Department of Correctional Services 2012 Strategic Plan: Input by Parliamentary Research Unit & Stakeholders

Meeting report

Summary and analysis of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) 2012/13 Budget by the Committee Researcher
Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Parliamentary Researcher, pointed out that Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had identified three priorities over the medium term. These included strengthening the parole system, introducing the new medical parole system and strengthening the remand detention system.

For the 2012/13 financial year, the number of programmes for DCS’s budget had been reduced from seven to five programmes and the name changes were made to some programmes. The five programmes consist of the following:

•Administration
•Incarceration
•Rehabilitation
•Care
•Social Reintegration.
           
The Department received R17 732.2 billion for 2012/13 financial year. This amounted to 1.8% of the total national budget. The Department received 13% of the total allocation for the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster, which included the DCS, Defence, Justice and Constitutional Development, Police and the Independent Complaints Directorate. The Department’s percentage allocation for the Cluster had decreased by 2% when compared to the 2011/12 budget allocation.

It was worth noting that from the total amount of R17 732.2 billion allocated to the Department, an amount of R11 550.3 billion (69%) was channelled towards compensation of employees. This was a 3% increase as compared to 2011/12 when compensation of employees took 66% of the allocated budget. According to the Estimate of National Expenditure (ENE), expenditure for the Department was expected to reach R19.9 billion in 2014/15 at an average annual rate of 6%. This was mainly as a result of spending on compensation of employees which was expected to grow to R13.1 billion over the medium term, at an average annual rate of 6.2%. These increases were mainly due to additional allocations for improved conditions of service (R184.4 million in 2012/13; R204.8 million in 2013/14 and R228.3 million in 2014/15) and the implementation of the Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD) for correctional officials and other occupational categories.

Administration and Incarceration were the two programmes with the largest allocations in this budget. These two programmes accounted for 81.1% of the total budget of which 53.3% was allocated to Incarceration and 27.8% was allocated to Administration. Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration, on the other hand, were the two programmes with the lowest allocations and together they account for only 9.7% of the total budget.

Mr Mathabathe outlined each programme, the targets set and what challenges existed (see presentation). He contended that stakeholder concerns had again not had a significant impact on the DCS budget allocation. R5,5 billion had been allocated to Security, although it was currently a sub-programme. As in previous years, allocations to rehabilitation and social reintegration were insufficient. Rehabilitation was not placed at the centre, according to White Paper directives. The DCS budget was not yet influenced enough by the Committee and stakeholders.

The Department faced challenges of staff recruitment and retention. There were challenges of victim participation in parole hearings, and a lack of involvement of NGO’s in programmes after release. There were great expectations that the new programme structure would bring improved service delivery to offenders in correctional services, but that remained to be seen.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) remarked that the DCS wanted more officials to supervise offender work, even in the community. Offender work was said to pose a security risk. He suggested that there be a trade-off in the sense that some inmates could be accommodated if more was done to provide work for them. Work contributed to rehabilitation.

Mr Selfe expressed irritation at the way in which the DCS used measurement in the Strategic Plan. Measurements were around inputs, not outcomes. The question was what was meant when it was stated that numbers of people were involved in projects or programmes. The DCS had to measure how many graduates were actually being produced, or how many were re-offending, under social re-integration. It had to be shown that pre-release programmes were indeed effective, for instance.

Mr Selfe referred to the changing of the programme structure by the DCS. The Researcher had indicated that this was done to better understand the movement of money for maintaining prisons and rehabilitation. The question was if there were monies hidden in other parts of the budget. There was the danger of it coming down to Chinese arithmetic.

Mr P Mnguni (COPE) commented that the depth of information along programmes was important. There was insufficient information to have real influence on the Treasury. Programmes were being disabled because the bulk of funds in some programmes went to employee compensation.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that the availability of social workers had not improved. The DCS had to be asked about what had been done with regard to social workers and medical practitioners. She remarked that there was no monitoring of Chairpersons of Parole Boards. They did not work effectively.

Mr Mathabathe remarked that in terms of the Money Bill, the Committee could exert enough influence. There could be comments with questions in the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) that would be sent to the DCS in October, which could influence the budget for the following year. At that stage the DCS could be reminded that it was not providing enough money in certain areas, with reference to the report of the previous October. The process could be taken beyond mere compliance, and have impact.

Dr Hamadziripi Tamukamoyo, Researcher: Crime and Justice Programme, Institute for Security Studies, commented that there was no strategic plan for staff retention in the DCS. It was not sufficient to say that there was an Academy. There had to be a blow by blow account of what was being done to compete with other state departments and agencies, and to retain staff.

The Chairperson remarked that there was much talk about the skewed budget. The question was if rehabilitation was possible at all under conditions of overcrowding. It was said that money had to be moved to rehabilitation, but overcrowding compromised rehabilitation.

The Chairperson said that the intentions expressed on page 12 of the Strategic Plan, could turn out to be a wish list. It included sentence plans, and involvement of offenders in correctional and development programmes. Those intentions were not married to rands and cents. The question was whether the DCS had costed the wish list. Nothing was said about where the DCS was with regard to the 5 pillars of operations security, mentioned on page 13, for instance progress made with closed circuit television. Much had been said about vetting, but there was little movement to be seen. The DCS had to inform the Committee about what it was doing. Targets were geared to inputs, not outcomes. Even the Auditor General (AG) had said that targets were not geared to outcomes and could not be measured. The National Commissioner had to explain the purpose of changes in the programme structure, and had to comment on staff retention.

Mr Lukas Muntingh, Project Coordinator, Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, remarked that organised labour had said that 18000 more staff would be needed to implement the 2x12 shift system. That was a lot of staff. It had to be set out how that could impact on the budget over the following 5 to 10 years. The imbalance regarding allocation to rehabilitation had to be corrected.

The Chairperson asked if the staff contingent of 42000 allowed by Treasury was enough. He asked where current staff was employed. There had been allegations that the DCS was top heavy, with many deputy directors. There had to be appropriate deployment. He asked why deputy directors could not be employed as operations managers. The question was if office bound staff were adding value. There had to be figures about the migration of officials from office to centre based, time frames and focus areas.

Mr Mathabathe added that for purposes of transparency the wisdom behind the programme structure changes had to be explained.

Mr Sefe remarked that there had been a target shift regarding bed space for 2012/13. Brandvlei had provided the targeted beds, but in terms of target setting it was dishonest reporting.

The Chairperson agreed that the target shift had to be explained.

Briefing by National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO)
Ms Venessa Padayachee, National Manager of Advocacy and Lobbying, NICRO, argued that the Department’s budget priorities continued to be not aligned with the policy imperatives of the White Paper, the Correctional Services Act, and the Constitution.

The budget allocation for rehabilitation, social reintegration and care remained miniscule- at a total of 18.88% collectively. Budget trends over the preceding decade had focused more on security than on rehabilitation. NICRO had picked up at ground level that most DCS staff had a security mentality. Many staff would not adopt the vision of the Department. There was a scarcity of social workers, some of whom were applying for management positions, with resultant skills loss.

Inmates were complaining that the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) and its independent visitors programme were not meeting their needs. The position of remand detainees caused concern. There were reports of rapes and assaults, and exposure to overcrowding. Involvement of inmates in work opportunities were limited and still decreasing. The strategic plan did not provide literacy programmes or skills development figures for 2012 onwards. The DCS was committed to a strategy for special categories like the mentally ill, disabled and other vulnerable groupings, but the strategy did not speak to appropriate facilities and programmes. There appeared to be no specific budget line item for restorative justice programmes. There was a lack of coordination and monitoring of community corrections and parole boards. Implementation of effective communications was not evident, although those were more cost-effective than incarceration in South Africa.

Discussion
Ms Ngwenya said that it was clear that NICRO was frustrated with the DCS. She agreed that inmates had to be provided with anger management programmes. The aim of rehabilitation was not communicated to families. Parents of inmates did not understand what parole meant. More statistics on progress of released offenders were needed. She asked if the influence of NICRO was national, or restricted to the Western Cape. Lastly, she noted that the briefing had provided questions that the Committee should put to the DCS.

Ms Padayachee responded that NICRO was established nationally. She would provide a list of centres.

Mr Selfe noted an absence of attention to community corrections, social reintegration and parole matters. There was a lack of funds. There was poor training for restorative justice. All those issues posed the question whether there was in fact a policy of warehousing offenders. Nothing seemed to be changing.

The Chairperson returned to the question of bed spaces. The DCS was taking credit for what had been done in the previous year, in the current year. It had over delivered in the previous year, and underdelivered in the current year.

Mr Mathabathe remarked that the biggest chunk of the budget went to supervision. R589 million went to policing offenders. Community reintegration received little. Social reintegration money only went towards monitoring, not to programmes. It was necessary to zoom in on staff compensation vis a vis rehabilitation. According to the White Paper every member was a rehabilitator. There were offenders who were familiar with the White Paper. They complained that they not being treated with respect. Many officials were of the old order and the concept of rehabilitation was foreign to them. To many new members it was just another job. There was a need to develop a new mindset. It had to be clear what was expected of officials. Offenders were attending tutorials presented by other inmates. The instructor would in some instances be bribed with rewards like cigarettes, to mark everyone present.

Mr Mnguni remarked that NICRO had to be located in DCS programmes, and taken seriously. Reintegration was impossible without community structures. The DCS had not taken the separation of transgenders seriously. They were vulnerable to abuse.

Mr L Max (DA) said that Barberton and Nelspruit had been mentioned when it came to lack of skills. He wondered why Mtata had not been mentioned. 90% of the youth were illiterate in that area. Social structures had collapsed. There were illiterates who listened to Legal Aid lawyers, who did not even know what they were pleading guilty to. He asked at what level an offender could be said to have been rehabilitated. He asked about percentages for successful rehabilitation. He agreed with NICRO about the necessity for rehabilitation, but prisons were not welfare institutions. There were people in there who were hell-bent on crime, and recalcitrant. One could be skeptical about paramilitary methods, but they were necessary. The necessary use of force had to be separated from rehabilitation. There was a need for discipline and rules.

The Chairperson referred to what Mr Selfe had said in response to NICRO. The question was what was being done to move allocations to rehabilitation. Inputs could be used in the budget debate. It had to be asked what difficulties hampered that movement.

The Chairperson remarked that Mr Selfe’s comments had him worried. Clarity was needed from the DCS about the following:

•Catering for R16 million
•R80 million asked for communications, when the DCS had closed radio services
•R662 million spent on consultants
•The budget for food and food supplies had gone from R377 million to R725 million. He hoped it was not a Bosasa-type exercise.
•R1 billion for lease and property payments

Briefing by the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI)
Mr Muntingh pointed out that there was no longer a forum for engagement with the DCS, with no transformation forum as had existed in the 90’s. The Jali Commission had noted a DCS tendency to shut itself out. It could be asked whether DCS operational decisions were in pursuit of Constitutional and legislative objectives. Increased DCS expenditure was primarily the result of increased expenditure on salaries. That in itself was good practice, but there had to be emphasis on improved performance and achievement of value for money.

The central question was whether the basic rights of prisoners, as set out in the Constitution and Correctional Services Act, were complied with. Assaults per 10000 prisoners had gone up from 137 in 2009/10, to 317 in 2010/11. It reflected badly on the ability of the Department to ensure the safety of prisoners. Although the Annual Performance Plan claimed that the White Paper on Remand Detention had been consulted, Mr Muntingh was not aware of consultation with civil society, nor had the White Paper been tabled in Parliament. It was not clear how the R45 million for a Remand Detention branch would be spent. Prisoners serving less than 24 months had no sentence plans. They were excluded from services that had to prepare them for social reintegration.

The Budget Vote and Strategic Plan lacked information about support services to parolees and probationers. Emphasis still fell on policing the parolee. The Department was facing tremendous transformation challenges and there was a need for continuous training programmes that targetted all staff. There had to be skill to implement strategic goals.

Discussion
Mr Selfe referred to inmate tracking, which had begun with lifers on parole. He agreed that rehabilitation was impossible under conditions of overcrowding. Prison numbers could be reduced with the help of tracking devices. It could also help to keep people with sentences under 24 months out of prisons.

Mr Muntingh responded that inmate tracking was currently restricted to inside prisons. On overcrowding, he said that 50% of Remand Detainees would eventually have their cases thrown out. The question was who got arrested. Police would arrest to investigate, which kept RD numbers consistently high. 53% of arrests were for offences less than shoplifting.

Mr Selfe referred to the African Initiative. There were 10000 people from Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Botswana in local prisons. Returning them was not happening fast enough. Perhaps the problem lied with DIRCO.

Mr Abram commended the presentation. He remarked that DCS spending on its core mandate was retrogressive. More was being spent on salaries. The question was if the budget was aligned to the White Paper deliverables.

Mr Max felt that it would be good if the DCS could indicate how it incorporated the inputs from NGOs.

Ms Ngwenya noted that the Strategic plan was silent on employment. The effect of stigma had to be considered. It was no use to give skills to inmates if they could not get work outside because of a prison record.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Muntingh had distinguished between in-prison and post-prison services. The DCS could not budget post-prison services. Justice had to do that, otherwise such services would be compromised by stigma. It had to be remembered that people served half of their sentences under parole conditions. The DCS had to take responsibility, instead of shifting it to Social Development.

The Chairperson further stated that the DCS Head Office building would sooner or later implode. The National Commissioner had told him recently that new offices could not be built because the Department of Public Works could not do that. Yet R3 million had been allocated. That could already be counted as fruitless and wasteful expenditure. He agreed with Mr Muntingh that the DCS was costing for changing perceptions, whereas changing conditions for the better would make that unnecessary. The DCS had to answer about R45 million allocated for a Remand Detention (RD) branch. The question was what was being bought, if it only referred to bricks, or also salaries and wages.

The Chairperson advised that the DCS be asked about the absence of a regular interactive forum with NGO’s, on the following day.

Mr Selfe remarked that the engagement of the day formed part of taking a first step towards channeling resources to social reintegration.

Briefing by Network on Reducing Reoffending (NRR)
Mr Mohlolo Kgopane indicated that the briefing would focus on pre-release services and release preparation; post-release services and support, and sentence plans and educational programmes.

Inmates not ready for release were released without proper assessment and a release plan. The emphasis of DCS services after release was aimed at security and monitoring the whereabouts of parolees. There was a lack of training of community corrections officers, most of whom reinforced the idea that parolees were prisoners. Some community corrections officers had concluded agreements with organisations that offered post-release programmes but there were challenges around the manner in which DCS staff treated parolees.

Mr Kgopane related how a Mitchells Plain Correctional Office member had informed the Young In Prison programme (in the Western Cape) that he was about to sign a letter of absconding against a parolee. Young in Prison noted that the parolee was working and reported to the organisation weekly. The official said that sounded in order, but the parolee had to come in and report to his parole officer. He undertook not to sign a letter of abscondment. However, the parolee was arrested there and sent to Pollsmoor Medium B, an adult section, whereas he had previously been in the juvenile section.

Discussion
The Chairperson referred to the horror story related on page 6 of the briefing. The DCS would have to answer about the matter the following day. The names of the prisoner and the official had to be obtained.

Ms Tarisai Mchuchu-Ratshidi, Director of Young in Prison, said that the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) was also involved.

The Chairperson said that the JICS would also have to respond on the following day. He told the JICS members present that offenders tended to see the JICS as part of the DCS, and not truly independent. The matter would be first on the agenda the following day.

Briefing by the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS)
Ms Carmen Low-Shang, Policy and Research Manager, JICS, noted that rehabilitation, care and social reintegration had received very low allocations, whereas 86% of the budget had been allocated to administration and incarceration.

There seemed to be an ongoing misalignment with the objectives of the White Paper to the effect that rehabilitation had to be central to all DCS partnerships with stakeholders. With regard to humane and safe custody, she noted that the current plan showed little indication of efforts to provide adequate infrastructure for youth, mentally ill and disabled inmates. The JICS recommended that the Department revisit its objectives to increase allocation of resources in the area of youth rehabilitation. Adequate health care was seen as the most fundamental step to successful rehabilitation of inmates.

Discussion
The Chairperson remarked that the DCS had to present a plan for youth, the mentally ill and the disabled. Those had been budgeted for.

Briefing by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS)
Ms Tizina Ramagaga, Junior Researcher:Crime and Justice Programme, ISS, pointed out that overcrowding could ignite and increase the incidence of violence. Safety in prisons required urgent attention. An inquiry into proceedings against DCS officials accused of involvement in the death of inmates revealed that in 26 out of 58 cases the DCS had not responded to JICS inquiries.

Dr Tamukamayo noted that 60% of DCS staff were involved in administrative functions, with only 40% involved with prisoners directly. The DCS faced severe human resource challenges, with a vacancy rate of 56% for finance professionals. The DCS had to attract and retain young talent, and had to develop a comprehensive staffing strategy. He posed the question whether the disproportionate allocations of the DCS budget, coupled with human resource challenges, made it realistic to expect the Department to meet White Paper objectives.

Discussion
Ms Ngwenya remarked that it was necessary to review minimum sentence legislation. It contributed to overcrowding. It seemed that Remand Detainees were controlled by the police courts.

Dr Tamukamayo responded that there had to be collaboration between the SAPS and the DCS. It was not right that people were incarcerated for stealing cheese. Such offenders were affected, even after one month.

Mr Max referred to the statement that 60% of DCS staff were in Administration. He asked if it was purely administrative positions, and whether it was related to programmes.

Dr Tamukameyo replied that not much was known about what DCS staff actually did. There were not enough staff for supervision. There had to be a rethink of the DCS mandate. The DCS could use its resources better. There was not much point in so much pen pushing. There was a need for redeployment.

The Chairperson said that administration could refer to the factory floor, but he suspected that it was confined more to the boardroom. There were 1898 funded posts vacant. At R10000 average per person, that came to a total of R228 million. With no warm bodies in place, the question was what happened to the money budgeted for that. The DCS was advised not to divert the money, but to return it to the Treasury.

The Chairperson concluded that questions put to the DCS on the following day would be around targets related to inputs rather than outcomes; the reasons behind changes in the programme structure; staff retention and a migration plan; alignment of the Strategic Plan with the budget; budgeting for halfway houses; a workshop with stakeholders about parole; anomalies in targets for bed spaces; the lack of a forum to interact with civil society; how the R45 million for Remand Detention would be used; infrastructure for the mentally ill, disabled and youth, as well as separation of vulnerable inmates.

In addition, there would be questions around the costing for changing perceptions, when doing the right thing could take care of that. The following day’s session would start with the matter of the parolee who was arrested even when he was working.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.