Department of Correctional Services 2011/12 Strategic Plan & Budget & Minister's input

Correctional Services

21 March 2011
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Minister of Correctional Services briefly introduced the strategic plan, explaining that it would serve as a roadmap for transformation of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) into an organisation that was efficient, fully capacitated to fulfill its mandate, and to play its full role in the Security Cluster. Business processes had been reviewed, and interventions would be made to stabilise operations and improve service delivery immediately, achieve cost-saving and improve monitoring and evaluation. Tight budgets forced the DCS to prioritise, and it would proceed with establishment of a remand detention branch, continue to address the 7-day establishment, and eliminate corruption. The DCS staff then presented the strategic plan and budget, outlining the process and linked documents. The seven main programmes, and their sub-programmes, were outlined, with performance indicators and targets being given for each. Under Administration the main aims were to have no unauthorized expenditure and limit under expenditure to 0.25%, to award the bulk of contracts to historically disadvantaged service providers, to reduce the audit qualifications to none by 2012, improve human resources and fill vacant posts, with targets of 11% vacancy rate in 2011 down to 3% in 2015. Much emphasis was also placed on integration and security of ICT systems, and improving monitoring. The Security Programme aimed to reduce assaults, unnatural deaths, escapes and increase the number of centres with operative access control security turnstiles. The Corrections Programme aimed to address rehabilitation, and would focus on increasing assessments, rehabilitation programme attendance, and provision of sentence plans, work opportunities and approved parole dates, and reduce overcrowding.  The Care Programme aimed to increase participation of offenders in a range of programmes. The Social Reintegration Programme would try to facilitate social acceptance and reintegration of offenders after release, by providing needs-based programmes and services, and to increase bail and community supervision uptake. The Facilities Programme was trying to increase bed space, partially through Public/Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives. Annual Performance Plans set yearly targets, and the monitoring plans. The Estimate of National Expenditure figures, with breakdowns for each programme and sub-programme, were also presented.

Members asked how the DCS would avoid fronting when awarding contracts, asked what the DCS was doing to fill vacant posts, how it would reduce days lost to suspension and leave, how it would address grievance procedures and speedy resolution of disciplinary cases, specifically calling for progress on cases reported in 2009. The Minister was asked to respond further on corruption. They questioned access control and security quite extensively, and also questioned why sentence plans were targeted, if they could not be implemented and their efficacy was not shown. They asked how victim participation was to be increased, the impact of the 7-day establishment, progress on the Master Information System Plan, and stressed the need to address IT issues within strict time frames. They asked about the number of accredited institutions for ARV treatment, how many mentally ill inmates were held, use of consultants, and also questioned whether public private partnerships would be established, their benefits, the costs of running the private centres, who had done feasibility studies, and noted that correct figures were vital. They asked if building related to upgrades or new buildings. A Member questioned why so few inmates participated in agricultural programmes and asked how DCS was intending to make the centres self-sufficient. Members also questioned spending on consultants.


Meeting report

Department of Correctional Services 2011/12 Strategic Plan & Budget
The Chairperson invited the Minister of Correctional Services, National Commissioner of Correctional Services and delegates from the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department) to brief the Committee on the 2011 Strategic Plan and budget. The Committee would be adopting its Committee Report on 23 March 2011.

Hon Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, Minister of Correctional Services, thanked the Committee for the manner in which it had dealt with the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill (the Bill). She also was grateful for the opportunity to present the plans. She noted that the 2011/12 strategic plan embodied the plans for the next financial year and served as a road map for the Department’s transformation agenda, and for addressing its shortcomings.

There was full recognition that the DCS needed to transform into an efficient organisation, fully capacitated to fulfill its mandate, and to reposition and reorganise itself to play its full role in the Security Cluster. The introduction of the outcomes-based approach in government had a marked effect on the work and role of the executive, and she was a signatory to a Cluster agreement. The strategic plan took account of government priorities.

The Minister noted that a new National Commissioner and Chief Financial Officer were appointed to the DCS during 2010. They were asked to review the Departmental business processes, and to ensure realignment of the DCS strategy and business structures. Leadership had engaged with National Treasury (NT) around the budget structure, which would be implemented in the 2012/13 financial year. Transformation of the Department was a long term initiative, but key areas in which interventions were needed to stabilise operations and improve service delivery were identified, as articulated in the strategic plan. The Department was committed to cost-saving. It would also be improving its monitoring and evaluation to ensure that operational plans were aligned to political and policy issues. 

The Minister noted that tight resource allocations had forced the DCS to prioritise. After conclusion of the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill, the DCS would proceed with the establishment of the remand detention branch, as part of the effort to streamline the overhaul of the criminal justice system (CJS), including finalisation of plans to determine policy. The DCS would remain sensitive to its challenges around human resources. The finalisation of the 7-day establishment was receiving attention, with ongoing discussions between DCS and labour.

Finally, she noted that the strategic plan solidified long-term plans to put the DCS on a firm path of good governance, and rid it of all forms of corruption. Successful implementation of the strategic plan relied on both internal and external partnerships. DCS valued the support and monitoring by both the Office of the Auditor-General (AG) and Parliament.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, was honoured to present the strategic plan, which he described as a road map defining the capabilities of the DCS to efficiently execute its mandate. The transformation agenda sought to support the objectives that the DCS had set, within the stated time frames, and the strategic plan now contained these objectives, targets and financial implications. The distortion in the budget had been brought to his attention and was borne in mind, but he assured the Committee that the budget took account of the needs of  offenders and was not heavy on human resources.

Ms Mapisa-Nqakula expressed regret about inmate escapes, from two different centres. Some had been arrested and some were still at large. She believed that it was vital for DCS to be able to deal more efficiently and speedily with matters, even if this meant amending labour laws.

Mr Joey Coetzee, Deputy Commissioner: Operations. Department of Correctional Services, tabled the  Departments’ strategic plan. He reiterated that the introduction of the outcomes-based assessment /evaluation (OBA) in government introduced additional roles and responsibilities for Executive authorities. Service Delivery Agreements had been signed by the Minister of Correctional Services and the President. The strategic planning process was informed by various developments such as the DCS mid-year performance review, publication of policy on government performance, guidelines of OBA and revisions to National Treasury regulations around planning and resourcing. The strategic plan also took into consideration the issue of resourcing.

He noted that the OBA introduced 12 outcomes for government performance, and the DCS incorporated three into its strategic plan: namely, improved quality of education, achieving a long and healthy life for all South Africans, and making all people in South Africa feel safe. He stressed that the DCS would contribute to the outcomes by performance indicators in its programmes of Administration, Security, Corrections, Care, Development and Social Reintegration.

He then outlined the Administration Programme. This comprised four sub-programmes of finance, corporate services, operations and management, and central services. The finance sub-programme aimed to provide effective and efficient financial and supply chain management. He tabled the performance indicators and targets (see attached presentation for details – please note that only the first part of each financial year is generally given). The target was to have no unauthorised expenditure, and to limit under expenditure to 0.25% of voted funds. DCS aimed to maintain 80% award of contracts to historically disadvantaged (HDI) service providers. It aimed to reduce the number of qualification grounds and deficiencies from the 2010/11 audit report, and move to an unqualified report by 2012/13. The corporate services objectives included improving the human resources capacity and management, to enable the Department to fulfill its mandate. It hoped to achieve a 10% reduction from the previous year for numbers of person-days lost to suspensions, to reduce the percentage of person-days lost to leave, to and to maintain levels of grievances finalised in 30 days. It also sought to reduce the 14% vacancy rate of 2010 down to 11% in 2011 and reach a 3% vacancy rate by 2015. These performance indicators and targets had been aligned to the realisation of Chapter 8: “An ideal Correctional Official within an Appropriate Organisational Culture” of the White Paper on Corrections (the White Paper) in South Africa.
 
The sub-programme for central services aimed to achieve effective, legally sound, policy-compliant and corruption free management, and effective knowledge management in DCS. It hoped to raise the finalised corruption investigations to 60% in 2011, and 80% in 2015. It also hoped to improve the conviction rate for fraud, corruption and serious maladministration cases, to 84% in 2011 and 92% by 2015. It sought to increase the percentage of successful finalised litigation to 72% in 2011 and 80% by 2015. DCS also sought to integrate ICT systems through a phased implementation of the CJS Business Information system approved by Cabinet. The DCS would determine a baseline for the year 2011/12, and increase this by half again to integrate personnel management systems up to 100% by 2015. DCS also sought to manage perceptions of crime among the population. These performance indicators and targets were aligned to Chapters 3, 8 and 13 of the White Paper.

The last sub-programme, of operations and management support, aimed to ensure effective planning, resourcing, delivery, project management, monitoring, evaluation and reporting for improved service delivery. A target was set to move from 92% inspection of compliance improvement plans in 2011, to 98% in 2015.

Programme 2: Security aimed to have safe and secure conditions for all persons incarcerated, consistent with human dignity, and in support of security personnel and the public. Mr Coetzee outlined the DCS’s targets for reducing the annual percentage of inmates assaulted in correctional and remand detention facilities, from 2.48% in 2011 down to 1.7% in 2015. He noted that there were also plans to reduce escapes from correctional and remand detention facilities from 0.036% of inmates in 2011 to 0.027% of inmates in 2015. It was hoped to increase the percentage of centres that had access control security turnstiles, to 38% by 2015. The Department also intended to increase the percentage of personnel who had been vetted, to 14%, and decrease the percentage of unnatural deaths from 0.03% of inmates in 2011 to 0.024% in 2015.

Programme 3: Corrections aimed to address the specific rehabilitation needs of persons sentenced to correctional supervision, or to incarceration in a correctional centre, or who had been paroled. This would be done through regular assessment and provision of needs-based correctional programmes that would address all the elements associated with offending behavior. The targets for percentage of offenders involved in rehabilitation would increase, from 53% in 2011 to 93% in 2015. The DCS aimed to reduce percentage of overcrowding in correctional and remand facilities, over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), from 36% down to 28%. It also wanted to increase the provision of sentence plans to those offenders serving more than 24 months incarceration, from 70% in 2011 to 100% in 2015. In addition, DCS sought to increase and maintain the percentage of offenders whose profiles were compiled within 21 days, at 100% from 2011. It wanted to increase the percentage of work opportunities provided to eligible offenders, from 41% in 2011 to 50% in 2015, and to increase the percentage of offenders with approved parole dates, from 60% in 2011 to 65% in 2015.

Programme 4: Care strove to ensure the personal well-being of incarcerated persons, by providing various needs-based services. Targets were set to increase the percentage of inmates tested for HIV, percentage of HIV offenders placed on anti-retroviral treatment, percentage of inmates with CD4 count below 350 who were on ARV treatment, and percentage of inmates diagnosed with mental illness and placed under treatment. In addition the Department sought to increase the percentage of care programmes provided by external service providers, percentage of eligible offenders who participated in care programmes and the percentage of offenders on medical treatment for communicable diseases, hypertension and diabetes.

Programme 5: Development, noted objectives that were aimed at providing needs-based educational, skills and other development-related programmes, to facilitate the reintegration of offenders into communities. Performance indicators and targets to maintain the participation of offenders in literacy training, as stipulated in their sentence plans, aimed for 67.4% in 2011, and DCS wanted to maintain the percentage of eligible offenders who participated in Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) programmes, as stipulated in their sentence plans, at 60.9%. The DCS also intended to increase the percentages of offenders involved in sports, recreation, arts and culture in 2011, by 4% against the 2010 baseline, and then to increase by 2% against each year thereafter. DCS further sought to increase the percentage of eligible offenders who participated in Further Education and Training (FET) college programmes, skills development programmes and production workshops and agriculture programmes.

Programme 6: Social Reintegration, would provide needs-based programmes and services to offenders, in order to facilitate their social acceptance and effective reintegration into their communities after release. DCS had set targets to increase the percentage of parolees without violations per year, from 76.2% to 81.99%, the percentage of parole cases in which victims of crimes were represented, from 2.22% to 5.32%, and the percentage of eligible cases considered by the Parole Board, from 90% to 94%. It also sought to increase the number of cases considered by the Parole Board and then referred to the Parole Review Board, from 0.08% to 0.11%. It wished to increase the percentage of the remand population who would be granted bail or placed under community supervision, from 22.4% to 32.7%.

Programme 7: Facilities aimed to prevent inmates from participating in criminal activities in the correctional centres, or from escaping. DCS had to provide an environment that ensured the safety of all persons under the Department’s care, as well as the safety of the public. The DCS set itself a target of increasing additional bed space by 16 511, noting that 12 000 of these beds would be found in Public/Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives.

Mr Coetzee stressed that the strategic plan was linked also to the Master Information System Plan (MISP), spending plan, procurement plan, workplace skills plan (WSP), service delivery improvement plan (SDIP) and the strategic risk register (SRR).

He then emphasised that the medium term strategic plans would be implemented via Annual Performance Plans (APP). The APP would set out what the Department intended to do in the following financial year, and during the MTEF. The APP provided a quarterly breakdown of performance targets in the financial year, as well as yearly targets for the following two years, as prescribed by National Treasury. Monitoring of the APP would be conducted through quarterly performance meetings with Budget Programme Managers. The quarterly reports would be submitted to the Executive Authority, the Presidency, National Treasury and the Portfolio Committee. Branches would develop Operational Plans to put APPs into operation, and these would deal with day-to-day responsibilities, as well as outputs and activities to deliver on APPs and SPs. Both the APP and operational plans would be completed by 31 March, and the APP would be tabled in the National Assembly (NA) on 9 May 2011.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented on the noble target to award  80% of contract-value to HDI service providers. However, he asked what measures had been put in place to prevent fronting.

Mr Siphiwe Sokhela, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Correctional Service, responded that the DCS was aware that the budget needed to be distributed properly, without fronting. Each company on the DCS database had to be reviewed. He stressed that the DCS required the names of all directors of the company and copies of their IDs. He said that there was need to make sure that every step of the supply chain was followed. In addition he stated that the DCS would make sure that all supporting documents were checked thoroughly including the original documents. Furthermore he said that the DCS would be linking itself with the National Treasury in order to ensure that companies were registered on the National Treasury Database.

The Chairperson stressed the President’s directive that all vacant posts must be filled. He asked what was happening to the money especially in light of the fact that the posts were funded.

Mr Moyane responded that DCS had agreed to motivate the points around funded posts. DCS had employed about 1 848 people between July and November 2011. He took a decision to adhere to the directive from the President. Regional Commissioners were also accountable, and around 50% to 60% of the posts should be filled by June 2011. He could not state that all posts would be filled.

The Chairperson enquired how the DCS intended to reduce the percentage of person-days lost to suspension without falling foul of the labour relations legislation.


Mr Terrence Raseroka, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, said that an analysis that DCS had done showed that DCS did not have sufficient capacity to deal with transgressions, and thus needed to create additional capacity to deal with employee-related cases internally.

Mr L Max (DA) asked whether the DCS was not bound by any other collective agreement forum that hearings or suspensions be finalised within a certain period. He also asked what “loss of leave” referred to.

Mr Raseroka responded that there were specific time frames that guided grievance procedures. However, there were challenges in meeting them, because of the numbers of cases and DCS’s ability to finalise them. One of the key issues that had been isolated in DCS was how labour relations functions were scattered across the organisation. There was a need to establish a central repository for labour issues.

The Chairperson asked whether there was integrity in the dealings around suspensions, and how DCS would ensure fairness.

Mr Moyane responded that DCS did face challenges with the manner in which it dealt with grievances and suspensions, but this would be addressed during the transformation process. In some cases, despite committing very serious transgressions, an individual was still employed by DCS.

The Chairperson noted that the DCS sought to align its strategic plans to the White paper. He asked how the DCS intended to reconcile the two, when things were different on the ground.

Mr Moyane responded that the DCS wished to have more selective recruitment, and there was a need to develop and establish an academy, which would help DCS comply with Chapter 8 of the White Paper. He stated that the DCS was not currently seen as an employer of choice, but as a last-resort option. Ideally, the cadres should be coming up through the ranks. DCS would need the support of the Committee in these matters, but work had begun on discussing the issues internally.

The Chairperson noted the DCS’s plans to increase the percentage of centres with access control security turnstiles, from 32% to 38%. He asked whether this meant that the remaining percentage of centres continued to be secured with handcuffs, and said that the Committee was not happy with these figures.

Mr Zacharia Modise, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections, Department of Correctional Services, responded that it was agreed, two years previously, that the turnstiles would be de-activated owing to various challenges. In June 2010 it was then decided that they should be re-activated. At only six of 66 centres of excellence, turnstiles were not working. All centres that would open during this financial year would have functional turnstiles.

The Chairperson enquired about the objectives of having sentence plans and asked why where there were sentence plans if they were not working.

Mr Modise responded that sentence plans were road maps. He agreed that not every intervention, from design to implementation, had been done successfully, and added that DCS did not have the capacity to implement the programme, so that not all offenders were benefiting from sentence plans. He did, however, say that offenders who were sentenced to less than 24 months were provided with other intervention programmes, although these differed from the sentence plans provided to those sentenced to more than 24 months.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked whether stakeholders had been involved when the DCS implemented the White Paper, and whether there were partnerships with stakeholders to provide community-based support for social reintegration. She also asked whether the DCS had developed a plan to increase victim participation.

Mr Modise conceded that DCS was not where it wanted to be for victim participation. Although DCS had now embarked on an awareness campaign to encourage the victims of crimes to attend Parole Board hearings, not all availed themselves of this opportunity. He said that stakeholders had been involved in the White Paper process and its finalisation, although he did not have any information on how many had been consulted.

Ms Ngwenya also asked what areas of concern had been identified by the security technology audit and how DCS had addressed the concerns that had been raised. She asked exactly how many turnstiles were not working.

Mr Modise responded that the security technology audit revealed that some systems were in dire need of maintenance or upgrade, to get them fully functioning. This audit also indicated that all centres required additional closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, for adequate coverage of the correctional centres. It was also found that metal detectors and most scanners were not functional. He repeated that out of 66 centres, six had turnstiles that were not functional, but he did not have a full report on how many were fully operational. DCS had looked at the structure around security violations, which did not currently talk to what DCS intended to do. DCS had looked at other options, such as electronic monitoring.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) asked about the impact of the 7-day establishment on the programmes of offenders.

Mr Modise responded that there was some confusion around the 7-day establishment, and that inmate programmes were affected by the 2 x 12-hour shifts. DCS had developed eight programmes. The targets that DCS had indicated, of 24 000 inmates in programmes, could increase to 60 000 but there was a decrease in the number of offenders who had completed the programmes.

Ms Nyanda wanted to hear the progress on the Master Information System Plan.

Mr Jeff Moji, Special Advisor: IT, Department of Correctional Services, said that the MISP had been designed in the last five years, and there were attempts to roll it out. He stressed that the DCS had looked at security implications, and had to redesign everything around network and infrastructure policies. In the past, technology had been put in place without necessarily looking at its security implications, so there were challenges. A number of initiatives had been identified to ensure that the basic infrastructure was working. Two situations had been identified. Firstly, immediate intervention involved IT stabilisation, where there was a need to look at infrastructure, then security policies, then implement and roll out. DCS would also improve the Wide Area Network (WAN) to make it speedier and would replace more than 800 servers, making them secure so that they would prevent anyone from being able to delete data.

Ms Nyanda asked for the time frame around this.

Ms Ngwenya was not satisfied with the DCS’s response, and asked when exactly this would happen, emphasising that the Committee needed to see movement before being able to approve the budget.

The Chairperson said that the issue of IT had posed serious problems since 2001. He asked how much money had been spent on IT in the past five years, and said that these issues were so serious that they could affect jobs.

Mr Moji responded that the rolling out infrastructure could take a period of three to five years. He said that the three elements to be examined were proper controls in databases, risk management and performance and independent management.

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked if corporate services was regarded as a target or an activity. He went on to ask how many correctional facilities had been accredited for ARV treatment, and how many offenders were mentally ill.

Mr James Smalberger, Regional Commissioner: Western Cape, Department of Correctional Services, responded that there were 21 accredited institutions for HIV.

Mr Moyane added that there were 2 276 offenders who were mentally ill at 31 December 2010. However, these mentally ill offenders were receiving adequate care from qualified professionals.

Ms Nyanda asked whether officials who had been charged were still at the DCS.

Mr Moyane responded that charges of fraud, corruption and maladministration against officials were serious issues, and when the processes were finalised, the DCS would report back to the Committee.  However, there were some DCS members who were sentenced. The DCS and government needed to better the conviction rate in such cases.

Mr J Selfe (DA) questioned the DCS’s commitment to root out corruption. He stressed that an investigation was done into corruption in this department, and a report had been submitted in 2009. A number of civil and criminal cases were still outstanding.

Mr Moyane responded that he wanted the Minister of Correctional Services to respond to the question of corruption.

Mr Selfe asked why the DCS had indicated that it would be reducing the numbers of partnerships with NGOs when it was clear that the DCS could not deal with the programmes internally.

Mr Modise responded that it was true that the DCS was decreasing the number of stakeholders providing programmes to offenders, because the Department wanted its own staff to do the correctional programmes.

Mr Selfe questioned whether the issue of building PPPs in 2013/14 and 2014/15 was likely to be a reality.

Mr Moyane noted that DCS had engaged with stakeholders who had indicated their discomfort around PPPs. DCS was not against the establishment of PPPs. However, there was a need to further extend the agreement and address the time lapse. An Inter-Departmental Bid Evaluation Committee was being established, which included the Department of Home Affairs, Department of Public Works, and the National Treasury. He stressed the need to move from the assumption that there was collusion.  He wished to stress that electronic monitoring and security did not come at a low price. Electronic monitoring was given high priority in the United States. Furthermore he stressed that no procurement would be done without a business case.

Mr S Abram (ANC) stated that he did not understand why PPPs were said to be the most effective way of procurement. He asked who had done the feasibility studies and who had authorised such feasibility studies.

Mr Abram went on to ask for the running costs of the Kimberley facility, and he also questioned the integrity of the DCS report.

Mr Moyane stressed that the PPPs were run under a 25 year lease agreement, and DCS paid for the upkeep of the inmates each month. He also wanted to see the feasibility studies, as he was still new to the job.

Mr Modise added that the running costs of the Kimberley centre would be provided at a later stage.

Ms Grace Molatedi, Deputy Regional Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, later responded that the running costs of the Kimberley facility were around R85 million, with R80 million relating to staff compensation and the other money for goods and services and capital.

Mr Abram stated that R85 million to run a centre was a bargain.

The Chairperson asked what the running costs of the two PPPs were.

Mr Modise responded that it was about R795 million, but it would increase to R843 million.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was not prepared to allow different figures to be presented on the same matters. None of the DCS officials had apologised for this happening in the past. He stressed that there would be serious consequences if such discrepancies appeared again.

Mr Moyane stressed that quality assurance was his passion. He appreciated the frank criticism, and agreed that the issue of incorrect figures was unacceptable.

Mr Abram questioned why only 3 156 offenders were participating in agricultural programmes, when there were about 167 000 inmates. He said that the issue of self sufficiency was not being addressed, and asked what the DCS was doing in order to ensure self sufficiency.

Mr Moyane noted that not all correctional centres had agriculture and workshop facilities, which accounted for the relatively low participation of inmates. He further expressed the need to be self sufficient and added that there was a correctional facility that had 26 hectares, and offered a state of the art abattoir where members of the community were trained.

Mr Modise added that DCS was manufacturing its own underwear, orange clothes and facecloths, and this was the case in most provinces where they had textile workshops.

Budget presentation
Mr Sokhela presented the Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) for 2011/12.  He gave a summary of the allocation letter, and noted that funds had been allocated additional to baseline for 2011/12, of  R579.855 million, rising to R1.046 billion in 2012/13, and to R1.147 billion in 2013/14. An amount of R60 million had been allocated for upgrading information technology infrastructure, in 2011/12, and this would rise to R190 million and R210 million respectively for 2012/13 and 2013/14. In 2011/12, no money had been allocated for generators and cleaning materials, operational costs for the three correctional centres to be upgraded, nor anti-retroviral treatment for offenders.

He then indicated the programme allocations under the 2010/2011 Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE)  Administration received R4.056 billion in 2010 and R4.449 billion for 2011. Security had received R5.179 billion in 2010, rising to R5.597 billion and R5.975 billion in the following two years. For 2010, the programme in Care received R1.756 billion, and this would rise to R1.853 billion in 2011. The Development programme received R559 million in 2010, rising to R559 billion in 2011. The  Social Reintegration programme received R542 million in 2010, rising to R576 million in 2011. He summarised that the total allocations to all programmes in 2010 thus amounted to R16.559 billion, and would be R17.804 billion by 2012/13.

Mr Sokhela went on to give comments on the 2011 ENE per programme. Under the Administration Programme, he stated that the focus of spending was on upgrading ICT infrastructure, and payments for municipal charges. Over the medium term, expenditure was projected to increase from R4.1 billion in 2010to R5.1 billion in 2013. Additional funding to upgrade infrastructure was provided, of R60 million in 2011, R190 million in 2012 and R210 million in 2013.

He stressed that the Security Programme spending focus over the MTEF lay in developing an integrated security technology framework, to integrate and upgrade current security technology systems in departments. Additional funding was also provided to improve security in three correctional centres that were being upgraded.

The spending focus of the Corrections Programme over the MTEF lay in improving services at correctional centre level, including rehabilitating offenders in line with the 2005 White Paper. Over the medium term, expenditure was projected to increase, from R1.5 billion in 2010 to R1.7 billion in 2013. Key elements for improving the rehabilitation of offenders were the implementation of new correctional sentence plans, improved work of case management committees, improved parole processes and refinement of job descriptions of correctional officials, under Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) processes.  

In the Care Programme, the focus of spending was in providing antiretroviral treatment for inmates, health care services and treatment of inmates with mental illness. Additional funding of R40 million in 2012 and R42 million in 2013 had been made available for antiretroviral treatment.

The spending focus for the Development Programme was on increasing inmate participation in agriculture based programmes and production workshops, literacy programmes, ABET and FET programmes, with a view to improving the employability of inmates upon release. Over the medium term, expenditure was projected to increase from R559 million in 2010 to R617 million in 2013.

Under the Social Reintegration Programme, the spending focus was on reducing parole violations, improving capacity of community corrections and increasing the number of victims participating in parole hearings. Over the medium term, expenditure was projected to increase from R542 million in 2010 to R636 million in 2013.

Lastly under the Facilities Programme, most of the spending would be directed to upgrading and putting into operation three correctional facilities, at Brandvlei, Van Rhynsdorp and Warmbokkeveld, upgrading and refurbishing other correctional facilities, and the procurement of four planned Public Private Partnership (PPP) correctional facilities once the contract had been signed. Spending was expected to increase further over the medium term from R1.8 billion in 2010 to R2.3 billion in 2013. This increase was due to the upgrading of correctional facilities at Burgersdorp, Estcourt, Tzaneen, Zeerust, Nongoma and Makhado.

Discussion
The Chairperson accepted the fact that the budget could not be changed overnight, but there was a need to see some movement. He asked what the DCS hoped to achieve with regards to IT. He asked whether the figures in slide 28 tallied when they were added up.

Ms Grace Molatedi, Deputy Regional Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, explained how the figures in slide 28 were arrived at.

Ms Nyanda asked how much money had been spent on consultancies.

Mr Moyane responded that the DCS had reduced use of consultants, recognizing that the DCS could not be run by consultants, and certainly the unacceptably high levels of consultants fees that had been a problem in the past would not continue. However, the DCS could not get rid of all consultants.

Ms Nyanda stated that the DCS should indicate whether it would be building new facilities, or upgrade existing detention facilities. She also asked whether the DCS had signed agreements with the Department of Public Works (DPW).

Mr Modise said that DCS was going to upgrade, rather than build detention facilities, and the cost had been determined by the DPW. It was around R4 billion. Feasibility studies were done to determine costs, so these were not merely estimates. He added that service level agreements had been signed between the DCS and DPW

Mr Abram stated that specific targets were supposed to be set for the percentage of days lost to leave.

Mr Raseroka responded that this referred to person days lost to leave other than annual leave.

Mr Abram stated that there was need to establish centres of excellence so that they could develop expertise.

Mr Moyane also agreed that there was need to establish centres of excellence and that there was need to underpin the notion of offender labour being a criterion in facilities. However, he did want to stress that there were security considerations that came into play when transporting offenders who wanted to do agriculture projects, especially when they were in centres that did not have agricultural facilities. He reiterated that project numbers were limited.

The meeting was adjourned.


Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: