Department of Correctional Services 2007/08 Budget and Strategic Plan: briefing

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
28 March 2007
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES 2007/08 BUDGET AND STRATEGIC PLAN: BRIEFING 

Chairperson: Kgoshi L Mokoena (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department of Correctional Services Strategic Plan 2007/8-2011/12 Presentation
Department of Correctional Services Strategic Plan 2007/8-2011/12 [available later on www.dcs.gov.za]
Presentation by the Department of Correctional Services, 2007 Estimates of National Expenditure

Audio Recording of the Meeting (Part 1) and (Part 2)

SUMMARY
The Department presented the strategic plan for the coming year as well as the Estimates of the National Expenditure. The background to the strategic plan included an evaluation of strategic planning and performance by the Executive Management Committee, which discovered that there was a need to have a phased approach to priorities, as some would take longer than a year. There was a need to focus on enhancing the role of operational management in the DCS for better delivery and on creating enabling conditions for delivery on the White Paper. A five-year plan prioritised the first year of operation. An integrated planning approach was created.  Highlights of 2006/07 included improvement in security with the implementation and rollout of Biometric systems and monitoring of security policy. There was re-launch and finalisation of the HIV/Syphilis prevalence survey. Posts at the senior management level were filled. Sites were accredited for the provision of Anti-Retroviral treatment (ARVs) The move toward a seven-day establishment and accelerated recruitment for additional staff continued. The Corrections Week was launched and the Jali Commission Report was released. Key projects for the next two years included expediting new correctional centres and improvements to physical infrastructure. The phased implementation of the Offender Rehabilitation Path (ORP) and of the Social Reintegration Action plan, and Management of Awaiting Trial Detention Project and the Job Refinement and Enhancement Project were included. The programmes were cross cutting. The critical strategies of programmes were outlined. The processing of the Correctional Service Amendment Bill would be finalised. There was a review and improvement of measures to ensure safety and security of inmates, officials and service providers. Installation of security equipment would be completed at 25% of correctional centres. There would be reduced overcrowding and removal of awaiting-trial prisoners and sentenced children from correctional centres to appropriate facilities. Healthcare and agricultural programmes would be improved. The challenges included the system of provision of three meals to offenders, the job refinement and enhancement project, increased participation of offenders in rehabilitation programmes, escapes involving collusion and violence, attracting and retaining scarce skills, the finalisation and implementation of policies and procedures, improved delivery at management area level, taking into account local government’s role and the alignment of the planning, budgeting and reporting framework.

The budget was fully outlined, with an indication of the cost drivers used. Inflation was provided for at 5%. The key cost drivers were personnel totals, numbers of inmates, including those awaiting trial, probationer and parolees as well as strategic intentions. Staffing budgets were Head Office at R32, 3 million; Major Prisons at R73, 4 million and second White Paper posts at R57 million. The current inmate population figures were 152 548. The baseline allocation was R10.7 billion for 2007/08 and a breakdown was given across all programmes. This represented a 9.26% increase on the previous year.

 A number of questions were asked. The Chairperson noted that the Department could respond to some questions in writing and deal with other issues at the forthcoming workshop. Questions included construction of the new facilities, the programme around the White Paper, the surrendering of R800 million back to National Treasury, the costs of providing accommodation to prisoners, social reintegration, the human resources strategies, including salaries, the issue of clustering, use of consultants, and lessons from the rest of Africa. Other issues concerned awaiting trial detainees, the costs of inmates, the salaries and costings used by National Treasury, the security in larger and smaller centres, and the training programmes. The cluster issue was raised. Other issues that were raised were put aside to be dealt with when a workshop took place between the DCS and the committee and time would not permit all the questions to be answered.

MINUTES
Introductory Remarks
The Chairperson noted that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had been honest with regard to their budget, which was appreciated. The Committee wished to know the progress had on the four additional correctional facilities that were being built. The successes and frustrations needed to be shared with the Committee so that help could be given.

Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Strategic Plan 2007/8 to 2011/12
Ms Jennifer Schreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Operations and Management Support, DCS, briefed the Committee. The background to the strategic plan included an evaluation of strategic planning and performance by the Executive Management Committee (EMC), which discovered that there was a need to have a phased approach to priorities, as some would take longer than a year. There was a need to focus on enhancing the role of operational management in the DCS for better delivery and on creating enabling conditions for delivery on the White Paper. A five-year plan prioritised the first year of operation. DCS formulated revised targets for the first year. An integrated planning approach was created, which included an extended EMC work session, dealt with Cabinet Lekgotla and State of the Nation Address priories as well as a government programme of action.

The highlights of 2006/07 included improvement in security with the implementation and rollout of Biometric systems and monitoring of security policy. There was re-launch and finalisation of the HIV/Syphilis prevalence survey. Posts at the senior management level were filled. Sites were accredited for the provision of Anti-Retroviral treatment (ARVs) The move toward a seven-day establishment and accelerated recruitment for additional staff continued. The Corrections Week was launched and the Jali Commission Report was released.

The key projects for 2007 to 2009 included expediting procurement of the new correctional centres and the necessary improvements to physical infrastructure. The phased implementation of the Offender Rehabilitation Path (ORP) and of the Social Reintegration action plan, and Management of Awaiting Trial Detention Project and the Job Refinement and Enhancement Project were included. Priorities for 2007/08 were improved planning, the creation of an enabling environment for rehabilitation, improvements in compliance with Internal Control and Policies, implementation and reporting framework, improved communication of DCS’ Strategic Direction, implementation of the integrated human resources strategy and the improvement of partnerships and external relations.

It was noted that the programmes were cross cutting. The critical strategies were outlined in these projects. Compliance improvement plans involved managers with internal controls and procedures at both operational and support levels. Improved compliance in relation to the Chapter Nine institutions and other statutory bodies, as well as with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and internal financial management controls were prioritised. The processing of the Correctional Service Amendment Bill would be finalised.

There was a review and improvement of measures to ensure safety and security of inmates, officials and service providers, which would in turn reduce incidents of escapes and assaults by 10%. Unnatural deaths would be reduced by 5%.  The installation of security equipment would be completed at 25% of correctional centres. There would be a reduced and even spreading of overcrowding of sentenced offenders as well as a facilitated removal of awaiting-trial prisoners and sentenced children from correctional centres to appropriate facilities. Implementation of a comprehensive health care service would take place with a review of the current system and development of the new programmes. The maintenance and expansion of a national agricultural and production workshop system would work in favour of poverty alleviation.

The challenges faced by the DCS included the system of provision of three meals to offenders, the job refinement and enhancement project, increased participation of offenders in rehabilitation programmes, escapes involving collusion and violence, attracting and retaining scarce skills, the finalisation and implementation of policies and procedures, improved delivery at management area level, taking into account local government’s role and the alignment of the planning, budgeting and reporting framework.

Ms Schreiner concluded that DCS had built on the EMC evaluation and stressed that it had to be more strategically focused in order to create enabling conditions for delivery on the White Paper. DCS had also ensured that all key projects were reflected in the Strategic Plan.

DCS Budget Briefing
Ms Nandi Mareka, Deputy Commissioner Financial and Management Accounting, DCS, explained the principles of calculating allocations from a zero base as well as an incremental base as prescribed by the Medium-term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) manual. The zero base dealt mainly with non-recurrent expenditure such as capital projects. The incremental base consisted of historical data taken into account during the budgeting phase as well as cost drivers and offender totals. Inflation was provided for at 5%. The key cost drivers were personnel totals, numbers of inmates, including those awaiting trial, probationer and parolees as well as strategic intentions.

Ms Mareka explained that employee statistics were 464 posts for the major five correctional centres (Grootvlei, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Pollsmoor, Westville), 300 White Paper posts and 118 Head Office posts.  The budgets for these were, respectively, Head Office at R32, 3 million; Major Prisons at R73, 4 million and second White Paper posts at R57 million. Allocation of basic salary was based on salary notches and the annual salary adjustment according to allowances. A three-year phase of having Seven Day Establishments had begun to be implemented. The medical aid provision for pensioners was budgeted at R1521 each, while serving members were budgeted at R1014. Provision made for overtime was made in accordance with the rules set by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. Capital Remuneration, Employment Control Bargain Council, Leave Discounting and Periodic Payment were all based on the per capita cost.

The provision for interim promotion was captured on the Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE). Goods and services were costed from indirect expenditure over the new services and these would be based on the new prices and tariffs quotations. Property management was devolved from the Department of Public Works (DPW) to departments. The amount that the staff paid for rent of accommodation would be recovered from the DCS.

The buildings and other fixed structures would be based on cost and space norms. Indigent gratuity given to prisoners upon release was based on new tariffs and the possible projected number that would qualify. The Machinery equipment minimum allocation was R5000 and the principles were all subjected to the availability of the budget.

The current inmate population figures were based on Management Information System of the inmates. The budget had not been taken away from the National Treasury. The current inmate population was 152 548. The ENE Baseline allocations projections showed an increase. The compensation of employees amounts were reinstated over three years and a vacancy rate of 5% to be decreased to 3% in line with the reduced budget. Health Care professionals’ remuneration would be increased to encourage Health Care professionals to remain and return to the system. The baseline allocation was R10.7 billion for 2007/08 and a breakdown was given across all programmes. This represented a 9.26% increase on the previous year.

Discussion
A number of questions were asked. The Chairperson noted that more than twenty questions were asked at the outset, so that the Department would only be able to respond to some. Others could be responded to in writing. During the forthcoming workshop with the Department the other issues raised could be dealt with, which might also include some issues outside the presentations.

Dr van Heerden (DA) stated that the Ministry must be present at some point in the workshop and that this needed to take place before the debates.

Ms Schreiner noted that the plans of human resources and corporate finance could also be dealt with in the two-day workshop with the committee.

Mr S Shiceka (ANC)(Gauteng) stated that the budget went beyond the regions and the allocations of resources. The construction of the new facilities and the programme of the department around the White Paper were questioned.

Ms Schreiner said that at National and Regional level a good understanding of the direction of DCS is needed. This had not been satisfactory achieved yet and workshops were held in all regions to deal with that, in the same way that the White Paper was workshopped to regional levels. The level of integration needed to be tested.

The Chairperson and Mr Shiceka asked for motivation of the surrendering of R800 million and return of R167 million for capital projects needed to be motivated and reasons given why the full allocation was not spent.

Mr Vernon Peterson, Regional Commissioner, Gauteng, answered on the surrendering of the funds by the DCS. He recalled that in the past there had been overspending over many years because of the overtime budget and the medical aid, which was greater than required. The phasing out of Saturday as an abnormal workday helped to save money. The total saved was roughly R760 million. The saving of the money over time created room for 8311 positions to be filled. The R800 million now referred to could not be spent in a two or even five-year period. The understanding of National Treasury, when taking back those funds that could not be spent, was that the surrendered money was to be scheduled for re-release when the Department showed the ability to spend it. The success in the budgeting had been that the Department had saved money and created and filled new jobs. This was on target with the strategies. The surrendered funds included amounts for the appointment of staff for the new correctional centres that had not yet been built yet, and this amount would be given back once the facilities had been built.

The cost of providing accommodation to the offenders was queried.

Mr Worth also enquired as to the cost driver for the offender population and why the figures were only going up by 1000 per financial year. The probation numbers were also increasing by a set margin, and he asked did this also include the awaiting trial population.

Ms N Mareka commented that the cost per day of offenders included R153.73 per day for inmates. Excluding the Capital Works Programme (CWP)  the cost would be R139.33 per day. The CWP included the construction of the facilities. Supervision cases came to R13.44 per day.
The Regional allocations would be provided in writing.

Mr Shiceka asked why the Department of Public Works had been mentioned in the budget. He asked at what point would the distinction be made between the responsibilities of Public Works and that of the DCS.

Mr Shiceka noted that with regard to the White Paper the DCS was maturing and sharing views in policy development. Middle management needed to share the same views in transformation and so he asked what measures would be taken to encourage the management to act in the same way. The programme for transformation needed to empower the staff to be able to take decisions. He concluded that the plan was taking shape.

Mr Shiceka asked if the mobilisation of the DCS included the communities around the direction of the DCS and if it was communicated properly.

Ms Schreiner said that on social re-integration, a full report needed to be presented to the house, including the progress. This answer also referred to the later question posed on the involvement of other community organisations.

Mr Moseki (ANC) commended the DCS on a good presentation and said that the basics were in place. He expressed concern on the HR aspects of the strategy. He mentioned that the clustering of DCS with the Security Cluster needed consideration. Skills were identified but development must be taken into account and middle management vacancies be filled.

Mr Alfred Tsetsane, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Services, DCS, said that the issue of clustering needed support from a political level. There was a General Public Service Bargaining Council which would assist Correctional Services into the Security Cluster but there seemed to be blockage at the higher levels with regard to this.

Mr Ntuli (ANC) questioned what the time frames were as to the goals set so that the Committee could monitor and play an active oversight role.

Ms Schreiner noted that the Corporate Services and human development had undertaken training and a full report would be issued. It was agreed that the work session should be scheduled at a sooner date.

Mr Ntuli asked about alignment with the new demarcations and what measurement tool was used for rehabilitation. He also asked how restorative justice was implemented in the DCS and what programmes on rehabilitation of offenders into their communities were currently running.

Mr Ntuli asked about the psychological reasons for violent crime.

Ms Schreiner noted that the psychologists’ role in assessment should inform the profile report of each individual offender and a sentence plan was outlined for the interventions for that offender that were needed for the duration of the sentence.
 
Mr W Le Roux (DA) queried why the building of facilities was not taking place and commented on the lack of space in the current facilities. In the budget there was provision for new office space even though the buildings to house the inmates had not yet been completed, and he questioned why there was this discrepancy. He also noted that the budget reflected spending of 60% more on well being of inmates and 30% more on the compensation of staff, but the consultancy fee had increased by 300%.

Ms Mareka noted that there should be a separate presentation on facilities as this could properly be explained then.

Dr van Heerden (DA) commented that Ms Schreiner stated that it was proposed to have a Seven-day establishment running, and he queried if the recruitment of staff reflected that. He also asked if in attracting and retaining scarce skills, skills that had left or were no longer in service were included.

Ms Schreiner stated that In trying to attract people DCS would look at trying to bring back scarce skills and other frameworks were being developed in head hunting. This would include different procedures. 

The Chairperson commented that the challenges to the DCS were the alarming vacancy rates and the fact that the posts that were filled in the 2005/06 year were less than the vacancies available. The Auditor General had also enquired as to why all vacancies were not filled. DCS had the finance to do so and the filling of posts was key to the security of the prisons. 

Mr Alfred Tsetsane, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Services, DCS, stated that the vacancy levels in the correctional services were standing at 7% and the fears around vacancies related to scarce skills that were critical to the core business. These professionals were scarce countrywide. A strategy was being developed to attract and retain these skills in the DCS in a Scarce Skills Strategy. Statistics were issued quarterly on vacancies in the Department. The perception that the necessary numbers were not being recruited was incorrect although the ratios between offenders and staff could be improved. Another dynamic was the extent to which staff were “recycled”, including promotions. The trends of the turnaround time may have to be followed. In filling the posts in correctional centres it was not easy to draw personnel from outside the institution.

Mr Tsetsane also said that consultants were used for recruitment, good benefits, detection of corrupt activities and the managing of risk around officials. The consultancies would issue a report at the end of the year. The performance of the companies would be looked at and other strategies considered.

Dr van Heerden said that it would be helpful to learn from Northern Africa, and the ex-French territories, to expand the vision of DCS.

DCS responded that the building of an All Africa Correction Structure was in the process to make sure that in Africa best practises could be shared. DCS had been concentrating on the Southeast and Central Africa and was about to expand through the All Africa Correctional Body.

Dr van Heerden asked how would the promotion of alternative sentencing be promoted through Department of Justice, and queried if this would not have to go to the South African Law Reform Commission.

Ms Schreiner said that there was a challenge in that the judiciary had no confidence in the Community Corrections System and sometimes also in utilising the Criminal Procedure Act. DCS was interacting with the magistrates in order to explain how the community correction system worked and what direction the streamlining of the community correction system was taking. It was necessary to instil confidence in the judiciary about the community correction system and to stress that it was an option that worked, not just a parole option.

Mr D Worth (DA, Free State) commented on the staff shortages and questioned why outsourcing was used to recruit staff and why overtime for the staff was going to be stopped now, even if it was going to be phased back in at a later date.


Ms F Nyanda (ANC, Mpumulanga) asked if the facilities planning included the upgrading of existing facilities and how many renovations were envisaged.

Ms Nyanda asked whether in operation of outreach to the communities church groups, NGO’s and local structures were included and if this was not so, the reasons for this.

Ms Nyanda noted that security equipment was installed at 25% of correctional centres at a cost of R73,4 million, and she enquired as to why the small centres were not included in this amount.

Ms Mareka indicated that providing the funding for the recruitment for big five centres did not disregarded the small centres, as the DCS had taken an informed decision to enhance the capacity of those centres. The other R60 million that was available in the 2006/7 financial year was for implementation of white paper for all centres, and enhancement of security measures and better management of the centres. This was not at the expense of the small centres. The basis of the cost driver would come in writing to the committee.

Ms N Mareka stated that a reply to all facilities questions needed a full presentation by relevant role players.

Ms Nyanda asked where children awaiting trial were kept.

Mr L Fielding (DA, Northern Cape) asked what relationship DCS had with the DPW. He also enquired as to the relationship between DCS and the local government, especially with reference to social problems.

Mr N Mack (ANC, Western Cape) commented that the DCS was trying to improve. He said, however, that the recruitment figures for staff were static and the ratio of 30 inmates to one official made for great stress on the officials. The more dangerous inmates needed more surveillance and the ratios needed to be aligned for establishments. When the budget was drawn up again it needed to be more structured to reflect the needs of the establishment. More staff needed to be recruited to top and middle management.

Mr Mack asked why the targets for risk assessment and profiling of 23% were not met and if this would begin again in 2007. The cost of tracking down of absconders was questioned.

Mr Mack noted that there appeared to be a problem with the communications between the transport of prisoners to court and the holding cell officials, as many inmates did not always arrive for trial, and he asked what the cost of this was.

The Chairperson asked about the hunger strike by inmates in Pretoria, as it was thought that this happened because the wrong people were given parole. The monitoring of those on parole by the parole boards was necessary and could be done if the boards were doing what was expected of them.

A DCS official stated that the ten parole seekers considered that they had been incorrectly dealt with under the 1959 Act and instigated others on the hunger strike in the same facility. The Regional Commissioner went there in person to address the inmates, as had the Chairperson of the Parole Board. It was agreed that the Regional Commissioner would form a small task team that would look at the inmates’ specific cases and would also address their parole board issues.

The Regional Commissioner also visited Rooigrond and Rustenburg the following week to address offenders on the same issues. This issue needed to be addressed by the DCS as there was no understanding from offenders with regard to parole. Two offenders might have committed the same offence, yet their participation and their behaviour in the institutions and their reports for parole purposes would be different.

It was noted that there was now a new Parole Board that had been through training to ensure the adequate supervision in the centres. The reports come through the Case Management Committee, which was trained in these issues. It was ensured that any reports that were processed were correct, including those of the psychologist and social worker in the section. The Case Management Committee must receive correct reports. Recommendations would assist the Chair of the Parole Board, but the final decision rested with the centre so its correctness could be assessed. The outcome of the investigation team was awaited. The Regional Commissioner agreed upon a time frame.

 The Chairperson commented that the shortcomings of DCS included the fact that the monthly statements were not submitted on time. Salaries were not paid on time and the certificates were not filled in annually which made it difficult to audit the DCS. The priorities of the DCS were questioned and also how it would ensure that the trip sheets would be maintained and that documents would be submitted to the Auditor General so that reports could be compiled. It was noted that logbooks and trip sheets did not correspond and were not being filled in correctly and this was not acceptable.

Ms Mareka responded that a steering committee had met and an action plan was discussed in relation to issues raised by the Auditor General. This plan needed to be presented to the Committee and it would answer the questions asked by the Chairperson. Supervision was also an issue and needed a full presentation to give it justice.

The Chairperson commented that offenders that committed greater and lesser crimes were being categorised into the same cells. He asked if this also meant that the rehabilitative programmes for all offenders were the same. He stated that indirectly criminals would be taught by each other, and could thus move on to commit harsher crimes.

The awaiting trial detainees and their classifications included the Correctional Services, South African Police Service and the Home Affairs Office. There was no distinction as to the crimes as yet as it took time for the verification to come through.
 
Ms Schreiner said that the information flow from Department to Department, to be able to manage the security risks of the Awaiting Trial Detainees, needed to be improved. A dedicated remand system needed to be established as there was a difference between those in detention and those in correctional remand. Assistance was needed in this issue. The non-custodial sentences were not always utilising the community correction system that was in place.

The Chairperson felt that more needed to be done about the salaries for officials.

Mr V Petersen said that National Treasury used per capita cost in their budgets, so the personnel budget divided by the staff numbers would indicate the amount it would cost the DCS to appoint one person. Increase in salaries for the DCS from Treasury would be quite slim. The other factors could be discussed at the upcoming workshop.

Ms Mareka stated that other questions would be addressed in the workshop and thanked the committee for the oversight role and for engaging with the DCS.

The meeting was adjourned.