SUBMISSION BY THE INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY STUDIES TO THE PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ON THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE BUDGET VOTE, VOTE 21, 2011
16 March 2011

Dr Chandré Gould
Senior researcher
Crime and Justice Programme
Institute for Security Studies
	Ms Tizina Ramagaga
Junior researcher
Crime and Justice Programme
Institute for Security Studies	
1. Introduction
The Crime and Justice Programme of the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) would like to thank the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services for the opportunity to provide input on the current DCS Budget and Strategic Plan.  
The ISS is an African non-governmental policy research institute. Our work is aimed at contributing to a stable and peaceful Africa characterised by sustainable development, human rights, the rule of law, democracy and collaborative security. The Crime and Justice Programme of the ISS works to inform and influence policy and public discourse on crime, its prevention and criminal justice by conducting research, analysing policy, disseminating information and providing expertise as a contribution towards a safer and secure society. More information about the ISS can be found on our website: www.issafrica.org.
In the submission made by the Institute for Security Studies last year, in relation to the 2010/11 budget for the Department of Correctional Services, we drew attention to the imbalance in the budget of the Department. In particular, we noted that those programmes focused on the development and well-being of prisoners received the smallest share of the budget, while the bulk of expenditure is on security, administration and facilities. This remains the case in the 2011/12 budget. 
As we commented in our previous submission, we believe that given the current budgetary allocations it will be difficult, if not impossible for the DCS to realize its mandate in relation to rehabilitation. In this regard we believe that the time is right to call for a reassessment of the White Paper on Corrections. 
In addition, as we have noted previously, it is our considered opinion that the recommendations made by the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services, and civil society organizations, that the minimum sentencing legislation should be retracted, remains relevant. We take note of the fact that the DCS has revised the incarceration framework, and in particular has clarified the situation with regard to parole, as provided for in the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill (B41-2010). We also welcome the provision in the Bill that introduces a maximum incarceration period for remand detainees. Yet we also urge the Committee to find a way to discuss revision of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (105 of 1997) with the members of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development.
In this submission we draw the Committees’ attention to work currently being undertaken by the Institute for Security Studies and other civil society organizations to inform a more comprehensive discussion of the Department’s budget in the medium to long term. We have therefore limited our comment on the 2011/12 budget so as not to pre-empt the outcome of this process. 
In particular, through this submission we would like to draw the attention of the Portfolio Committee to problems associated with the provision of sentence plans and educational services. We also believe that the Committee should consider the recent announcement by the Minister of Correctional Services in relation to the renaming of correctional facilities. We finally offer the Committee some additional information about the civil society project to provide a detailed assessment of the DCS budget and key issues that will influence expenditure in future. 
2. Sentence plans and access to educational opportunities
The current DCS budget vote notes that the DCS intends to increase the number of sentenced offenders serving sentences of more than two years who receive sentence plans from 60% to 70% over the next twelve moths. The percentage of inmates with sentence plans is projected to increase to 90% of prisoners who are serving sentences of more than 24 months over the next three years. While an increase in the proportion of prisoners with sentence plans is to be welcomed, it should be noted that the existence of a sentence plan does not mean that the inmate necessarily receives, or has access to services. The sentence plans do however “guide the rendering of relevant programmes, services or activities to sentenced offenders”. In other words, without a sentence plan, inmates are unlikely to be able to access services. It should be noted that the existing policy to not provide sentence plans to offenders who serve sentences of under 24 months practically means that the bulk of released offenders (i.e. those who re-enter society after shortest time) will not have received opportunities to improve their skills or ability to cope in society. 
The Strategic Plan for 2011/12 indicates that the DCS has set a target of 64,7% of offenders with sentence plans participating in literacy programmes. The target for the percentage of inmates who will participate in the Adult Basic Education Programmes is 60, 9%. While it is commendable that department aims to increase the number of inmates with access to education, it should be noted that the absolute numbers of prisoners who have access to educational services remains low and that only 6% of offenders with sentence plans are projected to participate in literacy programmes and only 10% of those with sentence plans are projected to participate in skills development programmes. On the basis of this, it can be assumed that the majority of prisoners will leave prison not having participated in literacy programmes or skills development programmes. 
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that, as noted by the Judicial Inspectorate, availability of staff for these services as well as recreational programmes is a major hindrance to the implementation of educational programmes in some facilities. The JICS found that the lack of availability of staff in some facilities resulted in the suspension of programmes critical to the development of the inmate. 
These are important issues that require attention by the DCS and the Committee. However, it is our view that the issue of who receives services and what services are available should be informed by a revision of the policy informing which inmates receive sentence plans. This should be part of, a revision of the White Paper on Corrections.
3. Renaming of Correctional Centers
We would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the announcement of 23 January 2011 by the department that it intends to rename eleven Correctional Centres. This initiative was launched on 7 March 2011. 
According to the Department the purpose of the renaming of facilities is to:
•	Recognise the prisons ‘place and role in shaping the history of South Africa’ 
•	Build bridges with the community and South African society at large 
•	Recognise “key event, geographic significance and personalities associated with these facilities” in celebration of Human Rights Day on 21 March 2011 
•	Inspire staff and inmates
Furthermore during the launch of the initiative on 7 March 2011 the Minister noted that the renaming of the prisons would not result in any costs to the DCS. This contradicts the earlier announcement by the Minister that the costs for this project ‘had been budgeted for’. Indeed, given that the DCS placed large advertisements in national newspapers calling for proposals for name changes for the facilities, and has developed a schedule of public hearings to discuss the name changes, there can be little doubt that the changes will indeed result in the Department incurring costs, both in financial terms and also in terms of staff time and resources. Since the actual costs of this project have not been made public, we call on the Committee to seek clarity from the Department and the Ministry in this regard. 
Since the proposed name changes will not improve the lives of sentenced offenders or positively affect the service delivery of the department we are concerned that any expenditure on this project could be considered to be both wasteful and frivolous. It is our view that the Minister should, at this stage, be focusing attention on providing leadership on the critical issues that face the DCS in relation to staff management and basic service provision.
4. Civil society intervention to provide a detailed re-assessment of the DCS budget
We draw the Committee’s attention to a project being undertaken by the Institute for Security Studies in collaboration with other civil society organizations to provide the Committee with an in-depth assessment of the DCS budget.
During the public hearings on the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) budget and strategic plan for 2010/2011, both members of civil society and the Portfolio Committee on Corrections voiced concerns that the budget was not aligned to the 2005 White Paper on Corrections. The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee, Hon. Vincent Smith subsequently stated that he did not want see a continuation of the misalignment between the budget and the Cabinet approved strategic direction of the department. 
At the end of 2010 the ISS received funding from the Open Society Foundation for a project to revise, re-assess and provide detailed commentary on the DCS budget going forward. This project is a partnership between the ISS, the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO), the Open Society Foundation in South Africa (OSF-SA), and the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) and involves a consultant with expertise in drafting departmental budgets.
The first consultative meeting for this project was held on 25 February 2011. A report detailing our findings and recommendations will be made available to the Committee in April and we hope that it may be possible to find an opportunity to discuss the report with the Committee.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we would like to draw the attention of the Committee to one final issue of concern for the ISS. In our submission to the Committee earlier this year in relation to the Correctional Matters Amendment Bill (B41-2010) we noted that although we agreed that it is necessary for the Department of Correctional Services to make provision for improved conditions for remand detainees, it would appear as though the establishment of a new branch to deal with remand detainees would have budgetary implications. As yet these have not yet been set out by the DCS, and are certainly not clear from the MTEF projections. We urge the Committee and the DCS to investigate and elaborate on the cost implications of the new system as soon as possible.
We thank the Committee for the opportunity to raise these issues with you and look forward to engaging further with the Committee at the time of the release of our report in April.