COMMENTS MADE TO THE PORTFOLIO
COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
ON BUDGET VOTE 16 (SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT) THAT WAS TABLED BY THE MINISTER OF FINANCE ON 20 FEBRUARY 2008.
Introduction
The vision
and aim the Department of Social Development remains admirable. It is evident
that, although major challenges remain, the department has made considerable
advances towards achieving its objectives. This is reflected in the budgetary
allocations of VOTE 16 as tabled by the Minister of Finance on 20 February
2008.
The Vote,
includes provisions for Programme 1- 5. UNICEF provides some comments on
selected programmes.
Programme
purposes, objective and measures.
Programme 2: Comprehensive Social
Security (page 313)
In general
this programme constitutes the government/Department’s most significant
contribution towards comprehensive social security. The gap however remains
startling:
For
example, neither here nor in other parts of the chapter the extension of the
CSG to 14 years old is mentioned. There
is no indication of how the plight of poor children between 15 and 18 will be
changed.
It is not
clear that “improving access of household
beneficiaries of social assistance to economic opportunities” can be
achieved by “leveraging social assistance
grants” (page 313), given that: (i) the skill and asset base of grant
beneficiaries is particularly low; and (ii) the size of the grants, especially
the CSG, is limited (iii) the grant is means tested and leaves out a
significant number of the poor; (iv) there is no systematic mechanisms that
links beneficiaries to other existing poverty alleviation programmes (v)
beneficiaries are not naturally linked to social support services nor any other
exit strategies. For example, prioritizing the parents of child beneficiaries
on EPWP other reserved employment opportunities.
It is
recommended that improved access…”to
economic opportunities” be achieved through active labour market policies
targeting especially youth, emphasizing public-private partnership, on the job
training and remedial interventions (such as “second chance” education) for
school drop outs. It is advisable to associate job-specific training to
life-skills training such as basic literacy, numeracy, attitudes on the
workplace, job search skills, among others, especially for the youth.
Expenditure trends: (page 318-320)
While
earmarked allocations to M&E activities are very welcome given that M&E
functions are critical to boost planning and execution capacity, it is not
clear to which specific M&E activities the additional allocations of “R11, R6 and R9 million” over the MTEF
will be allocated.
Is the “management information system for social
welfare services” mentioned on page 318 the same as (or will be included
by) the “comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation system to improve service delivery” mentioned at the beginning
of page 315 and the “Monitoring and
Evaluation” activities mentioned in page 327?
The “national integrated social information
system” is also mentioned in page 318, which is an inter-departmental
initiative, will serve a different purpose than the “comprehensive monitoring and evaluation” system, which is a
departmental initiative (page 315). Moreover, although “improving the efficiency and effectiveness of social assistance by
conducting an impact evaluation study of the CSG” is a key objective of
Programme 2 it is not clear whether the budget for this study will also come
from budget item # 2 in table 16.7 under Programme 5 or it will be financed
under budget item # 1 in Table 16.4 under Programme 2.
It is
recommended that the mapping between specific monitoring and evaluation
activities, their objectives, and budget allocations be clarified. This mapping will also help clarifying the
risk of potential overlapping among these activities. The idea of a
“comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation” (page
315) under the mandate of the DSD M&E Chief Directorate should be strongly
supported and fragmented M&E initiatives within the DSD should be
re-unified.
There seems
to be quite a disproportion between the breadth of M&E activities mentioned
through the chapter and the paucity of M&E budget allocated under Programme
5. This disproportion is even more
evident if one considers that SASSA alone has received a R70 million for
management information system activities only in 2007.
It is
important that the increase in “SASSA
administration” budget (page 319) be assessed against the achievements of
concrete operational targets. For example, it is not clear to what extent the “improved grant administration process”
(IGAP) and the “improved access to
services by rural communities” has contributed to a reduction of the
coverage gaps and to an increase of take up among children at birth or just a
few days after birth (page 329).
Important gaps still exists (see CASE, 2008) in the actual receipt (transfer
in the caregivers’ hands) of the CSG by eligible children younger than 9
months. Because of these gaps, the CSG is not yet leveraging all its
developmental potential in this critical age group (when nutrition conditions
are usually rapidly deteriorating, between 3 and 9 months, especially in the
poorest communities).
Programme 2: Comprehensive Social
Security (page 322)
A
considerable amount of resources has been allocated to “SASSA MIS” (R55.7 million in 2006/07, R70 million in 2007/08 and an
additional R20 million per year over the MTEF) for the “establishment and operation of the management information system”. An obvious question is what are the results
achieved in 2006-08 which justify R20 million per year over the next three
years? We recommend clarifying the link (if any) between this “MIS” effort and the overdue reform of
the SocPen. A reform of SASSA MIS should indeed be including a
reform of the SocPen, but results are not yet evident in this direction.
Programme 3: Policy development,
Review and implementation support for welfare services
In line
with government’s developmental approach, the legislation and policy reform
within the DSD reflects an emphasis on prevention and early intervention and
carefully crafting essential tertiary
level interventions. The legislation passed during 2007, especially the
new Children’s Act, has significant implications for the reform and up scaling
of social welfare services. The budget specifies the increase of scholarships
and staffing, but moreover the institutional capacity and infrastructural
implications of the Children’s Act is gigantic as indicated in the Children’s
Bill costing report. What is necessary is a detailed implementation plan which
includes specific capacity development strategies and its associated costs.
In regard
to the full spectrum of programme 3, the costs associated with training and
capacity development of staff is not explicit in the budget. If the national
department is assuming the role of oversight, leadership and guidance to the
provinces, than there will have to be significant investment in capacity
development and support for this level first, especially because the tools,
instruments and materials necessary are none existent at this point of time.
This is a specialized activity and the back bone of transforming welfare
services, it therefore demands a comprehensive strategy and a dedicate budget.
Furthermore
this is the programme that must articulate the desired synergy with the
comprehensive social security – programme two as well as programme 4. The
latter speaks to the imperatives of designing sustainable livelihoods.
Programme 4: Community development
Besides the
fact that this programme is intended to bring services closest to where it is
needed, it does not appear to be mainstreamed into the core services as
provided under programme 3 as intended by the new DSD service model. This is
where the prevention and early intervention elements of services should be spearheaded.
This
programme also give expression to the government’s commitment to partner with
civil society/NGO’s, other development agencies – such as the NDA to strengthen
the state’s capacity to reduce poverty. However, the budget and description of
the means to achieve this is not clear.
The size
and scope of the services provided under this programme, 4 may be indicative of
the fact that the shift towards developmental social welfare services is
lagging behind. The new legislation and policy reforms, regulations and further
guidelines provides an important opportunity for review and betterment,
especially for children and their families.
Programme 5: Strategy and Governance (page 322). A substantial budget
increase is driven by the need to increase capacity and oversight functions in
the Department. This is a welcome development. It is critical to support the
execution of activities at the provincial level. Nonetheless, given the
importance of training, oversight, and supervision of activities to boost service
delivery, it is striking that the budget allocated to “entity oversight” is just above double of what is allocated to “population research”. Moreover, it is
probably Programme 5 that bears most of the burden of ensuring that “an integrated
social development package” (page 315) is delivered to those in need.
Which of
the Programme 5 activities are considered most pivotal to achieve this
result?
Thank you
for providing UNICEF the opportunity to comment on the budget vote. UNICEF
remains dedicated to supporting the SA government and its institutions towards
positively changing the destinies of
19 MARCH
2008
PROF.
SEPTEMBER AND DR. FERDINANDO REGALIA