DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
13 MARCH 2003

1. WHAT IS THE CBPWP?

The CBPWP is a specific job creation and poverty relief programme of government targeted at the rural poor. Its objectives are as follows:

Targeting the poorest of the poor in rural areas
Creating short-term employment opportunities for community members by means of construction of public assets
Creating sustainable micro business opportunities by facilitating micro business opportunities associated with community assets created

2. CBPWP TARGETS

The CBPWP targets the following groups:

Local labour: at least 30% of the project budgets are to be spent on local labour

Women: at least 50% of the people employed should be women

Youth: at least 15% of the people employed should be youth

Disabled: at least 1.5% of the people employed should be disabled

3. CATEGORIES OF PROJECT TYPES

The following are the categories of the types of projects implemented by the CBPWPW:

Directly productive (e.g. community gardens)
Projects that facilitate access (e.g. roads)
Projects that save labour (e.g. water projects)
Projects that encourage social cohesion (e.g. multi purpose centres)
Projects that protect the environment (e.g. mending of soil erosion)

4. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF ASSETS

Depending on the type of project, a number of provisions have been made, including the following:

Ownership and Maintenance Plan: No project business plan is
approved without Ownership and Maintenance Plan
Provision of start up funding in the case of productive assets
Provision of furniture in the case of multi purpose centres
In support of District Municipality with no budget for maintenance sustainability budget allocation was introduced (R6 million in 2002/2003 and R23 million in 2003/2004
(NB: The responsibility for Ownership and Maintenance lies with the District Municipality and the Department plays a supportive role)

5. BUDGET ALLOCATION METHOD

5.1. CRITERIA FORMULATION AND TARGETING

Targeting is important for two reasons; namely: -
it helps at ensuring that services are directly impacting on the lives of the poor or vulnerable groups; and
by so doing there will be more gains on poverty reduction benefits per transferred amount of money.

The budget of the Department of Public Works is designed in such a manner so as to address the objectives of the Community Based Public Works Programme. These objectives include the fact that the programme be primarily targeted at job creation and construction of sustainable productive assets within rural poverty pockets, with an additional emphasis on women headed households. These objectives necessitate that a targeting formula and budgeting allocation exercise be undertaken.

In 1998 a formula was developed for the National Department of Public Works to govern how resources were allocated within re-aligned Community Based Public Works Programme. This formula identified poverty at District Municipality level, the level at which allocation of resources occurs. The data used for the initial exercise was the 1995 October Household survey, undertaken by Statistics South Africa. This was later built on by using data from the 1996 census when it became available, complemented by information from the 1997 October Household Survey. The reason behind using the annual October Household survey in conjunction with the 1996 Census population figures is that there is far greater depth of information relating to poverty in this survey. Furthermore, due to its nature the resultant targeting formula can be updated on an annual basis. Another influencing factor for re-looking at the targeting formula are new Municipal demarcation that has necessitated that this exercise be updated in order to inform the budget Allocation Method to be used in the allocation of the CBPWP budget.

5.2. DETERMINING THE FORMULA

The poverty score of each municipality is calculated using the 1997 October Household Survey, on the basis of the following items: -

Item

NDPW model – data from 1997 OHS

Stats. S.A. Model 2 – data from 1996 Census

Education

Proportion of population aged 15 and older who have education of Standard Five/Grade Seven and above

Level of education of the head of the household

Rate of employment

Proportion of the economically available population who are employed

Expanded definition of official unemployment rate

Sanitation

Proportion of households who have access to sanitation in dwelling

Households with a flush toilet or a chemical toilet

Water

Proportion of households who have access to drinking water in dwelling or on site to RDP standards

Households with tap water inside the dwelling

Refuse removal

Proportion of households who have own dump or local authority removes refuse

Households with refuse removal at least once a week by a local or district authority

House structure

Proportion of households who have solid dwellings based on materials used for roof and walls

Households living in formal housing

Poverty indicator

Proportion of households with children who have not had any problem feeding the children in the household in the preceding year

Average monthly household expenditure

Household size/density

Proportion of households who have less than 3 people per room

Average household size

Distance

Proportion of households who travel less than 5km to their nearest welfare point

Electricity

Access to electricity for lighting

Telephone

A telephone in the dwelling or a cell phone

Household composition

Proportion of children in the household under the age of 5 years

Table I : Comparison of the items used to construct poverty score by NDPW & StatsSA

For each item, the relevant proportion (as a score out of a 100) was calculated. Adding all the scores for each item per Municipality and dividing by 9 to obtain a score out of 100 then calculated the poverty score. The process is summarized in Schedule 1. See the table below: -

Schedule 1
Calculating the poverty indices for each Municipality

	Prov	Literacy	Sanitation	Water	Refuse	Structures	Poverty	Density	Distance	Employed	Score	Index
DC1	WC	44.0	69.8	99.3	99.0	99.5	83.7	96.5	49.5	93.7	81.7	18.3
DC2	WC	52.3	77.2	98.8	96.9	96.4	89.0	95.8	58.5	89.4	83.8	16.2
DC3	WC	48.2	85.6	98.7	92.8	87.5	92.4	97.8	65.1	93.8	84.7	15.3
DC4	WC	52.5	73.3	97.8	93.0	87.0	92.6	94.4	52.8	93.0	81.8	18.2
DC5	WC	43.7	57.5	96.3	91.8	99.4	96.8	95.4	30.1	82.0	77.0	23.0
DC6	NC	47.3	56.2	95.0	94.0	99.3	89.3	93.3	59.2	90.0	80.4	19.6
DC7	NC	34.8	43.7	97.8	90.4	98.7	80.1	90.1	53.7	73.5	73.6	26.4
DC8	NC	43.4	69.8	95.3	93.1	93.1	81.7	90.0	41.0	88.4	77.3	22.7
DC9	NC	49.1	65.8	97.1	97.4	98.1	71.3	91.6	54.2	77.0	78.0	22.0
DC10	EC	44.2	39.9	92.3	83.5	95.4	77.9	95.1	45.5	89.6	73.7	26.3
DC12	EC	40.3	33.2	54.1	96.1	58.1	71.0	87.4	38.2	70.2	61.0	39.0
DC13	EC	31.1	18.5	42.9	70.2	60.0	64.8	84.8	44.2	64.4	53.4	46.6
DC14	EC	31.8	22.2	48.7	95.7	72.8	62.8	83.3	37.4	66.9	58.0	42.0
DC15	EC	28.2	22.2	18.9	90.4	41.6	66.9	80.4	41.8	63.2	50.4	49.6
DC16	FS	33.7	50.0	95.7	89.2	95.7	68.7	84.5	24.2	89.0	70.1	29.9
DC17	FS	49.7	51.7	95.9	87.9	96.0	80.4	89.9	51.7	80.4	76.0	24.0
DC18	FS	49.5	39.6	93.2	94.9	99.2	69.3	92.3	48.4	77.1	73.7	26.3
DC19	FS	40.4	38.9	90.2	76.2	77.8	64.2	88.3	63.4	81.2	69.0	31.0
DC20	FS	47.6	55.1	98.1	92.4	96.3	74.5	97.6	58.4	84.8	78.3	21.7
DC21	KZN	34.4	26.7	25.7	75.8	73.7	76.1	88.1	19.2	62.2	53.5	46.5
DC22	KZN	46.6	45.4	72.9	93.0	74.2	81.7	93.2	26.9	79.7	68.2	31.8
DC23	KZN	37.3	42.0	63.1	83.2	46.2	80.7	91.9	31.9	80.9	61.9	38.1
DC24	KZN	26.8	31.2	36.2	64.0	59.7	59.5	93.1	34.2	58.1	51.4	48.6
DC25	KZN	47.6	38.0	86.8	97.1	91.5	51.3	84.6	50.9	77.0	69.4	30.6
DC26	KZN	30.0	28.1	35.5	75.3	76.3	69.5	88.6	19.1	74.3	55.2	44.8
DC27	KZN	28.1	36.5	25.3	56.8	75.4	55.4	81.9	51.6	81.9	54.8	45.2
DC28	KZN	34.0	29.2	30.0	88.8	81.8	75.4	95.4	15.1	78.3	58.7	41.3
DC29	KZN	27.4	28.9	21.8	69.9	46.4	86.4	91.6	20.5	57.4	50.0	50.0
DC30	MP	40.5	51.1	86.1	75.2	71.7	69.0	95.5	52.9	77.9	68.9	31.1
DC31	MP	44.5	64.6	93.5	83.4	94.3	78.1	96.3	63.9	74.1	77.0	23.0
DC32	MP	37.1	27.9	77.4	91.9	85.7	68.2	92.5	54.4	77.4	68.1	31.9
DC33	NP	37.2	23.0	80.7	63.2	78.4	62.4	92.3	43.0	78.4	62.1	37.9
DC34	NP	34.6	13.5	64.2	90.4	60.3	80.8	92.5	27.9	74.2	59.8	40.2
DC35	NP	38.9	23.3	68.9	97.9	92.0	83.7	92.4	31.3	69.7	66.5	33.5
DC36	NP	34.9	17.6	74.2	70.5	91.8	80.6	91.2	79.0	80.9	69.0	31.0
DC37	NW	47.1	22.4	78.8	93.3	97.5	82.1	92.6	39.3	77.9	70.1	29.9
DC38	NW	35.6	29.3	83.8	94.2	94.4	86.5	93.0	59.3	79.9	72.9	27.1
DC39	NW	27.9	20.6	85.0	92.6	89.5	59.5	86.4	48.2	78.8	65.4	34.6
DC40	NW	45.6	49.6	98.6	99.4	97.9	77.4	94.4	54.0	84.3	77.9	22.1
DC42	G	55.3	60.8	96.9	92.7	98.9	76.9	94.9	43.5	78.8	77.6	22.4
DC43	KZN	30.8	26.7	54.4	91.4	51.9	78.4	88.6	12.7	87.6	58.1	41.9
DC44	EC	30.4	17.7	21.2	98.7	19.0	74.0	87.1	25.0	53.4	47.4	52.6
CBDC1	NW	30.6	33.1	85.0	99.1	81.6	51.5	83.7	26.1	82.4	63.7	36.3
CBDC2	G	38.4	29.7	95.5	91.8	70.6	88.1	97.7	23.1	89.8	69.4	30.6
CBDC3	NP	31.4	15.8	43.6	99.1	84.0	70.2	92.5	34.6	72.5	60.4	39.6
CBDC4	NP	43.2	23.4	52.9	72.8	88.2	73.4	98.1	37.3	63.7	61.4	38.6
CBDC8	G	60.8	60.8	98.4	94.9	99.4	82.6	91.3	55.3	83.9	80.8	19.2
PE	EC	63.5	68.5	96.1	94.5	93.3	80.2	97.3	48.5	80.4	80.3	19.7
EAST RAND	G	62.2	67.1	96.1	99.4	98.2	87.2	96.4	55.5	73.5	81.7	18.3
JOBURG	G	65.5	57.8	98.4	97.6	98.0	83.7	91.8	46.1	76.2	79.5	20.5
PRETORIA	G	63.3	66.9	96.0	96.3	98.1	83.4	96.0	39.5	85.1	80.5	19.5
DURBAN	KZN	56.5	67.5	87.0	95.1	89.0	80.2	93.6	35.9	80.9	76.2	23.8
CAPE TOWN	WC	61.3	79.7	99.6	98.7	90.2	80.2	95.6	63.2	86.6	83.9	16.1

Sources of information: 1997 October Household Survey; Municipal Demarcation Board

Since those Municipalities with a high poverty score are in fact those with the least poverty, subtracting the poverty score from 100 created a poverty index. In this way, those Municipalities with the most poverty have the highest poverty indices.

This index was then applied to the population of each Municipality. The resultant scores were recalculated as proportions of 100, in order to allow for the apportionment of the budget to the Municipalities. The results are shown in Schedule 2.

Schedule 2
All Municipalities ranked by their poverty/population index

Municipality	Old District	Prov	Population	Poverty	Popn	Pop/pov
	Council			index	x poverty	propn
DC15	Kei, Wild Coast	EC	1 569 699	49.6	77857070	6.4
DURBAN	Ilembe, Durban Metro, Ugu	KZN	2 749 737	23.8	65443741	5.3
DC12	Amatola, Wild Coast	EC	1 641 899	39.0	64034061	5.2
DC35	Northern	NP	1 891 060	33.5	63350510	5.2
JOBURG	Gauteng Metro, Western G	G	2 639 110	20.5	54101755	4.4
DC34	Northern	NP	1 109 836	40.2	44615407	3.6
CAPE TOWN	Cape Metro, Winelands	WC	2 563 612	16.1	41274153	3.4
DC13	Amatola, Drakensberg, Stormberg, Wildcoast	EC	843 493	46.6	39306774	3.2
CBDC3	Highveld, Lowveld, Northern	NP	943 840	39.6	37376064	3.1
EAST RAND	Eastern G, Gauteng Metro	G	1 905 216	18.3	34865453	2.8
DC37	Eastern NW, Rustenburg	NW	1 146 480	29.9	34279752	2.8
DC33	Northern	NP	876 715	37.9	33227499	2.7
DC26	Mzinyathi, Zululand	KZN	733 683	44.8	32868998	2.7
DC22	Ilembe, Indlovu	KZN	1 023 791	31.8	32556554	2.7
DC21	Ilembe, Ugu	KZN	659 630	46.5	30672795	2.5
DC28	Uthungulu, Zululand	KZN	698 726	41.3	28857384	2.4
DC44	Kei	EC	539 767	52.6	28391744	2.3
DC32	Lowveld	MP	792 947	31.9	25295009	2.1
PRETORIA	Eastern NW, Gauteng Metro	G	1 257 481	19.5	24520880	2.0
CBDC4	Northern	NP	628 269	38.6	24251183	2.0
DC30	Eastvaal	MP	777 024	31.1	24165446	2.0
DC31	Eastvaal, Highveld	MP	1 015 155	23.0	23348565	1.9
DC27	Uthungulu	KZN	507 020	45.2	22917304	1.9
DC23	Thukela	KZN	570 627	38.1	21740889	1.8
DC19	Eastern FS	FS	685 207	31.0	21241417	1.7
DC29	Indlovu, Uthungulu	KZN	422 274	50.0	21113700	1.7
DC24	Indlovu, Mzinyathi	KZN	427 511	48.6	20777035	1.7
PE	Western Region	EC	969 771	19.7	19104489	1.6
DC38	Bophirima, Central	NW	676 382	27.1	18329952	1.5
DC18	Goldfields	FS	694 636	26.3	18268927	1.5
DC42	Eastern G, Gauteng Metro, Western G	G	710 995	22.4	15926288	1.3
DC17	Bloem area, Eastern FS	FS	659 572	24.0	15829728	1.3
DC14	Drakensberg, Kei, Wild Coast	EC	349 097	42.0	14662074	1.2
DC2	Breede River, Winelands	WC	854 866	16.2	13848829	1.1
DC39	Bophirima, Southern	NW	370 893	34.6	12832898	1.0
DC25	Mzinyathi	KZN	410 959	30.6	12575345	1.0
DC40	Southern	NW	560 341	22.1	12383536	1.0
CBDC8	Southern, Western G	G	576 968	19.2	11077786	0.9
DC43	Indlovu, Ugu	KZN	240 000	41.9	10056000	0.8
DC4	Klein Karoo, South Cape	WC	535 304	18.2	9742533	0.8
DC10	Western Region	EC	369 751	26.3	9724451	0.8
DC20	Northern FS	FS	447 642	21.7	9713831	0.8
DC36	Bushveld, Northern	NP	245 060	31.0	7596860	0.6
CBDC1	Kalahari, Bophirima	NW	177 803	36.3	6454249	0.5
DC1	West Coast	WC	347 601	18.3	6361098	0.5
DC9	Diamantveld	NC	263 660	22.0	5800520	0.5
DC8	Kalahari, Lower Orange	NC	204 045	22.7	4631822	0.4
DC7	Diamantveld, Hantam, Upper Karoo	NC	169 089	26.4	4463950	0.4
DC16	Bloem area	FS	136 245	29.9	4073726	0.3
CBDC2	Eastern G, Highveld	G	98 023	30.6	2999504	0.2
DC3	Overberg	WC	165 373	15.3	2530207	0.2
DC6	Hantam, Namaqualand	NC	101 853	19.6	1996319	0.2
DC5	Central Karoo	WC	83 085	23.0	1910955	0.2
Total			41 038 823		1225347017	100

Sources of information: 1996 Census; 1997 October Household Survey; Municipal Demarcation Board

The Municipalities were categorized as either metro or non-metro, and the metro Municipalities were excluded as funding in these areas occurs via some of the Department’s special projects as well as from other government funding programmes. The non-metro Municipalities were then ranked in order of "most needy" in terms of their poverty population index. The results are shown in Schedule 3.

Schedule 3
All non-metro Municipalities ranked by their poverty/population index

Municipality	Old District	Prov	Population	Poverty	Popn	Pop/pov
	Council			index	x poverty	propn
DC15	Kei, Wild Coast	EC	1 569 699	49.6	77857070	7.9
DC12	Amatola, Wild Coast	EC	1 641 899	39.0	64034061	6.5
DC35	Northern	NP	1 891 060	33.5	63350510	6.4
DC34	Northern	NP	1 109 836	40.2	44615407	4.5
DC13	Amatola, Drakensberg, Stormberg, Wildcoast	EC	843 493	46.6	39306774	4.0
CBDC3	Highveld, Lowveld, Northern	NP	943 840	39.6	37376064	3.8
DC37	Eastern NW, Rustenburg	NW	1 146 480	29.9	34279752	3.5
DC33	Northern	NP	876 715	37.9	33227499	3.4
DC26	Mzinyathi, Zululand	KZN	733 683	44.8	32868998	3.3
DC22	Ilembe, Indlovu	KZN	1 023 791	31.8	32556554	3.3
DC21	Ilembe, Ugu	KZN	659 630	46.5	30672795	3.1
DC28	Uthungulu, Zululand	KZN	698 726	41.3	28857384	2.9
DC44	Kei	EC	539 767	52.6	28391744	2.9
DC32	Lowveld	MP	792 947	31.9	25295009	2.6
CBDC4	Northern	NP	628 269	38.6	24251183	2.5
DC30	Eastvaal	MP	777 024	31.1	24165446	2.5
DC31	Eastvaal, Highveld	MP	1 015 155	23.0	23348565	2.4
DC27	Uthungulu	KZN	507 020	45.2	22917304	2.3
DC23	Thukela	KZN	570 627	38.1	21740889	2.2
DC19	Eastern FS	FS	685 207	31.0	21241417	2.2
DC29	Indlovu, Uthungulu	KZN	422 274	50.0	21113700	2.1
DC24	Indlovu, Mzinyathi	KZN	427 511	48.6	20777035	2.1
DC38	Bophirima, Central	NW	676 382	27.1	18329952	1.9
DC18	Goldfields	FS	694 636	26.3	18268927	1.9
DC42	Eastern G, Gauteng Metro, Western G	G	710 995	22.4	15926288	1.6
DC17	Bloem area, Eastern FS	FS	659 572	24.0	15829728	1.6
DC14	Drakensberg, Kei, Wild Coast	EC	349 097	42.0	14662074	1.5
DC2	Breede River, Winelands	WC	854 866	16.2	13848829	1.4
DC39	Bophirima, Southern	NW	370 893	34.6	12832898	1.3
DC25	Mzinyathi	KZN	410 959	30.6	12575345	1.3
DC40	Southern	NW	560 341	22.1	12383536	1.3
CBDC8	Southern, Western G	G	576 968	19.2	11077786	1.1
DC43	Indlovu, Ugu	KZN	240 000	41.9	10056000	1.0
DC4	Klein Karoo, South Cape	WC	535 304	18.2	9742533	1.0
DC10	Western Region	EC	369 751	26.3	9724451	1.0
DC20	Northern FS	FS	447 642	21.7	9713831	1.0
DC36	Bushveld, Northern	NP	245 060	31.0	7596860	0.8
CBDC1	Kalahari, Bophirima	NW	177 803	36.3	6454249	0.7
DC1	West Coast	WC	347 601	18.3	6361098	0.6
DC9	Diamantveld	NC	263 660	22.0	5800520	0.6
DC8	Kalahari, Lower Orange	NC	204 045	22.7	4631822	0.5
DC7	Diamantveld, Hantam, Upper Karoo	NC	169 089	26.4	4463950	0.5
DC16	Bloem area	FS	136 245	29.9	4073726	0.4
CBDC2	Eastern G, Highveld	G	98 023	30.6	2999504	0.3
DC3	Overberg	WC	165 373	15.3	2530207	0.3
DC6	Hantam, Namaqualand	NC	101 853	19.6	1996319	0.2
DC5	Central Karoo	WC	83 085	23.0	1910955	0.2
Total			28 953 896		986036547	100

Sources of information: 1996 Census; 1997 October Household Survey; Municipal Demarcation Board

6. Data on trends in allocations, transfers and actual expenditure

EXPENDITURE TO DATE BY PROVINCE

		2001/02
		Actual division of funds (R '000)

PROVINCE	%	Budget		Transfers	% Budget	Actual	% Budget	No. of Projects	BALANCE
Eastern Cape	28	101,243	30	106,929	106	93,298	92	128	(5,686)
Free State	2	7,649	2	8,588	112	7,487	98	15	(939)
Gauteng	-		-			-			-
KwaZulu	24	85,961	24	85,844	100	82,774	96	212	117
Mpumalanga	9	32,010	8	27,823	87	26,404	82	93	4,187
Northern Cape	-		-			-			-
Northern Province	18	65,366	20	71,060	109	56,970	87	89	(5,694)
North West	2	8,937	2	8,988	101	8,765	98	10	(51)
Western Cape	-		-			-			-
									-
	-		-						-
I D T	16	59,286	14	51,140	86	50,727	86	25	8,146
									-
TOTAL	100	360,452	100	360,372	100	326,425	91	572	80

EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT COUNCIL

FREE STATE	2001/02
	Actual division of funds (R '000)

DC NAME	Budget	Transfers	% Budget	Actual	% Budget	No. of Prpjects	BALANCE
Thabo Mofutsane	7,203	8,135	113	7,487	104	15	(932)
							-
							-
							-
							-
							-
							-
							-
							-
							-

Programme Management	446	453	102	453	102		(7)

TOTAL	7,649	8,588	112	7,940	104		(939)

EPENDITURE BY DISTRICT COUNCIL

NORTH WEST	2001/02
	Actual division of funds (R '000)

DC NAME	Budget	Transfers	% Budget	Actual	% Budget	BALANCE
Bojanala Platinum	8,385	8,385	100	8,162	97	-
						-
						-
						-
						-
						-
						-
						-
						-
						-
Provincial Department	552	603	109	603	109	(51)


TOTAL	8,937	8,988	101	8,765	98	(51)

EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT COUNCIL

MPUMALANGA	2001/02
	Actual division of funds (R '000)

DC NAME	Budget	Transfers	% Budget	Actual	% Budget	No. of Prpjects	BALANCE
Eastvaal	7,106	5,484	77	5,503	77	24	1,622
Nkangala	8,177	8,842	108	6,969	85		(665)
Ehlanzeni	14,421	11,191	78	11,262	78	41	3,230
							-
							-
							-
							-
							-
							-
Provincial Department	49	49	100	49	100		-

Mbuzini Road	2,257	2,257	100	2,257	100		-

TOTAL	32,010	27,823	87	26,040	81	65	4,187

EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT COUNCIL

NORTHERN PROVINCE	2001/02
	Actual division of funds (R '000)

DC NAME	Budget	Transfers	% Budget	Actual	% Budget	BALANCE
Mopani	7,659	8,605	112	7,608	99	(946)
Vhembe	10,284	11,553	112	9,752	95	(1,269)
Capricorn	26,132	26,740	102	19,274	74	(608)
Waterberg	6,847	7,063	103	6,099	89	(216)
Makuleke CPA	100	100	100	100	100	-
Greater Sekhukhune CBDC	8,615	9,442	110	8,283	96	(827)
Eastern CBDC/BOHLABELO	5,620	7,448	133	5,540	99	(1,828)
						-
						-
						-
Provincial Department	109	109	100	109	100	-


TOTAL	65,366	71,060	109	56,765	87	(5,694)

EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT COUNCIL

KWAZULU NATAL	2001/02
	Actual division of funds (R '000)

DC NAME	Budget	Transfers	% Budget	Actual	% Budget	BALANCE
Durban - Kwamakuta/Kwamashu	3,852	1,950	51	1,180	31	1,902
Ugu	12,185	13,058	107	12,155	100	(873)
DC 22 Indlovu	11,098	12,506	113	10,025	90	(1,408)
Uthukela	8,796	6,538	74	7,628	87	2,258
Umzinyathi	5,233	6,390	122	4,954	95	(1,157)
Zululand	9,630	10,566	110	9,073	94	(936)
Amajuba	3,004	3,362	112	2,935	98	(358)
Umkhanyakude	5,232	3,966	76	4,920	94	1,266
uThungulu	13,395	14,645	109	12,583	94	(1,250)
King shaka/ Ilembe	5,493	6,095	111	5,493	100	(602)
Provincial Department	296		-	-	-	296
DC43/SISONKE	2,462	1,982	81	2,100	85	480

IDT Hlabisa	5,285	4,786	91	5,285	100	499

TOTAL	85,961	85,844	100	78,331	91	117

EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT COUNCIL

EASTERN CAPE	2001/02
	Actual division of funds (R '000)

DC NAME	Budget	Transfers	% Budget	Actual	% Budget	No. of Prpjects	BALANCE
Nelson Mandela	1,250	1,250	100	1,244	100		-
Western District	2,299	2,576	112	2,293	100	13	(277)
Amatole	17,558	18,591	106	16,523	94	20	(1,033)
Chris hani	10,158	11,569	114	9,480	93	23	(1,411)
Ukwahlamba	3,277	3,609	110	3,190	97	12	(332)
O.R.Tambo	31,784	33,193	104	27,958	88	36	(1,409)
Alfred Nzo	18,444	19,668	107	15,934	86	22	(1,224)
R61 ROAD/SDI ROADS	16,263	16,263	100	16,263	100	2	-
Provincial Department	210	210	100	210	100		-
							-
							-
TOTAL	101,243	106,929	106	93,095	92	128	(5,686)

EXPENDITURE BY PROJECT TYPE

	2001/02
	Actual division of funds (R '000)
I D T
PROJECT TYPE	Budget	Transfers	% Budget	Actual	% Budget	BALANCE
CLEAN AND GREEN	12,622	12,622	100	11,677	93	-
YOWOTEA	5,000	5,000	100	4,633	93	-
C P C 's	28,664	26,188	91	27,945	97	2,476
CHOLERA	3,000	3,000	100	2,941	98	-
HIV/AIDS	10,000	4,330	43	4,723	47	5,670








TOTAL	59,286	51,140	86	51,919	88	8,146

7. DEPARTMENTS MONITORING CAPACITY.

The Department has introduced a system called Management Monitoring Information System, in terms of which Provinces carry out monthly performance monitoring, on the basis of monthly inspections and reporting provided by municipalities.

The measurable Key Performance Indicators that are used are the following: -

Amount spent on community labour,

Number of local labourers employed,

Number of women employed,

Number of youth employed,

Number of disabled people employed,

Number and type of assets created, and

Environmental targets achieved.

The allocation done to municipalities takes into consideration the following conditions: -

Programme Management System or the policy is compiled with,

Employment targets are met,

Municipalities are required to place CBPWP allocation on their budget,

Municipalities are required to operate and maintain the facilities,

Sustainability planning for all projects is required.

8
. CBPWP FUNDING SITUATION IN 2004/5

The CBPWP has been receiving in the order of R274 million annually. The 2003/2004 financial year is the last lap of the current MTEF cycle and the CBPWP has been given the same R274 million. Although the Department has requested that the CBPWP be accommodated in the next MTEF cycle (I.e. 2004/05; 2005/06 and 2006/07), no decision has been taken by National Treasury pending the two processes mentioned below:

Evaluation of the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP):
National Treasury has indicated that it will only be after this evaluation that a decision will be taken as to whether PAP continues in its current form or it gets built into the departments’ budget. The evaluation will also determine which departments continue to receive PAP funding.

Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG):
This will consolidate infrastructure programmes funding (including the CBPWP) into one pot under possible management of the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG)

9. HAND-OVER POLICY

In their role as Programme Implementing Agents (PIAs), the DMs have to perform the following:

Overall programme management
Managing of community training
Identification and employment of local contractors and Communities

Proper planning for project sustainability

Maintenance and operation of certain community assets

Project hand-over to community structures or local municipalities

The Minister or the Deputy Minister have performed some ceremonial hand-over functions but the responsibility remains with the DM.

10. CBPWP AND IDPs

The CBPWP interpretation of the IDPs is as follows:

IDPs represent a notion of coordinated development delivery projected over short to medium term

Executive structures of local authority are, as stipulated in the Municipal Structures Act, responsible for determining development priorities. Municipal structures also have to determine project types; project location and implementation time

The CBPWP response to the IDP has been as follows:
Participation in some of the IDP Steering Committees
An equitable targeting formula, based on population and poverty indices, is used to determine municipalities for funding
One key requirement is that the CBPWP allocations are reflected on the municipal budget

Another requirement is that projects are identified by municipalities within the framework of their IDPs

The CBPWP encourages a project-clustering approach which enables the DMs to implement projects that reinforce one another making for easier sustainability

On the basis of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), the municipalities have also been encouraged to forward plan

11. INSPECTION OF PROJECTS

An average of 600 projects are implemented annually, which makes it impossible for the Department to inspect all the projects. However, the following does happen:

Some inspection by the Departmental official assigned to the Province
Sampled inspection by the Monitoring and Evaluation DPW officials for five days in a province twice in a year
Monthly independent monitoring by the Provincial Department of Public Works

NB: The DM as the PIA and the custodian of assets has a bigger responsibility for inspection

12. WOMEN IN CONSTRUCTION
The Department has recognised the need to develop Women Business Enterprises (WBE)
In August 2001 Minister launched a Strategic Empowerment Programme for women in Construction
58 projects to the value of R128 million were identified

Challenges:
1. Small number of women who complete against each other or available as
Joint Venture partners
2. Jobs will not be price competitive if women tender (also Construction Provision may be violated)
3. How can unsuccessful WBE tenderers be included in projects at prime contract level?

Progress:
1. To date 22 projects with the value of R39 million have been awarded
2. Increase in number of contractors registering on the Emerging Contractor Programme Development database

13. Conclusion

The targeting formula currently used is recommendable due to the following factors: -

The model is based on a rigorous and statistical methodology that can be replicated and tested by others. It minimizes qualitative inputs and relies on the statistical modelling initiated by the Department’s pre-implementation task team in 1998.

The items used in the construction of the poverty measure are relevant to the objectives of the programme and closely resembles those that are used by Statistics South Africa in one of their models.

Item	NDPW model – data from 1997 OHS	Stats. S.A. Model 2 – data from 1996 Census
Education	Proportion of population aged 15 and older who have education of Standard Five/Grade Seven and above	Level of education of the head of the household
Rate of employment	Proportion of the economically available population who are employed	Expanded definition of official unemployment rate
Sanitation	Proportion of households who have access to sanitation in dwelling	Households with a flush toilet or a chemical toilet
Water	Proportion of households who have access to drinking water in dwelling or on site to RDP standards	Households with tap water inside the dwelling
Refuse removal	Proportion of households who have own dump or local authority removes refuse	Households with refuse removal at least once a week by a local or district authority
House structure	Proportion of households who have solid dwellings based on materials used for roof and walls	Households living in formal housing
Poverty indicator	Proportion of households with children who have not had any problem feeding the children in the household in the preceding year	Average monthly household expenditure
Household size/density	Proportion of households who have less than 3 people per room	Average household size
Distance	Proportion of households who travel less than 5km to their nearest welfare point
Electricity		Access to electricity for lighting
Telephone		A telephone in the dwelling or a cell phone
Household composition		Proportion of children in the household under the age of 5 years