Department of Correctional Services 2011/12 Strategic Plan and Budget: Research Unit Analysis & stakeholder hearings

Meeting report

Chairperson’s Opening Remarks
The Chairperson noted that civil society had been asked to comment on the proposed budget and strategic plan of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department) for 2011/12, and that the Department would present this on Tuesday. All input could be interrogated by the Committee.

Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Parliamentary Researcher, presented his analysis of the budget and strategic plan of the Department. He noted the aim of the DCS, to contribute to maintaining and protecting a just, peaceful and safe society by enforcing court-imposed sentences, detaining inmates in safe custody while maintaining their human dignity, and promoting their general development as well as that of those subject to community corrections. The DCS had identified three priorities over the medium term: namely strengthening the remand detention system, improving the parole system, and effective rehabilitation of offenders.

In relation to strengthening the remand detention system, he noted that DCS accommodated 47 899 awaiting trial detainees (ATD), which constituted 30% of the total offender population of 160 400. The ATD figures contributed significantly to overcrowding, with most of them having been refused bail, or being unable to pay the bail amount. Over the medium term the DCS had undertaken to create a Remand Detention Management Branch that would be responsible for coordinating the provision of services to remand detainees in South Africa, including those remanded in South African Police Services (SAPS) and the Department of Social Development (DSD) centres. The DCS had further undertaken to ensure the effective implementation of the White Paper on Remand Detention, which was approved by Cabinet in 2010. He outlined some of the measures proposed in that White Paper, which included developing a strategy for managing high risk remand detainees, reducing time spent in remand detention, and formalising the procedures for surrendering remand detainees in SAPS. Some of these measures were included in the proposed amendment to the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998.

Mr Mathabathe reminded Members that medical parole was extensively addressed in the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill of 2010 (the Bill). Attempts to develop a minimum incarceration period were halted, hence the need to strengthen the existing legislative framework that regulated the determination of minimum periods to be served by sentenced offenders before they could be considered for placement of parole. The Bill sought to strengthen the parole system to ensure a balance between upholding the rights of inmates and minimising the risk to society posed by offenders being released on parole. This would contribute to the President’s call of ensuring that people in South Africa were safe. The DCS had also indicated that plans were under way to ensure that the legislation would be implemented soon.

Mr Mathabathe noted that in relation to effective rehabilitation of offenders, the White Paper on Corrections had placed rehabilitation of offenders at the centre of departmental activities. All efforts were supposed to be geared towards the realisation of the objectives. This included the redistribution of the Department’s budget, placing more emphasis on programmes that supported rehabilitation of inmates, filling of key vacancies in the Department, and providing a conducive environment for rehabilitation. The DCS had indicated that a process was under way to recruit suitably qualified staff to effectively implement rehabilitation programmes. In addition several facilities would be upgraded over the medium term, to reduce overcrowding and create a favorable environment for rehabilitation. Furthermore the DCS also intended to strengthen its partnerships with non-governmental organisations and communities, to complement its efforts in the rehabilitation drive.

Mr Mathabathe turned to the performance and service delivery information. He pointed out that a number of policy priorities had been identified by the DCS. Some were ongoing, so it was important for the Committee to assess whether the DCS would be able to deliver on the policy priorities with the budget allocated over the years. A number of policy priorities were outlined, including the improved centre level service on core mandates. Here, the DCS’s focus was on improved rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, improved remand detention management, enhanced internal and public safety and security, the 7-day establishment and occupational specific dispensation (OSD), and the management and detention of ATDs.

The next priority area was that of corrections, a societal responsibility, under which the DCS focused on improved stakeholder involvement in correctional service functions. A target had been set for the development of a stakeholder management document. So far, a community participation policy had been reviewed and a draft framework for stakeholder participation management had been developed. The other focus area for this priority was to extend outreach to inmates, families and victims in order to facilitate social reintegration of offenders. A target had been set to create an electronic database for victims. To date, DCS had not provided any information on this focus area, which was also not included in the 2009/10 Annual Report.

The third priority area was building internal capacity for improved centre level service delivery. Here, the Department indicated that it would focus on improved governance and compliance, extending internal capacities, and learning and knowledge organisation.

Mr Mathabathe then presented the context of the DCS’s budget. He noted that DCS had received R16.559 billion for the 2011/12 financial year, which amounted to 3.3% of the total national budget. DCS had received 13% of the total allocation for the justice, crime prevention and security cluster, which included the DCS, and the Departments of Defence and Military Veterans (DDMV), Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJCD), Police (SAPS) and the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD). The Cluster, in the 2011/12 financial year, received 24% of the national budget, or R120.79 billion.

Mr Mathabathe then presented his analysis of the 2011/12 budget. He reiterated that the total budget was R16.559 billion. Of that, R10.964 billion (66%) was channeled to compensation of employees. The DCS budget had increased by 8.7%, or R1.3 billion, in comparison to the 2010/11 financial year. Expenditure for the DCS was expected to reach R18.8 billion in 2013/14, mainly as a result of spending on compensation of employees, which had increased from R6.8 billion to R10.5 billion at an average annual rate of 14.7% between 2007/2008 and 2010/11. Compensation of employees was expected to increase still further.

The budget was broken down programme by programme. The Security and Administration programmes were the two largest allocations in the budget, and the two programmes accounted for 61% of the total budget. 34% was allocated to Security and 27% to Administration. Development and Social Reintegration were the two programmes receiving the lowest allocation, as both accounted for only 7% of the total budget.

An amount of R4 449.6 had been allocated for Programme 1: Administration. This programme provided the administrative, management, financial, ICT, research, Policy coordination and good governance support functions necessary for all service delivery by the Department, and also supported some functions of the Ministry. The main reason for the growth in the budget for expenditure was the Master Information System Plan (MISP), which covered system development, upgrading of the network and back up system, and integration of information with other criminal justice system (CJS) departments. The DCS said, in its strategic plan, that it wanted to avoid unauthorised expenditure, and limit under-expenditure to 0.25% of voted funds. However, by the end of the third quarter of 2010/11, the DCS already showed under-spending of 14% under this programme, with only 58% spending as opposed to the target of 72.26%. This was attributed to posts still being filled, and invoices still needing to be processed for State Information Technology Agency (SITA) and consultants. The National Treasury (NT) had noted over-spending of R1.619 million under “Household” in this programme. A number of questions and comments were posed in relation to the impact of the 7-day establishment on programmes provided to offenders, the reasons for the delay in filling vacant posts and whether there were any problems with the signing of service level agreements with contractors.

Programme 2: Security provided safe and secure conditions for all persons incarcerated, consistent with human dignity, and in support of security for personnel and the public. This programme still had the highest allocation, taking 34% of the total budget. 97.6% of the budget for this programme went to compensation of employees. However, at the end of December 2010, the programme showed under-spending of 6.32%. Growth in expenditure was expected to increase to R6.4 billion, which aimed to provide improved security in correctional centres and for operational costs of the three correctional centres that were being upgraded at Brandvlei, Van Rhynsdorp and Warmbokkeveld. It was also stressed that expenditure on consultants had decreased from R14 million in 2009/10 to R89 000 in 2010/11, as a result of the termination of the contract for maintaining control security rooms. This service was now being provided internally. The DCS strategic plan noted its intention to reduce the number of inmates who were assaulted in correctional and remand detention facilities to less than 4126, to reduce the number of escapees to less than 60, and to reduce the number of unnatural deaths to below 50. However, the Committee had noted during its visits that in many correctional centres access control security turnstiles were not operational and most of them had been blocked with handcuffs. This was of serious concern to the Committee, since money was invested on security systems that were not working. This in turn deprived other programmes of sufficient resources, which defeated the whole notion of “putting rehabilitation at the centre of departmental activities” as contemplated in the White Paper. The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) had emphasised the need to “avoid projects that are high in cost but low on impact”.

Programme 3: Corrections provided for the needs-based correctional sentence plans and interventions, based on an assessment of the security risk and criminal profile of individuals, targeting all elements associated with offending behaviour, and focusing on the offence for which a person was remanded in a correctional centre, sentenced to correctional supervision, or sentenced to parole supervision. The allocation for this programme had increased by 5.5%, from R 1.457 billion in 2010/11 to R 1.537 billion. 98% of the budget for this programme went to compensation of employees, and this was also expected to grow. In addition, expenditure on consultants was set to increase from R68 000 in 2010/11 to R80 000 in 2013/14. The focus of the spending over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period would be on improving services at correctional centres, including rehabilitation of offenders as contemplated in the White Paper on Corrections. Key elements of improving rehabilitation included implementation of correctional sentence plans, refinement of job descriptions to implement OSD in the Department, and improving the work of the management committee and parole processes. In addition, DCS had a target for all newly-admitted offenders to be provided with Correctional Sentence Plans (CSPs) for 2010/11. By the end of the third quarter of 2010/11, the target of 8 400 offenders being provided with such plans had been exceeded, since 15 060 offenders had been provided with sentence plans. However, DCS still needed to address the backlog of those offenders who were in correctional centres already. Key aspects of this programme included compiling CSPs for all newly admitted offenders serving longer than 24 months, reducing the backlog of CSPs and reducing the level of overcrowding.

Programme 4: Care provided needs based programmes and services aimed at maintaining the personal wellbeing of incarcerated persons, by facilitating physical fitness, social functioning, healthcare and spiritual, moral and psychological wellbeing. This programme accounted for 10.6% of the total budget of the DCS, and 45% of the programme budget went to compensation of employees. Over the medium term, spending would be focused on providing antiretroviral treatment (ARVs) for inmates, health care services and treatment of inmates with mental illness. The spending was projected to grow to R2.1 billion as a result of additional funding for ARVs. A number of questions should be put to the DCS, such as how many correctional centres were accredited sites for ARV treatment, how many sentenced offenders in correctional facilities had mental illness, and whether there were any programmes for them.

Programme 5: Development provided programmes and services aimed at developing competencies in inmates, by providing opportunities for skills and social development. Programmes and services included technical training, recreation, sports, education, and the operation of agriculture and production workshops. 78% of the programme’s budget went towards the compensation of employees. Over the medium term, the spending focus would be on increasing inmates’ participation in agriculture-based programmes and production workshops, literacy programmes, Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) and further education and training (FET). Mr Mathabathe noted that the DCS had under-spent on this programme, with low spending on workshop and farming materials. This was a disappointing indication that the DCS had not put the rehabilitation of offenders at the centre of departmental activities, as required by the White Paper. He added that the Department would not be able to achieve some of its targets if it did not address critical vacancies under this programme, including artisans. Key aims for this programme included increasing the number of inmates in literacy programmes per year, and increasing the number of inmates in skills development programmes.

Programme 6: Social Reintegration provided for all services, including supervision and pre-release resettlement that prepared offenders for completing their sentences, in order to facilitate their social acceptance and effective reintegration into their communities. This programme accounted for only 3.5% of the total budget allocation of the Department. 92% of this programme’s budget went to the compensation of employees. Expenditure on this programme was projected to reach R636 million in 2013/14. The spending would mainly focus on reducing parole violations, improving the capacity of community corrections and increasing the number of victims participating in parole hearings. Mr Mathabathe said that this was commendable, since the Committee had been raising concerns around lack of participation of victims in the parole hearings, and had required the Department to develop means of addressing this particular challenge, so that community members and victims could begin to appreciate and understand the process of parole. In 2009/10, DCS’s targets for reducing parole violations could not be achieved, and instead some regions indicated an increase in parole violations. This had a negative impact in government’s call to ensure that people in South Africa felt free and safe. He stressed that the Department needed to align its budget with priorities of government in order to address issues raised in the State of the Nation Address. Furthermore, he stressed that Social Reintegration was supposed to assist offenders to stand on their own and make a livelihood after release. In most cases, offenders still faced the same problems that initially led to their imprisonment, and they relapsed back into crime. The budget allocated for the programme did not reflect any post-release support programmes, despite the Department having invested a lot in providing skills and other rehabilitation programmes to offenders during their incarceration. He suggested that the DCS could be asked whether there was a partnership with stakeholders to provide community-based support programmes for parolees and probationers, and whether the Department had developed a stakeholder management document.

Programme 7: Facilities related to the physical infrastructure that supported safe and secure custody, humane conditions, and corrective services, care, development and general administration. The programme accounted for 12% of the total budget, but, by the end of the third quarter of 2010, only 52.5% of the budget had been spent, far below the approved for projection of 70.2%. This was ascribed to recurring late submission of invoices by the Department of Public Works (DPW). Mr Mathabathe noted that the issue of late invoicing had been a serious concern for the Committee for some time, and it seemed that the two departments were not doing enough to resolve the issue. Only 4.6% of this programme’s budget went towards the compensation of employees, with the bulk of expenditure being payment for capital assets, which included the construction of new correctional facilities and the upgrading and replacement of existing ones. He noted that consultants would be engaged to conduct feasibility studies on the ten planned remand detention facilities, to determine the most effective procurement method. This was of concern, since the DCS had previously reported to the Committee that it would not build totally new facilities for remand detention. The DCS had already spent R5.7 million in 2007/8, R141 000 in 2008/9 and another R573 000 in 2010/11 for the services of the Transaction Advisor. A key aim of this programme was increasing the number of bed spaces for sentenced offenders. He suggested that the DCS should be asked whether it would build ten dedicated remand detention facilities, or merely upgrade the existing facilities, and whether DCS had signed a service level agreement with the Department of Public Works.

Discussion
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) stated that the report would help in assisting the Committee. DCS would be asked to answer questions that had been raised in the report.

Mr Lukas Muntingh, Project Coordinator, Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, asked whether there was any information from the DCS projecting the future size of the prison population, and the sentence profile of that population, since this would have an impact on the type of facilities that were needed. He also enquired if there was a difference between the construction costs of new facilities or of renovation of current facilities.

The Chairperson asked what was meant by the statement that the DCS planned to engage consultants to do a feasibility study. He stressed that compensation of employees was supposed to have been broken down for each programme, by both the Research Unit and DCS. He asked if there were any features that pointed to the three key priorities, and whether there were any commitments.

Mr S Abram (ANC) noted the need to reduce overcrowding and creating favorable conditions. He asked whether the DCS had a plan to provide skills development, and cut down on the buying of certain commodities by growing food at the correctional centres. He stressed that all this had to do with the development of inmates and their rehabilitation.

The Chairperson said that he would not ask whether the DCS had a plan, since this was supposed to be in place. Instead, he stressed that the question was rather exactly how the DCS intended to make itself self sufficient, and transfer skills, and whether it had the funds to do so.

Mr Mathabathe responded that the DCS had indicated that it wished to strengthen the Remand Detention system by creating a remand detention management branch that would coordinate the provisions of services for remand detainees, and ensure that there was effective implementation of the White Paper’s section on remand detention. This included managing high risk remand detainees and reducing the time that remand detainees spent in detention. Most of the issues were addressed in the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill. There was nothing specific that said that the DCS would improve on parole. DCS had said, in regard to effective rehabilitation of offenders, that it needed to recruit suitably qualified staff to effectively implement rehabilitation programmes. It also indicated that several facilities would be upgraded in the medium term to reduce overcrowding. He advised Mr Muntingh that he had seen no forecasting of numbers by DCS. The issue was supposed to be about investing more on alternative sentencing, as opposed to building more correctional centres.

Institute for Security Studies: Submission on the Correctional Service Budget Vote 21
Ms Tizina Ramagaga, Junior Researcher: Crime and Justice Programme, Institute for Security Studies, gave a brief introduction and background to the Institute for Security Studies (ISS). This Institute, when commenting on the 2010/11 budget, had drawn attention to imbalance in the budget, especially noting that those programmes focusing on the development and well being of prisoners received the smallest share, with the bulk of expenditure being on security, administration and facilities. The same applied again in the 2011/12 budget. She noted that the current budgetary allocations would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the DCS to realise its mandate in relation to rehabilitation. Therefore, ISS called for a reassessment of the White Paper on Corrections. She also noted that recommendations made by the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services (JICS) and other civil society organisations, that the minimum sentencing legislation should be retracted, still remained relevant. ISS took note of the fact that the DCS had revised the incarceration framework and in particular had clarified the situation with regard to parole, as provided for in the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill. ISS urged the Committee to find a way to discuss the revision of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 with the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development.

ISS commented, in relation to the sentence plans and access to educational opportunities, that DCS had noted its intention to increase the number of sentence plans provided to those offenders serving sentences of more than two years, from 60% to 70% over the next twelve months. The percentage of inmates with sentence plans was projected to increase to 90% over the next three years. Although an increase in the proportion of prisoners with sentence plans was welcomed, ISS cautioned that the existence of a sentence plan did not mean that the inmate necessarily did receive or have access to services. Sentence plans did, however, “guide the rendering of relevant programmes, services or activities to sentenced offenders”, which meant that those without the plans were unlikely to be able to access services at all. The existing policy not to provide sentence plans to offenders serving sentences of less than 24 months meant that the bulk of inmates who were released would not ever have had the opportunity to improve their skills or their ability to cope in society.

The DCS’ strategic plan for 2011/12 indicated that the DCS had set a target of 64.7% of offenders with sentence plans participating in literary programmes. The DCS was commended for attempting to increase the number of inmates with access to educational services but it was noted that the number of prisoners who had access to educational services remained low. The assumption was therefore that the majority of inmates would not be able to participate in literary programmes or skills development programmes. This problem was exacerbated by non-availability of staff for education and recreational programmes, which remained a major hindrance to implementation of educational programmes in some facilities, as identified by the JISC.

ISS then raised the issue of renaming eleven correctional centres, supposedly to recognise their place and role in shaping the history of South Africa, to build bridges, to recognise key events, geographical significance and personalities associated with these facilities, in celebration of Human Rights Day on 21 March, and to inspire staff and inmates. The Minister had noted, on 7 March, that the renaming would not result in any costs to the DCS, yet this contradicted another statement that the costs had been “budgeted for”. Given that DCS had placed a number of advertisements in national newspapers calling for proposals for name changes, and had a schedule of public hearings to discuss the name changes, there was no doubt that costs would be incurred, both actual costs and staff time and resources. ISS asked that the Portfolio Committee should ask for clarity from the DCS and Ministry about the costs. ISS further suggested that expenditure on this could be considered both wasteful and frivolous, since name changes would neither improve the lives of sentenced offenders nor positively affect service delivery. ISS felt that the Minister should instead be focusing on providing leadership on the critical issues that the DCS faced in relation to staff management and basic service provision.

Ms Ramagaga drew the Committee’s attention to a project being undertaken by ISS, in collaboration with other civil society organisations, to provide the Committee with an in-depth assessment of the DCS budget. During the public hearings on the 2010/11 budget, civil society and the Committee had voiced concerns that the budget was not aligned to the White Paper on Corrections. At the end of 2010, ISS had received funding from the Open Society Foundation for a project to revise, re-assess and provide detailed commentary on the DCS future budgets, which ISS would do in partnership with the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO), the Open Society Foundation in South Africa (OSF-SA) and the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI). This report would be made available to the Committee in April.

Ms Ramagaga concluded by drawing attention was drawn to the submission of ISS in relation to the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill, in which ISS had agreed that it was necessary for the DCS to make provision for improved conditions for remand detainees, but warned that the establishment of a new branch to deal with remand detainees would have budgetary implications, which were not by then detailed, nor provided for in the MTEF. The Committee and the DCS were urged to investigate and elaborate on the cost implications of the new system as soon as possible.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that ISS’s suggestion to retract the minimum sentence and revise the Criminal Law Amendment Act was within the purview of the DOJCD and the Portfolio Committee on Justice. He asked about the implications for this Committee if that revision was agreed, and what in particular were the ISS’s concerns on section 105 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 

The Chairperson noted that if the civil society reports on the budget were submitted in April, they would not assist the Committee with the current budget, but only in future budgeting, and he recommended that perhaps some preliminary suggestions could be sent. He agreed that DCS would be asked to tell the Committee what the projected costs of the renaming would be.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked whether a summary could be submitted before 10 April.

Ms Ramagaga responded that she would have to consult with all the other stakeholders also involved in the budgetary process, and they would try to do so.

Mr Mathabathe agreed with the comment that the existence of sentence plans did not mean that programmes would be provided to offenders. He stressed that if sentence plans were effective, complaints would not be laid. DCS should provide the Committee with a sample sentence plan, so the Committee could check it and see if there were time frames.

Mr Mathabathe commented that there had been complaints that the 7-day establishment meant that no officials were available to take offenders to programmes. DCS should be asked what the challenges were, what the achievements were on the 7-day establishment, and whether it was working.

Mr Abram noted the ISS’s call for sentence plans for offenders serving less than 24 months. He asked whether that would be practicable, given that backlogs already existed. He added that the DCS should report back to the Committee on the possibilities for sentence plans, whether they were being delivered, and the reasons if they were not.

Ms Ramagaga responded that the increase in the number of offenders who received sentence plans was supposed to be driven by a revision of the White Paper on Corrections. Only the Department could answer as to whether this was achievable.

The Chairperson noted that the DCS would be asked to comment how much, in actual spending and human resources, it would cost for the renaming of correctional centres.

Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) submission on the Correctional Services Budget Vote 21
Mr Lukas Muntingh, Project Coordinator, Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, briefly noted some of the main thrusts of his submission. The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) wished to call for accurate performance indicators, basic compliance with the Correctional Services Act (the Act), with a particular emphasis on meeting the minimum standards of humane detention in all facilities at all times, and a review of whether the White Paper was focusing appropriately on rehabilitation, whether there was a suitable response to the challenges facing the DCS, and the rendering of basic education, training and release preparation services to all offenders.

In relation to performance indicators, Mr Muntingh noted that the 2011 Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) listed selected performance indicators for the DCS, which were intended to provide an overview of the DCS’ performance across all seven programmes. However, on closer examination, this had not been achieved. For instance, for health care, the only indicator noted was the percentage of eligible inmates on ARV treatment. Since an estimated 19.8% of the total inmate population was HIV positive, yet only a proportion of these individuals would qualify for ARV treatment, the indicator revealed very little about the state of health care in the correctional service system. The same limitations were apparent in the fourth indicator, the sixth indicator for literacy training, the seventh indicator for skills development training and the eighth indicator under the social reintegration programme. CSPRI urged that DCS must review some of its indicators in order to give a proper reflection of the Department’s outputs. He further stressed that the indicators were supposed to speak to the overall aims and outputs of the Department as set out in the Act, address the level of legislative compliance, address identified priorities and cover the full range of DCS programmes adequately.

The next issue related to policy development and re-alignment of the budget. The 2005 White Paper on Corrections placed “rehabilitation at the centre of all Departmental activities, in partnership with external stakeholders”. The White Paper had described itself as a “policy framework”, and thus presumably was to be regarded as being at a higher level than ordinary policies, therefore should set a particular standard and be developed according to the principles of good policy-making. A recent assessment of the White Paper had concluded that, when viewed from a set of objective criteria, it fell short of the requirements of modern policy making. Five years after its adoption, the results of the rehabilitation-vision remained unknown and elusive.

The White Paper had furthermore defined the main challenges of the correctional service system as overcrowding, the state of DCS infrastructure, institutional “prison culture”, corruption, and the need for training and restructuring to meet the new paradigm. Human rights violations and explicit focus on the minimum standards of humane detention were not mentioned. Despite the significant challenges in this area, the White Paper gave scant attention to human rights issues. Moreover, compliance with the Correctional Services Act was not a stated outcome of the White Paper, although several selected references to the Act were made. It was therefore not surprising that the DCS continually found itself in litigation. Mr Muntingh also stressed that the White Paper said little about implementation. Whilst this was not a fundamental shortcoming, it should ideally have articulated the pre-conditions or requirements for implementation. If rehabilitation was the core business of the DCS, the White Paper should have articulated, in more tangible terms, what was required in terms of staff skills, staff categories and infrastructure. Nobody yet knew, after five years, to what extent the pre-conditions for implementation had been met.

Mr Muntingh added that since 2005 the DCS had failed to align its budget to the White Paper, as evidenced by the minimal changes in the proportional distribution of the budget across the seven programmes from 2007/8 to date. The planned estimates of expenditure up to 2013/14 also indicated no substantive shift in expenditure. CSPRI had commented that a substantial rethink was required on the strategic priorities, and, more particularly, on whether the White Paper was appropriate to guide the transformation of the correctional system. He submitted that more focus should be placed on compliance with the Correctional Services Act, especially on meeting the minimum standards of humane detention. Whilst it was highly desirable that a correctional system should rehabilitate offenders, it was also necessary to accept the realities of the current correctional centres and the limited capacity of DCS, and therefore the focus should perhaps be placed rather on detention under humane conditions, and a management approach overtly focused on human rights.

Mr Muntingh then analysed the budget of the specific programmes. Programme 1: Administration would grow by nearly 80% between 2007/8 and 2013/14. The item for “office accommodation” showed an increase between 2009 and 2011 of 114.4%, but there was no explanation. He urged the Committee to seek clarity from DCS on this. He also noted the considerable spending on Information Technology (IT), which would continue, and suggested that the Committee seek clarity on the intended impact of this significant expenditure.

Under Programme 2:Security the DCS had informed the Committee that 15 out of 80 (only 18.75%) of the electronic access control systems were functional, after the Sondolo IT contract had expired. A considerable amount had been spent on security related IT, yet less than 20% of systems were functional two years later. It seemed that the DCS was unable to identify suitable IT systems that would support its functions in a sustainable manner. More importantly, it seemed not to be able to manage projects in a prudent way that avoided fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Mr Muntingh recommended that a moratorium be placed on the inception and expansion of similar IT related projects until the current situation had been resolved.

Mr Muntingh commented on the Corrections Programme. Following the 2008 amendments to the Correctional Services Act, sentence plans were to be developed for sentences in excess of 24 months, and the true impact would only become visible once the sentence profile of released offenders was analysed. Nearly 70% of offenders released from 2004 to 2010 had served sentences of less than 24 months, which did not require any sentence plans, so it must be assumed that they had not benefited from any programmes that would have reduced their risk of re-offending. Therefore, it must be assumed that the White Paper and policies developed under it would only affect less than 30% of DCS inmates when they returned to their communities. This confirmed the lack of relevance of the narrow focus on rehabilitation in that Paper.

Mr Muntingh commented on the strategic plan. DCS aimed to increase its success rate, by winning 80% of all litigation. Although it was desirable to have successful litigation, the full picture was not given, and the aim should rather have been to avoid costly litigation in the first place, by complying with all legislation.

In regard to the targets for safe custody, he acknowledged that prison violence was a complex problem, but pointed out that whatever happened in correctional centres ultimately depended on management’s actions, which could either inhibit or give rise to violence and disorder. The strategic plan listed two important indicators in respect of safe custody: namely, the number of assaults on inmates and the number of unnatural deaths, a long-standing problem raised by CSPRI on numerous occasions already. It was unclear what steps DCS had taken to address safe custody, in a sustained manner that was compliant with and supportive of a human rights-based approach to management. CSPRI urged the Committee to request the JICS to conduct a thorough investigation into safe custody, as provided for in section 90 of the Correctional Services Act, with particular reference to assaults and unnatural deaths.

Mr Muntingh then commented that the manner in which work opportunities was counted differed from one year to the next. The targets for 2011 to 2016 noted that the work opportunities should increase from 37 379 to 45 431. However, the 2008/9 Annual Report had stated that 146 393 offenders were involved in work opportunities. The 2007/08 Annual Report had stated that 20 174 work opportunities had been provided, of which 52% were provided by the private sector. No explanation had been given for how the work opportunities had increased so substantially across those two years. He asked that the DCS should be asked to tell the Committee how “work opportunities” were defined, and stressed that a work opportunity was not the same as performing actual work. A more accurate measurement would be the number of hours or work days that offenders spent performing labour.

Mr Muntingh commented on release preparation. The strategic plan stated that 60% to 65% of offenders with release dates would undergo a release preparation programme. Because about 15 000 would be released, this clearly could not apply to all releases but only those who had served sentences of more than 24 months. As an absolute minimum, the basic release programme should be provided to all offenders. It was unacceptable that the DCS was effectively ignoring almost 75% of those in its custody by not providing basic release preparation programmes to them.

Mr Muntingh commented that the targets for education and training were very modest, when assessed against the total offender population of 115 000. The performance indicators were problematic, since they did not measure actual performance. A more accurate indicator would be whether a person had improved his or her skills level from a lower to a higher level. Given the low levels of education and literacy amongst inmates, DCS should be making basic literacy and numeracy education available to all inmates, if not making it compulsory. CSPRI further recommended that the DCS should enable and pay for correspondence or distance education for as many offenders as possible.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that sentence plans had been raised in the earlier submissions, and he had been pushing for them for some time. However, he questioned whether the Committee would be pursuing this correctly, since it was noted that having a sentence plan did not equate to delivery. He asked whether the sentence plans were working. More facts were needed to strengthen the arguments on the sentence plans.

The Chairperson asked what CSPRI was suggesting that the Committee do about the White Paper, which was also mentioned in earlier presentations. He noted that the submission emphasised the issues of human rights and humane detention, but asked what Mr Muntingh had meant by focusing on human rights rather than rehabilitation.

Mr Muntingh said that the White Paper had been adopted in 2005, but it was rushed and civil society had not been consulted. The White Paper set up overly high goals for the Department and thus set it up for failure. The White Paper had become a “distraction” for the DCS, and its staff and overtime officials would lose faith and trust in the White Paper. He pointed out that there was a need to get the basics in place, such as meeting the basic conditions of humane detention. He added that there was also a need to ensure safe custody, which was the minimum that the Constitution required. It should be from this perspective that other things should follow. Basic services were supposed to be in place in order to improve people’s basic numeracy, literacy and language skills. In conclusion, human rights issues and humane treatment were pre-conditions for anything to be implemented.

The Chairperson agreed that the DCS would be asked about the increased figures for office accommodation. It would also be asked what DCS intended to achieve with the new IT issue and how it was going to improve the state of affairs.

Mr Ndlovu asked whether the comment on page 3 paragraph 4 of the submission meant that the DCS failed to follow or implement the indicators.

Mr Abram noted that some figures had been given with regard to work opportunities. He stressed that if the figures were correct, then the DCS had done very well. However, he questioned the integrity of the information that the DCS provided. He agreed that it seemed impossible that, within one year, work opportunities would rise seven-fold. The Committee wanted assurance that the documents that the DCS submitted had integrity.

Mr Abram noted Mr Muntingh’s indication of the narrow focus on rehabilitation in the White Paper. He stressed that if the output was 30%, then it signalled grave trouble. He stated that if the White Paper was seen as a road map, and if its objectives had not been achieved, then there was a problem, and said that DCS should be asked to explain this. If DCS was a private sector institution it would not be running matters in this way.

Mr L Max (DA) asked whether inmates who did not have sentence plans could not have access to services, and what those type of services were. He asked if the possible literacy programmes might not be an incentive for people to be imprisoned. Lastly he asked whether the impact of correspondence courses had been considered.

Mr Muntingh stressed that there were different way to count people in correctional centres. He said that a large number of people, sentenced to short sentences, were being incarcerated, and the DCS did not break down the figures. He explained that if people who were serving sentences of less than 24 months were receiving any services, these would be incidental. He added, in relation to the queries raised by Mr Abram and Mr Ndlovu, that the Auditor General had raised some very serious issues with regards to the integrity of the information and that there were some indicators that were not providing the correct information. He further responded to Mr Max that if the DCS was serious about education, then cost would not be a determining factor. He stressed that the State had a responsibility to improve peoples’ skills

Ms Ngwenya stressed that the presentation would assist the Committee in terms of security and IT. She raised a question in relation to the escapees, and whether, if the two officials had not been dismissed, there was a suggestion that the 41 inmates would not have escaped.

Mr Muntingh responded that the officials had assisted the inmates and it was not suggested that there was a problem with the system.

Ms Ngwenya asked for Mr Muntingh’s view on the renaming of Correctional Centres.

Mr Muntingh said that the DCS was facing certain challenges. Renaming should not be seen as a priority.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) noted that the DCS was not preparing for the release of inmates. She asked whether Mr Muntingh had visited the centres.

Mr Muntingh responded that the targets that had been presented in the ENE spoke to the people who had been sentenced to imprisonment of longer than 24 months. No pre-release assistance was given to those sentenced to less than 24 months.

Mr Mathabathe commented that Cabinet had approved the White Paper, and DCS should take note of some of the concerns that had been raised on the White Paper. With regard to social integration, he said that some offenders had “gate fever” when they were about to be released into society since they feared what might happen to them on their release. For this reason, more had to be done on social reintegration. He asked whether the DCS was doing enough to assist organisations that were trying to reintegrate offenders.

The Chairperson agreed that part of revisiting the White Paper was to get the basics right and to improve human rights. He said that if human rights inside Correctional Centres was improved and human rights conditions outside deteriorated then there would be a problem, so there was a need to balance human rights treatment with adequate rehabilitation. He cited his conversation with a woman convicted of shoplifting, who had claimed that on her release she would steal again in order to be sent back to the correctional facility, and that this type of attitude exacerbated the problems of overcrowding.

The Chairperson agreed that the DCS would be asked to explain the work opportunities figures.

National institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) submission on Correctional Services Budget Vote 21
Ms Venessa Padayachee, National Manager: Advocacy and Lobbying, National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders, noted that her organisation (NICRO) had concerns about the growing expenditure rate of the DCS budget. She agreed that section 2 of the Correctional Services Act and section 35(1)(f) of the Constitution required that inmates be detained under conditions conducive to human dignity, and she agreed with other submissions that the problem of overcrowding in many centres continued to make this impossible. She stressed that the obvious solutions were either to increase bed space, or to ensure a decrease in the number of people sentenced to detention, particularly those who did not pose a threat to society. She also acknowledged that the DCS alone was not solely accountable for achieving this. It was also noted that the National Commissioner had the power to release offenders on correctional supervision, but in NICRO’s opinion this option had not been frequently used. It was also noted that recidivism was very high, at almost 80%, with many previous offenders returning to imprisonment.

Ms Padayachee noted that the DCS strategic plan for 2011 to 2016 became available only on Monday 14 March, two days before the public hearings, and this had also happened in the past. Because the budget vote and the strategic plan should be read together, such late release of the strategic plan made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conduct a thorough analysis of both documents, which prevented the submission of a more comprehensive response to the Committee. 

Ms Padayachee stressed that many of the issues she would raise repeated concerns raised before by both NICRO and the committee. She noted that only 22 psychologists were serving 112 501 sentenced inmates, an alarming ratio of 1:5113. NICRO was concerned was that a large percentage of inmates had mental health problems that had never been diagnosed, let alone been treated, and these individuals still returned to society untreated. NICRO also stressed its concern about the skewed budget, with security allocations of 33.8% and administration allocations of 26.87%, compared to relatively insignificant allocations to corrections of 9.28%, development of 3.38% and social reintegration of 3.5%.

Ms Padayachee then commented on the expenditure trends. She stated that the compensation to employees continued to form a large portion of the DCS budget, comprising 66.2% of the total budget. For the next year. It was also expected to grow to R12.2 billion, at an annual rate of 6%. It was also noted that the DCS had reduced the costs of consultants due to “cost cutting measures”, yet the DCS also had stated that expenditure on consultant services was expected to increase from R102.4 million in 2011/12, to R123.4 million in 2013/14, due to an increase in audit, legal and laboratory fees. NICRO’s particular concern related to the expected projected legal costs. It was also stressed that NICRO had some reservations with regard to the huge amounts that the DCS spent on IT infrastructure and new systems, while other pressing needs were not attended to.

Ms Padayachee noted that the percentage of eligible offenders who participated in skills development programmes showed a minimal increase of 0.18%, or 237 inmates, between 2011 and 2013, and 0.33% or 244 between 2013 and 2015. Studies reflected that skills development was a significant indicator in the successful reintegration of offenders, so NICRO was concerned that such a small percentage of offenders were eligible to access this opportunity.

NICRO further noted that the DCS continued to spend on upgrading and building of correctional centres. NICRO believed that the DCS could not build its way out of overcrowding, and JICS had stated, in its Annual Report of 2008/9, that the construction of new correctional centres did not adequately address the problem. She further said that more support should be given to promoting a sentencing regime that included alternatives to incarceration, so that incarceration would be seen as the last resort, and there needed to be more consideration into the affordability of bail, improvements in investigations, and dealing with the root causes of crime, which included addressing social problems such as poverty and inequality.

The next issue she raised related to the selected performance indicators. She stressed that in addition to ensuring inmate safety, ensuring humane conditions of detention was a Constitutional right, which was supposed to be a primary objective of the DCS. She noted that despite this, the percentage of assaults was projected to increase from 1.4% in 2010/11 to 2.5% in 2011/12, due to previous under-reporting of inmate assaults. Furthermore, JICS had produced a damning report on the issue of “unnatural deaths and assaults of inmates”. Of particular concern were the deaths caused by illegal assaults on inmates in correctional centres.

It was also noted that in 2011/12 only 53% of the sentenced population was projected to be involved in correctional programmes. NICRO asked whether the programmes that had been implemented were working. NICRO was aware that the DCS was experiencing difficulties in the implementation of correctional sentencing plans, as set out in the Correctional Services Act and the White Paper, and that correctional sentencing plans were not being implemented as planned due to the gross shortage of professionals which prevented the establishment of multi-disciplinary teams. Another alarming figure was the percentage of inmates tested for HIV, named at 23% in 2011/12, but projected to increase by 1% in 2012/13. Another concern was the small percentage, only 4%, of offenders involved in sports, recreation, arts and culture, which was expected to decrease in the next few years.

Ms Padayachee noted that there was little that had actually changed in the budget. She stressed that DCS should not be doing the same things year after year and expecting different results. Instead, it needed to adopt a more creative approach to ensure that its budget did promote public safety and that it could facilitate effective rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. NICRO recommended that the Committee call for a rethink on the White Paper on Corrections. It further asked that the Committee should continue to hold the DCS fully accountable to its mandate. The Committee was further urged to support a policy shift in thinking, away from the ideals set out in the White Paper, and towards the more realistic and practical attainment of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Humane Treatment of Prisoners, which promoted a human rights approach to correctional centre management. Furthermore, NICRO recommended that the Committee should actively monitor the problems identified by the JICS in its 2008/9 Annual Report. In addition, the Committee was requested to call on the DCS to present relevant impact studies for the DCS rehabilitation programmes, and to advise the costs of implementing such correctional programmes.

Discussion
Mr Abram asked how much the DCS spent on procurement, and noted that the procurements were supposed to be broken down. He noted that despite the fact that there was a Cluster, DCS seemed to be operating on its own. There was a need to invest in facilities that made the DCS more self sufficient. He stated that he did not understand how the Public Private Partnership (PPP) was a cost effective measure. He asked why there was a decrease in the revenue from offenders.

Ms Ngwenya asked whether there was data to determine whether inmates were incarcerated while they were mentally ill, or whether their mental illness manifested itself after incarceration.

Ms Padayachee responded that NICRO did not have data on mentally ill inmates. She however stated that there were certainly some inmates who were incarcerated when they were already mentally ill.

Judge Deon Van Zyl, Inspecting Judge, Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services, noted that if an accused came before a judge and it was clear that this person could not distinguish between right and wrong, the accused would be referred to a psychiatric unit. This meant that there should not be any mentally ill people in correctional centres.

Ms Ngwenya stressed that there were serious issues with the White Paper that needed discussion. She added that Ms Padyachee’s submission had isolated a number of questions that the DCS needed to answer. 

Mr Muntingh noted that civil organisations were not looking for higher human rights attainment than were experienced by ordinary citizens, but did expect that inmates should not be assaulted, marginalised or killed in prison, but should be entitled to safe custody. In addition, there was supposed to be broad based access to opportunities so that inmates could develop themselves, and those opportunities should be affordable and achievable. He said that the model in the White Paper was too sophisticated for the DCS’s constraints.

Mr Ndlovu raised a question about page 9 of the submission, asking whether civil society had had any discussions with the Department of Social Development about the matter, and, if so, what was the response.

Ms Padayachee responded that the Department of Social Developmentwas responsible for funding, but had indicated that the funding would be reduced, pointing out that civil societies should receive money from the DCS. This was a cluster issue.

Public Servants Association submission on the DCS budget
Mr Koos Kruger, Provincial Manager, Public Servants Association, explained that working relationships between parties in a Bargaining Council were formally regulated by the Constitution of the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSBC), which also provided for the existence of the Departmental Bargaining Chamber for the Department of Correctional Services (DBC). He stressed that the Public Servants Association (PSA) was committed to promoting collective bargaining on all matters of mutual interest. He stated that although formal structures of the DBC were regulated, parties also engaged in the substructures of the DBC such as the Labour Relations and other Task Teams, and held meetings. During the previous year there had been enormous challenges that created unnecessary friction between organised labour and the employer.

One of the challenges with DCS was the 7-day establishment and shift system, which was a 45 hour week aligned to the GPSSBC Resolution 2 of 2009. It was apparent, from the discussions, that the DCS would not be able to implement a “one size fits all” shift system. Various regions were requested to utilise a shift system that best suited their respective circumstances. However it was still a requirement that any systems used must fall in line with the principles that were contained in the Resolution and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The biggest challenge in the different systems was the dangerous conditions to which DCS members were exposed, due to huge shortages of staff on the various shifts. He cited the example that at one correctional centre, six guards were responsible of guarding 1500 inmates. This exacerbated the security risk to not only officials, but also to inmates. It contradicted the “safe guarding of inmates” as prescribed by the unit management principles. He also noted that this resulted in an unacceptable official to inmate ratio of 1:250. The 7-day establishment system had caused much litigation, which inevitably led to a breakdown in the trust relationship and to lack of effective communication between labour and the employer.

He added that the failure to fill vacancies in the Department was another bone of contention. He stressed that DCS had agreed that all funded and vacant posts would be filled, but these promises had not been kept by the employer, and this also adversely affected the relationship between labour and the employer. Failure to fill the vacancies was directly in contradiction to the State of the Nation Address and was also a contravention of the 7-day establishment policy, which aimed to improve on service delivery and to create a healthy balance between work and family life for the officials.

The last contentious issue was the housing policy. This had been developed by the employer with the understanding that labour would be meaningfully consulted, but this had not taken place. Instead, DCS had chosen to implement the policy without the consultation process, which was contrary to the spirit of sound labour relations and the Labour Relations Act. Employees who were being supplied with official rental accommodation, after being transferred, in the interest of the Department and the Public Service, were given only one month’s notice that their rental agreement would not be renewed. This forced them to seek alternative accommodation at their own cost, and sometimes the cost, particularly in more affluent areas like Knysna and Pollsmoor, was higher than they could afford. This was against the spirit and aim of the Housing Policy and the Labour Relations Act. What made it more unfair was that Senior Management Services (SMS) members, who could have afforded alternative accommodation, were not placed in the same situation. The failure to adhere to policies and sound labour relation principles created unnecessary conflict and a further breakdown of the trust relationship between the employer and organized labour.

He concluded that PSA believed that 2011 held great challenges for all the stakeholder in the DCS. However, it wanted to reaffirm its own commitment towards sound labour relations and effective communication within the Department.

Discussion
Ms Ngwenya asked whether the PSA was representing workers nationally.

Mr Muntingh asked whether the PSA had accurate information on numbers of staff to implement the 7-day requirements to the desired level.

Mr Ndlovu asked how many cases had been recorded on the 7-day establishment, and what the implication was of these cases.

Mr Ndlovu asked how many cases had been recorded on the 7-day establishment, and what the implication was of these cases.

Mr Mathabathe said that the issue of the 7-day establishment could not be divorced from the filling of vacancies. He stressed that the DCS was supposed to produce a progress report.

Mr A Carelse, Deputy Commissioner, Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services, said that in some correctional centres, no senior officials were present when the JICS visited. There was an imbalance created by the 7-day establishment. He stressed that although some staff members were physically present, they were attending to administration and were not busy with security.

Ms Nyanda supported Mr Carelse, noting that some members chose to attend work but were doing so only in order to claim overtime.

Mr Kruger said that it was not only labour that was complaining of the 7 day establishment.

Mr Max asked why the DCS was apparently ignoring its own undertakings in regard to its own most important asset, namely its work force. He also asked what the problem was with regards to the filing of vacancies.

Mr Kruger said that there was no apparent good reason why vacancies could not be filled, especially when these were funded posts.

Mr Ndlovu also asked whether DCS had figures on the housing problems mentioned.

Ms Nyanda stated that she had been in many Correctional Centres during oversight, where the issue of housing had been raised. She added that there was a large piece of land in Rustenburg where houses could be built.

Mr Max noted that when he was serving in the SAPS, he had had to compromise between finding housing and doing his work properly.

Mr M Cele (ANC) stressed that there was a need for DCS and the unions to meet.

The Chairperson asked what the ideal inmate to prisoner ratio was.

Mr Kruger stressed that the ratio of 1:250 was not a ratio that was applicable across the board. He said that the PSA would support a 1:4 ratio.

The Chairperson thanked civil society presenters for the submissions, noting that their comments would be incorporated into the discussions that the Committee had with DCS on the budget and strategic plan.

The meeting was adjourned.