EIGHT provincial education departments massively underspent in the past financial year, with at least R248-million going a-begging in Gauteng, the same amount in the Eastern Cape, and R109-million in the Free State.
The alarming and continuing incapacity of provincial education departments to use available funds is a major focus of Minister of Education Kader Asmal’s latest Report on the Provinces to the President.
Released this week, the report also highlights dire staffing figures in provincial offices, where about 40% of posts remain vacant; widespread failure to provide textbooks at the beginning of the school year; and considerable inertia in provincial planning to improve school infrastructure.
Underspending in the past financial year was even worse than in the preceding year, Asmal’s report notes. It speculates that the poor performance by eight of the nine provinces derives from “a lack of capacity to manage and administer the budget, delays associated with the process of procuring goods and services, and positions that remain vacant over long periods in the provincial departments”. Gauteng, the Free State and the Eastern Cape were the worst offenders, while the Western Cape was the only province that did not underspend.
In addition to amounts provided for education in the annual budget, provincial departments also receive donor funds and “conditional grants” – amounts the Treasury earmarks for specific purposes. In both these areas Asmal’s report pinpoints serious shortcomings.
Limpopo and the North West did not supply any information at all on donor funding. Since the national Department of Education has records indicating that Limpopo did receive such funding from 1996 to 2000, the province’s “inability to supply this information is alarming”, the report says.
Those provincial departments that did report on donor funding specified amounts and purposes for which the funds were allocated. But “they did not report the level of expenditure. They also did not report on progress made in the implementation of the various projects.”
Huge sums are involved. The Eastern Cape, for example, received R418-million in donor funds, but was one of the provinces that failed to indicate the extent of expenditure.
Conditional grants target four areas: quality improvement and financial management, HIV/Aids, early childhood development, and improvement of infrastructure. Overall expenditure on these grants improved to 60%, compared with 45% in the preceding financial year.
But “performance … is quite unacceptable” in expenditure on early childhood development and HIV/ Aids, the report says. Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo and the North West “have either not submitted reports or, worse still, have not spent the funds at all” on early childhood development. Overall expenditure in this target area was a mere 15%.
On HIV/Aids, total spending averaged just under 40% of allocated funds. The Eastern Cape spent only 6% and Limpopo only 16% of their allocations.
Provincial staff capacities remain worryingly inadequate. The Eastern Cape still lacks a head of department after more than a year, while the Western Cape post is also vacant. At least 30% of senior management posts in provincial head offices are vacant; and 40% of posts in regional, district and circuit offices are vacant. Vacancies at schools amount to 20%.
But the report also queries the quality of information provinces supplied to the national department about staffing levels. Only Gauteng, Mpumalanga and the Free State provided sufficiently clear data on staffing at different provincial levels. With the others, “it is very difficult to assess the capacity in different categories at head office owing to lack of information and the manner of presentation”, the report notes.
The annual bugbear of schools starting the year without textbooks or stationery again plagued 2002. Although budget allocations have increased, “the procurement of the learning support materials and the distribution to schools has not improved as would have been expected after three years of focused attention”. Yet again, “not one province reported 100% delivery of learning support materials to schools before the first day” of the school year.
Delays caused by provincial departments making late submissions to tender boards, or by tender boards not considering submissions on time, are “not acceptable”, the report says, pointing out that this is the responsibility of provincial departments and treasuries.
Provinces have been dragging their feet about formulating plans to improve school infrastructure. Late last year, following the release of the School Register of Needs, which detailed the frequently appalling conditions in which millions of learners attend school, Asmal requested each province to submit business plans for infrastructure development over the next three financial years.
“The president also indicated in his speech during the opening of Parliament in February that government will allocate the necessary resources … to ensure that no child studies under a tree,” the report says.
Despite this, provincial departments have “not shown the urgency that is required. The submission of provincial plans … has been very slow.”
The Eastern Cape, Gauteng, Limpopo and North West had not submitted plans by the end of March. In one of the refrains of Asmal’s report, “lack of capacity” at provincial level is cited once more as a possible explanation – “or the provincial departments do not regard the request as government’s priority”.