Department of Correctional Services Strategic and Annual Performance Plan 2013: Analysis by Committee Researcher and briefing by Department

Meeting report

Summary and Analysis of the DCS Budget and Strategic Plan for 2013/14 by the Committee Researcher
Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Committee Researcher, commended the Department pf Correctional Services (DCS) for aligning their Annual Peformance Plan (APP) to the Strategic Plan, which had not happened in the previous year. The Department had to ensure that subsequent strategic plans were aligned with the Seven Point Plan, as recommended by the National Development Plan (NDP).

Chapter 12 of the NDP was relevant to the DCS, as it emphasised the strengthening of the criminal justice system. It called for alignment of all strategic plans in the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security cluster (JCPS) with the seven point plan. NDP recommendations relevant to the DCS were the protection of vulnerable groups, improving rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. Community organisations had to be capacitated to assist with reintegration after release. The awaiting trial detainee population had to be decreased drastically, and priority had to be given to youth in prison, and restorative justice.

Mr Mathabathe took the Committee through the DCS budget allocations for the various programmes. The Incarceration programme had received the highest allocation (53%) and the Social Reintegration programme the lowest (4%). Rehabilitation had received a low allocation (6%) and so had the Care programme (8%).

Mr Mathabathe recommended that the DCS indicate more clearly how they intended to reach targets.

Comment by the DCS National Commissioner
Mr Tom Moyane, DCS National Commissioner, noted that the Strategic Plan for 2013 to 2017 had been changed to state more achievable targets. The remand detention population was a cluster wide challenge. The system was clogged. Equipment for the Remand Detention Offender Management System (RDOMS) was being increased, to deal effectively with admissions and releases. The Department had challenges regarding litigation. There were thorny issues -- for example, claims that inmates had become infected with HIV and TB while in prison. There had been reports that inmates would inject themselves with HIV infected blood to become eligible for medical parole.

DCS presentation on the Strategic Plan and 2013/14 Annual Performance Plan
Mr Terence Raseroka, Acting Chief Deputy Commissioner, Strategic Management, gave a situational analysis of DCS’s strategic intent. He presented a government outcomes flow diagram which related the election manifesto to government outcomes and Justice cluster outputs. DCS focus points on a more effective criminal justice system were indicated. Links to the National Development Plan were established.

Mr Raseroka took the Committee through DCS strategic outcome oriented goals. Core values of the Department were spelled out, as were the legislative framework and clarity on the DCS mandate. The DCS core values were defined as development; integrity; effectiveness; equity; accountability; justice and security.

Discussion
The Chairperson suggested that the document not be presented in its entirety, in the interests of time. He advised that members each be given a chance to provide inputs. The DCS Strategic Plan document could inform the discussion.

The real priority concerning litigation was for the DCS to prevent it. The DCS had stated that they were ready to defend charges, but it was important that they not open themselves up to litigation.

With regard to filling vacant posts, the target had to be to not allow vacancies to exceed a certain percentage. The DCS could be assured that if the vacancy rate reached 10%, the Committee was going to fight them. Critical posts had to be filled, and had to remain filled. The occupancy rate had to be made the target.

Mr Moyane replied that the challenge related to vacancies, was that a large part of the DCS staff component were older people, who were retiring. Older people who had been trained together, were leaving. That had  led to an inverted pyramid structure. A thorough audit of the situation was needed. The DCS had to know how many people were needed, in order to be guided to retain and recruit staff. There had to be a plan to deal with attrition.

Mr J Selfe (DA) referred to the engagement with unions the day before. The staff to inmate ratio on paper was one to four. But in the centres at midnight, the ratio was one to 300. The seven-day establishment objective of having staff on hand constantly for rehabilitation, could not be reached.

Mr Moyane replied that it was a complex situation. The Minister had insisted that the DCS consider what the unions were saying. The Ministerial Consultative Forum was looking at the shift system. The core business of the Department was at centre level, at the coalface. Yet there had to be administration. The DCS would establish links with labour. The shift system could not work without warm bodies.

Mr Selfe suggested that successful rehabilitation could be measured by checking how many released inmates returned, and after how long. Remand detainee management and social reintegration were core functions of the Department. Measurement of that kind could help determine at what point of the system there was failure.

The Chairperson added that the aim would be to establish recidivism percentages.

Ms N Jolingana, DCS Chief Operations Officer, answered that there were no figures on recidivism, as it had not been studied. Recidivism did not necessarily imply that released offenders had been badly trained. Released offenders encountered unemployment and stigma on the outside. Inmates had been trained to be jazz musicians, for instance, but no positions had been secured for them. A major challenge was that government would not employ ex-offenders. The question was who would employ them, if government would not. Recidivism was not only due to programmes not working. She agreed that a study of recidivism rates was needed.

Mr Selfe remarked that if the Department of Home Affairs could have an effective fingerprint system, the DCS could keep track of who were readmitted.

Mr Moyane responded that the mandate for fingerprinting was in the IGS cluster.

Mr Selfe advised that the DCS measure themselves against outcomes projected.

The Chairperson suggested that the DCS compress their performance indicators, to be able to say by what time there would be an integrated IT system, for instance.

Mr Moyane agreed that IT was a key indicator. But it was also a cluster issue. IT systems were not functional. The DCS could not commit on a clusterwide issue. The DCS was on the verge of an IT system that could indicate who were readmitted. An integrated system was needed to monitor escapes. The police could tap into the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS).

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) granted that the DCS was the last leg in the cluster cycle. But time frames were needed. Timelines were needed to prevent offenders coming back. He asked if the accountability and integrity needed to achieve strategic intent, were there. If honesty could be counted on to be there, it would not be necessary to state that honesty was a goal to be achieved. If it was stated that there had to be disassociation from corruption, it meant that people were corrupt already. Stating things that way implied that the DCS knew things the Committee did not know. There had to be sound business practices. If the DCS had to be reminded what their core function was, it showed that they did not know.

The Chairperson said that Mr Ndlovu was asking where in the annual performance plan (APP) it was measured that the DCS was dealing with bad elements. There had been 4 000 cases of misconduct the previous year. There was a nice value system, but the question was how the implementation was going to be measured. Measurement indicators had to be shown in the APP.

Mr Raseroka replied that values drove the organisation. There were people from widely different backgrounds, and values were needed to tie them together. It created unity in diversity. There had to be a common denominator. Every DCS member had to know what the driving principles were. The principles were a way of life.

The Chairperson remarked that it had to be visible whether values were adhered to. The question was, what would the DCS do if it turned out that 90% of their people were dishonest?  Officials were giving alcohol to inmates without being fired.  Unions were saying that it was not their problem if a member resorted to sexual harassment, for instance.

Mr Moyane replied that the DCS was presenting a different approach. Stakeholders were being dealt with before strategy was developed. When officials slept on duty or smuggled guns, it was not proper for the unions to defend it. There had to be a starting point from which to proceed to consequence management.

Mr Ndlovu told Mr Moyane that he had just opened a can of worms. He had said that in future stakeholders would be met beforehand. He asked who the DCS stakeholders were. If it was their own members, then there was a communication breakdown. There was a gap between management and stakeholders.

Mr Moyane replied that he was referring to agencies like the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) and the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI).

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked when the staffing issue would be settled. Stakeholders had referred to it. The question was how it was going to be fixed once and for all. The seven-day establishment issues had to be cleared away.

Mr Cele asked about the situation at St Albans.

Ms Jolingana replied that the suspension of 122 members had been lifted.

The Chairperson told Mr Moyane that the DCS had to come with a task team the following week to indicate where things were going with the seven-day establishment. Retention of staff and other matters that affected staff, had to be discussed.

Mr Cele referred to the fact that sexual abuse had not been mentioned in the Strategic Plan.

The Chairperson likewise asked about a strategy regarding sexual abuse in cells. Sexual abuse and rape figures had to be disaggregated. Stakeholders had said that the Department had plans for screening and categorising, so that young boys did not end up with hardened criminals.

Mr James Smalberger, Chief Divisional Commissioner (CDC), Incarceration and Corrections, replied that sexual abuse was a sensitive issue. Current measurements were classed under assault. At a meeting in March, stakeholders noted that offenders were reluctant to tell that they had been sexually assaulted. When they went to hospital, where there was more trust, they would elaborate. There was a policy, and a process would kick in. Offenders would be tested for HIV and anti-retrovirals would be provided if necessary. A dedicated policy to address sexual assault was in its final stage. It only needed to be finalised by legal services. It had not been included in the APP yet. A number of reported incidents were coming from the health side. There was confidentiality involved, but the DCS would share information. There were stakeholders involved in the 18 management areas. They would present programmes, when the policy was approved. According to the Amended Act, initial risk assesment had to happen within six hours of admission. Social risk and needs, and vulnerability had to be assessed. It was a new procedure, but it was in place.

Ms Jolingana added that there would be engagement on a sexual assault risk assessment tool.

The Chairperson commented that the DCS did not have the capacity to categorise, because of overcrowding. “Pretty boys” could not be placed separately, as there was no space for them. Stakeholders had advised that the SAPS look after remand detainees. The DCS had to decide what had to be done to make it possible to categorise. The DCS had to prioritise. They had to decide whether to build new remand detention centres, or to hand them to the SAPS. It was the tip of the iceberg when people said that centres were not humane. The DCS would lose cases if things went to court. If their figures were not achievable, they would not achieve a clean audit.

Mr L Max (DA) commented that there had to be a top down turnaround, regarding staff. The situation at the coalface was serious, and inmates knew when there was only a skeleton staff on duty. There had to be a turnaround date. Jobs had to be re-evaluated to find duplication of work. It had to be known how many people had to be shifted down. It was critical that time spent in remand detention be reduced. He had attended a workshop to reduce re-offending with the committee researcher. There had been 50 000 unsentenced releases the year before. The police had arrested 1.4 million people. The courts were determining the DCS intake. There had to be a cluster discussion. Section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act had to be reviewed. That section prescribed that police had to be called in only if the court wanted to oppose bail. Police abused their powers. Arrest was not to be seen as punishment.

The Chairperson asked about DCS remand detention targets. It was not advisable to give targets if the Department was not in control of the process.

Mr Willem Damons (DCS) replied that there were no DCS specific measurements. It was a cluster wide issue. The DCS had to monitor the situation. There had not been a system to calculate before, but the General Informations Technology Officer (GITO) had introduced one from 1 April. It would be possible to calculate remand detainee turnover.

The Chairperson told the DCS that it was unfair for them to suck the hind teat.  Mr Max had pointed out that the Department had a target for reduction of remand detainee numbers, but if the police got nasty, this would be impossible to achieve. It had to be made meaningful. He advised that where the DCS had no control of a situation, it be cited as a cluster responsibility.

Mr Max referred to the strategy to reduce gang violence. The unions had said that they had not seen the strategy. The community generated gangs. He asked how the DCS determined a baseline, and how they had arrived at a figure of reducing gang activity by ten percent.

Ms Jolingana, Chief Operations Officer, replied that targets related to the gang management strategy were based on historical information. It had been argued that the figure of ten percent was too conservative. But overcrowding was bound to lead to fights. There was no point in consulting with labour about gang management strategy. Consultation had to be with staff. Members were saying that the action plan helped them. She did not see a role for the unions in the process.

The Chairperson commented that the DCS had a target of ten percent reduction, but statistics could be manipulated. The target had to be a number of incidents aimed at.  Talk about Marikana was linked to the number of people who had died. Human rights were involved.   Warm bodies had to be counted.

Ms Jolingana replied that the number of incidents had been included in the past.

Mr Max referred to recidivism.  NICRO and the other NGOs involved were on their own in the community. Preventative action was needed. The DCS had to network with NGOs in the field. There had to be follow through. There was provision made in the Independent Development Plans of local government.

Ms Pumla Mathibela, CDC, Community Corrections, replied that services were being taken to communities. NGOs were assisting to take over parolees. It was done in line with sentence plans. Some NGOs assisted parolees with starter kits. A number of NGOs marketed the employment of tradesmen. The DCS had a stakeholder database.

The Chairperson commented on post-release support. NGOs were saying that the DCS was not funding them, which could put them out of business. The DCS had to look at how to sustain NGOs.

Mr Max commented that the DCS had to attend to critical administrative functions. Arbitration awards against them had to be addressed.

Mr S Abram (ANC) remarked that a Strategic Plan was like a map to go to certain places. But the DCS had to have the material. Dedicated people were needed. Intentions were meaningless without the integrity to back them. The senior management had in the past undertaken to have kitchens ready by a certain date, and had then gone back on their word. R21 billion would be granted to the DCS. If the DCS were viewed as a business, they simply had to produce results. Input and output were not being matched.

Six percent of the budget was being allocated to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, care and social reintegration were crucial. When the bomb fell on Hiroshima, the Japanese government decided in the aftermath to devote 50% of the budget to education. Currently they were world leaders in information technology. The DCS was running a company that cost R21 billion to run.

Mr Abram asked what had happened to the proposed trading entity. The DCS was nowhere doing what it was supposed to do. Vast amounts were dedicated to warehousing people. The budget was not in synch with the Strategic Plan.

If the DCS wanted to create better people, it had to train them. The DCS was not aligned to achieve better people. Workshops needed upgrading to train and equip people. He asked what could be done to work with the Department of Agriculture to enhance agricultural production.

Mr Abram commented on the mere eight percent allocated for care. The Judicial Inspectorate had conducted a survey of 17 centres and found that there had been no doctor for three months in some instances. The DCS was facing a major crisis. There was a shortage of social workers, nurses and caregivers. Spending on skilling and education was needed. He advised that the DCS speak to Rural Development, to get people to work there. The Strategic Plan had to be brought to the ground.

With regard to social reintegration, there was no point in sending useless people back into the community. He asked about efforts to skill people. Beautiful furniture was made at Zonderwater. The DCS could talk to sister departments.

Ms Nandi Mareka, Acting CFO, sketched the context of the 2013 budget preparation. The country was recovering from the global economic crisis. Cabinet had instructed budget cuts across departments. Departments had been ordered to cut from the baseline and return to fiscus. The Department had at first said that they could not comply, as it was too difficult, but the Treasury insisted on compliance. For the DCS, it had not been the first cut. The DCS had been forced to cut posts to comply with the Cabinet directive. In the current year, Cabinet had instructed further cuts. The DCS had been instructed to cut on compensation of employees. There had been a decision to cut on bonuses. There had to be recapitalisation of farms and workshops. When the DCS produced revenue, it had to go to the National Revenue Fund. To cut costs, they had to recapitalise. It was not only the Judicial Inspectorate who could not get posts.

Mr Abram advised the DCS to inform the Portfolio Committee when the Treasury could not supply priority funding. The Auditor General had recently found that state departments had spent R24 billion wastefully. The DCS had to have a plan. They were not bringing costed plans. Departments were working in silos. Agriculture had received millions to provide mechanisation for resource-poor farmers. Vast amounts of tractors were parked somewhere on an empty lot in the Free State, where there was a fire risk. The DCS had to come out of the silo.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked how the DCS was going to implement its strategic plan without staff, and who would implement rehabilitation programmes. The high vacancy rates had persisted for four years.

Ms Phaliso asked about youth in prison. The strategic plan did not say how many were registered for schools. Rehabilitation was still far off. The Strategic Plan had to speak to infrastructure.

Mr Smalberger replied, with reference to a comment by the researcher, that there were currently ten full-time schools, with one provisionally approved. Basic Education had a requirement that was difficult to meet, namely that there had to be a different teacher for every subject. Youth was a priority. Education was not limited to full-time schools. There were 106 other facilities that contributed.

The Chairperson referred to the statement by the Minister that as from 1 April, all inmates who did not have Grade Nine, would be compelled to obtain it. He asked if that would indeed happen, and if the Annual Performance Plan was speaking to it. Stakeholders were saying that education and health had to be handed to the two government departments responsible for that. He asked if the DCS would consider outsourcing education and health if targets were unachievable.

Mr Smalberger replied that changes in education could not be made halfway through the year. There would be analysis, with announcements made the following year. NGOs could be involved in education through adult training.

Ms Mathibela added that health was not DCS core business. The Minister of Health agreed with that. The DCS had to supply an audit of shortages. ABET teachers from Education would be employed, and the education function would gradually be moved to that government department.

The Chairperson remarked that stakeholders had questioned the relevance of halfway houses.

Ms Jolingana replied that halfway houses were necessary. Thus far it had been a pilot to accommodate those who could not be released on parole because they did not have addresses. It would assist to return them to the community. Some halfway houses were run by NGOs.

The Chairperson noted that millions would be spent on electronic monitoring. He asked if that was all the DCS was doing.

Ms Jolingana replied that if people’s movements were known, it could help prevent recidivism.

The Chairperson stressed the importance of internal auditing and integrity of information. Information was still scattered. He asked about the “do-ability” of the APP. He asked what the DCS meant when they spoke of 100 jobs -- whether that meant that one person worked a hundred times in a year, or a hundred full-time jobs. Remand detention had to be discussed further. The Auditor General and the PC felt that targets were not realistic.

Ms Jolingana said that the Department would flag cluster issues. They could not be judged on things beyond their control.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.