PRP PRESENTATION TO PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Department Of Social Development
Poverty Relief Programme
23 August 2001

1. INTRODUCTION
"Under expenditure cannot be tolerated under the midst of such high poverty. We have left no stone unturned and all of us have worked very hard and tirelessly to ensure that every cent allocated for poverty alleviation actually reaches the poorest of the poor. Under expenditure is now history. We are now looking at how to better focus the programmes such that the money can impact effectively on the lives of the millions of poor families especially in the rural areas." (Minister Z S T Skweyiya)

In this presentation we intend to outline the background, programme objectives, current trends and expenditure, and project a new and innovative integrated poverty relief approach. Within this we will from time to time weave through valuable lessons whilst pointing to a new Programmatic approach of social development and poverty reduction in general.

2. BACKGROUND
The special allocation for Poverty Relief was started in 1997/98 as a special employment programme, and was later broadened in 1998/99 to include a focus on short-term poverty relief and to help Departments reorient their delivery towards the poor. In 1999/00 part of the government’s commitments at the Job Summit became an additional focus.

It is important to point out that that the Special Allocation was first announced in 97/98, and there was no certainty in Government departments whether the allocation would be made available in subsequent years, so Departments, including the Department of Social Development did not plan for receiving it. A measure of certainty about the Special Allocation was only introduced in 2000 by the National Treasury, which meant Departments had to apply for the allocation according to MTEF principles, and thus brought in the need for proper planning.

The general criteria for the allocation to national departments were:

· Relieve poverty in the poorest areas of provinces, in particular rural areas
· Provide for infrastructure in poor areas
· Assist in human development and in building capacity
· Provide jobs and in doing so involve the community
· Have an impact on households in which single women are the main breadwinners
· Seek to make projects sustainable in the long term
· Produce food and provide access to markets for the distribution thereof
· Promote social plans in areas facing retrenchments

The strategic objective of the Poverty Relief Programme of the Department of Social Development is to reduce vulnerability to poverty of households, families, groups and communities through sustainable social development strategies and institution capacity development.

The Department has managed the Special Allocation on Poverty Relief since 97/98 (R 50 Million), 98/99 (R 203 Million), 99/00 (R 40 Million) and 00/01 (R120 Million). This report will not cover the very first allocation (97/98 – R50 Million) as the Department’s audit committee is studying reports. The results of this audit will be made public for lessons in due course.

Even though there was no certainty about the continuation of the fund in the past, the Department of Social Development had applied for the 98/99, 99/00 & 00/01 allocations according to Business plans approved by MINMEC.

3. PROVINCIAL PROJECT BREAKDOWN
(Attached as an appendix to this report is a detailed list of funded projects under each phase of the PRP indicating the projects in each province, funds allocated and their location).

The tables below indicate the number of projects per province under each phase of the PRP, the amounts allocated to each province as well as the national DSD, the amount and percentage paid and the balance. The amounts refer only to the funds allocated for funding projects and not the Administration or Capacity Enhancement allocations.

1998/9 R203 Million PRP
The table below indicates that 1 975 projects were funded with a total amount of R177, 6 million and that 92% of the funds have been disbursed to projects as at end July 2001.

Province	No. of projects	Amount allocated	Amount paid	Balance	%paid
Eastern Cape	652	16,307,781	15,970,507	337,274	98%
Free State	142	7,864,804	7,772,236	92,568	99%
Gauteng	109	8,990,067	8,634,227	355,840	96%
KwaZulu Natal	389	21,463,657	20,475,525	988,132	95%
Mpumalanga	135	9,385,871	9,263,571	122,300	99%
North West	117	8,300,210	8,093,372	206,838	98%
North. Cape	121	10,432,550	10,371,189	61,361	99%
Northern Province	165	16,073,457	16,053,457	20,000	100%
Western Cape	106	11,581,500	11,581,500	0	100%
National	39	67,201,067	55,335,538	11,865,529	82%
Total	1,975	177,600,964	163,551,122	14,049,842	92%

The three provinces most affected by poverty viz. KwaZulu Natal, Eastern Cape and Northern Province received the highest allocation. This phase of the programme was characterized by a large number of small projects in many provinces. For example, the average allocation per project in EC, KZN and NP was R25 000, R55 000 and R97 000 respectively. The funding of many small projects increases administration costs and projects may have very little impact on the beneficiaries. In the subsequent phases an attempt was therefore made to increase the size of projects.

1999/2000 R40 Million PRP
The table below indicates that 196 projects were funded with an amount of R23 million and that 94% of these funds have been disbursed.

Province	No. of projects	Amount allocated	Amount paid	Balance	% Paid
Eastern Cape	30	1,793,596	1,748,596	45,000	97%
Free State	11	2,452,000	2,452,000	0	100%
Gauteng	12	1,000,000	1,000,000	0	100%
KwaZulu Natal	18	2,866,610	2,675,500	191,110	93%
Mpumalanga	31	3,159,748	2,829,748	330,000	90%
North West	21	2,008,420	2,008,420	0	100%
Northern Cape	30	3,722,000	3,150,000	572,000	85%
North. Prov.	21	2,177,000	2,177,000	0	100%
Western Cape	7	545,606	398,804	146,802	73%
National	15	3,400,000	3,261,864	138,136	96%
TOTAL	196	23,124,980	21,701,932	1,423,048	94%

The bulk of the funds in this phase were used to strengthen existing projects or projects who for some technical problem could not be funded the previous year. Thus funds were allocated on a need basis rather than depth of poverty. Nationally the average allocation per project improved to about R118 000 per project e.g. MP R102 000, NC R124 000 and FS R223 000 per project respectively.

2000/1 R120 Million PRP
The table shows that 663 projects have been funded in this phase with a total amount of 130, 5 million and that 89% of the funds allocated to projects have been disbursed.

Province	No. of projects	Amount committed	Amount paid	Balance	% Paid
Eastern Cape	23	14,838,900	14,838,900	0	100%
Free State	50	7,823,857	7,823,857	0	100%
Gauteng	77	11,842,340	11,568,300	274,040	98%
KwaZulu Natal	203	17,273,120	17,156,620	116,500	99%
Mpumalanga	56	8,077,275	7,790,794	286,481	96%
North West	110	6,173,000	5,905,723	267,277	96%
Northern Cape	18	4,841,000	4,841,000	0	100%
North. Prov.	78	11,953,499	11,881,499	72,000	99%
Western Cape	8	7,899,060	4,739,436	3,159,624	60%
National	40	39,830,941	30,154,613	9,676,328	76%
TOTAL	663	130,552,992	116,700,742	13,852,250	89%

Again provincial allocation of funds reflects the poverty status of the provinces. The average allocation to projects continued to increase in this phase to about R200 000 per project indicating a deliberate move by the Department to move away from small projects to more bigger and complex programs.

The provincial project breakdown outlined above reflects a continuous improvement in the management of the programme by both the national and provincial departments. The targeting and the selection of projects has been improved and the capacity of projects to apply the funds allocated has increased as indicated by the enhanced rate of disbursement. The balance of funds is a reflection of the challenges faced by the projects to apply these funds. These challenges range from issues of internal capacity within projects to the problems posed by the financial institutions that are clearly an unwilling partner in the country’s fight against poverty.

4. DISBURSEMENT METHODS
The method of disbursing funds allocated to the department for poverty relief is very critical to ensure that resources reach the intended beneficiaries, while at the same time enabling the department to account. It is for this reason that the department entered into a partnership with the IDT, amongst other things to assist with this process. This was because the IDT has been involved in funding development projects for the past 10 years and therefore has good systems in place. In addition, Government has transformed the IDT to a public entity with a mandate to provide programme management support to development programmes, thus accelerating delivery.

The flow of funds to projects can be depicted diagrammatically as follows:

Flow of funds

Instruction

Recommendation

Contract

The diagram above shows that all programme funds flow from the Treasury to the National Department and from there to the IDT and then directly to projects. Funds allocated for Capacity Building or Administration sometimes flow directly to provincial Departments. The IDT only disburses funds on the instruction of either the National or Provincial Departments, both of whom have direct contracts with the projects.

The Director General of the National Department of Social Development is the Accounting Officer for the PRP. Therefore she approves all projects to be funded, and gives instructions to the IDT to disburse funds. To expedite administrative processes, this authority, as well as contracting with projects, has been delegated to the Heads of Provincial Departments in the case of provincial projects. This process, while it may seem complicated, is necessary to ensure accountability in the programme.

Step 1:
Vote allocation by National Treasury to DoSD

Step 2:
According to predetermined cash flow plan, and approval by National Treasury, DoSD releases first tranche to IDT.

Step 3:
Provinces assess and prepare projects for accessing funding according to Provincial Division of Revenue figures. These as well are approved by MINMEC and Treasury

Step 4:
Provinces recommend their projects for funding to the DG.

Step 5:
DG approves – provinces enter into aggreements with the projects

Step 6:
DG and National Programme Manager instruct IDT to release funds to project.

Step 7:
IDT captures project into their system and gives project a number.

Step 8:
IDT sends verification form to the province for the HOD to verify and confirm:
Existence of project (b) Correctness of project details (c) Correctness of bank account details.

Step 9:
Verification form returned to the IDT

Step 10:
IDT captures verification form and processes payment electronically, which takes a maximum of five days working days upon receipt of the verification form.

5. MONITORING OF PROJECTS
5.1 Monthly Progress and Financial Reports
The grant agreement that the Department signs with a Project stipulates that the project should submit progress reports and financial statements to the Department every month. If the grant exceeds R200 000.00, the books must be audited annually by registered auditing firms, and the audited financial statements must be submitted to the Department within 2 months of the financial year-end of the project.

5.2 Site Visits
The Department together with the IDT conduct periodic site visits to the projects. These take place especially before any tranche is released to the project, the official who visits the project prepares a report with recommendations to the HOD (in the case of provincial projects) or DG (in the case of National Projects) to release or with – hold the tranche which is due.

The disbursement of funds happens electronically and has ensured that no fraud happens whilst the funds are in the coffers of the Department and the IDT, because no official handles the funds in any way.
In addition to the periodic visits, the Department together with the IDT conducted a full Mid Term review of the Poverty Relief Projects between July and August 2000 (dealt with elsewhere in report), this review has been the most comprehensive of the Programme thus far.

5.3 Periodic Visits by Senior Leaders to Projects
The Poverty Relief Projects have also been monitored through the visits of the Minister and MECs of Social Development, Members of Parliament, Members of Provincial Legislatures, Councilors and Senior Departmental Officials. These visits have always brought back valuable inputs to the Departments, and have pointed out positive and negative aspects about the Poverty Relief Projects and the broader state of life in the Communities where these projects are located.

6. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE POVERTY RELIEF PROGRAMME
6.1 Building Democratic Community Institutions
A major success of the Poverty Relief Programme of the Department is that itbrings in an element of hope among destitute communities, building and strengthening democratic community institutions. Communities now know that they have to be organised and formalised (especially registered with the Department) to access Poverty Relief Funding. These grassroots community institutions are becoming the bedrock of future campaigns against poverty and under – development, they are democratic foundations for building social capital and cohesion in poor communities. They are allowing poor people increased access to opportunities, and control over decision making in their communities.

6.2 Targeting the poorest 20% of Communities
The programme is targeting the poorest 20% of South African society, especially poor women, unemployed youth, children, child headed households, the aged and people with disabilities. This is borne out by the nature of projects funded, where they are located and the capacity deficits the Department must address when working with these communities.

6.3 Strong presence in Rural Communities
The Mid Term review found that 72% of projects are located in rural communities. The current departmental database shows that the majority of projects are in provinces where poverty is high i.e. Eastern Cape, KZN, Northern Province and Free State. Further analysis shows that:

· 430 projects are in 10 of the current ISRDS nodal points, and are in 34 IRSDS local councils.
· This means that R20 464 051.85 has been invested in those areas thus far in the past three financial years, which is just under 7% of total expenditure, and 15% of the total number of projects funded. For the next three-years, at least 30% will be spent on the ISRDS nodes.

6.4 Success Rate of Projects (Mid Term Review)
In an endeavour to capture the effectiveness of the PRP, the Department, with the assistance of the IDT, embarked on a mid term review process between July and August 2000. The Mid term review captured and revealed that, provincial projects had:

· Created 25 956-employment opportunities. Of these, 16 800 were women, 6 100 were young people, 3 050 were men, and about 1 600 beneficiaries belong to the disabled sector (this figure did not take into consideration the R20 million allocation to the South African Federal Council for Disabled persons).

Self employed participants: 38% were in Agriculture, 19% in clothing, 18% of projects were of a multi-purpose nature, 9% were in Manufacturing, 7% in food industries, 3% in arts and craft, 3% in education and training, 2% in service provision, and 1% in the retail industry and other sectors.

· A significant number of projects (747) reported that they had childcare support for project members. This amounts to 44% of the total number of projects funded under the 203 Million Allocation.
· Increased the propensity to save on expenditure, especially when considering the food and agricultural sector. For example, the women of Zibambeleni Old age Home in Kwa-Dabeka in Kwa Zulu Natal, no longer purchase vegetables from the local supermarket, but they grow their own vegetables, thus saving on expenditure.

When considering the issues surrounding impact one must consider the fact that not all the impact measurements are quantifiable, some are rather qualitative in nature. For instance, the increased value and impact added by the Blouberg Development Project (a rural multi sectoral programme in the Northern Province) cannot be easily quantified. Up to three years ago no development or infrastructure existed in the villages of Blouberg, the scaling up of resources, Information Technology and increased water supply in the area, has increased communication, health levels and the general well being of people in that area.

Linked to impact, is the importance of creating local level partnerships. In some instances, this has capacitated local level initiatives, in others the lack of partnerships has stunted the growth of these projects. Ngwana Lela Naka brick making, Kodumela Poultry, Malokong Poultry, Thabang Poultry and Itumeleng Glass work are just five of the projects that have been ready to move into the SMME sector. Since there are no strategic partnerships they are unable to ‘graduate’ to the next phase of their development, and so they continue to rely on the Department’s intervention.

7. CHALLENGES
The Poverty Relief Programme, is faced with several external and internal challenges; which may be summarised as:

7.1 Administrative:
· Lack of dedicated staff at provincial and national levels
The PRP since its inception, under the special allocations, had no certainty of its future existence. Whereas the allocations increased, the Programme continued to use staff otherwise contracted for other job performance areas. It is only in the 2000/01-budget cycle that there has been serious thinking and planning, with short-term staff being brought on board to assist with the implementation.

· Development of systems
The Department previously had focused on welfare delivery, and thus the internal systems had been designed to deal with that aspect of delivery. These systems were inappropriate for community targetted social development.

7.2 Institutional
· Capacity of project beneficiaries
Lack of capacity at project level to manage project funds, remain a major challenge to the programme, affecting the speed at which funds can be disbursed. This also has a bearing on the size of projects that can be funded and hence the impact of these projects. Poor book keeping in some projects may give an impression of mismanagement of funds. The project capacity building process implemented by Provinces will go a long way in addressing this challenge. The ILO will assist the Department through its budget for Financial Management training of communities.

· Financial Institutions
The processes and procedures applied by financial institutions in South Africa are not designed to service the poor. To keep the bank accounts of projects open to enable funds to flow to these accounts is a constant battle faced by provincial officials of the Department and IDT. As a general rule banks close any account where there is no activity for a couple of months. Even when the account is reopened if funds are not deposited within 5 days it is closed again. This has resulted in funds being returned when deposited to these accounts, further delaying progress at project level.

The establishment of viable rural finance institutions may help alleviate this challenge, hence a concerted effort by the programme to strengthen the Social Finance Programme.

· Monitoring and Reporting
Monitoring and reporting on the projects on a continuous basis is a challenge to the programme mainly due to the large number of projects and staff shortages at the Provincial Departments. For example, KZN has more than 600 projects spread throughout the province making it difficult to visit these projects as regular as they should. EC with more than 700 projects is in an even worse situation.

The programmatic approach and the clustering of projects adopted this year will obviate this problem.

7.3. Selected Challenges of Poverty
Whereas there are generic challenges faced and addressed by many of government’s programmes, amongst them the RDP, the White Paper on Welfare, the IRSDS and the Urban renewal strategy, there are certain challenges peculiar to the Department of Social Development.

By its very nature, and broader objectives contained in the 10-point plan, the PRP targets the most vulnerable in society amongst them are Rural Women, Unemployed youth, children, disabled and older persons.

Following the Ministerial, Portfolio Committee and MEC’s visits there were some generic challenges noted:

· Child headed households
Linked to the scourge of HIV/AIDS and economic conditions at the grassroots, there has been an emergence of a new phenomenon over the past three years, of households headed by children. Since this is a recent problem, it has not benefited from welfare services or poverty relief projects, the Poverty Relief Programme has now been identified as a programme that should assist in dealing with this challenge.

· Burials
Either because of HIV/AIDS or the general nature and costs that are related to the funeral industry many individuals and groups have approached the Department with the view of soliciting support in this area. Whereas some local government structures have provision for pauper’s funerals, government has no consolidated strategy or policy to address bodies that are claimed but families cannot afford burial costs. Solutions are being investigated which will see greater policy suggestions for the regulation of the industry, in order to reduce costs, and in partnership with Faith Based Organisations (FBOs) will incorporate community awareness to move away from expensive fashionable funeral services.

· Sex workers
The influx into urban areas of young people in search of a better life forces these young people into the sex trade. This in turn exposes them to abuse and the risks of contracting HIV/AIDS. Many of these young people are minors.

8. LESSONS FROM THE PREVIOUS PROGRAMMES
Because of the client base of the Department of Social Development, the Department has improved the conceptual base of the Poverty Relief Programme by acknowledging that it can never be possible to only fund income – generating projects. The Department is now building a healthy mix of income generating and welfare projects. This is articulated in the 3-year business plan objectives (dealt with elsewhere in this presentation).

In general the PRP intervention is operating at the lowest and survivalist level of our society. It incubates and absorbs the risks experienced at that level, hence the emphasis on capacity building and support. A complimentary exit strategy is being sought in order to ensure continuity and sustainability of the PRP projects.

Nonetheless there are some valuable lessons to draw from three years of implementation:

· The Mid Term Review of the Poverty Relief Programme conducted in July 2000 revealed that Financial Management was critical to the success of all projects. Financial Management Training for Project members is very important. Giving money to projects, especially small ones without financial training leads to wastage of funds which also results in conflict in projects.
· The Time frames that the Poverty Relief Programme must be implemented in is a cause for serious concern. The building of community structures is delicate and requires longer term planning and strategising. The Annual Financial Year of Government makes working with communities and projects in need of training before money flows to them very difficult. Under such conditions, the focus becomes the money, and not the building of capacity and the business that the project is involved in.
· The Department must see the investment in targeted development of project and community members as a valuable activity.
· The Department must invest in Social Facilitation processes before money is given to communities and projects.
· The involvement of senior officials at provincial and national levels is important to ensure that all blockages are removed and things get done.
· Institutionalising projects into registered and democratic institutions before money goes to them is important and reduces conflict.
· Once the mechanisms for efficient management of the programme are in place, issues of impact will become issues of automatic and natural concern and focus.
· Replication must be accompanied by some form of long term social and economic support, thus the beginning of the multi – year programme, in order to provide the necessary capital injection into projects and communities. The workshop also noted that the injection of capital is not enough, social support structures and linkages are critical to the survival and sustainability of projects, hence the approach of clustering projects.
· The accounting methods of government must adapt to the actual conditions of ordinary project members, e.g. projects often have to use taxis to get things done, and these do not give receipts, thus a new way needs to be developed which ensures that genuine activities such as this one are not criminalised during auditing periods.

9. NEW PHASE FOR THE PROGRAMME
9.1 Improving the Administration of the Programme
The Programme went into a new phase at the end of 2000 and beginning 2001. This phase was characterised by a concerted effort on the part of the Department (National and Provincial) to leave the phenomenon of Under – expenditure of Poverty Relief Funds behind.

This was done primarily through establishing a Poverty Relief Project office, headed by a senior official, and appointing staff to it. It was also done through a commitment to working with partners such as the IDT, UNDP and Civil Society (especially Faith Based Groups).

The establishment of a Project office, resulted in the Programme being managed in a much more co – ordinated manner. The Manager of the Programme began to report to the Heads of Social Development about progress and challenges as well as getting a mandate on strategic issues. In turn, these senior officials started taking a direct interest in the Programme, particularly at provincial level. The major outcome of this has been that there was not a repeat of huge amounts of money not spent by the 31^st of March 2001.

Operational meetings have been convened (Provincial Co – ordinators, National Office staff and the IDT) and are now taking place on a regular basis. The management of the programme is on course.

Work is happening on the following Systems:
· Procedures manual;
· National Review Committee;
· The Implementation Workshops mentioned above;
· Application forms for the Programme,
· Grant Agreement;
· IT equipment has been purchased for the National and Provincial departments to modernise the management of the programme;
· Training of provincial staff.

9.2 PROCESS AND SELECTION CRITERIA:
The target group of the Poverty Relief Programme of the Department of Social Development is citizens most affected by Poverty, those who are vulnerable and are rarely served by institutions in the country. The demographic groups targeted by the programme include: poor women, unemployed youth, children, child headed households, the aged and people with disabilities.

It is therefore important to note that this target group is far below those traditionally targeted by SMME institutions such as the SMME desk of the Department of Trade and Industry. These institutions often require well thought out and written business plans before they assist. Other institutions, such as the Land Bank, have high selection criteria and an entrance floor far too high for this target group.

In an attempt to reach the target group of the Poverty Relief programme, which constitutes the poorest 20% of our society, the process and selection criteria has been refined and improved.

During the past the National Department would draft business plans for the Poverty Relief Programme, the Provincial Departments would then have to draft their own business plans based on the business plan of the national department but focussing on provincial priority areas. The Provinces would then have to submit their Business plans to the National Department and MINMEC for approval. Once approved the National and Provincial Departments would call for proposals and would establish selection committees. The approved projects would then be funded.

9.3 THE FUNDING CYCLE
[Diagram not included]

9.4 During the next there years (2001/2002;2002/2003;2003/2004) the programme will implement the following seven objectives:
· Development of household food security through the establishment of food production clusters in communities, with a particular focus on households affected by HIV/AIDS
· Provision and maintenance of Social support structures in communities where the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is high
· Broadening of skills base and employment opportunities so as to reduce levels of youth criminality, whilst encouraging recreation
· Support for income generation activities for rural women
· Support to community-based childcare initiatives that capitalise on the economic and social capabilities of the aged
· Support to initiatives that integrate the capacities of the disabled into the Poverty Relief Programme
· Developing a social finance capacity so as to address poverty at grassroots.

9.5 PROJECTED NUMBER OF PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURE

Province	No. of projects	2001/02	2002/03	2003/04
Eastern Cape
Food Security	28	R 2,116,800.00	R 5,762,400.00	R 3,880,800.00
HIV/AIDS	20	R 500,000.00	R 1,250,000.00	R 750,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	20	R 2,000,000.00	R 5,000,000.00	R 3,000,000.00
Childcare and elderly	20	R 2,000,000.00	R 5,000,000.00	R 3,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL	90	R7,616,800.00	R18,012,400.00	R 11,630,800.00
Free State
Food Security	13	R 982,800.00	R 2,675,400.00	R 1,801,800.00
HIV/AIDS	20	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	10	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
Childcare and elderly	10	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
SUBTOTAL	55	R4,982,800.00	R11,175,400.00	R 7,301,800.00
Gauteng
Food security	4	R 378,000.00	R 1,029,000.00	R 693,000.00
HIV/AIDS	10	R 500,000.00	R 1,250,000.00	R 750,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	3	R 300,000.00	R 750,000.00	R 450,000.00
Childcare and elderly	3	R 300,000.00	R 750,000.00	R 450,000.00
SUBTOTALS	22	R2,478,000.00	R 4,779,000.00	R3,343,000.00
KwaZulu-Natal
Food Security	28	R 2,116,800.00	R 5,762,400.00	R 3,880,800.00
HIV/AIDS	20	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	20	R 2,000,000.00	R 5,000,000.00	R 3,000,000.00
Childcare and elderly	20	R 2,000,000.00	R 5,000,000.00	R 3,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL	90	R8,116,800.00	R19,262,400.00	R 12,380,800.00
Mpumalanga
Food Security	14	R 1,058,400.00	R 2,881,200.00	R 1,940,400.00
HIV/AIDS	20	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	10	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
Childcare and elderly	10	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
SUBTOTAL	56	R 5,058,400.00	R 11,381,200.00	R 7,440,400.00
Northern Cape
Food Security	12	R 907,200.00	R 2,469,600.00	R 1,663,200.00
HIV/AIDS	3	R 150,000.00	R 375,000.00	R 225,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	3	R 300,000.00	R 750,000.00	R 450,000.00
Childcare and elderly	10	R 300,000.00	R 750,000.00	R 450,000.00
SUBTOTAL	30	R 2,657,200.00	R 5,344,600.00	R 3,788,200.00
Northern Province
Food Security	27	R 2,041,200.00	R 5,556,600.00	R 3,742,200.00
HIV/AIDS	4	R 200,000.00	R 500,000.00	R 300,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	20	R 2,000,000.00	R 5,000,000.00	R 3,000,000.00
Childcare and elderly	20	R 2,000,000.00	R 5,000,000.00	R 3,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL	73	R 7,241,200.00	R 17,056,600.00	R 11,042,200.00
North West
Food Security	13	R 982,800.00	R 2,675,400.00	R 1,801,800.00
HIV/AIDS	10	R 500,000.00	R 1,250,000.00	R 750,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	10	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
Childcare and elderly	10	R 1,000,000.00	R 2,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
SUBTOTAL	45	R 4,482,800.00	R 9,925,400.00	R 6,551,800.00
Western Cape
Food Security	5	R 288,000.00	R 784,000.00	R 528,000.00
HIV/AIDS	3	R 150,000.00	R 375,000.00	R 225,000.00
Provision of skills	2	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 1,000,000.00
Rural women and income generation	4	R 400,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 600,000.00
Childcare and elderly	4	R 400,000.00	R 1,000,000.00	R 600,000.00
SUBTOTAL	18	R 2,238,000.00	R 4,159,000.00	R 2,953,000.00

National Department
Integration of Disabled	2%	R 1,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00	R 1,500,000.00
Social Finance Programme	60%	R 4,020,000.00	R 4,000,000.00	R 3,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL		R 5,520,000.00	R 5,500,000.00	R 4,500,000.00
Totals per sector
GRAND TOTAL	479	R 50,392,000.00	R 106,596,000.00	R 70,932,000.00

9.6 MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REPORTING
The greatest challenge of monitoring is that the more the programme grows, the more monitoring needs to happen and the more costly it becomes. Because all projects are located in Provinces, provinces are compelled to shoulder the burden of monitoring all projects (Provincial and National). Provinces have to do this under serious constraints imposed by under – staffing.

9.7 Development of the new Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System
The Department with the support of the UNDP and the IDT has embarked on the process of developing a comprehensive M, E & R system. It is envisaged that this system will be fully operational by October 2001, when the first reports from projects are due. The system entails a comprehensive set of tools adaptable and accessible at all levels of the Programme. The system is also designed to capture all relevant data and information to enable comprehensive and accurate reporting. The system will be fully electronic, so as to enable speedy updating and accessing.

9.8 Plans for a broad Programme Evaluation
The Poverty Relief Programme has been functioning for over three years, and large-scale investments have been undertaken, the Department proposes to have a professional evaluation of the entire programme. It is hoped that the exercise will reveal in greater detail the following issues:
· External and internal perceptions of the PRP;
· Partnerships and relationships created by the PRP;
· Departmental capacity issues;
· Project exit strategies;
· Policy implications and propositions of Poverty Relief Programmes.

Although no resources have been secured to undertake this research, it is seen as critical to formulating the way the Department and Government as a whole delivers and rolls out poverty relief programmes. It should inform a country framework to poverty relief programmes.

9.9 Nodal Delivery Teams
From now on, monitoring will be enhanced further through the Nodal Delivery Teams of the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Strategy, which will be comprised of all Government Departments and agencies working in an area and investing in it. This will ensure that there are more people concerned about projects and will ensure that projects get the maximum support available.

10. CONCLUSION
Since 1997/8 the Department has been involved with the Poverty Relief Programme. An amount of R363 million has been managed, and more than 90% disbursed to more than 2 800 projects, benefiting about 40 000 members of the most poverty stricken communities throughout the country. During this period the Department was in a very sharp learning curve and naturally mistakes were made. However, the overwhelming number of projects shows signs of maturity and sustainability.

During this financial year (2001/2) the Department has used the important lessons learnt and the experiences gained to design a more comprehensive programme. The allocation to projects is now over a period of at least two years and clustered for bigger impact . This will further allow more intensive monitoring of the projects.