Office on the Rights of the Child & National Youth Commission: 2008/9 Budgets &Strategic Plans

Meeting report

Office on the Rights of the Child (ORC) : Strategic Plan and Budget 2008/10
Ms Mabel Rantla, Director, ORC, introduced a colleague, Mr Archie Tsoku,  Director, National Children’s Rights Commission (NCRC). She explained that the  NCRC was an NGO with whom ORC was partnering on children’s rights mainstreaming in civil society.

Ms Rantla tabled the vision and mission of the ORC, noting that the government aimed to provide leadership in the Children’s Rights (CR) sector. ORC aimed to achieve that through their commitment to mainstreaming of “best interests of the child” standards in government processes, strengthening of child protection and development, cooperation with all spheres of government, advancement of children’s rights through public and private partnerships and NGOs, mainstreaming of the” indigenous best practice”, inclusive of the National Children’s Rights Programme, discussions with Department of Social Development (DSD) around children who had lost parents, accounting for Child Rights performance and reporting to the African Union and United Nations.

The National Children’s Rights (NCR) priorities in the strategic plan were based on the overall national priorities and the Children’s Rights sector priorities. Quality education was important to provide the skills required by the economy. Strengthening of child related crime prevention measures was important, as well as ensuring efficient and effective child protection and criminal justice systems. ORC remained concerned
 at the amount of violence among children, and must understand this phenomenon to facilitate better protection for children.

The values and principles driving the work of the ORC were underpinned by the Batho Pele principles of responsibility, commitment to service delivery, equality, and loyalty, amongst others. It was important to assist empowerment, especially of children in rural areas, in poor communities, in informal settlements and refugee children.

ORC had a five year strategic plan from 2004 to 2009. Over a period of five years this had aimed to establish cohesion in the sector. The specific aims and objectives for 2007/9 were dealt with in some detail. In this financial year ORC had  produced the draft National Policy for Advancement and Coordination of Children’s Rights Delivery, and circulated it in the sector for comment. Consultation towards finalisation and approval of the policy was in progress and it would then be brought to this Committee. The policy had involved a comprehensive consultation process. There had been a children’s summit to reflect on the national energy policy. The ORC and NCRC children’s right’s partnership was now in place. ORC would focus on the government sector and NCRC on children’s rights mainstreaming in institutional processes of civil society. There had been establishment of the offices in 46 district and 188 local municipalities, and they had received training. The monitoring and evaluation training programmes had been conducted. Various meetings had been held. A study to understand what drives child killings in the country was initiated. The mid-term country report on the African plan of Action for Children was deposited with the African Union (AU). ORC led the country delegation to the Hague Conference that was intending to finalise the Convention on Recovery of Child Maintenance. ORC had organised the Day of the African Child and National Children’s Day programme.

An Executive Summary of the Annual Children’s Rights Performance Evaluation and Planning Meeting was included (see attached presentation). The summary of the 3^rd annual workshop was also included.

Ms Rantla noted that the budget was yet to be approved, but was suggested at R5.3 million. No figures had yet been determined for 2009/10.  The operational plan for 2008/9 was then tabled, with an indication of the budget allocation for each activity (see attached presentation)

Discussion
Ms J Chalmers (ANC) referred to child killings and asked whether ORC was monitoring what was happening, particularly in the Eastern cape around the Sterkspruit area, and whether the ORC office in the Eastern Cape was also monitoring this area. She also asked if there was any monitoring of the tragic circumstances and violence against foreigners in Eastern Cape and other regions.

Ms Rantla responded that ORC in the Eastern Cape was monitoring child abuse in that area and other activities of violence against children. They initially started out monitoring those instances when one child was stolen by other children, but realised it was the responsibility of ORC to monitor what was happening, together with the intervention of the relevant department. ORC in the Eastern Cape was also monitoring child deaths.

Ms Chalmers asked whether the mid term country report had been deposited with the AU with the support of the Department of Health. She asked for the status of the report to United Nations, and whether that would form part of joint reports.

Ms Rantla responded that the mid term AU report was specifically submitted to the AU, because the AU had to present to the General Assembly Africa Report how Africa was contributing to the global programme that sought to ensure a world fit for children. The country report to the UN on children’s rights delivery was separate. South Africa had reported very late to the UN with its second report, and the Office of the Presidency and the ORC made it very clear that that kind of late reporting was not acceptable. ORC was working on the third Country Report to the UN, which should be deposited with the UN by December 2008. The AU and UN reports were not necessarily one report, although most of the time the information was similar. The AU Charter dealt with children’s rights and responsibilities, whereas the UN dealt only with rights.

Ms S Lebenya (IFP) asked what ORC was doing to ensure they had programmes that touched children from the local areas, specifically at local government level. Once local government offices were established, they should be provided with programmes to ensure proper implementation.

Ms Rantla responded that ORC developed a Children’s Rights Delivery Guide for municipalities, which was currently being used. It had also started out programmes suggesting how matters should be done, but was very cognisant of the fact that these were in a developmental state.

Ms Chalmers said if there was a guiding document it would be useful to have copies for their constituency offices.

Ms Rantla agreed that she would circulate guides to Members.

Ms Lebenya asked what was ORC doing to address the challenge of child headed families, as this problem would grow over time.

Ms Rantla confirmed that the ORC was very concerned about the issue of child headed households but believed they could actually overcome that phenomenon. There were studies being done with UCT and UNICEF around the status of children in the country. There were around 18 million children in the country, and of that 6% were in child-headed households. Further investigation of that would show how many children needed to be integrated into extended family systems. A recent study undertaken by the National Children’s Rights Committee together with the Department of Social Development (DSD) and UNICEF looked at whether it was possible to integrate these children. It became clear that there were extended families who were willing to integrate children but could not afford to do so. South Africa had various resources and grants, education subsidies, health care and so forth, and these could be used to strengthen the resources of extended families to take care of children. DSD would be rolling out a programme in all provinces to remove children from child headed households into a family situation. Child headed households were susceptible to violation of children’s rights.

Mr S Dithebe asked whether ORC had made any input into the redrafting of legislation that would see to the reconstruction of the Directorate of Special Operations, because a unit was established to look at offences relating to abuse of children.

Ms Rantla responded that ORC was not involved in the redrafting of legislation around special operations.

Mr Dithebe asked, if regard to the organogram, if this was replicated at provincial level and whether all those offices at provincial level were fully operational.

Ms Rantla said that different work was done in every province and in every municipality. ORC had realised that this would give rise to problems and therefore ORC had approached Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), made recommendations and a draft framework and this process would be taken through to Cabinet.

Mr Dithebe noted that ther4e were about 280 municipalities in the country and asked why the ORC figure was lower. He also asked who funded the offices, and how, if they were not funded by the National government, ORC could ensure there was uniformity with regard to delivery of services to children, particularly in view of their own relatively small budget.

Ms Rantla said that in regard to children’s rights delivery in municipalities, the question of budgets always came into play. ORC always emphasised to municipalities that it was critical, once they had agreed what had to be done as a sector, to then mainstream their agreements and put work and performance targets in the Integrated Development Plans. If they didn’t make those targets then they were not budgeted for. It was critical to work with municipalities to mainstream what was important for them, around child protection and capacity building.

Mr Dithebe understood the issue of mainstreaming, but was not certain what instruments were used to persuade the Presidency that ORC needed more resources. Any pleas for money would have to be backed up with plans.

Mr Dithebe said, in regard to the Day of the African Child, that it would have been useful to have more publicity for that in advance.

Ms Lebenya asked whether there were ongoing programmes, not just the one-day events such as the Fun Day. She asked if ORC intended to continue with the Take a Girl Child to Work Day, and asked were these just being done for the sake of being done, or did ORC actually make input to ensure that those programmes could be sustained.

Ms Rantla noted that the Take a Girl Child to Work campaign was actually driven by the private sector, by Cell C. ORC’s concern was that both the girl child and the boy child should be exposed at those places of work, so had asked Cell C to translate this into taking children to work. Cell C indicated they were not able to do that because of the contract they had signed with somebody in the US. They ultimately agreed that there should be a programme that looked at all children.

ORC was comfortable with these programmes being run as once off; as the Day of the African Child, Taking a Child to Work, and the Fun Day, were really highlights of work that had been ongoing, and all tried to focus the nation on the fact that children needed to be children, and children needed to play. The Day of the African Child was for children to understand that they were African and what that meant, and on that day to focus the nation on that issue. Again, ORC saw this as a highlight of advocacy.

Mr Dithebe said that Ms Rantla mentioned interviewing child murderers, and he asked whether ORC had sufficient research capacity. He asked if institutions such as the Human Sciences Research Council and UCT and the Child Institute were brought on board to assist with research.

Mr M Moss (ANC) said that quality education was key for the development of any child, and he asked about the cooperation between ORC and the Departments of Education, Social Development, Health and Home Affairs, all of whom must be involved right from crèche level. If every child was educated there would not be the need for the Mass Literacy Campaign that was still in its infancy. He asked for comment on this point and how effective enforcement could be.

Ms Lebenya enquired about the school pledge and whether ORC had a role to play with regard to how our children felt about it.

Ms Rantla responded that quality education was indeed very important, and that ORC would work in an integrated form. They worked with the Children’s Rights Advisory Council and one of the issues of the Apex priorities was work with the sector on quality education. ORC would be submitting quarterly reports from June as to what it was doing in terms of quality education. The school pledge was another strategy to strengthen national identity for children. ORC had not made input but agreed with the pledge.

Ms Chalmers noted the participation of children on the National Energy Policy, saying that it was exciting that they were able to give their input. It would be wonderful if crucial issues and problems facing this country, including environmental issues, could be dealt with like this because children related to that so well.

Mr Moss said the situation in Alexandra was shameful; and asked if ORC had programmes to address the needs of those children.

Ms Rantla said that ORC did not go out of their way for refugee children, but Home Affairs worked with refugee children.

Mr Moss asked for the role of ORC in assisting children over the age of 14 who were not covered by grants.

Ms Rantla said that one of the Apex priorities for the children’s sector was to develop a poverty eradication strategy for children, and within that context the issue of children above fourteen years would be picked up.

Mr Gamede raised the issue of the increase of food prices and how this affected children; asking if ORC had any input, and what was the plan.

Ms Rantla said that ORC had not engaged on the issue of the increase in food prices, but felt that they must do so.

Mr Gamede asked if ORC had any input on the Substance Abuse Bill and the Child Justice Bill and asked how they made children aware of those bills.

Ms Rantla said that the ORC was working on these issues.

Mr Dithebe said “Special Assignment” could do a good documentary on child murderers and he felt it would be important to understand the psychology of a child murderer. He asked if ORC had the capacity in their budget to enable them to establish what really drove a person to murder a child.

Ms Rantla responded that ORC did not have the capacity to do research, so engaged researchers to assist. Department of Correctional Services and ORC were working together, through the researchers, on this issue. ORC was very cognisant of its lack of capacity on some issues.

Mr Dithebe asked about the health and child statistics, noting those in particular on newborn and young children’s mortality rates. UNICEF and the Department of Health had been at odds on the numbers. He felt that this was an issue to be taken out.
 
Ms Rantla responded that UNICEF gave its figures and the Department of Health gave its statistics. ORC worked with statistics generated from the Department of Health, so did not always agree with what UNICEF were saying. ORC did not understand how they arrived at or presented those figures, but that was an issue on which there would be agreement or disagreement, as ORC would use the statistics given by its own departments.

Ms Rantla then said perhaps the ORC should be engaging with other structures of parliament.

Ms Chalmers reminded Ms Rantla of part of the vision that children were involved and participated in the National Energy Policy. That was part of their broader vision of working for a better Africa and a better world, and one of the fundamental rights of children, was to have a voice and be able to participate. She asked whether ORC did consider enabling children to participate, whether at a municipal level, or the broader context of policy making or thinking, and pointed out that this should be done in a disciplined, formalised and systematic fashion. She cited the youth problems in the UK and indicated that if children could come into the process at a very young age they would get used to participating in a disciplined or systematic fashion that would help them to think about what they were saying and doing. ORC’s core mandate was to protect children, but she believed that they should also equip children to lead a quality life and how to participate in a useful fashion in society.

Ms Rantla said they did have a template but the challenge was to institutionalise child participation so that it became a way of life.

National Children’s Rights Commission (NCRC) Briefing
Mr Archie Tsoku, Director, NCRC,  briefed the committee on the work of the National Children’s Rights Commission. He noted Ms Rantla’s comment there was simultaneous children’s rights mainstreaming, reporting to Parliament and to Civil Society. He would deal with the rationale for transformation in both Civil Society and Government around children’s rights. He said that the mandate of the NCRC was to advocate for children’s rights to ensure collective action in civil Society.

He highlighted some of the issues that laid the basis for the partnership around Civil Society and the public sector around Child Rights and Transformation. These included the mainstreaming of children’s rights in multi party negotiations, the Children’s Charter, the first UN Situation Analysis, reports to the UN and the pilot model on dealing with child headed households
 
Partnership performance milestones included the establishment of the National Civil Society Forum with about twelve key organs, trade unions, business, media, traditional leaders, NGOs. This was beginning to develop tools for the mainstreaming in Civil Society. 

Discussion
Mr Moss referred to the issue of age and child grants. The Department of Labour said children from age 15 could work. Child grants were given up to the age of 14 and children of up to 15 should be at school. The age for consensual sex was 16. The age of voting and majority was 18. He asked how, with these different ages, it was possible to reach uniformity on the grants process.

Ms Rantla responded that within Government there were social and economic clusters and this issue of harmonising was dealt with in the Social cluster. The Social Cluster had done a review of legislation. ORC itself was talking to the Youth Commission around these issues, because the Youth Commission also felt very strongly that they had to capture young people from age 14 and ORC should be a feeder.

Mr Gamede referred to the harmonisation and a target date of April, asking for details on this, and noted also that there was a target date of May 2008 for trainers. He enquired how far was the process.

Ms Rantla said ORC was struggling to get lists of who they should be training. The targeted groups were community development workers, but the provinces had not submitted lists of who those to be trained were. Once that was done, the ORC was ready to begin the training.

Mr Gamede suggested that the training must start; there would always be a moving target.

Mr L Nzimande (ANC) said that he had repeatedly asked for documents in advance and expressed his dismay that he did not receive them. He asked for more specifics on the answer given in relation to harmonising of age, and in particular whether this was a policy question or working arrangements. All the different ages were covered in different legislation and he was not aware of any forthcoming legislation harmonising age. The Children’s Bill spoke of age 18, but allowed child headed households at 15. He asked if the streamlining was merely a working arrangement.

Ms Rantla responded that a document had been developed looking at the realities that different departments worked with different ages. The Constitution referred to children as those under 18. ORC realised that some legislation might have to be streamlined to match to that age. A document had been produced and submitted to the Social cluster, and once it was agreed within that Cluster then it would need to be translated into a policy development process, which would then lead to review and alignment of legislation. 

ORC had also observed that departments were service delivery structures. Sometimes it made sense to use different ages to ensure service delivery - an example was the issue of child headed households, so that child headed households could access existing resources and crisis intervention. Whereas from a pragmatic point of view it was needed, strictly speaking there was violation of the Rights of a Child. Hopefully the country would find a way forward and come to agreement.
 
National Youth Commission
Ms Nobulumko Nkondlo, Chairperson, NYC, presented the Revised Strategic Plan of the Commission for 2007/2011. The key programmes were highlighted as well as the specific priorities for 2008. It was noted that this resulted from a strategy review session in 2007.

The key programmes included Advocacy and Lobbying, which would hopefully lead to adoption of a national youth policy 2008-13. Legislation monitoring was important, coupled with research, monitoring and evaluation, the National Youth Service initiatives, and stakeholder management. The cluster priorities included social cohesion, which incorporated the No to Drugs campaign, youth and the elections, the 2010 Soccer World Cup, with a focus on greening the environment, and youth dialogue. Economic participation would include the Youth programme, the youth development forums, which included inviting companies to Adopt A School, the focus on skilling of young people and the Regional Employment Summit in June 2008. In the area of local government, there was a partnership with the Flemish government, focused on the development of youth institutions in South Africa. Four arts and culture centres were identified which were being monitored, with support from the Flemish government. Youth Democracy Week was still in the conceptual stage and would be launched during the June activities. In respect of international relations there was to be ratification of the Africa Youth Charter, and the Commission sought the intervention of this Committee as there were delays. There were bilateral discussions with other countries in similar stages of development, such as Qatar, and Senegal.

Commissioner Enrico van Rooyen briefed the Committee on administration and the budget. He gave a comparison from previous years. The available budget allocation was R20,6 million once outstanding creditors had been paid. .The programmes were outlined, and it was noted that the only major increase related to personnel expenditure, to take account of salary increases, which would not be sufficient in view of the escalating cost of living.

The NYC concluded that it had insufficient resources and there would be a shortfall for priority programmes they were engaging with departments. There was also insufficient capacity, but that had been put on hold pending the merger process. It had tried to put in place partnerships to put in more resources to ensure implementation of priorities. Submissions would be made to National Treasury for additional funds during adjustment period, and in the meantime there had been cutbacks on spending. 

Discussion
Mr Gamede reminded NYC that a complaint had been raised about getting documents in time.

Mr Dithebe said that NYC had lofty goals and noble visions. He asked why 70% of their resources were spent on staff. NYC was claiming insufficient resources, yet were not spending them optimally on the core business of the NYC.

Mr Dithebe commented that the Audit Committee had not met in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, and the audit report was qualified. The Audit committee operated almost as an early warning system, and he asked whether their failure to meet had not then resulted directly in the qualified report.

Mr Dithebe asked, with regard to the restructuring that was put on hold due to the merger process, if there were any time frames.

Ms Nkondlo responded that last meeting last year the NYC reported on the issue of the merger of the NYC with Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF). The implications of this in terms of the legislation and other issues would still need to be considered. The research did not look to whether or not the merger was needed, but how to ensure that, whatever the final process, the youth institutions would be able to respond to the different mandates. The NYC was established with a different mandate to that of the UYF, the latter being more in the nature of an implementing entity using other government departments. They needed to be able to make concrete pronouncements as to what kind of entity was emerging. A Government task team had been established to look at the process of the merger and would be presenting to Cabinet in October. This was the time line envisaged. She noted that last year the NYC had intended to restructure to strengthen support in the core functions of policy work, research monitoring and evolution, but that had financial implications. It was then put on hold because of the looming merger of the institutions.

Mr Dithebe said he was very passionate about youth development, and one great disappointment with regard to the NYS programme was that despite invitations to and programmes for young people, nothing had happened. There was nothing positive to tell young people about the work of the NYC.

Ms Nkondlo noted that this would be a challenge as he indicated.  The NYS unit was responsible for the implementation of the NYS programme. It had profiled the programme to make it known, and young people volunteered to participate in the programme. The challenge, although young people were on the data base, was to actually get the budget from the Department. There was a target of 30 000 young people in the programmes. The registration was easy but after that there was a need for compliance with all the different requirements on skills training element, service, and the stipend, which was a huge problem as some departments did not want to pay stipends. The Global Youth Service Day, aimed at supporting services among young people, had to be cancelled for lack of funding. There was no clear dedicated funding for the NYS and that was one of the challenges it had constantly raised. It was incorrect to rely on the budget of the Department; money should come from the national fiscal to support the NYS programme.

Ms Lebenya asked what plans the NYC had for strengthening the Youth Parliament. There was a huge outcry from various youth organisations that they did participate in the Youth Parliament, made recommendations or took resolutions,  but nothing was ever implemented.

Ms Nkondlo said that this was in the strategic plan and NYC did report on this and had written a number of letters to the Speaker’s Office. There was an outcry that the participation in a Youth Parliament was not included in the report. However, the NYC could not always follow up, through the Office of the Speaker, the fact that there should be a report from the Youth Parliament; apparently about a month ago there should have been a report presented to the House. They were not prepared to participate in the Youth Parliament this year. NYC developed a proposal to the responsible people that in their view the Youth Parliament should not just be a public relations exercise in June, but should be an engagement platform speaking to provincial government at a local level.

Ms Lebenya asked what the NYC was doing to ensure that those Youth units in municipalities, where they had been established, were budgeted for.

Ms Lebenya asked for clarification on the issue of teenage pregnancy; she hoped that the two-year maternity leave alluded to was not compulsory as this would disadvantage young people who wanted to continue with their studies.

Ms Lebenya asked if NYC had partnerships with the Department of Education, and the Department of Sport and Recreation to ensure that there were recreational facilities, especially in the rural areas.

Mr Nzimande said the Ms Rantla had explained harmonisation of age and some partnership work with the Youth Commission, and he asked for clarification and coverage of the Youth Commission in terms of ages 14 and 15  in some of their programmes.

Ms Nkondlo commented on this and the previous questions around harmonisation, saying the NYC was this year engaged in International Children’s Day through a partnership programme that would take place in Mpumalanga. There was a need to align work with youth development and children’s development and there was no way they should make variable policy. The NYC had proposed the need to have a workshop on harmonising of age

Mr Nzimande noted the mention of stakeholders and asked for information in relation to the coordination of Civil Society youth organisations, whether the Youth Council still existed and what work was continuing there.

Ms Nkondlo indicated that the South African Youth Council was established in 1997. They had been faced with serious challenges of leadership and funding to sustain the organisation. The NYC tried to engage with them. It was told that at the General Assembly some time in this year there would be attempts to revive the South African Youth Council as a coordinating platform of Civil Society.

Mr Nzimande asked for the research targets and dates for conclusion of the Youth Development Policy Framework and remodelling research. He understood that it should have been finalised by September/October 2008.

Ms Nkondla noted that the NYC was participating in the Presidential working group, and the last working group was when there was presentation of the draft National Youth Policy last August, the next one would take place about June.  In terms of the National Youth Policy NYC felt they had done what was required from its side. It had consulted and collated the work and developed a policy, which was with the Minister to get the process through the system to be adopted. However, after the policy had been approved, there must be an implementation plan and monitoring. The challenge was sufficient budget.

Mr Nzimande asked whether the Youth Desk in the Presidency still existed, whether it did it work for the Youth Commission, or was it part of the merging and remodelling.

Mr Nzimande was concerned that the budget was just an administration budget, which was the reason for the outcry about the youth and inefficiency. 

Mr Nzimande asked whether there was an increase in interdepartmental cooperation.

Mr Nzimande requested the role of the Youth Commission for  June 16, Youth Month, Human Rights Day, to which the youth should also be attracted, Democracy Week and Heritage Day. 

Ms Chalmers was concerned that 81% of the budget went to the running of the office, without the Youth Month. It was pleasing to hear NYC had cut down on non essential items, but if the majority of expenses went to keeping the office and personnel. That was a matter for extreme concern and it was no wonder that the youth were becoming disenchanted.

Ms Chalmers asked for the current situation in regard to bad debt; noting that it increased between 2005 and 2007, and asking whether systems had been put in place,. She asked if and controls within the NYC had been tightened up for better management of the programmes, so that NYC could rightly say that it was a well functioning institute making a difference to people. There did not appear to be a healthy situation in terms of financial management unless there was a real turnaround in the last twelve months.

Ms Chalmers asked when the next audit report was due.

In respect of the various questions on the finances, Mr van Rooyen apologised, and said that the calculation on personnel expenditure was incorrect - the figure should be 58% of budget, which was in line with expenses of last year, the main reason for that being salary increases. He agreed that it was an administrative budget and should be looked at through the eyes of the strategic plan as presented. There was a shortfall of R9 million so priorities had to be reduced.

The previous Audit Committee had been replaced and the current Audit Committee had been meeting regularly and they were due for review of the Audit Committee towards the end of May.

There was an improvement in bad debts and control systems. NYC now had the Audit Committee and also the Internal Audit Function and a Procurement Committee. NYC would look at the availability of budget against the request and if no budget was available for the request then the programme manager would not be given funds. The NYC had requested the Presidency for written approval to shift budgets where necessary.

The internal control systems were also done with the current strategic plan, to be continuously done on approval.

Ms Chalmers asked if the NYC could portray its highlights, and say what it achieved.

Ms Nkondlo said that this would be presented when the Annual Report was presented.

Mr Dithebe said it would be very useful for the NYC to keep the office of the Chair of the JMC informed of any blockages in areas of implementation that depended on executive departments, as this Committee did not exercise its oversight in a narrow way. The same applied in respect of the Youth Parliament, and he thought that that report could be obtained from the Office of the Speaker.

The meeting was adjourned.