ATC130524: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on Budget Vote 21: Correctional Services, dated 22 May 2013

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ON BUDGET VOTE 21: CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, DATED 22 MAY 2013

The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, having considered the Department of Correctional Services’ 2013/14 budget (Vote 21), and strategic and annual performance plans, reports as follows :

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In its consideration of the Department of Correctional Services’ (DCS) 2013/14 budget, strategic and annual performance plans, the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services (the Committee) received input from stakeholders during hearings held on 16 April 2013, as well as a briefing by the DCS on 17 April 2013. The Committee’s observations and recommendation were deliberated on 22 May 2013.

1.2 The Committee invited comment from the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), labour unions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and research institutions. The National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO), the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI), Just Detention International (JDI), Sonke Gender Justice Network (SGJN), Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU), and the Public Servants Association of South Africa (PSA) presented their submissions to the Committee. The Association on the Prevention of Torture (APT), and the University of the Witwatersrand ’s Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) could not participate in the hearings, and made written submissions only. The JICS cited severe human resource constraints as the reason why they were unable to comment in writing or participate in the hearings.

1.3 The DCS officials who appeared before the Committee included: Mr T Moyane (National Commissioner), Ms N Jolingana (Chief Operations Officer), Ms N Mareka (acting Chief Financial Officer), Mr T Raseroka (acting Chief Deputy Commissioner: Strategic Management), Mr J Smalberger (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections and Incarceration), and Ms P Mathibela (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Community Corrections)

1.4 This report comprises a programme-by-programme summary of key aspects of the DCS’ budget and strategic objectives, a brief summary of some 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 2012 Budgetary Review and Recommendation (BRR) report.

1.5 The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (Act No 9 of 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 annually submit BRR reports on the financial performance of departments accountable to them. 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 performance plans (APPs), annual reports and financial statements, as well as observations made during oversight activities. Essentially, the BRR report is a committee’s assessment of a departments’ service delivery performance in relation to 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 budgetary 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 the recommendations contained in the 2012 BRR report.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE DCS’ KEY STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS FOR THE PERIOD 2013/14 TO 2015/16

2.1 The DCS’ strategic planning has, since 2005, been informed 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, sense of social responsibility and human development of all offenders.

2.2 The DCS identified three strategic goals to pursue over the medium term, and which are to enable it to contribute to ensuring that all South Africans are and feel safe. Firstly, the DCS endeavours to ensure that offenders are held in safe, secure and humane custody, that they are provided with correctional sentence plans, and that they have their literacy, education and training needs met. Secondly, the DCS intends to ensure that remand detainees are held in safe, secure and humane detention, have access to court processes, and that they have their family and social needs supported. Finally, the DCS will ensure that parolees, probationers and those under community supervision, are rehabilitated, monitored and reintegrated.

3. OVERVIEW OF THE 2013/14 BUDGET

3.1 In 2013/14 the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster receives approximately R 141,26 billion i.e. 24% of the national budget. The DCS’ receives 13% of the cluster’s and 3% of the national budget i.e. approximately R18,7 billion. The budget shows a 5,92% increase in relation to the allocation received in 2012/13.

3.2 According to the Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) the DCS’ budget will increase to R20 795 billion by 2015/16. The bulk of the increased allocations will be spent on improved conditions of service, the upgrading of information technology (IT) infrastructure, and higher municipal charges.

3.3 The DCS’ budget is allocated across five budget programmes i.e. administration, incarceration, rehabilitation, care, and social reintegration. Receiving 28% and 53% respectively, the Administration and Incarceration programmes will, because they are labour-intensive, receive the largest share of the 2013/14 budget.. As in previous years, the Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration programmes will receive the smallest allocations - jointly only 10%. The Care programme will receive 8% of the total budget.

3.4 Although it reflects a 2,6% decrease, at 66,4%, most of the DCS budget will be spent on the compensation of employees.

3.5 The allocation to the category Goods and Services shows a fractional increase, and while the decreases in allocations for computers, contractors and agency and support/outsourced services are welcomed, increases in allocations to external audit costs (R25.3 million increase), fleet services (R35 million increase) and to travel and subsistence (R95,7 million increase) are noted with concern.

3.6 Under the category capital assets, the allocation to buildings and fixed structures decreases by R12,1 million, while the allocation towards machinery and equipment more than doubles to R286 million. The reduction in spending on infrastructure is due to Cabinet-imposed budget reductions on buildings and other fixed structures owing to the DCS’ consistent under-spending on capital works projects. These reductions notwithstanding, the DCS intends to upgrade 13 correctional centres over the medium term, thereby creating 3 464 additional bed spaces.

4. OVERVIEW OF ALLOCATIONS ACROSS PROGRAMMES

4.1 Administration

4.1.1 The Administration programme provides the administrative, management, financial, information, communication and technology, research, policy co-ordination and good governance support functions. These functions are necessary for service delivery, good governance and accountability to oversight institutions. The programme receives the second largest allocation i.e. R5,3 billion, most of which will be spent on compensation of employees. Over the medium term the programme’s spending focus will be on building capacity to improve service delivery, professionalising the DCS and providing Information Communication Technology (ICT) services.

4.1.2 The lower than anticipated spending on vacancies, and the service level agreement between the DCS and the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) resulted in decreased spending over the previous two financial years.

4.1.3 According to the Annual Performance Plan (APP) the DCS intends to amongst others, fill 97% of its vacancies, train 15 000 officials in line with Workplace Skills priorities, reduce audit qualification to nil, reduce matters of emphasis, and limit its under-spending to 0,25% of its allocated budget.

4.2 Incarceration

4.2.1 The Incarceration programme provides for services and well-maintained physical infrastructure that support safe and secure conditions of detention consistent with human dignity. It also 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 the Security Operations and Facilities sub-programmes. The programme receives the largest allocation, reflecting a 5.91% increase on the 2012/13 allocation. Over the medium term the spending focus will be on providing suitable and humane facilities by reducing overcrowding, escapes, assaults, unnatural deaths and the time spent in remand.

4.2.2 According to the APP the DCS intends to, amongst others, reduce the number of gang-related incidents by 10%, unnatural deaths to 42, escapes to 0.032%, and assaults to 2% of the population. In addition, the DCS intends to reduce overcrowding to 30% and the average length of time spent in remand to 165 days. It further commits itself to ensuring that 98% of those serving sentences longer than 24 months will have correctional sentence plans (CSPs).

4.3 Rehabilitation

4.3.1 The Rehabilitation programme provides needs-based programmes and interventions to facilitate rehabilitation and enable social-reintegration. The programme comprises the Offender Development, Psychological, Social and Spiritual Services and the Corrections sub-programmes. Just over 60% of the programme’s allocation will be spent on the Offender Development sub-programme. Although the programme’s allocation has increased by 13%, it again receives the second lowest percentage of the budget.

4.3.2 Spending on this programme is projected to increase to R1,2 billion between 2013/14 and 2015/16. This increase will make it possible to increase the number of offenders eligible for further education and training programmes to 14,9 percent, to provide more workshops, and to ensure increased educator-development.

4.3.3 According to the APP the DCS will ensure that 60% of those with CSPs will complete correctional programmes, that the number of offenders attending Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) programmes will be increased to 67,2%, that those attending formal education programmes will be increased to 1,4%, and that the number of those participating in skills training will grow to 28,7%.

4.4 Care

4.4.1 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, thereby ensuring their spiritual, moral and psychological wellbeing. The programme comprises the following three sub-programmes: Nutrition, Health and Hygienic Services. The Nutrition Services sub-programme receives the largest allocation i.e. R776 million.

4.4.2 According to the APP, the DCS intends to, amongst others, increase the percentage of inmates tested for HIV to 50%, the percentage of those on antiretroviral treatment to 94%, and the percentage of inmates who are on the tuberculosis cure to 75%.

4.5 Social Reintegration

4.5.1 The Social Reintegration programme, which is divided into four sub-programmes (Parole Administration, Supervision, Community Reintegration and Office Accommodation), focuses on the provision of programmes preparing inmates for release, on the effective supervision of those on parole, and on ensuring reintegration. The programme receives R801 million, only 4,2% of the overall DCS allocation. More than 80% of this allocation will be spent on the compensation of employees.

4.5.2 According to the APP the DCS will, amongst others, increase victim participation in parole proceedings to 4,43%, increase the percentage of parole cases submitted by case management committees (CMCs), and considered by correctional supervision and parole boards (CSPBs) to 94%, and rollout service level agreements to six halfway houses.

5. OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INPUT

The Committee received several written submissions on the DCS’ 2013/14 budget and planning documents. Although the detail of the submissions will not be captured below, the submissions will serve as a useful resource during our quarterly interrogation of the DCS’ performance. This summary of some of the key aspects of the i nput, does not necessarily reflect the Committee’s views.

5.1 Administration

5.1.1 Stakeholders identified a number of challenges related to the alignment between the planning documents, applicable government and DCS priorities and the budget. In many instances the DCS provided no detail on how the targets set out in the strategic plan would be achieved, making it difficult to assess exactly how the budget will be utilised.

5.1.2 The labour organisations especially, emphasised that the DCS’ inappropriate distribution of human resources resulted in centre-level officials being over-extended and that too many office-based administrative positions have been created.

5.2 Incarceration

5.2.1 Concern was raised about the DCS’ use of high-tech solutions to improve security, which contradicted the White Paper’s emphasis on dynamic security or direct supervision within a unit management system to improve security.

5.2.2 Stakeholders reiterated the concern that the DCS continue d to make no mention of sexual assault in their strategic and annual performance plans. Specific targets for the reduction of sexual abuse should be set, and statistics related to reported rapes and sexual assaults should be made available. It is believed that the DCS will only be able to meaningfully address sexual abuse in correctional centres once the Framework to Address Sexual Abuse of Inmates in DCS Facilities has been approved.

5.2.3 Stakeholders shared the JICS’ concerns about inhumane conditions of incarceration and treatment, and abuse of inmates, which amounted to ill-treatment of torture. Major concern was raised about the lack of emphasis on ensuring the security of inmates in correctional centres, and of ensuring their well-being, thereby reducing their vulnerability to torture and ill-treatment.

5.3 Rehabilitation

5.3.1 It was noted that the DCS did not indicate that additional capacity would be created at female centres. This was a cause for concern as 73% of women offenders were incarcerated across six centres that, on average, were overcrowded by 75% overcrowded. This pointed to poor distribution of women offenders and/or poor infrastructure in which to accommodate women offenders.

5.4 Social Reintegration

5.4.1 ‘Re-entry’ research was identified as an emerging field focusing on four dimensions i.e. personal issues facing those being reintegrated into society, impact of reintegration on offenders’ families, impact of reintegration on communities, and social challenges to reintegration. It was emphasised that unless the relevant government departments cooperated to provide post-release support services, and unless greater use was made of services rendered by NGOs, reintegration was virtually impossible.

6. COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS

6.1 Administration

6.1.1 The Committee remains concerned about the integrity of the information contained in the DCS’ planning documents. We agree with the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA) that the lack of proper risk assessment processes resulted in poor internal controls, which in turn compromises the integrity of performance information. These shortcomings should be addressed as a matter of extreme urgency.

6.1.2 The AGSA pointed out that certain technical indicator descriptions had not been prepared as per National Treasury-requirements. That the DCS has to date been unable to implement a uniform reporting process across all its centres presented a major challenge. Had the DCS’ internal audit unit been effectively utilised, these weaknesses could have been identified and addressed. That the DCS trained only senior managers in performance reporting, and not all those officials with a reporting responsibility, contributed to the challenge.

6.1.3 The Committee has for many years been concerned about the quality of the DCS’ legal support services. In 2013/14 the DCS intends to defend 80% of all cases brought against it. The Committee agrees that this target seems ill-informed as it implies that all challenges will be defended regardless of whether the DCS would be able to successfully defend itself. Of greater concern however, is that no indication was provided that the DCS will reduce its risk of exposure to litigation.

6.1.4 Given the DCS’ major challenges as far as recruitment, targets should be in relation to reducing new vacancies, rather than in relation to filling the existing ones. The National Commissioner’s comments that the DCS was “ageing” and that therefore attrition accounted for many of the new vacancies, were noted. The audit of employees still to be conducted, and the strategies to manage attrition still to be put in place, should be prioritised. Given the DCS’ struggle to recruit and retain staff, these strategies ought to have been implemented much earlier.

6.1.5 Given the nature of the DCS’ work it was impractical for it to operate on a five-day work week, relying on skeleton staff at weekends and on public holidays. The implementation of the Seven Day Establishment (7DE) was intended to ensure that the DCS would be able to guarentee delivery of services to inmates at all times. The DCS’ severe challenges as far as determining suitable shift systems that would address centres’ specific needs, proved a major stumbling block. The challenges have resulted in failures of both security and service delivery. Questioned about why the 7DE could not be more effectively implemented, the DCS was unable to provide convincing responses. The fear that the DCS’ senior management is unable to develop strategies to ensure the effective implementation of the 7DE, therefore remains.

6.1.6 Concern was raised that as the development and implementation of an Integrated Justice System (IJS) relied on cooperation between many departments, and not only on the DCS, having included targets associated with it in the planning documents, was ill-informed. The performance indicators and targets related to the establishment of an integrated ICT system, through the phased implementation of the CJS business information system, and integrated, holistic business and operational systems, should therefore ideally not have been included. Although the DCS agreed that it could not commit itself to targets that depended on the performance of several JCPS cluster departments’, it could not clarify what had motivated the inclusion of the targets in their planning documents. They predicted however that “clear roadmaps” should be available by December 2013.

6.1.7 The DCS identified the following eight values as core to its strategic intent: development, integrity, effectiveness, security, justice, accountability, equity and ubuntu. Apart from promoting productivity, commitment, and “service with kindness and humanity”, the DCS implores its officials to be honest, and to “disassociate from forms of corruption” and unethical conduct. The Committee agrees that these values should be lived by all DCS employees, and by those employed by the public service. The Committee has on several occasions referred to a moral breakdown among all levels of the DCS. That the DCS has opted to actively advocate for its officials to embody the above-mentioned values, appears to be an acknowledgement of such a breakdown. In addition, the eight core values are not linked to specific targets, and therefore it will prove difficult to measure the DCS’ performance as far as its moral upliftment. This compounds already-existing doubts about the DCS’ commitment to developing plans and strategies that are measurable, and for which they can be held accountable.

6.1.8 The Committee welcomes that over the medium term much focus will be on providing ICT services. A fully-functional IT environment is key to the efficient functioning of any organisation, particularly one as vast as the DCS. It is believed that the weaknesses associated with offender management, as well as with performance reporting and monitoring will be addressed should the DCS’ long-standing IT-related challenges be resolved. Given its long history of procurement irregularities, the DCS is cautioned against flouting the relevant processes when procuring the services and equipment necessary to improve its IT environment.

6.1.9 The Committee’s concern about the DCS’ administrative well-being remains. The DCS’ attempts to deliver rehabilitation and reintegration services are undermined by its continued administrative crises. Poor discipline, lack of commitment and corruption owing, in the main, to inadequate management seriously impede delivery and must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

6.1.10 According to the 2012/13 Strategic Plan the DCS had 41 911 funded posts at the end of April 2011, 40 017 of which were filled. The DCS’ distribution of its limited human resources remains a concern: many correctional centres are grossly understaffed, and there appears to be too many regional and national administrative posts, the value of which is unclear. It is hoped that the Ministerial Consultative Forum established to resolve a number of long standing human-resource related challenges will have the desired outcome, and that it would lead to better distribution of resources, better working conditions, and ultimately improved service delivery.

6.2 Incarceration

6.2.1 In 2013/14 the DCS intends to reduce the number of inmates assaulted in its centres to 2%. Despite previous recommendations that ‘assaults’ should be disaggregated to differentiate between general cases of assault, and sexual assault, the DCS has again opted to cover all forms under the one generalised target. According to the DCS inmates often failed to report sexual assault as such, and opted to report such incidents as assault only. Often the true nature of the assault is only determined after a medical examination. This has resulted in the reporting challenge. Their observation notwithstanding, the DCS gave no indication of what would be done to ensure that awareness is raised about sexual assault, thereby addressing the stigma associated with it and hopefully resulting in improved reporting of such assaults.

6.2.2 Upon interrogation, the DCS reported that in partnership with stakeholders, it had developed a policy framework that was in the final stages of approval. Although the Committee is concerned that this policy is not referred to in any of the planning documents, it hopes that the strategy, to be implemented with the assistance of stakeholders, will result in victims’ increased reporting of sexual assaults, the DCS’ improved monitoring and reporting on the prevalence of sexual assaults, and ultimately, in a reduction in sexual assaults.

6.2.3 The targeted reductions in the number of assaults, deaths and gang-related incidents were noted. The Committee is concerned however that in the absence of an effective admissions process during which vulnerable inmates could be identified and then accommodated appropriately, these targets cannot be reached. The risk of assault, death and gang activity is further increased by the DCS’ acute staff shortage, and the levels of overcrowding in correctional centres. Given that the 2012/13 target in relation to reducing gang activity had for instance not been met at all, and that such activity had actually increased considerably during that period, it is felt that in this instance too targets are not achievable at this stage.

6.2.4 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.

6.3 Rehabilitation

6.3.1 Given that the DCS is charged with ensuring that offending behaving is addressed, so as to prevent a return to crime upon release, the DCS’ failure to measure the rate of recidivism, and failed to set targets in relation to it, is noted with concern. Questioned about it, the DCS was unable to provide convincing reasons for why it has to date not developed strategies whereby it could measure its performance against the number of offenders who returned to crime and imprisonment. The DCS referred to socio-economic conditions, and the stigma associated with imprisonment as some of the major reasons for failed reintegration and a return to crime, but gave no indication that these well-known realities were taken, or would be taken, into account when developing and implementing rehabilitation strategies.

6.3.2 While the Committee welcomes the DCS’ intention to enrol all offenders who have not completed Grade 9 in education programmes, concerns remain about whether the DCS will be able to reach this target. The DCS has for many years been struggling to attract and retain the educators needed to run education programmes. The Committee remains of the opinion that all education services should be rendered by the Department of Basic Education (DBE). The Committee notes that the DBE and DCS have cooperated to some degree, and hopes that a formal agreement surrendering the responsibility of providing education services to the DBE, will be reached soon.

6.4 Care

6.4.1 In its 2011/12 annual report the JICS reported that it received 34 202 health-care related complaints. As in the case of basic education-services, the Committee feels that inmates’ health care needs should be met by the Department of Health (DOH). We agree with stakeholders that result in consistency as far as the implementation of the national health care policy and in consistent training of health care staff in correctional centres. In addition, DOH-employed health care workers would also be able to independently monitor and report on conditions of incarceration and human rights violations. The Committee therefore welcomes the discussions between the ministers of Health and Correctional Services, which are aimed at formalising the provision of health care services in correctional centres by the DOH.

6.5 Social Reintegration

6.5.1 The DCS’ success at rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders can only be measured by determining the rate and circumstances of criminal reoffence. As alluded to above, the DCS’ failure to measure their performance in this regard, makes it virtually impossible to measure its true effectiveness.

6.5.2 The services rendered under the incarceration, rehabilitation and reintegration programmes are key to the DCS’ success yet they remain under-funded. All expressed frustration at the DCS’ continued failure to align its strategies and programmes with the imperatives contained in the 2005 White Paper, the Correctional Services Act, and the Constitution. The Committee has consistently raised concerns about the apparent disjuncture between the rehabilitation and reintegration ideals contained in the White Paper and the DCS’ planning. We therefore welcome the DCS implementation of our recommendation that the White Paper be reviewed to assess its impact since implementation, as well as to re-evaluate its appropriateness.

6.5.3 Useful support service should be provided to parolees and probationers, so that their reintegration can be better facilitated. One of the major challenges experienced is that community corrections offices are severely understaffed, and that, in the majority of instances, community corrections officers are more inclined to police probationers, than to assist them so that their reintegration is less traumatic. Without such services, it is unlikely that the DCS will be able to reduce the rate of recidivism.

6.6 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

6.6.1 The JICS, which does not receive its own budget from the National Treasury, but is funded by the DCS, had brought its severe budgetary constraints and the fact that its allocation would not increase in 2013/14 to our attention. The Committee regrets that the entity had not made use of the budget hearings and briefings to further illustrate and clarify exactly how these budgetary constraints impacted on its operation, and effectiveness.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 The above-mentioned concerns notwithstanding, the Committee recommends that the DCS’ 2013/14 budget be approved.

7.2 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. Although we had previously urged the DCS to work towards steady progress in the direction of such alignment, such progress is not evident. We again urge the DCS to commit itself to the alignment of its budget with its strategic and policy objectives.

7.3 As in previous reports the Committee would like to reiterate the importance of measuring recidivism. Because it does not measure its success as far as addressing offending behaviour, and facilitating reintegration, the DCS does not have a true understanding of its effectiveness, or its true contribution to making South Africa safer.

7.4 .Given the serious concerns raised ,the Committee will intensify its interrogation of quarterly financial and operational reports, with special focus on efficient administrative practices, and the combating of corruption, the recruitment of sufficient and appropriately trained and skilled officials, and the overall safer incarceration of those sentenced to the DCS’ care.

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.