Aligning the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) budget to rehabilitation objectives: DCS and stakeholders discussion

Correctional Services

19 February 2013
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The meeting took the form of an open discussion on the alignment of the DCS budget to rehabilitation objectives. There were no formal presentations. The DCS gave inputs, along with the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO), the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI), and the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS).

A Member suggested a 10-year review of the White Paper on Corrections, which had been intended to guide the DCS through a 20-year period. The Chairperson accepted the proposal, and asked the DCS to put together a discussion document. The DCS admitted that its budget was skewed towards the Security programme, but security constituted the core of its safety mandate. Yet a more equitable balance between security and rehabilitation would be found. The Department committed itself to engagement with the Justice cluster, and to secure community participation. There was agreement with NICRO and the CSPRI about alternatives to incarceration, and reducing the Remand Detainee population. The DCS would look into the matter of funding non-governmental organisations (NGOs) raised by NICRO. CSPRI raised the matter of sentence reform. The JICS expressed concern over its lack of independence from the DCS, which was shared by the CSPRI.

Discussion was amicable. The DCS was not interrogated, but allowed to express its own concerns and objectives. Members were interested in gangs, and the staff situation in the DCS as it related to the seven -day establishment. The DCS committed itself to a new Strategic Plan, based on realisable objectives. A common theme was the readiness expressed by the Department to engage with the Justice Cluster, the Community and stakeholders from civil society. The National Commissioner pointed out that the public and private sectors had to assist in providing jobs for released offenders. There was still an unwillingness to employ them.

Meeting report

There were no formal presentations. The entire meeting followed a discussion format.

Discussion
The Chairperson introduced the topic for the day. It had been decided at the end of the previous year to look at the alignment of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) budget with strategic objectives.

The Chairperson noted that Cabinet had approved the White Paper for Correctional Services in 2005. It directed the DCS away from mere warehousing and incarceration towards rehabilitation and social reintegration. It was based on 10 strategic points, which included breaking the crime cycle, creating an environment for rehabilitation, and community support for the offender. That vision was underpinned by a commitment to humane custody; children’s rights, and rights to education and religious worship. The White Paper had to inform the DCS Strategic Plan. The Act required of the DCS to fulfil the purposes of the correctional system, which included self-sufficiency according to business principles, and effective management.

The Chairperson raised the question whether the DCS budget spoke to the points raised. Security took up 34% of the budget, whereas there was only 3% for Rehabilitation. Appropriate measures had to be found to bring Development and Rehabilitation up to par. The context included the overcrowding crisis. The President had emphasised education and job creation in the State of the Nation Address, and the Minister of Correctional Services, Mr Sibusiso Ndebele, had committed himself to a focus on education.

Mr Tom Moyane, DCS National Commissioner, stated that the DCS had internalised budget issues. The Minister had stated that there had to be interaction between the DCS, the Police and the Judiciary. A balance had to be worked out between budget amounts allotted to security and rehabilitation.

Mr Moyane argued that DHS was fundamentally about safety, which underpinned rehabilitation. The challenge was that corrections was labour intensive, and most DCS officials were at the coalface. More rehabilitation was not to be bought at the expense of security. Benchmarking systems elsewhere showed that security was considered crucial. There had to be an equitable balance. There had been mass escapes in 2010. Another challenge was that the facilities taken over after 1994 had not been geared towards rehabilitation. It would be possible to develop a better balance over time. Things were presently skewed towards security, but it could not be neglected.

Mr Moyane drew attention to the Trading Account that had been opened, which could contribute to self-sufficiency. There were currently workshops and farms operating, but not all prisons had them. The DCS had met with the National Treasury over the Trading Account. The treasury had found it laudable, but insisted that the introduction be a phased process. The aim was for a new form of offender labour that would contribute towards rehabilitation and reintegration.

Mr Moyane emphasised that community support was needed for rehabilitation. The institution of Victim Offender Dialogues (VODs) placed rehabilitation at the centre. It provided support to victims. Victim families were in support of VODs. An environment had to be created for community participation. There was restructuring under way to distinguish clearly between prisoners and Remand Detainees. People could henceforth be held accountable.

Mr Moyane stressed that there was a need to build more centres. There had to be overhauling of prisons to provide for mothers, juveniles and the aged. The budget for the current year would look different. In the previous year the DCS had stated 152 objectives, and had been challenged for that being unrealistic. In the current year the DCS would present objectives that could be accounted for.

The Chairperson remarked that the White Paper represented a 20-year vision. That period could be broken up into 5 year sections. He called on with the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) and The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) to give inputs.

Ms Venessa Padayachee, NICRO National Manager: Advocacy and Lobbying, stated that it was a challenge to provide alternatives to prison sentencing. NICRO had always held that people should be kept out of prisons as far as possible. Restorative justice initiatives held promise for rehabilitation. The question was how committed the DCS was. Victim Offender Dialogue was tricky. Often victims did not want to engage in that. Community participation included the involvement of NGOs in projects.

Ms Padayachee noted that the DCS did not have a policy for the funding of NGOs. NGO activity had to be co-ordinated for service delivery. There had to be budgeting for services that the government could not render. She maintained that a great part of the solution lay in correct behaviour by officials. There had to be professionalisation. The way in which officials engaged with inmates, was relevant. All concerned had to work with what was there.

Ms Padayachee underlined the importance of agricultural and industrial production. Idleness was not good for prisoners. She emphasised the role of independent oversight. It could help the DCS. The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) had the same email address as the DCS. Inmates had to be assured of JICS independence, to trust them fully. Something more independent was needed.

Ms Claire Ballard, Ms Clare Ballard, CSPRI Researcher, agreed with Mr Moyane about the importance of security, and the realities of high personnel costs. Budgets and spending had to be tabulated. The Act prescribed that prisoners be kept under safe and humane conditions, but sexual violence was rife. There was wasteful expenditure, and money spent on litigation. If the Remand Detention population could be reduced by 20%, the State would save R1 billion per year.

Ms Britta Rotmann, DCS Chief Deputy Commissioner: Remand Detention, replied that 15% of remand detainees had bail, and did not belong with the DCS. The Correctional Matters Amendment Act provided for separate Remand Detention facilities. The rollout of audio –visual remand systems had to be discussed with the Justice cluster.

Ms Ballard stressed that there had to be sentencing reform. Longer and longer sentences had been imposed in preceding years. It amounted to punitive legislation. The community and victims had to be involved. The CSPRI worked with the City to explore possibilities for creating offender rehabilitation structures.

Ms Ballard said that good policy had to be based on research. There was a vast amount of available research that the DCS did not use. NGOs could be involved. Rehabilitation had to be outcomes based, and the DCS could do more in that regard.

Mr Umesh Raga, JICS National Director: Legal Services, referred to the debate about JICS independence. The JICS were still part of a DCS programme. The Inspecting judge and the CEO had met with the Department about the creation of posts. The DCS had stated that posts signed off by the Ministry 18 months before, could not be funded in the current year. The JICS had adopted a more inquisitorial approach. Quarterly reports were submitted. There was overcrowding, and a consequent need to increase its oversight role. The hands of the JICS were tied by the DCS determining its budget. Oversight was compromised by the DCS having that authority and power. That had led to the posts not being funded. The JICS were tied umbilically to DCS frugality. The DCS wanted their spending to be in line with Treasury regulations. The Inspecting Judge and the CEO were meeting with the DCS.

Mr Musa Hlongwa, Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) Business Executive, said that the AGSA looked at predetermined objectives. It had to comply with National Treasury guidelines. There had to be measurable and achievable objectives. The AGSA audited compliance of reports with directives.

The Chairperson remarked that the AGSA was saying that if a policy was not measurable, it would result in qualification.

Mr J Selfe (DA) noted that the White Paper had been a 20-year document, but half of that period had already passed. The question was whether unrealistic goals had been set. The White paper questioned the place of prisons. Still places were needed where psychotics and violent people could be locked up, to send the message that crime was unacceptable. The way the Anene Booysen case was handled had to send a message to society, for instance. It was well known that tin South Africa to go to jail meant becoming more criminal.

Mr Selfe remarked that there were challenges like staff culture, overcrowding, mandatory sentencing and the tendency to mete out sentencing for first offences. There was also a DCS staff shortage. He suggested a 10- year review of the White paper, with a view to breaking the fix. There had to be diversion from the prison system. People had to have confidence that offenders were in safe custody. Tracking devices had to be put to use. Community reintegration and restorative justice were needed. It was good principle if an offender could pay back the debt of what was taken from a victim. If Remand Detainees (RDs) could be cleared out more quickly, money would be saved. Facilities had to be dedicated to RDs. There could be a consolidated arraignment for a quicker processing rate.

Mr Moyane replied that the Judiciary had to know about electronic monitoring. It was a fact that the DCS could account for every lifer [inmate serving a life sentence]. However, electronic monitoring was just one facet.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) remarked that social reintegration demanded change in the inmate. There was a lack of budgeting to equip the inmate for release. The rehabilitation budget was not effective. Rehabilitation had to be a budget priority. New facilities had to be built, but it was a slow process with the Department of Public Works.

Ms Ngwenya noted that the Committee had spoken to the DCS foot soldiers during oversight. They were frustrated because of limited opportunities for promotion. They needed to be well paid to work effectively. There were big criminals who had the money to bribe officers. Overtime had been stopped with the seven-day establishment. Officials liked overtime. They worked with people who caused stress for them.

Mr Moyane responded that the nature of gang activity had changed. The ball game had changed, in his words. Gangs were now a strong presence everywhere in the community.  There was no panacea. The DCS had not yet formulated a definite response. The Police had to deal with gangs in communities. The matter had to be dealt with at the national level. Common denominators had to be found.

Ms Ngwenya said that the Community Corrections Forum was not resourced. It was not effective. They were being evicted from buildings and had to work outside. She said that it was an important part of caring for offenders to see that they got proper food. She advised that there be a five-year priority programme.

The Chairperson stated that there was a clear proposal for a 10-year review of the White Paper. He asked the National Commissioner if an expert commission could be appointed. The incoming Parliament would need guidance. He said that no one seemed to have problems with the direction the DCS was taking. There was agreement about the centrality of security, but also that rehabilitation was important.

The Chairperson referred to Mr Moyane’s statement about a new Strategic Plan. Everyone was on the same page, but the question was where to go on the way forward. He asked who would do the spadework for a 10-year review. There were crucial matters like relations with the DPW. He told Mr Raga that the debate about JICS independence would continue.

Mr Moyane remarked that inputs received gave the DCS confidence. It was an opportunity to look at blind spots. The Department would look into the funding of NGOs.

Ms Nontsikilelo Jolingana, DCS Chief Operations Officer, remarked that the first responsibility of the DCS was to correct offender behaviour in a humane environment to avoid recidivism. Security was needed for stability. The Security budget had to be unpacked to see what was unnecessary. The figure of 34% for the budget allocation of Security, was misleading. In the context, the question was what the term security really meant. A 10-year review would do well to look at the preceding five to seven years.

Ms Jolingana advised that there be engagement beyond the DCS, also within the Justice cluster. The length of remand detention had to be reviewed. Money was being spent on people who were only passing through the system. A school principal could say that the school was full. The DCS could not say that. The DCS had to accommodate strikers at Sasolburg, if it was demanded of them. There had to be a re-channeling of money spent on keeping people in custody. There had to be interaction on the community level about sentencing. Judges were critical of parole. Some of them deliberately cut out the option of parole when sentencing an offender.

Ms Jolingana raised the question whether the DCS had to keep an offender inside when a victim would not agree that he could be released on parole. She was in support of a five-year budget plan. There were DCS staff issues that had to sorted out with the Minister and labour. The issues related to overtime and the seven-day establishment. A DCS/Department of Labour (DoL) task team had been established. There were ground level security concerns. Alignment of funds had to be looked at, to see where money was going.

Mr James Smallberger, DCS Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarceration, added that chapter 13 of the White Paper gave directions for engagement with NGOs and communities. There had to be quality assurance committees. The DCS were looking at funding. There had been a High court ruling against DSD. The DCS budget was the visible heart, but there were the distributing veins that had to be looked at. There were psychologists and social workers classified under custodial officials, so there was a greater amount than was visible, for skills transfer. There were a 150 volunteers who were not visible in terms of the current classification. The National Skills Fund gave money that could not be seen. There were more inputs in rehabilitation to address offender behaviour, than could be seen. Research was needed.

Ms Ballard remarked that the Judiciary was not aware that there were no sentence plans for those sentenced to less than 2 years. Judges thought that they were doing a service to offenders by keeping the sentence under 2 years. Community corrections were not putting their services at the disposal of stakeholders.

Ms Padayachee added that community corrections had to be more than just supervision and monitoring. She agreed with Mr Smallberger that there had to be research on recidivism for those sentenced to less than two years.

Mr Moyane said that the DCS could not deal with post-incarceration as yet. There was a lack of jobs available for those released. Society might accept the offender back, but it was not happening in the economy. Nobody wanted ex-offenders. He applauded community corrections, but concrete programmes for reintegration were needed. The DCS had met with the Department of Basic Education. There was little point in teaching skills when there were no opportunities to use those skills on the outside.

Mr Selfe asked whose responsibility it was to correct the situation.

Mr Moyane answered that it was up to society as a whole. There had to be good will both in the public and the private sector. There was an ex-offender who now worked for the DCS. He had obtained an MA degree through study in prison. A young man at Durban-Westville had obtained five distinctions in the matric examination. Such abilities and skills had to be used.

The Chairperson concluded that there had to be a 10-year review for the hand-over to the incoming Parliament. It had to cover the period 2003 to 2014, and had to point out what was picked up during the term of the current Committee. There also had to be suggested steps for the following 5 years. He told Mr Moyane that the DCS had more resources, and would be better able to put together a discussion document. Time frames would be left to the DCS. He told Ms Jolingana that a cluster meeting would be called with Justice, the Police, and social Development. There were questions around the Criminal Justice review. Signals had to be sent out that would call for community involvement. The Committee programme would discuss current challenges, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) anti-torture regulations being an important part.

Finances would be discussed in the following week. The AGSA was invited to be there.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

Documents

No related documents

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: