ATC150511: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2015/16 Budget, Annual Performance Plan and 2015/16-2019/20 Strategic Plan Of The Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP), Dated 07 May 2015:

Police

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON POLICE ON THE 2015/16 BUDGET, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN AND 2015/16-2019/20 STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE CIVILIAN SECRETARIAT FOR POLICE (CSP), DATED 07 MAY 2015:
 

The Committee examined the Budget, Annual Performance Plan for the 2015/16 financial year and the 2014/19 Strategic Plan of the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP). The Committee reports as follows:

 

  1. INTRODUCTION

 

The Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP) derives its mandate from section 208 of the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (Act No. 106 of 1996), which states that a civilian secretariat for the police must be established by national legislation to function under the direction of the Cabinet member responsible for policing. This also takes cognisance of section 206 of the Constitution, which entitles provincial Members of the Executive Committee (MECs) to perform certain oversight functions relating to policing.

 

The legislative mandate of the Civilian Secretariat is laid out in the in the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Act, 2011 (Act No. 2 of 2011). The Act was promulgated on 01 December 2011 and provides for the Secretariat to provide advice to the Minister of Police. The Civilian Secretariat became a designated department on 1 April 2014 in terms of the Act, but its 2015/16 budget was still presented as part of the SAPS budget in the Estimate of National Expenditure 2015.

 

  1. Structure

The Report provides an overview of the 2015/16 Budget Hearings of the CSP and is divided into the following sections:

 

  • Section 1: Introduction. This section provides an introduction to this Report as well as a summary of meetings held during the hearings.
  • Section 2: Key concerns of the Committee during the 2014/15 financial year. This section provides a summary of the key concerns raised by the Committee during the previous financial year.
  • Section 3: Strategic Priorities of the CSP for the 2015/16 financial year. This section provides a summary of the strategic focus areas for the Secretariat for the year under review.
  • Section 4: CSP Budget and Performance targets for 2015/16. This section provides an overall analysis of the estimates of national expenditure of the CSP for the 2015/16 financial year. This section also provides a programme analysis of the CSP.
  • Section 5: Committee observations. This section highlights selected observations made by the Portfolio Committee on Police on the annual performance targets and programme specific issues during the 2015/16 budget hearings and subsequent responses by the CSP.
  • Section 6: Recommendations and additional information. This section summarises the recommendations made by the Portfolio Committee on Police, as well as the additional information requested from the CSP.
  • Section 7: Conclusion. This section provides a conclusion to this Report.  

 

  1. Meetings held

In preparation for the meeting with the CSP, the Portfolio Committee on Police invited stakeholders to comment on the 2015/16 Budget and APP of the Secretariat on 14 April 2015. The following comments were made.

 

  • African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF):
    • National Development Plan (NDP): Insufficient detail on how recommendations of the NDP will be implemented by the CSP and the South African Police Service (SAPS). The APCOF recommended that the SAPS and the CSP should develop an implementation plan and that this should form part of their reporting obligations to the Portfolio Committee.
    • Demilitarisation: The APCOF recommended that the Committee should be briefed on the policy proposals and strategies to deliver the NDP’s proposal and, monitor implementation by CSP and SAPS.
    • Gender-based violence: The development of a policy on Reducing Barriers to Reporting Crimes on Gender Based Violence by the CSP should be welcomed. The APCOF recommended that there should be increased oversight of the role of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in conjunction with the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services, specifically regarding the establishment of dedicated sexual offences courts and specialised prosecutors. The APCOF further recommended that the recommendations contained in the CSP Policy should be incorporated into the reporting framework of the SAPS, IPID and the CSP.
    • Domestic violence: The oversight responsibility for overseeing that the police uphold their obligations is performed by the CSP. There has been a marked decline in number of complaints received by the CSP. It was recommended that the loss of a complaints mechanism following the new dispensation should be addressed and that the Committee continues vigorous oversight of the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 and includes civil society organisations when the SAPS and CSP present their reports.
    • Oversight and accountability: The APCOF recommended that the CSP must develop a comprehensive monitoring evaluation framework for monitoring police performance which should be presented to the Committee.
    • Use of force: The APCOF stated that the unacceptably high levels of allegations of police brutality require interventions by policy makers and police management. It was recommended that the CSP should develop a revised policy on the Use of Force.
    • Capacitating the police and oversight bodies: It was recommended that the CSP should develop collaborations/partnerships with academic and research institutions to enhance its research capacity.

 

  • Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU): The Union stated that they have noted the continued high underspending (23.7 per cent in 2011/12; 37.1 per cent in 2012/13; and 28.1 per cent in 2013/14), and that the CSP failed to meet most of the annual targets due to issues related to its establishment. These issues have an adverse impact on the operations of the Secretariat; and the Union thus called for the speedy finalization of all the procedures related to the independence of this component. This will ensure that the Secretariat effectively renders its oversight functions.

 

Further to the preparations, the Committee also received an overview of the budget for the financial year under review by the Research Unit of the Parliament of South Africa on 29 April 2015. The Committee received the following briefing from the Authority:

  • Briefing on the Strategic and Annual Performance Plan and 2015/16 Budget, operating expenditure, revenue and performance targets.

 

  1. KEY CONCERNS RAISED BY THE COMMITTEE DURING THE 2014/15 FINANCIAL YEAR

 

The following section provides a summary of the key observations/concerns raised by the Portfolio Committee on Police regarding performance and financial issues during the 2014/15 financial year:

  • Designated department: The Committee indicated that it welcomed the fact that the Secretariat was now a designated department in terms of the Civilian Secretariat for Police Act (2 of 2011). It was however concerned that the department has not fully implemented the provisions of the Act with regard to its programmes and policies. The Committee urged the Secretariat to implement the full provisions of the Act.
  • Consultative Forums: The Committee expressed its concerns relating to the establishment of consultative forums as stipulated in the Act, particularly when it comes to oversight functions and the cooperation with the IPID.
  • Resource Allocation Guide: The Committee requested a status update on the research report of the Secretariat regarding the Resource Allocation Guide. The research was required to assist the SAPS with its allocation of resources to police stations. 
  • Professionalising SAPS: The Committee noted that the Secretariat should play a key role in the professionalisation of the SAPS. This is a requirement of the NDP and a Ministerial priority and it should be taken seriously. The development of policy relating to professionalisation should be undertaken so that SAPS has the benefit of this research.
  • Monitoring Recommendations: The Committee raised concerns about the monitoring role of the Secretariat over the implementation of IPID recommendations.
  • Impact of the Secretariat: Members of the Committee raised questions about the impact of the Secretariat on the ground. The Committee was concerned that the Secretariat is not well known and does not have a visible impact in the service delivery performance of the SAPS at station level.
  • Implementation of the Domestic Violence Act (DVA): The Committee raised concerns that during its oversight visits to police stations, the DVA (and other pieces of legislation) are not fully and correctly implemented by the SAPS. The Committee noted that in most cases, there are no registers in the Community Service Centres or vehicles, and there are no copies of the Act in police stations. The Committee urged the Secretariat to improve their monitoring function with respect to the implementation of the Act.
  • Implementation of the e-docket system: The Committee was concerned that the SAPS are not implementing the e-docket system, even though it has been in existence since 2009. The Secretary of Police indicated that the system was developed without input from detectives who have to use the system and that they have received complaints about the system.
  • Service delivery complaints: The Committee noted that there were large numbers of service delivery complaints against members of the SAPS and wanted to know how the Secretariat is dealing with the matter.
  • Quarterly reports: The Committee noted that the Secretariat has not tabled its quarterly reports.
  • Criminal Justice System Revamp: The Committee raised concerns about the role of the Secretariat in the Criminal Justice System Revamp process. The Committee requested a status report and update on the progress with this.
  • Audit committee: The Committee raised its concerns about the Secretariat’s desire to use the Audit Committee of the IPID and wanted to know if that would be in the interest of the Secretariat. The Auditor-General reported on this and the Committee wanted to know if it would not be prudent for the Secretariat to use its own Audit Committee to ensure independence.
  • Use of Consultants: The Committee queried the increase in the budget for consultants. The Committee wanted to know what the reasons for the increase were.
  • Finance Administration: The Committee was concerned about the financial administration of the Secretariat and wanted to know what measures the Secretariat had put in place to assist it in becoming a designated department.
  • Vetting: The Committee expressed concern that the top management of the Secretariat is not vetted and had no security clearances.
  • Relationship with Provinces: The Committee was concerned about whether the relationship with the provinces were good or not and whether the Secretariat had regular interactions with them.
  • Community Police Forums/ Community Safety Forums: The Committee requested a breakdown of all CPF’s and how they are working. It also wanted to know what the details of the established Community Safety Forums are and where they have been established.
  • CPF Campaigns: The Committee questioned how the Secretariat is utilising the CPFs to become involved in campaigns against crime.
  • Deployment of the Tactical Response Teams (TRT): the Committee voiced its concerns about the deployment of the Tactical Response Teams to police crowds and wanted to get the view of the Secretariat on such deployments.  
  • White Paper on Policing and Legislation: The Committee expressed its reservations with regard to the Secretariat not adhering to deadlines with respect to the White Paper on Policing. The Review of the SAPS Act was also overdue and the Committee wanted to know what the timeframes for the legislation were.
  • Crime Statistics: The Committee questioned the position and role of the Secretariat in the disputes with SAPS on the crime statistics. The Committee questioned how the Secretariat will ensure the accuracy of released statistics.
  • Firearms: The Committee questioned the Secretariat on the oversight management of SAPS firearms and the management of backlogs for firearm licence applications.

 

  1. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES OF THE CSP FOR 2015/16

 

The National Planning Commission of South Africa identified twelve measurable performance outcomes in 2010 to assess achievements made by state Departments in terms of effective service delivery. These twelve outcomes was also incorporated in the National Development Plan (NDP). The two outcomes specifically related to the CSP are:

 

  • Outcome 3: All people in South Africa are and feel safe and secure.
  • Outcome 12: An efficient, effective and development orientated public service and an empowered, fair and inclusive citizenship.

 

As stated in the 2015 ENE, pursuant to the NDP goals, the Secretariat plans over the medium term to focus on: improving the effectiveness of policing in South Africa through regular monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the SAPS and strengthening civilian oversight of the police service by promoting crime prevention partnerships between civil society and intergovernmental and private institutions. And by encouraging national dialogue on community safety and crime prevention in order to promote a transparent and accountable police service. Correspondingly, in line with the NDP goals, the Secretariat’s strategic-oriented goals (as enunciated in the 2014-2019 Strategic Plan) are linked to the achievement of Outcome 3 and 12.

 

The overall strategic goal of the Secretariat is to conduct civilian oversight over the police and provide the Minister of Police with strategic support (police advice, legislative support, public participation and monitoring and evaluation of the SAPS).

 

The outputs (strategic objectives) of the CSP are directly linked to the following Strategic outcome oriented goals (outcomes), as reflected in the CSP Strategic Plan for 2014-2019:

  • Strategic Goal 1: A well-advised and supported Minister for a service-delivery oriented police service that is accountable
  • Strategic Goal 2: Quality. Timeous evidence-based strategic research, policy advise and legislative support to the Minister
  • Strategic Goal 3: Deepened public participation in the fight against crime
  • Strategic Goal 4: Enhanced accountability and transformation of the South African Police Service

 

  1. CSP BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR 2015/16

 

  1. Overall analysis

 

The aim of the CSP is to have a transformed and accountable police service that reflects the values of the developmental state. The Mission of the CSP, as stipulated in the 2014-2019 Strategic Plan, is to provide efficient and effective civilian oversight over the SAPS and enhance the role of the Minister of Police.

 

The budget allocation for the 2015/16 FY is R105.1 million compared to the R99.8 million adjusted appropriation received in 2014/15 FY. This represents a nominal increase of R5.3 million (5.31 per cent). Considering inflationary costs, the budget shows a real percentage increase of 0.49 per cent.

 

Table 1: Budget Summary of expenditure estimates for Vote 23 in 2014/15

Programme

R million

Budget

Nominal Rand change

Real Rand change

Nominal % change

Real % change

2014/15

2015/16

 2014/15-2015/16

 2014/15-2015/16

Programme 1: Administration

  32.4

  36.5

  4.1

  2.4

12.65%

7.49%

Programme 2:Intersectoral Coordination and
Strategic Partnerships

  19.5

  22.5

  3.0

  2.0

15.38%

10.10%

Programme 3: Legislation and Policy Development

  28.4

  23.4

-  5.0

-  6.1

-17.61%

-21.38%

Programme 4: Civilian Oversight, Monitoring &
Evaluations

  19.5

  22.7

  3.2

  2.2

16.41%

11.08%

Total

  99.8

  105.1

  5.3

  0.5

5.31%

0.49%

Source: Estimates of National Expenditure 2015, Vote 23: CSP

 

The 2015/16 proportional allocations per programme changed slightly when compared to the 2014/15 FY. Programme 1: Administration continues to receive the bulk of the budget allocation for the Secretariat at 34.7 per cent. The Legislation and Policy Development programme is allocated the second largest portion of the budget (22.2 per cent), followed by the Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluations programme in third place with a proportional allocation of 21.5 per cent. The Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships programme received the smallest proportional allocation with 21.4 per cent of the total budget.

 

In as far as economic classification is concerned, there has been a decrease in funds allocated to Compensation of Employees (from R69.4 million in 2014/15 FY to R68.3 million in 2015/16 FY). Increased allocations were recorded on the following budget items: Goods and Services (from R29.4 million to R34.9 million), External audit costs (from R200, 000 to R500, 000), Catering for Departmental activities (from R3.4 million to R3.5 million), Communication (from R2.2 million to R2.6 million) and Computer Services (from R3.6 million to R5.2 million). Operating leases increase from R220 thousand to R1.632 million.

 

Vacancies: According to the APP, only 110 of the 121 funded posts are filled with critical outstanding vacancies in the posts of Chief Financial Officer (which has been subsequently filled) and the Secretary of Police. The ENE projects that over the medium term posts are set to remain stable at 120 (and not 143 as envisaged in 2014/15). Of these posts, the bulk (54) reside in Programme 1: Administration, and 23 posts reside each in Programme 2 and Programme 3. A total of 20 posts reside in Programme 4.

 

As indicated in the 2015 ENE, spending in the Secretariat in the MTEF period will be informed by the following considerations:

  • Over the medium term, the Civilian Secretariat for the Police Service will focus on: improving the effectiveness of policing in South Africa through regular monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the SAPS and;
  • Strengthening civilian oversight of the police service by promoting crime prevention partnerships between civil society and intergovernmental and private institutions, and by encouraging national dialogue on community safety and crime prevention

 

  1. Programme Analysis

 

  1. Programme 1: Administration

 

The programme provides administrative support, strategic leadership and management for the Secretariat. Its strategic objective is to enhance corporate governance in ensuring that the Secretariat achieve its mandate. The programme consists of the following sub-programmes: Department Management, Internal Audit, Finance Services, and Corporate Services.

 

The budget allocation for the Administration Programme increased from an adjusted appropriation of R32.3 million in 2014/15 to R36.5 million in 2015/16. This represents a real increase of 7.45 per cent (or R2.4 million) and a nominal increase of 12.6 per cent (or R4.08 million). The Administration programme received the largest allocation of the Secretariat’s five programmes.

 

Table 2: Administration Programme: Vote 23 CSP

Programme

Budget

Nominal Increase/ Decrease 2015/16

Real Increase/ Decrease in 2015/16

Nominal Percent change in 2015/16

Real Percent change in 2015/16

R million

2014/15

2015/16

Sub-programme 1: Department Management

 6 852.0

 7 324.0

  472.0

  136.5

6.89%

1.99%

Sub-programme 2: Corporate Services

 8 926.0

 9 708.0

  782.0

  337.4

8.76%

3.78%

Sub-programme 3: Finance Administration

 13 414.0

 14 822.0

 1 408.0

  729.1

10.50%

5.44%

Sub-programme 4: Internal Audit

 3 179.0

 3 398.0

  219.0

  63.4

6.89%

1.99%

Sub-programme 5: Office Accommodation

  0.0

 1 199.0

 1 199.0

 1 144.1

-

-

TOTAL

 32 371.0

 36 451.0

 4 080.0

 2 410.5

12.6%

7.45%

Source: 2015/16 APP CSP

 

All the five sub-programmes of the Administration Programme received increased budget allocations in 2015/16 compared to the previous FY. The Department Management sub-programme received a nominal increase of R472 000 in 2015/16 compared to the previous FY (2014/15), which represents a 6.89 per cent nominal increase. The Corporate Services sub-programme received a nominal increase of R782 000 or 8.76 per cent. The Finance Administration sub-programme received the bulk of the allocation of the Administration Programme in 2015/16 FY, with a main appropriation of R14.8 million of the total Programme appropriation of R36.4 million or 40.66 per cent of the total allocation of the Administration Programme. The sub-programme received an increased nominal allocation of R1.4 million (or 10.5 per cent). The Internal Audit sub-programme received a slight increase of R219 000 in nominal terms, which represents a nominal increase of 6.89 per cent. The Office Accommodation sub-programme received its first allocation of R1.19 million in the 2015/16 FY.

 

  1. Programme 2: Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships

 

This programme manages and encourages national dialogue on community safety and crime prevention. The Strategic objective of the Programme is to contribute towards creating a safe and secure environment through partnerships with stakeholders. The programme consists of the following sub-programmes: Intergovernmental, Civil Society and Public-Private Partnerships and Community Outreach.

 

Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships received an allocation of R22.5 million in 2015/16 FY compared to the R19.5 million adjusted appropriation received in 2014/15 FY. This programme’s allocation increased by R3 million, which represents a real increase of 10.10 per cent. This programme received the smallest allocation of all the four programmes with a proportional allocation of 21.4 per cent of the total budget.

 

Table 3: Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships: Vote 23 CSP

Programme

R million

Budget

Nominal % change in 2015/16

Real % change in 2015/16

2014/15

2015/16

Sub-programme 1: Intergovernmental, Civil Society and Public-Private Partnerships

 16 510.0

 19 058.0

15.43%

10.15%

Sub-programme 2: Community Outreach

 2 983.0

 3 481.0

16.69%

11.35 %

Total

 19 493.0

 22 539.0

15.63%

10.33

Source: Estimates of National Expenditure 2015, Vote 20: CSP

 

Both sub-programmes received increased allocations in 2015/16 FY compared to 2014/15 FY allocations. In particular, the Intergovernmental, Civil Society and Public-Private Partnerships received an increased allocation of more than R2.5  million, while the Community Outreach received an increased allocation of R498 thousand.

 

  1. Programme 3: Legislation and Policy Development

 

The programme develops policy and legislation for the police sector and conducts research on policing and crime. The strategic objective of the programme is to ensure constitutionally compliant legislation, evidence based research and evidence-led policies for policing and security sectors. The programme consists of the following sub-programmes: Policy Development and Research and Legislation.

 

The total allocation for the Programme in 2015/16 was R23.4 million compared to the R28.4 million adjusted appropriation received in 2014/15 FY. In nominal terms the programme’s allocation decreased by R4.9 million, and when taking inflation into account, this allocation represents a real decrease of 21.31 per cent. The Legislation and Policy Development programme received the second largest allocation in the Secretariat after Administration. The allocation of R23.4 million to Programme 3 constitutes 22.2 per cent of the total budget allocation of the Secretariat.

 

Table 4: Legislation and Policy Development Programme: Vote 23 CSP

Programme

R million

Budget

Nominal % change in 2015/16

Real % change in 2015/16

2014/15

2015/16

Sub-programme 1: Policy Development and Research

 10 696.0

 12 165.0

13.73

8.52

Sub-programme 2: Legislation

 17 731.0

 11 277.0

-36.40

-39.31

Total

 28 427.0

 23 442.0

-17.54

-21.31

Source: Estimates of National Expenditure 2015, Vote 20: CSP

 

The Policy Development and Research sub-programme received an increased allocation of an additional R1.4 million in 2015/16 FY. In contrast, the Legislation sub-programme received a substantial decrease of R6.4 million.

 

  1. Programme 4:  Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation

 

The purpose of this programme is to oversee, monitor and report on the performance of the SAPS. The strategic objective of the programme is to conduct effective oversight, monitoring and evaluation that contributes towards an accountable and transformed police service. The programme consists of the following three sub-programmes, namely: Police Performance, Conduct and Compliance Monitoring; Policy and Programme Evaluations; and Information Management.

 

The total allocation for the Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation Programme in 2015/16 was R22.6 million compared to the R19.5 million adjusted appropriation received in 2014/15 FY. The programme’s allocation increased by R3.1 million which represents a real increase of 10.66 per cent. The Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation Programme received the third largest allocation with 21.5 per cent of the total budget.

 

Table 5: Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation Programme: Vote 23 CSP

Programme

R million

Budget

Nominal % change in 2015/16

Real % change in 2015/16

2014/15

2015/16

Sub-Programme1:Police Performance, Conduct and Compliance Monitoring

 14 336.0

 16 818.0

17.31

11.94

Sub-programme 2: Policy and Programme Evaluations

 3 286.0

 4 078.0

24.10

18.42

Sub-programme 3: Information Management

 1 885.0

 1 766.0

-6.31

-10.60

Total

 19 507.0

 22 622.0

15.97

10.66

 

The Police Performance, Conduct and Compliance Monitoring sub-programme received an increased allocation of R16.8 million in 2015/16 FY compared to R14.3 million in 2014/15 FY allocations. The Policy and Programme Evaluations sub-programme received an increased allocation of R4 million during the 2015/16 FY compared to the R3.2 million allocation in 2014/15 FY. The allocation to sub-programme 1 for the 2015/16 FY increased by 11.94 per cent in real terms and the allocation to sub-programme 2 saw a percentage increase of 18.42 in real terms. Sub programme 3 (Information Management), in contrast, received a real percentage decrease of 10.6 per cent.

 

  1. COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS

 

  1. General

 

The Committee made the following general observations on the strategic priorities of the CSP during the 2015/16 budget hearings:

 

Strategic direction: The Committee raised concerns about the perceived lack of strategic direction of the CSP in terms of effectively and efficiently delivering on its core mandate to impact positively on the South African Police Service (SAPS). Both the Strategic Plan and the APP make little mention of the recommendations of the National Development Plan (NDP) or demilitarisation of the SAPS. The Committee stated that the SAPS could not provide clarity how it will professionalise and that the Committee hoped that the CSP, as the lead policy making agency, would be able to provide some guidance. The Committee further stated that it is critical that a tangible impact is made on service delivery at station level and that the NDP has been in operation for two years, with little progress. The CSP highlighted that it is difficult to strike the correct balance between the SAPS and the CSP, as the CSP develops policy which the SAPS must implement. The CSP is unable to implement policy directives for the SAPS, but instead it has to oversee the effective implementation of the policies.    

 

The Committee expressed a general view that the CSP is focused on becoming a designated department (and that its budget and performance targets are directed to this) instead of on the delivery of its core mandate. The CSP conceded that their 2015/16 focus is internal. Critical questions have to be answered as to the most effective way to spend their budget to impact on the conduct of the SAPS. The CSP stated that it is performing macro-level oversight over the SAPS, but that more needs to be done. The CSP committed to strategically realign their focus in the 2016/17 financial year. 

 

Leadership stability: The Committee raised concern about the long period of time in which the Acting Secretary of Police has been in this ‘acting’ capacity, but acknowledged that the appointment is not in the control of the CSP.

 

Demilitarisation: The Committee raised concern about the application of the term demilitarisation of the SAPS as there was no clear contextualisation of the term and what it entails. Members stated that the Draft White Paper on the Police refers to it as ‘civilianisation’ of the SAPS. Members wanted clarity to what extent the SAPS will be civilianised, and whether it will include the disarmament of the police and the removal of military ranks. The CSP could not provide sufficient clarity on the ‘civilianisation’ of the SAPS and invited members of the Committee to serve on their working group to formulate the demilitarisation of the SAPS. 

 

Capacity: The Committee raised concern about the lack of capacity of the CSP to effectively fulfil its mandate. Reference was made to the recommendation of the Auditor-General that the restructuring of the organisational structure of the CSP will increase the quality of outputs of the CSP. The Committee stated that a new structure has been developed based on a needs analysis and will be presented to the Minister of Police shortly. The CSP agreed that the new proposed structure will be presented to the Committee as soon as it has been consulted with the Department of Public Service Administration (DPSA).

 

  1. Programme 1: Administration

 

The Committee made the following observations during the 2015/16 budget hearings on Programme 1: Administration:

 

Vacancies: The Committee raised concern about the vacancy rate of the CSP and requested the CSP to indicate in which programmes the most vacancies are located. A concern was also raised about the impact of these vacancies on the delivery of the CSPs mandate. The CSP stated that 64 per cent of the vacancies are located in the Administration Programme (seven vacancies), followed by two vacancies in Programme 4 and one vacancy in Programme 2. The CSP further stated that the job evaluation and grading process assisted greatly in stabilising the vacancy rate of the CSP. Previously, the job grading of posts were not equitable in comparison to the rest of public service departments and as a result the CSP lost a large number of personnel to other departments. Since the upgrading of posts, this has stabilised. The core programmes of the CSP were prioritised, but this will also be done for the Administration Programme, which will stabilise the retention of staff in this programme.

 

Under-expenditure: The Committee raised significant concern about consistent under-expenditure on the CSP budget. The Committee stated that financial management must be prioritised to ensure that the total budget is spent, as the CSP delivers a critical service in overseeing the performance of the SAPS. The CSP stated that the under-expenditure is a concern as it only managed to spend 79 per cent of its budget at the end of the 2014/15 financial year. The CSP stated that it applied to National Treasury to have the unspent funds rolled-over to the 2015/16 financial year to enable them to pay the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) for the installation of various information systems of the CSP (R20 million). The Committee commented that CSP should ensure that the underspending does not impact on its service delivery outputs.

 

Goods and services: The Committee asked the CSP to explain the increased allocation for Goods and Services in the Administration Programme. The CSP stated that the bulk of the increased allocation will be spent on access and sustainability of transferal systems, like Persal and BAS, which will cost the CSP R5 million per annum. Expenditure will also go toward computer hardware and telecommunications (including the procurement of handsets). This expenditure was previously carried by the SAPS when the CSP functioned as a cost centre of the SAPS.        

 

Economic classification: The Committee raised concern about the lack of detail on economic classification in the presentation of the CSP. The CSP expanded on selected items and agreed to present a more detailed breakdown in the 2016/17 financial year. 

 

Vetting: The Committee asked the CSP whether personnel, especially in the Senior Management Structure (SMS) are vetted and have valid security clearance certificates. The CSP responded that the CSP personnel are not vetted. This has implications on the functionality of the CSP. For example, the drafting of the White Paper on Safety and Security was contracted to an outside service provider due to security concerns (in addition to capacity constraints). The Committee raised serious concerns about this and flagged it as a key recommendation.

 

Internal Audit: The Committee raised concerns about the composition and functionality of the Internal Audit Committee, especially in light of the lack of an Automated Internal Audit system, which will be procured in the current financial year. The CSP stated that the Audit Committee met for the first time in December 2014 and have been meeting monthly. The Committee is currently functioning and is composed of experienced members. The Audit Committee adopted a revised working methodology which is bearing fruit. The focus for the 2015/16 financial year will be on the mandate of the CSP as well as financial management to ensure 100 per cent expenditure at the end of the current financial year.    

 

Chief Financial Officer (CFO): The Committee raised concern about the lack of a permanent CFO, as the financial management of the CSP clearly needs serious attention, more especially in terms of the consistent failure to spend their budget. In light thereof, the Committee requested the CSP to report on the steps taken to fill the position. The CSP stated that the post was vacated in January 2015 and has been advertised but, due to various challenges, had to be re-advertised. The CSP is struggling to convene a panel to interview shortlisted candidates. However, the third panel has been finalised and the interviews will be conducted in May. 

 

  1. Programme 2: Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships

 

The Committee made the following observations during the 2015/16 budget hearings on Programme 2: Intersectoral Coordination and Strategic Partnerships:

 

CSP and CPF: The Committee raised concern about the ineffectiveness of many Community Safety Forums (CSFs) and Community Policing Forums (CPFs). The CSP stated that many CSFs have been established and function most effectively with the active support of the respective Members of the Executive Council (MECs). There are some pockets of excellence where the role of the CSF is clearly understood. The CSP also expressed a view that the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) does not understand its role in CSFs. Additionally, several municipalities are reluctant to collaborate with CSFs but this support from Councillors is essential. The concern expressed by various role-players that CSFs will overshadow CPFs has been proven wrong.

 

CPF guidelines: The Committee raised concern about the lack of implementation of the standardised guidelines of CPFs. One of the priorities of the Community Outreach Sub-programme is to ensure that provinces implement the CPF guidelines. Members of the Committee raised specific concern about various CPFs making up their own rules. The CSP indicated that it will focus more on this issue during the current financial year.

 

Targets: The Committee raised concern about the low target set to conduct only one (1) Anti-crime campaign in the 2015/16 financial year, (which also remains constant across the medium term). The CSP stated that due to capacity constraints, the target is already going to be difficult to attain, but that the concern is noted.  

 

  1. Programme 3: Legislation and Policy Development

                                                                                     

The Committee made the following observations during the 2015/16 budget hearings on Programme 3: Legislation and Policy Development:

 

Legislative schedule: The Committee raised concern about the legislative schedule of the CSP, especially in terms of the realisation of timeframes. The Committee stated that the non-delivery on time-frames impacts on the Committee’s programme and should be strictly adhered to. The CSP stated that the legislation schedule was developed and that most of the proposed legislation will be tabled before Parliament as scheduled, except for the Firearm Control Amendment Bill, 2015 and the Strategic Installations Bill, 2015 (previous National Key Points Act).

 

Targets: The Committee raised concern about the removal of targets to monitor the implementation of various pieces of legislation by the SAPS, most notably the Child Justice Act, 2008.

 

Consultants: The Committee raised concern about the increased projected expenditure on consultants as the reduction on all non-essential expenditure should be realised by all departments. The CSP stated that the White Paper on Safety and Security was outsourced due to capacity constraints and also due to the issue of confidentiality concerns as none of the CSP personnel are vetted. It was stated that the Minister of Police preferred to use an outside service provider. In light thereof, the CSP stated that the outsourcing should not be seen as an indictment on the skills of the CSP.  

 

Decreased allocation: The Committee raised concern about the decreased allocation to Programme 3 and questioned the impact of the decrease on the outputs of the programme. The Committee stated that the programme needs an increased allocation and not a decreased allocation. The CSP stated that the reduction is mostly in Compensation of Employees from R18 million in 2014/15 to R13.1 million in 2015/16.  The Committee also noted a decrease in expenditure on Advertising as a concern. The CSP stated that the increased allocation of the previous financial year was used on the marketing of the Department and that these funds will only focus on awareness in 2015/16.

 

Access to information: The Committee raised concern about the repeated mention of a lack of information from the SAPS as a key risk to the CSP. The CSP stated that the lack of information is because of various security concerns relating to the use of the information and also the lack of security clearance of CSP personnel. The CSP further stated that there is a general resistance from SAPS for the CSP to step into their terrain, which makes the conclusion of the intended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two Departments critically important. The lack of information has a negative impact on the quality of products delivered by the CSP as the information from the SAPS will allow a deeper understanding of trends and allow for more considered analysis and policy development.

 

Impact of demilitarisation: The Committee encouraged the CSP to complete the intended research on the impact of the demilitarisation of the SAPS as recommended by the NDP. The CSP noted the encouragement and need to complete the research project as soon as possible.  

 

  1. Programme 4: Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation  

 

The Committee made the following observations during the 2015/16 budget hearings on Programme 4: Civilian Oversight, Monitoring and Evaluation:

 

Targets: The Committee raised concern about the significantly decreased targets to perform compliance monitoring visits to police stations from 500 in 2014/15 to 18 in 2016/17. The CSP stated that the target was disaggregated into visits conducted by the National CSP and Provincial Secretariats. 

 

Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (DVA): The Committee raised concern about the perceived lack of monitoring of the implementation of the provisions of the DVA. The Committee requested assurance from the CSP that the monitoring of compliance to the DVA is prioritised. The CSP noted the concern.

 

Statutory reports: The Committee raised concern about the lack of compliance in the submission of statutory reports to Parliament, most notably the bi-annual DVA compliance reports. The CSP stated that some of the reports are outstanding and will be addressed. The Committee stated its dissatisfaction and the issue will receive further attention when the Committee deals with the DVA Compliance Reports.  

 

Coordination of station visits: The Committee asked whether station visits are coordinated between the various oversight bodies, like the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the SAPS inspectorate in order to mitigate against working in silos despite working towards the same goal. The CSP stated that there is no coordination between the various oversight bodies with regard to station visits.

 

Service delivery complaints: The Committee raised concern about the impact the CSP has on the improvement of service delivery by the SAPS, especially in terms of service delivery complaints from the public that are not addressed. The CSP stated that this is a challenge because of the plethora of complaints mechanisms available to the public and that these should be consolidated. Robust discussion on the consolidation process is underway. The Presidency is also involved in this processes. The outcomes of the customer satisfaction surveys that will be conducted by the CSP will also be used and integrated into the consolidated approach.   

 

  1. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

This section provides a summary of the recommendation made by the Committee and also a summary of the additional information requested during the 2015/16 budget hearings.

 

  1. Additional information

 

The Committee requested additional information through written responses to supplement the information gathered during hearings on the 2015/16 budget hearings of the CSP:

  • The Committee requested that a comprehensive breakdown of the 2015/16 budget, focussing on the economic classifications under the goods and services account should be submitted to the Committee together with a narrative explaining the significant increases and decreases.
  • The CSP should submit a copy of its revised legislative schedule.
  • The CSP should submit a written report on its capacitation plan.
  • The CSP should provide a report on the challenges experience with the establishment of CSFs delineated into all provinces. The reports should clearly state the provinces described as ‘pockets of excellence’ and also those where there are problems.
  • The CSP should submit a progress report on the consolidation of the service delivery complaints mechanism, including the role-players, meetings held to date and the intended outcome or aim of this consolidation.  

 

  1. Recommendations

 

The Committee made several recommendations to the CSP during the 2015/16 budget hearings. These included the following:

 

Budget recommendations:

  1. The Committee recommends that the CSP should focus on strict financial management in order to address the consistent under-expenditure on its budget;
  2. The Committee recommends that the CSP should focus on its financial in-year monitoring (IYM) and should submit monthly IYM to the Committee, as well as quarterly expenditure reports.
  3. The Committee recommends that the CSP should improve the quality of its budget presentation to the Committee in the 2016/17 financial year, especially in terms of a more detailed budget analysis.  
  4. The Committee recommends that the CSP should engage the Committee on the budget implications of its newly developed staff establishment once it has been consulted with the Minister of Police and the DPSA.   
  5. The Committee recommends that the CFO should be appointed without delay and that the appointment should be reported to the Committee.

 

Performance recommendations:

  1. The Committee recommends that the Strategic Plan and APP (2016/17) of the CSP should be realigned to focus on the delivery of its core mandate and should be less inward looking. Further, the Committee recommends that the strategic link between the priorities of the CSP and the NDP should be set out clearly in the 2016/17 financial year.
  2. The Committee recommends that performance indicators and accompanying targets should be output driven.  
  3. The Committee recommends that the CSP Regulations should be prioritised for finalisation and should be submitted to the Committee.
  4. The Committee recommends that all staff should be vetted as a matter of urgency, especially the SMS.  The Committee resolved that it will invite the Director General of the State Security Agency (SSA) to further discuss the prioritisation of security clearances for the CSP personnel. 
  5. The Committee recommends that the CSP should adhere to the legislative schedule submitted to the office of the Leader of Government Business in the National Assembly, as any deviation impacts significantly on the programme of the Committee.  
  6. The Committee recommends that the CSP should increase its monitoring of the implementation of the DVA at station level.
  7. The Committee recommends that the appointment of a permanent Secretary of Police should be prioritised by the Minister of Police in order to ensure leadership stability.
  8. The Committee recommends that the Memorandum of Agreement between the CSP and SAPS should be concluded as a matter of urgency, especially in terms of improved access to SAPS information.
  9. The Committee recommends that the CSP should not neglect its statutory responsibility despite capacity constraints, especially in terms of statutory reports submitted to Parliament.
  10. The Committee recommends that all vacant post should be filled as soon as possible.
  11. The Committee recommends that the development of a consolidated service delivery complaints mechanism should be developed and implemented. 
  12. The Committee recommends that the CSP should endeavour to coordinate station visits with other oversight bodies, in order to ensure a greater coverage of stations being visited. 
  13. The Committee recommends that the research paper on the impact of the organisational culture and subcultures of the police to assess the effects of militarisation, demilitarisation, remilitarisation and the serial crises of top management, as recommended by the NDP, should be completed as soon as possible and submitted to the Committee.
  14. The Committee recommends that the CSP should ensure that the CPF Guidelines are implemented uniformly by all CPFs.
  15. The Committee recommends that the CSP should implement aspects of consequence management for non-delivery of products.  

 

  1. CONCLUSION

 

The Committee welcomed the establishment of all transfer systems of the CSP, but stated that it must be a separate Vote in the 2016 ENE. The Committee also acknowledged the work done by the CSP and stated that more can be done to affect positive behavioural changes of the SAPS. In conclusion, the Committee indicated that it will continue to fulfil its Constitutional mandate which is guided by the Parliamentary rules in conducting oversight over the functioning of CSP in order to ensure proper and effective functioning and compliance with the legislative mandate and policy requirements of the CSP.  

 

The Portfolio Committee on Police supports the budget of the Civilian Secretariat for Police for 2015/16 as a department within Vote 23 (Police) and recommends that the budget be adopted. The Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) reserved their position on the budget.

 

Report to be considered.

 

Documents

No related documents