Child Justice Act National Policy Framework & National Instructions: Departments of Justice & Social Development and South African Police Services briefings

Meeting report

Child Justice Act National Policy Framework & National Instructions: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJCD) briefing
Adv Pieter du Rand, Acting Deputy Director-General: Court Services, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development said that his Departments (DOJCD) was the lead department in the cluster. The Director-General (DG) of the DOJCD chaired a task group known as the Inter Sectoral Committee on Child Justice (ISCCJ). This group had met three times already to consider aspects related to the implementation of the Child Justice Act (CJA). The CJA had come into effect on 1 April 2010 and was already making an impact. Various documents and policy frameworks had been tabled.

Adv du Rand said that fewer children were now in the formal justice system. The South African Police Services (SAPS) were making more use of alternate methods of policing children. A system of preliminary inquiry had been developed. There was more ready communication between the different role players. Monitoring systems had been developed. There had been significant detail in the second quarter report. The DOJCD had met all formal requirements. The policy framework had been tabled in June.

Adv du Rand said that meetings had been held to look at the implementation and monitoring of the CJA and to identify gaps. There were 2 000 children awaiting trial monthly. This had decreased over the years. There were only 297 children held in prison in June, although that was still too many. These children were accused of more serious offences and were known as problem children. There were four fourteen year olds, 29 fifteen year olds and seventy-seven 16 year olds. The rest were seventeen year olds.

Adv du Rand said that Child and Youth Care Facilities (CYCFs) had been established for awaiting trial and sentenced children. The Department of Social Development (DSD) had finalised norms and standards for these institutions. The Department of Basic Education (DBE) was handing over Reform Schools and Schools of Industry to the DSD. The DSD was building or refurbishing separate wings in at least one CYCF in each province for sentenced children. In the Western Cape the DSD and DBE had sorted out the procedure for accepting children on court orders.

Adv du Rand said that the CJA had been launched in Soweto on 1 April 2010. There had been communication with the media. Members of the public had been educated. A communications strategy was in place. Training manuals had been developed and sessions had been conducted. There was a process of continuous training at the Department. Court clerks had been trained at the Justice College. The process had been escalated. The last of this training was planned for October. After that, workshops would be held to train the trainers.

Adv du Rand said that the magistrates had needed a workshop and judges of the High Court also needed information. A session was planned for 8 September. Probation officers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had been trained. Directives had been sent to the prosecuting authorities in all provinces. A template had been developed for the management of information. Although this was still being done manually, the DOJCD was moving towards an electronic system. The Department had looked at an integrated case management system.

Adv du Rand said that the diversion system must deal with children outside the formal legal system. In the past a sectoral approach had been followed. The legislation was giving a stronger basis for this. Of all the children charged with offences, 17% had gone into the diversion system during the first quarter. This was less than at the corresponding time in 2009. There were different circumstances in 2010. The Act had come into effect in April. There had been a decrease in the number of children arrested. Thanks to the World Cup there had been a general decrease in crime. There was also normally a dip in the crime rate in the winter months.

Adv du Rand said that there was a challenge in funding. A substantial amount was needed. The Justice Cluster had only received R30 million. Of this R10 million had been allocated to the DOJCD for the appointment of child justice court clerks, inter sectoral meetings and training. Another R10 million had been allocated to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for the appointment of dedicated prosecutors. The remaining R10 million was allocated to Legal Aid South Africa for the appointment of children's attorneys.

Adv du Rand said that some children were awaiting trial for long periods, especially when they were due to appear before a Regional Court. This was especially true for Limpopo and the Northern Cape. The limited funding prevented the cluster from rolling out as many One Stop Justice Centres as they would have liked. Combined facilities would have to be used. Not all members of the SAPS had been trained yet. The DOJCD had spent many hours on the road. The DSD did not have enough probation officers. This led to a lack of after-hours capability. This problem was being dealt with.

Adv du Rand said that Department of Health (DoH) also faced challenges. The DoH was required to assist with the evaluation of criminal capacity for children aged between ten and fourteen. Private practitioners could also assist, but were paid expert witness fees. Additional mental health facilities for children were negotiated with the DoH.

Adv du Rand said that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) did not have enough educational programmes for children. There was a lack of funding. The DBE was being taken to court in the Eastern Cape to ensure it provided resources and capacity for the reform school in Queenstown.

Adv du Rand said that the ISCCJ had been tasked to develop a National Policy Framework (NPF) in terms of Sections 93 and 96 of the Child Justice Act. This framework would ensure a uniform approach, guide the implementation of the Act, promote communication and co-operation with NGOs and civil society, and enhance service delivery. The framework had been completed and was before Parliament.

Adv du Rand said that the NPF covered the background to the CJA, the context and vision of the Act, gave an introduction to the NPF, the objectives of the NPF and the implementation of the CJA. The priorities of the CJA were the building of capacity, ensuring assessment of children, preliminary inquiries, sentencing aspects, provision of diversion and alternative sentencing services and the establishment of CYCF centres. Further priorities were the establishment of one stop child justice centres, resources and budgets, public education and communication, and the development of the necessary communications systems.

Adv du Rand set out the roles and responsibilities of government departments, inter-sectoral co-ordination mechanisms, management of the flow of children through the system, the monitoring and evaluation, and the legal framework (see attached document for details).

Adv du Rand said that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development was responsible for the adoption and tabling of the NPF in Parliament. This had been done by the deadline of 31 May 2010. The NPF had been published in the Government Gazette for public comment, within two months after the tabling of the NPF, as required. Comments could be submitted before 1 October 2010. Some comments had already been received. The NPF would be reviewed by 1 August 2013, and thereafter at intervals of five years.

Adv du Rand concluded that the clusters had come together and they were making a positive difference to children.

Department of Social Development (DSD) briefing
Ms Connie Nxumalo, Chief Director: Families and Social Crime Prevention, Department of Social Development, told the meeting that Section 56(2)(a) of the CJA made the Minister responsible for creating a policy framework, the establishment of a system for accreditation of programmes and ensuring the availability of resources to implement diversion programmes. The purpose of the policy was to protect the needs of children and youth at risk, to ensure that diversion service providers and programmes complied with minimum standards, to support the development of evidence based practice, to enable sustained good quality service delivery and to facilitate continuous improvement to programmes.

Ms Nxumalo said that the objectives of the policy were to ensure that all service providers, DSD employees and other stake holders were aware of the DSD's approach to quality services. The second objective was ensuring that appropriate accreditation and quality assurance systems were in place. The final objective was the establishment and coordination of accreditation systems with a minimum of bureaucracy. There were four tiers of application, namely the child at risk, the organisational and programme level, the criminal justice and social services sector, and the regulatory and policy environment.

Ms Nxumalo said that there would be a national structure in place. This would play a co-coordinating role, build the service of capacity levels of government at all levels, support the provincial teams, monitor the implementation of the NPF and accreditation system, and maintain the database of accredited service providers and diversion programmes. In each province there would be three committees. An Accrediting Committee, consisting of between four and eight members including members of civil society and academics, would be led by a DSD provincial coordinator. A Quality Assurance Panel would be composed of between three and seven members with suitable knowledge, and would include a state official. A Site Verification Team would comprise between two and five members.

Ms Nxumalo said that the provincial Head of Department (HoD) would be responsible for appointing members to serve on these committees. Membership should include representatives of NGOs, government departments and academic institutions.

Ms Nxumalo said that the functions of the Accreditation Committee would be to consider recommendations from the Site Verification Team, which would be the first to go out to inspect a facility. The Accreditation Committee would accredit service providers and programmes. It would establish and review standards for diversion services. It would provide recommendations on the review of applicable legislation. It would make decisions on accreditation processes and review these processes. It would make recommendations to the Quality Assurance Committee.

Ms Nxumalo said that the functions of the Quality Assurance Panel would include the preparation of documents and reports. It would consider organisational responses to preliminary reports. It would monitor and evaluate diversion processes. It would conduct site visits, contribute towards capacity building and facilitate development plans.

The Site Verification Teams would conduct site visits. They would assess and screen applications, make recommendations on the award or removal of accreditation, maintain a database of service providers and programmes, and assist with monitoring and evaluation and with capacity building.

Ms Nxumalo listed a number of eligibility criteria for organisations and programme delivery. The accreditation process would be in four phases. The application process was open to all service providers and could be done in person or on-line. Applicants had to complete a self-assessment questionnaire. Applications were then subject to an evaluation of eligibility requirements. An organisation had to be registered with the DSD as a welfare organisation. It had to have at least six months experience. Failing this, it could be placed on candidacy status. The second phase included a desk assessment, site visits and consideration. In the third phase a decision would be made on awarding accreditation. The service provider would be advised of the decision. Successful service providers would be certified and placed in the quality assurance (QA) cycle. The fourth and final phase would be the maintenance of accreditation standards and QA. There would be regular site visits where the organisation's suitability to continue providing the service would be assessed.

Ms Nxumalo said that a complaint and conflict resolution mechanism had been put in place. A service provider could lodge a complaint within fourteen days after receiving a response from the Accreditation Committee. The Chairperson of the Committee must respond to a written complaint within thirty days. If the service provider was not satisfied with the Chairperson's decision an appeal could be made to the HoD for investigation. Members of the public could lodge complaints.

Ms Nxumalo said that the DSD must make resources available for the implementation of diversion programmes. She then reported on progress thus far. Internal briefing sessions were conducted on 2 July 2010. Provincial stakeholder briefings had been held from 15 to 16 July. Provincial structures had been put in place. National workshops and briefings for members of civil society organisations were scheduled for 9 to 10 September 2010. A notice had been published in the Government Gazette. An implementation plan for the accreditation system had been developed.

Ms Nxumalo said that the DSD was working with all relevant stakeholders to provide quality diversion services. A monitoring system was being developed. The policy framework would be formally reviewed in 2010, although challenges would be addressed by the QA Panel. The DSD had a national resource directory of services.

South African Police Services (SAPS) briefing
Gen Tertius Geldenhuys, Head: Legislation and Legal Services, South African Police Services, said that the Police Services (SAPS) had developed a national instruction which had been distributed to all SAPS stations. Training had been provided in three phases. Communication networks had been established. A framework for monitoring and evaluation had been set up.

Gen Geldenhuys said that the national instruction was clear. Children below the age of ten were not considered capable of forming criminal intent. Children between the ages of ten and fourteen would not be arrested under some circumstances, and the instruction detailed where such children could be held. Children between fourteen and eighteen were often involved in more serious crimes. SAPS members were being sensitised with the need to deal with children as children, despite the heinous nature of their alleged offences. The SAPS would liaise with other role players such as probation officers, justice officials and NGOs. Social workers must be involved where children under the age of ten were involved with crime. The SAPS must work closely with social workers. Reports were to be submitted on crimes involving children, and the SAPS must make every effort to find the ring-leaders. Wherever children under ten were involved, the SAPS would look for the adults behind them.

Gen Geldenhuys said that there was a broad target group for education initiatives. Three phases had been identified. A one-day information seminar had been presented on a decentralised basis. This had been completed by 31 March 2010. The second phase was a two day in-service workshop. This had started on 24 May and had also been presented on a decentralised basis. The final phase was a one week in-service learning programme for SAPS officials specialising in dealing with vulnerable children. This was also presented on both a regional and national level, and had commenced on 5 July.

Gen Geldenhuys said that the one day information session had been targeted at provincial heads responsible for visible policing, cluster commanders, key police officials at cluster level, station commanders, detective branch commanders, Family Service Centre (FSC) Unit commanders, and Community Service Centre (CSC) commanders. It had focused on the CJA and national instruction. All trainers had been trained by 1 April. A total of 5 138 members had been trained.

Gen Geldenhuys said that the two day workshop had been targeted at CSC personnel, members responsible for cells and detention, crime prevention members, sector commanders, detectives and FCS members, and focused on the CJA and national instruction. All trainers had been trained by 23 April. By 30 July 990 members had been trained.

Gen Geldenhuys said that the one week learning programme was targeted at visible policing members, detectives, and FCS officials. This had focused on vulnerable children, the CJA and national instructions. All trainers had been trained by 30 June. By 30 July 151 members had received this training. A lot of planning had gone into the programmes and manuals had been produced.

Gen Geldenhuys said that referral information had been sent to members. All stations had been provided with information on probation officers and CYCFs. Information on child care facilities was available on the SAPS intranet. Information was updated continuously. The systems in place had worked superbly in high-profile cases such as the murder of Mr Etienne Terre'blanche, where a child was one of the accused. A booklet on policing the CJA was being produced, as well as external communication tools. A programme had been produced for broadcast on POL-TV.

Gen Geldenhuys outlined the actions being taken regarding monitoring and evaluation. Records were being kept on the number of children being charged. Arrest of children was regarded as a last resort,  in line with the intention of the CJA. Members of the SAPS Provincial Inspectorate and SAPS Visible Policing Division would conduct at least ninety visits per year to inspect SAPS stations.

Discussion
Mr M Makhubela (COPE, Limpopo) noted the the DSD presentation was marked as “secret”. He asked why this was so. He also asked if the NPF would work.

Ms Nxumalo said that the document had been classified while it was still within the Department. She had forgotten to remove the classification before sending it to Parliament. She confirmed that it was now a public document.

Mr Makhubela asked how serious the impact of the CJA would be. He was impressed that children were no longer being arrested. He asked if the figure of 279 children in detention covered all prisons. The budget allocation of R30 million was a serious problem. The Act had been promulgated by government. The DOJCD should forget about donor funds. He asked how much was needed. He asked if special courts such as those set up for the World Cup could be used to clear the backlog of cases involving children.

Adv du Rand replied that the figure of 297 children in detention was measured country-wide. This was good news, as the numbers in the past amounted to several thousand. This was a measurable impact. Funding was crucial and covered a broad ambit. There was a whole new way of dealing with children. Rehabilitation was important. The DOJCD was looking at the infrastructure. The Act had been costed before it was approved by Parliament. The amount expected was R1.2 billion over three years. However, the Department had to be realistic as government's resources were limited.

Adv du Rand said that the DOJCD needed R51 million for the current financial year, but National Treasury could only afford R30 million. He understood the reasons for this. The Department still needed to balance its budget, which it would achieve by re-prioritisation. In that sense the programme was unfunded. However, the first few months had been remarkable.

Adv du Rand said that there seemed to be an incorrect impression about the number of outstanding cases. There were only fourteen children awaiting trial at the Regional Court level. This was still fourteen too many. The DOJCD would be vigilant to see what was happening in the provinces. Some cases had been partly heard, and others had already been partly heard in magistrates' courts. The Department wanted to prioritise cases. Special measures were needed to deal with backlogs. Apart from 55 regional cases, there were 20 000 cases that would still be on the court roll. The Department had to prioritise cases involving children and sexual offences. The new approach was paying dividends. Thirteen additional district courts had been established.

Mr Makhubela said that the recent issue of the SAPS journal was full of news relating to the World Cup. He asked if the CJA could be given the same level of publicity. He thought that the target of communication was station commanders and those at a similar level. The stress seemed only to be on SAPS officials dealing with children. He asked if the training would also be given at SAPS colleges. New recruits should be targeted as they would soon be manning the charge offices. He asked if the initial batch of 5 138 trainees were spread over all the provinces. The same applied to the 990 that had completed the two day workshop.

Gen Geldenhuys said he would take the suggestion regarding the SAPS journal on board. The one day session had been spread over all SAPS stations in the country in clusters. Key staff at each station had been involved. The curriculum of the basic training course for new recruits was being amended to cater for the CJA. The target group for the two day in-service training had been indicated in the presentation. Posters and information pamphlets were already being developed.

Mr Makhubela said that notices had been displayed at all charge offices regarding the handling of domestic violence cases. He asked if these had been effective. He asked if all stations had access to POL-TV, and if the information could not also be aired on the Duty Calls programme. He asked if the booklet on the CJA would be available in all eleven official languages. He asked if the figure of ninety visits by the inspectorate was set, and how the programme of visits would be designed.

Gen Geldenhuys said that the distribution of the booklets would be co-ordinated with a poster campaign. There had been an insert on Duty Calls. The publicity campaign was an ongoing process. The booklet would be published in all eleven languages, but this might not be achieved before the end of the year. There were clear instructions to the Inspectorate to focus on the implementation of the CJA at SAPS stations. Deficiencies must be addressed on the spot if any problems were encountered.

Mr A Matila (ANC, Gauteng) asked about the shortage of resources. The DOJCD and DSD had not received the funding to fulfil their mandates. He asked what implications this situation held for the implementation of the CJA. The SAPS had made an application for their budget. While the SAPS was busy with the World Cup, they had still been able to train. He asked what the legal implications were.

Adv du Rand said that the practical aspects of the mandate were clear. Police were arresting fewer children and more children were going into diversion programmes.

Ms Nxumalo said that the Bill had been on the table since 2005. Costings had been done and a budget allocated. The DSD had built 28 facilitates. Approximately 484 probation officers had been appointed to deal with children specifically. The DSD had appointed 387 legal assistants. NGOs were being funded to manage diversion systems. No additional funding was available. The R30 million allocation had been split between the DOJCD, NPA and Legal Aid South Africa. The DSD was re prioritising its allocation. The DSD would provide the Committee with figures.

Mr M Mokgobi (ANC, Limpopo) said that the presentations did not contain the gist of performance monitoring. Issues relating to the budget and funding of the mandate of the departments had already been raised. There would be a review in five years. The departments must anticipate that there would be some challenges. The Terre'blanche case was a good example of the CJA at work. He asked if the reaction was not sensationalist in this case. He wondered if a more casual approach might have been followed in a case of a lower profile. There had been a case of children being abducted by officers in Metropolitan Police uniforms. He asked about restorative justice in cases involving delinquent children.

Adv du Rand said that the NPF had a range of performance measurements. There was provision for a monitoring system in terms of both quality and quantity. Specific feedback would be included in the next quarterly report. Members must bear in mind that the NPF was a guide. The need for restoration was satisfied through the diversion programme. Children were subject to introspection.

Gen Geldenhuys said that the incident where children were abducted had taken place in the Tshwane metro. It was not connected to the CJA. These children had, in terms of the Children's Act, been removed from their guardians as they needed immediate protection. He could not defend the methods used by the police, and the SAPS would ensure that there were no more similar cases. Standards were being developed for municipal police. There was a link to sexual offences legislation.

Mr Matila said that some criminals regarded prison as their hotel. With millions of children going hungry, he asked if the places of safety could not be regarded in the same light. A rehabilitative process was needed. There was a lot of money available for those in the child care system, while those on the outside went hungry.

Adv du Rand said that CYCFs should not be seen as hotels. Children experienced confined spaces and a highly structured environment. Children should not be kept in jail and the department must look at a different manner of confinement.

Ms Nxumalo said that new facilities had been built by the DSD. DSD was planning to build nine more centres in the course of the next Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). There was a policy issue regarding the CYCFs. The DSD had moved after the Cabinet and cluster had approved spending to construct secure care facilities to house children awaiting trial. They could access certain facilities.

Mr D Bloem (COPE, Free State) asked about the system of accreditation put forward by the DSD. Corruption was rife in the country. The requirement was that organisations must have six months experience in child care. He felt that the qualification should be nothing less than 18 months experience. Government could not let organisations experiment with children. The facility at Kroonstad had been released. This issue must be addressed. He asked how many institutions in the Northern Cape and elsewhere were affected.

Adv du Rand said that the NPF was subject to a five year review. However, there would be monthly and quarterly meetings to assess the regulations. Changes could be made as soon as they were required.

Ms Nxumalo noted the recommendation on the organisational experience requirement. The policy was originally to use two years’ experience as a qualification, but that would have excluded most new organisations. She would take this matter back to the DSD for discussion.

Mr Bloem asked for more information on the two-day training. He said that all police officers would work at the cells and not just a specific person. All members should therefore be trained.

Adv du Rand replied that the SAPS had started with phased training. Huge numbers of members were involved. The impact was clear.

Gen Geldenhuys agreed that SAPS members worked shifts and could all be called on to do work related to monitoring of cells and detention. There would always be someone on duty near SAPS cells. There were ways to ensure that members would be released from duty to attend training sessions in the same way that members had time to take leave. This was planned over time. Only a small percentage of SAPS members had been trained but the process had just started. The training programme had been hampered by the World Cup, but at the same time the trainers had not been called up for World Cup duty. This time was used to train the trainers. Training was planned for three phases.

Mr Mokgobi asked what impact the CJA was making.

Adv du Rand said that it was a new Act and it was still too early to assess its impact. Time was needed to evaluate the situation. The numbers of children being arrested and detained were dropping because of the different approach brought in by the Act. The DOJCD would monitor what was happen in the various departments. Quarterly reports would be submitted to Parliament.

Gen Geldenhuys said that the DOJCD had provided the information on the impact of the CJA. There had been some high profile cases. These were very visible and everyone knew about them. Smaller cases were being monitored continuously. Some problem areas had been identified.

Mr B Nesi (ANC, Eastern Cape) said he had watched footage of the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development opening a child care centre in KwaZulu. He asked what was happening with new centres run by Bosapa. He had heard nothing from any of the three presenters regarding education of children in custody. The Minister of Correctional Services had talked about some programmes. South Africa was a developmental State but he could not see how the CJA catered for development. The lives of people had to be changed.

Adv du Rand said that the organisation to which he referred to was in fact Busasa.

Ms Corla Kok, Director: Child Justice, DOJCD, said she had been involved with child justice for the previous ten years. Children's issues were a priority. The Justice Cluster worked well. Meetings had been held since 2002. The rights of children were paramount. Much work had been done on educational programmes for children serving a sentence. However, there was no schooling provided for children awaiting trial. These children could be detained for up to a year. It was necessary to put a programme together that would provide education for anyone held in detention from two days up to a year. A programme was in place, but the budget was a critical issue. The DOJCD would try to secure donor funds. The development programme was looking at the consequences of crime. The Department had to look at the causes of crime. In 2008 she had visited two centres in Bloemfontein. She had seen a young man who had been detained but who had now developed himself as a facilitator teaching life skills at the CYCF.

Ms Nxumalo said that the DSD was developing norms and standards. Circumstances depended on the duration of the child's stay in the facility. Education in hygiene was an important issue given the background of some of the children. Vocational skills, soft skills and therapy would be provided. There was a link with the schools. Awaiting trial children stayed in contact with their current schools. They were still given homework and sat for examinations. However, she would like to institute a formal schooling system. Many children were not part of the formal education system.

Ms Nxumalo said that of the DSD's 28 facilities, eleven were outsourced. These were run by Busasa, which provided vocational skills and personnel. The DCS did not have a programme for awaiting-trial children. The DSD had targeted six correctional facilities in partnership with Khulisa. The DCS maintained that this was not their responsibility. A pilot programme had been finished.

Ms Nxumalo said that some programmes were needed. The DSD was engaging with the DCS and DBE. In some cases the offence committed did warrant the child being kept in jail. The magistrate would decide where a child should be detained, if at all. The DSD said that its policies were developmental in nature. Young people had to realise that they were accountable for their actions. The Department would like to see a reduction in recidivism. Children should become better citizens in future. The family was at the centre of the process.

Mr Makhubela said that the DOJCD must compile an objective report. Funding was a problem. There was a similar problem with the Traditional Leaders Bill. The Department needed to provide a motivation so that the Committee could advocate for the shortfall to be made up. The programme must not run out of fuel. He agreed that the magistrate would decide where a child would be held. He asked to what degree the magistrate was guided by the pre-sentencing report.

Mr Matila said that he was worried about the pressure being placed on the country by outside funders, who came with specific prescripts, and said that external forces must not be allowed to dictate to South Africa. Government must reject anything that came with donor funding. This type of finance did not assist the country because of the conditions which accompanied the funding. The financial position was becoming clearer. All of the departments had applied for a joint allocation of R1.2 billion. There was no indication of a prior budget. He understood that the DOJCD had only been allocated R30 million against an expected R51 million for the year. Government needed to monitor the present budget. Notice should be taken of previous reports.

Mr Matila wanted a clearer picture of Busasa, which was an NGO. There was an issue with the DCS. He asked why DSD had taken Busasa on board. There was a programme of growing food on the fields attached to the CYCFs. One could not expect children to work, but he asked if something was not required of the seventeen year olds. Some limited work would assist with their transition to adult life.

Ms Nxumalo said that an assessment was done after the arrest of a child. A particular placement would be recommended from that assessment, but the magistrate hearing the case had the final say. The DSD would submit information on its finances. There had been no challenges with Busasa until the present. The entire programme was being reviewed. At one of the centres run by this organisation in Cape Town, there was workshop training for artisans, while younger children were also taught computer skills.

Adv du Rand said that the DOJCD would compile a report on funding patters over the years both before and after the implementation of the CJA. The Justice Cluster had requested funding. A written submission would be made. He agreed that donor funds had to be treated with caution. One-off grants were used for programmes of an educational nature. Donor funding was not a sustainable source.

Mr Bloem asked how many centres were run by Busasa. He asked why this function was being outsourced. It was expensive. He needed to see a breakdown of the costs so that he could compare the costs at private facilities to those of State-run facilities.

Mr Nesi said that all institutions had challenges. He asked how many CYCFs were being run successfully.

Mr Makhubela said that if there were any stumbling blocks the departments should call the Chairperson of the Committee.

Mr Matila said that an oversight visit was needed. The Committee should visit SAPS stations. He felt that different standards were being applied in different areas. In his constituency there were problems with the courts in Mamelodi.

The Chairperson said that the session had been empowering, and he was pleased to see that issues were being dealt with together.

The briefing by the Magistrates Commission on the suspension of magistrates and the subsequent discussion will be made available later.

The meeting was adjourned.