Netball SA, Lovelife SA and USSASA: Department budget hearing

Meeting report

SPORT AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
11 March 2005
NETBALL SA, LOVELIFE SA AND USSASA: DEPARTMENT BUDGET HEARING

Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)

Documents handed out:
LoveLife article in Style magazine
LoveLife Games: Organiser’s Manual
United School Sports Association of South Africa (USSASA): PowerPoint presentation
United School Sports Association of South Africa (USSASA): Doctor Nkosi’s briefing

LoveLife website

SUMMARY
The Committee heard presentations from Netball South Africa, LoveLife South Africa and the United School Sports Association of South Africa (USSASA). These three groups updated the Committee on the status and nature of their work and requested support from the Committee in the enhancement of their programmes. For example USSASA stated that the Department was undermining the USSASA programme through the way it allocated money for school sport without approaching the organisation. USSASA also claimed that LoveLife often acted unilaterally in making decisions that affected other stakeholders. The Committee agreed to consider issues that the organisations were facing and to seek possible solutions.

MINUTES

Netball South Africa presentation
Ms Ntambi Ravele, President of Netball SA, stated that the sport was played everywhere in the country. She noted that 95% of players were women, 60% youth and 70% black. There were approximately 2 million players all over the country. She also cited that the majority of its leadership were women. South Africa ranked number one in Africa and fifth in the world. Only one region had 1 full-time staff member out of 33 regions. All other workers were volunteers.

The activities within Netball SA included development, training, administration, co-ordinating games and meeting with stakeholders. The Budget of the organisation was R33.5 million. R1.8 million of this money was given by the Department of Sport and Recreation. The organisation was always late in presenting its report to the Department because there were no offices for staff to work. She recommended that the budget consider employment of staff for federations. It was also important to link up the organisation with the Department of Health so as to enable major players to keep healthy. Within Netball SA, transformation was moving ahead except that it needed to be taken to the next level.

Discussion
Mr D Dikgacwi (ANC) asked if the 33 regions were demarcated according to municipalities. He asked if the leagues were integrated or whether pockets of white young people were playing on their own. He further wanted the issue of the Western Cape to be clarified.

Ms Ravele stated that the demarcation issue was a very big challenge. Two years ago, there had been a request from municipalities for demarcation and the same was being requested again. It posed a problem for the organisation of volunteers. The leagues were integrated and the national league acted according to the policy of transformation. She clarified that Western Cape had always managed their own affairs, but she was not aware of how they raised funds to pay their staff.

Mr T Lee (DA) wanted to know how many netball-playing nations there were in the world. He asserted that South Africa would rank number 1 in the world if they had the necessary facilities. He suggested that the organisation speak with USSASA officials in municipalities to ensure better facilities. He also wanted to know the role of municipalities in assisting Netball SA.

Ms Ravele replied that Netball SA ranked fifth out of 48 netball-playing countries in the world. She said that if the municipalities could provide offices and manpower it would mean a lot.

Mr S Masango (DA) wanted to know if the provinces were helping with facilities and finances. He also asked if there were any academies for netball.

Ms Ravele replied that some of the provinces were assisting but some were not. She said that the work with the provinces needed to be co-ordinated. Netball existed in all nine provinces and some of its responsibilities were carried out by academies.

Ms Rajbally (MF) said that businesses in the country were not assisting and that the organisation needed to contact the business community for help.

Ms Ravele replied that it was difficult for the regions to raise sponsorship at the national level. She agreed that the business community should be approached so as to ensure that at least one percent of funding from them goes to a women sport.

Mr E Salooje (ANC) wanted to know the ethnic composition of the national team.

Ms Ravele stated that the national team was composed of 40 blacks and 60 whites, but the team was moving to equal representation as soon as possible.

Mr Saloojee stated that it was a very odd situation for the organisation to lack adequate funding and at the same time have white players who came from places where there were better facilities. It was time to request the government to invest more money in sport. He asked for some of the benefits derived from the academies especially for rural people.

Ms Ravele replied that there were lots of benefits because academies teach life skills. Also, kids from the rural areas who excel in the sport were sent to academies.

The Chairperson stated that Netball SA was doing well and needed to be given much support. The Department needed to provide funding for hiring a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on a permanent basis. He assured the organisation that the Committee would engage the Department on all the issues raised.

LoveLife South Africa briefing
Mr David Harrison, Chief Executive Officer, stated that sport was not a specific HIV/AIDS campaign, but LoveLife used sport to access young people "where they were at". He pointed out that over 95% of youth aged 15 years old were not infected with HIV. This was an opportunity to create a fundamental change and divert the course of the epidemics.

LoveLife sought to substantially reduce the level of HIV/AIDS risk among young people, thereby reducing the overall effects of the epidemic. The organisation had centres all over the country and its programmes were driven by young people themselves. Its LoveLife Games was an important strategy. It believed that sport was a vehicle for HIV/AIDS prevention and that young people needed to adopt a winning attitude and the country needed to help them do that.

Discussion
Mr Dikgacwi wanted to know who participated in LoveLife Games. Who co-ordinated the Games and what were the racial factors surrounding the Games. He also asked if the organisation was doing anything in terms of young people and drugs.

Mr Harrison replied that the Games were 90% black in terms of participation. There had been problems with white schools not wanting to engage, so it was decided to integrate the programme as much as possible. HIV/AIDS affected everyone despite colour, but it was directly linked to poverty.

The organisation was not only about telling young people to use condoms, but it was also about drugs and alcohol abuse. It was about a lifestyle.

Ms Rajbally asked if the organisation was accepted in schools and what was the percentage of people accepting the organisation in the country.

Mr Harrison replied that schools were accepting of the programme and many young people were calling in to the programme everyday, but because Telkom rates were so high, it was difficult to accommodate all the callers. The organisation was also working with NGOs and government and their work was a fantastic model of integrated community development.

The Chairperson asked where the organisation derived its budget and what were the outcomes of the Games and how were these outcomes measured? He also asked about the role of Social Development in the organisation. He asked if the programmes would be more efficiently run by USSASA instead of by LoveLife. He asked why certain programmes for girls within LoveLife could not be run by schools.

Mr Harrison explained that the organisation total budget was about R200 million. Funders included the Kaiser Foundation, the Global Fund against TB, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the SA government, and other corporate sponsors. During its inception, the programme had had three main partners: Sport and Recreation SA and the Departments of Health and Social Development. Through these departments, they have developed a greater relationship with provincial schools.

LoveLife uses the infrastructure of school sport facilities. It provided the communication component and USSASA provided the school development component. The organisation was not a substitute for USSASA and could not work without USSASA. The government had just allocated another R5 million for ground-breaking work in deep rural areas.

The target group of the organisation was 12 to 17 years. It had a structured evaluation programme and it was linked to research and young people exposure to LoveLife. It also tracked young people’s sexual behaviour and conduct a survey every three years with young people. He could not confirm that LoveLife activities had reduce HIV/AIDS, but there was a strong association between low HIV/AIDS rate in young people and exposure to LoveLife.

Mr Doctor Nkosi, President of USSASA, stated that there were some administrative problems with LoveLife. He asserted that the organisation’s Games did not cover certain regions and that it took unilateral decisions when meeting with donors in areas of partnership.

The CEO stated that he was "quite stunned" by the accusations by the USSASA President. He suggested that the issue be addressed outside of the Committee meeting.

The Chairperson suggested that because the issue was raised within the Committee’s meeting, the resolution document would have to be made available to the Committee.

USSASA briefing
Mr Nkosi stated that the issue of mass participation had not been addressed in the budget. School sports were not receiving the level of support that was needed (see document for detail).

Discussion
Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) wanted to know how USSASA was assisting school children.

Mr Donald Chiloane, Deputy Director for Finance, stated that there was money allocated by USSASA for school children, but the responsibility rested with local groups to assist.

He complained that the Department was not directly engaging USSASA in school sports, because at the present time there was R50 million allocated, but it was not clear whether USSASA was going to be a part of the planning and allocating process. He added that the Department was undermining the USSASA programme through the way it allocated money without approaching the organisation.

Mr Dikgacwi stated that the Committee needed to assist if USSASA was to perform satisfactorily.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would interact with the Department to find resolutions to the problems because USSASA had a critical role to play in bringing children at school level to be involved in sport.

The meeting was adjourned.