Proposed budgetary model for Correctional Services: Institute for Security Studies research

Meeting report

Ideal budgetary model for Department of Correctional Services: Institute for Security Studies research briefing
Ms Chandre Gould, Senior Researcher: Crime and Justice Programme, Institute for Security Studies, presented the Committee with the results of the research conducted by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) on what might be an ideal budgetary model for the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department).

The ISS’s document firstly provided an analysis of the DCS budget, identifying the drivers of cost in the DCS. It then attempted to cost rehabilitation programmes, on the assumption that they should be rolled out nationally and should be based on international ‘best-practice’. The document demonstrated that, within the current budget and facilities, DCS could not provide rehabilitation programmes. For this reason the ISS called for a complete overhaul of policy on incarceration. The report then highlighted that such policy shifts would be necessary to improve the ‘return on investment’ to society that resulted from incarceration of those who were convicted of crime. These policy shifts involved all departments in the criminal justice system and required a dramatic re-assessment of the focus of the DCS. The report also highlighted the need for a radical re-thinking of the role of incarceration in society.
 
In 2011/12 South Africa would spend R16.8 billion keeping 160 000 offenders in correctional centres. In the same year the State would spend R13.8 billion educating all learners in the country from Grade R to Matric. This illustrated that incarceration was expensive in comparison to other necessities. It was vital to ensure that the right policy must be found, that would, amongst others, ensure minimal but effective use of incarceration as a sentencing option, while also ensuring that DCS delivered the best service at the lowest cost. The 2010/11 DCS budget was R15.2 billion, which represented a 37% increase on the 2007/8 budget. The DCS budget would rise by a further 23% between 2011 and the 2013/2014 financial year, which would represent a 69% rise since 2007/8. Compared to other departments in government, this rise was relatively low. The DCS budget, as a share of the overall national budget, was projected to fall from 2.1% in 2007/8 to 1.8% in 2013/14.

Ms Gould noted that the DCS spent 34% of the budget each year on Security, 26% on Administration, 12% on Facilities, 11% on Care, 9% on Corrections, and 3% each on Development and Social Reintegration. If this was broken down according to economic classification, then 66% was spent on personnel costs, 28% on goods and services (including leases, property payments, medicines, food and outsourced services) and 7% on physical infrastructure (although this had varied between 5% and 11% between 2007/8 and 2013/14). Three main drivers of costs were inmate numbers, range and quality of services, and the cost of services.

There had been rapid growth in inmate numbers between 1995 and 2003. However, since 2003 inmate numbers had remained relatively stable, and since 2006 the daily average inmate population had varied between 159 000 and 165 000. The numbers implied that fewer criminals were making their way through the criminal justice system, due to inadequacies elsewhere. In this regard, she pointed out that if the rest of the criminal justice sector was functioning optimally, the problem of overcrowding in DCS facilities would be even greater. A 15 year review by the Presidency had found that the number of convictions in South African courts fell, from 96 000 in 2006 to 75 000 in 2008.
The personnel costs were another major driver of costs. The DCS, like other government departments has little control over agreements reached in Public Services Bargaining Chamber. There was a rapid increase in the average remuneration of civil servants in the past few years. The implemented 7-day work week should have resulted in savings, but there was no certainty that it was effective, practical or resulted in actual savings. The DCS budget was under pressure, due to insufficient funds to foot the increased salary bill.  

The DCS was committed to delivering services in terms of the White Paper on Corrections, and there had been an increase in the number of sentence plans drawn up, from 9 836 in 2007/8 to a projected 95 000 for 2013/14, although 40 000 were in fact completed in 2010. There had, however, been no substantial increase in literacy training projected (annually projected at 4 500 people trained) and no significant increase in skills development programmes (projected at 6 800 a year). There had also been no significant changes in staff complement, so broad commitments had not been reflected in staffing allocations.  There was poor service provision from the DCS, and the indications were that there would be an increase in spending on security, but less spending on social reintegration and care. The result of this was that the DCS acted as a “revolving door”, so that convicted criminals would enter the correctional centres, spend short periods of time in the centres, and then leave without being rehabilitated, after incurring a high administrative cost. There was less emphasis on rehabilitation of inmates.

If DCS were to deliver services to 66 000 inmates, the least possible cost would be R1 billion, which represented a R1 billion increase to the existing budget. It was questionable whether such programmes would be effective and practical, and whether that was the right policy approach. DCS already had key challenges related to the need to house all inmates in a humane way, and one that ensured safety and security in the correctional centres. Among some of its recommendations for policy revision, the ISS suggested the establishment of a system of post-release support for former inmates re-entering society, and a community-based programme for those serving non-custodial sentences.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that there had to be an alternative form of sentencing for low end crimes. Minimum sentencing faced strong opposition from the public, and that presented a problem for the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). The challenge would be educate the public on the necessity for lower or non-custodial sentences for low end crimes. He asked what the costing would be in relation to providing rehabilitation to convicts and whether it would be necessary to outsource the rehabilitation.

Ms Gould replied that civil society organisations took the view that rehabilitation should include education and jobs training, and outsourcing was not necessarily the best avenue to take. The DCS provided some programmes for rehabilitation of sex offenders, and those who abused drugs and alcohol, and anger management programmes. If the Department provided broader rehabilitation programmes which were in keeping with international best practice, then the cost would come to R1 billion. She admitted that any shift on minimal sentencing would face challenges from the public. The impression created by the media was that society was retributive, but research disagreed with that notion. 

The Chairperson said that society was vengeful and that people wanted to see criminals punished heavily for their transgressions, regardless of the scope of such transgression. He suggested that the Department should look into the issue of rehabilitation and seek to address it. If the DCS did not provide appropriate rehabilitation programmes to inmates, then the question was who should be providing such programmes.

Rev L Tolo (COPE) agreed with the Chairperson that society was vengeful and wanted harsh punishment brought against criminals. He asked what the inmate figures prior to 1994 had been, and how much overcrowding there was in correctional centres prior to that year.

Ms Gould replied that she could not answer the question on the numbers at this meeting, but id offer to find the figures and forward them to the Committee, if needed. She clarified that the ISS was not arguing that serious-offence criminals should get light sentences. The point she was trying to make was that sentencing inmates to correctional centres was an expensive means of dealing with crime, and more should be done to address the causes.

The Chairperson asked what types of crimes were punishable with a 24 month sentence.

Ms Gould replied that the representatives of the DCS present in the meeting would be better placed to respond to that.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked about the DCS’s Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and picked up on an error involving the DCS programmes, saying that there were seven, not six, programmes. She also sought clarity on the arrests of low-end criminals.

Ms Gould replied that the DCS was yet to commission any PPPs. She apologised for the error in the presentation. She clarified the point about arrests, saying that the South African Police Service (SAPS) Police sometimes carried out arrests on “low end criminals” in order to meet performance targets. It was far more difficult to investigate and carry out arrests for the more serious crimes, and she pointed out that if SAPS officials were to arrest more serious criminals, then there would be higher conviction rates.

Ms Ngwenya asked how long the DCS’s programmes ran. She sought comment on the use of inmate labour and self sufficiency.

Ms Gould responded that the DCS would be better placed to respond to those questions. 

The Chairperson said that the DCS officials present at the meeting should go and research the questions posed, as they should provide answers when they next met with the Committee.

Ms Gould added that the report she had presented did not deal with self sufficiency and inmate labour, as there was a challenge in conducting the cost benefit analysis around these issues. The report had looked analytically at the DCS budget only, and had made recommendations around that.  She offered to look separately at the two issues, should the Committee wish. She commented that some of the rehabilitation programmes offered by the DCS were not sufficient and did not retrospectively look at the history of an inmate before attempting to rehabilitate that person.

Ms Ngwenya commented that the presentation was important with respect to the work of the Committee, and recommended that more be done to involve civil society in the work of the Department.

The Chairperson agreed that more would have to be done to address the issue of inmate rehabilitation.

Ms Vanessa Padayachee, National Manager: Advocacy and Lobbying, National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders, commented that “rehabilitation” needed to be defined before the question of how to address it could be effectively answered. Rehabilitation should offer skills training to inmates. The DCS was in the process of consulting with civil society organisations to fully address the issue of rehabilitation. The issue of rehabilitation needed to be broadened.

The Chairperson said that Ms Padayachee seemed to be intimating that more emphasis, in the rehabilitation programmes, needed to be placed on actual re-skilling or up-skilling on the inmates, as opposed to having anger management programmes. He agreed with her point on the need to broaden rehabilitation. The problem with what had been suggested was that there were 241 correctional centres, and implementation would mean that there would have to be a shift away from having centres of excellence to having centres of expertise. It was not possible for the correctional centres to be everything to everybody. An emphasis on artisan training might be necessary for the DCS.  

Ms Padayachee said that she was not suggesting that the current rehabilitation programmes that addressed dangerous criminals should be scrapped. The DCS should use all the resources that it had at its disposal to address rehabilitation.

The Chairperson asked whether the DCS should focus on rehabilitating criminals who would be in prison for a long period, or whether the focus should rather be on those sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. He urged the presenters to assist the Committee in convincing the Department that its budgetary focus was wrong. The Committee also had not agreed with the budget allocations of the DCS. 

Ms Gould responded that, logically speaking, the Chairperson’s suggestion to focus on those who had received lesser sentences was correct. Rehabilitation and re-skilling could be the most effective if these took place outside of a correctional centre. She reiterated that imprisonment, as a form of punishment, expensive and was not necessarily effective in deterring crime. According to a debate taking place in the United States of America (USA) it would be far better to spend money reinvesting in a sentenced criminal by rehabilitating him or her, rather than spending the money on incarcerating that individual. The DCS had budget limitations and much work would need to be done before such a policy could be considered in South Africa.    

Ms Padayachee agreed with Ms Gould’s points. The DCS system needed to help convicted individuals, and not just incarcerate them without any other purpose.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) commented that in his opinion it was impractical to set up rehabilitation centres outside of correctional centres, merely to assist ex-convicts.

Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Committee Researcher, said that re-skilling of inmates, to make them employable, should also take into account the thousands of unemployed graduates and qualified people who could also benefit from assistance. The re-skilling should be realistic, and not idealistic. 

Mr Tolo asked whether the ISS reached out to rural areas.

Ms Gould responded that the ISS mainly carried out research, which was developed to provide policy assistance. The organisation did not reach out to rural communities.
 
Ms Padayachee replied that her organisation, NICRO, did interact with and reach out to people in rural areas. NICRO had recently conducted a campaign on alternative sentencing and custodial sentencing, which had entailed going into rural areas and educating people around the necessity for these remedies. Public safety had been a key tenet in the campaign, and people generally accepted that alternative sentencing needed to be instituted for low-end crimes. There was residual anger and mistrust of ex-convicts and strong emotions against former criminals in communities.

Ms Ngwenya said that it was difficult enough for qualified people who had not committed any crimes to find work, and it would be hard to justify special assistance being given to ex-convicts to find work.

Ms Padayachee replied that there were indeed problems with finding employment for ex-convicts, but some organisations, including NICRO, were instituting programmes that helped released convicts to find work. It might be useful for the DCS to look into securing contracts with construction companies, or something similar, in order to provide work to those who had been released or were on the brink of being released. There were some former inmates who were self-employed, but it was not easy for all such people to be self-employed. Centres of expertise needed to be creative in order to address the issue of employment for former inmates, once they were released. Former convicts needed to be socially reintegrated, so that, beyond gaining employment, they also had support on the social side that would assist them to stay out of trouble.  

The Chairperson told an anecdotal story of an inmate who was due for release on parole in May 2011, but who had asked to have this period extended to May 2012, because he did not feel ready to be released into the broader world again.

Mr M Cele (ANC) commented that this was an eye-opener to him. He asked how fast social integration of ex-convicts was happening.

Ms Gould responded that social integration was happening only at a slow pace.

The Chairperson commented that the DCS needed to alter the way in which it exercised control over inmates. The input that the Committee had received suggested that the provisions of the Department’s White Paper, which guided how DCS operated, needed to be altered, so that the Department could make better use of its allocated budget.

Mr Magagula commented that South Africa was a developing country and there were more pressing issues affecting the country beyond the rehabilitation of convicts.

Mr Mathabathe commented that it might be useful to have centres of expertise for inmates serving lower sentences, at minimal security facilities. It might also be useful to have such inmates attend education seminars or training programmes, so that their cells were used merely for sleeping, as this might alleviate overcrowding in the centres. That sort of model was being followed in New York.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters and all who had been involved in the meeting. He suggested that the Committee Researcher and the civil society organisations present should coordinate so that the Committee could present the DCS with a paper that outlined the main issues of concern in the White Paper, and suggested what was achievable, based on the budget and the personnel available. Minimum sentencing would be a key part of such a paper.

The meeting was adjourned.