Budget Hearings Issues: briefing by Department

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
18 May 2006
DEPARTMENT ON ISSUES EMANATING FROM THE BUDGET HEARINGS: BRIEFING

Departmental Responses to Questions emanating from the Budget Hearings
Offender Statistics – In Custody Conditions
The Offender Rehabilitation Path - Branches: Development and Care and Corrections

SUMMARY
The Department of Correctional Services went through their responses to questions related to the budget. Members were still concerned about the new model that would be used in the building of the new generation prisons. They also raised questions related to the creation of structures that would facilitate alternative sentencing, officials’ salary levels, the anti-gang strategy as well as the HIV/Aids prevalence study piloted in Gauteng. A Member urged the Committee to carefully consider its support of the Department’s budget especially in the light of the fact that the Committee seldom saw delivery.

Minute
Department’s Responses to Questions emanating from the Budget
The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) submitted responses to questions ranging from unnatural deaths in prison, their social reintegration programme and alternative sentencing to ways of raising the morale of DCS officials.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) commented that to deal adequately with overcrowding it was necessary to have an alternative sentencing structure in place. Magistrates were reluctant to follow this route without an adequate structure being in place. He pointed out that an increased number of people sentenced to imprisonment meant that a greater amount needed to be spent on correctional services and so a lesser amount could be spent on social reintegration. In addition he felt that the resources allocated to the social reintegration strategy were miniscule. It would be useful if the Committee could have the discussion document mentioned in the DCS’s responses. He wondered what the medium term plans were in terms of re-sourcing the social reintegration programmes in such a way that the judiciary would feel able to safely impose alternative sentences. He would be looking for this kind of initiative as evidence that DCS was promoting alternative sentencing.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) agreed that an adequate structure needed to be put in place. He was curious about what had happened to the pilot project introduced in Port Elizabeth that saw prosecutors, the police and correctional officers working together to assess whether offenders could be diverted. The rollout of such programmes would deter magistrates from making unilateral sentencing decisions.

Mr Motseki (DCS: Chief Deputy Commissioner) responded that social reintegration was based on the promotion of alternative sentencing. DCS accepted the issues the magistrates raised and acknowledged that the DCS’s community corrections capacity was very weak. When alternative sentencing had been introduced in 1999, magistrates had been very excited and within six months of the introduction of the community correctional supervision close to 404 probationers had been sentenced. From then on the number of probationers had decreased as the number of officers had increased. The DCS was concerned about the situation and conceded that part of the problem owed itself to the DCS weakness in terms of the focus of the programme and re-sourcing. The Department intended to address the matter. The Department would make the discussion document available to the Committee.

Mr Petersen (DSC Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corporate Services) noted that Mr Fihla referred to the Child Justice One-Stop Service in Port Elizabeth that tried to develop models for the expansion of alternative sentencing. The DCS was inspired by this and believed that if alternative sentencing could be applied more freely to children it would follow in other areas too. The Department was thus eager to see the provisions of the Child Justice Bill implemented.

Ms S Chikunga (ANC) wondered whether the DCS would be adapting its basic training curriculum to provide for the fact that the Department was ‘broadening its scope’ as far as the social reintegration programme was concerned.

Mr Petersen admitted that part of the DCS’s weakness was related to the fact that it had been giving generic training as though all officers would be deployed at correctional facilities. The DCS would address this issue as part of the social reintegration programme.

Ms Chikunga wondered whether there was any truth to the rumours that there were huge disparities in the salaries paid to members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the DCS.

Mr Petersen replied that for levels 2 to 12, SAPS salary scales were higher than for the same levels in DCS. However, taking the total personnel budget and dividing it by the total number of people DCS employed revealed that DCS employees received bigger salaries than many other departments. This was where the dilemmas around overtime, etc. centred. This issue also spoke to problems related to the low level of morale at middle management. These officials did not qualify for overtime and when they compared their own salaries to those of the same level SAPS employees, their salaries were much lower. This issue required a multi-pronged strategy and the DCS was working at it by ensuring that it got more people at entry level through the Seven Day Establishment, which would result in reducing the per capita cost. The DCS would also make a strong business case to National Treasury so that they might get more funds that would enable them to pay officials better. The Department were in discussion with National Treasury’s Technical Project team and some research has been completed. He emphasised that it was not merely about increasing salaries but also about getting value for money. When the Committee had more time this issue could be discussed in greater detail.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) pointed out that the Minister of Education had recently announced a 20% increase in teachers’ salaries. He said that DCS officers worked under terrible conditions, which demanded a similar increase. He wondered what the Department would do to improve their lot. (Due to time constraints this question would be included in the Committee’s report).

Ms Chikunga sensed that the DCS was not sure about how to proceed after the pilot of the HIV/Aids prevalence survey had been completed. She asked what the timeframe of the actual survey was.

Mr Motseki said that this issue made people vulnerable and the DCS was not certain that it would succeed if it were immediately rolled out across the country. It was decided to pilot it in Gauteng to find out what problems might arise during the countrywide rollout. He would forward the date of the completion of the Gauteng pilot to the Committee.

Mr Fihla was curious about the DCS’s anti-gang strategy. Could the programme used in Malmesbury, whereby inmates were given the rules and conditions of their facility, not be rolled out to other facilities. If offenders understood that their privileges were dependant upon certain conditions they would perhaps then refrain from certain activities.

Ms Chikunga remembered that since 2004 there had been talk of an anti-gang strategy. She wondered whether the DCS did in fact have such a strategy.

Mr Motseki responded that although the DCS had indicated that it would pilot the strategy in the Western Cape in 2005, it still did not have an anti-gang strategy in place. There were many reasons for this lack of progress: until January 2006 many positions had not been permanently filled positions and the regional commissioner of the Western Cape had been lost to the Department of Public Works (DPW). He reminded the Committee that in the responses given at the beginning of the meeting the DCS had indicated what measures it took from time to time when issues arose around gang activity.

He assured Members that the programme Mr Fihla spoke of was part of an induction programme that formed part of the offender rehabilitation path. DCS made no assumption about what people would do. In this face of the programme the DCS tried to make people as comfortable as they could possibly be within the facility and try to equip them with the procedures they should follow should they be made vulnerable. This was implemented across the country.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) disagreed with the CFO’s statement at the previous meeting that they had difficulty finding a site in Limpopo that could be used for the building of a prison. He had submitted letters indicating that he knew of a site in Limpopo that the DCS could have access to free of charge. He had submitted letters from the chiefs, the politicians and the mayor to Commissioner Mti, Minister Balfour and to the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services. The provincial commissioner at the time had even met with the Kgoshis to finalise discussions. He reminded Members that the President had identified Sekekuni as one of the nodal points in terms of the creation of employment. He invited DCS to speak to him about the matter.

Mr Patrick Gillingham (DCS: CFO) said that he was not familiar with the Sekekuni area and thus could not make any comments about it. He pointed out that the identification of a suitable site was done by the transaction advisor and the DPW. They considered state owned land first and then considered the availability of bulk services, hospitals, courts, etc in the area under consideration. He would convey the request to the transaction advisor and DPW and requested the Chairperson to provide him with a copy of the letter that was sent.

Mr Tolo said that Mr Gillingham’s explanation was not adequate. There was land available that would make it possible to include all South Africans in the economic development opportunities the new prisons promised.

Mr Tolo said that at the last meeting the Minster, the Commissioner and the CFO had confirmed that R1,2 billion was available for the building of the prisons. He wondered why the DCS had elected to, in terms of the Public Finance Model (PFM), rent the facilities from private companies if the money was available. In the light of the cost attached to the two already existing Public Private Partnership (PPP) prisons, he was concerned about the cost attached to building eight additional ones. He questioned the Committee’s role as far as the budget was concerned. He wondered whether the Department was of the impression that the Committee was merely there to listen to what they had to say without giving their opinion and recommendations.

Mr Gillingham explained that the decision to go with the PFM was made in conjunction with the DPW and the PPP unit within the National Treasury. They had concluded that the DCS could not continue with the old manner of building facilities since it was not affordable. They had to consider what the best option was. The R560 million available for the two PPP facilities went towards the payment of the building, as well as the payment of the incarceration costs (66% of the R560 million). The latter amount increased at least twice a year. The per capita cost of these facilities was "basically double" that of other facilities. It was decided that the private sector would build the facility and the DCS would pay for it over 15 years. The DCS had the option to contribute to the repayment and thus lower the monthly payments that would have to be made. This would also give the DCS the opportunity to speed up the building of facilities. The DCS would provide a comprehensive document that would explain the PFM concept in user-friendly terminology. He assured the Committee that the DCS did not underestimate the importance of the Portfolio Committee and did not manipulate the Members to their advantage.

The Chairperson said that the document would be helpful in understanding the process so that they would be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to support the method.

Ms S Seaten (IFP) said that she became more and more concerned about the DCS. The goal posts moved all the time and the DCS kept coming up with new approaches for dealing with the same issues. She urged the Committee to consider whether they should pass the DCS’s budget without having any clarity as to what would be happening in 2006/7. The Committee kept passing budgets and yet the promises that were made were never forthcoming. The Committee very seldom saw results on the big issues being debating.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would meet without the DCS the following day. They should include all their concerns in the report that would be submitted to Parliament.

The meeting was adjourned.