Report: Budget Vote 21, dated 15 May 2012

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ON BUDGET VOTE 21: CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, DATED 15 MAY 2012

The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, having considered the Department of Correctional Services’ 2012/13 budget (Vote 21) and strategic plan, reports as follows :

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In its consideration of the Department of Correctional Services’ (DCS) 2011/12 budget, as well as strategic and annual performance plans, the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services (the Committee) received written and oral submissions during stakeholder hearings (17 April 2012) as well as a briefing by the DCS (18 April 2012).

1.2 The Committee invited comment from the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), labour unions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and research institutions. The JICS, National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO), the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) and Network for Reducing Re-Offending (NRR) presented their submissions to the Committee, while the Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU), and Just Detention International (JDI) made written submissions only.

1.3 The DCS officials who appeared before the Committee included: Mr T Moyane (National Commissioner), Mr S Sokhela (Chief Financial Officer), Ms J Schreiner (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Operational Management and Support), Ms N Jolingana (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Development and Care), Mr Z Modise (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections), Ms N Mosupye (Government Information Technology Officer), Ms P Mathibela (CDC: Corporate Services) and Ms S Moodley (Chief Deputy Commissioner: African Correctional Services Association).

1.4 This report comprises a programme-by-programme summary of key aspects of the DCS’ budget and strategic objectives, a summary of the main concerns raised by stakeholders and, finally, the Committee’s observations and recommendation. Given the recurrent nature of the DCS’ challenges, this report should be read along with previous reports, including the Committee’s 2011 Budgetary Review and Recommendation (BRR) report.

1.5 The Committee had, following its interactions with stakeholders and the DCS, submitted a series of questions to the DCS for response by 8 May 2012. The questions were aimed at seeking further clarity on concerns raised during the above-mentioned interactions, but, unfortunately, neither the responses, nor an explanation for the non-submission had been received, and therefore this report was compiled without the clarity that had been sought in relation to some aspects of the strategic plan and budget.

1.6 The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (2009) provides for, amongst others, a parliamentary procedure to amend Money Bills, thus granting parliamentary committees greater opportunity to influence the allocation of funds to the departments they oversee. Section 5 compels the National Assembly, through its Committees, to submit Budgetary Review and Recommendation (BRR) reports on the financial performance of departments accountable to them on an annual basis. The BRR report must be informed by a committee’s interrogation of, amongst others, each national department’s medium-term estimates of national expenditure, strategic priorities and measurable objectives, National-Treasury-published expenditure reports, annual reports and financial statements, as well as observations made during oversight visits. Essentially, the BRR report is a committee’s assessment of a departments’ service delivery performance given its available resources, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency with which its programmes are implemented. Although BRR reports must be published at a specific time in the budget cycle, it is clear that the work that informs the report must be ongoing. The Committee regrets to report that, despite the significance of this process, the DCS has again failed to respond to any of the recommendations contained in the 2011 BRR report.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE DCS’ KEY STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS BETWEEN 2008/09 AND 2014/15

2.1 The DCS’ strategic planning has, since 2005, been guided by the White Paper on Corrections (“White Paper”). According to its strategic plan the DCS’ mission is to contribute to maintaining and protecting a just, peaceful and safe society by enforcing court decisions and sentences in line with relevant legislation, detaining all inmates in safe custody while ensuring their human dignity, and promoting the rehabilitation, social responsibility and human development of all offenders.

2.2 The DCS identified the following as its planned policy initiatives: White Paper on Remand Detention, Foreign National Transfer Protocol, New Medical Policy, Halfway House Policy, Electronic Monitoring Policy, Planning and Performance Monitoring Policy and a Human Resources Policy Review.

2.3 The Correctional Matters Amendment Act (No 5 of 2011) amends the Correctional Services Act of 1998 in order to strengthen the parole system, provide for a medical parole system and provide for the management of remand detainees. It is hoped that, along with the bail protocol and the protocol on interstate inmate transfer by the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security cluster, the changes ushered in by these policy changes will contribute to the alleviation of overcrowding.

3. OVERVIEW OF THE 2011/12 BUDGET

3.1 The DCS’ expenditure has grown at an average annual rate of 9,2% from 2008/09 and is projected to reach R19,9 billion by 2014/15. The growth in expenditure is mostly driven by the increased expenditure on the compensation of employees, which has increased at an average annual rate of 10,5%. The DCS received R17 732,2 billion in the 2012/13 financial year. This amounts to 1,8% of the national budget, and 12% of the allocation to the Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster. The DCS’ budget has increased by 6,26 % in nominal terms.

4. OVERVIEW OF ALLOCATION ACROSS PROGRAMMES

In the 2012/13 strategic plan the DCS introduces a revised clustering of its budget programmes. In previous years the plan comprised seven programmes, which have now been reduced to five i.e. administration, incarceration, rehabilitation, care, and social reintegration. The new clustering was informed by National Treasury and is aimed at ensuring that the DCS aligns its planning, and improves its reporting.

4.1 The Administration programme provides the administrative, management, financial, information, communication and technology, research, policy co-ordination and good governance support functions necessary for service delivery, good governance and accountability to oversight institutions. As in the preceding three financial years the programme received the second largest allocation i.e. R4, 9 billion.

4.2 The Incarceration programme is a new programme which provides for services and well-maintained physical infrastructure that support safe and secure conditions of detention consistent with human dignity; and provides for the profiling and compilation of correctional sentence plans, administration and interventions. In addition to the remand detention and offender management sub-programmes, it comprises Security Operations and Facilities sub-programmes which were previously stand-alone programmes. The Incarceration programme receives the largest allocation – 53% of the DCS’ total budget. The Security Operations sub-programme receives the largest part of the programme’s allocation.

The DCS will include the following in its efforts to improve performance as far as secure incarceration: implement an integrated security technology framework, reduce assaults to 2,2 percent, and install fully functional access-control security turnstiles in 78 correctional centres.

4.3 The Rehabilitation programme provides needs-based programmes and interventions to facilitate rehabilitation and enable social-reintegration. The programme receives the second lowest share of the budget, only 5,5% of the total allocation. The programme comprises the Offender Development, Psychological, Social and Spiritual Services and the Corrections sub-programmes. Offender Development receives the largest percentage of the programme’s budget.

Key targets under this programme include increased participation of juvenile offenders in education programmes, the completion of correctional programmes by 30% of offenders who have such plans, the completion of pre-release programmes by all offenders, reducing overcrowding by 8%, and reducing the correctional sentence plan for all those serving sentences longer than 24 months to 31 171.

4.4 The Care programme provides for needs-based programmes and services aimed at maintaining the personal well-being of incarcerated offenders by facilitating physical fitness, social functioning, health care, and spiritual, moral and psychological wellbeing. The programme comprises the following three sub-programmes: Nutrition, Health and Hygienic Services, with Nutrition Services receiving the largest allocation. In 2012/13 the programme receives 9,2% of the DCS’ total budget. The DCS intends to ensure, amongst others, that 45% of all inmates are tested for HIV, that 51% of inmates who are HIV positive and eligible, are placed on anti-retroviral treatment, and that 9% of inmates with communicable diseases, hypertension and diabetes receive treatment.

4.5 The Social Reintegration programme, which is divided into four sub-programmes, focuses on the provision of programmes preparing inmates for release, on the effective supervision of those on parole, and on ensuring reintegration. The programme received R748 million, only 4,2% of the overall budget. The DCS intends to increase victim participation by 3,32%, increase parole consideration of eligible cases by 91%, implement the Electronic Monitoring Pilot Project, and submit its Halfway House policy for approval.

5. OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INPUT

The following is a summary of concerns and observations made by stakeholders and does not necessarily reflect the Committee’s views.

5.1 General

5.1.1 As in previous years, stakeholders have either explicitly called for, or alluded to, the consideration of the DCS’ budget and strategic plan, and public comment on it, to be more than simply a parliamentary process devoid of any real meaning. While it may not be practical or desirable to simply reject the DCS’ budget, the DCS must be held accountable for the credibility of, and delivery in accordance with, the plans tabled before Parliament.

5.2 Administration

5.2.1 The high vacancy rate, especially in financial services and related posts, remained a serious concern, not least because of the significant risk of financial mismanagement and maladministration it exposes the DCS to. It was felt that recent successes in improving governance and administration would be undone should the situation not be addressed as a matter of urgency. The DCS would attract more social workers, psychologists and other professionals if it incentivised these professional categories and scarce skills.

5.2.2 The DCS’ poor management of information and record-keeping was highlighted once more, and drew into question the credibility of what was reflected in the strategic and annual performance plans.

5.2.3 Interviews at centre-level revealed that interpretation and implementation of policy appeared to be inconsistent, and that DCS management and staff were perceived as a law unto themselves, not accountable to anyone and inadequately monitored.

5.2.4 Offenders expressed dissatisfaction and little faith in the JICS and its independent correctional centre visitors (ICCVs), whose independence was questioned. Complaints go unresolved, and where recommendations are made, the JICS’ inability to enforce them renders the body even more ineffective.

5.2.5 Many noted a number of questionable initiatives among the immediate outcomes listed under the programme. These initiatives, which include the ‘management’ of perceptions of crime among the population and the DCS’ intended activities in relation to the African Correctional Service Association (ACSA), raise concerns about the DCS leadership’s priorities.

5.3 Incarceration

5.3.1 Concern was raised about the DCS’ persistent mention of the White Paper on Remand Detention and consultation which had reportedly taken place in relation to it, but which civil society organisations and other stakeholders were completely unaware of.

5.3.2 The DCS’ intention to reduce the average length of time remand detainees remained in custody was noted, but concern was raised that the target relies on the Section 63A of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) which has to date not delivered the desired outcomes. Limiting the duration of pre-trial detention should be regulated in the CPA and not in the Correctional Services Act.

5.3.3 The DCS provides no detail on how it intends to reduce assaults at a rate of 20% per year. The high number of assaults of inmates by officials indicates that the assault and even torture of inmates is a systemic problem, which worryingly appears to be accepted with no consequence to perpetrators, not even in cases that have resulted in death and further imbeds the culture of impunity.

5.3.4 It was noted with concern that, despite its prevalence, the DCS failed to include any outcomes related to the prevention of sexual abuse and rape. In 2009 the DCS had partnered with civil society organisations to develop a comprehensive policy framework on preventing and responding to inmate sexual abuse, but more than a year after its completion, the DCS has not yet adopted it, nor has any effort been made to effect real improvements in inmate safety.

5.4 Rehabilitation

5.4.1 The transformation of the correctional system should ensure that emphasis is placed on rehabilitation and the successful reintegration of offenders and not merely on the ‘warehousing’ of those who have committed crime. Offending behaviour in a South African context is a reflection of deeply imbedded social challenges, and solutions should therefore be informed by this reality.

5.4.2 Many felt that the Offender Development targets are too modest. The outcomes in respect of improving the literacy levels of all inmates, including remand detainees, for example, is a basic and fundamental service that the DCS should provide. Access to education is the only scientifically proven measure to reduce violence in incarceration. The widespread idleness and long periods spent in cells pose a major risk to safe custody, and successful rehabilitation.

5.4.3 Correctional officials play a central role in rehabilitation and are the greatest catalyst for rehabilitation or re-offending: they interact with inmates on a daily basis and can therefore influence behaviour negatively or positively. Inmates reveal that they are often treated inhumanely, and with no respect. If the DCS is to prioritise rehabilitation, training and the reorientation of officials’ mindset will be key.

5.5 Care

5.5.1 Concern was raised that babies born while their mothers are incarcerated are placed in foster care or put up for adoption, sometimes without adequate consultation with and counselling of their mothers.

5.6 Social Reintegration

5.6.1 In stakeholders’ experience pre-release programmes exist in DCS strategies and policy, but are not implemented as they should be. Some officials reported that often inmate files reflect that they completed such programmes, when that is not the case. Releasing an offender without him or her having successfully completed a pre-release programme greatly increases the risk of re-offence and parole violations.

5.6.2 The DCS’ silence on post-release services was noted with concern; there is little purpose in investing in rehabilitation services while in incarceration, only to fail in the provision of post-release support services.

6. COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS

6.1 The DCS’ success can only be measured by the degree to which they successfully rehabilitate offending behaviour. The services rendered under the incarceration, rehabilitation and reintegration programmes are key to rehabilitation efforts, yet they remain grossly under-funded.

6.2 Many lamented that the DCS’ priorities continue not to be aligned with the policy imperatives contained in the 2005 White Paper on Corrections, the Correctional Services Act or the Constitution. The Committee has consistently raised concerns about the apparent disjuncture between the ideals contained in the White Paper on Corrections and the DCS’ planning. Calls for a review of the White Paper are receiving serious consideration, particularly given stakeholders’ claims that, at the time of its approval by Parliament, consultation had been inadequate.

6.3 The DCS’ targets remain unclear, speaking to inputs rather than outcomes. Future strategic and annual performance plans should contain outcome-based targets.

6.4 The DCS’ attempts at the delivery of rehabilitation and reintegration services are undermined by its continued administrative crises. Poor discipline, lack of commitment and corruption owing to inadequate management seriously impede delivery and must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

6.5 According to the 2012/13 Strategic Plan the DCS had, at the end of April 2011, 41 911 funded posts, 40 017 of which were filled. Concerns about how the DCS utilises the human resource at its disposal, particularly whether too many officials are deployed at its Head Office and in administrative positions, while centres are experiencing severe shortages in custodial staff, remain. Clarity is needed on the DCS’ migration plan, particularly the migration of office-based officials to centres.

6.6 Stakeholders’ concern about the quality of service provided by correctional officials at all levels is noted. The DCS’ increased allocation in 2012/13, and future spending, will mainly be driven by the compensation of employees. This increased expenditure demands that the DCS improves its performance, and ensures value for money through the recruitment of suitable individuals who meet the entry level requirements which should be imposed, and who are adequately and consistently trained and monitored.

6.7 For the DCS to comply with the President’s call to ensure a safe South Africa, the Correctional Services environment must be highly secure, not only to protect it from inmates’ efforts to breach security, but also to ensure that officials do not pose a threat. The vetting of officials must therefore be prioritised, and the necessary interventions must be made to ensure that all access and security systems are fully operational.

6.8 The Remand Detention Branch will be established at a cost of R45 million, but no clarity is provided on what the expenditure will comprise. It was recommended that remand detainees who currently are not provided with any programmes, should be meaningfully occupied, and provided with certain services during their detention.

6.9 Useful support service should be provided to parolees and probationers, so that their reintegration can be facilitated. One of the major challenges in this regard is that community corrections offices are severely understaffed, and that, in the majority of instances, community corrections officers are more interested in policing probationers, rather than assisting them so that their reintegration is eased. Without such services, it is unlikely that the DCS will be able to reduce the rate of recidivism.

6.10 Though the importance of projects such as the establishment of halfway houses is acknowledged, the DCS’ strategy for maximising the impact of its halfway houses, particularly in terms of ensuring that the intended projects receive sufficient funding, requires elaboration.

6.11 The rationale behind outputs such as “managing the perceptions of crime among the population”, and “percentages of stories that convey a favourable DCS image” require clarification. The only way in which public perception of the DCS will be enhanced, is through better management and improved service delivery. Embarking on elaborate marketing campaigns, such as the ones implied by the outputs mentioned above, succeed only in raising further questions about the DCS leadership’s priorities and understanding of the challenges with which the DCS is faced.

6.12 The impact the DCS’ activities in the ACSA have had on its overall performance, as well as whether the DCS’ expenditure on ACSA-related activities is affordable, particularly in the light of the DCS’ challenges in delivering core services, requires further discussion.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 The Committee acknowledges that greater synergy in the manner in which the DCS’ budget is allocated across programmes will not be achieved overnight, but urges that steady improvements be made to move towards such a balance. In most previous reports the Committee voiced its extreme concern that, despite the rehabilitation and social reintegration objectives contained in the White Paper and echoed in the DCS’ core mandate, programmes aimed at addressing offending behaviour and promoting reintegration remain under-funded. The 2012/13 budget does not reflect synergy, and how the DCS intends to place rehabilitation at the centre of its activities remains unclear. To this end the DCS will henceforth be requested to consult the Committee before submitting its proposed budget to National Treasury. The Executive Authority should ensure that this submission is made so that the Committee may make recommendations where necessary.

7.2 While all observations should be carefully considered, the Committee will convene a meeting to interact with the DCS and its Executive Authority on observations 6.10 to 6.12 in particular.

7.3 The Committee recommends that the DCS’ 2012/13 budget be approved. Given the serious concerns raised above, it will intensify its oversight and monitoring of whether the necessary improvements are made to ensure steady improvement in the rehabilitation of offenders and their successful reintegration upon release. All the DCS’ efforts in this regard hinge upon efficient administrative practices and the combating of corruption, the recruitment of sufficient and appropriately trained and skilled officials, and, where possible, closer co-operation with NGOs.

8. APPRECIATION

The Committee thanks all those who contributed during its interactions on the latest DCS budget, and looks forward to fruitful interactions with all stakeholders as it performs its oversight of the DCS.

Report to be considered.