Investing in sustainable livelihoods

Document Sample
Investing in sustainable livelihoods Powered By Docstoc
					Investing in sustainable livelihoods?

 Review of government budget allocations and
   expenditure towards youth development



    RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY UMSOBOMVU YOUTH FUND




                  NOVEMBER 2008
Acknowledgements
Umsobomvu Youth Fund would like to express gratitude to all the respondents of the
study. In particular, we would like to thank all the government officials in the various
national and provincial government departments who granted the research team
interviews. We would also like to thank all the persons who supplied the team with
information and assisted in any way in the collation of the research report. Finally, we
would like to acknowledge the CEO of UYF, Malose Kekana, for his support to the
research team as well as his vision and contagious passion for youth development.

The following people constituted the research project team:

Veronica Mathebula – Research Manager: Research and Evaluation Division (UYF)
Sabelo Mvula – Research Assistant: Research and Evaluation Division (UYF)
Bongani Magongo – Senior Manager Research and Evaluation Division (UYF)
Septi Bukula – Independent Consultant (Upstart Dynamics cc)
Professor Charles Simkins – Professor: School of Economics (University of the
Witwatersrand)
Teboho Sejane – Senior Manager: Business Strategy Office (UYF)
Sewela Mbewe – Programme Officer: Business Strategy Office (UYF)




                                                                                     ii
Table of contents

Glossary of terms .........................................................................................................................VI
Executive summary...................................................................................................................VIII
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
   1.1 Structure of the report .......................................................................................................... 2
   1.2 Background to the study...................................................................................................... 2
2. Rationale for the research......................................................................................................... 5
3. Research aims and objectives .................................................................................................. 6
4. Methodology............................................................................................................................... 7
   4.1 Limitations of the research ................................................................................................ 15
5. Sustainable livelihoods in the context of youth development ....................................... 16
6. Research findings..................................................................................................................... 17
   6.1 The status of youth and emerging youth development priorities............................... 17
   6.2 Institutional framework for youth development ........................................................... 24
   6.3 Review of budget allocations and expenditure on youth development – national
   departments ............................................................................................................................... 25
     6.3.1 Key findings from desk top reviews ................................................................................ 25
   6.4 Key findings from interviews............................................................................................ 37
   6.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 42
7. Value for money and equity in budgeting and expenditure processes ........................ 42
8. Summary and analysis of gaps.............................................................................................. 45
9. Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 48
10. Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 49
   10.1 Recommendations to the national treasury .................................................................. 49
   10.2 Recommendations to the public service commission.................................................. 50
   10.3 Recommendations to other government departments................................................ 50
   10.4 Recommendations to youth development organisations ........................................... 51
   10.5 Further areas of research.................................................................................................. 52
11. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 53
Annexures...................................................................................................................................... 57




                                                                                                                                              iii
List of tables

Table 1: Illustration of programme and sub-programme activities – Arts and Culture
Table 2: Programme 2: Arts and Culture in society for the year ended 31 March 2007Table
3: Illustration of items selected from budgets 2006/7 – Arts and Culture R‘000
Table 4: Estimated expenditure on youth development programmes by category as
proportion of budget
Table 5: Details of allocations and expenditure of Category I programmes by department
2006/7
Table 6: Profile of Category I programmes for skills development, job creation and SMME
development
Table 7: Details of allocations and expenditure of Category II programmes by department
– 2006/7
Table 8: Profile of Category II programmes for awareness, prevention and social
development in 2006/7
Table 9: Details of allocations and expenditure of Category III programmes by
department – 2006/7
Table 10: Profile of Category III programmes for sustainable livelihoods partially
targeting the youth
Table 11: Summary of key points raised by the interview respondents
Table 12: Further Education and Training Programme (R Thousand)
Table 13: Correctional Services – selected programmes (R Thousand)
Table 14: Mass Participation Programme (R Thousand)
Table 15: FIFA World Cup Unit (R Thousand)
Table 16: Under-expenditure in the 2006/7 financial year – selected national departments

List of figures

Figure 1: Methodological approach to analysis of government budgets and expenditure
on youth development
Figure 2: Units of analysis within the programme/project matrix
Figure 3: Distribution of total population by five-year age groups and sex
Figure 4: Unemployment in South Africa 2001 to 2007
Figure 5: Levels of education among unemployed youth aged 15 to 35 in 2007
Figure 6: Profiles of youth cohorts by increasing levels of need
Figure 7: Appropriation of national budget by vote – 2006/7
Figure 8: Estimated expenditure on youth development programmes by category as %
national budget allocation – 2006/7
Figure 9: Estimated budget and expenditure on Category I programme as % of total
departmental budget
Figure 10: Estimated budget and expenditure on Category II programme as % of total
departmental budget

Annexures

Annexure 1: Mapping of the prevailing structures and operations of youth-related policy




                                                                                     iv
Acronyms
ASGISA     Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa

BEE        Black Economic Empowerment

BBBEEE     Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment

CASE       Community Agency for Social Enquiry

ENE        Estimates of National Expenditure

EPWP       Expanded Public Works Programme

FFC        Fiscal and Fiscal Commission

FET        Further Education and Training

HET        Higher Education and Training

IDP        Integrated Development Plan

JIPSA      Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition

LED        Local Economic Development

LFS        Labour Force Survey

M&E        Monitoring and Evaluation

MTEF       Medium-Term Expenditure Framework

NSDS       National Skills Development Strategy

NYC        National Youth Commission

NYS        National Youth Service

NYSP       National Youth Service Programme

PMG        Parliamentary Monitoring Group

PSC        Public Service Commission

PYC        Provincial Youth Commission

SETA       Sectoral Education and Training Authority

SMME       Small, Medium and Micro Enterprise

UYF        Umsobomvu Youth Fund




                                                                  v
Glossary of terms
Economic participation – Active involvement in activities that directly and indirectly
result in income generation, such as employment and self-employment, and vocational
and job-related skills development.

Equitable – Dealing fairly, equally and reasonably with all concerned. Equity is
associated with justice and the fair treatment of all citizens. In the context of budget
allocations and expenditure, budgets are thus reviewed in terms of the extent to which
they reasonably and fairly address the needs and challenges faced by various cohorts of
the population.

Mainstreaming – A process of integrating that which is marginal into every aspect of the
life, thinking and business of an organisation. In this context the study explored to which
departmental budgeting processes mainstreamed youth development and related
programmes.

National budget – Government’s spending, tax and borrowing plans. The national
budget is usually estimated over a period of three years using a tool called the Mid-Term
Expenditure Framework (MTEF). It is announced in February of each year by the
Minister of Finance in a formal speech. It describes how government will raise money
and how it will be spent.

National budget allocation/appropriation – Money apportioned by the National
Treasury between and among national departments, provinces and other expenditure
items.

Poverty – According to the Public Service Commission (2007) an individual or household
is said to be in a state of poverty when they have no income or have an income below the
standard of living or are unable to meet their basic human needs. The standard of living
is measured using internationally accepted determinants used by bodies such as the
United Nations and the World Health Organisation.

Poverty reduction – An initiative, project or programme which seeks to improve the
livelihood or quality of life of individuals or households with no income or with an
income below the standard of living, or those people living in poverty.

Self-employment – Earning a living by working independently of an employer, either as
freelancer or by running a business.

Sustainable livelihoods – A way of approaching development that incorporates all
aspects of human livelihoods and the means whereby people obtain them.

Unemployment – A state of not having a job or business whilst being of a working age
(i.e. 15 to 65 years), having the ability to work and wanting to work.



                                                                                        vi
Virement – The agreed transfer of money from one budget head – income or expenditure
– to another, within a financial year. Virement is a measure of flexibility that allows
budget holding managers to reflect budget variences within a year.

Underemployment – Having less than full-time, regular, or adequate employment. One
of the issues worth noting is that unemployment is either structural (i.e. the demands of
the economy are not matched by the labour supply) or frictional (i.e. the economy is
unstable due to various historical factors such as the job insecurities caused by apartheid
legislation, which saw many people changing jobs). In South Africa it is more the former
which has long term negative social impact.

Youth – Youth is a transitional phase from childhood to adulthood when young people,
through a process of intense physiological, psychological, social, and economic change,
gradually come to be recognised – and to recognise themselves – as adults It is more a
stage than an age. In South Africa youth constitute anyone aged 14 to 35 years.

Youth development – A process whereby young women and men are able to improve
their skills, talents, and abilities, as well as to extend their intellectual, physical and
emotional capacities; it includes the opportunity for young men and women to express
themselves and to live full lives in all social, cultural, economic and spiritual spheres.
Youth development also refers to engaging young women and men in development
activities – as participants in the decision-making process and as beneficiaries.

Youth development programmes – Initiatives and activities that are targeted at young
people with the aim of improving their lives physically, mentally, socially, economically
and politically. Examples of youth development programmes in the South Africa context
would include youth service and volunteering, HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention,
and cross-cultural/diversity communication.




                                                                                        vii
Executive summary
Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) has embarked on a series of research studies to assess
the progress South Africa is making towards achieving the set objectives for meeting the
United Nations Millennium Goals for the year 2014. In particular, these studies will
review how the government makes investment into youth development programmes as a
vehicle for promoting sustainable livelihoods among its young people.

The goal of these studies is to contribute towards the development of a human capital,
employment and self-employment development strategy that will help to fast-track the
achievement of these goals as they relate to the youth. The series of studies are also
intended to provide information to enable the youth sector to lobby government to invest
more resources into initiatives that facilitate and promote the attainment of sustainable
livelihoods among young people.

The series of studies will be undertaken in three main phases which will each result in
published reports as follows:

Phase 1:      Review of government budget allocation and expenditure on youth
              development;
Phase 2:      Scenario planning for achieving Millennium Development Goals; and
Phase 3:      Development of an integrated human capital, employment and self-
              employment development strategy for the youth.

This report is the first in the series to be published by UYF. It details the findings of Phase
1 on the review of government budget allocations and expenditure towards youth
development initiatives in the 2006/7 financial period. Although budgets at both national
and provincial departmental levels were reviewed and analysed, only the findings from
national departments are reflected in this report.

UYF hypothesised that a disjuncture existed between the political will to respond to
challenges faced by the youth and actual resources invested by government into youth
development and related programmes. Using a methodology similar to the one used to
analyse the budget from a women’s or gender perspective, the research involved the
collection and analysis of information about youth development programmes and
relevant budgets and expenditure. The information was collected from annual, ENE and
other reports produced by all 34 national departments, as well as from interviews
conducted with senior officials where granted. Youth development programmes were
classified into three broad categories which were weighted differently depending on their
objectives, main activities, stated outcomes and the type of budgets they were allocated.

Category I programmes were defined as skills development, job creation and SMME
youth development programmes which were allocated specific youth budgets and were
specifically targeting youth. They included internships, learnerships, job preparation,
SMME and other types of programmes which directly lead to sustainable livelihoods.
These programmes were assigned a value of 1.


                                                                                            viii
Category II programmes were defined as youth programmes for raising awareness,
prevention, and personal and social development. They included programmes for
HIV/AIDS, crime and other types of prevention, sports, social cohesion, political
awareness and non-discrimination. These programmes were assigned a value of 0.4
because although they do not directly lead to sustainable livelihoods, they are necessary
for maintaining young people’s ability to actively participate in income-generation
activities.

Category III programmes were defined as sustainable livelihoods programmes for the
general public which partially targeted the youth. These programmes were similar to
those in Category I in nature. However, they were assigned a value of 0.1 because their
budgets were not youth budgets.

Main findings and gaps in budgets and expenditure among 34 national departments

The study found that there were approximately 18 million young people aged between 14
to 35 years in South Africa, who constituted nearly 40% of the population. The youth
were also found to be the most likely to bear the brunt of socio-economic challenges such
as unemployment, poverty, poor academic and technical skills levels, crime, HIV/AIDS
and other social problems. It was also established that in line with global trends, youth
unemployment is the single largest challenge facing young people today. In 2007, over 3
million youth aged 15 to 35 were classified as unemployed. These constituted
approximately 33% of the unemployed. For the country to achieve the targets set for the
United Nations Millennium Goals for 2014, youth unemployment would have to be
reduced significantly.

Despite the many challenges facing young people, the study also found that globally,
youth development approaches emphasise the contribution young people can make in
achieving national development objectives when their potential is enhanced. These
approaches view young people as valuable assets rather than burdens to society. Youth
development is thus seen as a vehicle for developing entire communities whilst
empowering the youth in the process.

In view of the above, several gaps were identified in the budgeting and expenditure
processes of national departments to the extent that they responded to the challenges
faced by the youth.

Firstly, only 6 national departments out of a total of 34 had specific youth budgets during
the 2006/7 fiscal period for both Category I and II programmes. During the same period,
the collective youth budget for Category I programmes was estimated at approximately
R703 million. This constituted approximately 0.27% of the total collective budget
allocation of over R260 billion to national departments. This is in spite the fact that these
departments were collectively allocated over R260 million (56% of the national budget)
during the 2006/7 financial period.

Of the estimated R703 million that constituted the youth budget, nearly R400 million was
allocated to Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF), the only national youth development


                                                                                          ix
institution established by government to provide Category I type programmes. A further
R19.2 million was allocated to the National Youth Commission for research, monitoring
and evaluation as well as lobby and advocacy on behalf of young people across the
country. Both these organisations were expected to implement various kinds of
programmes and provide services and support to approximately 18 million young
people. Clearly, the value of financial resources allocated as part of the youth budget is
very small when viewed as a proportion of the allocations to the departments.

Secondly, the fact that only a few national departments have dedicated youth budgets
was a reflection that the majority of them do not mainstream youth development into
their core service delivery processes and mechanisms, which include planning, budgeting
and expenditure. Moreover, with the exception of the Accelerated Shared Growth
Initiative of South Africa (ASGISA) and the Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition
(JIPSA) related requirements for the development of scarce skills, most departmental
budgets did not reflect specific outcome-based programmes that had set targets for
redressing other challenges faced by the youth, particularly with regard to job and self-
employment creation.

Thirdly, when reviewing the nature and types of youth development programmes
national departments implement, it was found that interventions were skewed towards
programmes that do not promote or support sustainable livelihoods among young
people. Instead, only an insignificantly small amount of R703 million was invested into
youth development programmes for skills development, employment and self-
employment creation. The study found that youth also benefited indirectly and
incidentally through sustainable livelihoods programmes targeted at the general
population. The estimated value of these programmes was R1.7 billion.

The combined value of all skills development, job and self-employment creation and
support programmes could be estimated to be just under R2.5 billion for the year 2006/7.
By sharp contrast, approximately R11.8 billion was spent on youth development
programmes for raising the levels of awareness and for prevention of a variety of issues
including health and wellbeing, crime, HIV/AIDS, sports, etc. A disjuncture thus exists
between the type of interventions departments made and the key challenges facing young
people.

Fourthly, although the MTEF provides for departments to report on target beneficiaries
and programme participants, there is still a lot of under-reporting, especially on youth
beneficiaries. Many departments do not disaggregate their target beneficiaries by cohorts
(e.g. youth, women, disabled etc.) in their reporting. This limits scrutiny and analysis of
the actual expenditure on programmes that benefit the different cohorts of vulnerable
groups. It also limits the evaluation of the effectiveness of such interventions. Thus, as the
PSC (2007) found during their audit of poverty reduction programmes, there is a general
lack of systems and standards among government departments when it comes to
information management and reporting. There is thus a need for closer monitoring of the
use of the MTEF as a planning, budgeting and reporting tool.




                                                                                           x
Fifthly, because departments did not publish information about how they cost their
activities but budgeted according to broad programme and sub-programme plans, it was
not feasible to establish the relationship between the cost of each programme activity and
the desired outputs and outcomes. For example, although the majority of departments
implemented internship and learnership programmes, there was no framework for
determining the Rand value of these programmes as well as the cost breakdown per
participant/beneficiary. It is thus not clear what the return on investment was for each of
the activities undertaken as actual expenditure on specific programmes could not be
ascertained. This explains the discrepancies between the amounts for budget allocations
and expenditure as reflected in the reports and those provided by interview respondents.

The above gaps in the budgeting and expenditure processes reflect the lack of a
coordinated, common approach to youth development and related programmes. Youth
development programmes are generally not implemented in a way that upholds the view
that young people are as much core to service delivery as they are beneficiaries of
development programmes. Most departmental interventions reveal a reactive approach
to youth development. Instead of merely intervening to solve the problems faced by
young people, departments should rather be exploring the best ways to engage the youth
in the development of the nation.

Five broad conclusions were drawn from the findings of the study:
    • The majority of national departments do not prioritise youth development and
        related programmes in their budgeting and expenditure processes. This is
        evidenced by the lack of mainstreaming of youth development.
   • The majority of departments do not have youth budgets. Where youth budgets
       exist, the financial resources allocated are insufficient to meet the vast challenges
       faced by young people, the biggest of which is unemployment.
   • The majority of youth development programmes implemented by national
       departments do not promote sustainable livelihoods through skills development,
       job creation and self-employment. Instead, expenditure is biased towards
       awareness, prevention and related programmes for social development. These
       interventions are mismatched with the core challenges facing young people.
   • Whether intentional or not, the approach of many national departments towards
       youth development upholds the view that young people are merely beneficiaries
       of development programmes instead of participants and agents of change in
       service delivery for the achievement of national development objectives.
   • Budgeting and expenditure by the majority of national departments does not
       address the challenges faced by South African young people adequately, equitably,
       effectively and sustainably.

The study made various recommendations, including the following:

   •   Departmental polices and frameworks for budgeting should deliberately make
       youth the core of service delivery, both as beneficiaries of and as partners in
       service delivery;
   •   Setting up of youth units with adequate budgets for the implementation of
       programmes that promote livelihoods among the youth;


                                                                                         xi
•   Encouraging more efficient usage of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
    (MTEF) framework for reporting, monitoring and evaluating the impact of service
    delivery by departments by the Department of National Treasury;
•   Review and increase of the requirements set by the Public Service Commission for
    skills development quotas as they apply to internships and similar programmes to
    address skills shortages;
•   Lobby and advocacy by the development sector for more resources for youth
    development and related programmes; and
•   Further research on the topic of youth budgets at provincial and local levels.




                                                                                 xii
1. Introduction
Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) has embarked on a series of research studies to assess
the progress South Africa is making towards achieving the set objectives for meeting the
United Nations Millennium Goals for the year 2014. In particular, these studies will
review how the government makes investment into youth development programmes as a
vehicle for promoting sustainable livelihoods among its young people.

The ultimate goal of these studies is to contribute towards the development of a human
capital, employment and self-employment development strategy that will help to fast-
track the achievement of these goals as they relate to the youth. The series of studies is
also intended to provide information to enable the youth sector to lobby government to
invest more resources into initiatives that facilitate and promote the attainment of
sustainable livelihoods among young people.

The series of studies will be undertaken in three main phases which will each result in
published reports. Each of the phases is described below.

Phase 1: Review of government budget allocation and expenditure on youth
development

The purpose of this review is to assess the extent to which government departments
budget for and finance youth development programmes, particularly those that facilitate
sustainable livelihoods among the youth. This involves a review of the challenges faced
by the youth, with a particular focus on unemployed and unskilled youth. The review is
expected to identify gaps between the budget allocation and expenditure and the
challenges faced by young people. It also seeks to determine the level of responsiveness
of the departmental budgets to the needs of youth.

Phase 2: Scenario planning for achieving Millennium Development Goals

This process will involve an ideal scenario planning projecting into 2014 and beyond in
relation to youth development. A review of the progress that has been made thus far by
the South African government and its development agencies will be conducted in this
regard. Another key activity during this phase will be the costing of youth development
programmes to determine the resources required to facilitate the achievement of the ideal
scenario envisaged. This phase will also involve a benchmarking exercise whereby South
Africa will be compared to selected countries in the developing and developed world.

Phase 3: Development of an integrated human capital, employment and self-
employment development strategy for the youth

It is envisaged that based on the findings emerging from the first two phases, as well as
broad consultations with key stakeholders on these findings, a strategy will be developed
to address the key socio-economic challenges facing young people in South Africa. This
strategy is expected to feed into existing development strategies that guide the


                                                                                       1
implementation of policies and programmes for the reduction of unemployment, poverty
reduction and the promotion of sustainable livelihoods among the general population.

This report is the first in the series to be published by UYF. It details the findings of Phase
1 on the review of government budget allocations and expenditure towards youth
development initiatives in the 2006/7 financial period. Although budgets at both national
and provincial departmental levels were reviewed and analysed, only the findings from
national departments are reflected in this report.

The research was conducted by internal UYF staff with the assistance of external
consultants with expertise in research and economics. However, for the sake of precision
and brevity, only findings from national departments were analysed and reported on.


1.1 Structure of the report

The report is divided into nine main parts with the rest of the report covering the
following areas:

    •    Background to the study;
    •    Rationale for the research;
    •    Research aims and objectives;
    •    Methodology and limitations of the research;
    •    Sustainable livelihoods in the context youth development;
    •    Research findings from desktop reviews and interviews with government officials;
    •    Value for money and equity in budgeting and expenditure processes;
    •    Summary and analysis of gaps;
    •    Conclusions; and
    •    Recommendations.


1.2 Background to the study

South Africa is facing a problem of youth unemployment, low skills amongst young
people, high drop-out rates from formal education systems and minimal interventions
and resources to support young people to venture into sustainable livelihoods. The
Statistics South Africa Labour Force Survey (STATS SA LFS) of 2007 estimated that 3 026
306 young people between the ages of 15 and 35 years (inclusive) were unemployed1.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Education (2007), has been recording high drop-out rates of
more than 50%, particularly among Grade 9 learners at an average age of 16 years. The
Ministry noted with concern that many of these learners leave the education system
without the possibility of being employed or furthering their education. This renders



1The Community Survey of 2007 put this estimate at 4 310 770, but the STATS SA LFS September unemployment estimates are
more reliable since they also account for seasonal changes in the labour market. Moreover, large surveys such as the Community
Survey cannot ask the employment-related questions with the same care as the ‘smaller’ LFS.


                                                                                                                            2
many young people ill-prepared for the labour market or to take advantage of small
business opportunities.

Noting the fact that joblessness remains a major national challenge, the South African
government is still committed to reach a target of 14% unemployment rate by 2014
(Budget Review, 2008). This is in line with the United Nations’ Millennium Development
Goals, the first of which addresses itself to the eradication of poverty and hunger as
follows:2

                 “Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
            •    Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day;
            •    Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women
                 and young people;
            •    Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.”

To reach the target unemployment rate of 14% by 2014, South Africa’s unemployment
rate of 23% in September 2007 would have to decrease by approximately 9% over the next
7 years. Statistics South Africa estimated that in September 2007 there were
approximately 17 179 000 unemployed people nationally.3 Currently the economy is only
able to create just over 400 000 formal jobs per year (Budget Review, 2008).

In South Africa, like in many other parts of the world, unemployment is largely a youth
problem. Stated otherwise, youth unemployment is the single largest challenge facing
young people. Stats SA (2008:xix) estimates that in 2007, youth constituted 33% of the
unemployed. The 11th World Development Report (2007: 2,4) has emphasised the need
for countries to address youth challenges, particularly youth unemployment, as follows:

                 “Because labor is the main asset of the poor, making it more productive is the best way
                 to reduce poverty. This requires enhancing the opportunities to earn money and
                 developing the human capital to take advantage of those opportunities ... The need to
                 address youth issues now is also rooted in demographics—because of the fiscal
                 demands of the sheer number of today’s young and their share in the future labor
                 force.”

It is in recognition of this reality that the 8th Millennium Development Goal relating to
the development of global partnership committed the UN to working in cooperation with
the developing countries to develop decent and productive work for the youth.

In order for South Africa to achieve the target of 14% national unemployment rate, youth
unemployment would have to be significantly reduced. This requires the country to
intensify interventions to promote sustainable livelihoods, through targeted skills
development, employment creation and entrepreneurship development, particularly
among the youth.

2   http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

3This figure includes persons classified as economically active; not economically active; unemployed (official definition) and
discouraged work seekers in the March 2008 LFS report.


                                                                                                                                 3
There can be no doubt that the government is committed towards addressing the
challenges faced by the youth. Indeed, youth are seen by government leaders as a
valuable resource that needs to be nurtured. The declaration by the former president
Nelson Mandela a decade ago echoes to this day.4

                 “Youth are the valued possession of the nation. Without them there can be no future.
                 Their needs are immense and urgent. They are the centre of reconstruction and
                 development.”

This stated political intention to support the youth has seen the democratically elected
government investing financial resources towards youth development-related
programmes:

•      Umsobomvu Youth Fund established in 2001 (Demutualisation Levy of R960 million
       over five years and a once-off budget allocation of R400 million in 2006/7);
•      National Youth Commission established in 1996 (approximately R19 million per
       annum); and
•      Provincial Youth Commissions established intermittently by provinces since 2006 (at
       approximately R8 million per commission per year).

A desktop research report commissioned by the Youth Desk in the Presidency in 2006
and conducted by CASE estimated that the government spent approximately 4% of the
national budget on youth-targeted programmes. When other programmes which
benefited youth indirectly were taken into account, the allocation towards youth
development ‘causes’ swelled to approximately 25% of the national budget.

The CASE report (2006) raised critical questions about the impact of this expenditure on
the socio-economic conditions of young people. Part of the problem seemed to lie in the
approach (or lack thereof) adopted by line governments towards youth development.
Amongst other things, the report noted that:

       •    There was gross under-reporting on actual expenditure for specific items
            benefiting the youth;
       •    Very few Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) reports mentioned youth,
            which indicated that departments paid limited attention to youth development;
       •    Departments were not fully utilising the Medium Term Estimation Framework
            (MTEF) budgeting guidelines to enable them to measure the impact of their
            expenditure on individual beneficiaries;
       •    Although youth are the majority of the population and the mostly likely to be poor
            and unemployed (amongst other vulnerable groups), in many instances they did
            not ultimately benefit directly from budgets and expenditure allocated towards
            youth-related items. For example, whilst amounts budgeted for FET Colleges had
            increased substantially over the years to enable more people to complete their

4   Cited in the National Youth Policy Framework (1997:10).



                                                                                                  4
       education, many young people who do not possess entry qualifications or are
       based in the outskirts (such as rural areas) could still not access the colleges;
   •   Questions should be raised regarding the types of expenditure listed as youth-
       development-related. The study found that funds tended to be disbursed to events
       supporting youth development activities (e.g. youth day events management)
       rather than on youth development programmes per se (e.g. technical training) with
       the intention to promote sustainable livelihoods.

This report by CASE, along with initial analyses of National Treasury’s ENE reports,
provided the basis for UYF to make the decision to embark on this research.


2. Rationale for the research
As a dedicated youth development organisation mandated by the government to
facilitate the economic participation of youth through skills development and
employment creation initiatives, Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) has a vested interest in
ensuring that government budgets and expenditure on youth development achieve their
ultimate objective: the promotion of sustainable livelihoods. The evidence, however,
seems to point to the contrary. Young people in South Africa remain the majority of those
who are vulnerable due to the following socio-economic conditions:

   •   Unemployment and under-employment;
   •   Low levels of education and skills;
   •   High drop-out rates from education systems;
   •   Poverty due to lack of opportunities and safety net for those dropping out of
       school;
   •   Crime (as perpetrators and victims); and
   •   HIV/AIDS.

UYF has undertaken this research to understand how government budgets for and
finances youth development initiatives aimed at improving the living standards and
quality of life of young people, as well as the Rand value of these investments. UYF
believes that the quality of life of the youth can be changed by programmes and
interventions that are deliberate in addressing low levels of skills to gain sustainable
livelihoods, increasing employment opportunities for young people, and supporting and
increasing entrepreneurship participation by young people. Young people also require
social support and awareness services in order to holistically improve their livelihoods.

UYF thus required more extensive information on this issue at both national and
provincial levels, which clearly distinguishes targeted interventions from those that are
indirect or generic. This would enable UYF and other youth development stakeholders to
advocate for a more responsive youth budget allocation by government to meet the socio-
economic needs of young people in South Africa.




                                                                                      5
It is against this backdrop that UYF commissioned research on government budget
allocation and expenditure on youth development at provincial and national
departmental levels.




3. Research aims and objectives
The overall goal of the research was to provide accurate information on government
expenditure on youth development. This forms one pillar on which UYF, in consultation
with other stakeholders in youth development, could devise strategy for the development
of human capital, employment and self-employment for South Africa’s young people.
The other aim of the study is to provide information that would enable the youth sector
to lobby the government to invest more resources into programmes that facilitate and
promote economic participation of the youth in South Africa.

The objectives of the research were as follows:

   •   To highlight critical and priority youth development concerns warranting more
       and better financial resources from government departments;
   •   To underscore the importance of a responsive youth budget;
   •   To emphasise the significance of youth development in the South African context;
       and
   •   To contribute towards the development and refinement a model for reviewing,
       monitoring and evaluating government expenditure for youth which can be used
       by youth development practitioners to measure the impact of government
       department interventions.

In relation to these aims and objectives, the research raised the following key questions:

   •   What do the departments consider to be priority areas for youth development?
   •   How does this understanding fit in with the national policy framework provided
       by the National Youth Commission on behalf of youth development stakeholders?
   •   How do government departments through their budgeting and expenditure
       processes respond to the needs of youth?
   •   How are budgets allocated and spent towards youth development initiatives?
   •   Are these budgets for youth development fair, efficient, equitable and/or
       sustainable in response to the challenges faced by the youth?

UYF hypothesised that a disjuncture existed between the political will to respond to
challenges faced by the youth and actual resources invested by government into youth
development and related programmes. The research was intended to verify the extent to
which this hypothesis was valid.




                                                                                             6
4. Methodology
The research used both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to collect
information on budgets and programmes funded by government. Data was mainly
collected through documentary reviews and interviews with senior government officials.
The key steps followed in the collection, analysis and collation of information are
outlined in detail below. This methodology has been adapted from the one used by CASE
to carry out a similar study on the youth budget. It has also been used to evaluate the
national budget from a women’s/gender perspective. The steps are also illustrated in
Figure 1 overleaf. Owing to time constraints, the steps were undertaken simultaneously.

Step 1: Development of a conceptual and analytical framework

This step involved defining some of the concepts used in the study (e.g. youth, youth
development, sustainable livelihoods etc.) as well as the development of an analysis
matrix through which information sourced could be analysed and collated in a consistent
manner. It also involved demarcating the parameters of the study and identifying the
core units of analysis.

Step 2: Profile of the status of youth and emerging youth development priorities

This involved the review of literature on the status of youth with a specific focus on the
following aspects:

   •   Levels of poverty;
   •   Economic participation (employment, unemployment, self-employment); and
   •   Education and skills development.

In particular, the research profiled youth in terms of their level of economic participation,
with the unemployed and unskilled youth being identified as the most vulnerable to
socio-economic challenges.

Step 3: Profile of the policy, programme and institutional arrangements for youth
development

This step involved reviewing the institutions, policies, legislative framework and
programmes developed and delivered to address the key challenges faced by the youth.




                                                                                          7
Figure 1: Methodological approach to analysis of government budgets and expenditure on youth
development

                                      STEP 1
                            Develop theoretical/conceptual
                         framework with a data analysis matrix
                                      and tools




                                      STEP 2
                          Analyse the situation of youth in the
                         country & identify youth development
                                       priorities




                                      STEP 3
                         Assess the extent to which the policies
                        and programmes of government address
                           the situation highlighted in step 2




                                         STEP 4
                            Assess (at the beginning & end of the
                            budget year) whether adequate funds
                           (budget) have been allocated and spent
                          to implement the youth-friendly aspects of
                             government polices and programmes
                                     identified in step 3




                                         STEP 5
                          Identify gaps and make recommendations
                                      to influence policy




                                                                                         8
Step 4: Review of national and provincial government budget allocation and
expenditure on youth

This involved two main activities, namely:

   1. The review of various documents published by departments (e.g. annual reports
      and Estimated National Expenditure (ENE) reports); and
   2. Interviews with senior government department officials.

Documentary sources were mainly used to obtain quantitative information about budget
allocations and expenditure towards youth development–related programmes and
activities. On the other hand, the interviews were used to explore the more qualitative
aspects of the research which were not necessarily highlighted in reports. Where possible,
the interviews were also used to qualify some of the information provided in the reports.

Using the analysis matrix developed, data was inputted into a spreadsheet in order to
create a database of activities and budgets per department where information was
available. All 34 national and the majority of provincial departments were reviewed.
However, this report only documents the findings on national departments. For the sake
of consistency, and because information was not always readily available, the analysis
was restricted to allocations and expenditure over the 2006/7 financial year.

Analysis matrix for budget review

Before information could be sourced from various documents, the researchers first
developed a methodology for categorising programmes that target youth. The following
questions were used to guide the inclusion or exclusion of programmes in the analysis:

   •   Is the programme a youth development programme?
   •   If the programme is only for youth, is it allocated a specific budget?
   •   If yes, what types of activities are undertaken (e.g. skills development or
       awareness and prevention)?
   •   What are the objectives and intended outcomes of the programme?
   •   If the programme does not target the youth alone, does it promote sustainable
       livelihoods as defined in the study?
   •   To what extent does the programme benefit unemployed and unskilled youth?
       (i.e. these are not staff development it is not for employees of the department).

For the purposes of analysis, three broad categories were developed to classify the
various programme activities to the extent that they benefited or empowered the youth.
The categories are illustrated in Figure 2 and explained in more detail overleaf.




                                                                                       9
Figure 2: Units of analysis within the programme/project matrix



                             Category III: General public programmes for
                            sustainable livelihoods partially targeting youth
                                           Value = 0.1 or 10%




                         Category II: Specific youth development programmes
                            with social and other non-economic objectives
                                          Value = 0.4 or 40%




                                              Category I:
                                             Specific youth
                                             development
                                            programmes for
                                              sustainable
                                               livelihoods
                                           Value = 1 or 100%




Category I: Skills development, job creation and SMME youth development
programmes

These are programmes designed for and explicitly targeting young people as a specific
cohort. Their objective is to intentionally and directly lead to sustainable livelihoods
through the promotion of employment and income-generation activities among young
people. These programmes include career guidance, technical/vocational skills
development, entrepreneurship development and job preparation programmes.
Programmes such as those run by UYF would be classified under this category.
Internship, learnership, scholarship and mentorships programmes and bursary schemes
specifically targeting the youth that are run by various government agencies and
departments would also be included in this category. The National Youth Service
Programme, which is an intergovernmental and private sector initiative driven by the
Presidency, coordinated by the National Youth Commission and implemented by UYF, is
another example of a Category I programme.



                                                                                     10
Category II: Awareness and social youth development programmes

Category II programmes are also designed for and explicitly targeted at the youth as a
specific cohort. Although they do not directly lead to sustainable livelihoods they
improve young people’s ability to promote their physical, psychological and social
wellbeing. Programmes that were included under this category were awareness,
information, prevention, and personal and life-skills development. For example, health
awareness, crime prevention, HIV/AIDS and programmes related to pregnancy and
child-bearing and rearing would largely qualify for classification under this category.
Crime prevention, nation building, gender equity, arts in prisons, rural school nutrition
and school sports programmes are other examples.

Category III: General public programmes for sustainable development partially
targeting the youth

These are programmes for the promotion of sustainable livelihoods that are directed at
the general public but also include the youth as beneficiaries or participants. Similar to
Category I programmes, their objective is to facilitate economic participation and income
generation activities through skills development, employment and self-employment
creation and support. Capacity building Black Economic Empowerment/Broad-based
Black Economic Empowerment (BEE/BBBEE and SMME development programmes are
examples of programmes that were classified under this category. Most of the
departments in the Economic Services Cluster implemented such programmes.
Internship, learnership and mentorship programmes as well as bursary schemes funded
by the departments were also considered to be Category III programmes in cases where
they benefited non-employees regardless of age.

A weight criterion was then developed as a proxy for budget allocation and expenditure
for youth development programmes, using the abovementioned categories as follows:
    • Category I programmes were assigned a value of 1, meaning that there was a
       specific budget allocated for youth development programmes and this budget was
       spent on activities that facilitate and promote sustainable livelihoods among the
       youth;
    • Category II programmes were assigned a value of 0.4 because even though they
       might have specific youth budgets, they indirectly contribute to young people’s
       ability to attain sustainable livelihoods.
    • Category III programmes were given a value of 0.1 because their budgets are not
       youth budgets and the programmes are not necessarily designed to be youth
       friendly or easily accessible to young people. The programmes are also highly
       competitive and may only be accessible to youth with specialised skills and
       knowledge. Thus, the majority of unskilled and unemployed youth may not have
       equitable access to these programmes.

Thus the key distinguishing factor between Category I and II programmes was the
budget allocation. Category III programmes did not have dedicated youth budgets
allocated to them. Another difference between Category I and II programmes was the
types of youth development programmes implemented.


                                                                                       11
The weighting formula used the budget allocated for each vote, multiplied by the
weighted value for the programme, to provide an adjusted total budget allocation or
expenditure per government programme vote related to youth development. The
formula used can be expressed mathematically as follows:

i) Weighted budget allocation: Cx (Va x ∑Ba) = Yb
Where:       Cx = Category allocated to the programme
             Va = Value assigned to the category
             ∑Ba = Total budget allocated to the vote
             Yb = Adjusted budget for youth development activity in the vote
ii) Weighted budget expenditure against allocation: Cx (Va x ∑Ea) = Ye
Where:       Cx = Category allocated to the programme
             Va = Value assigned to the category
             ∑Ea = Total expenditure against budget allocated to the vote
             Ye = Adjusted expenditure against budget for youth development activity in
             the vote

Illustration using information provided in national Department of Arts and Culture’s
2006/7 annual report and its ENE report 2007 (Vote 14)

The department uses the MTEF guidelines provided by National Treasury to budget for
various activities. Activities are grouped into programmes and sub-programmes, which
can be defined as follows (Nicholson, 1999):

   •   Programme – a broad plan on how the department, with its allocated budget, is
       going to spend on activities to be done or things that need to be achieved, e.g.
       Visible Policing Programme under the Safety and Security department.
   •   Sub-programme – consists of activities which the budget is allocated for, e.g.
       Crime Prevention under the Visible Policing Programme is a specific activity.

For reporting purposes, each activity has an output measure and actual targets achieved
per programme and sub-programme. In the case of Arts and Culture, youth were
mentioned in the broad programme, namely Programme 2, entitled ‘Promotion of Arts
and Culture in Society’. The programme had two sub-programmes, namely ‘The
Promotion of Arts and Culture in South Africa’ and the ‘National Arts Council’.




                                                                                    12
Illustration: Arts and Culture’s Programme 2: Arts and Culture in Society

Measurable objective: Increase and facilitate access to and broader participation in Arts
and Culture through policy formulation legislation and equitable funding.


Table 1: Illustration of programme and sub-programme activities – Arts and Culture
Sub-programmes          Output                                             Measure/indicator                              Target
Promotion of Arts       •   Revitalisation of community arts centres       •   Number         of      sustainable         •    Eight
and Culture                 through       programme         development,       community arts centres by                       sustainable
                            institutional support and capacity building        2010;                                           community
                            geared towards sustainability in 2010;         •   MOU signed;                                     arts centres;
                        •   Memorandum of understanding between            •   Number of artists and teachers             by June 2007;
                            the Department of Arts and Culture and             trained in selected provinces by           •    Thirty artists
                            the Department of Education on the                 December 2007;                                  and teachers;
                            training of Arts and Culture learning area     •   Number       of    trained     and         •    Twenty
                            managers,                                          competent trainers for people                   trainers
                        •   Support       for    skills      development       with disabilities participating in              trained;
                            programmes for trainers specialising in            the arts by December 2007;                 •    Programme
                            training people with disabilities;             •   Coherent       programme        for             developed by
                        •   Mass youth participation leading to                achieving         mass       youth              May 2007.
                            inclusion in 2010 activities.                      participation developed.



This programme was classified as a Category III programme for the following reasons:

     •     Although young people are listed among the programme beneficiaries, the
           programme is not exclusively dedicated to them;
     •     The budget was not a dedicated youth budget; and
     •     The activities listed include capacity building through skills development and
           support for arts centres which young people might utilise.

Based on the above information, the budget information was reviewed with the view to
assigning a proper value, which in this case was 0.1. The budget for Programme 2 is
shown in the table below.

Table 2: Programme 2: Arts and Culture in society for the year ended 31 March 2007
                      2006/7
Sub-programme         Adjusted    Shifting    of    Virement       Final             Actual             Variance            Expenditure
                      appropria   Funds R’000                      Appropriation     Expenditure                            as % of final
                      tion                                                                                                  appropriation
                      R’000
2.1 Promotion of
Arts and Culture in
South Africa
Current payments        15 143                32           (850)            14 375           14 369                  6               100%
Transfers      and     150 137              (82)         (1 553)           148 497          148 495                  2               100%
subsidies
Payments        for        220                             (170)               50                  48                 2               96%
capital assets
2.2 National Arts
Council
                        62 081                  -              -            62 081           62 081                   -              100%

TOTAL                  227 581                  -        (2 578)           225 003          224 993                  10              100%



To factor in capital expenditure, salaries and other costs incurred in the implementation
of programmes, all the budgeted items were included in the analysis. Thus, in this case,



                                                                                                                                         13
the review focused on the budget items for all the items in this programme but only for
the 2006/7 period as further illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Illustration of items selected from budgets 2006/7 – Arts and Culture R‘000
National Department of Arts and       Programme 2: Arts and Culture in         Sub-programme 2.1: Promotion of Arts
Culture Vote 14                       Society                                  and Culture in Society
  Total appropriation to Department      Appropriation    Actual expenditure     Appropriation        Actual expenditure


                        13 429 934
                                                225 003              224 993
                                                                                          162 922                 162 912
                                                                                           62 081                  62 081
TOTAL DEEMED TO BENEFIT YOUTH BEFORE FORMULA IS APPLIED                                   225 003                 224 993



Thus, the values of the budget and expenditure for a sub-programme constitute a
proportion of the budget and expenditure for the whole programme, and the programme
a proportion of the entire departmental budget and expenditure. The value of 0.1 was
then applied in terms of the formula in order to estimate the value of the budget and
expenditure that ultimately went towards the promotion of sustainable livelihoods
among young people.

Application of the formula to the Department of Arts and Culture’s budget – 2006/7

•   The department was allocated a total budget of R13 429 934 000 or over R13 billion.
    Programme 2, named Arts and Culture in South Africa, was allocated a budget of R25
    003 000, of which R224 993 000 was actual expenditure.
•   Both sub-programmes 2.1 and 2.2 within Programme 2 were deemed to promote
    sustainable livelihoods by facilitating the participants, and the youth were included as
    beneficiaries.
•   This was not a youth budget.
•   This programme was therefore given a weight of 0.1 or 10%.
•   The total monetary values that were deemed to be intended for the youth were
    therefore calculated as for the budget and R22 499 300 for the actual expenditure
    attributable to the youth. Therefore, using the expenditure portion:
                                       Cx (Va x ∑Ea) = Ye
                        Category III (0.1 x R224 993 000) =R22 493 000

•   In this example actual expenditure constituted 0.16% of the departmental budget.

In some cases entire programmes were deemed to benefit young people, in which case
the entire budget and expenditure amounts were factored into the analysis. Sometimes,
however, youth development–related activities fell under more than one programme or
sub-programme, in which case they would all be selected for review and analysis. Once
all the budgets and expenditure figures were listed and the formula applied, they were
added up regardless of whether they were programmes or sub-programmes. All the
information collected was captured in a spreadsheet for analysis.




                                                                                                                           14
Step 5: Assessment of gaps in budgets and expenditure in order to influence policy

Based on the information gathered and reviewed, gaps and shortfalls in the budget
allocation and expenditure processes were identified in terms of the extent to which they
adequately addressed the needs and challenges faced by the youth, especially those who
are unemployed and unskilled. Thus the budgets were reviewed in terms of their ability
to meet the needs of youth adequately, equitably, effectively and sustainably as
advocated by the values principles guiding youth development practice as discussed in
later sections of the report.

Finally, recommendations were formulated on how government departments could
better budget and finance youth programmes for sustainable livelihoods. This was done
with the view of influencing policy and advocating for more and/or better resources for
youth development programmes.


4.1 Limitations of the research

Various limitations were experienced in conducting the research, notably the short time
that was allocated to conduct it. Other limitations were related to the data collection and
reviewing process, including:

   •   Under-reporting on youth development activities – most departments generally do
       not report on their targeted beneficiaries, regardless of whether these are youth,
       disabled persons or women, even though they have policies that foster the
       mainstreaming of these groups;
   •   Gaps in information – some departmental reports were not up to date, while some
       did not have adequate information on budgets for programmes and sub-
       programmes;
   •   Inconsistencies in reporting formats – departments did not always have similar
       reporting styles. For example, the Department of Labour did not have a
       comprehensive annual report published on their website but individual reports for
       programmes (e.g. for the NSDS, UYF and the individual SETAs);
   •   Interpretation of data – Because budgets are allocated per programme not per
       target group, the researchers had to make their own determination of what
       constituted a specific youth development programme (i.e. explicit) as opposed to
       generic programmes that indirectly benefited youth (i.e. implicit). This was
       mitigated through the use of the analysis matrix with categories and weights for
       making that determination and through interviews;
   •   Insufficient data to enable measurement of impact – most departments do not
       report details on the projects targeted at youth. Information relied on was mainly
       from UYF and EPWP reports; and
   •   As expected, securing interviews with government officials at short notice was a
       challenge.




                                                                                        15
5. Sustainable livelihoods in the context of youth
development
The concept of sustainable livelihoods is central to understanding the approach adopted
in undertaking this research. The concept not only emphasises the development of all
aspects of human livelihoods but also the means through which people obtain them.
Magongo (2006:10) defined broad categories that generally underpin sustainable
livelihood as follows:

   •   Human capital: The skills, knowledge, ability to work, and good health that
       together enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies. Human capital
       acts both as a building block towards livelihood outcomes, or as an end in itself.
   •   Social capital: The social resources upon which people draw as they pursue their
       livelihood objectives. These resources may include social networks, formal groups,
       and other types of relationships. Social capital may not always be positive since it
       may also facilitate the exclusion of non-members and also group membership may
       limit the mobility or rights of members.
   •   Natural capital: The natural resource stocks useful for livelihood generation. These
       are particularly important for those who derive all or part of their livelihood from
       such resources (e.g. fishermen, farmers, gatherers), but they also have a wider
       importance. Natural capital may also include land, forests, woodlands and water
       sources (and the quality of each).
   •   Physical capital: The basic infrastructure necessary to support livelihoods, and the
       producer goods (tools and equipment) used by people to function productively.
       This type of capital is likely to include transport, water supply, sanitation, energy
       and communication networks.
   •   Financial capital: The financial resources people use to sustain their livelihoods,
       including stocks (savings, liquid assets, access to credit) and regular in-flows
       (including remittances, pensions or other government grants). This form of capital
       is probably the one most easily exchanged for other forms of capital.
   •   External factors: External factors to the household can exert significant influence on
       livelihood. One category of external factors is processes and structures. These
       include the legal environment, culture and institutions that have an effect on how
       people utilise their assets and how they accumulate those assets. Another category
       of external factors is vulnerability in context. This refers to the ways external
       shocks and trends may affect assets levels and household resilience (in essence, the
       level of exposure to the categories of capital defined above).

Models used to better understand systems of livelihoods are often based on the
assumption that households build their livelihoods according to their assets and available
opportunities. These assumptions argue that livelihood assets can be augmented through
locally available resources and that households within the same locality have diverse
levels of assets that can be better utilised if only the households can see the potential.




                                                                                          16
This approach is not foreign to youth development theory and practice. On the contrary,
it is one of the fundamental pillars of youth development practice. Thus as a reflection of
this, the draft National Youth Policy states that its objectives are to achieve the following
(NYC 2007:10):

   •    Productive youth who are socially and economically active and innovative, with the
        skills and knowledge required to make a positive contribution, whatever their
        circumstances;
   •    Youth who are active and effective citizens, playing a role in all aspects of our
        democratic country, understanding and exercising their rights and responsibilities,
        and contributing to their families and communities through a culture of service;
   •    Youth who are included in the mainstream of society, whose diversity is celebrated and
        whose particular needs are recognised, for example the needs of young women,
        people with disabilities, people with various health requirements, people of
        different sexual orientations and people from different cultural and religious
        backgrounds;
   •    Sustainable youth development that focuses on how policies and programmes across
        government and civil society can support young people to become effective
        citizens and productive participants in the economy.

It is for the above reasons that youth development programmes of national departments
were assessed in terms of their ability to satisfy the above measures, that is the extent to
which youth development initiatives enable young people to accumulate the various
forms of capital and also to navigate or harness the external factors to their benefit. Thus,
youth programmes for sustainable livelihoods have the following stated outcomes:

    •   A job where a young persons receives an income;
    •   Self-employment which leads to income generation; and
    •   Social entrepreneurship (e.g. through volunteering and service).

Durability and permanency of the opportunities created by the programmes were
therefore very important considerations.


6. Research findings

6.1 The status of youth and emerging youth development priorities

According to the recently published Community Survey (STATS SA, 2007), of the 48.9
million people in South Africa, young people aged between 15 and 35 years (inclusive)
constituted an estimated 18 323 667 or 37.5% (Mathebula & Mahlangu, 2008). Estimates
which include 14-year-olds are as high as 40.9% (NYC, 2007). In terms of geographic
location, the Community Survey found that the majority of the youth were located in
Gauteng (22%) and KwaZulu-Natal (21%), whereas fewer young people resided in




                                                                                           17
provinces such as the Northern Cape, Free Sate and North West (2%, 6% and 7%
respectively).

This means that like many other developing countries, South Africa has a very young
population. Figure 3 depicts the South African population according to age and gender. It
shows that percentages for both males and females from birth to the twenties are evenly
distributed. However, among the older cohorts, there are more females than males.

This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as the ‘youth bulge’, is a function of an increase
in the number of youth relative to the number of children. The youth bulge is largely
attributable to falling birth rates (World Development Report 2007:4).


Figure 3: Distribution of total population by five-year age groups and sex




Source: Stats SA Community Survey 2007

In nations where the majority of young people are employed, the youth bulge is believed
to generate a ‘demographic dividend’, which means that young people contribute
positively towards the socio-economic growth and development of their nations. In
underscoring the potential of youth, both the ILO and Youth Business International have
estimated that:5

       •    If half of the world’s unemployed youth were employed, they would contribute $3
            trillion (about R21 trillion) to the global economy;
       •    Youth contribute to the increases in innovation, application of technology and new
            businesses;
       •    Youth contribute to increases in productivity; and

5   Cited in a Youth Build presentation to UYF, January 2008.


                                                                                           18
   •   Youth employ an average of three or three of their peers.

Even among developing nations, the trend is to view young people from an asset-based
approach (i.e. having potential that needs to be developed and being able to contribute
meaningfully to society), as opposed to deficit-based approaches whereby youth are seen
as ‘a problem’ that needs to be resolved (VOSESA, 2006).

Unfortunately, South Africa has yet to benefit from this so-called demographic dividend
resulting from the rising number of its youth population. This is because the majority of
its young people are facing serious socio-economic challenges such as unemployment,
poverty, crime and violence as well as HIV/AIDS. Many young people also lack the skills
required to take up available job opportunities or to create their own businesses, even in
cases where they have received tertiary education. Some of the key challenges facing
youth are elaborated below.

6.1.1 Low levels of skills and poor-quality education

An early draft of the National Youth Policy (NYC, 2007:18–19) summarised the main
educational challenges of youth as follows:
   • There is a predominance of learners with ‘some secondary education’. Young
      people with ‘incomplete qualifications’ are a cause for concern, given that this
      severely curtails their prospects of finding employment and constrains their
      chances of maturing into productive citizens who are commercially active and live
      fulfilled lives. This problem is manifested on both the General Education and
      Training (GET) and Further Education and Training (FET) levels, in terms of FET-
      vocational and FET-academic;
   • The number of learners participating in the FET-vocational system is relatively
      small; only half of them complete their studies, and there are questions about
      standards and the attainment of practical skills. It is estimated that on average
      between 40 and 60% of those who start primary education do not proceed to
      further education and training on an annual basis;
   • There is insufficient facilitation of ‘out-of-school youth’ to re-enter the system and
      become qualified. It is estimated that in 2005 there were approximately 4.5 million
      young people aged between 14 and 35 years who had exited school without
      completing their education;
   • There is a substantial gap between the number of young people who get matric
      and those who pursue post-secondary education. It is furthermore estimated that
      about half of those who reach the level of higher education do not complete their
      courses of study. While young women tend to stay the course in secondary
      education, they enter post-secondary education in disproportionately low
      numbers;
   • The efficacy of the schooling system measured by failure, repetition and drop-out
      rates is a key challenge for young people. Unimpressive literacy and numeracy
      levels of young people with primary and upper secondary education also signal
      problems with the quality of education.




                                                                                        19
According to a recent Department of Education Ministerial Committee Report (2007:xii),
although retention rates have improved slightly, drop-out rates among Grades 9 to 12
pupils are unacceptably high.
           “Drop-out rates, measured at the end of each grade per birth cohort, indicate fairly
           high flows until Grade 9. Essentially, the drop-out rate is minimal for at least the first
           8 years of schooling. The drop-out rates increase sharply from Grade 9 onwards. Out of
           a thousand people born between 1980 and 1984, about 984 entered Grade 1 and 456
           reached Grade 12. This means slightly more than 46% of this birth cohort that started
           Grade 1 eventually reached Grade 12.”

This review found that the average drop-out age was 16 years, with coloured and African
youth the mostly likely to drop out of school. High drop-out rates have been attributed to
grade repetition; behavioural problems; starting school later than the median age; teenage
pregnancy; and the educational levels of parents (especially among girls). The report
noted with concern that many of the learners who drop out of Grade 9 onwards have no
other alternatives, and calls for urgent attention to the provision of FET opportunities.

6.1.2 Skills shortages

One of the problems continuing to plague the South African economy has been the
shortage of scarce and critical skills that are necessary to enable it to compete more
effectively globally (ASGISA, 2007). A study commissioned by the Public Service
Commission in 2007 found that there were over 300 000 (23%) funded vacancies in the
public sector. This scenario was seen as a major threat to the government’s service
delivery project unless something was done urgently. Although the problem of filling
these vacancies was attributed to the failure in the government’s human resource system,
it can also be argued that because these posts are mainly managerial and administrative,
they are unlikely to be adequately filled in the short to medium term due to the shortage
of such skills in the labour market.

The Development Policy Research Unit (2007) identified three main areas of skills
shortages in the South African economy:
   • Shortage of artisans and other technically trained workers, such as electricians,
      technicians, mechanics etc. Engineers and scientists also listed high on the list of
      scarce skills. These shortages were especially raised as a concern in the
      manufacturing sectors;
   • Shortages at middle to senior management level. This skills shortage exists within
      all industry types, e.g. mine managers or shaft managers in the mining industry,
      foremen and managing engineers in the manufacturing industry and general
      business managers in the services industry. Management skills, it seems, are so
      problematic that poaching is endemic across industries. For example, engineers
      and mine managers are often coaxed into accepting positions in the banking or
      finance industry;
   • As far as entry-level positions are concerned, the constraint, as mentioned, is not
      necessarily the quantity of graduates, but rather the quality of these graduates. At
      the graduate level, therefore, the problem seems to relate to a skills deficit (in
      terms quality) rather than a skills shortage (in terms of numbers).


                                                                                                  20
For the financial services sector, the relevant SETA for financial and auditing services
(FASSET) has grouped skills into six broad categories and listed them in order of priority
within each category:
   • Management and leadership;
   • Specialist financial;
   • Information technology;
   • Communication, customer care and marketing;
   • Support and administration;
   • Personal development.

Within tourism, an audit recently revealed that 90% of the scarce skills are in the high-
skills level band, including technical management skills, skills in information and
knowledge management, product knowledge and language and communication skills.

Clearly, many young people are unlikely to take advantage of work opportunities
without the necessary educational qualifications and appropriate skills sets.

6.1.3 Unemployment and under-employment

Although, overall, the unemployment rate in the country has fallen by an average of 2%
since 2002 to approximately 23% in September 2007 (LFS, 2007), it is still considered to be
at unacceptably high levels. The diagram below shows that younger youth aged 15–24
years are more likely to be unemployed than those of any of the age group at over 50%.
Even though this figure should be interpreted in the light of other information profiling
youth (e.g. that youth who are under the age of 20 are most likely to be still at school),
with the high drop-out rates among 16-year-olds who have not completed Grade 9
onwards, it is possible to assume many will also be unemployed.

Figure 4: Unemployment in South Africa 2001 to 2007




Source: LFS Report (2007)




                                                                                        21
Figure 5 illustrates the levels of education among unemployed youth based on an
unemployment population size of 3 026305.6 It shows that the majority possessed
qualifications between Grades 6 and 9, after which approximately 55% completed Grade
12 or Matric. Only a few youth possessed diplomas, degrees and postgraduate
qualifications.

Figure 5: Levels of education among unemployment youth aged 15 to 35 in 2007

                                                                       No schooling / Grade R

      1800000
                                                                       Grade 1 to 5
      1600000
      1400000                                                          Grade 6 to 11
      1200000
      1000000                                                          Grade 12 / Matric
       800000
                                                                       NTC I to 3 Certificate/Diploma
       600000
                                                                       w ithout Matric
       400000
                                                                       Certificate / Diploma / Degree
       200000                                                          or Postgraduate
              0                                                        Other / Unspecified
                  Unemployment by level of education

Source: Provided by Stats SA using LFS September 2007 datasets

The effects of unemployment are felt differently at a provincial level. For example, while
the Western Cape has been experiencing a decrease since 2002, with an overall
unemployment rate of 15.9%, Limpopo has been the hardest hit with an unemployment
rate of 35.6% in March 2006. African females, African males and disabled persons are the
most vulnerable to unemployment.

One of the indicators of under-employment is income below the living wage among paid
employees. Budlender (2008) found that more than one-fifth of the youth earned R1 000
or less per month, with a further 38.5% earning between R1 001 and R2 500 per month.
Amongst the self-employed (especially those in the informal sector), the salaries were
lower than R800 per month on average.

6.1.4 Low levels of entrepreneurship and self-employment

Rates of entrepreneurship and ownership of SMMEs among South African youth have
been found to be very low compared to other countries at the same level of development
such as Brazil, Chile, Peru and Malaysia. Based on the March LFS 2007 data, Mathebula
and Mahlangu (2007) estimated that only 5.5% of youth between the ages 15 and 35 years
owned a business.

The latest Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) report produced by the University of
Cape Town states that although the Total Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) has increased
slightly among the youth, it has declined from 9% to 5% since 2001 among South Africans


6   These figures could be disaggregated further (e.g. by race, gender etc.)


                                                                                                        22
in general. These studies have also consistently found that unlike in other countries,
people with higher educational qualifications are more likely to succeed as entrepreneurs
than those with lower levels of education (Bosma & Harding, 2006; Maas & Herrington,
2007).

6.1.5 Poverty

The PSC report (2007) noted with concern that approximately 49% of South African
households live below the poverty line. Based on the 2006 General Household Survey
(GHS) findings and using a poverty line of R800 per household per month, Budlender
(2008) estimated that 52.0% of African youth live in these poor households. This is in
comparison with only 6.9% of Indian youth and 1.6% of white youth. The impact of
poverty differs geographically, whereby 63.9% of Limpopo youth live in these poor
households compared to 34.0% in Gauteng and 20.7% in Western Cape.

This is in spite of the fact that over 12 million South Africans (i.e. over 25% of the
population) now access the social grants system,7 although young people above the age of
18 years do not yet qualify for social grants. The Department of Social Development was
disquieted by the fact that many who are formally employed are not properly insured by
the way of personal and household insurance and are vulnerable to sudden economic
downturns. The social security currently provided is thus not an adequate safety net. The
PSC report goes further to highlight that in the long term, measures such as social grants
are not sustainable as long-term poverty reduction strategies.

Many factors contribute to the state of affairs described above. However, three factors
stand out that deserve a special mention here, namely:

       •   The failure of the education and training system to produce a good quality
           workforce;
       •   The inability of the economy to create sufficient jobs, even with its recorded
           significant growth; and
       •   Poor SMME support and entrepreneurship.

These factors are core to understanding what is required to successfully improve the
livelihoods of young people and to ensure that the impact of the interventions is
sustainable. Both the CASE and PSC report highlight the need for interventions targeting
youth to focus on programmes that are both sustainable and that target marginalised
youth cohorts.

6.1.6 Other youth development challenges and development priorities

       •   Other challenges young people face, which impact on their personal, social and
           other non-economic aspects of their lives, are expanded on in the draft National
           Youth Policy and other literature on youth. These challenges include: Lack of



7   Department of Social Development Annual Report (2007:54).


                                                                                        23
        access to facilities and infrastructure for personal development, sports and
        entertainment, particularly in rural areas;
    •   HIV and AIDS; and
    •   Crime and violence, which young people experience both as perpetrators and
        victims.

Based on the above it can be concluded that unemployed youth without proper
educational qualifications and skills are the ones highly at risk and the most vulnerable to
various socio-economic challenges. This is illustrated in Figure 6, where various
categories of youth have been identified. The categorisation is similar to the target groups
identified in the draft National Youth Policy.

Figure 6: Profiles of youth cohorts by increasing levels of need



                        Unemployed and unskilled (out of education system)




                        Unemployed & skilled (incl. unemployed graduates)




                                    Self-employed/entrepreneurs




                                        Youth in educational
                                             facilities



                                                                    Youth with special
                                             Employed               needs (e.g. disabled,
                                                                    youth in conflict,
                                                                    teenage mothers;
                                                                    youth with HIV/AIDS)
                                                                    cut across the
                                                                    different levels


                             INCREASING NEEDS OF YOUTH




6.2 Institutional framework for youth development

Annexure 2 provides a detailed mapping of the legislative and institutional framework
that guides youth development in the public sector across the three tiers of government.
With the imminence of a National Youth Development Agency (NYDA), some of these
arrangements might be revamped. In terms of this framework, line departments at the
national, provincial and local levels are expected to mainstream youth development
activities as part and parcel of their service delivery.


                                                                                            24
Whilst noting the need to acknowledge the good work done by the key structures
established to facilitate and fast-track youth development (i.e. NYC, SAYC and UYF),
Moleke (2006) also highlights some of the challenges presented by these institutional
arrangements. The main ones can be summarised/rephrased as follows:

   •    Policy gaps (i.e. definitions of youth and the role of government departments in
        mainstreaming youth development);
   •    Inadequate resources (especially for programmes intended to promote sustainable
        livelihoods);
   •    Duplication of efforts;
   •    Poor coordination; and
   •    The absence of a monitoring and evaluation framework and system.

The challenges faced in mainstreaming youth development are not dissimilar to those
faced in the mainstreaming of gender, as was established by a review commissioned by
the PSC in 2006.


6.3 Review of budget allocations and expenditure on youth
development – national departments


6.3.1 Key findings from desk top reviews

The national budget for the 2006/7 fiscal period was R470 192 470 000 or R470 billion. Of
this budget, the 34 national government departments reviewed in the study were
collectively allocated a total budget of R260 594 255 000, (i.e. over R260 billion). This
constituted approximately 55% of the consolidated budget.

The appropriation of the national budget is illustrated in Figure 7. It shows that at over
R150 billion or 32%, the provinces were also allocated a sizeable proportion of the
national budget. The provinces are responsible for allocating finances to local
government.

Figure 7: Appropriation of national budget by vote – 2006/7
                                                  Total appropriation to
                                                  departments



                                                  Salaries for presidency,
             11%      1%                          members of parliament
                                                  and judges and
                                                  magistrates
                                                  Provincial Equitable
       32%                              56%       Share
                0%

                                                  State Debt Costs




                                                                                       25
On the other hand, Table 4 shows that of the R260 billion appropriated to the 34
departments reviewed, the estimated actual expenditure on programmes deemed to
benefit the youth directly and indirectly by category was as follows:

   •   Category I youth programmes for job and SMME development – over R703
       million of the total collective budget of departments with programmes under this
       category;
   •   Category II youth programmes for awareness and social youth development
       programmes – over R11.8 billion of the total collective budget of departments
       with programmes under this category; and
   •   Category III general public programmes for sustainable development partially
       targeting the youth– over R1.7 billion of the total collective budget of departments
       with programmes under this category.

Several general observations can thus be made from the table. Firstly, the majority of
departments did not have dedicated budgets specifically for youth development.

Secondly, youth programmes budgeted for and financed were mostly not for activities
that promote sustainable youth. Instead, a considerable proportion of their collective
budget (i.e. over R11.8 billion or 4.5% of the collective budgets for all the 34 departments)
went towards Category II programmes, which are for raising awareness, prevention and
other social development purposes. Youth also benefited indirectly from programmes for
sustainable livelihoods aimed at the general public worth an estimated R1.7 billion. Only
the following departments had dedicated specific budgets for Category I youth
development programmes for sustainable livelihoods during the 2006/7 financial period:

   •   Defence;
   •   Labour;
   •   Science and Technology;
   •   Sports and Recreation.

However, it was established through interviews that the departments of Agriculture, Arts
and Culture, Housing and Minerals and Energy were in the process of implementing
Category I programmes in the 2007/8 financial period. In the case of Correctional
Services, skills development programmes were classified as Category III because these
targeted entire prison populations rather than youth as a specific cohort. The same logic
applied to Education where the budget for FET colleges was classified as Category III
programmes.

Thirdly, none of the programmes implemented by the Independent Complaints
Directorate, Provincial and Local Government, South African Management Development
Institute (SAMDI) were deemed to be youth development programmes or to be targeted
at unemployed and unskilled youth even if they were designed for the general public.
The Human Resource Development programmes of these departments focused on
government officials.




                                                                                          26
Table 4: Estimated expenditure on youth development programmes by category as proportion of budget
                                                           % of                      % of
                                        Category I       total for   Category II   total for   Category III
                        Total for        adjusted        departm-     adjusted     departm      adjusted      % of total for
No         Name        department         actual           ent         actual        -ent        actual       department
1    Agriculture            2 223 956                0           0             0           0       141 321               6.35
     Arts        and
     Culture                1 329 934                0          0             0           0         33,939                2.55
3    Communicatio
     ns                     1 319 597                0          0             0           0            737                0.06
4    Correctional
     Services               9 251 186             0             0             0           0        109 069                1.18
5    Defence               23 817 584       149 118          0.63             0           0        264 611                1.11
6    Education             14 249 805             0             0     4 850 868       34.04         71 089                0.50
7    Environmental
     Affairs     and
     Tourism                2 059 664                0          0             0           0         67 909             10.02
8    Foreign Affairs        2 944 679                0          0             0           0         34 981              1.19
9    Government
     Communicatio
     n           and
     Information
     Systems                  293 108                0          0             0           0            135                0.05
10   Health                11 338 047                0          0       791 931        6.98          5 386                0.05
11   Home Affairs           2 546 915                0          0             0           0         17 588                0.69
12   Housing                7 165 962                0          0             0           0          6 102                0.09
13   Independent
     Complaints
     Directorate              65 271                 0          0             0           0              0                  0
14   Justice     and
     Constitutional
     Development            6 005 216                           0     1 119 395       18.64         63 686                1.06
15   Labour                 1 453 540       400,000         27.52             0           0         24 070                1.66
16   Land Affairs           3 720 489             0             0             0           0        343 482                9.23
17   Minerals and
     Energy                 2 607 675                0          0             0           0         10 513                0.40
18   National
     Treasury              16 171 018                0          0             0           0          8 797                0.05
19   Parliament               755 069                0          0       100 596       13.32              0                   0
20   Police Service        32 521 230                0          0     4 947 096       15.21              0                   0
21   Provincial and
     Local
     Government            24 575 672                0          0             0           0              0                  0
22   Public
     Enterprise             2 589 835                0          0             0           0          1 141                0.04
23   Public Service
     and
     Administration          429 354                 0          0             0           0            576                0.13
24   Public Service
     Commission                96 068                0          0             0           0          5 097                5.31
25   Public Works           3 025 788                0          0             0           0          7 041                0.23
26   Science     and
     Technology             2 612 999        15 900          0.61             0           0         72 689                2.78
27   South African
     Management
     Development
     Institute                58 268                 0          0             0           0              0                  0
28   Social
     Development           61 676 087                0          0         8,600        1.57         29 701                0.05
29   Sports      and
     Recreation              886 548        138 792         15.66         9 316        1.05         21 774                2.46
30   Statistics
     South Africa           1 096 605                0          0             0           0          9 123                0.83
31   The
     Presidency              236 274                 0          0        19 228        8.14          3 080                1.30
32   Trade       and
     Industry               3 804 720                0          0             0           0        165 128                4.34
33   Transport             13 360 442                0          0             0           0          7 078                0.05
34   Water       and
     Forestry               4 305 650                0          0             0           0        183 969                4.27
     TOTALS               260 594 255       703 810          0.27    11 847 029        4.54      1 716 020                0.65




                                                                                                                     27
Thirdly, the table shows that Parliament and Police Service had budgeted for only
Category II programmes, which were more about raising awareness of parliamentary
processes and crime prevention. However, these programmes were specifically targeted
at the youth.

Lastly, the table shows that the Department of Sports and Recreation was the only
department with programmes benefiting youth across all three categories.

Effectively then, of the R260 billion allocated to these departments, less than 1% a specific
youth budget which was spent on initiatives to promote sustainable livelihoods among
the youth. A further 4.5% was spent on Category II programmes, whilst 0.65% was spent
on Category III programmes. This is reflected in the diagram below.

Figure 8: Estimated expenditure on youth development programmes by category as % of collective
departmental budget – 2006/7



  5.00%
  4.50%
  4.00%
  3.50%
                                                                 Category 1
  3.00%
                                                                 Category 2
  2.50%
                                                                 Category 3
  2.00%
  1.50%
  1.00%
  0.50%
  0.00%
              Actual Adjusted as a % of Collective Total



Further details are provided on the budgets and expenditure on youth development by
programme category below.

6.3.2 Category I: Job and SMME youth development programmes

Table 5 outlines the allocation and expenditure by various departments. Only 4
departments from the total of 34 national departments had programmes under this
category. The department with the highest budget and expenditure for Category I
programmes was Labour, which allocated over R400 million of its budget of R1 billion on
these types of programmes. This budget was a direct transfer to UYF, a dedicated youth
development agency for the facilitation of skills development, employment and self-
employment creation.

The second highest budget and expenditure on Category I programmes was by the
Department of Sports and Recreation, which allocated R138 million on these types of
programmes.


                                                                                           28
Table 5: Details of allocations and expenditure on Category I programmes by department – 2006/7
                                                       Actual
                                                       expenditure
                                       Allocation to   on
                     Total             programmes      programmes     Adjusted      As % of total   Adjusted       As % of total
                     allocation to     and sub-        and sub-       allocation    allocation to   expenditur     allocation to
No    Department     department        programmes      programmes     (i.e. x 1)    department      e (i.e. x 1)   department
1     Defence             23 817 584         149 118        149 118      149 118             0.63       149 118               0.63
2     Labour               1 453 540         400 000        400 000      400 000            27.52       400 000              27.52
      Science and
3     Technology           2 612 999          15 900         15 900        15 900            0.61        15 900               0.61
      Sports and
4     Recreation            886 548          137 768        138 792      137 768            15.53       138,792              15.66
      TOTAL               28 770 671         702 786        703 810      702 786             2.44       703 810               2.45


The department with the lowest expenditure on Category I programmes was Science and
Technology, which allocated approximately R15.9 million out of its total allocation of R2.6
billion on these types of programmes. Figure 9 reflects the budgets and expenditure on
Category I programmes as a percentage of the departmental budgets within this
particular category. It highlights departments that spent the most and the least on
programmes for sustainable livelihoods.

Figure 9: Estimated budget and expenditure on Category I programme as % of total departmental budget

                     Expenditure on Category I Programmes

     30.00%

     25.00%

     20.00%
                                                                            % Of Adjusted
     15.00%                                                                 Appropriation
                                                                            % on total Adjusted
     10.00%                                                                 Expenditure

     5.00%

     0.00%
                Defence       Labour     Science and Sports and
                                         Technology Recreation



6.3.3 Description of Category I programmes
Table 6 provides examples of activities undertaken as part and parcel of Category I
programmes. Selected achievements reported against the departmental objectives in the
2006/7 annual reports and 2008 ENEs are also given. Only programmes that were
deemed to wholly and/or mainly benefit unemployed and unskilled youth and which had
a dedicated youth budget were selected for this purpose.

The table shows that the activities undertaken in the 2006/7 financial period related to
sustainable livelihoods ranged from skills development, learnerships and internships to
job preparation, placement and support for young people in self-employment.


                                                                                                                        29
Table 6: Profile of Category I programmes for skills development, job creation and SMME development
                                   Sub-
                Programme          programme        Key youth development–related            Examples of reported
 Department     name               name             activities                               achievements
                                                                                             250 PDI learners trained of
                                                    Life-skills and job-preparation          which 238 were recruited in
 Defence        Joint Support      Joint Training   training                                 2005
                                                                                             21 383 loans to 9 000 youth-
                                                                                             owned SMMEs; 9 470 business
                                                                                             vouchers issued; 2 796 direct
                                                                                             and indirect job placements; 1
                                                                                             250 youth in graduate
                                                                                             development and 29 106 in
                                                                                             entrepreneurship development
                                                                                             programmes; over 15 000 NYS
                                                    SMME loans and support, job              participants in partnership with
                                   Umsobomvu        placements, skills development,          NYC, other departments, civil
 Labour                            Youth Fund       National Youth Service Programme         and private sectors
                                                                                             100 unemployed youth in
                                   Science and      Maths and Science camps;                 internships; 2 000 honour’s
 Science and    Frontier Science   Youth &          learnerships, internships and            students in human capital
 Technology     and Technology     Learnerships     mentorships                              development programmes
                                                                                             2 000 athletes trained in high
                                                                                             performance; 3 000 youth
                                                                                             capacitated as coaches,
                                                                                             administrators, technical
                                                                                             officials, first aid & life skills
                                                    Capacity building in coaching,           trainers; unemployed youth
                                                    administration, officiating, first aid   recruited as facilitators in the
 Sports and     Mass               Community        and life skills; school sports           school sport programme
 Recreation     Participation      Participation    facilitation                             targeting 798 schools




6.3.4 Category II: Awareness and social youth development programmes

Only 8 of the 34 national departments (23%) had budgeted for and spent against Category
II programmes. These programmes contribute towards young people’s ability to actively
improve their livelihoods and participate in economic activities. They include
programmes focused on raising awareness, prevention and information dissemination on
a variety of social and health issues such as crime, nation building, gender equality and
HIV/AIDS.

The eight departments collectively spent approximately R11.8 billion on programmes
under this category for the fiscal period of 2006/7. Expenditure on this category of
programmes constituted about 4.5% of the collective total budget allocation of R260
billion to all the 34 departments under review.




                                                                                                                              30
     Table 7: Details of allocations and expenditure on Category II programmes by department – 2006/7
                                                         Actual
                                                         expenditure
                                         Allocation to   on
                         Total           programmes      programmes     Adjusted      As % of total   Adjusted        As % of total
                         allocation to   and sub-        and sub-       allocation    allocation to   expenditure     allocation to
No      Department       department      programmes      programmes     (i.e. x 4)    department      (i.e. x 4)      department
1       Education           14 249 805      12 138 596     12 127 169     4 855 438           34.07       4 850 868             34.04
2       Health              11 338 047       2 048 483      1 979 828      819 393             7.23        791 931               6.98
        Justice and
        Constitutional
3       Development          6 005 216       3 192 928      2 798 488     1 277 171           21.27       1 119 395             18.64

4       Parliament             755 069         319 069        251 489      127 628            13.32        100 596              13.32
5       Police Service      32 521 230      12 367 739     12 367 739     4 947 096           15.21       4 947 096             15.21
        Social
6       Development         61 676 087          23 981         21 500         9 592            0.02          8 600               1.57
        Sports and
7       Recreation             886 548          29 592         23 290        11 837            1.34          9 316               1.05
        The
8       Presidency             236 274          19 228         19 228        19 228            8.14         19 228               8.14

        Total              127 668 276      30 139 616     29 588 731   12 067 383             9.45     11 847 029               9.28
     * The formula was not applied to the Presidency budget because it was a transfer to the NYC.

     As shown in Figure 10, the departments with the biggest allocations under this category
     were the Police Service, at R4.9 billion (i.e. 15% of the total department allocation of R32
     billion), Education with an allocation of R4.8 billion (i.e. 34% of the total department
     allocation of R14.2 billion), as well as Justice and Constitutional Development with an
     allocation of R1.2 billion (i.e. 21% of the total departmental allocation of R6 billion).

     The departments with the lowest expenditure on Category II programmes among those
     that had Category II programmes were Social Development, with an allocation of R9.5
     million – that is 0.02% of the total departmental allocation of over R61 billion – as well as
     Sports and Recreation at R11.8 million or 1.3% of the total departmental budget of over
     R886 million. The budget of the Presidency of R19.2 million was a transfer to the National
     Youth Commission whose mandate is to monitor and coordinate the mainstreaming and
     implementation of youth development policies and programmes.




                                                                                                                           31
Figure 10: Estimated budget and expenditure on Category II programme as % of total departmental
budget
                                                                 Expenditure on Category II Programmes




    35.00%



    30.00%




    25.00%



    20.00%


                                                                                                                                      % Of Adjusted Appropriation
    15.00%                                                                                                                            % on total Adjusted Expenditure



    10.00%




     5.00%



     0.00%
              Education   Health      Justice &         Parliament      Police       Social      Sports and      The
                                     Constitutional                    Service    Development    Recreation   Presidency
                                     Development




6.3.5 Profile of Category II programmes

Table 8 highlights some of the activities departments undertook with respect to Category
II programmes. In some cases (e.g. Justice and Constitutional Development) information
on target beneficiaries or participants was not available from the annual and ENE reports.
In other cases, the 2006/7 annual reports reported on achievements of the previous year
(e.g. Health).
Table 8: Profile of Category II programmes for awareness, prevention and personal and social
development
                                                                                                                           Reported achievements
                     Programme                                                   Key youth development–
 Department          name                   Sub-programme name                   related activities
                                                                                                                           Social cohesion through learner
                                                                                 Promotion of racial                       access to sport, art, culture and
                                                                                 integration and heritage                  music strategies; safe and
                                                                                 materials; values and youth &             secure environments; learner
                                                                                 gender equity workshops;                  participation in ABET
                                                                                 gender-based HIV/AIDS                     programmes; improved health
                                            •         Adult Learning and         awareness programmes;                     and wellness in school;
                                                      School Enrichment          substance abuse prevention,               promotion of racial and gender
                     Quality                •         Health and                 school nutrition; school                  equity; a culture of human
                     Promotion and                    Wellness                   sports, annual                            rights; national identity; and
 Education           Development            •         Equity in Education        commemoration events                      values in education
                                                                                                                           National institutes for higher
                                                                                                                           education in Mpumalanga and
                                                                                                                           Northern Cape; implementation
                                                                                 Supporting and enhancing                  of review of classification of
                                                                                 effective governance;                     educational subject matter;
                     Higher                 Higher Education to                  HIV/AIDS awareness;                       strengthened systemic
                     Education and          Universities and                     scholarships; racial and                  performance indicators for the
                     Training               Technikons                           gender equity                             higher education system
                                                                                 Programmes for the reduction              All provinces orientated on
                     Strategic Health       Strategic Health                     in infant, child, youth and               implementation of programmes
 Health              Programmes             Programmes                           maternal morbidity and                    to the reduction of morbidity and



                                                                                                                                                           32
                                                                                                   Reported achievements
                 Programme                                      Key youth development–
Department       name               Sub-programme name          related activities
                                                                mortality;prevention,              mortalityd 500 facilities
                                                                awareness, wellbeing               established with youth-friendly
                                                                promotion and NYS                  services during 2005/06; the
                                                                                                   proportion of health facilities
                                                                                                   authorised to provide
                                                                                                   termination of pregnancy
                                                                                                   services which actually
                                                                                                   exceeded the set target of 45%
                                                                                                   in 2005/6.
                                                                Youth camps on topics              No information available on
Justice &                                                       relating to constitution,          targets
Constitutional                                                  legislation and services
Development      Administration                                 provided by the department.
                                                                Resolution of criminal, civil      No information available on
                                                                and family matters and             targets.
                                                                diversion of youth in conflict
                                                                with the law (i.e. youth under
                                    Court Services              18 years)
                                                                Youth Parliament that              250 young people participated
                                                                provides opportunity for youth     in project plan development; the
                                                                to engage with Parliament,         achievement to the Parliament
                                                                provincial legislature, national   is that the activity made
                                                                youth structures and local         Parliament more accessible to
                                    Office of the Secretary     government                         the people
                                    (Sub-sub programme –
Parliament       Administration     Youth Parliament)
                                                                                                   16 days of activism resulted in 2
                                                                                                   151 campaigns being conducted
                                                                                                   focusing on the general public,
                                                                                                   children and the youth,
                                                                                                   vulnerable groups (the elderly
                                                                                                   and the disabled) and the
                                                                                                   mobilisation of men (traditional
                                                                                                   leaders, soccer matches,
                                                                Awareness campaigns; anti-         marches); approximately 376
                                                                rape, anti-violence safe-          828 people were reached and
                                                                schools, youth in conflict with    280 909 pamphlets were
                                                                the law, and victim                distributed; 2 057 arrests were
                                                                empowerment programmes;            made and 23 firearms and 4933
                                                                establishment of provincial        litres of alcohol were
Police Service   Visible Policing   Crime Prevention            youth desks                        confiscated
                                                                Development of youth               Draft National Youth Policy
                                                                policies; research,                circulated for comment and
                                                                coordination, monitoring and       submitted to Cabinet for
                                                                evaluation of policies and         approval; framework for the
                 Policy and         National Youth              programmes; lobbying and           National Youth Service
Presidency       Coordination       Commission                  advocacy
                                    •    Registration and       Capacity building for service      Costing for implementation of
                                         institution capacity   providers in private and civil     NYS completed; Youth
                                         build for NPOs         sectors; youth-related             Development Strategy approved
                                    •    Youth                  research; policy development       by MINMEC; commemoration of
                                    •    Population             and coordination                   South African Youth Day as part
                                         Research                                                  of the youth development month
                                    •    Population and                                            was held; research on status of
                                         Development                                               youth for the development of the
Social           Development             Support                                                   Youth Development Index
Development      and Research            Programme
                                                                                                   In 2005/06, high performance
                                                                                                   sport was emphasised through
                                                                                                   the National Sports Academy
                                                                                                   Project, especially for preparing
                                                                                                   athletes for the Olympics,
                                                                                                   Paralympics and
                                                                                                   Commonwealth Youth Games;
                                                                                                   2 000 athletes benefited from
                                                                                                   high-performance training,
                                                                                                   which contributed to the South
                                                                                                   African team of 240 athletes
                                                                Support of athletes;               winning 35 medals at the
                                                                establishment of sports clubs;     Paralympics Games, 66 medals
                                    •    Club development       capacity building and              at the Zone VI Youth Games
Sports and       Client Support          Programme              acceleration for service           and 56 medals at the
Recreation       Service            •    School Sport           providers                          Commonwealth Youth Games




                                                                                                                                 33
                                                                          Reported achievements
              Programme                          Key youth development–
 Department   name          Sub-programme name   related activities
                                                                          360 athletes prepared for the
                                                                          Commonwealth Games, against
                                                                          a target of 1 400; the 2006/7
                                                                          target of 283 000 participants in
                                                                          the LoveLife games and
                                                                          festivals was exceeded d by 47
                                                                          976; from
                                                                          2007, all LoveLife-related
                                                                          activities will be integrated in the
                                                                          programmes of both SRSA and
                                                                          the Department of Education



6.3.6 Category III: General public programmes for sustainable development partially
targeting the youth

Category III programmes are those that are intended to enable and facilitate sustainable
livelihoods. However, they are general public programmes from which young people
benefit albeit indirectly or incidentally. The budgets of these programmes were given a
value of 0.1, meaning that an estimated 10% of their programme budgets and expenditure
benefited young people.

The majority of departments (29 or 85%) were deemed to have budgets for Category III
programmes during the 2006/7 financial year. These were collectively valued at an
estimated R1.7 billion or 0.65% of the total budget allocation to national departments. The
following five departments were considered not to have Category III programmes:

   •   Independent Complaints Directorate;
   •   Parliament;
   •   Police Service;
   •   Provincial and Local Government; and
   •   South African Management Development Institute.

Table 9 reflects the allocations and expenditure on these programmes. It shows that the
highest allocation in this category of programmes was by the Department of Land Affairs,
which allocated approximately R343 million or about 9% of its budget of over R3.7 billion
on programmes for sustainable livelihoods that indirectly benefited the youth. This
department was closely followed by Defence, which allocated approximately R267
million out of a budget of R23 billion on these types of programmes. The least recorded
expenditure was by the GCIS; the departments of Communications, Education,
Transport, Health, and Minerals and Energy; the National Treasury; Public Enterprise;
Public Services and Administration; and STATS SA , each of which only allocated less
that 1% on these types of programmes.




                                                                                                         34
Table 9: Details of allocations and expenditure on Category III programmes by department – 2006/7
                                                       Actual
                                                       expenditure                                                     As % of
                                       Allocation to   on                                                              total
                       Total           programmes      programmes     Adjusted         As % of total   Adjusted        allocation
N                      allocation to   and sub-        and sub-       allocation       allocation to   expenditur      to
o    Department        department      programmes      programmes     (i.e. x 1)       department      -e (i.e. x 1)   department
1    Agriculture           2 223 956       1 441 478      1 413 211      144 148                6.48       141 321            6.35
     Arts and
2    Culture               1 329 934         401 556        401 471        40 156               3.01        40 147            3.02
     Communicatio
3    ns                    1 319 597           7 613          7 368           761               0.06            737           0.06
     Correctional
4    Services              9 251 186         114 156      1 090 692        11 416               0.12       109 069            1.18
5    Defence              23 817 584       2 671 544      2 646 108      267 154                1.12       264 611            1.11

6    Education            14 249 805         715 953        710 891        71 595               0.50        71 089            0.50
     Environmental
     Affairs and
7    Tourism               2 059 664         677 779        679 085        67 778               3.29        67 909          10.02
8    Foreign Affairs       2 944 679         454 353        349 811        45 435               1.54        34 981            1.19
     Government
     Communicatio
     n and
     Information
9    Systems                 293 108               0          1 353                0            0.05            135           0.05
10   Health               11 338 047          55 188         53 864         5 519               0.05          5 386           0.05
11   Home Affairs          2 546 915         159 321        175 881        15 932               0.63        17 588            0.69
12   Housing               7 165 962          62 323         61 016         6 232               0.09          6 102           0.09
     Justice and
     Constitutional
13   Development           6 005 216         713 625        636 862        71 363               1.19        63 686            1.06
14   Labour                1 453 540         245 671        240 704        24 567               1.69        24 070           1.66
15   Land Affairs          3 720 489       3 434 822      3 434 819      343 482                9.23       343 482           9.23
     Minerals and
16   Energy                2 607 675         108 995        105 130        10 900               0.42        10 513            0.40
     National
17   Treasury             16 171 018          93 302         87 971         9 330               0.06          8 797           0.05
     Public
18   Enterprise            2 589 835          11 410         11 408         1 141               0.04          1 141           0.04
     Public Service
     and
19   Administration          429 354           5 825          5 755           583               0.14            576           0.13
     Public Service
20   Commission               96 068          51 394         50 974         5 139               5.35          5 097           5.31
21   Public Works          3 025 788          77 953         70 406         7 795               0.26          7 041           0.23
     Science and
22   Technology            2 612 999         706 544        726 888        72 689               2.78        72 689            2.78
     Social
23   Development          61 676 087         297 596        297 012        29 760               0.05        29 701            0.05
     Sports and
24   Recreation              886 548         228 554        217 740        22 855               2.58        21 774            2.46
     Statistics
25   South Africa          1 096 605          92 663         91 230         9 266               0.84          9 123           0.83
     The
26   Presidency              236 274          30 804         30 804         3 080               1.30          3 080           1.30
     Trade and
27   Industry              3 804 720       1 651 279      1 651 279      165 128                4.34       165 128            4.34
28   Transport            13 360 442          73 538         70 777         7 354               0.06          7 078           0.05
     Water and
29   Forestry              4 305 650       1 909 994      1 608 857       190 999               4.97       160 886            3.74
     TOTAL               202 618 745      16 727 277     17 160 201     1 674 762               0.83     1 716 020            0.85




                                                                                                                           35
6.3.7 Profile of Category III programmes

The majority of departments had integrated internships, learnerships, mentorships,
and/or bursary schemes as part of the human capacity development programmes and in
line with ASGISA and JIPSA requirements. This is a requirement of the Department of
Public Service and Administration, which expects each department to place 5% of its total
staff complement as interns. In most cases, these programmes were housed within the
Corporate Services units and budgeted against the Administration programme. Thus the
budgets were not for youth development and related programmes but for items related to
the administration of the departments. Youth also benefited indirectly from economic
development programmes such as SMME development, procurement and BEE. Examples
of these types of programmes are profiled by department in Table 10.

6.3.8 Profile of Category III programmes

Table 10: Profile of Category III programmes for sustainable livelihoods partially targeting the youth
                                       SUB-
                    PROGRAMME          PROGRAMME      KEY YOUTH DEVELOPMENT–
 DEPARTMENT         NAME               NAME           RELATED ACTIVITIES                      REPORTED ACHIEVEMENTS
                                                                                              250 bursaries awarded for
                                                                                              scarce skills; 50 graduates
                                       Corporate      Bursaries; internships; graduate        supported to pursue higher
 Agriculture        Administration     Services       development (over R10 million)          degrees & 170 interns
                                                      Community arts centres used as          2 482 job opportunities since
                                                      business incubators; rehabilitation     2005 – 62% women, 53% youth
                                                      programmes; promotion of                of which 8.5% disabled; 80
                                                      indigenous games; forums on family      bursaries awarded
                                       Promotion of   values; popularisation of national
                                       Arts and       symbols (NYSP); and also training
                    Arts and Culture   Culture in     and job creation in arts, culture and
 Arts and Culture   in Society         Society        heritage sectors
                                                                                              2 204 trained in agriculture and
                                                                                              workshop skills; 3 967 (5% of
                                                                                              baseline) work opportunities for
                                                      Agricultural training and production    sentenced offenders; 25 000
                                       Personal       workshops; work opportunities for       offenders in education
 Correctional                          Development    sentenced offenders; formal             programmes and 16 212 in skills
 Services           Development        of Offenders   education and skills development        development programmes
                                       Corporate                                              No information available on
 Foreign Affairs    Administration     Services       Learnerships                            beneficiaries
 Government
 Communication                                        Internships and learnerships worth
 and Information                       Corporate      over R1 million for non-employees
 Systems            Administration     Services       only                                    81 interns and 10 learners
                                                                                              23 ICT interns introduced to the
                                                                                              department; 18 eventually
                                       Corporate                                              employed internally and 5
 Home Affairs       Administration     Services       Learnerships                            externally; 2 were disabled
                                                                                              11 bursaries awarded for
                                                                                              Cadastral Surveys and Land
                                                                                              Information Management; 218
                                                                                              interns supported of which 101
                                       Corporate                                              were employed in various
 Land Affairs       Administration     Services       Bursaries and internships               departments
                                                      Promotion of youth and women in
                                                      the property and construction           316 814 network opportunities;
                                                      sectors; scholarships; placement of     R917 million paid in wages;
                    National Public    Expanded       graduates; Youth Consultative           approximately 54% women and
                    Works              Public Works   Forum; EPWP construction and            35% youth employed between 3
 Public Works       Programme          Programme      maintenance projects; NYS               and 24 months
                                       Human
 Public Service                        Resource
 and                                   Development                                            7 090 interns and 3 428 learners
 Administration     Administration     Strategy       Internships and learnerships            supported




                                                                                                                             36
6.4 Key findings from interviews

Mainly due to the unavailability of respondents, only seven interviews were held with
directors in the following national departments:
   • Agriculture;
   • Arts and Culture;
   • Correctional Services;
   • Housing;
   • Minerals and Energy;
   • National Treasury;
   • Social Development.

The interview questions covered the following topics:

      Approaches to youth development and alignment with the framework provided
      by the NYC;
      Institutional framework for youth development within the departments;
      Programme information relating to youth development, including budgets,
      beneficiaries and project activities; and
      Successes and challenges in doing youth development.

All the departments were familiar with the policy and legislative framework governing
youth development in South Africa and were aware of the importance of mainstreaming
youth development within line departments. However, only the departments of Housing
and Social Development had established specialised youth units with specific budgets.
The unit within Housing only received a budget of R2 million per annum. Other
departments said youth issues were taken into account by each division but without
formal structures.

All the respondents were of the view that the financial resources made available by their
departments for youth development activities were totally inadequate compared to the
scale of the need for youth development and their own youth-focused programmes.
Departments responded to this challenge in several ways:
   • Scaling back on the scope of some of their initiatives (e.g. number of participants);
   • Holding some initiatives back entirely or delaying implementation;
   • Shifting programme implementation and funding to the department’s agencies;
       and/or
   • Forging links with the private sector to open up opportunities and, where possible,
       funding for youth development.

The respondents from Housing stated that internal administrative processes caused huge
delays, even when sponsorship was secured. Minerals and Energy had secured
sponsorship from the private sector which, complemented by their own budget, raised
the entire programme budget for the skills development in the area of electrification to
R32 million. However, the programme was yet to be implemented due to delays.



                                                                                       37
Monitoring and evaluating the impact of youth development programmes was also a
challenge faced by the departments, especially because they tended to lose contact with
their beneficiaries. Other challenges related to the nature of programmes provided. For
example, the Department of Agriculture faced the challenge of a negative image among
black Africans because of the association of farming and related fields with low levels of
income and status.

Regarding Correctional Services, the respondent said because of its political mandate, the
government should not be seen to be spending more money on offenders than its law-
abiding citizens. Therefore, their budgets had to be kept minimal. For this reason, the
entire directorate of Arts and Culture, and Sports and Recreation within Correctional
Services was allocated a total of approximately R18 million to cover both national
coordination and the implementation of programmes in the provinces.

The view from the National Treasury respondent on the matter of inadequate budgets
was rather different. He argued that departments tend to under-spend on their budgets, a
factor which counts against them in their allocation for the next roll-out. He gave an
example of the Department of Home Affairs which was unable to spend R2 million for
training 100 interns as frontline staff in conjunction with UYF. The respondent
maintained that budget allocations mainly depend on the ‘push’ by governments, and
recommended that the youth sector should lobby individual departments to prioritise
youth development programmes in their budgets.

Youth development activities described by interview respondents varied from bursary
schemes and scholarships to internships, learnerships, entrepreneurship and technical
and skills development. The National Youth Service Programme which was implemented
in partnership with UYF and the NYC was also a key youth development activity among
the departments. Correctional Services raised an important issue about providing
technical and work opportunities for offenders. Due to pressures from unions, offenders
have to be paid stipends or ‘wages’. This has led the department to cut down on projects
of this kind (i.e. farming, vegetable gardening and production of furniture).

Table 11 details the youth development programmes implemented by departments as
outlined by the respondents. The difference between Table 11 and the previous ones is
that in the latter, the actual activities undertaken within youth development programmes
and projects are outlined as opposed to the broad programmes the departments use to
plan and budget. The budget amounts indicated here are actual monies budgeted for or
spent against the specific projects.

Much of the information availed during the interviews was missing in the annual reports
reviewed and some of the projects listed are new programmes which were only
commenced in the 2008/9 financial period. Thus, for example, with regard to Housing,
the only youth development-related item mentioned in the annual report was the
development of a strategic document. In the majority of cases, the actual budgets for
youth development programmes seldom exceeded R10 million in total during the 2006/7
period.



                                                                                       38
Table 11: Summary of key points raised by the interview respondents
 Department    Programme       Target                         Key youth-development activities                      Budget
               name            group
 Agriculture   Comprehensive   Tertiary          The scheme, which is administered on behalf of the                 R8.3 million
               Bursary         education         department by the National Student Financial Assistance
               Scheme          students          Scheme (NSFAS), was started to address the reality that ‘the
                                                 majority of blacks are in fields of study that are not needed by
                                                 the market’, resulting in high levels of unemployment of
                                                 agriculture graduates. The scheme finances studies in
                                                 several areas of scarce skills, where there is a shortage of
                                                 black graduates:

                                                 •   Agricultural engineering;
                                                 •   Viticulture (wine making);
                                                 •   Food technology;
                                                 •   Veterinary services;
                                                 •   Agricultural economics;
                                                 •   Biotechnology.

                                                 The scheme currently supports 250 students.
               Youth           Bachelor’s        Started in 2008, the PDP promotes advanced agricultural            R5 million
               Professional    degree            research capabilities by encouraging participating students to
               Development     students in       pursue honour’s, master’s and PhD degrees. The department
               Programme       requisite         enters into service-level agreements with various companies
               (PDP)           disciplines       within the industry in terms of which the companies avail
                                                 experienced individuals to mentor the students while they
                                                 undertake their studies. The programme invests around R100
                                                 000 per student per annum and currently has 50 recipients.
               Experiential    Young             Started in 2004, the programme annually recruits an                Not specified
               Learning and    unemployed        equivalent of 5% of the department’s total staff count (some
               Internship      graduates         160 to 170) and places participants on a 12-month internship
               Programme                         programme within the department countrywide. Interns
                                                 receive support in the form of mentorship and a monthly
                                                 allowance of around R5 000.
               Agri-Industry   Young             Started in 2005, the programme accommodates around 30              R3 million
               Development     people with       young people annually. Qualifying young people are attached
               Programme       matric       or   as interns to major agribusiness companies to gain practical
               (AIDP)          higher            experience and further knowledge. The department pays the
                               qualifications    interns and covers the full cost of the programme. To
                               and      some     enhance the interns’ business skills, the programme enrols
                               agribusiness      them for a one-year executive development programme
                               experience        which they attend on block-release basis at the Stellenbosch
                                                 Business School. The intention is to encourage and assist
                                                 them, upon completion, to start their own agribusinesses or
                                                 to buy into existing ones as BEE partners.

                                                 Around 100 have participated in the AIDP to date.


 Arts    and   Internships                       The department has several youth in internships.                   Not specified
 Culture
               Youth In Arts                     The programme will look at career choices in the arts and
               Programme                         create a pool of entrepreneurs in arts and culture.
               Youth                             This programme will link up with Heartlines to foster inter-
               Dialogues                         generational dialogue on values.
               Skills                            This initiative will look into existing skills exchange
               Exchange                          partnerships with overseas institutions and include a youth
               Programmes                        component.
               Cultural                          Initiatives in this area will seek to involve youth in the
               development                       Investing in Culture Programme which finances large projects
                                                 and in various projects undertaken by the department’s
                                                 Cultural Industries Section in craft, music, publishing and
                                                 multi-media, and film and television. Various sources of
                                                 finance, falling within the ambit of the department – National
                                                 Heritage Council, National Film & Video Fund, and National
                                                 Arts Council – will be tapped to finance youth-driven
                                                 ventures.




                                                                                                                                    39
Table 11 cont.: Summary of key points raised by the interview respondents
 Department     Programme            Target group                    Key youth-development activities                       Budget
                name


 Housing        Women         and    Women      and     NYS programme with 900 participants nationally, which               R7     million
                Youth           in   Youth              commenced in the 2007/8 financial year. Programme                   per year. The
                Housing                                 funded through the NHBRC.                                           budget       is
                                                                                                                            R49 million
                                                                                                                            over 5 years


 Minerals and   Youth     Focus      Grade 10 to        Started in 2005, the four-day conference showcases careers          R800       000
 Energy         Week                 12    learners     in the mining and energy sector to some fifty learners.             annually    for
                                     from               Experts in different fields from the regulator, private             two events
                                     disadvantaged      companies, and universities present to learners on training
                                     schools            and educational funding opportunities. To extend outreach to
                                                        more learners, DME has established partnership with
                                                        Science Unlimited, a one-week science expo visited by 40
                                                        000 learners, where DME pays for a hall at the Pretoria             R300         000
                                                        Showground and invites sector companies to exhibit career           annually
                                                        opportunities to learners.
                Youth        in      Young people       Started in 2005, YEM is a membership organisation for youth         R300         000
                Energy     and       with existing      in energy and mining. The DME co-founded the association            annually
                Mining (YEM)         businesses or      and helped it register as an NPO. The YEM invites members
                                     aspiring           to information sessions, e.g. on business opportunities in
                                     entrepreneurs      energy and mining, and has accompanied YEM to mining
                                     in the mining      companies to persuade companies to open up procurement
                                     and     energy     opportunities to YEM members. The Minister wants YEM
                                     sector             members to apply for mining licenses and be mentored by
                                                        large companies. The DME encourages mining and energy
                                                        companies to assist businesses owned by youth.
                Municipal            Young people       Driven by Eskom’s need for 42 000 electrically skilled people,      R12 million in
                Electrification      with an N6 or      since July 2007 the DME has employed young people to                2007 – to
                Support              S4 in electrical   undergo 24-month in-service training from DME and Eskom             grow to R32
                Programme            engineering        to be later assimilated by municipalities. With funding from        million     in
                                                        the National Skills Fund, the programme will take in 500            2008/09
                                                        youth in 2008. Participants receive a monthly stipend of R3
                                                        000.
                Mine     Health      Students with      Started in 2007, this is a 12-month accelerated training            R2 million
                and       Safety     matric pass        programme. Thirty students are currently being trained at
                Inspectors                              Wits University to become mine health and safety inspectors.
                Programme
                Internships and                         The internship runs over a 12-month period and currently has        No     specific
                learnerships                            253 interns. Each intern is paid R3 500 per month. The              budget
                                                        internship is linked to career paths within DME. The
                                                        internship is done on an ad hoc basis. Learnerships started
                                                        only in April 2008. There are four learners currently at internal
                                                        audit. The DME is now recruiting for learnerships in public         DME        used
                                                        management – learnerships.                                          R800        000
                                                                                                                            from HRD to
                                                                                                                            kick-start
                                                                                                                            programme;
                                                                                                                            overall budget
                                                                                                                            is R9 million
                                                                                                                            but          not
                                                                                                                            allocated
                                                                                                                            through      the
                                                                                                                            MTEF
                Malaysia             Tertiary           This programme, funded by the Malaysian government,                 Not specified
                scholarship          students           currently has 83 students studying different mining and
                programme                               energy-related disciplines in Malaysia




                                                                                                                                         40
Table 11 cont.: Summary of key points raised by the interview respondents
 Department     Programme          Target group                Key youth-development activities                     Budget
                name


 Housing        Women       and    Women    and    NYS programme with 900 participants nationally, which            R7     million
                Youth         in   Youth           commenced in the 2007/8 financial year. Programme                per year. The
                Housing                            funded through the NHBRC.                                        budget       is
                                                                                                                    R49 million
                                                                                                                    over 5 years


 Minerals and   The Training of    Accounting      Started in 2008, TOPP is a three-year training programme         R8.6     million
 Energy         Public             students   at   focusing on accounting students, with the aim of turning them    for both TOPP
                Practitioners      university      into chartered accountants to be employed in the public          and internship
                (TOPP)             level           service. The programme currently has 10 participants             programme
                programme                          (number governed by SAICA accreditation). Also under the
                                                   TOPP programme, National Treasury runs an external
                                                   bursary scheme which benefits 20 students annually, with the
                                                   intention of feeding them into TOPP, provided they qualify
                                                   through the programme’s recruitment process.
                The internship     Graduates,      Started in 2006, the two-year internship programme arose
                programme          honour’s and    out of a skills needs analysis within the National Treasury
                                   master’s        which revealed that the department requires some 20
                                   degree          employees Taxation, Economic modelling and Accounting.
                                   students        The programme currently has 46 interns.
 Social         Massification of                   The main focus is on coordination and monitoring and             Not specified
 Development    National Youth                     evaluation within the department nationally and provincially.
                Service                            The department also coordinates the national bid for MTEF
                                                   funding of the National Youth Service.
                Volunteerism                       The department identifies the need and coordinates
                                                   volunteerism initiatives, such as the National Youth Volunteer
                                                   Week, in South Africa, in civil society, private sector and
                                                   government.
                Masupatsela                        Started in October 2007 and scheduled to be launched in
                Youth Pioneer                      October 2008, the 18-month programme focuses on the need
                Programme                          to expand social work. It is done in collaboration with the
                                                   Cuban government, based on the Cuban model of social
                                                   work. The programme is now at curriculum development
                                                   stage. The programme will address the challenge facing the
                                                   country, that of inadequate profiling of households. The
                                                   programme aims to develop community profilers to respond
                                                   to this challenge. Young community profilers will go into
                                                   communities to profile them. Provinces are now appointing
                                                   programme managers. Around 930 young people will
                                                   participate in the programme.
                Banking on Our                     Done in partnership with UYF, this programme targets young
                Future                             women receiving child support grants and seeks to empower
                Programme                          them with exit opportunities and financial literacy and to
                                                   integrate into community and reduce their dependence. The
                                                   programme started with 150 young women, with the aim to
                                                   expand it to 50,000.
                Volunteer                          The department partnered with UYF three years ago to
                Assistant                          launch the Volunteer Assistant Probation Officer programme,
                Probation                          to develop VAPO to serve in places of safety.
                Officers
                (VAPO)

                Outreach
                programmes




                                                                                                                                41
6.5 Summary

Skills and career development dominated the youth development programmes of the
national departments interviewed. They mostly took the form of NYSPs, internships and
learnerships and educational assistance through bursaries. National departments have
dedicated units focusing on youth issues, or have youth as one of their focus groups.

A few of the programmes were allocated dedicated budgets, but many were not, and
these depend on general departmental budgets for their funding. All departments
identified inadequate funding as one of the key constraints they face in implementing
youth development programmes. They responded to this challenge by:

   •   Scaling back on the scope of some of their initiatives (e.g. number of participants);
   •   Holding some initiatives back entirely or delaying implementation;
   •   Shifting programme implementation and funding to the department’s agencies;
   •   Forging links with the private sector to open up opportunities; and
   •   Funding for youth development, where possible.

Impact measurement of programmes is limited by capacity and poor coordination
between monitoring units and programme implementing units.

The findings of the interviews are corroborated by those of an audit on the establishment
of Youth Directorates in government departments conducted by the NYC in 2007. A
questionnaire was circulated amongst departments to elicit responses on the how they
were addressing youth concerns through the establishment of these directorates.
Although some departments did not participate in the survey, one of the key findings it
made was that limited allocation of both financial and human resources was a stumbling
block in advancing the youth development agenda within government departments.




7. Value for money and equity in budgeting and
expenditure processes
Having reviewed the youth development–related budget and expenditure items of
government departments, the critical question to ask is: Are the budgeting and
expenditure processes equitable or fair and just in the light of the needs of and challenges
faced by young people? The ENE report states that during the budgeting process one of
the major considerations made is ‘value for money’ in order to achieve as much service
delivery as possible (National Treasury, 2008:i). Obviously what government
departments spend on reflects their priorities. This therefore begs the question: How is
value for money determined by the departments or by National Treasury?

In order to answer these questions, this section of the report looks at several programmes
(and their budgets) through which departments attempt to achieve youth development


                                                                                           42
objectives and to target unemployed and unskilled youth, namely: Further Education and
Training, Correctional Services and Sport and Recreation.

Most studies have established that in South Africa, poverty, unemployment and lack of
recreational activity are some of the major drivers of youth criminality. Sport and
recreation programmes have been found to be some of the most effective ways through
which young people can be involved in recreational activity whilst at the same time
building their capacity in various ways (e.g. as professional athletes, coaches,
administrators, etc.) (Hlakaniphila, 2006).

In order to address the issue of crime holistically it has been recommended that the focus
should be on preventing criminality whilst at the same time promoting sustainable
livelihoods among the youth. With some 3 million youth out of school and unemployed,
the majority of whom have not yet competed Grade 12, one would therefore expect the
government to invest more financial resources into interventions that substantially
reduce the likelihood of young people to commit crimes as well as their vulnerability to
other social ills.

Unfortunately, this is not reflected in current budgeting and expenditure process. For
example, partly in response to these issues, the government spent only R710 million in
2006/7 as part of a conditional grant of over three years on the recapitalisation of FET
colleges. By 2007, there were 50 FET colleges which had only 356 000 registered learners
nationally.

Contrast this with the amounts government spends on people in correctional facilities.
According to a Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) 2006/7 annual report,8 there were
161 674 prisoners in custody, housed in 237 prisons. Only 67 out of the 237 prisons in the
country were filled to the capacity for which they were designed. The rest were
overcrowded, some by more than 300% of their capacity. The report further states that it
costs R69 000 annually to house a prisoner. The cost of running prisons had escalated
from R3.7 billion in 1997 to almost R12 billion in 2007.9

In the following tables a comparison is made between the amounts government would
have invested on FET colleges versus selected programmes of the Correctional Services
department over a period of seven financial years. From these tables it can be seen that
although the recapitalisation of FET colleges increases from 2006/7 to 2008/9, it decreases
significantly from 2009. This suggests that the government does not foresee an immense
expansion of the programme going beyond the existing 50 colleges. The budget for
Correctional programmes, however, will have doubled to R8.1 billion by 2011.

Ironically, it is within the prison system that many young people are able to further their
studies. The department reports that some 24 000 sentenced offenders participated in
various formal educational programmes in the 2006/7 financial period, the majority of
whom were young people.

8   Cited in http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_2216050,00.html

9   The Department’s own estimate is R123.37 per day which works out to over R45 000 per year.


                                                                                                 43
Table 12: Further Education and Training Programme (R Thousand)
                 Audited income                         Adjusted              Medium-term expenditure estimate
                                                      appropriation

   2004/5           2005/6           2006/7               2007/8           2008/9         2009/10         2010/2011

      150 364          238 461             710 891           1 023 353      1 189 964         203 134         211 134

Source: National Treasury, Estimates of National Expenditure 2008


Table 13: Correctional Services – selected programmes*(R Thousand)
  Programme                  Audited income                   Adjusted appropriation                     Medium-term
                                                                                                         expenditure
                                                                                                         estimate
                    2004/5        2005/6         2006/7         2007/8      2008/9        2009/10          2010/2011

 Security           2 706 205     3 051 627      2 931 981     3 444 847    3 873 242        4 116 254      4 433 021
 Corrections          481 083       631 560        722 000     1 091 580    1 064 678        1 125 249      1 211 717
 Care                 725 899     1 028 059      1 090 692     1 291 561    1 394 735        1 457 670      1 601 463
 Development          266 008       478 337        347 054       394 348      396 615          476 337        509 011
 Social               288 079       301 335        319 166       371 356      386 538          411 320        442 021
 Reintegration
        TOTAL       4 467 274     5 490 918      5 410 893     6 593 692    7 115 808        7 586 830      8 197 233
*These amounts exclude the expenditure on Administration, Security and Facilities Programmes
Source: National Treasury, Estimates of National Expenditure 2008

Similarly, if one looks at the country’s investment into sport and recreation, one finds that
it is skewed towards the development of infrastructure and the management of the FIFA
2010 World Cup event, rather than also focusing on the development of the capacity of
communities to utilise and manage the utilisation of facilities that will be created.

This weak link between sport and recreation and achieving developmental objectives is
also reflected in the budgeting and expenditure processes. For example, while in 2006/7
the government allocated R603 million towards the FIFA 2010 World Cup unit, only R124
million went towards preparing interested parties through the Mass Participation
Programme. It is through such programmes that the Department of Sport and Recreation
targets unemployed youth in order to develop their skills and prepare them for
employment or self-employment (e.g. as administrators, coaches or as professional
athletes).

These points are reflected in the following two tables. The tables show that although the
investment in the Mass Participation Programme would have increased steadily over the
seven- (financial) year period from R26 million to R430 million in 2010/11, it will not
match that which will have been made in the FIFA World Cup unit, even if the latter will
have been reduced to R303 million by 2010/11.




                                                                                                                      44
Table 14: Mass Participation Programme *(R Thousand)
 Audited income                                  Adjusted               Medium-term expenditure estimate
                                                 appropriation

       2004/5        2005/6         2006/7           2007/8           2008/9         2009/10          2010/2011

           26 309        34 685        124 703           211 089        301 851        410 250           430 813

*This excludes the School Sport Sub-Programme
Source: National Treasury, Estimates of National Expenditure 2008



Table 15: FIFA World Cup Unit (R Thousand)
 Audited income                                  Adjusted          Medium-term expenditure estimate
                                                 appropriation

       2004/5        2005/6         2006/7           2007/8           2008/9         2009/10          2010/2011

                -       243 483        603 914         4 622 000       2 916 138      1 910 131          303 170

Source: National Treasury, Estimates of National Expenditure 2008

In summary, the four tables show that by 2011, the government would have spent as
follows:

   •      R44.8 billion on the care and development of people in prisons;
   •      R3.7 billion on further education and training;
   •      R1.5 billion on the development of athletes and professionals through the mass
          participation programme (excluding school sports); and
   •      R10.5 billion on the development of infrastructure for the FIFA World Cup.

On the basis of the above analyses it can be argued that budget and expenditure
processes are not equitable and in many respects do not offer the value for money
intended. Although some advances are being made, South Africa is still largely spending
more resources on alleviating the symptoms of socio-economic problems rather than on
the root causes. Poverty, inequality, unemployment and poor educational performance lie
at the root of the challenges faced by South Africa’s youth, and these are yet to be
adequately addressed.


8. Summary and analysis of gaps
This study has reviewed budget allocations and expenditure on youth development by
all the 34 national departments during the 2006/7 financial period. The aim of this review
was to assess the extent to which these budget allocations and expenditure were
intentionally responsive to the needs and challenges faced by unemployed and unskilled
youth by enabling them to access opportunities to skills development, employment and
self-employment for sustainable livelihoods. The focus of the review was on the
monetary value of the budgets allocated for youth development as well as the types of
interventions the departments financed to address the challenges young people currently
face.




                                                                                                                  45
The study found that there were approximately 18 million young people in South Africa,
who constitute nearly 40% of the population. The youth were also found to be the most
likely to bear the brunt of socio-economic challenges such as unemployment, poverty,
poor academic and technical skills levels, crime, HIV/AIDS and other social problems. It
was also established that in line with global trends, youth unemployment is the single
largest challenge facing young people today. In 2007, youth constituted approximately
33% of the unemployed. Therefore, in order to achieve the targets set for the United
Nations Millennium Goals for 2014, South Africa will have to significantly reduce youth
unemployment.

Notwithstanding the huge challenges facing young people, the study also found that
globally, youth development approaches emphasise the contribution young people can
make in achieving national development objectives when their potential is enhanced.
These approaches view young people as valuable assets rather than burdens to society.
Youth development is thus seen as a vehicle for developing entire communities, whilst
empowering the youth in the process.

In view of the above, the following main gaps were identified in the budgeting and
expenditure processes of national departments to the extent that they respond to the
challenges faced by the youth.

   1. Only 6 national departments out of a total of 34 had specific youth budgets during
      the 2006/7 fiscal period. During the same period, the collective youth budget was
      estimated at approximately R703 million. This constituted approximately 0.27% of
      the total collective budget allocation of over R260 billion to national departments.
      This is in spite the fact that these departments were collectively allocated 55% of
      the national budget during the 2006/7 financial period. Of the estimated R703
      million that constituted the youth budget, nearly R420 million was allocated to
      national youth development institutions established by government (i.e. NYC and
      UYF) to implement various kinds of programmes, services and support to
      approximately 18 million young people. Clearly, the value of financial resources
      allocated as part of the youth budget is very small when viewed as a proportion of
      the allocations to the departments.

   2. The fact that only a few national departments have dedicated youth budgets
      mirrors the reality that the majority of them have not mainstreamed youth
      development into their core service delivery processes and mechanisms, which
      include planning, budgeting and expenditure. Moreover, with the exception of
      ASGISA- and JIPSA-related requirements for the development of scarce skills,
      most departmental budgets did not reflect specific outcome-based programmes
      that have set targets for redressing other challenges faced by the youth,
      particularly with regard to job and self-employment creation.

   3. Upon reviewing the nature and types of youth development programmes national
      departments implement, it was found that interventions were skewed towards
      programmes that do not promote or support sustainable livelihoods among young
      people. Instead, only an insignificantly small amount of R703 million was invested


                                                                                       46
   into youth development programmes for skills development, employment and
   self-employment creation. The study found that youth also benefited indirectly
   and incidentally through sustainable livelihoods programmes targeted at the
   general population. The estimated value of these programmes was R1.7 billion.
   The combined value of all skills development, job and self-employment creation
   and support programmes could be estimated to be just under R1.5 billion for the
   year 2006/7. By sharp contrast, approximately R11.8 billion was spent on youth
   development programmes for raising the levels of awareness and for prevention
   on a variety of issues including health and wellbeing, crime, HIV/AIDS, sports,
   etc. A disjuncture thus exists between the type of interventions departments made
   and the key challenges facing young people.

4. Although the MTEF provides for departments to report on target beneficiaries and
   programme participants, there is still a lot of under-reporting, especially on youth
   beneficiaries. Many departments do not disaggregate their target beneficiaries by
   cohorts (e.g. youth, women, disabled etc.) in their reporting. This limits scrutiny
   and analysis of the actual expenditure on programmes that benefit the different
   cohorts of vulnerable groups. It also limits the evaluation of the effectiveness of
   such interventions. Thus, as the PSC (2007) found during their audit of poverty
   reduction programmes, there is a general lack of systems and standards among
   government departments when it comes to information management and
   reporting. There is thus a need for closer monitoring of the use of the MTEF as a
   planning, budgeting and reporting tool.

5. Because departments did not cost their activities but budgeted according to broad
   programme and sub-programme plans, it was not feasible to establish the
   relationship between the cost of each programme activity and the desired outputs
   and outcomes. For example, although the majority of departments implemented
   internship and learnership programmes, there was no framework for determining
   the Rand value of these programmes as well as the cost breakdown per
   participant/beneficiary. It is thus not clear what the return on investment was for
   each of the activities undertaken as actual expenditure on specific programmes
   could not be ascertained. This explains the discrepancies between the amounts for
   budget allocations and expenditure as reflected in the reports and those provided
   by interview respondents. In summary the process of budgeting and expenditure
   on youth development and related programmes among departments was largely
   arbitrary.

6. The above gaps in the budgeting and expenditure processes reflect the lack of a
   coordinated, common approach to youth development and related programmes.
   Youth development programmes are generally not implemented in a way that
   upholds the view that young people are as much core to service delivery as they
   are beneficiaries of development programmes. Departmental interventions reveal a
   reactive approach to youth development. Instead of merely intervening to solve
   the problems faced by young people, departments should rather be exploring the
   best ways to engage the youth in the development of the nation.



                                                                                    47
   7. For various reasons, certain departments under-spend on their budgets as shown
      in Table 16. Some of this revenue, which is returned to the National Treasury,
      could be utilised for special projects for skills development, job and self-
      employment creation and other programmes that promote sustainable livelihoods.


      Table 16: Under-expenditure in the 2006/7 financial year – selected national departments
       Department                   Budget             Actual spent   Unspent   %      in   % in 2005/6
                                    Allocation (000)   (000)          (000)     2006/7
       Agriculture                          R2 367 6   R2 219 5       R148 1    6.25%       4.56%

       Correctional                        R9 831 5    R9 251 2       R580 3    5.90%       27.63%
       Services
       Housing                             R7 333 7    R7 165 9       R167 7    2.28%       0.45%

       Sport and                             R959 9    R886 5         R7 33     7.64%       4.82%
       Recreation
       Trade and                            R3942 0    R3 804 7       R137 3    3.48%       7.06%
       Industry
       Water Affairs and Forestry          R4 660 3    R4 305 6       R354 6    7.61%       5.55%

      Sources: 2006/7 annual reports

   8. Finally, using the examples of sport and recreation, corrections and education, the
      study has shown that the ways in which government allocates financial resources
      for youth development are not equitable as they do not reasonably address the
      core challenges faced by youth and address the causes thereof. The study found
      that not enough resources were invested in programmes that have the potential to
      prevent young people from being involved in activities such as crime, an issue that
      the government is currently grappling with.




9. Conclusions
Based on the findings and the analysis, five broad conclusions can be drawn from this
study:

   1. The majority of national departments do not prioritise youth development and
      related programmes in their budgeting and expenditure processes. This is
      evidenced by the lack of mainstreaming of youth development.
   2. The majority of departments do not have youth budgets. Where youth budgets
      exist, the financial resources allocated are insufficient to meet the vast challenges
      faced by young people, the biggest of which is unemployment.
   3. The majority of youth development programmes implemented by national
      departments do not promote sustainable livelihoods through skills development,
      job creation and self-employment. Instead, expenditure is biased towards
      awareness, prevention and related programmes for social development. These
      interventions are mismatched with the core challenges facing young people.
   4. Whether intentional or not, the approach of many national departments towards
      youth development upholds the view that young people are merely beneficiaries




                                                                                                          48
      of development programmes instead of participants and agents of change in
      service delivery for the achievement of national development objectives.
   5. Budgeting and expenditure by the majority of national departments does not
      address the challenges faced by South African young people adequately, equitably,
      effectively and sustainably.




10. Recommendations
It is clear from this review that not enough resources are deliberately invested into youth
development. Furthermore, the few resources that are allocated are not utilised to
promote sustainable livelihoods and to address the major challenges of unemployment,
shortage of skills and low entrepreneurship levels. It is therefore recommended that each
department reviews how it spends on youth development and makes a more concerted
effort to spend more resources on Category I types of programmes such as NYS,
internships and SMME development programmes. Departmental polices and frameworks
for budgeting and spending should deliberately make youth the core of service delivery,
both as beneficiaries of and as partners in service delivery.

Specific recommendations are made for particular stakeholders below.


10.1 Recommendations to the National Treasury

The National Treasury should enforce the use of the MTEF framework for reporting,
monitoring and evaluating the impact of service delivery by departments. Departments
should be encouraged to clearly report against target beneficiaries with the youth clearly
identified as target beneficiaries as is the case with disabled persons and women. An
opportunity exists for Treasury to develop young people as project managers responsible
for ensuring that departments at all three spheres of government enforce MTEF
guidelines.

Although the respondent from National Treasury stated that this department cannot
advocate for a youth budget, it is still within the mandate of National Treasury to
prioritise the needs of marginal and historically disadvantaged sections of the population
such as youth, women and the disabled in the budgeting processes. National Treasury
has the responsibility to ensure that more resources are allocated to youth development
programmes that promote sustainable livelihoods.

Departments which are actively facilitating job creation and the promotion of livelihoods
among all groups of society should be commended and supported by the National
Treasury. For example, an incentive system can be created for departments whose
responsibility is not primarily job creation (e.g. a bonus budget for youth activities
coming out of under-expenditure revenue).




                                                                                        49
The allocation of the budgets to departments should not only be based on what
departments request or on the ‘push’ for particular items. Rather, budgeting processes
should be intentional and based on researched facts about the developmental needs and
expected developmental outcomes. There needs to be a process and system that will
ensure that allocations are based on researched facts and intended development
outcomes rather than just on what government departments are asking for and which
department bid the hardest. In particular, the evaluation of requests for budget
allocations should be centred around the direct impact of government expenditure on job
creation and development, especially that of vulnerable groups.

A ‘quick win’ for the department of National Treasury would be to disseminate
information on the budgeting process to various interest groups such as those
representing the youth and women, and political and church organisations. More
information is also needed on how the budgeting and expenditure processes work as well
on their strengths and weaknesses.


10.2 Recommendations to the Public Service Commission

The department should familiarise other departments with its database and train their
officials in the use thereof as well as in project management and M&E. Once again, an
opportunity exists for this particular department to train young people in the population,
management, and M&E of such databases. The information gathered from projects can
then be used for compiling annual reports in a consistent manner. Clear targets should be
set and reported for youth over and above those for women and disabled persons.

It is also recommended that the requirement for departments to recruit interns
representing only 5% of their total staff complement as interns be reviewed. Gleaning
from the example of the Department of Social Development, which was able to place 66
interns in the 2006/7 period (or 30% of its staff complement), it is possible for the target to
be increased. More young people could benefit from internship, learnership, and
mentorship programmes provided by the departments.


10.3 Recommendations to other government departments

All departments should have a youth unit with a dedicated budget, whether
independently or combined with other units for other vulnerable groups. Departments
should also substantially increase their youth development budgets and divert more
funding into programmes that promote sustainable youth. There are many opportunities
for job creation and entrepreneurship development presented by the shortages of skills.
Departments should look beyond the typical internships and learnerships and venture
into programmes that promote self-employment among the youth. Other opportunities
include:

   •   Public Service Information;
   •   Business Process Outsourcing;


                                                                                            50
   •   Online Procurement (e-health; e-education);
   •   Data capturing;
   •   Call centres.


10.4 Recommendations to youth development organisations

Youth development organisations should lobby government departments at all spheres to
invest more resources into youth development, and mainly those that promote
sustainable livelihoods. One way of ensuring that this issue stays on the priority list of
government departments is for the sector to organise an employment/self-employment
or job summit whose objective is to propose a policy and strategy document with clear
guidelines on what line departments should do to contribute towards job creation and
self-employment. The strategy should also outline in very clear terms how line
departments should integrate youth development into their job-creation strategies as they
deliver services (i.e. mainstreaming youth development).

Secondly, a monitoring and evaluation tool is urgently needed to enable government
departments to evaluate the impact of their interventions. Both the MTEF and the model
provided by the PSC are a good starting point. The Fiscal Service Commission should be
lobbied to provide better oversight over expenditure by government departments to
ensure that more spending goes towards projects that facilitate income generation.

Thirdly, the youth sector should develop, pilot and package programmes in ways that
make it straightforward for departments to implement. Internships, learnerships and
NYS are cases in point. Where a programme has a specific model with definite outcomes
and can be implemented consistently, departments are most likely to respond positively.
Programmes must be linked to other development strategies and integrated in a value-
chain. For example, a road safety campaign can link infrastructural development and
maintenance to transportation, health and safety standards, information and awareness
and promotion of culture (e.g. use of South African flag).

Fourthly, the youth sector should educate and raise the level of awareness among
government officials about how young people can be core to service delivery, both as
agents of implementation and as beneficiaries.

Finally, a follow-up study should be conducted on a yearly basis with the aim of
improving on the methodology for assessing allocations and expenditure on youth
development whilst at the same time monitoring and evaluating the impact of
government interventions on the lives of young people.

The above recommendations are in line with those forwarded by the World Development
Report which states that there are three strategic directions to reform policies and
institutions dealing with or impacting upon youth, namely:

   •   Broadening opportunities for developing human capital by expanding access to
       and improving the quality of education and health services;


                                                                                       51
   •   Developing young people’s capabilities to choose opportunities well and become
       decision-making agents; and
   •   Providing young people with second chances through targeted programmes that
       give young people the hope and incentives to catch up where they have missed
       opportunities.

Policy and institutional reform will have to be matched by adequate resource allocation if
the desired impact is to be made.


10.5 Further areas of research

Other areas for further research on the topic of youth budgets for government
departments include:

   •   Comparison of South Africa with other developing countries as well as
       benchmarking against selected developed countries in relation to youth budgets
       for sustainable livelihoods. These comparative studies should also review how
       youth unemployment and other challenges affecting youth are addressed through
       youth development programmes;
   •   Impact (social and economic) of youth development programmes implemented by
       government departments. This should include an audit of the different types of
       programmes and activities undertaken and how these address the core challenges
       faced by youth whilst they empower young people to take up different
       opportunities; and
   •   Analysis of departmental youth development programmes at provincial and local
       levels.




                                                                                       52
11. Bibliography

Banerjee, A. et al (2006). Why Has Unemployment Risen in the New South Africa? CID
Working Paper No. 134 October 2006, Washington DC: Harvard University.

Bhorat, H. (no date). Youth and Social Security in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Paper written
for the Development Policy Research Unit, Cape Town: UCT.

Bosma, N. & Hard, R. Global Entrepreneurship Report 2006. Cape Town: UCT.

Budlender, D. (2008). Own notes and statistical analysis of General Household Survey
data.

Centre for Development Enterprise (2007). ‘The Struggle for Jobs: Evidence from the
South African Young Persons Survey’, in CDE Focus, No. 13, July 2007.

Community Agency for Social Enquiry (2006). The Youth Budget Review: A Discussion of the
Responsiveness of National Expenditure to the Needs of Youth. Commissioned by the Youth
Desk in the Presidency.

Department of Education (2008). Education Statistics in South Africa – 2006. Republic of
South Africa: Department of Education.

Development Policy Research Unit (2006). Graduate Unemployment in Post-Apartheid South
Africa: Nature and Possible Policy Responses. Research Report Compiled for Standard Bank
and Business Leadership South Africa by the School of Economics, University of Cape
Town. Cape Town: Centre for Development Enterprise.

Hlakaniphila Analytics (2006). Youth in Conflict with the Law: An Assessment of Context and
Interventions. Research Commissioned by the Umsobomvu Youth Fund. Midrand: UYF.

HSRC (2005). Status of the Youth in South Africa. Research commissioned by the
Umsobomvu Youth Fund. Midrand: UYF.

Instant Grass (2007). Livelihood Strategies. Presentation to the Human Sciences Research
Council Roundtable Discussions , 9 October 2007.

Kraak, A (2006). ‘”Academic drift”’ in South African Technikons: Beneficial or
Detrimental?’ Article written for the Human Sciences Research Council.

KPMG (2007). Economic Sector Youth Job Prospects Analysis Report. Research commissioned
by Umsobomvu Youth Fund. Midrand: UYF.

Maas, G. & Herrington, M. (2007). Global Entrepreneurship Report 2007. Cape Town: UCT.



                                                                                          53
Magongo, B. (2006). 2005 Impact Assessment Survey on Sustainable Livelihoods and Households for
the Goelama Project commissioned and funded by the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund (Goelama
project) to the Centre for AIDS Development, Research and Evaluation (CADRE). Johanesburg:
Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund.

Maleke, P. & Ncgaweni, B. Youth Outside the Mainstream. Paper prepared for the
Development Bank of Southern Africa.

Mathebula, V. & Mahlangu, V. (2008). Status of Youth in the Provinces Using Selected
Indicators. Report for the Umsobomvu Youth Fund. Midrand: UYF.

Mphuthing, T. & Mathebula, V. (2006). Government Departments implementing Youth
Development Programmes similar to those offered by UYF. Report for the Umsobomvu Youth
Fund. Midrand: UYF.

National Treasury (2008i). Budget Review. Pretoria: Republic of South Africa.

National Treasury (2008ii). Estimates of National Expenditure 2008. Pretoria: National
Treasury

National Youth Commission (2007). South African National Youth Policy. 1st Draft.

National Youth Commission (2007). Audit Report on the Establishment of Youth Directorates
in Government Departments. Pretoria: National Youth Council.

National Youth Commission (1997). National Youth Policy Framework. Pretoria: NYC.

National Youth Service Unit (2008). National Youth Service: Exit Opportunity Study in
National and Provincial Government Departments. Final Draft Report. Research
commissioned by the Umsobomvu Youth Fund. Midrand: UYF.

NSFD (2006). People – Planet – Prosperity: A Strategic Framework for Sustainable Development
in South Africa. Draft for Public Comment.

Ncgaweni, B. & Matamba, L. (2006). The Second Economy: A Theoretical Conceptual
Framework for Understanding and Addressing Poverty and Underdevelopment in South Africa.
Draft Document for Discussion.

Nicholson, D. M. J. (1999). The Budget Process: A Guide for South African Legislators. Durban:
The Health Systems Trust.

Pharoah, R. (2008). The Status of Poor White Youths in South Africa. Preliminary Report
Prepared for the Umsobomvu Youth Fund. Midrand: UYF.

Public Service Commission (2008). State of the Public Service Report. Pretoria: Public Service
Commission.




                                                                                            54
Public Service Commission (2007). Report on an Audit of Government’s Poverty Programmes
and Projects. Pretoria: Public Service Commission.

Public Service Commission (2007). Report on the Evaluation of Government’s Poverty
Programme. Pretoria: Public Service Commission.

Public Service Commission (2006). Gender Mainstreaming Initiatives in the Public Service.
Pretoria: Public Service Commission.

The Presidency (2007). Accelerated Shared Growth Report: Annual Report 2007. Pretoria, The
Presidency.

The Second Economy Strategy Project (2008). Review of Second Economy Programmes.
Research commissioned by the Presidency.

The World Bank (2007). World Development Report: Development and the Next Generation.
Washington DC: World Bank.

Trialogue (2007). Baseline Survey on the Private Sector Support for Youth Development.
Research commissioned by Umsobomvu Youth Fund on behalf of the Youth Desk in the
Presidency. Midrand: UYF.

VOSESA (2007). Modelling Youth Development Approach. Report Commissioned by the
Umsobomvu Youth Fund. Midrand: UYF.

White, S. & Luswazi, N. (2007). Lessons We’ve Learned: Skills Development and Transfer
through National Youth Service. Research commissioned by the Umsobomvu Youth Fund.
Midrand: UYF

YouthBuild International (2008). Presentation Notes on the Umsobomvu Youth Fund –
YouthBuild Partnership Workshop, January 2008. Midrand: UYF.

Parliamentary monitoring group meeting reports

2010 FIFA World Cup and 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup: Local Organising Committee
Update, 17 June 2008.

Department of Sport and Recreation South Africa: Hearings on 2007/8 Budget Vote and
Strategic Plan, 20 March 2008.

Medium Term Budget Policy Statement: Departmental Hearings: Education, Health,
Housing & Transport, 28 October 2008.

Office on the status of Disabled Persons and Umsobomvu Youth Fund: Strategic Plans
and Budgets for 2008/9, 23 May 2008.

Provincial Expenditure Patterns for Conditional Grants for Sport, 22 October 2008.


                                                                                       55
Sport and Recreation Minister on Budget and Strategic Plan 2008/9, 11 March 2008.


Replies to the National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

Oral reply by the Minister of Education to Question 22 Further Education and Training,
20 March 2007.

Oral reply by the Minister of Education to Question 39 on the School Nutrition
Programme, 7 February 2008.

Written reply by the Minister of Education to Question 287 on the number of learners and
research on drop-out rates, 29 February 2008.

Written reply by the Minister of Education to Question 474 on the number of graduates
and drop-out rates in FETS and HETs, 14 March, 2008.




                                                                                     56
Annexures




            57
Annexure 1

Mapping of the prevailing structures and operations of youth-related policy institutions in South Africa
            Structure                                     Role and composition                                      Status
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE AND YOUTH STRUCTURES
Parliament of South Africa – Joint   The JMC comprises members of both the National Assembly and            Parliament    since
Monitoring Committee (JMC) on        National Council of Provinces. The JMC’s role is to exercise           1994;      Committee
Children, Youth and Persons with     oversight over state organs responsible for the advancement of         since 1999
Disabilities                         the rights of the child, youth and persons with disability. This
                                     includes the NYC and OSPD in the Presidency. It is envisaged to        Functions to become
                                     exercise heightened oversight over the NYC in fulfilment of its        more articulated in
                                     mandate, potentially also through the mechanism of quarterly           terms of this policy, as
                                     reports.                                                               for the extended role
                                                                                                            being envisaged
                                     The JMC is also envisaged to be an arrangement to fully support
                                     the NYC in fulfilment of its mandate, including through enhanced
                                     JMC monitoring of government departments’ fulfilment of youth
                                     policy mandates, thus helping the NYC as non-implementing
                                     agency to work more effectively, and bring its operations into the
                                     public ambit.
National Youth Commission (NYC)      A statutory body established by law. Its primary roles are policy      Established 1996
                                     development for the youth sector, coordination, monitoring and
                                     advocacy around youth issues.
South African     Youth   Council    A national, non-governmental forum of youth organisations. The         Established 1997
(SAYC)                               SAYC is an autonomous, non-partisan, representative body of
                                     youth located in civil society.

Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF)           A youth development programme with a mandate to facilitate and         Established 2001
                                     promote the creation of jobs and skills development among South
                                     African unemployed and out-of-school youth. The UYF houses
                                     the National Youth Service Unit (NYSU). It reports to the
                                     Department of Labour.
The Presidency of South Africa –     The Minister reports to Cabinet Committees regarding progress          The NYDPF,       2002,
Minister in the Presidency           in youth development, provides strategic support, facilitates the      enables            this
                                     PYWG and youth initiatives associated with key government              arrangement
                                     interventions, and acts as the link between national line
                                     departments and youth development actions.
Youth Desk in Policy Coordination    Coordinates youth development strategic initiatives of                 Established 2006
and Advisory Services (PCAS)         government within the cluster system and provide advisory
(Presidency)                         services and support to the President, Deputy Presidency and
                                     the Minister in the Presidency. It thus coordinates reporting to the
                                     IMC, and also monitors implementation of policy in the cluster
                                     system.




                                                                                                                                   58
                 Structure                                                    Role and composition
Cabinet Clusters and Cabinet Committees          Clusters are Cabinet-linked agencies for the coordination of policy
                                                 implementation and for action on the government. The Cabinet Committees are
                                                 related structures in which the political executives coordinate government policy
                                                 operations.
                                                 All clusters need to integrate youth development as core business of the line
                                                 departments in the cluster.
                                                 An executive structure (chaired by the Deputy President) that strengthens,
Inter-Ministerial Committee                      monitors and strategically intervenes when necessary. It also facilitates the
                                                 mainstreaming of youth development within the agenda of government.
National Government Departments                  The bureaucratic implementation agencies for mainstreamed youth policy. Also
                                                 accountable for monitoring and evaluating the impact of policies and programmes
                                                 designed for young people.
Youth Directorates in Departments                Directorates (sometimes also referred to as desks) to prioritise youth issues and
                                                 serve as anchor for the implementation of youth policy and the mainstreaming of
                                                 youth activities as stated in the Programme of Action. In some departments they
                                                 are effective; in others they need to be enhanced.
Presidential Youth Working Group (PYWG)          A multi-sector, national advisory body to establish a foundation for the
                                                 development of a common vision towards the formulation and implementation of
                                                 youth development policies and programmes. It is envisaged that a range of key
                                                 stakeholders from designated sectors will participate. It has an advisory status.
Youth Development Forum (YDF)                    A national coordination mechanism is multi-sectoral and non-statutory, and is
                                                 chaired by the Deputy President. It is intended to provide a platform for state
                                                 owned enterprises, the private sector, government and the NYC to deliberate on
                                                 how, collectively, all social partners can intensify youth development interventions
                                                 through partnerships, the introduction of youth-friendly investment policies and
                                                 programmes, target setting, etc. Advisory status.
Interdepartmental   Committee       on   Youth   A structure for the interface between government departments and NYC,
Affairs (IDC)                                    focusing on youth issues/interests and intended to drive the prioritisation of youth
                                                 issues through departmental planning and implementation. It needs to operate
                                                 more effectively.
Inter-ministerial Committee (IMC)                A committee chaired by the Deputy President, and comprising other Cabinet
                                                 members. The NYC submits reports to both the Minister in the Presidency and
                                                 the IMC. It facilitates mainstreaming and action on youth policy matters.
Social Cluster Youth Development Task            A structure that acts as an interface between cluster and sector government
Team                                             departments, focusing on youth issues and interests. Its activities concern
                                                 collaboration at the narrow implementation level. Important participants include
                                                 programme managers from departments involved in the Programme of Action.
Social Cluster Youth Development Task            A structure that acts as an interface between cluster and sector government
Team                                             departments, focusing on youth issues and interests. Its activities concern
                                                 collaboration at the narrow implementation level. Important participants include
                                                 programme managers from departments involved in the Programme of Action.
                                                 Commenced in 2006




                                                                                                                                    59