Civilian Secretariat for Police: 2013/14 Budget and Annual Performance Plan briefing

This premium content has been made freely available


24 April 2013
Chairperson: Ms A Van Wyk (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Parliamentary Researchers, at the start of the meeting, summarised the information contained in the Strategic and Annual Performance Plans of the Civilian Secretariat for Police (the CSP), and the budgets. It was noted that the CSP had five programmes, and the increases in the budgets for each were outlined. It was noted as a concern that the budget allocations for the legislation programme contained some inconsistencies, making the reliability of the information questionable. It was also noted that the structure of the programmes had changed, with some programmes now falling under others, and targets had also been changed in some instances. No information was provided on human resources or vacancies. It was recommended that CSP needed to improve the performance indicators and define measurable targets. Despite the intention that the CSP would become a separate department, with its own budget, from 1 April 2013, this had been delayed and the CSP continued to function as a cost-centre of the SAPS, under the SAPS Administration Programme.  

The CSP then described the strategic objectives and plans for each of the programmes. Programme 1 aimed to provide for the management, leadership and administration of the CSP, with sub-programmes for the Office of the Secretary of Police, Corporate Services, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Priorities included effective planning and alignment, quarterly reporting, and achieving effective cooperation with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID). The CSP had identified that the training was not needs-based, had difficulty in finding suitable candidates for its posts, despite its high HR demands, and that current budgeting and spending must improve. Members expressed concern over some decreasing targets, questioned the relevance of “sub-sub programmes”, the dependency on other departments and raised their concerns about lack of public confidence in the police services. They also asked about the use of consultants, the IT systems, the plans for conferences, how human capital would be developed without training, questioned the staff qualifications, and the plans to improve the accountability and the transformation of SAPS, and who was responsible for Minister’s Imbizos. They commented that the targets should be set more closely in alignment with the budgets, and made recommendations on various aspects, which should be amplified in writing.

Programme 2 was to manage and encourage national dialogue on community safety and crime prevention, and was divided into sub-programmes of civil society partnerships, intergovernmental partnerships, community outreach programmes and public-private partnerships. Public participation was to be enhanced through various interventions, and Community Policing Forums (CPFs) needed to be strengthened. A national task team had also been established and MOUs were signed with various business sectors, although there were concerns about shortage of budget. Members noted that timelines and delivery dates were needed, asked how the public participation could be measured, wanted more information on the CPFs and were concerned that the target for rural safety had been removed, questioning if the CSP was monitoring its implementation by SAPS. Members were also concerned as to what was being done about police reservists, from acceptance to proper deployment, and asked for a policy document.

Programme 3 dealt with policy and research and was divided into sub-programmes of policy development, research development and the Resource Information Centre. Most of the research development budget was spent on fieldwork. The White Paper on Policing was due and the CSP was to develop a comprehensive policy with the Cluster to address broad safety and security issues, and t present an annual national trend report on crime and policing. Members asked if the reports were published, enquired on the progress of the DNA legislation, the demilitarisation of SAPS, the implementation date for the White Paper, and why it had taken so long, questioned the vacancies, and whether new methods of policing were being debated. Members asked that all research documents be provided to the Committee and raised a concern on the decreasing targets.

Programme 4 provided legislative support services to ensure effective policing, but the challenges were highlighted as shortage of personnel, which impacted on finalisation of policy to allow for development of legislation. Priorities included the piloting of the DNA database legislation, reviewing of the SAPS Act, implementation of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority Amendment Bill. Members asked for an indication of timelines for implementation of the legislation, when vacant posts would be filled, the ideal staff structure, and, again, the high level of dependency on other departments.

Programme 5 provided for oversight of the SAPS through monitoring and evaluation, with sub-programmes for police performance, police conduct, compliance, and evaluations. The main concern was that poor reports from provinces, and poor recommendations from the Independent Police Investigative Directorate hindered evaluations, and there was a poor implementation still of recommendations made to SAPS. The CSP was trying to improve the image of SAPS, and was reviewing the SAPS disciplinary process, as well as assessments of SAPS use of vehicles. Members asked exactly how the CSP intended to enforce discipline, questioned the quality of reports from the Independent Directorate, and whether the recommendations were implemented, how SAPS litigation was assessed, hw the costs of litigation could be reduced, how the CSP was involved in firearm registration and monitoring of police stations, including construction. Once again, the Committee noted that clear targets were expected and written reports on a number of matters were needed.

Meeting report

Parliamentary Researcher Analysis of Strategic and Annual Performance Plans of Civilian Secretariat for Police
Ms Nicolette van Zyl-Gous, Parliamentary Researcher for the Portfolio Committee on Police, outlined that the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan of the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP or the Secretariat) showed that significant changes would be made to the organisational structure of the Secretariat in the 2013/14 financial year, in order to align its functions with the legislative mandate laid down in the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Act. The Act was promulgated on 1 December 2011, but the coming into operation of two crucial provisions had been delayed, which had to do with the  establishment of the Secretariat as a designated department, and the appointment of the Secretary of Police as the Accounting Officer of the Secretariat. The Secretariat was expected to receive its first voted funds in the 2013/14 financial year, but, due to organisational challenges, the 01 April 2013 deadline was missed. The Secretariat would therefore continue to function as a cost centre of the South African Police Service (SAPS), and was currently located in the Administration Programme of the SAPS for the 2013/14 financial year.

The 2013/14 budget for the Secretariat was discussed. There were five programmes. Programme 1: Administration showed a 25.71% increase from 2012/13. Programme 2: Partnerships, showed a 19.99% increase, Programme 3: Policy and Research, showed an increase of 75.32%, while Programme 4: Legislation showed no increase. Programme 5: Monitoring and Evaluation displayed the highest budget increase, at 92.64%.

By line item classification, Ms van Zyl-Gouws summarised the various increases (see attached presentation for full details). Most items had increased, some by amounts of over 1 000%, but training and staff developed decreased by 54.19%. The major changes in the 2013/14 financial year were related to there being three sub-programmes instead of five, and a reallocation so that some programmes were incorporated under others.

The Administration Programme received an increased allocation of R19.4 million in the 2013/14 financial year, or 25.7%, compared to the previous year, increasing to R67.1 million. Corporate Services, previously a sub-programme, but now reflected as a stand-alone programme, received a significant real decrease of 61.33%, dropping to R2.502 million. The Partnerships Programme received an increased allocation of R588 000, or 13.63%, to reach R3.529 million. The Intergovernmental Partnerships Programme received an increased allocation of 27.83% in real terms, the largest allocation increase within the Partnerships Programme. The Policy and Research sub-programme received a significant increased allocation of 66.03% in real terms, rising to R2.025 million. (See attached presentation for full details on comparisons with previous year).

The Policy Development Sub-programme also received a significant increase, of 67.23%, being allocated R883 000. However, the targets in this sub-programme had been changed and decreased. Similarly, the Research Development Sub-programme received an increased allocation of 80.33%, rising to R1.082 million, although the performance indicators and measurable targets had decreased.  The allocations for sub-programmes shifted significantly in 2013/14, compared to 2012/13, showing an overall 93.6% increase, to R8.78 million. There was a doubling of allocations to the Evaluations sub-programme, but a severe decrease in Police Conduct sub-programme, of 90.36%.

Overall, Ms van Zyl-Gous noted that the 2013/14 Budget and  Annual Performance Plan (APP), as well as the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, made little mention of human resources management and training. No information was given on the current staff establishment of the Secretariat, nor its vacancy rate. The 2012 and 2013 APPs stated exactly the same for personnel growth.

She recommended that the CSP should increase its focus on well developed performance indicators and should define measurable targets to effectively monitor and measure service delivery. In particular, this was relevant for legislation and policy development, to increase the professionalism of the SAPS and ensure that the recommendations made in the National Development Plan (NDP) were realised. She believed that increased pressure should be placed on the CSP to become a designated department and ensure the full operation of the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Act of 2011.  

Civilian Secretariat for Police: 2013/14 Budget and Annual Performance Plan briefing
The Chairperson welcomed the delegation from the Secretariat and asked them to start the briefing.

Ms Jenni Irish-Qhobosheane, Secretary, Civilian Secretariat for Police, started directly with a description of Programme 1, which was to provide for the management, leadership and administration of the Secretariat. The sub-programmes were the Office of the Secretary of Police, Corporate Services, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), which included supply chain and finance. The Office of the Secretary received a budget allocation of R1.933 million, Corporate Services received R2.502 million, the Office of the CFO received R3.995 million, Communications received R900 000 and Personnel received an allocation of R57.772 million. In total, the budget for Administration for the 2013/14 financial year was R67.102 million.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane outlined that the purpose of the Office of the Secretary of Police was to provide an efficient and effective Civilian Secretariat to support and enhance the role of the Minister. Priorities included effective planning in the CSP and the alignment of the Strategic Plan (SP), the Annual Performance Plan (APP), performance planning and quarterly reporting. There should be effective cooperation between Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and CSP, through joint consultative forums. Effective performance management agreements would also need to be signed and implemented across the CSP. Compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), and the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) requirements were also of high priority. Full implementation of the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Act, with regard to the CSP structure, the alignment of provinces and measures put in place to become a designated department, was another priority. Strategic and technical advice also needed to be provided to the Minister on a regular basis. Finally, other government departments needed to be engaged through the Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster process.

Corporate Services must provide reliable and efficient corporate services to the CSP, which included the provision of human resource management and development services. Other services included the management of employee relations, communication and Information Technology (IT), as well as other auxiliary services. There was a target in human resource management (HR) that all vacant posts must be filled by June 2013, and that any other vacancies be filled within three months following that. A new and approved organisational structure had been implemented. Skills and qualifications audits would be conducted for both new and existing staff. Code of Conduct workshops would be held on a regular basis.

The purpose of the Communications sub sub-programme was to develop a communication plan, which would contribute to the successful implementation of the communications strategy on the mandate and functioning of the CSP. The implementation of this was of high importance, and CSP recognised the need to increase awareness about the CSP through various public awareness programmes. External relations would be built with the relevant stakeholders.

The main priorities in regard to financial management were to upgrade the existing financial management systems, to provide accurate financial reports, to pay creditors within 30 days of receipt of invoice, to establish financial systems independent of SAPS, and to conduct mid-term reviews.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane outlined that some of the challenges facing the unit were that training was not needs-based, suitable candidates could not be found to match the required posts, the growth of the CSP brought with it high human resource demands, and the fact that the current budgeting and spending patterns were ineffective.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) asked how it was possible for the Secretariat to have employees with fraudulent qualifications, which was of great concern. She asked when the process to screen qualifications had begun, and what the results were.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that all existing staff were required to take competency tests. The qualification checks were mostly for new staff.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked why the allocation for Corporate Services had decreased.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said that the target for corporate services had not decreased. She added that budgets for provinces did not come from the Secretariat budget, the provinces had huge budgets. Corporate services had not decreased.

Mr M George (COPE) asked why the target for the implementation of the civilian secretariat had decreased, and whether this was due to financial constraints, or what was holding back the Secretariat from full implementation.

Ms A Molebatsi (ANC) asked what the significance of the “sub-sub programmes” was.

The Chairperson also asked why there was a need for the “sub-sub” customised programmes. She also asked for clarity on the decreased targets. She asked how the Secretariat engaged with other departments to make sure that there was optimal implementation of policy issues.

The Chairperson asked whether the Secretariat would have its own budget by the next financial year.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the “sub-sub” programmes were different programmes which had budgets separate from the main programmes. Sub-sub programmes made monitoring and evaluation simpler. She added that the sector indicators spoke to partnerships, and the role of the Secretariat was to make sure that the role of provinces was in line with that outlined in the National Policy Guidelines, which had been incorporated into the APP.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked about the SAPS Forensic Laboratories and whether the Secretariat was working in line with these.

Ms Molebatsi asked about what happened to the staff members who failed the competency tests.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that each test was designed for different levels of management, and they were not designed as a disciplinary tool, but rather as a tool to improve staff skills. They were not about failing or passing.

Mr George asked what plans the Secretariat had to improve the accountability and the transformation of SAPS. The public had lost confidence in SAPS, and the police did not seem to be accountable to anyone.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that SAPS accountability would be improved through various measures such as enhanced policy initiatives and improved monitoring and evaluation measures.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that it was understandable why the National Treasury had advised the Secretariat to decrease the use of consultants. However, the allocation for consultants had increased.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that there no significant increase given the overall budget as the allocation had increased from R3 000 to R6 000.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on the Secretariat’s use of consultants.

Mr K Lephota, Chief Financial Officer: CSP, responded that the APP outlined the Secretariat’s consulting expenditure budget. In its move towards becoming an independent department, it aimed to minimise the use of professional services such as consultants. However, the current increase in the consulting budget was as a result of the Administration programme contribution of around R9 000 to policy and research. This was used for travelling expenses for the conducting of workshops and the amount had been classified under goods and services.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked what the Secretariat’s targets were for the development of its Information Technology systems and whether it was intending to continue to use the SAPS IT systems, despite its move to becoming an independent department.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the Secretariat had no intention of developing separate IT systems, and would continue to use SAPS systems. It would be too costly and unnecessary to develop its own systems.

The Chairperson said that the APP outlined that the Secretariat had a target to develop human capital. However the budget allocations showed that there a decrease in the funds allocated for training, and she questioned how it was intended to develop human capital without such training.

The Chairperson requested an explanation for the increase in the allocation for assets less than R5 000

Ms Molebatsi asked what type of assets were those of less than R5 000.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane explained that this would represent assets such as furniture.

Ms Kohler-Barnard requested that figures from the various targets be made available to the Committee.

Mr George asked whether the Secretariat had set aside a budget for computers.

The Chairperson asked what the budget was for goods and services.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the budget for IT and computers did not come from the budget of the Secretariat, but from the SAPS budget. The Secretariat only made budget provisions for specific IT systems. Targets were being revised and each programme would discuss these in varying detail.

The Chairperson asked about the Secretariat’s communication plan, and whether its communication strategy had been approved.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane Secretariat stated that the targets were based on the existing baseline.

The Chairperson responded that targets could not be measured according to last year’s baseline. If the baseline had been achieved, then there should be attempts to implement and adopt a new baseline, so the results should be calculated on the new budget.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the baseline from the previous year had been achieved, and that it would change in the coming financial year.

Mr George asked for an explanation of the 20% increase on catering.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the 20% increase in catering costs covered all programmes, but was largely due to the number of public participation meetings held.

Mr Lephota added that in fact catering costs had increased by 9%, not 20%. Other portions of the increase were linked to administration programme’s increase.

The Chairperson said that the newly adopted format of “sub-sub programmes” created a challenge for the Committee in measuring the Secretariat’s deliverables. The lack of a target for IT planning was also highlighted as a challenge, and she enquired what the Secretariat’s strategies were for developing and improving its own IT systems. Dependence on SAPS IT systems had to be reduced. She then asked about the previously proposed Information Centre, and how far the Secretariat was from fully implementing it.

Mr George asked about the envisioned fuel and oil increase for 2013/14, how did the Secretariat know about the increases?

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the fuel increases were as a result of the three new cars added to the fleet.

Mr Lephota added that the old vehicles consumed more fuel, the new vehicles would therefore consume less fuel. Therefore petrol use would go down with the extended fleet.

The Chairperson asked about the 20% increase for partnerships, and added that the Committee needed to understand what the total expenditure budget was. She raised concern about who paid for the Minister’s Imbizos, and why this were budgeted for under the Secretariat. She also questioned why this was noted as a target. More explanation was needed on that. In general, the figures listed for various targets in the audited 2013/13 APP needed more explanation. She needed to know how the CSP was engaging with other departments with regard to the JCPS Cluster

Programme 2 – Partnerships
Mr D Zimu, Chief Director: Partnerships, CSP, said that the purpose of the Partnerships programme was to manage and encourage national dialogue on community safety and crime prevention. The programme had four sub-programmes - civil society partnerships, intergovernmental partnerships, community outreach programmes and public-private partnerships.

The purpose of the sub-programme for civil society partnerships was to manage and facilitate civil society partnerships in crime prevention. The strategic objective in this regard was to initiate partnerships between government and civil society with regard to safety and crime prevention. The Constitution of South Africa, under Section 195, required participation and access provision so that the public could partner with government.  The Secretariat therefore had a responsibility to enhance the public’s participation through various interventions, such as partnerships with inter-faith and traditional organisation for example. He cited the example of a campaign to inform and discourage the public from buying stolen goods. In addition, partnerships with Community Policing Forums (CPFs) also needed to be strengthened. A national task team had also been established and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) were signed with various business sectors. Various partnership agreements were also signed with farming unions such as AgriSA. However, there was concern that the Secretariat budget was not enough to deal with partnerships with the organised sections of society.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked what the outcomes of indicators were for these established partnerships and said that the CSP also needed to set out the timelines and delivery dates.

Mr George asked how deeply involved the public was in the fight against crime, seeing that the majority of the public had lost its confidence in the police service. He also asked how the public participation could be measured, and asked for more information on the rollout and the implementation of CPFs.

Ms Molebatsi asked why the target for rural safety had been removed from its APP, which she was very worried about.

Mr Zimu responded to the question on outcomes first, saying that programmes were implemented in three phases. Firstly, stakeholders were engaged and means of dealing with concerns were identified. Secondly, working groups were established to ensure that good relationships were sustained. Thirdly, there were rollouts on specific campaigns. Therefore, in order to assess the impacts of these outcomes it would be necessary to develop evaluating mechanisms, but this could take a while since the implementation process was lengthy. There was deepening of public participation, even though the results may not be completely visible to the public. In relation to the CPFs, he noted that there was a challenge because there was no specific area designated to deal with the training of CPFs, so that these structures did not function as well as they should. In addition, previous engagements with the CPFs had been through board members and not with the community members directly, and it was later realised that the discussions with the board members did not filter down to the local community members. A training board for the CPFs would therefore be established, with a specific focus on developing the local CPFs. With regard to rural safety, he explained that the target had not been removed, but since it was not the function of the Secretariat to implement it, but the function of SAPS, it was not included in the CSP Plan. The Secretariat was only mandated to consult communities, and to inform them about SAPS’s implementation strategy.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane added that the provinces had already accepted the guidelines about the strategy for CPFs.

Ms Kohler-Barnard raised a concern about the exclusion of the rural safety indicator, and asked whether the Secretariat had taken it upon itself to oversee that SAPS implemented this aspect in its strategic plan.

The Chairperson also raised a concern on the exclusion of the rural safety target missing and highlighted that SAPS had also failed to give an account of its plan for rural safety. She argued that rural safety was a government priority and needed to be given more attention.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that oversight was part of monitoring and evaluation, and that various partnerships would continually be sustained, such as that with AgriSA. In addition, SAPS was being monitored to fully implement the rural safety policy.

Mr George asked why the Secretariat had dropped its target for the full implementation of its APP.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked why so many complaints were being tabled about those wanting to register as reservists being turned away at police stations. Many people had volunteered to assist SAPS in crime prevention, without expecting anything in return. However the most qualified and skilled reservists ended up working under their juniors, and this was not acceptable.

Mr George asked that the Secretariat provide a policy document for reservists.

The Chairperson asked about the timelines for reaching and implementing targets. She also asked for direction about where the Committee could send their complaints directly to the Secretariat.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the exact dates and timelines would be provided to the Committee at a later stage.

Programme 3- Policy and Research
Ms Bilkis Omar, Chief Director: Policy and Research, CSP, said that the purpose of the programme was to provide policy advice and research services to the Secretary of Police. Programme 3 had three sub-programmes - policy development, research development and the Resource Information Centre.

Ms Omar outlined the budget of the programme, and said that research and development received the majority of the budget (R1. 082 million), followed by policy development (R883 000) and the Resource Information Centre received the least allocation of (R60 000). The total expenditure was R2.025 million. Most of the research development budget was spent on fieldwork.

With regard to policy development, she explained that the strategic objective was to implement evidence-based policies around policing areas. She explained that the White Paper for Safety and Security had later been split, with the White Paper on Policing being the end result. The Green Paper on Policing had since been finalised, and with Parliaments’ approval, public consultations would be conducted in May or June 2013. Another priority was the development of a comprehensive policy, involving the JCPS Cluster, to address broader safety and security issues such as the Draft White Paper on Safety and Security.

Under research and development, he explained that the purpose of the sub-programme was to undertake research in areas of policing and crime. The areas of priority were to present an annual national trend report on crime and policing, to ensure that provincial aspects of policing were included in the identification of priorities. The special research project therefore included the Recruitment to Retirement Strategy, and the Rural Safety Project.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked what progress had been made with regard to the implementation of the DNA Act.

Ms Kohler-Barnard enquired what strategies the programme had in place to address the issue of the demilitarisation of SAPS.

The Chairperson asked whether this programme had any policy that allowed its researchers to publish their professional work, and what strides the programme had made to implement the credibility of its researchers within the broader research community.

The Chairperson asked how far away was the White Paper on Policing from being implemented.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the White Paper was still in the process of being finalised in order to produce a public document on policing. Task teams were therefore in place to assist with the finalisation and implementation of the SAPS Bill. The SAPS Bill would be tabled before Parliament, so that it could be gazetted on 26 April 2013.

The Chairperson asked why the process of the White Paper had taken such a long time.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the White Paper on Policing was an incredibly detailed document, as extensive research had been done in order to include international standards and ways of policing. The entire process had taken a long time.

Mr George said that policing in South Africa faced serious issues. He asked whether the Secretariat had looked outside the country to discover or implement new ways of policing, in an attempt to strengthen SAPS.

Mr George asked again for a further explanation on the big increase on the catering budget.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded to the question on increased catering costs and said that the Department tried to cut back on catering before. However the increase had largely been due to the large extent of provincial workshops conducted on the White Paper on Policing.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked for an explanation on the three policing policies outlined in the APP, and asked that all research documents be presented to the Committee.

Mr Ndlovu asked how many interns the programme had, and how many vacancies were filled.

Ms Omar responded that the programme had two research interns, and that all vacant posts had been filled. However, an internal vacancy had opened up due to a senior manager having received a promotion.

The Chairperson asked why the research projects for the 2012/13 financial year had been collapsed into a single indicator.

Ms Molebatsi asked for an explanation for the 41% increase for travel and subsistence.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the reason for the increase was that fieldworkers had been doubled, which reflected then in the budget allocation.

Mr George raised a concern on the decreasing targets.

Programme 4- Legislation
Ms D Bell, Chief Director: Legislation, CSP, said that the purpose of the programme was to provide legislative support services to the Secretary of Police. The objective was to produce an effective and constitutionally-compliant departmental legislative framework for effective policing. The budget allocation for the programme was R1.38 million.

Ms Bell outlined the priorities of the programme as follows:
- To review the South African Police Service Act and to align it with the Constitution and other relevant policies.
-To pilot the DNA Database legislation through Parliament
- The revision and piloting of the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill
- To provide advice and support to the Secretary for Police on statutory obligations and responsibilities
- To consult with the Minister and give opinions on Constitutional and legal matters affecting policing as required

She stated that some of the challenges on this programme included the fact that there was a lack of personnel with the necessary experience in drafting and researching. Deadlines were not adhered to, resulting in delays. There was therefore a need for timelines to be developed for the finalisation of policy which impacted upon legislative bills. The filling of posts was also a priority.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked what happened to the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment (PSIRA) Bill.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that a Joint task team had been allocated for the finalisation of the PSIRA Bill, and all developments would be communicated with the Committee.

Mr George asked whether the Committee did not allocate a timeframe for the implementation of the Bill.

Mr George asked when the vacant posts would be filled, and enquired whether they were funded.

The Chairperson asked about the staff component, and whether there was a budget for the development of staff. She enquired whether Ms Bell was satisfied with the initially agreed upon directives in this regard.

Ms Bell responded by asking for a four-month extension for the programme to assess the extent of staff shortages.

Mr Stubbe said that the organogram presented to the Committee had very few personnel, and wondered whether four months was not too long for an extension.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the organisational structure had been benchmarked against other departments’ structure and it was intended that it should be finalised towards the end of April 2013. This was the reason why Ms Bell had requested that four months be allocated to the programme. In 2012, new units were added to the structure, and so the entire structure would be reviewed after 18 months. The process was not a simple one, as the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had to be consulted first.

The Chairperson raised a concern about the high levels of dependency on other departments, such as SAPS and DPSA. She argued that the Secretariat needed to work on being an independent structure if it hoped to be established as a separate department.

Programme 5- Monitoring and Evaluation
Ms M Kewuti, Chief Director: Monitoring and Evaluation, CSP, said that the purpose of the programme was to provide oversight of the South African Police Services (SAPS) through efficient and effective monitoring and evaluation. The programme had the following sub-programmes - police performance, police conduct, compliance, and evaluations. The budget allocation for the sub-programmes was described as : police performance (R370 000), police conduct (R120 000), compliance (R757 000), evaluations (R2.051 million) and information management (R5.5 million). The total budget allocation for the programme was R8.798 million.

Ms Kewuti said that the purpose of the sub-programme on police conduct was to monitor and evaluate the conduct, integrity and transformation of SAPS. An effective complaints management system would be implemented, SAPS legislation would be assessed, there would be an ongoing review of SAPS disciplinary outcomes and processes, and special projects would be implemented in key areas. In addition, the rate at which SAPS implemented recommendations would be assessed.

The purpose of the sub-programme on compliance was to monitor and evaluate compliance to policing policies, legislation and Ministerial directives by SAPS. The objective was to increase adherence to these legislative mandates. She described that the priorities included implementation of legislation such as the Sexual Offences Act and the Child Justice Act. The implementation of policing policies, such as Public Order Policing and all other policies approved by the Minister was also a priority. The implementation rate of recommendations received by SAPS received high priority. With regard to evaluations, the purpose of the sub-programme was to evaluate the effectiveness of programmes implemented by SAPS. The objective was to improve the implementation of SAPS programmes and projects, by providing credible and useful information for evaluation.

Ms Kewuti outlined that the challenges faced in the successful implementation of the programmes varied, but included the poor quality of reports received from provinces, the slow response by SAPS to information requested for evaluation purposes, SAPS failure to implement recommendations, and the policy vacuums in monitoring and evaluation. She highlighted that the main concern was that SAPS did not implement recommendations. An argument was also proffered that the number of indicators should be reduced in an attempt to ensure effectiveness, and high quality outcomes. The APP therefore set out the output and outcome indicators, and SAPS would give feedback on the impact of these. The four units were supported by an effective management component, which was responsible for the analysis and gathering of data and providing electronic support.

As indicated previously, the budget allocation for Information Management had significantly increased. She also outlined that one of the projects under ‘special projects’ was the building of police stations.

Ms Kewuti agreed with previous comments from Members that the image of the SAPS had deteriorated. The Secretariat therefore had a responsibility to restore this image by dealing with public complaints effectively. A business case study had been conducted and would be presented to the Committee. The SAPS disciplinary process was also under review and the amended disciplinary code would be signed shortly. With regard to evaluation, there was a three-year rolling evaluation plan, and this would be implemented by the Resolving of Crime unit. The problem of SAPS garages would also be assessed, in order to evaluate why capacity was not improving, and how this contributed to the shortage of SAPS police vehicles on the ground.

She also conceded that SAPS was “failing dismally” in terms of implementing recommendations. One explanation for this was that IPID was producing poor quality reports. The Secretariat was therefore in the process of appointing a legal team to assess the quality of the reports and recommendations produced by IPID, and would be returning those of low quality back to IPID for review.

Mr Ndlovu asked about the plans that the Secretariat had in place to enforce discipline in SAPS members.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked how the implementation of recommendations was being monitored to ensure effectiveness. She asked how many of IPID’s recommendations had been received, and how many of them had been successfully implemented.

Mr George wanted more details on what was being done about the poor quality of reports from provinces and IPID.

Mr George asked how SAPS litigation was being assessed, and wondered if the CSP had a plan to ensure that the costs of litigation would be reduced.

Ms Kewuti responded to the question on litigation and said that the unit was under-staffed and additional personnel were needed. She added that the escalating costs of litigation were to do with the way in which the litigation was being managed.

Ms N Chili (ANC) asked whether the ‘police conduct’ being referred to in the report was good or bad police conduct.

The Chairperson asked whether SAPS was still producing quarterly reports.

The Chairperson asked how many staff in place the programme would need in order to fully implement its objectives.

Ms Kewuti gave a general response to the questions around the discipline and SAPS disciplinary code, saying that the document had been discussed in the strategic planning sessions, and agreement had been reached that SAPS needed to be vigorously monitored. The disciplinary regulations also needed to be assessed to find out whether they talked to the SAPS Code of Conduct. Recommendations were made to SAPS management in this regard, and it was now up to SAPS management to implement them successfully.  The current IT systems had to be digitised so they could be implemented successfully as a national monitoring tool. Lastly, all recommendations brought forward to the Secretariat were being looked at, starting with those from the Committee with regard to budgeting within SAPS, but including also all other recommendations. After that process, they would be handed over to SAPS for implementation plans then to be drawn. The Secretariat had made it a priority to improve the image of police. SAPS was still producing its reports on a quarterly basis.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane added that a list of cases and recommendations had been received from IPID and the statistics would be communicated to the Committee at a later date.

The Chairperson agreed that IPID was not effectively communicating its recommendations to SAPS, if these recommendations did not reach SAPS.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked whether IPID logged its own recommendations.

The Chairperson responded that it apparently did not log its own recommendations well enough. The problem was that recommendations were manually logged, and this increased the chances of mistakes being made.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) asked about the operational involvement of the Secretariat in the licensing and processing of firearms.

Ms Kewuti responded that a report on the matter was presented to the Minister and the National Management Forum in 2011. An agreement was reached that a turnaround strategy should be implemented, but unfortunately no strategy had been implemented to date. Matters such as these therefore made it very difficult, and the monitoring and evaluation units could not conduct proper oversight visits, amongst others.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked what tools were in place for the monitoring of police stations, and if anyone else, other than this Committee, was giving recommendations to the Secretariat on SAPS.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the Parliamentary Liaison Officers tabled reports. The Office of the Auditor General, the Public Service Commission, the Public Protector, National Treasury, the Standing Committee as well as all Chapter 9 institutions were some of the institutions which also forwarded recommendations to the Secretariat on SAPS.

Mr Ndlovu asked how the Secretariat was monitoring the building of police stations.

Ms Kewuti responded that the building of police stations was one of the projects aimed at providing access to police services, especially in rural areas. However there was a need to understand why the process was taking such a long time. The Secretariat had therefore been in contact with the Department of Public Works (DPW), and various audio recordings were being downloaded from the Parliamentary Monitoring Group’s website, in an attempt to figure out what and who was causing the delays.

The Chairperson added that the problem with the projects was invariably in the hands of the DPW. She suggested that the Secretariat must look at a research report conducted in 2009/10 on the building of police stations nationally. This information would assist with its evaluations.

The Chairperson said that she hoped that the Secretariat had noted all the Committee’s concerns, which she summarised as including the policy on police reservists, the White Paper on Policing, and the issue of collapsing targets. The Secretariat needed to report back on all these. She said that the Secretariat had to reduce its dependency on other departments, and the issue of poor IPID recommendations had to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It was a serious concern of this Committee that there were no clear performance measurements for the implementation of targets, especially those on rural safety.

The meeting was adjourned.


No related


  • 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: