Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Social Development on Budget Vote 19 – Social Development, dated 23 June 2004:

The Ad Hoc Committee on Social Development, having considered Budget Vote 19 – Social Development, reports as follows:

A. Executive Summary

This report provides a general overview of the information presented to the Ad Hoc Committee on Social Development by its portfolio Department during the briefings by the latter on Budget Vote 19. Captured and entailed in the presented information are the Department’s increased budget for 2004, its allocation, breakdown according to programs, a myriad of reported outputs for the year that ended in March 2004 as well as reported sector challenges. The report also incorporates Committee’s comments on the Department’s briefing and a couple of issues that the Committee felt warranted further pursuit.

B. Introduction

1. The budget review of the Ministry and Department of Social Development was undertaken on 28 and 31 May 2004. It took a form of two briefing sessions by the Department of Social Development. Prior to the briefings, the Committee had the privilege of looking through the Department’s budget document, the recently tabled strategic plans and annual reports. Over and above those the Committee had also had a budget analysis report from the Research Unit prepared for it. This was all done as part of a concerted effort by the committee to meaningfully engage the Department on its budget vote. That objective could however not be realized owing to the following disadvantaging factors:

In the light of the reported limiting factors the Committee would like to call on all concerned to respect the integrity of the budget review process.

C. DEPARTMENT BUDGET 2004/5

1. Budget Pressures

The Department reported an increased budget in excess of R40 billion due to the following pressures:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.DEPARTMENT’S BUDGET GROWTH

 

3. DEPARTMENT’S OPERATIONAL BUDGET GROWTH

 

 

4. DEPARTMENT’S BUDGET ALLOCATION

YEAR

Normal Allocation

R’000

Special Allocation

R’000

Total Allocation

R’000

2003/4

198 072

(10.2%)

1 771 126

(89.8%)

1 952 502

2004/5

311 297

(6.8%)

4 238 173

(93.2%)

4 548 410

2005/2006

349 043

(4.4%)

7 499 283

(95.6%)

7 848 326

2006/7

372 389

(3.6%)

9 918 339

(96.4%)

10 290 728

5. DEPARTMENT’S MTEF ALLOCATION BY PROGRAMME

PROGRAMME

2004/5

R’000

2005/6

R’000

2006/7

R’000

P1: Admin

70 963

75 658

81 643

P2: Social Security

12 954

13 727

14 549

P3: Grant system

3 791 041

7 070 732

9 465 773

P4: Service delivery assurance

29 357

30 823

32 673

P5: Welfare Services

17 921

18 871

19 810

P6: Child, family & youth development

15 521

13 628

15 026

P7: Poverty alleviation

521 210

527 911

559 319

P8: HIV/AIDS

78 290

85 153

89 402

P9: Population and Dev

11 153

11 823

12 533

TOTAL

4 548 410

7 848 326

10 290 728

D. THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT’S REPORTED OUTPUTS FOR THE YEAR THAT ENDED IN MARCH 2004

The national Department of Social Development presented the following information as its recent outputs for the financial year that ended in March 2004:

1. Service standards

2. Older Persons

3. Services to People with disabilities

4. Prevention of Substance abuse and rehabilitation

5. Poverty alleviation

    1. The improvement in the case of HIV and AIDS projects was from 2 667 to 12 263.
    2. The improvement in the number of young people participating in youth development projects was from 1 045 to 2 471.
    3. The improvement in the number of people participating in women’s development co-operatives was from 1 279 to 2 788.
    4. Community based dual purpose centres improved the number of the people benefiting from 3 413 to 13 604.
    5. Food security projects also improved by increasing the number of people benefiting from projects from 10 692 to 13 604.

6. HIV/AIDS

  1. 61 582 orphaned and vulnerable children were identified and received appropriate services.
  2. 9 787 child headed households were identified and received appropriate services.

    1. 144 703 families were provided with food parcels and 20 945 families were provided with special protein products.

    1. 6 375 children were referred for foster care placement.

    1. 4 215 caregivers were trained on Home Community Based Care and Support programme.
    2. 5 988 caregivers are receiving stipend.

    1. 144 703 were assisted with counseling, care and support.
    2. 144 support groups were established and supported.
    3. 550 families received bereavement support and burials.

    1. 169 income-generating projects were linked to home community based care.
    2. 212 childcare forums were established.
    3. 421 NGOs, CBOs, FBOs and sites were strengthened.

7. National Food Emergency Programme

8. Children, families and youth development

9. Child Protection

10. Youth Development

11. Social Crime Prevention

12. Victim Empowerment Programme

13. Families

14. Population and Development

15. Social Security, Policy and Planning

16. Grant System and Administration

17. Social Security Service Delivery Assurance

    1. Social Policy Program for South Africa (SPPSA)

    1. Translation of research into policy.
    2. Indicators for social exclusion.
    3. Administrative data analysis – Beneficiary mobility and grant take-up.
    4. Social policy research capacity review in Government.
    5. HDI development programme.
    6. KwaZulu-Natal Income Dynamic Study (KIDS 3)
    7. Social Policy in the context of HIV/AIDS.

    1. Service delivery Monitoring

    1. Implementation on National, Provincial, Pay point and beneficiary level.
    2. Draft report produced on status of service delivery as a baseline.

    1. Trends on take-up conditions of pay points, spending of Provincial budgets etc.
    2. SOCPEN data used for trend reports.
    3. Mainly used as Management Information.
    4. 4 reports were produced.

    1. Detailed monitoring and audit exercise on 2 billion rand back pay project.
    2. National and provincial level.
    3. Comprehensive report delivered covering audit outcomes and lessons learned for future projects.

    1. Development and launch of hotline and register.
    2. Calls are reported and are monitored through the register.
    3. Register will be rolled out to all provincial departments.

    1. Data interrogation project on SOCPEN data completed.
    2. Vast number of exception reports produced.
    3. SOCPEN data matching with other sets such as Home Affairs data, Government Pension Fund etc in process.

    1. Analysis of known fraud cases in the Eastern Cape, Gauteng, Limpompo and KwaZulu-Natal.
    2. Information from analysis provided an estimated percentage of fraud in the National Social Security System – about R1.8 billion per annum.
    3. Report was produced on outcome.

E. REPORTED SECTOR CHALLENGES

F. ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE BUDGET VOTE 19 BRIEFING BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT WARRANT FURTHER FOLLOW UP BY THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT:

G. COMMENTS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE DURING THE BRIEFINGS ON VOTE 19 OF THE 2004’5 BUDGET.

The Committee raised concern with the fact that the area of drug dependency, which it viewed as a multisectoral challenge facing many socially depressed areas like the Cape Flats, had not been pinpointed as a major challenge within the context of social development. That it was not highly profiled in terms of the work of the Department.

The Committee also expressed its frustration with the Department’s slow pace when it came to finalizing policy on financial awards for NGOs funded by the Department.

The issue of the national Population Unit’s exact role within the Department of Social Development also came under a sharp Committee’s scrutiny with questions being asked about Unit’s clientele and the extent to which it was able to influence policy within the department. The Committee raised this against the backdrop of what it called a "thin research base" emerging from the department when it came to policy issues.

The Committee further zoomed in on the department’s reported review of the current assessment tool for a disability grant and asked for more information in that respect with the expressed view to, among other things, invite public comments on it. The Department, in reply to that, pointed the Committee to the anxieties that it said existed within the executive with regard to the extent to which the Committee could consult in order to inform policy processes and sometimes the unintended consequences of stakeholders believing that by making their own input they had now determined what policy should be before cabinet had in fact pronounced on it.

In wrapping up the briefing proceedings, the Committee expressed its appreciation and admiration for the way the department officials had conducted themselves notwithstanding the time constraints. In the same vein, it also expressed its displeasure with the fact that after the briefings it still did not know what it had not been exposed to in relation to the budget information. It made a strong appeal to the powers that be, that in future, consideration should be given to giving the Committee enough time and space so as to meaningfully engage the department budget in sharp contrast to the status quo. It decried the continuous disadvantaging pattern of always being expected to be ready and finished with its budget vote program within a matter of days immediately after Parliament’s opening.