Poverty Eradication

Poverty Eradication: Session 1 B 12 October 1999

Existing situation

The democratic governments policies e.g. RDP and actions such as the major reallocation of the national budget in favour of social expenditure, emphasizes the commitment to address poverty and the inequality inherited by the government. The CIU in the Presidents office plays a role in co-ordinating and the Department of Welfare has a lead responsibility within the social sector departments.
The White Parer for Social Welfare emphasizes in Section 27 the Departments policy on AWar on Poverty@. The paradigm shift from a traditional welfarist approach to a developmental approach must be mainstreamed into all aspects of the Department=s work.
During 1999 the formulation of an Anti-poverty strategy for the department of welfare has been identified as a priority and some initial thinking has been done. Finalization of this work continues to have a high priority status. This process must critically review the social assistance programmes, the social services, policies, institutional arrangements and programmes.
The work on the comprehensive social security system, the financing policy for welfare services, a range of subsidiary policies in the fields of work such as the NGO sector, on partnerships, on children, older persons, women, gender and the Poverty Relief Programme are adopting a poverty eradication focus.
While there is enthusiasm for this new paradigm, problems include, both within the Department and among the partners and stakeholders, little understanding and practical application of this paradigm shift. Minimal efforts were made to build capacity and ensure that there is common understanding of these concepts: poverty eradication and the developmental approach articulated in the White Paper for Social Welfare.

Critical Issues raised by evaluation of the Department=s responses

Despite the increasing budget over the past several years, funds for new initiatives are limited. The Department has identified areas within existing expenditure patterns and the extensive work on the pension payment system to eradicate fraud to generate savings. However the objective of utilizing these savings for work on poverty programmes and work in under-serviced areas has been frustrated by policies of the Department of Finance and State Expenditure.
The absence of the anti-poverty strategy leads to incongruity in the understanding and approach to realizing the goal of the White Paper. Adopting a clear definition of poverty, perhaps that which speaks to social exclusion and human development index will expedite adoption of programmes and policies with a poverty focus.
The critical need for reliable and appropriate information has been identified as a major obstacle to promoting an understanding of the issues, targeting and planning.
The transition from a welfare approach to a developmental one is handicapped by the lack of experience in the sector on work in the poverty field. A change in the recruitment policy and criteria for staff, building the capacity of staff and broadening the range of NGO with whom the Departments works could be accelerated. The buying in of expertise through mentoring and placements would also assist to address the deficit in the Department and amongst key stakeholders.
A stronger investment is required from the Department of Welfare to ensure that an integrated process of human capacity and community capacity building takes place to fight poverty and promote social integration.
The building of partnerships with other government departments, NGOs and the private sector is critical. The recognition for this approach, the building of the necessary skills to manage and build relationships, design and manage contracts and the appropriate competencies for a new public management needs to be built.
The Poverty Relief and Infrastructure Investment Fund has provided an exceptional opportunity to the Department of Welfare to access additional resources. However the consequences of the time-frame and the lack of preparedness for such a programme has contributed to set of institutional arrangements which has both positive and adverse qualities. The positive consequence has been the development of partnership with emerging organisations through to large development organisations and international partners while the difficulties relate to attempts to adopt one approach with all provinces. The FY 2000-2003 programme offers a fresh start and incorporation of lessons from the last two years.

Agenda for Transformation in Government

The pursuit of an integrated development and the prioritizing of the Integrated Rural Development Strategy and provinces (KZN, NP, EC) for intervention could be valuable in focusing. There are opportunities for inter-sectoral work through initiatives such as the spacial development initiatives and work of departments such as Water Affairs= Working for Water project; Environment Affairs= Waste Management Programme and Tourisms= encouragement of community involvement in the industry to mention a few.
Through the CIU and other processes the clarification of the niche for Welfare is urgent. The Commitments of the Social Summit offers South Africa and Welfare a foundation for our approach and an impetus for constant monitoring and learning through the reporting process.
The involvement of all citizens and institutions through individual endeavor and through partnerships has been articulated by the democratic government since its inception. The Presidency has accomplished much through special focus on this issue. The climate has been created and needs to be exploited.
The country has chosen an approach that recognizes the role of communities and their participation. The challenge to all departments is to enable this directly through design of programmes that involve CBO/NGOs, fund and encourage their development and indirectly by creating an environment that fosters their growth. The country has made progress on this front and there is room for further evolution.
The existing medium-term approach to poverty relief funding over a three year cycle (FY 2000 B 2003) creates the platform for a 4-year anti-poverty funding cycle. The Department of Welfare believes that this provides an opportunity for taking an approach which promotes the establishment and growth of Adevelopment nodes@ and contribute to local economic development.

This approach requires strong collaborative projects, methodologies grounded in research and accurate reliable information systems for decision-making. The Department of Welfare is pursuing all these measures in the design and implementation of a long-term anti-poverty strategy. This programme design establishes the foundation for a trajectory of development from poverty relief to poverty reduction to poverty eradication.

This shift raises important considerations and implications for programme design and interventions including targeting of provinces and communities in terms of poverty levels;

Shifting from projects to programmes in accordance with local economic development initiatives and needs assessment processes at local level and focusing on integrated rural development in partnership with other departments and the broader civil society.