgeting. Parliament Planners had looked at an Employment Equity audit done by the Public Service Commission and had agreed that 2% was not a reasonable target. HR managers in general lacked understanding of disability issues. He asked how that problem could be addressed. The focal persons appointed were normally senior administration officers, without influence, and often management did not take the focal person seriously, so that whatever reports were developed and compiled at grass roots level outlining tough issues were watered down. This challenge had to be addressed. As to the 15 Year Report, he thought that disabled people were worse off now than they were fifteen years ago, not because of a lack of policy, but through undermining of the implementation. Members were excited to hear about the mass roll-out of the UN Convention and awareness must be raised at grass roots level, so that implementers and recipients could know what their rights were, and what government was doing about it.

Mr Palime responded that the overall reduction of the budget was a matter he would want to raise with the Presidency. He would also apply for extra funding on the Apex Priorities and for the Conventions. He agreed that the methodology of the roll out process had to be restructured, but there would be limitations in terms of the budget. OSDP would need to think about how to do a roll out campaign in terms of their relationship with civil society. The report to the UN must be in by November 2010. South Africa would make a presentation at the Conference of State Parties in November and one of the things he would raise there was the effectiveness of how OSDP rolled out the campaign. A conscious decision had been taken to start with national government departments, because they were the implementers of policies. A request had been made to the Disability Focal Points that more senior people be appointed, at Deputy Director level and upwards. There had indeed been problems with senior officers’ reporting and there had been a request that all reports be signed off by the Directors General. 

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen noted that the Committee was not satisfied that the Convention was first going to the department workshop. The Committee had expressed its concerns over the last ten years that people on the ground were not benefiting. There should be a parallel process of training and awareness of both officials of the departments and the community and civil society.

Mr D Gamede (ANC) said that for some time there had been an issue around the 2% disability targets. OSDP was tasked with advocating and monitoring that that happened. If government was failing to meet its own target how could the private sector be expected to do so; there must be a point at which there must be naming and shaming. He said that next year no doubt there would be the same report about developing skills. He asked how many people with disabilities had been developed within government departments, especially trained on scarce skills. He asked for clarification on the budget to be finalised in January for the handover, and asked what had not been budgeted for this time.

Mr Palime explained the hand over process. The Presidency had the idea of preparing a handover manual to advise what had happened in OSDP over the last few years; and what were the structures to enable them to deal with those aspects still needing attention. That was the process to be followed in the whole of the Office of the Presidency. They needed to finish by January. They could not say what would happen in terms of future structuring of the Presidency but the idea was to have a manual that could be used with that restructuring of the Presidency.

Mr Palime said that OSDP had focused on the 2% targets. DGs had been asked to sign in their performance agreements that they would meet that target, and they were being assessed on this.  The percentage of disabled people had actually fallen from 0.26% to 0.17%. The problem was the response OSDP were getting from managers, who were not keen to implement. It might be possible to achieve 2% by 2009. OSDP appealed for the help of JMC in raising this in Parliament, OSDP had done their work but government was actually moving in the opposite direction. Another problem was the retention strategy of people with disabilities, as on average a person with a disability spent eighteen months in government employment and then left.

Mr Palime noted that the invitation to the Convention had not specifically included the Chief Director.

Mr Madella endorsed the importance of the employment issue. He indicated that Disabled People of South Africa in the Western Cape could substantiate those facts. This association had been interacting with the provincial government of the Western Cape and more departments were beginning to accommodate disabled people with employment opportunities. Yesterday there was a whole range of advertisements targeting disabled people, specifically coming from the Department of Community and Safety, Public Works and Transport. Departments of Public Service and Agriculture were setting some jobs aside specifically for disabled people. The Association was interacting vigorously with the departments, and the Committee would like to see OSDP taking a more aggressive stance at national level and not allow the HR managers to get away with non-compliance. There were other issues, such as poor conditions of employment that caused disabled people to resign. DGs must take responsibility for those HR managers, and be accountable.

Ms E Ngaleka (ANC) asked Mr Palime to furnish the JMC with statistics for each department so it could see where there was an improvement or decline. She proposed that this issue be debated in Parliament.

Mr M Moss (ANC) said the speakers before him had all expressed dissatisfaction with the report. This was the first department that did not complain about lack of funding and had actually returned money, despite the fact that the budget was far too small to operated effectively. He noted that the Department of Transport claimed to have 1% compliance in senior management and about 8% elsewhere. OSDP said that the figure was 7%. They must seriously look at whether the figures were correct.

Mr Moss said that the JMC must see the draft of the 15 Year Review report before it went to Cabinet because that would be the picture of the disabilities in the country.

Mr Moss said that since South Africa was the pilot project for the UN Convention, he wanted to reiterate that the Department of Transport discriminated against persons with disabilities. They would not even have achieved one quarter of the requirements by 2010. Departments and municipalities must understand that there were millions of disabled people, and this must be made quite clear. Mr Palime needed to seriously look at his budget. Community Based Workers were doing much better work than many municipalities because they were the people that went into the houses and so he suggested getting them involved.

Mr Setona agreed with Mr Moss on the issue of the 15 Year Review report, which must be people centred and people driven. It should identify where the  gaps were, how far South Africa had gone and how to achieve the challenges. On that basis it should reflect scientifically and accurately the situation of the disabled sector within our country. He did not think the methodology set out would be sufficient to capture that. He also noted that Mr Palime did not have decision making powers and therefore there were issues around him telling DGs what to do. The point of accountability was at DG level. The Chief Director and his DG should be asked to explain the position to the Committee. He proposed one of the things the committee should do before the end of the term was to convene a meeting with the clusters in government to ask them to account.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen noted that there was much input from Mr Setona that could be raised in the Committee’s report. The JMC would have to take those matters forward.

Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) Briefing

Mr Malosi Kekana, CEO, Umsobomvu Youth Fund, briefed the Committee on the Corporate Plan of the Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF). He indicated, in terms of the achievements, that in the last year there had been participation in national youth service (NYS) projects by  57 298 young people, that 44 272 young people accessed entrepreneurship education and that 1 020 teachers were capacitated to offer entrepreneurship education. The number of companies supporting youth development had increased. UYF successfully organised the inaugural “Invite a Person with Disability to Work Campaign” on 23 and 24 April 2008. More than 1 200 people with disabilities were placed with 65 government departments for more than two days, with promises to take on some of them in permanent employment.

Mr Kekana set out some of the challenges facing Umsobomvu. This year the UYF had made provision for funding of R424 million, but their allocation was only R5 million. In the first slide he had set out the targets for 2008/09. The reduced funding meant that most of those targets had to be cut by at least half.  He pointed out that this was a great pity, as it was one of the few organisations that never had a qualified audit report.
-
UYF was most unhappy with the vast amount government was spending on young people incarcerated in correctional service facilities, especially in relation to what they were spending on unskilled and unemployed young people who were looking for work. An amount of about R1.3 billion was spent on the care of prisoners, and this had included about 11% of young people. However, it was noted that one of the reasons given for the small amount of funding was the possible merger of the youth institutions.

UYF had closed the financial year with R401,308 of which R399,879 was committed to projects. Although it only would receive R5 million all operating costs and overheads for the financial year would be covered from that amount, interest, and income from loans advanced. If they had no interest from loans, however, they would not be able to proceed with the plans.

Insofar as the returns on loans were concerned, it was noted that there was about an 85% to 90% return rate, and that amount was usually used to pay salaries so that services could continue.

Mr Kekana noted that the current work being undertaken had been limited. There were several large projects that should have gone ahead, but UYF could not approve the projects as the budget had already been accounted for. One of the plans for the year was to open Youth Advisory centres in townships. In Pretoria, on a quiet day, their centre saw 250 people and on a very busy day about 850 people. He felt that it would be useful to have offices in Mamelodi, Attridgeville, Daveyton, Khayelitsha and Gugulethu; in fact in all the townships where young people lived who were looking for opportunities were.

Mr Kekana said UYF had decided to go on a very aggressive public drive to raise money. UYF had decided to launch a website asking members of the public to sponsor a young person, for instance, by way of loans of money, with profiles on the internet so that sponsors could choose who to fund. They also planned a very aggressive fund raising campaign. India had committed R5 million. Old Mutual had committed R100 million for the UYF/Old Mutual Women’s fund. UYF was hoping that government would meet them half way, although they were not considering stopping providing services if not funded by the fiscus.

The merger process of the youth institutions was going well, and three meetings had discussed the mandate, products and services, governance, institutional form, communication with stakeholders, inclusive of public hearings and interim arrangements. Recommendations would have to be submitted to Cabinet by October 2008.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked how much the interest would be if 85% to 90% of the loans had been paid back, and if it could be quantified in terms of expected revenue.

Mr Kekana noted that page 19 of the presentation, under “opening cash on hand” referred to grant income and other income. The other income of R171 million represented the loan book. On page 20, the fixed project commitments were mostly monies that had to be spent supporting the advisory centres. The balance of expenses was taken up with operating overheads.

Mr Madella noted that the biggest challenge was that of income. It was unfortunate that Government did not seem to care about the unemployed youth. The fact that National Treasury pledged only R5 million for this financial year was a serious concern and seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of the full picture. It was important to understand how that R5 million came about because it did seem that UYF would be forced to reconsider their services and even to close down operations.

Mr S Dithebe (ANC) submitted that at operational level he knew of quite a few of the youth who were granted vouchers, supposedly to enable them to start their own projects. However, they would then be confronted with frustrations caused by municipalities over land or other issues. He asked what UYF was doing to follow through those frustrations and help unblock blockages so that they could see the projects through. 
.
Mr Dithebe further noted that UYF had lamented the fact that more money was spent on youth in prison than youth who were seeking skills or employment. He imagined it was a Catch-22 situation in the sense that more youth, because of their socio economic conditions, would be tempted to or would commit actions in conflict with the law and find themselves in prison. The context of restorative justice should be trying to rehabilitate them back into society. Instead of lamenting those figures, he asked if it would not be better to actively ask for more money for the unskilled in order to create skills to keep them away from prison, and even to have those in prison released for training and to be able to have a normal life.

Mr Dithebe said that Mr Kekana seemed to be suggesting that for the remainder of the projects UYF would be relying on philanthropists, and expressed the wish that government would meet them halfway. The window for soliciting more funds for their programmes to help young people was closed. The OSDP had earlier told the Committee that they would still be asking for more money, and there was probably a similar opportunity for UYF, using the PFMA, to ask that more money was allocated. He wanted to enquire if that opportunity had been considered.

Mr Setona said that UYF seemed to be making strides in development and job making structures. They had internal capacity and were sourcing it out. He asked what, in the merger process, would be the particular skill and capacity built and how agencies would be targeted. He noted that National Treasury should have explained the reasons for not approving the requested funding, and this Committee should be entitled to know what was said. The Committee would like to be able to make interventions, if appropriate, knowing of the full background and reasons. The task of skilling young people and getting them to work could not be postponed. The Committee  may have to intervene at a political level. He noted that the statistics quoted seemed to show that UYF was making a stand in the fight against poverty and unemployment and that was quite critical.

Mr Setona followed up on Mr Dithebe’s question of the practical difficulties with municipalities, and presumed that due diligence testing was done to check that all criteria had been met. It would be incorrect to approve the application of someone claiming to have a good business plan if they were not sure that person had a space for that business.

Mr Gamede said that he would like Umsobomvu to explain why there had been such a drastic drop of funding, so the Committee could also get an explanation from Treasury.

Mr Kekana sketched what had happened. In 2001 UYF got an allocation of R855 million, that was a once-off allocation. Between 2001 and 2006 UYF did not receive any funding from National Government. In 2006/07 an allocation of about R400 million was granted. This money had been put into reserves, and each year those reserves would be used to meet the funds committed. Development of skills was one of the strategic priorities. This had to be done in a way that produced a meaningful impact. UYF had prepared a business plan in 2005/06 relating to skills, that asked for R2,5 billion over a period of three years, because that was the kind of scale required to address the challenges.

When Umsobomvu was established there was no formal mandate by way of a legislative enabling structure. The once-off allocation was intended to give running costs while they formalised a mandate. A task team, consisting of Department of Labour and the Umsobomvu Board, was set up, and in August 2007 they finally came up with the proposed institutional form, to be tabled in Cabinet to get formal approval. This process was not yet concluded. 

In the meantime, Government had taken another decision to review development-funding institutions and their mandates. National Treasury hired external consultants, and their review made recommendations, some of which UYF agreed to, and some they did not. One of the suggestions was that Umsobomvu was not a development funding institution because a development funding institution could not both give grants and loans. UYF argued that it had moved to the “one stop shop” approach because many young people not only required a business plan but also required funding, and to refer such people, many of whom had taken an enormous effort even to approach UYF, to go elsewhere would have been counter-productive. The National Youth Policy advocated integrated project development. UYF did not agree with the definition, or the suggestion that because they were not considered to be a development funding institution there could not be continued funding.

A recommendation had been made that Umsobomvu must transfer its enterprise development activities to entities such as Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA), although UYF did not understand why this should be so, nor believed that there was any rationale for doing so.

Another recommendation was that their lending book was not sustainable. The Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) book was profitable; it had made R171 million, and their performance was audited. Insofar as micro funding was concerned there were policy decisions to be made. In Bethlehem or the Karoo some small loans would be made, but the same cost incurred, whereas in the bigger centres 10 000 and more loans could be made against the same cost in the bigger centres. There had been some disagreement with National Treasury, and the Minister of Labour did support their request for additional funding, even claiming that this had been blocked by some officials.

Mr Kekana said that  UYF had an ISO 01 Certification so in terms of their systems and operations and efficiency could benchmark themselves with the best institutions in South Africa, and there was no suggestion that they were inefficient. The proposed merger was creating insecurity for staff.

Mr Gamede said this was really unbelievable. It left the Committee to assume that because there was a merger there would be new leadership and that certain actions would follow. He proposed that the Committee engage with other structures, including the Department of Labour, the Executive and National Treasury on this issue, and thereafter engage further with UYF.

Mr Madella suggested that the CEO make available the report on the budget that was submitted and signed by the Minister of Labour, as well as the communication received from Treasury. He fully supported Mr Gamede that there had to be interventions. However, Mr Kekana had mentioned that Treasury officials seemed to have had a change of heart, and he asked whether the R5 million funding had resulted from this sudden understanding, or whether there had in fact been no change. He also suggested that the Minister must be present.

Mr Dithebe was sure it would not be a problem for the Committee to get the DFI review on UYF, nor to see its reservations on the IFC report. There were huge disparities in society, and youth were not being left unscathed. This was a matter of great concern. The youth had to be able to access UYF services, particularly in the townships. He himself had set up his constituency office in the township precisely in order to address the concerns around communication with the broader community. He asked if government had finally accepted the recommendations of the review, and how the Minister of Labour’s support of UYF had been regarded, as that would have huge ramifications for the development of youth in the country. Arguments on the legacy were not correct at this point; instead resources should be used to positively alter the life of the under-35 year old, who accounted for 70% of the population.

Ms X Makasi (ANC) agreed that National Treasury should be invited to explain the problem.

Ms E Ngaleka (ANC) asked whether the “Invite a Person with Disability” campaign was to be ongoing for the rest of the year, or was a once-off. She asked when the open funding for people with disabilities would start and how it would happen if there were all these problems with funding.

Mr Kekana advised that the “Invite a Person with Disability Campaign” was intended to be ongoing. UYF created a database, that in turn would source information from other databases on people with disabilities, and run an ongoing awareness campaign so that employers could find a disabled person to employ. UYF would also introduce a booklet of best practices and the support they would require in terms of facilities. Every year in April UYF would repeat a campaign to boost that awareness.

Mr Setona suggested that National Treasury and UYF be present at the same time before the Committee. Last year he noted that a proposal was made that UYF needed to develop a better communication strategy to publicise what had been done in the last three years, because the perception was that little was being done. He recommended that UYF should be more aggressive, and more robust in their communications strategy and must also be assisted to put across that it was but one of the structures of intervention, and could not resolve unemployment on its own. 

Mr Kekana responded that UYF would like to be more aggressive in their communication, but the problem was that if they received a flood of applications they would not be able to honour their commitment without funding. The youth were complaining also that they were visible, but that the loan offices were not always at the site of the information office, and applications would have to be sent away for processing. In some of the areas they could not even begin to reach out because of lack of capacity to visit the youth. The most effective advertising was through word of mouth. There had been an aggressive marketing campaign. Their customer surveys were also beginning to pick up where the capacity did not exist. Although it was desirable to increase the communications, this must be matched with sufficient capacity to follow up.

Mr Kekana noted that the R5 million was the original amount allocated in the budget and there had not been any changes on the part of National Treasury.

Mr Kekana then amplified on the comments made in regard to municipalities and practical difficulties, saying that Department of Trade and Industry had a Community Enterprise Development project. In the poor communities, the people realised that the biggest provider of opportunities was government, but in many instances the Tribal Authority or municipality already had the capacity to meet those opportunities. It was envisaged that Enterprise Development Workers would work with municipalities, and, for instance, would develop projects such as cooperatives for washing cars in a municipality. He said that the UYF itself had strong capacity and UYF was the leading youth development institution around the world.

 Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked whether these opportunities were also included in the R5 million budget. 

Mr Kekana said that corporates liked supporting specific ideas, so he was sure that with the support of the Committee UYF could get corporate involvement.

Mr Dithebe said that if UYF was enjoying a domestic and national reputation, then they should perhaps think of doing work similar to that of the Human Sciences Research Council, based on their experiences, as an additional source of revenue. This might require mandating legislation.

Mr Madella referred to the “Take a Disabled Person to Work” Campaign and the proposed manual, and said that it was important to liase with OSDP, and the disability movement Disabled People of South Africa.

Mr Kekana replied that UYF already had wonderful support from the OSDP in terms of sourcing names of people and training. UYF ran an eight-day workshop, and job preparation workshops and had a lot of support.

Mr Kekana added that UYF had already been invited by the government of Qatar to work with and support them in setting up a fund in the Middle East. UYF had just returned from Indonesia, where it was working with the World Bank on the establishment of a $350 million development fund, which they were leading.  UYF was also invited to provide support in Zambia. Quite a number of countries had hosted them. The oil producing countries had resources and wanted to set up huge programmes for youth development; UYF would be assisting with design and workshops.

Ms Ngaleka urged UYF to make contact with Peru, which needed assistance in helping with disabilities.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters and noted that the JMC would need to meet with the Minister of Labour and National Treasury and UYF. The UYF should send through the reports.

Children’s Day
The Chairperson  reminded members of the Children’s Day event on 11 June, being planned by the ORC.

Ms Nqaba gave detailed information about plans for the Youth Parliament on 26 and 27 June.

The Chairperson said the Committee was not involved, but would no doubt be asked to participate.

Mr Setona proposed writing a letter to the Speaker. He said that many preparations were at an advanced stage, but there were many unresolved outstanding issues. The JMC still did not have last year’s report and had not received the Minutes from the last Youth Parliament.

Ms Makasi agreed with Mr Setona and asked that Ms Nqaba put all the information in writing.

Ms K Abrahams, Committee Researcher, clarified that the researchers had asked how the JMC was involved, who was the task team, and where were the reports. The Youth Commission had requested, at the beginning of the year, that they have access to the Youth Parliament report. This was also raised with the Speaker, and she had been given to understand that the Public Education Officer had completed the report but that at the signing off at high level it had become blocked. She agreed that the JMC should meet with the Speaker, because it was difficult for researchers to engage on issues around process.

The Chairperson said she wanted the JMC to be involved with the Youth Parliament. This issue should also go to the Speaker’s Office. Mr Setona’s recommendation would be taken through. 

The meeting was adjourned.