POSITION PAPER
of the Joint Strategic Committee
(The JSC is a joint venture between The Forum & NACOSS)
February 2008
1. INTRODUCTION
The National Coalition for Social Services (NACOSS) and the National Welfare, Social Service and Development Forum (The Forum) between them represent, we believe, the vast majority of government subsidised social welfare NGOs in the country, along with a substantial number of CBOs that are in receipt of government funding.
When comments were invited on the then draft Policy on Financial Awards to Service Providers (PFASP) during 2004, both organisations raised serious concerns and tabled these in the form of position papers that were submitted to government. Both organisations hold to the position that there is as yet no consensus between government and civil society on this policy. The original comments will not be belaboured in the present submission. We will confine ourselves at this time to pointing out what we believe to be the most fundamental problems with the policy. Addressing these will make it possible to move towards consensus. We are hopeful that there is enough common ground between all stakeholders to make such consensus a real possibility if these issues are dealt with.
2. FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH THE POLICY
2.1 Gaps in the policy
The most serious problems in the PFASP from the perspective of the NPOs have less to do with what it contains than with what is missing. The policy is focussed overwhelmingly on the obligations of NPOs who are being funded or are seeking funding. It fails to address the question of what is to be funded and how the necessary funding is to be obtained. Our country’s social welfare services are in a crisis of under-funding, and it is the poorest and most marginalised of our people who are suffering as a result. The PFASP needs to address this crisis. There is a need for realistic and dependable funding to be in place so that service organisations can develop and increase their impact, instead of being constantly hamstrung by a struggle for survival, as is currently the case.
The policy should focus at least as much on the responsibilities of government with regard to financing as on those of NPOs. It should cover, in detail, issues such as how statutory services and services which are directed to the realisation of basic human rights, are to be funded. Where government is unable to meet the costs of services, which are its own legal responsibilities, the policy should address itself to ways in which other funding partners can be drawn in and the gap can be bridged. There is a need to address the fact that there is insufficient donor funding available, and that NPOs are already using an excessive amount of their available resources in competing with each other, and with government, for the limited available resources. Options for correcting this situation should be examined.
Since the PFASP was prepared, the Integrated Service Delivery Model (ISDM) has been put in place. This document takes the sector forward very substantially, by spelling out, for the first time, the range of services, which have to be offered by the Department and its NPO partners. If the PFASP were redrafted so as to dovetail with the ISDM, this would go along way towards addressing the above concerns. The PFASP should also be informed by a properly researched audit of the needs which the sector is required to address, the extent of the services needed for this purpose, and the extent to which such services are in place and their adequacy or otherwise.
2.2 Underlying misconceptions
Much of the document seems to be founded on the assumption that the basic problem with funding is a lack of transformation amongst social welfare NPOs, who are deemed to be serving mainly the more privileged sections of the population. The conclusion is then drawn that the main task of government is to correct this, e.g. by “tightening” the specified transformation criteria. Outdated research is quoted, out of context, in support of the first assumption. Since the drafting of the PFASP the lead researcher has cautioned that the inferences made cannot in fact be drawn from the data in question, and that the true situation in the sector cannot be determined without properly designed and targeted research.
While there may well be organisations that have failed to transform, and while both The Forum and NACOSS would fully support corrective action where this is the case, we regard it as unacceptable that the entire sector has been unfairly labelled, and that the PFASP has been largely founded on this assumption rather than on the urgent need to ensure that services are funded adequately.
The following are some further misconceptions that permeate the document:
- The idea that there is sufficient non-government funding available to NPOs to enable them to carry out their mandate adequately. The amount of money, which NPOs can raise, falls far short of the gap between the services, which government provides directly and the actual social welfare needs of the country. This is especially so at a time when many donors are increasingly funding specific areas such as HIV and AIDS or job creation projects and making very little available for other essential (often statutory) services. This situation will only deteriorate during the current somewhat depressed and uncertain financial climate.
- The idea that NPOs are to blame for the country’s service shortfalls.
NPOs are in the nature of things limited in what they can do by their capacity and by their mandate from their funders. It is only government that has the resources to ensure that a comprehensive network of accessible services in place. NPOs, where they exist, and depending on their capacity, can and should be enlisted to assist government in carrying out its mandate. But the task of ensuring that a broad network of essential services is in place and accessible to all those in need cannot be shifted to civil society. National and provincial budgets must take into account the full scope of the need for essential social welfare services, whether these are delivered directly by government or purchased from NPOs or other service providers.
This notion of purchase of services is a misnomer, unless the services are fully funded.
Because government, too, has limited funding, and because there are areas of work for which funding is more easily obtained from sources other than government, I believe that government should make more financing available to other areas, which are national priorities.
- The assumption that NPOs have sufficient resources to expand their existing services to unserved regions without additional funding. This is in general simply not true. Most organisations are already severely overstretched with demands from extremely vulnerable individuals, families and communities. We are of the view that, because government also has limited funding, the models we use to provide services should be amended to become more cost-effective and that we need to deal with the great deal of overlapping of services. We believe this can be addressed through the proposed audit of social services.
- The idea that no matter how inadequate the funding they receive from either the state or the private sector, NPOs can be expected not only to deliver services to unlimited numbers of people, but also to make these services adequate and effective so that they will constitute “value for money”. Government has no such expectation of any partner other than social welfare NPOs. Government can only reasonably expect value for money from NPOs if they have sufficient funds to deliver the required services at an acceptable standard. The current financing dispensation for NPOs is unconnected to the realities of service delivery and this is a recipe for failure by the sector in discharging its responsibilities. The policy should be designed to correct this situation.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the PFASP be amended as follows:
- By the inclusion of a detailed overview of the financing needs of the sector in accordance with its responsibilities as set out in the ISDM.
- By the inclusion of a clear account of government’s responsibilities for the funding of the various types of service undertaken by the sector.
- By attention to the issue of how shortfalls can best be addressed, e.g. through approaches to financing which do not excessively divert scarce NPO resources into mutual competition for funds.
- By the removal of unsubstantiated generalisations relating to an alleged lack of transformation in the sector.
- By the removal of statements based on any of the misconceptions mentioned above, or at least by qualifying them to take into account the realities mentioned.
It is also recommended that a national audit be carried out of:
- The extent of the social needs that need to be addressed by the sector, as set out in the Constitution and relevant laws and policies;
- The extent of the services required to meet these and
- The extent to which these services are, or are not, currently in place.
This audit should be continually updated and should serve as a basis for planning and budgeting, as well as for adjustments to the PFASP as and when indicated. The JSC partners, being The Forum and NACOSS are fully prepared to assist with such an exercise.
|
